Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Miss Apologist

I just watched the reel of Miss USA contestants' answers to the question "should evolution be taught in schools?" and wow, it made me sad.

Most of them said yes, but qualified it with some sort of higgledy-wibbledy "and creationism should be taught too, so the child can decide what to believe in." Several made disparaging comments regarding the fact that it is a theory, comments which clearly evidence their ignorance as to what the word "theory" actually means. This is pathetic, but demonstrates not their own idiocy, but the failings of their education systems.

In Fort Mill, in the year 2000 I learned about the theory of evolution in Biology 1. The teacher prefaced the unit with a well-rehearsed speech, one that chills me even now as I remember how directly she had to undermine her own intelligence every year. She looked fleetingly in each child's eyes as she said "this is a theory. I'm required to teach it to you. You are not required to believe it, and you will not be tested on your belief in it. But you need to be aware of it, especially those of you who want to study science in college or work in science when you grow up." She then fielded a number of protestations from the class members who wished to sit out because it was offensive to them. They couldn't, so some just didn't show up for the rest of the week and took a zero for the unit. Most kids, though, didn't care, and sat through the lessons exactly as they would any other lesson.

The trouble was, though, that the explanation in the textbook was weak, confusing, and disjointed. The diagrams didn't make any sense and examples seemed almost deliberately obscure. And all the while students whispered "it's just a theory, it's just a theory." as though this somehow negated it.

I'll admit, when I first learned about the evolution of human beings from an ancestor in common with contemporary apes, I was...not sceptical, not dubious, but somehow offended. I didn't like the idea that my big beautiful brain and fur-free face had a root in something so ugly. I didn't want to be part of such a humiliating lineage. But it nevertheless made sense. And in the end, that's all that mattered, because other ideas didn't.

But what got me was the repeated assertion that this was "just a theory" as though it wasn't a fact, just an idea that a few people believed in. But that's not a theory. An idea that makes sense but hasn't been proven or disproved is a hypothesis. The 45-odd identical young women in the interview reel who wanted to teach "both", side by side seemed to think that the word Theory means unverified claim, much like creationism. The only way evolutionary science could be taught alongside creationism is if no one had ever tried to test the hypothesis of evolution.

See, creationism never made it past the hypothesis stage. It did not hold up under experiment or examination. It was disproved. Evolution, on the other hand, has held up under experiment and examination. It has not been disproved. Does that mean it has been proven? Well, that's not really how the scientific method works. And anyone who has paid attention in science class beyond fourth grade knows that. The best you can hope for, really, is to be not conclusively disproved many, many times. Evolution has passed this scrutiny many many times, so it gets to be a theory--a generally agreed-upon-as-true concept. Creationism, and later its watered-down quasi-evolutionary sneaky-inny concessionary re-try versions have failed under this scrutiny many many times, so it gets to be a crock of bullshit. We know it is false. It has never stood up to reasonable verification measures. It is not a theory. It is wrong.

In answering "it should be taught alongside other theories, like creationism" these young ladies have only actually managed to say, "I don't know what the word theory means, so I'm not qualified to answer this question."

But that's what the system teaches them--so long as teachers can say "it's just a theory" and expect most parents to equate that with saying "it's just this insignificant idea" then they can teach their science classes in peace. In parents' minds no one has actually directly stated "this is the truth. All other ideas are wrong." so they don't raise up to protect their bullshit. Even though the teachers actually have said that. Just from a rather oblique grammatical angle. Evolution is the only explanation for biodiversity and the links between various species that has not been proven false.

But also (!) what is this BS about kids getting the option of believing in what they want to believe if all the cards are laid out on the table? No. Evolution is true whether or not you believe in it. It is belief-proof. You can stand in your living room or sanctuary all day and wave your hands around saying "la la la, I don't believe" but when you break for dinner, your relationship to the chimpanzee in the local zoo is still irrefutable.

School isn't about providing avenues for belief, and it sure as hell isn't about teaching religious fairy stories. It exists to provide young people with the basic knowledge and thinking skills they need to either undertake further education or do a grown-up job. Note, I did not say "critical" thinking skills. Just thinking. You don't get to think critically until at least your junior year of university.

