(In)effective communication of (non)science to the public (part 2)

     In part one, I stuck to describing some (far from all) of the silliness that is present at the Creation Museum. It's one thing to assert that dinosaurs were all vegetarians, penguins roamed the jungles, and plants are not alive, but what really bothers me is some of the ethical claims made.

Gasp!

     According to Answers in Genesis, the group responsible for the Creation Museum, all ethics and morality come directly from the bible and nowhere else. This is the issue in the first sentence, as god's word (the bible) is considered an “absolute authority for right and wrong”. Humans have used many excuses to justify “abuse”. While this is certainly true, it seems that the absolute authority of the bible and other religious texts have been used to justify abuse as well. Sectarian violence in the middle east, the crusades, and the Spanish inquisition spring to mind. Christopher Hitchens has written a book that describes how god's word has been used to justify abuse throughout history. The bottom line is that drawing morality from the bible does not make people inherently more moral than those who draw it from elsewhere, and may in fact make them less moral.

     There's something terrifying about ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY. I think flexibility is important, though I'm sure  Hammurabi would disagree. More importantly, I am deeply offended when I hear people claim that anyone who doesn't draw their morality from the bible is an amoral person. I live my life according to what I think are just principles. I don't steal anything, and I certainly don't murder anyone. I do these things without having to read a book to know they are wrong. It's self evident that they are wrong. Consider this statement: It is unjust for the innocent to suffer. If you understand the meaning of the words “unjust”, “innocent”, and “suffer”, then the truth of the statement is apparent.

     The rest of the paragraph jumps all over the place. There's something about modern humans, who apparently are similar to ancient humans. Then we have a claim about the abuse of science, but without any examples to support that claim. Finally, there are claims made by evolution (?) about why humans are nothing special. What these three thoughts have to do with each other, I can't grasp, but let's look at what evolution has to say about humans.

     There are many people who reconcile the fact of evolution with the belief in a supernatural creator of some sort, believing that the creator  created and then evolution did it's thing. I don't buy into that because I see no reason to complicate the world with supernatural excuses for human ignorance. The magical, indescribable, and fundamentally unknowable actions of a supernatural being simply cannot be used to explain anything. They can be used as excuses for a lack of explanation, or a convenient place-holder until we figure things out, but their power to explain is nil. What's more, who's to say that humans are not accountable to anyone? I'm accountable to my students, advisor, professors, peers, family, friends, and myself. I don't get to act without consequences, and people depend on me for things. What an outrageous claim!

     Next we have a claim about the branching of the family Hominidae, which includes orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. This claim is supported by a mountain of repeatedly and independently confirmed empirical data, and countered by a book. How the truth of our evolution makes us nothing special evades me. We're the only species to invent the internet! We're the only species to do a lot of things, which seems pretty special to me.

     I'm not even sure what to say about this next one. Is death a  supernatural step in the cycle of life? It certainly seems to happen 100% of the time. Or maybe death is a natural step, but life is not a cycle, per se. I'm not sure what this would mean, but either way, it doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether or not humans are special in any way.

     Finally, we've got a serious taxonomic problem. The bible draws crazy distinctions between animals, plants, and humans. If humans aren't animals, what are we? Plants? Protists? Fungi? Bacteria? Something else? Biblical literalists also must grapple with the fact that humans and all other animals share a staggering amount of DNA, physiology, and anatomical features. Explanations for this are nothing more that ad hoc goalpost shifting, a practice that ultimately does nothing but pile one excuse on top of another. The claim that “only the fittest survive” misrepresents the scientific definition of fitness, and again fails to say anything about whether or not humans are special in any way. All of this is such a confused mess, it's quite comforting to see that scientists aren't the only ones having trouble communicating with the public.

     But all of my arguments are useless when held up against fanatical devotion to circular logic.

Behold the TRUTH! It is TRUE because it is TRUE!

     Why is it that religious leaders can say these four words and be done with it while scientists must toil endlessly to convince people that the climate is changing faster than expected, or vaccines don't cause autism, or that species change over time? Does it make sense to believe outrageous, extraordinary claims without evidence but then to reject decades of evidence in support of a comparatively mundane claim? What is the thought process going on here? There is much cake being had and eaten, which is supposedly impossible. In a world like this, how can scientists effectively communicate anything? We're immediately discredited, and while we try to communicate, Joe T. Public has the bible stuffed in his ears. Or a bunch of tiny bibles, I don't know. Perhaps time travel will be invented, allowing someone to go back and edit the first bible to say “P.S. Scientists are cool, trust them”...

