Should a scientist hold to the scientific side of the argument or the religous one? If the scientist holds to the scientific side is she bringing criticism from the religous on herself? If the scientist holds to the religous side is she bringing criticism from the scientific side on herself?

Or is the proper thing to either say nothing or be vague? Should only the scientist be vague, or should the religous also do so?

I, personally, know of few scientists who publicly link themselves with an ideological “side”. Certainly they gravitate to one “side” or another, but who doesn’t gravitate to others with commonalities?

I suspect the linking is not from within, but I have no case studies nor hard evidence. Just 20+ years connected to the hard sciences in some way or another and 2 hard science degrees (& one not attained). The phrase ‘combat biologist’ comes immediately to mind as a possible indicator for further discussion.

Best,

D

Let me be clear: I am not equating ID with Nazism. Far, far from it. I’m sure the vast majority of the proponents of creationism, intelligent design, and fundamentalist religious belief are motivated by an enviable desire to do good works in the world. But what I am saying is that both movements were rooted at least in part in a similar yearning for a return to order, economic stability, and moral and cultural tradition — in short, a yearing for simplicity in the face of complexity.

I am also not arguing that we are on some slippery slope leading to the likes of Nazism. We are on a different slope, one that began with the Scopes Monkey Trial. In the 1920s, fundamentalists saw the increasing salience of science, as well as Freudian psychology, socialism and decadent pop culture, as root causes of religious decline and a flood of related evils. Today, the proponents of intelligent design are the direct heirs to this legacy. This is made clear by the words of the ID proponents themselves, most notably in the “Wedge Strategy” from the Center for Science and Culture of Seattle’s Discovery Institute, the leading ID think tank. The Wedge Strategy identifies “scientific materialism” as the cause of “destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.” The cure for these evils requires replacing “materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” And not just any God, of course, but the Christian God.

If ever there were a simple solution to a complex array of problems, this is it.

It may be true, as Lynn writes, that “those who have suffered the indiginities of the economic downturn believe in the ‘moral decay’ of our culture and lay the problem at the feet of ‘liberals.’” But clearly there is much more going on. Here, as in Germany in the 1920s, the prosperous and the economically disadvantaged alike are attracted to people offering simple solutions to complex problems. Boulder County is home to many upper middle class people with jobs in high technology who attend fundamentalist churches, believe in the literal truth of the bible, and therefore reject evolution whole cloth. The mega churches in prosperous communities across America are filled with these folks.

To a person, they feel that modern culture is a source social disintegration, and they don’t necessarily believe this because they are hurting economically. Many actually are among the most well off people on the planet. The problem is this: They don’t want to believe that a tangled, intractable web of factors is the root cause of modern problems. Instead, they understandably are attracted to a simple, unitary, emotional explanation: We’re in this fix because we’ve turned our back on Jesus. So restoration can come only by turning to him, including — or most especially — in science.

Lastly, Lynn Clark writes that “the ‘community of scientists,’ whereas once a source of authority (and they still are, for many of us), now are linked ideologically with others who are ‘liberal’ and therefore easily dismissed as on the wrong side of the issue (along with, you know, journalists, Hollywood, academics, and Ted Kennedy).”

My question to Prometheus readers is this: To what degree have scientists brought this on themselves?

– Tom

What do you make of these data:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hodge_podge/000550party_id_and_id.html

I spent the weekend reading Thomas Frank’s _What’s the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America_ (Holt, 2004). Frank’s take on the attraction of conservative views like ID is compelling. He argues that those who have suffered the indiginities of the economic downturn believe in the “moral decay” of our culture and lay the problem at the feet of “liberals” – rather, Frank notes, than at the feet of those he believes are the actual culprits of their true problems: the economic elite and their free market policies. Economic differences, long invisible in the U.S. mainstream, are today not seen as important enough to fight over. Battles over culture, on the other hand, are. Based on Frank’s argument, I think the problem is that today’s ID fans believe that they’re “taking a stand” that is aimed at preserving our culture from further decay, and this gives tremendous fuel to the ID debate.

This means, unfortunately, that the “community of scientists,” whereas once a source of authority (and they still are, for many of us), now are linked ideologically with others who are “liberal” and therefore easily dismissed as on the wrong side of the issue (along with, you know, journalists, Hollywood, academics, and Ted Kennedy).

The problem with this scenario is that it seems that the more ID is shown to be worthy of dismissal, the more that dismissal gives credence to the cause of its supporters. They are beleaguered and under seige, they think, and therefore they must press on in this most important battle.

How to change the terms of the argument? I think the fact that Jones was a Bush appointee goes a long way. As long as leaders who are sympatico with parts of conservativism can be pushed to distance themselves from the righteous right, they help to marginalize them from the mainstream.

The Scopes Monkey trial may have been a defining moment in the life of this battle, but it may be that this fight is just beginning.

Lynn Schofield Clark, Ph.D.
Assistant Research Professor
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of Colorado
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~clarkl

What the Dover case was all about was the pedagogy of science, not philosophy. The legal argument was over whether ID should be taugh in a science class. No one was against introducing the concepts in a philosophy class.

What the Dover case as all about was the pedagogy of science, not philosophy. The legal argument was over whether ID should be taugh in a science class. No one was against introducing the concepts in a philosophy class.