The mere idea of providing a middle schooler with two contradictory ideas of where human beings came from, one which is true but kinda dry and the other which is clearly false (but is nevertheless presented as "as potentially true" as the other) but tells children that they're somehow special out of the entire universe, then leaving them to pick one, is clearly nonsense. Kids are dumb--not just insufficiently informed, but mentally undeveloped. They're not able to think critically or objectively. They just want to feel safe, fed, and special. That's why we don't argue with them or ask them to make choices. We simply present information to them as irrefutable and expect them to absorb it. And they do.

That is why it is so very vital to keep BS like creationism out of schools. Kids are too dumb to realize that their stupidity and credulity are being exploited by adults who want them to believe popular lies in the face of valid evidence to the contrary. Children believe their teachers with a sort of relaxed empiricism that can get them into trouble. (e.g. I'll believe it because someone much smarter than me believes it and appears to have done some research. Therefore whatever the teacher tells me is factual.) If you tell teachers to present evolution and creationism as equally-potentially-true approaches toward explaining some big unknown, you only confuse the simple-minded monkeys in your class. Tell them what actually is true, and let their churches lie to them.

The sad fact is, most of these contestants in some way acknowledged that kids' understanding of evolution is vital to our nation's progress. We can't make advances in medicine or biotech without it, or with a belief that something else is true. How can you hold two such directly conflicting ideas in one head? On the one hand, you can clearly observe the leaps and bounds technology has made since people accepted the Origin of the Species, you can acknowledge that this scientific understanding is vital, but on the other you can say "but I believe something different." I know this is true, but I don't personally believe in it. GlaDOS would explode.

I'll explain it. You believe the theistic lies because you were told them when you were very young, before you were really capable of examining them yourself. You were told them by people you loved and trusted so you never questioned them. And now, fifteen to twenty years later, they've gelled into a bizarre permeable sense-barrier. You can both know a truth and disbelieve in it, not because you have faith, but because you really just haven't thought about it. Or much at all.

Yes, the most important reason to keep creationism out of schools is that, if we allowed it, the dumber kids would turn out just like you, Miss USAirhead.

3 comments:

Veronica Tomorrow said...

Well said. I agree with your point that putting creationism and evolution on the same plane as two likely theories of our origin is comparing apples and oranges. I can make allowances for people who learn about evolution, and then give the 'credit' for how all this works to a higher spiritual being. I mean, I didn't do it, so they aren't taking away credit from me or anything.

These other types of people are so deluded by their churches that any power structure that exits outside of the church is intimidating. This is why they have to say things about 'leaving to Caesar what is Caesar's'. The idea that government only has authority because God says so, is easier to stomach. I think that the less stated truth is that their spiritual teachings make them think that they are genuinely more important and 'better' than everyone else. So, when they go out into the real world and other people expect equality it throws off their delusion. No different than a 2 year old finding out they will soon have a baby brother or sister- you are not realy the center of the universe, you are not as special as you like to believe. Unfortunately, these people are encouraged not to mature beyond this thinking.

Side note- though sort of related:
I'm running sound (why sound is a long, boring story) for a show called Making Up the Truth. It is a one man show featuring Jack Hitt of This American Life fame. The format is live story telling featuring Mr. Hitt and some of his best known stories. The stories are held together by explanations of research that he has done about the brain, self narration, perceived reality, and the evolution of why we tell stories. He has a sort of throw away line where he says something like 'there was a time when some scientists felt that the eyeball disproved the theory of evolution...'. He doesn't even bother to explain that isn't true anymore, he knows he is speaking to an NPR crowd and allows them the fill in the 'but we know better now', and just goes on to make his point about how well our brains make the world accessible to us- flipping the image, filling in the gaps where our optic nerves and nose are, etc.

So, last night as the show has just begun I'm having a look from the booth down in to the audience- I have a side view, rather than the typical view from behind- and see a man wearing a large button that is a scrolling marquee. One of those programmable ones like you see sold near ground zero, or the eiffel tower or on the street at the fourth of July. I'm amazed- mostly because the lighting designer in me is thinking "WTF- this is going to ruin the blackout'. I'm squinting- unable to make out what it says when the SM giggles and says 'heh, binoculars'. And yes, there just happen to be a pair of plastic red binoculars sitting on the shelf behind her in this booth. I grab the binoculars and peer at the mans button. It scrolls through a bunch of nonsense: 'have a nice day', 'the marquee 2000, at your service', and then the tell tale phrase - The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints.

