Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Stepping Up to the ID Challenge
I've been watching the impressive response of the evolutionary biologists to the intelligent design challenge. No one took ID seriously for years - and for seemingly good reason, since it's not serious science. But then, ID has lots of funding behind it and lots of political savvy. Biologists are not politically savvy - or at least they were not until now.
One of the interesting angles of the situation is the difference in the mental models between journalists and scientists. In case you are not aware of it, journalists have been trained aggressively for the last 20 or 30 years to "present both sides of the story". This is a big deal in journalism school. It is a commandment that no one dares to break. This is responsible for the atrocious reporting on politics that we see now. No matter how undeserving, both sides of each story must be presented in "a balanced way". This is all part of the dreaded political correctness thing. Conservatives hate this more than liberals - since the liberals sort of invented the idea. But, conservatives have been using this feature of journalism very well as of late. They've learned how to use it.
The ID people are masters at this. They are painting this up as a story with two equal sides. In fact, they are trying to portray themselves as legitimate underdog scientists - with a real position - that is being suppressed and trampled by the dogmatic science establishment. They are the rebels! The innovators! Pointing out the flaws in the theories and no one will listen to them. Poor downtrodden IDers.
However, this is not an accurate portayal at all. Instead, they misrepresent the status of evolutionary theory and exaggerate the problems. Yes, there are areas that need more work. But scientists have hypotheses that address these areas - that are just not yet proven. They may not be right, but people are still looking for the answers. The ID folks have no real hypotheses. Magic, aliens or God did it. In their world, science would be meaningless. If there was something that you couldn't explain - it would be God that did it. They don't even really understand or examine all the theories and evidence for evolution - it would make it harder for them to believe. And belief is the most important thing, not truth.
For people who have dedicated their lives to carefully and systematically exploring, postulating and testing theories about how the world works, looking for truth, this is pretty shocking. Just to handwave it all away - God did it. It's a level of incuriousity that astonishes biologists.
But, back to the struggle. Over the last couple of years, the scientific community has awoken to the threat. All over the science blogs and in the journals - in lectures and "debates" - you see them tackling this issue. They are taking it very seriously indeed, since it strikes at the heart of science and invalidates the whole process. They have defense teams for court cases. Arguments against ID are polished and enhanced.
What I am seeing is that it is backfiring on the religious. They shouldn't have tried to take on the science community. They shouldn't have alienated them either and drawn the line in the sand. They can't win in the long run. Science has done so much more for humanity over the last 100 years than religion. I don't care what wonderful things religion has done - science has done much more. Science is trying to model the real world and explain it - and use this understand for the advantage of people - to improve their lives. And it has succeeded wonderfully at this. This very blog is an example. Religion did not help to make this blog possible. Science did. Scientists are not out there trying to get money from little old ladies - there is no scientific equivalent to a televangelist. They are too busy trying to solve real problems. They are not motivated by greed for the most part.
When you put ID up against real science, real science shines. Whenever a real battle has been engaged between a religious proponent and a scientist - whether in court or in debate - the scientists win. The Scopes Monkey Trial experience will be replayed again and again until it once again becomes clear that a lot of religious beliefs are inconsistent, silly and meaningless. Religion will go back to being the thing it has done best for the last 200 years - a moral framework and an inspiration to do good. It will quit trying to regain the ground it lost to science as the way to explain how the world works.
Another deserving victim of this struggle will be "balanced journalism" and relativism. Social sciences, politics, and journalism are all suffering greatly from a lack of belief in objective reality at this time. This has allowed ID to creep in - as well as many other unworkable ideas. We will return to a cognitive model that assumes that the human mind is quite capable of thinking of things that are not real - and that there is reality separate from our ability to conceive of it. Trying hard to create mental models that most accurately reflect reality - and acting on them - is the best path to success. Wishful and fanciful thinking leads to disaster. Scientists are the ultimate realists. Religious folks are the ultimate fantasists. I'm betting on reality - at least in the long run.
