The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Science Advocacy
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Science Advocacy Gregg R. Davidson, Department of Geology and Geological Engineering, University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, USA; Carol A. Hill, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences (adjunct), University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA; Ken Wolgemuth, Wolgemuth & Associates, LLC, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74133, USA Sixteen years into the twenty-first cen- report that nearly three quarters of high- University of California at Los Angeles, tury, many are dismayed at the resiliency school science teachers are reluctant or and Kurt Wise, a vertebrate paleontologist of skepticism about science in the United unwilling to teach evolution or ancient who earned his Ph.D. from Harvard under States. On wide-ranging subjects, such as earth history. According to their survey, the late champion of evolution Steven Jay vaccinations, genetically modified foods, 13% of science teachers reject evolution Gould. Mental deficiency and poor educa- climate change, evolution, and the age and outright, while an additional 60% ride the tion are not adequate explanations for origin of the Earth and universe, a sizable fence, being uncertain of the veracity of belief in creationism. percentage of the population continues to scientific evidence or simply fearful of The one stereotype that is justified is hold and promote views that run counter generating controversy. This not only religious affiliation. All religions, by defi- to common scientific understanding. An means that earth history is not being ade- nition, disavow purely mechanistic expla- oft-cited Gallup poll (2015) illustrates the quately taught, it also means that many nations for our existence, though not all lack of progress. In 1982, a question was young people are being diverted from are inherently opposed to the findings of posed regarding beliefs about human evo- eventual careers in the earth sciences at a modern science. Islam, Judaism, and lution. At the time, 44% believed God time when it is predicted that available Christianity share a common story of the made humans in their present form. After geologist positions will substantially out- universe brought into being by a singular a quarter century of improved educational pace college graduates (Wilson, 2014; deity. Within these traditions, beliefs vary materials, upgraded K–12 science stan- LaDue and Manning, 2015). whether the story is to be properly consid- dards, and several successful court battles It should be clear at this juncture that the ered as a literal telling of six days of cre- to curb anti-science influences, that num- strategies employed to improve science ation, or a poetic rendering of God’s action ber has remained essentially unchanged. education and public understanding, while that leaves room for deep time and evolu- The last poll in 2014 pegged the number at arguably worthwhile, have fallen far short tionary development of life (e.g., Haarsma 42% (Gallup, 2015). of expectations. It is time for a paradigm and Haarsma, 2011; Kaya 2012). Other Other polls tell a similar story. A 2014 shift. We suggest that this shift needs to world religions, such as Hinduism and poll by the Associated Press found that come in two parts. The first is a more Buddhism, while adhering to spiritual or 4 out of 10 people in the United States have realistic understanding of the opposition. mystical dimensions of this or other worlds, doubts about the validity of a 4.5-billion- Modern scientific skceptics are often char- are generally comfortable with the descrip- year history for the Earth and about the acterized as backward, uneducated, reli- tions of modern science as the visible evolution of life forms through a process of gious and political conservatives, blindly workings of the natural realm and are not natural selection. A 51% majority is skepti- adhering to outdated beliefs, who can be at the forefront of anti-science rhetoric. cal about the “Big Bang” (Borenstein and shamed, browbeaten, educated, or out- For those who have been convinced that Agiesta, 2014). The Pew Foundation took a voted into submission. Yet, in reality, their science is antithetical to the Bible, the different approach, asking people whether ranks include successful doctors, engineers, Torah, or the Quran, improved secular edu- they thought scientists were in agreement lawyers, business leaders, and politicians cational materials serve no purpose because on these topics. More than half the people (even presidential candidates). If we sim- they go unread. Contrary to popular per- surveyed believe scientists are currently plify the discussion to consider just cre- ception, it is not simply a willful blindness. divided on the origin of the universe, and ationists holding to a recent origin of the There is a measure of practicality. With all more than a third believe scientists still Earth, up to a third are college educated the material