     Why does the public express skepticism about claims made by scientists but not by religious leaders? Scientists actually have more books than religious leaders to support their claims, so it must not be related to the amount of evidence supporting a claim. The quality of the evidence might be the issue, but that brings us back to the first point. “God's word is true” is apparently of the highest quality, whereas all of the published results scientists have discovered aren't up to snuff. Is it even worth trying to communicate with these people?

     This all must have something to do with the values held by people. Why does the public try to investigate the personal motivations of scientists when they make claims, but fail to bring this same level of attention to their religious leaders? Is it because all scientists are immoral heathens out to corrupt the world with their knowledge? By comparison, anyone who believes a statement without evidence must be a good person. I know that I'm making a caricature of this whole mess, but my point remains: the public is selective in their willingness to believe claims, regardless of the evidence presented for or against those claims. It seems that the only way forward is to get the public to change their values, which has started to happen somewhat with the green movement. Caring for the planet by reducing consumption and pollution seems easily reconcilable with biblical values, but what is the stem cell researcher to do? When coming up against ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, does it even make sense to try communicating with the public?

They sure do!

(In)effective communication of (non)science to the public (part 1)

       I recently traveled to a magical land, forgotten by time and reason. Dinosaurs roamed about and nothing ever died. Sound familiar? Well, if you've ever read the bible and taken it literally, this is how the world used to be. This view of reality is preserved at the CreationMuseum, located in Kentucky just a short drive south of Cincinnati. Their slogan: Prepare to believe. I really wasn't sure how to go about preparing, but I did bring my camera.

       The museum is run by a group called Answers in Genesis, a fairly extreme Christian group of young-Earth creationists. They are pretty nutty. Being a zoology graduate student with a fairly strong grasp on evolutionary principles, I made this trip largely for laughs and to see how the other side lives. It was also of interest considering the seminar I'm taking (Effective communication of science to the public) is the reason for this blog began.

       The Creation Museum (though arguably not really a museum) is big on dinosaurs. Really big. Every advertisement I've ever seen for the place features dinosaurs, and dinosaurs are the first thing we encounter upon entering. After the dinosaurs comes the ticket booth (an outrageous $25!), but then we're back to more dinosaurs. They then take your picture with dinosaurs ($20 if you want a copy!), and then you move along to see more dinosaurs.

 Dinosaurs and people together, wow!

       We're taken to a scene of a paleontological dig site, where two researchers work side by side on the same fossil. One is a creationist, the other is an actual scientist. This is some text that appeared near the exhibit:

       The first part is fine, and certainly true. The second part is also true, as scientists can look at the same set of data and come to different conclusions. The problem arises when one “scientist” interprets facts according to a book written a few thousand years ago and the other scientist interprets facts according to the current understanding of professionals in the field, which relies on peer-reviewed published records documenting empirical findings. The conclusions reached by these two researchers couldn't be more different. The creationist claims (from the authority of a book) that the world was created a few thousand years ago and all the fossils are a result of a global flood. The real scientist claims (from the authority of countless lines of empirical evidence that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed by other independent scientists) that the world was created billions of years ago and that fossils are a product of slow processes that continue to act today. Which of these claims makes more sense: believing you are right because a book says so, or believing you are right because your assumptions have been verified repeatedly for decades? I just don't get it.

     But who cares? Everything was just perfect in the world of the bible.

Look, a forest penguin!

     A literal interpretation of the bible creates some problems:

       Dinosaurs, cats, snakes, and hawks were all vegetarians. Neat! One must wonder why their teeth and digestive systems are so capable of seizing, ripping, and disintegrating protein from other animals. Or maybe one must not wonder about that. Don't wonder about that. Just accept the fact that despite the incredibly sharp and serrated teeth present in the jaw of the T-rex, it was content to eat peaches and dandelions. At least, that's what the bible says.

Delicious foliage!

       Wait a second! They were all eating plants, so why do the plants have to die but not the animals? The answer is simple: plants aren't alive!

Whew! That's good to know. I'll be sure to tell some botanists about this.

       But, you might protest, why do these organisms eat meat now? The answer, according to the book, is that after the fall of man everything changed:

Put those teeth to use!

