Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Seth Roberts | August 5th 2007 10:55 PM | 4 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

Spy magazine had a wonderful column by Ellis Weiner called “How to Be a Grown-up”. (In one column, Weiner pointed out that homeless, applied to beggars, should be houseless.) Gordy Slack, a Bay Area science writer, has written the first book that might be called How to be a Grown-up About Evolution. It is an account of the Dover, PA trial in which parents sued the school board for requiring that intelligent design be mentioned in biology class. The book's actual title is The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything. (I’ve known Gordy for years and he wrote about me for The Scientist.)

Not surprisingly, Gordy sympathizes with the parents (the anti-creationists). But he tries to understand the other side rather than demonize it, which is what is grown-up about his book. One reason for this attitude is that his father is on the other side. His father, at one point a professor of psychology at Harvard, became at age 51 a born-again Christian and a creationist. In 1998, his father took Gordy to meet Philip Johnson, the Berkeley law professor who is the father of intelligent design (ID), a big-tent version of creationism. “Give us five or ten years, and you’ll see scientific breakthroughs biologists hadn’t dreamed of before ID,” Johnson told Gordy.

While writing the book, Gordy happened to interview Joan Roughgarden, a Stanford biology professor (and fellow Scientific Blogging columnist - editors) whose specialty is evolution.


I thought our interview was going well. But when I told her that I was writing a book about ID in order to understand what drove its proponents, her attitude and demeanor swung around 180 degrees. . . .”They want to define me [Roughgarden is a transsexual] as inhuman,” she said.


How dare anyone try to understand the other side! (Roughgarden’s reaction to a psychology talk she didn’t like.) The notion that the solution to intolerance is more intolerance is remarkably popular, which is why The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything really stands out.

 


Comments

Hank's picture
We had some people signed up before we ever did the interface but once we allowed people to sign up, Roughgarden was one of the first people to find us and join up - it would be interesting to get her take on this.

Seth Roberts's picture

I agree, I'd love to hear what she thinks of the Slack book. I find it hard to understand why it is bad to try to learn more about those who disagree with you, but that's what she seemed to be telling Slack when he interviewed her.


rholley's picture
I've just read this for the first time.  Now that I can speak up without getting embroiled in the US Election (I remember Lonnie Donegan singing The Battle of New Orleans) how can one  expect Sarah Palin to get wise concerning science if most of its protagonists - or at least the noisy ones - take a "Yah Boo Shitty-Poo" attitude towards her?


Gerhard Adam's picture
"I find it hard to understand why it is bad to try to learn more about those who disagree with you"

The problem is that I understand them all too well.  It will not work if both parties don't agree to meet in the middle at some point to discuss differences. 

In part some of the hostility is driven by the fact that creationists (or IDers) seem to be saying that they should be given special dispensation because of their beliefs, and merely having such beliefs entitles them to automatic credibility.  In particular, they are quite willing to demonize anyone that doesn't share their views, and most certainly that opposed their particular brand of religion.

You question how intolerance can be solved by more intolerance, but at some point one has to acknowledge that there may be no acceptable middle ground.  How does one compromise with one's beliefs?  How does one compromise with facts?

If neither side is willing to concede the possibility of being wrong, then there is nothing to understand and avoidance is the best policy.

As has been stated numerous times .... there is no problem with an individual's beliefs, but rather with the presumption that they should somehow be magically elevated to the same level of credibility as hundreds of years of study and research just because they believe it.    There is no middle ground with such a viewpoint.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.