Evolution

Mike the Mad Biologist reacts to Matthew Nisbet’s discussion of framing, Gore and global warming, with reference to a paper by Nisbet and Myers from last August.

Here are these posts in chronological order:

Twenty Years of Public Opinion about Global Warming

Does Gore Contribute to the Communication Crisis?

Framing, Evolution, and Power

Tags: Framing Science, Global Warming by Greg
No Comments »

Sputnik

It does not matter what you believe about god, creationism, science, evolution, whatever. If you were raised in a society in which there is an evil enemy that you are convinced intends to arrive some day on your country’s shores, take over your government, impose a new social order, marry your sister, and so on, then when this evil foreign government sends the first warning shot in this war and it is an unprecedented and amazing feat of science, then suddenly you love science. You pay taxes to fund science. Your idolize science. You start demanding that science comes to the rescue. One way to do this is to fund science, fund higher education, build up the universities.

The first Sputnik sattelite was launched, and flew over the US multiple times, emitting a cryptic “beep beep beep” radio signal, fifty years ago today. The headline of this day fifty years ago in the Izvestia Daily:

We Were First

At 22:28 Moscow time on October 4, 1957, humanity entered a new space age. The Soviet Union sent the Earth’s first artificial satellite into orbit.

The Sputnik Effect. This is roughly compiled data from a limited number of sources. This shows buildings built per decade at a handful of American campuses. Note the spike in the 1960s, arguably a result of a national will and desire to significantly expand higher education and research, as well as demographic effects.

Sputnik, the little beeping Soviet satellite that flew around the earth … with an orbit taking it over the United States, was the single most effective event in “framing” science to ever happen in this country. American universities underwent the most dramatic expansion of building, especailly but not exclusively in the sciences, during the 1960s, when government funding for expanding higher education was much more redily available than any time before or since. Some of this expansion was certainly in response to demographic shifts, but much of it is widely though to have been a direct or indirect result of the sudden realization that the U.S. was behind “The Russians” in the space-race.

Tags: Science Essays, Framing Science by Greg
4 Comments »

17th century Arabic anatomy drawing, from the Advances of Islamic Sciences web site. In some Islamic sects, drawing living things is not allowed. As a very practical matter, this excludes students from taking part in certain activities in science classrooms.

During the Bell Museum Slapdown panel last week, Myers brought up differences between countries in public attitudes towards education. Mooney and Nisbet brought up the difficulty of making fundamental changes via “Popular Science” approaches, which I take to include public, popular culture as well as standard education (which is, after all, the main mechanism for cultural transmission of scientific viewpoints).

We did not develop the potential for the comparative argument as much as we could have during that discussion. As Nisbet suggested: We should be scientific about our understanding of how we present science. I agree. The comparative approach is a very useful one in science. We can ask questions like, how can other predominantly christian countries (like Italy, France, Britain and Spain) have such a better attitude (publicly and culturally) towards science (especially evolution) compared to the US? What’s the difference? Let’s get us some of that difference!

And we can take this a step further … what about the Islamic world? Science is in much worse shape in the Islamic world than it is in the Christian world (if I may be allowed momentary use of those two fairly obnoxious terms). Indeed, the two worlds seem to barely overlap in terms of scientific involvement, education, and productivity. Perhaps by understanding the difference between these “worlds,” with respect to science and society, we can (shudder)… predict our own future as the fundamentalists take over? Or, more hopefully, simply learn more about the structure of the culture/scociety vis-a-vis science interface, to better understand and manage our own problems. Scientifically.

This brings us to this interesting question:

With well over a billion Muslims and extensive material resources, why is the Islamic world disengaged from science and the process of creating new knowledge?

This is addressed by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy, of the department of physics at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, Pakistan, in a piece that’s not too recent, but interesting. Here.

Hoodbhoy provides a scientific analysis of this issue that I think is worth examination. Perhaps his insight, and his suggestions for promoting science in the Islamic world apply broadly.

