Matthew Nisbet asks, in response to these remarks, a few questions about my “goals of engaging with the public on the topic of evolutionary science (biology) etc….” The following is taken from his blog, and cut down quite a bit:

…our Policy Forum piece included in part a focus on the question of how can the scientific community … engage a devout American public … on the political issue of teaching evolutionary science, and only evolutionary science, in public schools?
We argue that one thing *not* to do is to attack their religious beliefs.
Moreover, in defining the issue, you have to connect to a core identity or value that activates support for kids actually learning about evolutionary science in science class. In other words, why should the average American care? Why not, as Bush framed it, let kids learn all sides and make up their minds?
*In other words, why is evolutionary science, and only evolutionary science, so important to teach?*
That’s why we suggest in the piece an emphasis on evolutionary science as a building block for medical advances, or the public accountability frame that came out of the Dover case…

I agree that there are ways to present these arguments that could be more effective, and those that are less effective. For instance, evolutionary biology is simply part of “good science” and good science is the underpinning of technology in general, medical technology, our defense system, and so on.

The idea of framing, if I understand it correctly, is to find keys to the way of thinking of the audience you are trying to get on board, and include language that resonates with those keys. For instance, attacks by Young Earth Creationists on the physics of dating imply that a large part of our national system of energy production, as well as our nuclear navy and many other areas of our defense system, are based on incorrect science. This is a little like “not supporting our troops.” We can get a list of phrases that YEC’s use in denigrating evolutionary biologists and those involved in dating the fossil record, and note that these phrases are really being directed at our military. That could resonate.

This may not work very well, however, if the largely right-wing fundamentalists who are also YEC’s notice that this is what we are doing. In the gay marriage study that Mooney and Nisbet frequently cite, the biggest reaction that could be attributed to framing (in this case the use of the phrase “human rights” vs. “special rights”) does not produce an acceptance of, say, a liberal policy by conservatives or the reverse. Rather, it was a reaction by liberals to the phrase “special rights” … this phrase (if I read the study correctly) was spotted by liberals as a wrong-headed characterization of the issue. Other than this reaction, conservatives pretty much maintained the conservative view, and liberals pretty much maintained the liberal view. The main thing that seemed to happen in relation to “framing” was that the liberals got pissed off and became somewhat more reactionary when they smelled bias.

In my commentary (to which the above quote is a partial response) I specifically ask for consideration of the difference between a view of evolution in which the diversity of life is well understood but the origin of life is not well understood, yet under study, in contrast to a view that also says that the diversity of life is well understood, but places the origin of life potentially outside the purview of science, either leaving open the possibility of or even explicitly stating that, perhaps, god started it all (set up the rules, etc.) and then things run pretty much as described by evolutionary biology thereafter.

This was given as an example of what could work well as framing in support of evolutionary biology. This is a commonly held opinion, and one often used in high schools by teachers getting questioned by students, by people on talk radio, and so on. It is, of course, wrong and illegal (for use in public schools) and would never be acceptable to the vast majority of evolutionary biologists. But, is this example of framing the kind of thing that would be argued as a “necessary evil?” I’m fairly sure that this approach … bring god in where god will not do too much damage to the science … sure, we’re giving away those researchers working on origin, but the rest of us are safe … has even been tried by organizations such as NCSE. (Not so much as an explicit strategy, but as a sort of damage minimizing compromise.)

(I quickly add: I’m not suggesting that Mooney and Nisbet have proposed this as an example of framing … I’m bringing it up for the purpose of discussion.)

To answer the question proposed above – my goals in engaging the public – that’s pretty simple. I have two goals:

1. To make scientific thinking something that is widely understood in a reasonably sophisticated way by everybody with a High School diploma, so that people will understand it to some degree when they see it, better understand science “stories” from the press and other sources, and maybe occasionally engage in scientific thinking where they may find it useful; and
2. To make the prospect of diluting, altering, or otherwise denaturing the teaching of science with religious dogma, socially unacceptable and culturally abhorrent, thus bringing the day to day practice of educational and related social discourse in line with the law. Bringing religious views of any kind into areas of education, research, or any practice that involves science would be viewed with disdain and suspicion on the level of, say, racial segregation in schools. Some people might still want segregation or religion-diluted science, but it is so unacceptable that most would choose to remain silent about it.

These goals may seem difficult or even unreasonable, but they are pure, simple, and fully in line with our national constitutional philosophy. They are quintessentially American goals.

These are politically conservative goals that should be acceptable even to liberals. These are patriotic goals, because of what they represent. I’m talking about freedom of rational thought. I’m talking about harnessing the power of our highest human capacities for the good of all. I’m talking about following in the enlightened footsteps of our founding fathers, and in fact, stepping beyond where they were able to go because, while they understood … indeed, they invented … science itself, they could not have seen how far science and rationality could take us, how this way of thinking could make America the most powerful nation on earth.

When scientists get together around the world, what language do they speak? English.

When scientists have international meetings, to they invite the French? Sometimes not. Do they exclude the Koreans? Often. Who do scientists around the world, and government and industry leaders in areas related to science look to for everything from guidance to funding to leardership? The NSF, the NIH, and other American Agencies.

One of the most important events of the Cold War was when the Russians beat us in a scientific endeavor. They flew, dozens of times, the satellite Sputnik over our heads, mocking us with indecipherable Morse code spewing out of this mocking, silver, ball. What did America do? We established the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), a scientific agency, and we Kicked Kommie Ass… Our greatest single ideological victory of the Cold War short of the end of the war itself was beating the Russians in one area of science after another after another. Scientists, in their tireless efforts, gave us the freedom we enjoy today.

And so on.

__________________________________________
Related Posts:

• Why scientists are not as good as creationists …
• Framing Science “Paper Is Deeply Flawed
• Framing Frames in the Service of Science
• Framing Nesbit: Is He Offering Us McScience?
• Can we frame something and see how it goes?
• Science is the BEST!!!
• Why we foam at the mouth
• Atheism is not the problem
• Instead of framing, let’s go camping!