An upcoming film highlights the need for those who believe in evolution to aggressively make their case in new and different ways.
According to Variety, “Lifting a page from the Michael Moore school of confrontational non-fiction, Premise Media's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" aims to dislodge Darwin and evolution as the primary doctrines taught in public-school science classes.” The film stars former Nixon speechwriter, former Comedy Central game show host, current New York Times business columnist, and the source of one of the most quoted movie lines of the 1980s (“Bueler, Bueler…”) Ben Stein.
The film is being backed by The Discovery Institute and promotes “Intelligent Design”, a term invented to make it legal and reasonable sounding to assert evolution is bunk. The history of the Discovery Institute’s efforts to use intelligent design to reframe the debate about science, complete with an internal memo explaining the strategy, have been documented elsewhere (for example here and here).
Those who believe that science should be taught in science classes are doing a generally lousy job of responding. The primary argument from groups like the The American Academy for the Advancement of Science and the National Center for Science Education is “we’re scientists and that’s religion.” When pushed, they repeat the claims loudly and slowly. That doesn’t work – ask anyone who has tried to get directions in France (“excuse me, where is EuroDisney? I SAID WHERE IS E-U-R-O-D-I-S-N-E-Y”). They win in court and a local election (Dover, PA for example) and declare victory. This is not winning, this is holding the line for a while. Relying on courts rather than public support is a dicey strategy – judges change and people hate being legislated at from the bench.
There are two problems with the traditional approach to supporting evolution: people don’t understand science, and for many the problem with religion in schools is that there isn’t enough of it.
To win the political and social debate around teaching science in science classes, advocates need to better understand both what and how people think about evolution, science and education. Then they need to construct and run a national campaign that speaks to those who need to be persuaded. The campaign needs to talk to people where they are, on their terms and not scold everyone (like me) who did poorly in high school biology and doesn’t like to think about how much DNA we share with rats. The campaign needs to be aggressive and relentless. It can’t be confined to science conferences and local courts. And it needs to stop responding to intelligent design and start making intelligent design respond to science. Two truisms of politics are that if you define the terms of the debate you are likely to win, and if you’re explaining you’re losing. At this point intelligent design has done the former and scientists are doing the latter. That needs to change.
Below is a (slightly dated) memo I sent to several folks several years ago. The data is a bit dated, but the underlying arguments remain true.
Consider:
• Polling consistently shows doubts about evolution:
o According the Gallup organization, roughly the same number of respondents said “God created humans in present form” in November, 2004 (45%) as did in 1982 (44%);
o According to a November, 2004 CBS News/New York Times survey, majorities of both Democrats and Republicans believe humans were created by god (51% and 66%);
o The same CBS News/New York Times survey found 28% of Democrats and 23% of Republicans believe humans evolved with guidance from god;
o An NBC News poll in March, 2005 found only one in three respondents (33%) believe evolution “is more likely to actually be the explanation for the origin of human life on earth” while 57% believe the biblical account of creation.
• America’s scientific literacy rate is notoriously low. In spite of science classes, television shows about science, and countless efforts by national science groups to combat the problem, basic scientific illiteracy is a persistent problem.
• Combating ID by relying on the argument “Intelligent design is not scientific” is not the best strategy – the American people do not know science and do not believe in evolution.
• The American people also support religion in schools:
o A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Today poll in September 2003 found 78% of respondents support allowing prayer at school events;
o An August, 2005 Gallup survey found 60% of respondents believe religion has “too little of a presence in public schools.”
• Arguing that ID should not be taught in public schools because it violates separation of church and state may work in the courts, but it will likely fail to move public opinion – indeed, some research on public attitudes toward values debates suggests that such arguments might make public support for religion stronger.
• Unlike most western developed nations, America is becoming more religious, not less, making arguments based on segregating religion from other aspects of life even less likely to garner public support.
In the context of these observations, it makes sense to launch a new campaign to counter the ID movement that supplements current efforts by working outside of, and taking a different approach from, current advocacy. Such a campaign would:
• Research both what and how people think about evolution, science, intelligent design, and religion in school.
• Find messages that work with parents and other key constituencies.
• Identify key battle grounds for ID and learning as much as possible about the decision makers in those areas – answering the question, “who will be in charge of the next ID decisions, what and how do they think about ID and science, to whom do they listen on matters of science curriculum, and how can they be reached?”
• Draft a campaign plan that will reach these audiences and decision makers.
• Implement the plan through strategic press outreach, online mobilization, grassroots and grasstops organizing, coalition building, and direct contact with decision makers.
By understanding what and how people think about science, evolution, and the role of religion in schools we can construct an effective political strategy that moves the debate to a more winnable ground – for example encouraging courses on critical thinking in schools, establishing thresholds for what gets taught in science classes versus history or other courses, or other alternative solutions.