Hoodbhoy points out that Islam, at one time in the past, was far more engaged in science than many other contemporary civilizations (see this post for related issues and links). All that original albegra, early work on optics, etc. was all written in Arabic, not to mention a great deal of astronomy and human anatomy. However, according to Hoodbhoy, there has not been a significant discovery or invention from the Islamic world in over 700 years. So, I’m guessing this isn’t just glitch.

It has been suggested that this is a fundamentally cultural matter:

Scholars of the 19th century, such as the pioneering sociologist Max Weber, claimed that Islam lacks an “idea system” critical for sustaining a scientific culture based on innovation, new experiences, quantification, and empirical verification. Fatalism and an orientation toward the past, they said, makes progress difficult and even undesirable.

Today, of course, Weber’s work on religion and culture is recognized as part of a broader, Morganian system of cultural and social classificiation … a pre-Boazian post hoc description of the superiority of Christian White Men. And of course, Muslims tend to be offended by this approach (a point not ignored in the essay by Hoodbhoy).

In defending the compatibility of science and Islam, Muslims argue that Islam had sustained a vibrant intellectual culture throughout the European Dark Ages and thus, by extension, is also capable of a modern scientific culture. The Pakistani physics Nobel Prize winner, Abdus Salam, would stress to audiences that one-eighth of the Qur’an is a call for Muslims to seek Allah’s signs in the universe and hence that science is a spiritual as well as a temporal duty for Muslims.

But Hoodbhoy’s essay is not an historical account but rather an attempt at a quantification of the state of science in the Muslim world today. He produces these two tables:

Forty-six Muslim countries contributed 1.17% of the world’s science literature, whereas 1.66% came from India alone and 1.48% from Spain. Twenty Arab countries contributed 0.55%, compared with 0.89% by Israel alone.

…

The role played by science in creating high technology is an important science indicator. Comparing table 1 with table 2 shows there is little correlation between academic research papers and the role of S&T in the national economies of the seven listed countries. The anomalous position of Malaysia in table 2 has its explanation in the large direct investment made by multinational companies and in having trading partners that are overwhelmingly non-OIC countries.

The role of Higher Education is cited by Hoodbhoy. The 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference states have about 1,800 universities but only 312 that are engaged in research leading to journal articles. Among those universities that do produced published papers, the numbers are not terribly low, but the impact factor is abysmal. (The average rate of citation is less than 1.0 per paper).

Hoodbhoy also looks at science in popular culture. Hoodbhoy notes:

Science is under pressure globally, and from every religion. As science becomes an increasingly dominant part of human culture, its achievements inspire both awe and fear. Creationism and intelligent design, curbs on genetic research, pseudoscience, parapsychology, belief in UFOs, and so on are some of its manifestations in the West. Religious conservatives in the US have rallied against the teaching of Darwinian evolution. Extreme Hindu groups such as the Vishnu Hindu Parishad, which has called for ethnic cleansing of Christians and Muslims, have promoted various “temple miracles,” including one in which an elephant-like God miraculously came alive and started drinking milk. Some extremist Jewish groups also derive additional political strength from antiscience movements. For example, certain American cattle tycoons have for years been working with Israeli counterparts to try to breed a pure red heifer in Israel, which, by their interpretation of chapter 19 of the Book of Numbers, will signal the coming of the building of the Third Temple,7 an event that would ignite the Middle East.

In the Islamic world, there is a strong anti-science component of the Internet. Islamic fundamentalists see science mainly yas a means of establishing additional proofs of god and proving the truth of the Qur’an, while at the same time holding on to the idea that modern science would not have developed had it not been for the link served by Islam between classical and modern times.

Hoodbhoy discusses reasons for this situation, and, while unable to reject a modern version of Weber’s fundamental cultural difference as being a factor, describes the problem as more complex than mere non-modernism. Ultimately, he asks the question “How can science return to the Islamic world?”

Does Hoodbhoy suggest that Science simply needs to be repackaged … reframed … for broader acceptance and engagement in the Islamic world? Or does he suggest that decoupling religious practice and belief from science specifically and day to day life more generally is important? You judge:

Progress will require behavioral changes. If Muslim societies are to develop technology instead of just using it, the ruthlessly competitive global marketplace will insist on not only high skill levels but also intense social work habits. The latter are not easily reconcilable with religious demands made on a fully observant Muslim’s time, energy, and mental concentration: The faithful must participate in five daily congregational prayers, endure a month of fasting that taxes the body, recite daily from the Qur’an, and more. Although such duties orient believers admirably well toward success in the life hereafter, they make worldly success less likely. A more balanced approach will be needed.

