Know your audience.
Frank J
tailor their arguments to their intended audience, be it the general
public or their critics. They keep the critics busy refuting technical
sounding arguments, but always include punch lines that impress those
who don't have the ability, time or interest to understand what the
critics have to say. Sadly, too many critics frame their criticism as
a Scopes-era "us vs. the creationists" debate, and just "preach to the
choir," often unwittingly helping anti-evolution activists in the
process.
The Internet age has changed the rules. Information moves faster, and
is more accessible to, if not necessarily understandable by, all
audiences. For example, IDers are finding it harder to tell one
audience that ID validates their world view, and another that it's
science, not religion. In fact, after Kitzmiller v. Dover, and
especially with the pre-release hype of "Expelled," they have all but
abandoned that pretense. So it doesn't make sense to put so much
emphasis on how ID "is" religion, or "teach the controversy" "is"
creationism, when there are many more misconceptions to clear up.
Given that, what should we be saying, to whom, that would provide the
biggest benefit to science and science education?
Using various polls, one can divide the public - high school age and
older - into these groups, with rough estimates of the percent of
total in each group:
1. Anti-evolution activists (<1%). Classic creationists (YECs, OECs,
etc.) and IDers.
2. Committed evolution-deniers (~25%). Will not concede evolution
under any circumstances.
3. Non-committed evolution deniers (~25%). Like group 2 they would
mostly check the option "humans were created in their present form
within the last 10,000 years" in poll questions, even if they thought
the Earth was far older. Many though, would check "unsure" given the
option. Unlike group 2 they usually change their mind when they learn
more about evolution and related science.
4. Those who claim to accept evolution (or what they think is
evolution) but still think that it's fair to "teach the controversy"
in public school science class (~20%).
5. Those who claim to accept evolution (or what they think is
evolution), object to "teach the controversy" for one reason or
another, but have varying degrees understanding of evolution, and of
susceptibility to being persuaded into groups 1-4 (~30%).
6. Vocal critics of group 1 (<1%).
It should be clear that we (group 6) must focus on groups 3 to 5,
while remaining vigilant that group 1 will quote mine at every
opportunity. One must choose arguments carefully, and be prepared to
correct any statement taken out of context to change the meaning.
Group 2 can mostly be ignored, since they won't be any more or less
opposed to evolution based on anything we say. Criticizing them for
their beliefs is counterproductive. But even if it helped us, it's
simply not nice.
Group 3 can be won over, but let's not forget that they are mostly
religious, so statements like "ID sneaks in God" are unlikely to
impress them.
Group 4 is also mostly religious, and like group 3, may have reasons
other than evolution to be suspicious of science and scientists. We
must convince them of the counterintuitive fact - and admit that it's
counterintuitive - that the fair-sounding "teach the controversy"
misleads, while "evolution only" does not censor anything, and is
fairest to science and religion.
Group 5 is a very diverse group. It includes those who accept
evolution (or what they think is evolution) for all the wrong reasons.
Some of whom unwittingly help Group 1, which is always on the lookout
for careless defenses of evolution that they can cite to justify their
"evolution is a liberal, atheist world view" pretense. This group also
includes those scientists who dislike devoting valuable time to
combating pseudoscience. They need to be shown that their efforts
would be worthwhile.
You may notice by now that my recommendations are geared toward
reducing the *demand* for anti-evolution pseudoscience. The legal
process is working well, so far, at reducing the *supply* in public
schools. For that, the "ID/creationism/'teach the controversy' is a
religious view" approach is necessary, as is targeting group 1, which
provides the supply. While part of our job is to make people aware
what the courts have decided and why, another part is to show that,
religious or not, anti-evolution activism misinforms and exploits
common misconceptions.
Promoters of pseudoscience tell the audience what it wants to hear, so
they can afford to be inconsistent or vague. In fact vagueness is a
requirement of "don't ask, don't tell" ID in order to distance itself
from classic creationism, while placating rank and file classic
creationists. Science cannot afford that luxury in a society that has
an unhealthy suspicion, as opposed to a healthy skepticism, of
science.
Public schools are one outlet of many for anti-evolution
pseudoscience, and its promoters will continue to use every medium
possible to peddle their snake oil. They will have a large market for
this century and beyond - with a minimum of group 2, which doesn't
even need their help to deny evolution, but nevertheless craves it.
The current market, however, is much greater than that practical
minimum, and could even increase if we're not careful.
Our work is far from over.