Last night my wife and I headed into the city to view Randy Olson's film Flock of Dodos at the American Museum of Natural History. The film was pretty good, sometimes making little diversions that didn't seem to mean very much to the more important aspects of the film, but it did raise some key points in the debate between science and theology that is occurring in America. Indeed, it seems that even though scientists are coming up with new information all the time, they are terrible at conveying the information to the public, whereas groups like Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute know how to do PR and do it well. I've already gone over my personal feelings about evolution and ID on this blog is previous posts (see "Why Intelligent Design isn't science" and "Why Evolution beats Creationism in the classroom, every time" if the mood strikes you), but if nothing else the film made me wonder how science is communicated to the public, and often this seems to hold the key to acceptance of ideas.
Sitting in for the panel discussion was a man from the New York Times, explaining how the current "debate" over global warming is similar to that involving evolution. There are scientists who have found rising carbon dioxide levels in the ocean, ecological changes, etc. and point to the reality that global warming is happening. More studies have been done taking into account the effect of earth's natural processes on temperature and plotting those against mankinds toxic contributions to the atmosphere, and the curve clearly shows that we are indeed contributing to the climate change. The problem is there are other "authorities" who claim that global warming isn't occurring or that we have nothing to do with it, but often upon closer inspection these people hold ties to oil companies or hold degrees in mechanical engineering rather than climatology. The guest from the Times explained that the media in general should report honestly, but all criticism of an idea isn't equal- it's up to the reporter to be critical of both sides and come up with what is actually going on rather than taking everyone's word for it. In fact most times global warming seems to be more of a matter than personal opinion than science, most people I talk to about it having strong feelings either way but never looking at the studies that have been done. This ties into the ID debate because organizations like the Discovery Institute have yearly budgets that reach into the millions of dollars (5 million in the case of DI) and they focus upon publishing popular media and pamphlets rather than doing real research, all the while shouting "Teach the controversy!" The truth is, the biggest controversy in evolution at the moment is wether to keep the Linnean system of classification or apply a new cladistic approach called Taxon that does away with a lot of the old labels, not intelligent design vs. evolution.
It's easy to come up with provocative, appealing lies than to try and explain the truth. It's easier to form a negative, spiritually-based argument against evolution than try to explain punctuated equilibria or the Red Queen (a theory that says species are constantly changing in order to stay in place, similiar to what some people call the "evolutionary arms race" between animals & plants, animals & animals, etc.). Because many of the ideas prevalent in intelligent design would not be published in peer-reviewed journals like Science or Nature, they must be put out in popular books that people are all too eager to snap up, believing that there's some major rift in scientific consensus. It would be great if there were more people like Stephen Jay Gould (who passed away in 2002) who were great science popularizers and took time to explain to the public what was going on, but many scientists simply want to do their research, publish their papers, and if they ever talk to the media they need a "media coach" so they don't bore the reporter to death. I doubt anyone's every going to write a best-seller about the nitrogen cycle or the relationship between coral and their symbionts, and thus so much great information only becomes known when an individual takes a personal interest and goes wading through the availible literature. Simply put, many scientists aren't very good at public relations and the most people read is a story in TIME or the science section of the New York Times, if that. People like easily-digestible, uncomplicated data that fits their worldview, and it seems like asking the public to pick up some books and make up their own minds is a little too much to ask sometimes. Issues like evolution and global warming come up and everyone's got an opinion, but how many people really know anything other than what they choose to absorb or what's easiest to understand?
Simply put, scientists need to do a better job at sharing their knowledge with the world. Some things aren't likely to interest the public at large, but even so we need more people who are interpreters of science and say why a certain find is important or significant. Scientists are often isolated among themselves, gravitating to one field or specialty when what is relevant in one field is relevant in another. It seems that the current evolution debate has a lot to do with a lack of effort on the part of scientists in explaining how evolution works, why it's important, and why it does not do away with religion. Groups like AiG and the DI will continue to push popular books and films on people, feeding ideas at a grassroots level, continuing this illusion that creationism and intelligent design are science. I hope to contribute to science not only through research in the years to come, but with sharing it with as many people as I can through blogs and (hopefully) books, for if I don't share what I've learned, have I learned anything at all?