Science can prosper among Muslims once again, but only with a willingness to accept certain basic philosophical and attitudinal changes—a Weltanschauung that shrugs off the dead hand of tradition, rejects fatalism and absolute belief in authority, accepts the legitimacy of temporal laws, values intellectual rigor and scientific honesty, and respects cultural and personal freedoms. The struggle to usher in science will have to go side-by-side with a much wider campaign to elbow out rigid orthodoxy and bring in modern thought, arts, philosophy, democracy, and pluralism.

I think many American consumers of of this discourse … from Islamic science to Framing and Science Education … often fail to realize that Christianity is not the problem in the US. Well, it can be a problem, but it is not the problem. The problem is fundamentalism. Virtually by definition, fundamentalism requires that all things human serve god and devotion to god. Thus, science is a legitimate pursuit only to the extent that this can happen. Science for science’s sake is at best a hobby, and science that produces any results that conflicts with religious dogma (such as evolution) or that requires practices not allowed by the religious doctrine (such as making a drawing of a living thing) is heretical.

The difference between a Christian Fundamentalist and a Muslim Fundamentalist is the difference between the eagle and the osprey. The eagle and the osprey cannot abide each other’s existence. But if you are the fish, you are nothing more than bird food.

Tags: Evolution v Creationism, Science Essays, Framing Science, Atheism and Religion, Creationism by Greg
7 Comments »

The Real Winners of last night’s Epic Battle: The cute puppies.

PZ and I closed the bar last night, but since I’m heavily medicated for other, medical reasons, I was dry all night, so here I am, lacking a little sleep, but with no hangover … Last I saw Matt and Chris, they were heading for one of the frat houses for a kegger, or at least that is what I’m told. PZ was en route to some impossible to find seedy motel on the outskirts of town. We can only hope we’ll hear from him later.

[update: PZ awakes, here. Chris Mooney chimes in, here.

I want to start my comments with a very important clarification. Near the end of the panel discussion, in addressing the question “how to get more students in science” (not “into” as in “interested” but “in” as in to become scientists), among my comments, I suggested “cut out the math.” This of course enraged much of the audience, and later, I got a lot of complaints. Of course, I was joking. Indeed, I may have even been framing.

There is an argument to cut the math out of some science classes for those instances where you simply want students to get “into” science a bit, but it is a bad idea for training scientists. Math is not just important in science, it is a fundamental inseparable part of it. Some sciences, in fact, are pretty close to 100% math, like quantum physics and statistical ecology, for instance.

The event at the bell went well by all accounts. Chris and Matt gave a very well honed and well prepared presentation. PZ had some nicely prepared but very frightening slides. I had not prepared anything, but I jotted down some notes while Chris and Matt were giving their presentation, and blurted them out when I had the mike. There was very little vitriol or bloodshed, despite the fact that certain members of the audience were trying to goad us on like dogs in a pit.

Basically, what happened was this: PZ and I decided before the debate to give Chris and Matt a break, let them have their say, complement them on their lovely housedresses, and then make a few of our own points that we felt needed to be made, in parallel with, not necessarily in opposition to, the Framing schitck. Another problem was that the stage was too small and pretty much filled with this big table. There was no way to really get rough without also getting clumsy, and that would have been bad theater.

Chris and/or Matt will declare victory today or tomorrow on their blogs, as they actually had the audacity to do last night during the presentation. But PZ and I, being the subtle cats that we are, know who really won this “debate.” The children won. We did this for the children and the teachers and the unadopted puppies, and they are the real winners here.

