-
Contents
- Sweet Confusion: Does high fructose corn syrup deserve such a bad rap?
- Closed Thinking: Without scientific competition and open debate, much psychology research goes nowhere
- subscribe
- give a gift
- renew
- RSS Feeds
- email alerts
- Digital Edition
- Podcast
- Past issues
-
Contents
- Better chow yields more milk: A more nutritious form of corn for dairy cows boosts farm profits, teen investigator finds
- Fuzzy future: Kids may suffer impaired vision from spending too little time outdoors, studies suggest
- Building with moon rocks: Working on the moon with lunar soil and grit could prove easier, more efficient and less costly than using earthly materials
Web edition: July 16, 2009
Print edition: August 1, 2009; Vol.176 #3 (p. 32)
Watch your language! It’s a common message from Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education (www.ncseweb.org), an organization dedicated to promoting and defending the teaching of evolution in public schools. Scott recently spoke with Science News writer Susan Milius.
So you urge scientists not to say that they “believe” in evolution?!
Right. What your audience hears is more important than what you say.… What [people] hear is that evolution is a belief, it’s an opinion, it’s not well-substantiated science. And that is something that scientists need to avoid communicating.
You believe in God. You believe your sports team is going to win. But you don’t believe in cell division. You don’t believe in thermodynamics. Instead, you might say you “accept evolution.”
How does the language used to discuss new discoveries add to the problem?
To put it mildly, it doesn’t help when evolutionary biologists say things like, “This completely revolutionizes our view of X.” Because hardly anything we come up with is going to completely revolutionize our view of the core ideas of science.... An insight into the early ape-men of East and South Africa is not going to completely change our understanding of Neandertals, for example. So the statement is just wrong. Worse, it’s miseducating the public as to the soundness of our understanding of evolution.
You can say that this fossil or this new bit of data “sheds new light on this part of evolution.”
So people get confused when scientists discover things and change ideas?
Yes, all the time. This is one of the real confusions about evolution. Creationists have done a splendid job of convincing the public that evolution is weak science because scientists are always changing their minds about things.
So how do you explain what science is?
An idea that I stole from [physicist] James Trefil visualizes the content of science as three concentric circles: the core ideas in the center, the frontier ideas in the next ring out and the fringe ideas in the outermost ring....
[We need to] help the public understand that the nature of scientific explanations is to change with new information or new theory — this is a strength of science — but that science is still reliable. And the core ideas of science do not change much, if at all.
The core idea of evolution is common ancestry, and we’re not likely to change our minds about that. But we argue a lot about … how the tree of life is branched and what mechanisms bring evolutionary change about. That’s the frontier area of science.
And then of course you have areas that claim to be science, like “creation science” and “intelligent design,” that are off in the fringe. Scientists don’t spend much time here because the ideas haven’t proven useful in understanding the natural world.
You’ve been on talk radio a lot. What’s your sense of what the public understands about evolutionary biology?
The public has a very poor understanding of evolution. People don’t recognize evolution as referring to the common ancestry of living things. Even those who accept evolution often don’t understand it well. They think it’s a great chain ... of gradual increases in complexity of forms through time, which is certainly an impoverished view of evolutionary biology. That view is the source, in my opinion, of: “If man evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?” ... That’s probably the second most common question I get on talk radio.
It’s like saying, “If you evolved from your cousins, why are your cousins still here?” And of course the answer is, well, in fact, I didn’t evolve from my cousins. My cousins and I shared common ancestors, in our grandparents.
What’s the current state of the effort to keep schools teaching evolution?
Sometimes it feels like the Red Queen around here, where we’re running as hard as we can to stay in the same place. The thing is, creationism evolves. And for every victory we have, there’s pressure on the creationists to change their approach. We constantly have to shift our response. Ultimately the solution to this problem is not going to come from pouring more science on it.
What should scientists and people who care about science do?
I’m calling on scientists to be citizens. American education is decentralized. Which means it’s politicized. To make a change ... you have to be a citizen who pays attention to local elections and votes [for] the right people. You can’t just sit back and expect that the magnificence of science will reveal itself and everybody will ... accept the science.
