(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!