Skip to main content

Stand Up, Speak Out

This is a call to action. Now, with evolution under assault, and also much of science in many different fields facing similar treatment, we who love and respect science have a duty to speak out to defend it. As much as we might wish it otherwise, creationism, in spite of losing nearly every battle it has fought thus far, is not dead by any stretch of the imagination. Instead, creationism evolves over time, taking new guises in hopes of getting into the classroom, forcing its views on the entire body of students. We who are on the side of science have fought them as well, but the battle is ongoing. Science in the classroom remains under assault, with evolution, climate change and modern geology being the prime focus of irrational attacks. 

The anti-science opposition is vocal, persistent, well-organized and well-funded, and they have long triumphed in the minds of much of the public. Whether it is Answers in Genesis with its Creation Museum, and now the taxpayer-supported Ark Encounters project, the Discovery Institute (funded by a number of wealthy donors with an interested in propping up Intelligent Design), the Institute for Creation Research, or the numerous think tanks and pseudo-scientific organizations funded by the oil, coal or natural gas interests spewing out climate denial, the groups arrayed against science are numerous and far-reaching. They distribute talking points to friendly politicians, of both parties I might add, and their arguments go out to their foot soldiers among the public. Whether those arguments and objections are compelling is another question, but they are disseminated widely. How many times have I heard, "If evolution is true, then why are there still apes?" or, "The earth isn't warming, it's cooling!" 

We in the public who accept evolution, accept that the earth is indeed warming, that the geologic column formed over millions of years, are simply acknowledging the dominant view of science. But in many cases we remain a minority among the general public, a number of whom are vocal and active in their opposition to science and are active in pushing public education to teach their viewpoint. They get pushed back, certainly, but they keep coming and have achieved notable success in Texas and Louisiana in spite of recent losses in Pennsylvania. The United States remains nearly dead last in public acceptance of evolution among industrialized nations in survey after survey. This is an intellectual emergency of the highest importance. To me, the time in which we live is a pivotal moment. We can continue to move forward with science, or we can turn our back on all the achievements of the past few centuries and go back to a dark age of irrationality and superstition, made all the worse by a warming world, the continuing loss of biodiversity and increased antibiotic resistance, among other problems. 

This is the time to stand up and speak out on the hotly-contested issues among the general public. We who support science can no longer afford the luxury of silence while denial keeps spreading its noxious tendrils. We have to speak out too, whenever possible, in defense of science and against the deniers and their false claims and bad reasoning. If you are silent because you don't know the facts well enough, then arm yourself with knowledge and speak out. If you are silent because you're afraid of the majority's disapproval, take comfort in the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists stand behind you and speak out! Only by taking an active stance will we be able to change opinion, a gradual process that hopefully will lead to anti-science being relegated to a permanent, minute number of people. If you are silent because you are afraid of controversy, know that among scientists there is no controversy over evolution, millions of years and global warming. Though they may debate on the specifics or the mechanism, each topic has reached a consensus among scientists. Whatever you do, to the best of your ability, SPEAK OUT! Actively reach out to spread the evidence and facts that support science and combat the skeptics wherever you see them. You won't convince the hard-core deniers, but I have confidence that numbers of people will be swayed when confronted by the actual evidence supporting science. My conscience will not allow me to be silent; I have a duty to speak out. I hope that you will join me.

To arm yourself with knowledge:

Evolution and the age of the earth:

TalkOrigins-- answers numerous creationists claims and objections

Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne--clearly outlines the evidence for evolution
Only a Theory by Ken Miller--combats numerous claims of the Intelligent Design movement
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins--recommended for two sections explaining how we know the age of the earth and explaining different dating techniques like dendrochronology. 

Global warming: 

National Academy of Science page:

National Geographic Society page:

Six Degrees by Mark Lynas--lays out different scenarios for each degree of warming based on the current research.
Eaarth by Bill McKibbon--evidence for global warming, also asserts that we are already seeing changes because of it.
Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes--a history and investigation into the sources of climate change denial
 

Comments

  1. Well said, Brady. As a scientist, I share your sense of dismay at the anti-science mentality of the country as a whole. While not specifically trained as a climate scientist, I have immersed myself in a lot of the secondary literature...the books you mention and quite a few more, as well as examining parts of the massive IPCC report. IF action is not taken immediately to both mitigate and adapt to climate warming, the world of the next generation and especially the generation that follows will be severely different than the one we know today. Time and again, the projections of the effects of climate change have been revised to reflect greater, not lesser, impacts. While all scientists acknowledge that their understanding is far from complete, the convergence of observations and multiple models cannot and should not be ignored. We are at a potential break point of civilization, and what is done over the next few decades may determine the future of humankind for hundreds of decades into the future (Check out Curt Stager's "Deep Future" for a long-range look at the possible outcomes of climate change). I may not be around to see much of the change...but the youngsters I see being carried about by their parents surely will. Keep up the good fight, Brady, and lets hope more will join in this struggle.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good resources. I think "Finding Darwin's God" is Miller's better book for countering creationism and ID. Even though that's not the book's only purpose, the first half does it very well.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...