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
I think these "middlemen" are the ones we should put most of our focus on, not necessarily the scientists.
[Link was removed]
Comments welcome.
SW
"You don’t believe in thermodynamics. Instead, you might say you “accept evolution.”"
It isn't that you believe in evolution, it's what you believe that it means. For example, you ****believe**** that evolution is unguided, even though you don't know this, because you wrongly perceive such an admission as support for the creationists position. You only watch what you say so that you don't give them fodder, not because give a real damn about science, liar.
Because you're a politician and a religious fanatic like them, except that you falsely claim to be on the side of science, which is an even bigger crime against science than anything that creationists have ever done.
Liberals, are to evolutionary theory what politics is to science... BAD BAD BAD wrong bad.
How's the real truth feel Eugenie?... you freak.
D J Wray
[Link was removed]
Anyone who's ever set out to paint the garage knows that it takes time but that, GIVEN time, you can get an awful lot done.
People need to understand how science works and then look skeptically at the findings untill such time as they either prove or disprove the facts as presented.
Making crude remarks does nothing to further the dialogue.
Comparing Ms. Scott to Carl Sagan is unfortunately quite apt. Carl Sagan was as much of a religious transcendentalist as any crystal waving new-ager. He just couched his "faith" in more politically (read "scientifically") palatable terms. Ms. Scott attempts to do no less.
I, um, believe that "acknowledge" has advantages over "accept," "understand," and "observe," the three alternatives to "believe" proposed thus far. Other comments have already identified the weakness of "accept." A problem with "understand" is that it is possible to understand something that is invalid. Although the evidence affirming evolution (or any other theory) consists of observations, "observe" simply doesn't convey adequate meaning with reference to a theory in its entirety.
In the past times, before the origins of life, the world was governed by physical laws and forces, mainly from systemic thermodynamics. These forces led the Cosmological Evolution and continue to influence the Biological Evolution, but left empty-handed physicists stage of life because resisting soften their interpretations of forces by organic flexibility. On the other hand the modern astronomy is only beginning but harmful already committing errors from the science jump to conclusions in the Nebular Theory and as the first Greek scientists and philosophers are seeing the spontaneous generation everywhere. Also the Theory of Biogenesis, after the experience of Stanley and Miller must include in the scholar texts that we don’t know what kind of forces were guiding or not the biogenesis process. I believe that in the study of natural systems lies resources that our joint venture in this scientific research of Nature needs to overcome the inertia and obscurantism that plague the human mind with religious fantasies. But there are a number of items that evolutionist need remember:
1) There were no “origins” because the string causes and effects have never been broken before our views. This word “origin” is the source of religious imaginations and should be avoided, combated and eliminated of our vocabulary;
2) There is no division between life and non-life when referring to natural systems. Provided that nothing supernatural served in the linkages between the Cosmological and Biological Evolution obviously the properties of biological systems ( erroneously called “life”), were in its primitive shape of brute forces in that systems such as the Atomic and Astronomic systems. What is missing is to seek these forces in those systems erroneously called “inanimate” and this will enrich the current theoretical models and our understanding of the very nature will be magnified.
3) The first “living being” full and finalized that walked on Earth was a system, and already contained the genetic processes. So it can only have been a product from a previous existing and non-living system, which must have been produced by genetic process. It appears that the only correct thing to do is searching this system, which will be our LUCA, and considers the whole period of biogenesis as the story of an embryogenetic event. The LUCA of the Matrix/DNA Theory is the best solution by now for to solve this problem.
4) The media around the discipline of Astronomy is damaging the public's acceptance of TofE and Biogenesis. Any astronomic event understands millions or billions of years, so we never had observed the birth process of any cosmic body, and therefore It makes no sense determiner that spontaneous generation appliqué scientifically to the birth of planets and stars, as the Nebular Theory communicators among school and media texts intended audience. Each new photo of Hubble becomes a problem for this theory and voila the problem of disrepute scientific models. Cheers… Louis Morelli.
