A. Nother Observation

Organization: evolv-o-tron, inc.
From: Deaddog 
Message-ID: 
Newsgroups: talk.origins

Ya know, the recent brouhaha with s.r.c.b-s has made me
realize a scary factoid.

People don't actually believe us.

I take evolutionary fact and theory for granted; it's part
of my working life.  And I guess I tacitly assumed that any
thinking individual would agree with the basic outlines of
what I consider to be true.  Oh, there would be fundies and
weirdos that would delude themselves, but by and large
the majority would understand and accept reality.

But that's not the case, is it?

I mean, sure, the vast majority of posters on t.o. are
"evilutionists."  But think about the enormity of the
evidence we can marshall in favor of this 'theory.'  And
now think about other issues of 'fact' that pervade the
net:

(1) Is the evidence for evolution at least as good as the
evidence for the Holocaust (special note:  there's mega-tons
of evidence for the Holocaust!  The Holocaust happened!  I am
not a revisionist nutter!)?

Yes?  Then why is Dan Gannon universally believed to be
whacko, while Creationists are not similarly reviled as
lunatics?

(2) Is there as much evidence for evolution as there is
against an "X-file" sort of scenario being true?

Yes?  Then why is John Winston universally believed to be
whacko, while Creationists are not similarly reviled as
lunatics?

(3) Is there as much evidence for evolution as there is
for Vedic astrology being a crock?

Yes?  Then why is Jai Maharaj universally believed to be
a rather venal whacko, while Creationists are not similarly
reviled as lunatics?

I'm afraid this realization is somewhat depressing:  you can
hit the Creationists in the face with reality, and it doesn't
make any difference.  What makes it different from other
ridiculous myths?  And what can we do about it?

Non-woof

[Note extremely careful avoidance of x-Soviet Armenia.]

[Next:  Deaddog proposes jihad into alt.rush.limbaugh --
you'd be surprised what they believe.]
==================================================================
No and there are two reasons I would put forth.
The first is it's our own damn fault for cultivating an ivory
tower aspect to being a scientist.
"What me? we protest? Surely you don't mean me!"

I do. Nearly universally.

The second reason is we have individually failed to reach out
and touch someone. I mean going to grammer schools and doing
fancy demos with liquid N2 and then growing peas or whatever.
If real scientists don't go out and spread the joy of observation
and investigation then we can't complain. Think back on the
various teachers you had and how they treated science. Now
consider that you were probably one of the lucky ones!!!
Think of the archtypical science teacher on "The Wonder Years"
droning on in the most sombalistic monotone about volcanos
of all things. The great violent spelendor of a volcanic erruption
rendered boring.

When was the last time you saw a science story reported in a
local newspaper that had any combination of excitement and
accuracy?

The solution is us. In acedamia we must push communication skills
onto scientists. Outside we must go into schools. Amen.
--Wade
==================================================================
     Not to mention that students are rarely made to learn evolution
properly because the school wants to avoid unpleasant reactions.
Caricatures of evolution are to be expected to be taught in
many religious schools.
     A fellow faculty member was asked to be a science fair judge for
an evangelical church school.  He told me that half of the projects
"disproved" evolution.  No doubt Lionel Tun(ce) would have
awarded them all Grand Prize.
     Most science teaching in the USA is book learning by rote, and
so many people have little contact with the observations that
support evolution.

Tracy Hamilton
hamilton@titan1.chem.uab.edu