Scopes II in the Land of Dorothy
The not-very-clever farce dealing with what to teach in the biology classroom set to appear on stage in Kansas (my home state, recall), sometimes referred to as "Scopes II", seems almost universally recognized as a waste of taxpayer's money in aid of giving free press to the anti-evolutionary crowd currently crusading under the banner of "Intelligent Design". The crusaders are feeling confident because they are certain that their "new" theory is really, really scientific this time.
It strikes me just today that, for people so opposed to the idea of evolution, this group and their antics are a laboratory for the study of Social Darwinism, regardless of whether Social Darwinism is even true.
Watch in astonishment as they keep honing their "theory" in the hopes that enough people can be tricked into thinking that it's scientific! For years, decades — over a century since Darwin, I suppose — they've been casting about and trying to find some approach, some concept, any idea that will give them an edge and let them hoodwink people into believe that evolutionary biology is an enormous conspiracy perpetrated by evil scientists to convince the good Christian masses that God has died, or something like that.
For awhile it was that whole "monkey" thing and variants, but people finally seemed to start understanding what common descent really meant, and natural selection started getting the popular-press distortions that greeted other major scientific/conceptual breakthroughs, like relativity and quantum mechancis and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; you know that scientific concepts have made progress when lots of people misunderstand them so thoroughly.
As they continue their search for something, evolving their strategy to find a non-scientific means to scuttle a branch of science politically, we've seen "creationism", "scientific creationism", and others that I can't remember the names of. Currently, the fashion is for "Intelligent Design", marketed as scientific but really just a form of "creationism" from which they believe just enough religion has been expunged to claim that it is "scientific" and not religious. This is hogwash, of course, since the evolutionary descent from biblical fundamentalism is still so clear.
Anwyay, there's this event going on in Kansas. It's summarized beautifully in the article, "Your OFFICIAL program to the Scopes II Kansas Monkey Trial", by Tony Ortega, published by The Pitch, 5 April 2005. (Thanks to Josh Rosenau at Thoughts from Kansas for pointing it out.)
Mr. Ortega's writing is refreshing because he looks at the truth of the matter, rather than following contemporary journalistic non-standards of simply quoting a bunch of fools and having done with it.
For example:
Intelligent-design advocates have dressed up their arguments in scientific-sounding speech, but their objections to evolution have been around since Charles Darwin first published his theory in 1859. Intelligent-design proponents will claim that evolution is a failed theory that's being abandoned by scientists. (It isn't.) They'll say the news media suppress the huge controversy that is actually raging over evolution in scientific circles. (We aren't, because there isn't one.) They'll claim that evolution requires scientists to give up their religious beliefs and adopt an immoral, materialistic belief system. (It doesn't.) And if we're really lucky, they'll try to explain to nonscientist school-board members how the proteins in the flagella of tiny bacteria inspire their theories.
The schoolboard went to some trouble to try to find some real scientist to come and "debate" in favor of real science, but most professional scientific groups have decided to boycott the event, which is just fine. Participating really wouldn't accomplish anything except lend some legitimacy to the creationists who think they're now scientific.
Famed evolution-proponent and now-infamous atheist Richard Dawkins took their measure without any nonsense:
"As I am sure you are aware, the state of Kansas has made itself the laughingstock of the scientific world over this issue," wrote Oxford University professor and well-known author Richard Dawkins to the state board after he got his invitation. "The very idea of 'representatives from both views' presupposes that there are two views to represent…. For real scientists to share a platform with the biological equivalent of flat-earthers would be to give them the credibility, respectability, and above all publicity that they crave. I am sorry, but count me out."
Scientists, in face of an irrational, non-scientific onslaught like this, tend to come off appearing naive and tentative. I've heard explanations before that scientists tend to be gullible because we are used to dealing with Nature which, although it can be difficult to figure out, doesn't try to deceive us. Of course, ID crusaders are anti-scientific in their "theories" and their strategies to enforce biblical fundamentalism, and this tends perhaps to keep real scientists perplexed. Why, we wonder, would anyone go to so much trouble to lie and cheat and dissemble just to come over and foul our sandbox? Why don't they go and do their own science — it's open to everyone and insists on only a few simple rules. The enemy is incomprehensible — we don't even understand why they're fighting! — and we scientists would prefer just to be left alone to get on with advancing rational knowledge.*
And — goodness! — what would he have been up against? Mr. Ortega gives this sketch of one of the schoolboard members and her fierce fight for truth:
If there were ever any question what a farce the "trial" is, [Schoolboard member and former teacher (that's scary!)] Kathy Martin removed all doubt a couple of weeks ago, when she gave an interview to the Clay Center Dispatch.
"We are not going to give up until the standards say what we want them to say," Martin told the paper. "Evolution has been proven false. ID is science-based and strong in facts."
Just to show off her stellar science credentials, Martin explained, "Man has changed and evolved, but we are not going to change back into monkeys." Her other statements regarding evolution, which included making outdated distinctions between "microevolution" and "macroevolution," came right out of the creationist playbook.
But Martin went way off-message when the Dispatch reporter asked whether ID was just Christian creationism in disguise. Her answer could only have given ID proponents fits: "Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian nation. Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don't often speak up, but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard."
Moreover, the former schoolteacher argued, "Why shouldn't theology be taught in the classroom? Morality ought to be taught in every class. Prayer ought to be allowed. Whenever a child wanted to pray in class, I prayed with them. All children believe in God. Even little children whose parents don't take them to church believe in God."
I still shake my head, lacking any comprehension of why these people feel it is so important to deny science and what it does for them, regardless of whether they believe in it. I still hope that this is just a short-term if somewhat extreme death rattle of the unenlightened and not the edge of the curtain of irrationality lowering to usher in a new dark age.
———-
* There's some truth in the old joke about the physicist who values having both a partner and a lover: the partner will think s/he's with the lover, the lover will imagine s/he's with the partner, so s/he really can spend more time in the lab.