Bill Lindsay - Bend, Oregon
Tragically, in my opinion, evolution will remain in the crosshairs of the unrelenting assault from religion as long as humanity embraces superstitious beliefs. I'm aware many scientists are deeply religious, which I believe only adds to the problem. The problem? Humanity is condemned to brutality and war as long as those superstitious beliefs exist. Is there something in our evolutionary past causing brutality and war? Probably...could be. However, I'm convinced and fully accept that religion is the number one causative ingredient in our horrendous record of man's/women's inhumanity toward others.
I agree with John Farney about the anthopromorphic nature of language being a stumbling block. Even highly knowledgeable college professors use such language in their lectures as a kind of shorthand, assuming that their students understand that they are really talking about differential survival, not a conscious choice.
Until we all, scientists, materialists, and atheists included, start respecting the beliefs of others and recognize that it is impossible for science to prove or disprove the existence of God or anything else that may or may not exist beyond the universe we can observe, this controversy will not go away. Whether or not people have started wars in the name of religion is beside the point. When you insult people and challenge their most deeply held beliefs, they are going to fight back.
It is important that we address misconceptions; however, this article is disappointing due to the small number of misconceptions addressed and the incomplete way in which they are addressed.
Scientists accept the EVIDENCE in support of Natural Selection and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD used to develop them.
It appears we need to to relentlessly communicate the basic concepts of science: competitive verification of data/experiment/hypothesis, data sharing, experiment, falsifiability, hypothesis, observation, research, peer review, Physical Law, publication, Theory vs. theory, value of scientific data (Physical Law) in engineering etc.
Until the public learns the basics of science and the apparent history of the universe it suggests as well as they have been taught the basics of (a particular) religious interpretation, those of us working in science and education will face a tough uphill battle. It is important that we communicate that science is based on evidence and intergenerational competitive falsification, prediction and verification. Who knows, those currently devoted to religious ideals may find the predictive nature of science (e.g. the ability of science to predict the when a certain material will fail under stress) even more fascinating than belief systems that only promise the ability to predict the future.
First, Evolution evolves as well. (SN: 1/31/09 p.21) For example, “punctuated equilibrium” was proposed to better explain the fossil record. Little if any of Darwin's original theory is left with out modification. Evolution can be verified in the lab only for simple single cell organisms. As a species becomes more complex and generation times become longer, the available evidence indicates the species tends to go extinct not evolve as a result of external pressures. Many extinctions have occurred in the short span of recorded human history. I have not heard of the appearance of any significant new species in that same time period. I remember reading an article which discussed scientist’s rankings of gorillas, orangutans, and chimps in the order of relatedness to humans. The article stated that latter genetic studies proved this ranking to be completely wrong. These species exist today, fossils are not required. Years ago, I remember an anthropology professor stating in class that either Neanderthals were Homo sapiens ancestors or interbreeding of the species had occurred. A few year ago, I read that genetic evidence from a few well preserved Neanderthal specimens indicates neither is the case. Therefore, I not convinced fossil evidence alone is sufficient to determine relatedness among species.
However, Eugenie Scott's most astounding statement, "Ultimately the solution to this problem is not going to come from pouring more science on it." Does this statement stem from some sort of anti-intellectualism? Is there some sort of elitism involved? Or, does she believe the evidence and ideas concerning evolution are so weak they can not stand up to scrutiny but must be mandated by government action.