competing for attention, few lack internal consensus on evolution (Funk (Duncan and Geist, 2004). Creationist will take the time to read or study material and Rainie, 2015). leaders include individuals like John that advocates for something they believe is The outlook for the near future is not Baumgardner, a retired Los Alamos engi- based on inherently false assumptions, or encouraging. Berkman and Plutzer (2011) neer with a Ph.D. in geophysics from the that attacks their fundamental beliefs. GSA Today, v. 27, doi: 10.1130/GSATG280GW.1 This brings us to a second essential explain how they themselves have wrestled National Center for Science Education, v. 24, element of a paradigm shift, one that rec- through the apparent conflicts. no. 5, p. 26–33, http://ncse.com/rncse/24/5/ creationists (last accessed 17 Oct. 2016). ognizes the importance of trust when chal- This in no way suggests that the scien- Funk, C., and Rainie, L., 2015, Public and scientists’ lenging entrenched beliefs. According to a tific community must affirm religious views on science and society: Pew Research study by Kahan et al. (2011) on why “scien- belief. The argument is more in keeping Center, 29 January 2015, http://www.pewinternet tific consensus” fails to persuade, the with the successes achieved by scientists .org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on- degree to which “experts” are trusted such as E.O. Wilson in finding ways to science-and-society (last accessed 17 Oct. 2016). Gallup, 2015, Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent depends on how well they align with the cooperate with those of differing belief Design: Gallup, Inc., http://www.gallup.com/ cultural values of the audience. Put bluntly, systems toward a common objective. For poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent- if the scientists arguing a case are avowed Wilson, a self-professed secular-humanist, design.aspx (last accessed 17 Oct. 2016). atheists or promote views openly antago- it has been finding common ground Haarsma, D.B., and Haarsma, L.D., 2011, Origins: nistic to all forms of religious belief, the between religious and non-religious com- Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, 2nd ed.: Grand Rapids, message is effectively dead on arrival. munities to promote the care and steward- Michigan, Faith Alive Christian Resources, 315 p. Ironically, books and speaking tours of ship of nature (Wilson, 2006). Hill, C., Davidson, G., Ranney, W., and Helble, T., touted atheists striving to advance science So what does this mean in terms of prac- eds., 2016, Grand Canyon, Monument to an education can actually make the situation tical science advocacy? This could be as Ancient Earth: Grand Rapids, Michigan, Kregel worse. The science-against-religion mes- simple as keeping a short list of sources Publications, 240 p. Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H., and Braman, D., sage effectively vaccinates the science- (websites, blogs, or books) that promote 2011, Cultural cognition of scientific consensus: skeptical public against ever considering good science from a religious perspective Journal of Risk Research, v. 14, no. 2, p. 147–174, the evidence and deepens the divide. that can be recommended to someone doi: 10.1080/13669877.2010.511246 (see also If we are serious about science advocacy, struggling between faith and science. For the summary article: “Why ‘scientific consensus’ fails to persuade”: National Science Foundation it is time to recognize the important role our part, we are excited about the recent Press Release 10-166, 13 September 2010, that scientists of faith can play as liaisons release of a multi-author project aimed http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_ and resources for outreach. A scientist who principally at the educated, religious pub- id=117697&org=NSF&from (last accessed 17 affirms the basic religious views of an lic—The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Oct. 2016). audience is much more likely to be listened Ancient Earth—an irenic, full-color book, Kaya, V., 2012, Can the Quran support Darwin? An evolutionist approach by two Turkish scholars to when arguing for the legitimacy of mod- describing why Noah’s flood cannot after the foundation of the Turkish Republic: ern scientific understanding. One has explain the geology of the Grand Canyon The Muslim World, v. 102, no. 2, p. 357–370, only to peruse the websites sponsored by or the Earth’s fossil-bearing layers (Hill et doi:10.1111/j.1478-1913.2011.01362.x. BioLogos, the American Scientific al., 2016). Eight of the authors are LaDue, N.D., and Manning, C.B., 2015, Next Affiliation, and AAAS’s Dialogue on Christians; three are not. All are commit- Generation Science Standards: A call to action for the geoscience community: GSA Today, v. 25, Science, Ethics, and Religion program, to ted to the advancement of good science. no. 5, p. 28–29, doi: 10.1130/GSATG233GW.1. see that there are many religious scientists Wilson, C., 2014, Status of the Geoscience REFERENCES CITED interested in bridging this gap.