The show goes on without incident, and we have a talkback after. A few typical questions about Mr. Hitt's process and biography are asked. Mr. Marquee has his hand up higher in the air every time, and when the MC finally calls on him, he can barely contain his question, and blurts out- 'SO, WHATS THE CONSENSUS ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE EYE?!!'. Jack is silent; confused for a second. Then he sees the button, the religious insignia on his hat, and it comes together.

And in a rare, wonderful, intelligent moment- not unkindly, but without making concessions for other 'theories'- he looks at the guy and says. 'It's just true- the eye is a product of random evolution. It's just true."

Kristen said...

Cool thing I learned recently from a David Attenborough documentary: many scientists believe the eye, as complex as it is now, has evolved in a similar fashion numerous times throughout the history of our planet. The light-sensitive spot that eventually dimples, which casts shadows, to eventually folding inward, allowing for perception of movement, to it filling with clear mucus, allowing for a sort of lens, all the way to a hardened lens and focusable irises--all of these points in ocular development, including a lack of visual sensory organs whatsoever, are currently present in living animals. This indicates that photo-sensitivity has shown up in different creatures at different times and/or ocular development tends to reflect lifestyle and habitat. Some species may gradually come to enjoy better eyesight, some may have a funny blend of several qualities depending on location (like squids: within one genetically nearly identical group shallow-swimmers see quite well, some see light and shadow, and some who have spent most of the past four million years in underwater caves have never developed photo-sensitivity at all) and some may lose the ability altogether.

It's funny, though--so many of these religiosos rant and rave about how legalisation of homosexual marriage will eventually lead to incest and polygamy and oh the horror, despite the fact that if they stopped and thought about it for half a second, they would see that the reasons why those two are frowned upon in today's world are in fact based in evolutionary study. When you reduce the size of your gene pool you increase the chances of generally-suppressed gene mutations being exhibited. No one knew that or cared until people started studying genes--why do you think royalty was discredited when it was? We realized Charles II of Spain wasn't possessed by demons, he was just terribly, terribly in-bred. Gay marriage, however, doesn't lead to this in the slightest.

Veronica Tomorrow said...

Funny- I think that you and Jack Hitt are reading the same stuff. After our marquee questioner, he added an explanation of how the eye evolves into the monologue, and the wording is almost exactly the same as yours- and similar examples too.
I love eyes- so interesting.

I think the gay marriage issue completely applies to what you were saying about apples and oranges in evolution/creationism. Church marriage and legal marriage are only similar in that two people are binding themselves as a unit. Church marriages are about the blessing of your God and declaring that you are spiritually compatible, or kindred or that you will be emotionally supportive to each other. If churches want to bigoted about who they say can do that, fine- who cares? The government really doesn't care if God blesses your union or if you are nice to each other once you are married- they care about whether you file your taxes and buy property properly- and that is the part that has to be equal.

I don't think anyone gay or straight should be 'married' by the government. Ben and I are in a Civil Union- literally. I mean, we say married- and I would argue that the marriage part was separate. That was the clothes and the ceremony and the declarations of how we are going to be nice to each other for a real long time. We could do that and not file our taxes together if we wanted to. I have friends who are married- ceremonially, acknowledged by their friends and families, but not legally because they are gay.

I'm convinced that social acceptance of all types people will actually lead to a lessening of disturbed people because people will not grow up thinking that something is wrong with them, when they are perfectly fine. They won't be so insecure or immature! I imagine that the crazies, when confronted with your point about the gene pool shrinking, would say 'well, we have to force gay people to procreate for the good of the country', or something. Like the ones who encouraged the admission of lesbians into the military so that they could be sexually assaulted to 'correct' them.

I was wondering the other day if possibly some misogyny actually comes from repressed homosexual men. They hate themselves and they hate that they are forced to be with a woman that they are not really attracted to, so it manifests as hatred of women and ridiculous laws about reproductive rights. I really believe that if a Man truly loves women in general, and any one woman specifically, he would be very happy to see her getting great health care and living fulfilling lives.

meh- just a thought.