Americans, dependent on the products of science, seemingly
incapable of getting by without their cell phone or laptop, are
also strangely reluctant to take science seriously, to reason from
what science tells us about the nature of the world we live in to
putting what science reveals to use in our lives. The result may
well be that our future will be determined not by what we have
learned but rather by what we have chosen to ignore.
Americans, dependent on the products of science, seemingly incapable of getting by without their cell phone or laptop, are also strangely reluctant to take science seriously, to reason from what science tells us about the nature of the world we live in to putting what science reveals to use in our lives. The result may well be that our future will be determined not by what we have learned but rather by what we have chosen to ignore.
No two areas of inquiry illustrate my point better than the current controversies surrounding climate change and evolution. Both the concepts are so well accepted within the scientific community that their usefulness is no longer challenged. Yet both face heated, emotional opposition from people who approach these issues from a different basis than that of science. Frequently, it is the same people who take such an anti-scientific stance and argue against both.
The case against climate change is similar to the case for tobacco, in that it has active corporate lobbyists. The deniers tactic is to challenge the legitimacy of the science with careful attacks on the integrity of the scientists, claiming that it is all a scheme to get more grant money. Some cite fictional lists of scientists who supposedly question the climate change conclusions. The only problem is that the lists are fakes. Some of the so-called scientists have no expertise in the matter. Others actually support the idea of climate change.
This fictional list is even being promoted by a U.S. Senator, James Inhofe (R.-Okla.) and the falsehoods are being spread with taxpayer money. That is about as efficient as any lobbyist can be … to have the U.S. Senate sending out their misinformation. In almost all their claims, they call global warming a theory with the implication that the theory is not an accepted fact. Thus climate change deniers can continue to behave as always without consideration of the consequences.
The issues surrounding evolution are much deeper and the implications of accepting scientific explanation for the fact that there are so many species living on this planet go much deeper. At a very basic level, evolution is the process by which living things change, over time, to become very different than their ancestors. The mechanism by which specific changes are passed on to future generations is through the encoding of information in our DNA.
I don’t know why we are willing to accept entertainment where mutation creates super heroes and are not willing to accept that a similar series of genetic changes has brought us to the point where we are. I also don’t know why we accept that DNA makes it possible to solve crimes or to unlock the causes of diseases like sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis and still do not accept that such changes will, over time, lead to the emergence of new species. If the mechanism is operative of one process, it is operative for another.
Accepting the facts of evolutionary biology means we have to give consideration to the idea that there is a genetic factor in behavior. That is why comparative studies of twins are important, especially those who may have been separated by birth and have been raised by very different families. These provide an opportunity to have real data through which to make judgments about the relative importance of nature, our genetic origin, nurture and the environment in which we live. They have all made us the people who we are.
For some, admitting that evolution has any role in behavior puts limits on the idea of free will. How can someone be viewed as evil if their actions are predetermined by genetics? In terms of the current political climate in California, how can we deny anyone a legal right such as marriage if sexual preference proves to be a question of genetics and not just of a choice?
With both climate change and evolution, the answers that we need will not be arrived at by the denial of the science. If you have paid any attention to Public Broadcasting fundraisers over the past year, you have heard the term brain elasticity, the idea that our brains respond to repeated actions and continue to grow, to expand for much of our lives. Yet we also know that some things are just impossible to master no matter how much we try.
The relationship between genetics and life experiences are not yet fully understood. The answers that we seek need be discovered by further exploration, further study and not by denying the facts that present themselves.
We seem all too willing to be confused by the dual meanings of the word “theory.” Colloquial use treats a theory like a hypothesis, something that remains to be proven. Wikipedia defines a scientific theory as “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”
Let’s get the science right and deal with the consequences.