       Some other things that could be hard to explain are easily handled when repetition from a book takes the place of critical thinking:

Revealed information? Sounds exciting!

Don't weed your garden, they're there to keep things in balance!

       Another big problem the bible has to deal with is why dinosaurs and other creatures no longer roam the Earth. The ark (a big boat) features prominently in the Creation Museum, and supposedly held two of each kind of animal.

Dinosaurs were on the ark, but I guess they all fell off to become fossils...

Assuming this model is correct, there may have actually been only one zebra on the ark!

     People who didn't get their tickets for the ark were left behind to work things out for themselves:

I don't see how choking someone will improve the situation.

     This is all pretty absurd, and I could go on and on about the ridiculous things I saw at the Creation Museum, but I'll stop here.

     Stay tuned for part 2, where I discuss what really bothers me about the Creation Museum and incorporate ideas about communication and the position of science in society.

P.S. To help myself sleep at night, I donated $50 to the National Center for ScienceEducation. This organization has played an integral part in defending science and reason from unsubstantiated pseudo-science masquerading as something that deserves attention in our classrooms. If you care about the quality of science education in this country, please give what you can to this group. They were largely responsible for the legal defeat of intelligent design in  Kitzmiller vs.Dover.

Story time

     There's an interesting discussion developing on ECOLOG, a listserv for ecologists, about the roll of hypotheses in ecology. At the base of this discussion is whether or not science needs to be hypothesis-driven. Certainly, statistical analyses are suited for hypothesis-driven science, but does that mean that other types of research are somehow less valuable? What about natural history studies? Documenting changes in community structure or detailing the life history of a species can be the first steps that lead to important, hypothesis-driven studies (i.e., the kinds of projects that will get funded).

     What does any of this have to do with children's stories? Most of these books deal with topics in basic science: biodiversity, life cycles, community interactions. None of these books are stories about hypothesis testing, and perhaps that is a good thing. For young children, we need to start introducing them to the biological sciences at the broadest, most easily understood levels. Perhaps if we can hook enough young minds, the larger issue of communicating science with the public will diminish...

Chickens Aren't The Only Ones
     The author's goal here is to share with children the fact that eggs exist beyond the ones chickens provide for our enjoyment. The science that's communicated here is basic organismal biology, and, as indicated by my blog title cum web address, it's a shame the author didn't use this opportunity to link organisms in an evolutionary context. Children are notorious for asking "why?", so it seemed fitting to put some kind of explanation into the book. Perhaps that was too much to ask...

Old Shell, New Shell
     The author takes a story about a hermit crab looking for a new shell and uses it to introduce an impressive array of organisms that most children will not be familiar with. The guide to all of the pictured species, with short blurbs about each, is impressive. I would have collected this information as a child and been proud to show off my identification skills at the drop of a hat. The introduction and concluding remarks regarding conservation are excellent additions for parents and their children. The sooner we can get children to care about the environment, the better.

Pumpkin Jack
     A disappointing tale of a jack-o-lantern left to germinate into a new pumpkin plant. I was truly excited for details about the decomposition process or even basic plant developmental biology, but alas, the story focuses more on what children do at different times of the year. The science here is superficial, though it is worth something to make sure children know where plants come from (i.e., other plants). I can't imagine a child ever wanting to read this book more than once, and I bet books need to be re-read ad nauseum to be remembered.

Round The Garden
     I was prepared to write a biting review of this story when I noticed it was written by an eight year old. Quite impressive, especially if he added the small flourishes like naming clouds and pointing out essential components of photosynthesis. Again, the science is fairly basic and doesn't explore much beyond the basics of the water cycle.

The Sea, The Storm, And The Mangrove Tangle
     This author includes what I think is an essential component of a good children's book intended to communicate science: an introduction. Whether written to be read to children or solely for the parents, this background is incredibly important because it allows questions to be asked & answered, and allows the readers to put the story in a realistic context. I read the story about the hungry caterpillar, but I never really connected it to lepidopteran ecology. This kind of science writing is the opportunity to take a cute story with pretty pictures and use it to actually educate a young person. Too often, this opportunity is wasted and perhaps not even comprehended by the author.

     Overall, the visuals were well done, especially when requiring a second look and concentration from the child. Detailed illustrations train children in skills of observation, which puts them well on their way to becoming scientists.

And remember, children are our future!