Consider:
- the world’s population is growing by more than 70 million per year
- per capita consumption is growing world-wide
- the world’s climate is warming and changing in other harmful ways
- biodiversity is decreasing world-wide
- water shortages are a problem in much of the world — including the USA
- global fossil fuel use, the primary cause of climate change, is increasing every year — especially in the USA and China
Now rank order the following in terms of their relevance to that list:
- many people think stem cell research is immoral
- many people don’t believe in evolution
- many people don’t believe in global warming
- many people don’t believe in discouraging consumption
- most people are religious
- many people think contraception is immoral
My top picks are the global warming deniers and those that would not discouraging consumption. I don’t care what religion a person selects or what they think of evolution. I’m concerned about sustainability which entails mitigating global warming and other forms of climate change and reducing consumption of fossil fuels along with a host of other measures worthy of our attention.
The evolution/creationism and atheism/religion debates are entertaining sideshows compared to the issues of population pressure, growth in consumption and sustainable economics. Sure they are related under the canopy of science and naturalism, but let’s not get confused about what really matters right now.
It’s no stretch of the imagination to envision a world where everyone buys into evolution and agrees that the notion of supernatural causes is irrational — a world with a climate very different and much warmer than the current one, a world with two thirds the species we know today, a world in which water is so precious talk would not be about returning to a gold-standard but rather how to create a water-standard. Instead I’d be very happy to be engaged in the evolution/creationism and atheism/religion debates in a world not too different than the the one in which we live where everyone acknowledged sustainable economics as a moral imperative and sought to avoid fossil fuel use.
The debate about framing initiated by Matt and Chris has in large part become co-opted by people interested in the evolution/creationism and atheism/religion debates. Let’s try to bring it back to what is both urgent and important.
For the latest see Orac’s great post, and Chris’s most recent.Dave Munger at the Cognitive Daily has a good post on the framing debate except that he uses evolution/creationism as an exemplar.
I think all the issues are important. The evolution debate in the US is a gateway issue for the fundamentalists – if they win that debate, they’ll move on to other issues.
In one of the many comments to one of the many posts in the debate, someone mentioned that the real important thing to teach people is the age of the Earth. Most of our arguments for evolution and climate change are based upon evidence that’s based upon our understanding of the age of the Earth. If you don’t believe that the world is older than 6000 years, it’s not possible to convince you that ice core samples shows that the Earth has gotten significantly older the last 40,000 years.
Just thought I’d rate myself against your criteria and offer my own perspective.
1. many people think stem cell research is immoral
I don’t. Actually I think genetic engineering and basic biological research is an imperitive if we are going to mitigate a lot of problems and continue to improve out quality of life. Is many a big number?
2. many people don’t believe in evolution
I believe in evolution. I think there are some marginal problems with the theory but there are no other theories that don’t have vastly more problems. Once again is many a big number? I don’t personally know of anybody that seriously refutes the theory.
3. many people don’t believe in global warming
The earth is warmer than it was and nearly all the data sources say so whether you are looking at satellite data, earth based temperture readings or proxy data. I doubt many people who have considered the evidence refute any of this. I do doubt that we are heading for catastrophic warming, I think the link between CO2 and temperature is poorly refined in terms of the historical data and the direction of causation and in any case I think that technology will allow us to do most things that we currently do with fossil fuels in other ways.
4. many people don’t believe in discouraging consumption
Form maters more than quantity. If we all want to rent an extra DVD tonight I don’t think it hurts any.
5. most people are religious
According to the following article only 12-15% of the worlds people have no religion. I’d generally call myself an athiest but it depends on the detail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
6. many people think contraception is immoral
Condoms immoral? I doubt very much that a majority have this view in any country of significant population. And given the fertility trends in the world (ie headed towards replacement) I would find it very surprising if contraceptives are not enjoying very wide usage.
I agree that there are things more important and the three the article highlighted – evolution,global warming, embryonic stem cells – are mostly political hot buttons. This makes them popular with an enthusiastic fan base and when you have venture capitalists to report to once a quarter, you think about what sells.
So I’m with you. The pop science writers are going to appeal to their market and that’s okay – the guy is trying to sell books so a controversial article works well in that respect – but the world has a lot more important things to worry about than whether or not some of these writers enter the second decade of their death roll with religion on the winning side or the losing side of the majority vote.
Kristjan: “The evolution debate in the US is a gateway issue for the fundamentalists — if they win that debate, they’ll move on to other issues.”
This is an issue I used to think was important. I’m no longer so sure. We won in the courts as far as keeping science in the schools as science. I think it’s time to focus on issues with greater impact. And we must face the reality that a large portion of the population is not science-literate, and that will be the case for decades to come. In the meantime we may radically change the planet’s climate and continue our increasing use of the fossil fuels that cause that change
Good point, but the evo/creo issue is not a side show. Yes, the issue ITSELF is, in fact it’s totally stoopid. The problem is that the intent of the key payers among the creationists is not to devalue or attack evolution. They have other nefarious intentions, which should be at the top of your list.
Remember, most of these people believe a) the world will end soon; b) they are on “the list.” (for the rapture). I’m not joking. I’m not joking at all. What does global warming (as an example) matter to them?
[...] discussion of framing goes down a rat hole [...]
I really you hear you, Greg. I am spooked by the religious extremists too, but Christian fundamentalists/evangelists are not a homogenous group (e.g. the United Church of Christ is evangelical but liberal and science aware). What their leaders say is not accepted blindly by all.
Studies indicate that as many as 40 percent of Americans who call themselves evangelicals are politically moderate or identify with the Democratic Party.
Some exceprts from the recent report An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility by the National Association of Evangelicals:
“We affirm that God-given dominion [over the earth] is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to exploit or abuse the creation of which we are a part. We are not the owners of creation, but its stewards, summoned by God to ‘watch over and care for it.”
“We affirm the principles of religious freedom and liberty of conscience, which are both historically and logically at the foundation of the American experiment.”
“We seek justice and compassion for the poor and the vulnerable…. We work to protect human rights.”
“The peaceful settling of disputes is a gift of common grace. We urge governments to pursue thoroughly nonviolent paths to peace before resorting to military force.”
See also Christian Stewardship What God Expects from Us by Philip C.L. Gray, Vice President of Catholics United for the Faith, Christian Environmentalism by Raymond G. Bohlin executive director of Probe Ministries and a 1997-98 and 2000 Research Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (yeah, amazing!), and from 1977, Stewards of the Earth’s Resources: A Christian Response to Ecology by Patrick Dobel then an assistant professor of political theory at the University of Michigan.
All this is not to say that playing Wack-a-Mole with foolish attacks on evolution should be abandoned. That’s necessary. My point is we (the science-and-rationality community) have spooked ourselves into to thinking “the opposition” is more monolithic and powerful that it really is — and some on our side have extended that to demonize religion in general. Meanwhile other concerns, like an increasing crowded polluted planet with drastically less biodiversity, deserve more of our attention *and* we are missing opportunties for creating partnerships with the religious minded (which I think is EO Wilson’s position).
There is something else I’m wanting to say about the evo/creationsim debate but it is better suited to its own post. It has to do with finding and using inclusive frames to build a broad consensus around vital issues rather than the sort of divide-conquer-humiliate approach that can be so useful in building science blog readership.
[...] from the recent discussion of framing science in the public square which I’ve written about here, here, and here, a discussion which began just after I plugged ScienceBlogs and the Framing Science [...]
hi good site thanks http://peace.com