Why some people don't accept evolution: a layperson's perspective

(Cross-posted to Skeptic Freethought)

I’ll come right out and say that I am not especially well-educated in science. I studied the liberal arts in college and never took a course beyond Intro to Biology. I do think that I gained a fundamental literacy of the science through my minimal classroom study (and copious independent reading as a child), to the point that I can understand what science journalists and bloggers are talking about even without being able to make sense of the raw data myself.

Image credit: Ethan Hein

I do understand, at the most basic level, how evolution works and why it works, even if I can’t wrap my head around the intricate processes that drive it. I’d be out of my league attempting to teach it to someone or to debate a creationist on it (a position in which we atheists too often find ourselves, as if we’re all PhD biologists in the minds of creationists).

Even as a layperson (especially as a layperson?) I feel that scientific literacy is a vital part of being an informed citizen. I’m troubled by the widening knowledge gap I see between scientists and everybody else, and particularly by the anti-intellectual sentiment that is rising alongside populism.

Denial in favor of design

To many atheists (and even theists who are skeptics about most everything but gods), it may seem shocking and frustrating that so many people in the United States dismiss evolution as wild conjecture.

When we see the notion of “intelligent design” being taught alongside actual science in biology class as if the two had equal weight, our first reaction may leave a palm-shaped depression in our foreheads (or a forehead-shaped indentation in our desks).

Sure, there are a number of people so hopelessly dedicated to ancient origin stories that they don’t want evolution to be true. It would turn their entire world upside down were they to accept that they are part of a 3 billion year old solar-powered chemical reaction rather than a unique, purposeful creation apart from nature. It would mean to them that they are no better than their animal kin and take away all incentive for civilized behavior in their minds.

The threat of such a crisis of conscience has been used as an argument against evolution since Darwin first proposed it. It was used by the prosecution in the infamous John Scopes trial, and even today is rehashed and regurgitated by creationist groups like Answers in Genesis.

I'm not so sure that there's a way around this roadblock. How does one persuade a person to step over a ledge if said person is utterly convinced that they'll tread onto a slippery slope?

Framing it like a religion instead of science

There are others still who are taken in by deceitful rhetoric like "evolution is just a theory", people who don't believe the science because they don't understand it.

I suspect that a major reason why people don’t “get” evolution is that they try to understand the theory as something that it’s not: an infallible history that’s conveniently spelled out for them. Unfortunately, science doesn’t offer the romance or clarity of religious mythology, no matter how badly our human minds want it to (not to say it can’t be exciting in its own right if you embrace your inner nerd, but most don’t).

The narrative of Darwin on his epic odyssey through the harsh environment of the Galapagos, suddenly experiencing a “eureka!” moment as the idea of natural selection dawns on him, is false. It is nevertheless taught that way to schoolchildren to make the subject more fun (the same goes for the myth of Newton and the falling apple revealing to him the concept of gravity).

On the Origin of Species was a breakthrough 150 years ago, but it isn’t a sacred text. A century and a half of new discoveries have rendered it obsolete, and the biologists of the 2160s will likely say the same about our most cutting-edge scientific literature today.

Unfortunately, people don't seem to want an amendable explanation that says "We can't know for sure, but this is what most probably happened based on what we've found so far." It doesn't satisfy that desire for certainty that nags at all of us. It leaves room for doubt, and makes many people uncomfortable. No, people want an ironclad explanation that says "We know that this is what happened, for these irrefutable reasons."

Science can’t offer that. It’s driven by uncertainty – that’s what leads to new discoveries and new questions to be answered. Until the American public learns to accept that, how can we expect them to accept evolution?

Satan wants YOU to care about the environment!

This afternoon, courtesy of Martin S. Pribble, my Google Reader feed was graced by this alarming little nugget of religious nutballery. I'd like to share:

So there you have it, folks. The global movement to reduce pollution and use our planet's resources more responsibly is really a master scheme by the Devil to establish his New World Order. And how dare those environmentalist scientists suggest that our planet can't accommodate an infinite number of humans!

I personally found it hilarious when they talked about children being targeted because they are susceptible to deception, and accused environmentalists of using bad science, exaggeration, myth, and outright lies to push their worldview. Hmm, who else does that sound like? 0=)

Mr. Pribble didn't want to have a live link to these loons' website giving them hits from his blog. I personally don't care if they track hits back to me. You're welcome, guys! I'll bet you won't link to any of your critics, because that would give your followers the opportunity to think for themselves.

In all seriousness, I will admit that I am skeptical of some environmentalists' claims. I think that some of them do exaggerate the gravity of problems such as global warming to drum up support for solutions (and I'll have to see remarkable evidence of imminent danger before I support anything as rash as geoengineering measures). That's not to say that I'm not even more skeptical (cynical?) of their opponents who pretend that our activities never negatively affect the biosphere.

Legitimate criticisms of the more extreme elements of the environmentalist movement are one thing; blind religious denial that we're doing anything wrong is another. The belief that an all-powerful father figure wants our species to consume the planet into ruin is going to encourage a lot of people to behave irresponsibly, and its spread among American Christians will further divorce the faith's adherents from reality. As if this country's Religious Right wasn't doing enough in its war on science...

Animal liberation extremists launch intimidation campaign against biomed students

Via OSU's "On Research" blog:

The campaign, spurred by an activist website called Negotiation Is Over, urged its followers to attack.

Students, the website said, are “infinitely more susceptible to negative and inflammatory publicity,” and  that “when education fails, smear campaigns can be highly effective.  Abusers [meaning science students involved in animal research] have forfeited all rights to privacy and peace of mind.”


Led by activist Camille Marino in Florida, this proposed attack on students seeking an education, and possibly a career, in the sciences was broadly seen as stepping over the line.  While activists have destroyed property, harassed scientists and businesses and proposed violence for years, targeting students in this way somehow seemed worse.

NiO is encouraging like-minded vigilantes to target students of biomedical sciences, what the site's author describes as "the soft underbelly" of the "animal abuse industry".  They've been passing out handbills on university campuses across the country enticing cash-strapped undergrads to spy on biomed students and help NiO assemble dossiers on these "soft targets", presumably to post this information on their blog for every ecoterrorist in the world to see.

NiO paints a sordid picture of scientists who experiment on animals; they're portrayed as sadistic Dr. Mengele cutouts, willfully foregoing other types of testing (examples?) in order to torture animals for profit (?).  Marino and her site's commenters talk about animal researchers like they're nonpersons, fair game for all manner of retaliation for their "crimes".

 

If you are willing to give that eyesore of a blog the time of day, you'll notice that many posts speak in the passive voice about the unfortunate things that befall animal researchers; they may receive threats, their families may be harassed, their homes may be vandalized, and so forth.  Their site logo, featuring a masked and hooded figure holding a lit match, is cleverly suggestive of arson.

In reality, they're implicitly advocating far worse than "smear campaigns", but the lawyer who runs the organization is very careful about her wording to avoid actually committing a crime herself.  Marino can disavow all responsibility for any nutcase who reads her site and then feels inspired to go burn down a grad student's home.

These people are using the same inflammatory rhetoric displayed by anti-abortion extremists about abortion doctors and by radical Islamists about blasphemers.  If I were a biomed student, I know I'd be taking Krav Maga classes and applying for a CCW license right about now.

I'd be happy to see experimentation on live animals come to an end when it's replaced by a better system.  Until then, I have no ethical objection to it if the research is saving human lives.