I just wanted to take a moment and reiterate some of the points that I made last night. They are:

1) We are talking about problems at the interface between science and society, whereby right wing political forces are interfering with rational process and effective management of critical problems such as global warming, health, and so on. But this is only a small part of the larger reality of the interface between science and society. In fact, it is a very small percent measured almost any way I can think of other than press coverage. Meanwhile there are thousands, nay, tens of thousands, of scientists and science-related individuals carrying out science every day and not being bothered or harassed or told to stop or being interfered with. This is important to keep in mind for two reasons. One, it puts the issues we are speaking about in proper perspective. The other, more important reason, is that we can often refer to this larger corpus of activities in the debate, where the debate occurs. An obvious example from the Creationist Attack is this: Creationists claim that “evolution is not true” (their words) because radiometric dating is flawed. But listen to this: The same science that brings us the wonders of radiometric dating also powers our nuclear navy and a big part of our domestic power grid; operates the satellites that need to be adjusted with relativistic calibrations (lots of math there!) in order to work as communications systems; and so on. You can’t have it both ways: You can’t go along living without complaint in modern society, using your cell phone, making toast in the morning, and driving to work, and at the same time bitch about the science. No fair.

2) A premise of much of this discussion is that scientists are bad communicators. This is an incorrect assumption, and I’ve written about that elsewhere on this site, so I will not bore you with my perspective here.

3) Framing is said to be short term and immediate, and thus important for handling critical problems right now, and the alternative, what Chris and Matt have taken to calling the “popular science” model (a bit of somewhat obnoxious framing, IMHO) but that I call “Education” (has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?), which is long germ. I disagree. Well, it’s true to some extent. If framing actually works, it might sometimes work on the short term. But I think that about 7 years went between The Contract On America (New Gingrich) and the total takeover of the American Government by the Right Wing. It took about 8 or 9 years between the first attempts to get a Clean Water act in place and the passage of the act itself, and another 7 or 8 years before the tide began to turn on actual water quality with the implementation of the regulations. In other words, no matter how you approach an issue, you are talking five to 10 or even 15 year time scales to actually make things happen. Education is not particularly longer-term than framing as a solution, and to the extent that it may be, it is more permanent and satisfying, and the effects of education run deeper. Once we fix (see below) science education in high schools, it will only be about five years before we get our first crop of science-aware and science-sympathetic citizens (SSC’s) into the entry-level job market with college degrees. That’s not long.

4) Science education sucks because, even though the right wing has lost the battle in the courts, they are still fighting an insurgency, and so much damage was done by this war on science that the system has been wrecked and we are not working hard enough (or spending enough money!) to make the necessary repairs. Life Science education in American K-12 schools is the post-Katrina New Orleans of the educational system. I could go on about this, and have in the past, and will in the future.

5) We are at present in the middle (roughly) of a revolution in how society works, how our society thinks, grows, and act. This revolution is a very long term shift, from religion (using that term somewhat broadly) based thinking to rational thinking. We are well into the third century of this revolution, and we can expect another century or two of change before it is complete.

Keep up the fight. Viva la revolution.

I want to thank my homies, my friends and associates from the Twin Cities area, who came to lend support and cheer us on. The lovely and talented Shanai Matteson (one of the prime movers behind our local Cafe Scientifique) needs to be given enormous credit for organizing this event and for pulling it off so well. Jessica Marshall (UMN Journalism) refereed the slapdown in an effective and fair manner. The event was Co-sponsored by the Bell Museum of Natural History; Seed Magazine/ScienceBlogs; The Humphrey Institute’s Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy; and the Minnesota Journalism Center.

Tags: Science Essays, Framing Science, Commentary by Greg
20 Comments »

With the Speaking Science 2.0 panel discussion coming up in just a couple of days, I thought it appropriate to provide a retrospective of my own posts on the “Framing Debate.” This is not comprehensive, nor is it the best of. It’s most of the posts minus a few that are really side tracks. They are in chronological order, swimming, as it were, upstream against the usual current of be Blogosphere….

[Read more →]

Tags: Science Essays, Framing Science by Greg
No Comments »

New Atheists are mean.

Jake Young at Pure Pedantry writes, as part of a longer piece:

“The New Atheist Camp (for lack of a better term) asserts that science and atheism are one. Religion and science are not internally consistent. Any attempt to recognize religion within a scientific framework is appeasement of superstition and is by extension damaging to the scientific enterprise. We might as well publish statements we know to be lies in scientific journals.

