Communication

[MaddLlama]

I saw a documentary today on the Evolution-Intelligent Design debate, and it brought up a few very interesting issues.

One of the major arguments of the ID/Creationism side is that Evolution has gaps of missing evidence, which is then filled in by their own theory. While evolution supporters maintain that there are no gaps, and the proponents and supporters of ID simply haven't seen all the evidence.

The film suggested that a major cause of this is that scientists are simply not as good at communication as the ID supporters. ID supporters have a message that is slick, and easy to understand, making it more appealing to people, while scientists have trouble reducing all of the technical jargon and complex ideas into bits that can be swallowed by the public, which has a very short attention span. Thus, when it comes to evolution, there is a communication breakdown which leads people to believe that not all the facts are there.

Thoughts?

 

[Sunstone]

I think that's very likely one aspect of the problem. Most scientists are not adept at communicating to the general public.

There seem to be other aspects as well. For instance, a lot of people simply don't know enough science to follow any of the arguments for evolution.

 

[Namaste]

I definitely agree with you both.

Keep in mind as well that most people don't take the time to dive into the sciences because of the rigorous education involved, among other reasons of course. Plus, the fact that ID better coincides with the large majority's religious views allows for its abundant, although obviously undeserved, acceptance.

 

[Draka]

I saw a documentary today on the Evolution-Intelligent Design debate, and it brought up a few very interesting issues.

One of the major arguments of the ID/Creationism side is that Evolution has gaps of missing evidence, which is then filled in by their own theory. While evolution supporters maintain that there are no gaps, and the proponents and supporters of ID simply haven't seen all the evidence.

The film suggested that a major cause of this is that scientists are simply not as good at communication as the ID supporters. ID supporters have a message that is slick, and easy to understand, making it more appealing to people, while scientists have trouble reducing all of the technical jargon and complex ideas into bits that can be swallowed by the public, which has a very short attention span. Thus, when it comes to evolution, there is a communication breakdown which leads people to believe that not all the facts are there.

Thoughts?

My thoughts? That would be that someone is going to come along and get all offended over the idea that those who believe in evolution and understand the evidence are somehow more intelligent that those who don't. That ID proponents are somehow not smart enough to comprehend what evolutionists can. That the communication problem is that scientists are so smart that they are not quite sure how to "dumb it down" for those who still don't "get it". Hey, but that's just my twist on it.

*stir stir*

 

[MaddLlama]

My thoughts? That would be that someone is going to come along and get all offended over the idea that those who believe in evolution and understand the evidence are somehow more intelligent that those who don't. That ID proponents are somehow not smart enough to comprehend what evolutionists can. That the communication problem is that scientists are so smart that they are not quite sure how to "dumb it down" for those who still don't "get it". Hey, but that's just my twist on it.

*stir stir*

Well, I was hoping we could get some discussion on the topic before it came to that. Wishful thinking I suppose.

The problem isn't that ID proponents are stupid, it's just that they're uninformed. Ultimately, it's the researchers and scientists that are informed, and the rest of us have to make do with what we find. I'm not as informed as an evolutionary biologist. What I'm saying is that science hasn't provided the larger public with bits digestible enough for our short attention spans to grasp them. And on top of that, many scientists give so little credence to ID theories that instead of presenting evidence to refute it, they just ignore it and hope it goes away.

I think that if science knew how to communicate better, then we wouldn't be worried about what science goes in the classroom.

 

[Draka]

Science doesn't communicate, it just is. Those who practice its field seem to know how to communicate it just fine. If someone doesn't understand something scientific then it should be upon them to just do a little research and self-educating on whatever the terms or processes were that they didn't understand. Just because someone doesn't understand something doesn't mean they should just chuck the idea because they don't want to take the time to truly learn about it. I really don't think this can be laid upon scientists. It is laid upon the person who receives the information and what they intend to do with it. We teach science in elementary school. It's not too difficult to understand, it just takes a willingness to understand it. I propose that strict creationists don't really have a true willingness to understand it because if they did it might bring into question their religious beliefs. Subconsciously they don't want to do that, so they block out what they don't want to hear and cast the blame elsewhere.

 

[lunamoth]

I don't think that evolution is actually so hard to explain as it is hard for us to fathom. Part of this is due to the incredibly long periods of time involved. And yes, appreciation of the evidence does take some understanding of genetics and how populations change, but it is not really all that difficult to get the general gist of it. I've taught this subject to many many undergraduates and all of them are able to get it without too much trouble.

If you've got a picture in your head of a gorilla giving birth to a human, well, that is impossible and also for a lot of people evokes an emotive response. But that is not what happens...populations of organisms change very slowly over long periods of time.

People do not have trouble understanding things like the generation of all the different breeds of dogs, or how wild mustard species were selected to create broccoli, cabbage, etc. Humans applying the selective pressure directed how the changes came about. But similar selective pressures can come from anything, not just humans or an intelligent being. Again, apprecitation of the very very long time periods over which the changes occur is what is most difficult to grasp...and can't be repeated in a lab. And, when genetic techniques are used to speed things up, such as selective breeding or biotechnology, well, yeah, an intelligent being (us) was invovled in the process and so it no longer 'counts' as 'natural' evolution. Yet, all the mechanisms can be explained.

Scientists and science educators are working against a message that what they are teaching is somehow in conflict with religion. I think that polemicists like Dawkins, who intentionally link evolution to atheism, are as much to blame for this as are the creationists and ID crowd.

2 c,
luna

 

[Papersock]

Makes sense to me.
It's taken a long time and a lot of reading for me to even start to understand evolution.

 

[Zeno]

I think you have a situation where people who believe in God hear on the news that there is a debate with ID and evolution. After not too much listening, they will understand that ID supports the idea that the God they believe in is responsible for the universe and life. The fact that a debate even exists on the subject will lead them to believe both sides have a similar amount of merit to them.

In turn all the further reading they will do on the subject will be about the "inaccuracy" of radiometric dating, "irreducibly complex" bacteria flagellates (what a place for God to show himself) and blood clotting mechanisms, etc. No time is spent actually learning what evolution is, other than something that is opposing their God. Most think it is a crazy random process that says we used to be modern day chimpanzees.

If the theory were really controversial, secular scientists would be skeptical of it as well as Christian scientists. This is not the case, and it is merely accepted jargon in biology.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Today My 8 year old Grand daughter came up with the answer to the riddle of....
which came first the the Chicken or the Egg?

Her most definite answer was that the Chicken came first
God only made Animals not Eggs.

It should be noted we don't teach creationism here.

 

[The Seeker]

In turn all the further reading they will do on the subject will be about the "inaccuracy" of radiometric dating, "irreducibly complex" bacteria flagellates (what a place for God to show himself) and blood clotting mechanisms, etc. No time is spent actually learning what evolution is, other than something that is opposing their God. Most think it is a crazy random process that says we used to be modern day chimpanzees.

I agree 100%. Many people reject any scientific theories that goes against religion as liberal propaganda designed to secularize the country.

I don't believe the problem to be that scientists can't communicate the ideas of evolution effectively, but rather that many people are scientifically ignorant and/or close-minded. The advocates of global warming are facing these very same problems.

 

[Papersock]

I agree with the the OP and also with what Zeno said.
It's difficult to explain the details of evolution to some people. But many people reject the idea before they even learn enough about it.