I do not accept the model of science attributed to James Trefil. At any point in history, I believe as much as one third of what is accepted as true and part of science is later discovered to be false. The problem here is scientists are human. They are subject to error. Data and the interpretation and extrapolation of that data become confused. Wrong assumptions, interpretations, extrapolations of theory and data, or simply incorrect theory become accepted. Therefore, I do not believe or accept either evolution or thermodynamics in the sense used in the commentary. I may use the laws of thermodynamics to make calculations about the behavior of some system; however I do not ASSUME these laws are the most correct representation of nature. In fact, I believe the laws will be modified in the future, and if the new theory provides an easier or more accurate result, I will use it. Humans, even atheists, seem to need something to believe in to make sense of what is around them. To reassure them that life will continue in some predictable fashion which they have at least some control over. Therefore, people do not like to break with their old, favorite model. "Core ideas” in this sense should not exist in Science. Nothing is sacred. No ground is firm. These words may not be comforting for many who want to BELIEVE in science. Science should never be accepted; it should be proven, REPEATEDLY. Therefore, ideally there should be nothing in Science to believe in. The establishment of a rigid belief system has only impeded science in the past and it obviously continues to do so now.
It appears that Eugenie Scott and others want to establish a dogma of evolution, which is both hypocritical and dangerous to Science and Education. After the school question is settled, do we need thought police to enforce the acceptance of the idea on the rest of society? I prefer to keep more of an open mind about evolution. I have more faith in the evolution of ideas through Science than does Eugenie Scott or in the physical evolution of humans through Darwin’s natural selection theory.
To whom it may concern, or to a scientific group willing to test my scientifically proven telepathic capabilities.
I have for the last 11 years been advertising and contacting journalists and scientific groups to test my scientifically proven telepathic capabilities. I am telepathic in total ways which is rarer than the average telepathic claiming person. In me it works with thoughts of language and pictures, also in 2 way ways where I can see and hear such from target people and they can also see and hear my language and pictures generated in my thoughts. I cannot turn off these abilities and people only have to concentrate on my whereabouts or I them to experience this.
The attachments are the magazine cover and NEWSXTRA free supplement to that magazine which one of my adverts appeared within. People in the scientific community don’t believe my claims so don’t respond to my claims in a way where they are willing to test me and then publicise the results, which isn’t a scientific selection process for experimentation, it’s a biased opinion based upon inexperience.
I’ve been tested various different times but the only group to respond to my adverts to date where a paranormal investigating group, I did give the woman testing me successful results. I scored 11 out of 11. I tested myself within another scientific test and scored 16 or 17 out of 20.
I’m not willing to be put into the James Randi one million dollars psychic challenge because James is an illusionist who has created the illusion he cannot find competent psychics. Journalists running prelim tests for his challenge have stated in national newspapers his testing was too hard for anyone to give successful results, in one test I noticed that telepaths who entered them prelim tests weren’t allowed to sit in the same room as the person whose mind they were supposed to be reading. When did James become an expert with telepathy! I’m also not willing to be put into any other prized psychic challenge, because they are all debunkers not wanting to be proven wrong. I want to be tested by the scientific community, they are who society believe most with experimentation.
I have various different outlets for my free to view supernatural and psychic concerned book, such as websites and hand outs, which also have my telepathic challenge wrote into. Some people believe me and some people don’t, all I am asking here is for the scientific community to test me and give me chance to record and publicise those tests and results. I know from years of experience that ill pass any scientific guided tests, surely the public who believe and don’t believe my book claims need to see me being tested by unbiased scientific processes.
If I fail the tests I am willing to pay all costs back to the group who tested me but I wont need to do that because I will pass. If you are not interested in helping societies see the truth of me would you know of any group who would test me? Many people believe my book claims due to their experience of my telepathic capabilities, and then many people already believe me without having experience of these abilities because themselves already believed in this kind of stuff. Surely the people who don’t believe me need to see a scientific testing of these abilities. No matter what you’re beliefs are now people believe me and people don’t, science needs to step in and set the record straight.
All I need is 3 people and a pack of zener cards, and to allow me to video record and publicise the tests and for us both to publicise the results in a scientific magazine or whatever format you and I want to put into the scientific community. My zener cards are handmade from a pack of cards and a booklet with them selotaped on to pages, you may want to use you’re own cards which I’m ok with.
Magnus Rawstron
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed] [Link was removed]
[Link was removed] [Link was removed]
[Link was removed] [Link was removed]
[Link was removed] [Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.