Big Tenters are kind and gentle.

The Big Tent Scientists (again, for lack of a better term) assert that science and atheism are not synonymous. Some individuals may be religious themselves; some are atheists. They argue that given the choice between the acceptance of science and the eradication of superstitious belief, the acceptance of science is the more desirable and the more likely outcome. Further, they argue that widespread acceptance of science AND atheism is not likely, particularly given the means with which the New Atheist Camp has chosen to argue….

Then he goes on and on with an interesting if somewhat misguided, in my always humble opinion, post. Misguided because I think these definitions, which really are foundational to his argument, are utterly wrong. In fact, they almost seem to be designed to support his arguments.

I think there is a third “camp”:

Wow. Atlantis looks kind of cool. But we purposefully don’t fund research on Atlantis because it doesn’t exist.

Science Thinkers, who are the “science as a way of thinking people.” These scientists (who are in the majority) do generally believe that science obviates religion and religious practice in their own lives. The degree to which these individuals feel that religion as a belief and practice in other people’s lives should be criticized almost always depends on that individual’s personal interests and experience. Science Thinkers who have children in public schools, for example, may end up being Establishment Clause activists after so many months or years of their children coming home with stories about hymns in music class, about teachers not assigning homework on Wednesdays because it’s Confirmation Class night, about biology teachers waffling on evolution, and so on. Some Science thinkers couldn’t care less about criticizing religion or promoting atheism. Others are activists in the atheist community. In my experience, it often has to do with how much their children get harassed by religious people. Often, people who have not experienced this simply don’t understand. “Oh, that’s not really harassment. It is just the way society is.” And so on. Often, people don’t get this until it happens to them. But I digress… Back to my definition …

As a North Americanist, a lot of people contact me about Bigfoot. But I have to tell them that it doesn’t exist. .

Science thinkers as a whole do not think of “science and atheism as one” because science is a body of knowledge and an approach to inference regarding the natural world, and atheism, while being a logical conclusion from science, is a very different breed of activity and philosophy. If no one ever thought about it, if there was no religion for instance, atheism would not be part of anything, let alone science. Atheism and science may be related in some ways, but in ways that are mostly trivial. Most of the time, we see anti-scientists trying to make the link in order to scare religious people into donating money to their cause. These days, we see scientists making the link but it is not always clear why. Atheism is being over-privileged here. Let me explain what I mean by that.

It is true that active atheism does fall into, but is only one of, a broad category of activities that many, many Science Thinkers take part in. Some Science Thinkers who are archaeologists take an active role in refuting claims that Atlantis existed. Some Science Thinkers in Human Evolution take an active role in refuting claims about aquatic ape ancestors. Some Science Thinkers in the Natural Sciences and North American Wildlife Biology take an active role in refuting claims of Yeti. Some Science Thinkers involved in the mind and brain related sciences take an active role in refuting ESP claims. Some Science Thinkers involved in health and nutrition take an active role in refuting snake-oil claims of many products. And so on. Atheism is, from this perspective, the active critique of religion. It is something one may be more or less involved in.

The grove where John Smith was visited by a messenger from god. The whole Morman story has been proven to be fiction.

Most Science Thinkers … and the voice of most of these individuals is not often heard in this debate, and when it is they sometimes decry the debaters for arguing semantics and otherwise wasting their time … feel that it is not appropriate to compromise on science as a body of knowledge and a system of inference. It is impossible for a science thinker to agree to a statement like “Well, at the town meeting up north where we are trying to get the locals to go along with ceding 600 acres of land to the forest reserve, you should tell them that this will help preserve Yeti habitat, and thus, help keep the Yeti from invading their gardens and harassing the children. That will get them to go along with you. It is more important that we get public approval for this project than that we, I dunno, get real with our science or whatever…”

The fact that most Science Thinkers will not participate in such activities does not mean that they don’t want to “sell” their point of view where they need to. It means something else. It means that they are good people, most of them.

Science Thinkers think science is fun just the way it is.