I've been watching the impressive response of the evolutionary biologists to the intelligent design challenge. No one took ID seriously for years - and for seemingly good reason, since it's not serious science. But then, ID has lots of funding behind it and lots of political savvy. Biologists are not politically savvy - or at least they were not until now.
One of the interesting angles of the situation is the difference in the mental models between journalists and scientists. In case you are not aware of it, journalists have been trained aggressively for the last 20 or 30 years to "present both sides of the story". This is a big deal in journalism school. It is a commandment that no one dares to break. This is responsible for the atrocious reporting on politics that we see now. No matter how undeserving, both sides of each story must be presented in "a balanced way". This is all part of the dreaded political correctness thing. Conservatives hate this more than liberals - since the liberals sort of invented the idea. But, conservatives have been using this feature of journalism very well as of late. They've learned how to use it.
The ID people are masters at this. They are painting this up as a story with two equal sides. In fact, they are trying to portray themselves as legitimate underdog scientists - with a real position - that is being suppressed and trampled by the dogmatic science establishment. They are the rebels! The innovators! Pointing out the flaws in the theories and no one will listen to them. Poor downtrodden IDers.
However, this is not an accurate portayal at all. Instead, they misrepresent the status of evolutionary theory and exaggerate the problems. Yes, there are areas that need more work. But scientists have hypotheses that address these areas - that are just not yet proven. They may not be right, but people are still looking for the answers. The ID folks have no real hypotheses. Magic, aliens or God did it. In their world, science would be meaningless. If there was something that you couldn't explain - it would be God that did it. They don't even really understand or examine all the theories and evidence for evolution - it would make it harder for them to believe. And belief is the most important thing, not truth.
For people who have dedicated their lives to carefully and systematically exploring, postulating and testing theories about how the world works, looking for truth, this is pretty shocking. Just to handwave it all away - God did it. It's a level of incuriousity that astonishes biologists.
But, back to the struggle. Over the last couple of years, the scientific community has awoken to the threat. All over the science blogs and in the journals - in lectures and "debates" - you see them tackling this issue. They are taking it very seriously indeed, since it strikes at the heart of science and invalidates the whole process. They have defense teams for court cases. Arguments against ID are polished and enhanced.
What I am seeing is that it is backfiring on the religious. They shouldn't have tried to take on the science community. They shouldn't have alienated them either and drawn the line in the sand. They can't win in the long run. Science has done so much more for humanity over the last 100 years than religion. I don't care what wonderful things religion has done - science has done much more. Science is trying to model the real world and explain it - and use this understand for the advantage of people - to improve their lives. And it has succeeded wonderfully at this. This very blog is an example. Religion did not help to make this blog possible. Science did. Scientists are not out there trying to get money from little old ladies - there is no scientific equivalent to a televangelist. They are too busy trying to solve real problems. They are not motivated by greed for the most part.
When you put ID up against real science, real science shines. Whenever a real battle has been engaged between a religious proponent and a scientist - whether in court or in debate - the scientists win. The Scopes Monkey Trial experience will be replayed again and again until it once again becomes clear that a lot of religious beliefs are inconsistent, silly and meaningless. Religion will go back to being the thing it has done best for the last 200 years - a moral framework and an inspiration to do good. It will quit trying to regain the ground it lost to science as the way to explain how the world works.
Another deserving victim of this struggle will be "balanced journalism" and relativism. Social sciences, politics, and journalism are all suffering greatly from a lack of belief in objective reality at this time. This has allowed ID to creep in - as well as many other unworkable ideas. We will return to a cognitive model that assumes that the human mind is quite capable of thinking of things that are not real - and that there is reality separate from our ability to conceive of it. Trying hard to create mental models that most accurately reflect reality - and acting on them - is the best path to success. Wishful and fanciful thinking leads to disaster. Scientists are the ultimate realists. Religious folks are the ultimate fantasists. I'm betting on reality - at least in the long run.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]