Most Science Thinkers, when faced with Yeti, Atlantis, a 6,000 year-old-earth or evidence for aquatic apes, while differing in how much effort they may wish to spend on disabusing these ideas or beliefs, figure that the conflict between science as a body of knowledge and a system of inference, and whatever process of culture leads to Yeti, Atlantis and the Red Sea Parting, is really not their problem. It is the job of the believes in these non-scientific things to sort out the conflicts.

It has been said, I think by Michael Schermer and cited by Jake, that negativity doesn’t pay. Live and let live.

Most Science Thinkers would prefer to be left alone by creationists and such. Just leave the scientists alone, please, they are busy finding the cure for disease and stuff.

Unfortunately, while Science Thinkers would like nothing more than this, this is not the strategy of many Christian Fundamentalists who should know better but won’t keep their noses out of science. This is not a problem Science Thinkers, “New Atheists” or Big Tenters have created, but it is a problem we have to deal with. Given the vigorous nature of the Fundamentalist attack on science, you can expect more and more Science Thinkers to take off the gloves. It does not make them some kind of carefully defined “New Atheist” … It makes them madder than hell and not prepared to take it any more.

(Personally, I can’t think of a single example of a New Atheist. Everyone I know is either a Science Thinker or a Framer.)

So, are you a New Atheist or a Big Tenter? Or, are you a Science Thinker? Or something else?

This issue is also being discussed here:

EvolutionBlog
Framing Science
Pharyngula
Sandwalk

Tags: Science Essays, Framing Science by Greg
5 Comments »

For those of you not reading the fascinating and extensive discussion on Pharyngula on Framing, just skip this post. I’m responding here to a long comment Carl Safina made on PZ’s blog, which all started with Baked Alaska, with an even longer rambling response of my own. I don’t think this will fit in a comment box on Scienceblogs.com, so I’m putting it here. But really, you can skip it.

(Although it is really quite brilliant….)

[Read more →]

Tags: Science Essays, Framing Science by Greg
1 Comment »

PZ Myers has a new post on Framing, in which he discusses a “challenge” laid down by Mark Powell of blogfish, which in turn brings up what is supposed to be a good example of framing by Carl Safina, discussed in Safina’s blog post Baked Alaska.

Since the challenge is to PZ Myers, Jason Rosenhouse and others, and I’m another, I’ll chime in.

Is size all that matters to framers?

What is Mark Saying about Carl?

Mark notes that those “opposed to framing” keep asking for an example of well-done framing, and suggests Carl’s post is one. Specifically, Mark frames (with a small “f”) the argument thusly: [Read more →]

Tags: Science Essays, Framing Science by Greg
13 Comments »

A bloody event from the bible depicted in a Creation Museum diorama. Photo: Answers in Genesis

Kids: If you want a new toy GI Joe, demand a pony. Your parents will come up with a plan to appease you. Perhaps they’ll suggest a GI Joe toy. You’ll “settle” for the GI Joe and be happy. I learned that sneaky lesson from the God People at the Kentucky Creation Museum.

Last week, the Cincinnati Enquirer (and other outlets) reported that Daniel Phelps, head of the Kentucky Paleontological Society, objected to wording being used by the Northern Kentucky Convention and Visitors Bureau promoting the highly controversial Creation Museum. The brochure said “This ‘walk through history’ museum will counter evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture.”

That statement was so absurd and inflammatory that it is impossible to believe that even the extremists at the Creation Museum would want to use this verbiage as part of this aspect of their public outreach. If you go to the Creation Museum web site, this is what they say in the “about” section: “The Creation Museum presents a unique and unparalleled experience, a walk through time portraying significant, life-altering events of the past, illuminating the effects of biblical history on our present and future world.” Note the dramatic contrast between “… natural history museums … turn countless minds against Christ…” and “A walk through time.” Similar wording is used on their main page. You have to dig around quite a bit to find the “turn minds against scripture” verbiage on that site.

Adam and Eve in their paleolithic fern bath. Photo: Answers in Genesis

Well, lots of people complained about this first, very aggressive wording. A virtual maelstrom developed among the Kentuckians involved in the tourist bureau, the paleontological society, etc., and the Blogosphere went nuts. So the wording on the Tourism Bureau’s web site was changed to: “A walk through history via the pages of the Bible - exploring how scripture provides an eye-witness account of the beginning of all things.”

Hmmmm. What it should really say is “A walk through the delusional fantasy of Duane Gish … exploring how young earth creationists think when they go off their meds.”

Dan Phelps of the Paleontological Society’s comment on the new wording:

“Well, at least it’s not inflammatory … I worry about separation of church and state, but at the same time, it is a local tourist attraction, so it’s probably not something we should be concerned about anymore. It takes away the ‘throwing gasoline on things’ by removing the statement that was on there before about natural history museums turning people against Christ and scriptures … So, I guess they listened to us. I wonder what the Creation Museum’s reaction to having the wording changed would be.”

Humans, dinosaurs, and other creatures peacefully co-inhabit the fantasy world of the Young Earth Creationists (YEC). Photo: Watchingamerica.com

Dan, buddy, the creation museum’s reaction is that they are absolutely ecstatic. They get to violate the United States Constitution (using the tourist bureau, a government or quasi-government agency, to promote a religion) and everyone is happy that this is all they are getting away with.

But Dan, please don’t think for a moment that I and countless others are not grateful for your efforts. Thanks for standing up to them. You have a lot of support out there in the real world!

The Enquirer reports that officials from the Creation Museum could not be reached for comment. That’s probably because they are out on the town celebrating.

Sources: The Enquirer August 26; The Enquirer September 2.

[thanks again, Joe]

Tags: Science Essays, Framing Science, Creationism, Commentary by Greg
5 Comments »

Ladies and Gentlemen, Scoundrels and Aristocrats …

… In this corner, we have Author and Journalist Chris the Madman Mooney.

… In this corner, we have American University Professor Matthew The Knucklebreaker Nisbet

… and in this corner we have Anthropologist Greg Prettyboy Laden.

Wait, wait, you can’t have three corners… This was supposed to be a Tag Team Match. Where the H E Doublehockeysticks is PZ Myers????

Seed magazine writers and influential science bloggers gather to discuss new directions in science communication. This lively panel discussion will cover a range of topics, including science and culture, public engagement with science, the role of scientists in the public discussion of science, and communication via the Internet, film, museums and other media. Author and journalist Chris Mooney, American University communications professor Matthew Nisbet, and University of Minnesota anthropologist Greg Laden will join moderator Jessica Marshall, a U of M science journalism professor. A reception in Dinkytown will follow the event.

Co-sponsored by the Bell Museum of Natural History; Seed Magazine/ScienceBlogs; The Humphrey Institute’s Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy; and the Minnesota Journalism Center.

I’m thrilled that Chris and Matt will be coming all the way to the Twin Cities to engage in this discussion. There has been a great deal of interesting and, as the blurb says, lively discussion and debate regarding the aforementioned issues, especially in reference to the concept of “framing.” Matt and Chris, each in their own distinctive way, are leading the charge to get the point across. The point being the wisdom and knowledge that science provides, which is so often either ignored or twisted into some inconvenient or dishonest distortion for political (or other) gains.

Madman Mooney and Knucklebreaker Nisbet

The point is, how do we get the important messages across, and how do we more effectively operationalize science-based, or at least, science-informed policies.

There has been a debate, sometimes raging, across the Internet about this, and it is true that to some extent Chris and Matt have been on one side of this debate and PZ Myers and I have been on the other. But when it comes down to it, we are very much on the same side, trying to do very similar things.

That is why this event is not a debate, but rather, a panel discussion.

PZ Myers was invited to come, but he chickened out. Actually, he has a prior commitment overseas … I think a beer tasting tour in Ireland or something … and regretfully declines coming. However, I have good information that says that it is remotely possible that he will show up anyway. Charging out of the audience wearing that belt with the giant buckle and his dragon-embroidered leather cape. One can only hope.

See you there!

Some preparatory reading:

Mooney: I fought god, and god won
Myers: Sometimes, conflict is the only answer

EVENT DETAILS HERE

Tags: Science Essays, Framing Science, Events by Greg
13 Comments »