Nathan Newman has been writing about the courts, evolution, science, intelligent design, and various things that may well be of interest to Gentle Readers. He has a few points that I think are hard to argue and good to note. First, the use of the courts to protect minorities is in essence anti-democratic, and does not take the place of convincing the majority. In fact, the majority is likely to resent being overruled, and become intransigent, less open to debate the issue. Particularly in expanding those protections (as in desegregation, gay rights, school prayer, and evolution), the progressive agenda is advanced by the courts at the cost of a backlash on the streets and on occasion in the legislatures.
I think there’s a lot to that. I am convinced, particularly, by his point that for all of exclusive teaching of natural selection in schools, backed by the courts which most recently banned the idiotic sticker that called natural selection into doubt, it’s clear that the majority do not believe in it. His conclusion is that the court route was the wrong one, and remains the wrong one; he suggests giving in to the creationists and intelligent design folk by saying that natural selection is one theory among others, and then showing students that it is the only theory that accounts for the evidence. He hopes, then, that evolution will succeed on its merits, without the help of the courts. It certainly hasn’t succeeded with their help.
The fact that there isn’t much popular support for natural selection means, I think, that it is taught badly. I have a lot to say about that, which perhaps I’ll someday manage to write up intelligibly. At any rate, it’s certainly worth asking why it is that most people reject natural selection, and why, if it is the best theory for the available evidence (as I believe it is), it isn’t a persuasive story. But that’s another matter, related to the first, but not identical with it. The point remains that where Darwin may be a rallying cry for the secularists, the other side have not only their opposition to Darwin but also their opposition to the tyranny of the courts, and can say to the fellow on the street that their position is the tolerant one, the democratic one, and the one that respects all sides. What have we to respond? That Darwin was right? Sure, and then what do we say? That even if they don’t believe that Darwin was right, they should still do what we say because Darwin was right. Right? No, I don’t see that getting many votes.
My problem, though, is that although I agree that, for instance, it would be better to fight out gay marriage in the legislatures, and that an eventual win there is far more likely to accompany a major cultural shift that would mean de facto in addition to de jure equality. But what do you tell the people who are denied the right to marry today? What do you tell the people who married in Massachusetts this summer and fall, who gained that protection from the courts, against public opinion? Should they have waited? Who gets to make that choice? I can’t do it. I can’t tell them that the long run is more important, and that they should direct their energy towards a plan that is less likely to get them relief, but more likely to build a better world. That is, I can tell them that, and I can try to persuade them to go along with it, but I want that other choice to be open to them.
Similarly, I am profoundly uncomfortable with the idea that my Perfect Reader will go to a school that teaches that natural selection is an open question among scientists who have studied the matter, even if at the same time we are slowly winning the war of opinions. If it comes to it, will I be willing to forgo the slim chance I have of immediate relief from the courts, because it would be bad for The Cause? Now take the abortion issue, where those who support abortion rights depend entirely on the courts. Can we tell a poor sap in Virginia that we understand that she’ll have to drive to Delaware for an abortion, and possibly have to do so in secret and at tremendous expense, but that she can take comfort in the Party’s increased poll numbers, and that soon we may well have majorities in Maryland, and very likely in ten years we’ll get the US House back? On the other hand, can we tell her that she can have the abortion now, in relative safety and convenience, but that the cost of keeping that choice open is that her daughter may well have that choice closed to her?
The point of progressive use of the courts was that they were likelier than legislatures to support minorities against the will of majorities. In a way, we clearly failed to persuade the populace that protecting the minority was their job, too; we clearly need to work harder at that. It’s hard, as it’s easier to make the case to the mass for specifics (that it’s wrong to keep people with dark skins out of certain restaurants and hotels), but easier to make the case to a judge for generalities (that it’s wrong to have even ‘voluntary’ spoken prayer in schools, as there may well be somebody for whom that presents a choice that burdens them far more than others, thus establishing preferred status for those who pray ‘correctly’). I can’t imagine a progressive movement having the resources to fight all the specifics in legislatures and opinion polls, and I can’t (yet) imagine having the rhetorical skill to fight the general. But that, after all, is what I’m looking for.
Thank you,
-Vardibidian.
Dunno the specifics of what Nathan Newman said, but it seems to me that the short answer on courts vs. legislature is that we have to do both. Don’t think that the struggle is over just because of a court ruling, but don’t forgo pursuing a favorable court ruling because it may make the struggle harder, for goodness sakes! Not having the court ruling will make the struggle harder, too, but in different ways, as all of V.’s examples show.
Whichever one we win first (legislature or court) , the other can be used to undo or limit the changes initiated by the other. The courts have blocked civil rights advances in U.S. history as much as (or more than) they have aided them. Why else is the radical right hell-bent on gaining decisive control of the courts? If we win in the courts first, we face backlash on the streets. If we win in the legislatures first, we face having the legislation struck down in the courts.
on other things the grassroots and/or legislation and/or courts thing is a good fit. on this, ignoring for a second the snake oil peddlers, evolution is a bummer. there’s no significant difference between you and a garden slug; people have been around for millions of years pretty much doing the same stuff in different ways the whole time; yes, those gorillas at the zoo really are acting like you and yours, you do look like that; your purpose in life is doing your part to keep it all going, and going, and going.
aren’t there enough things are going nowhere right now – jobs suck, financial prospects are rotten, big new adventures just look like new long-term hassles. new discoveries are the same as the old discoveries, only more expensive.
a lot of people only got on the science train because they were told it would make them better people. smarter people. but it ends up feeling really lonely.
I agree with david on the reasons why people tend not to believe in evolution — it’s the same reasons why people rejected the theory out of hand in the first place.
If the American people were generally ready to accept uncomfortable truths, somebody else would have been inaugurated yesterday.
I’m ambivalent about the importance of the Evolution vs. Creationism argument. Obviously, in scientific terms, the evidence for the evolution (and, more importantly for the everyday practice of biological science, the genetic basis of inheritance) is irrefutable. _Except_ for the gnarly question of what gets taught in secondary-school biology classes, I think what people in general believe or don’t believe about the theory of evolution is rather unimportant. It’s Lysenkoism among professional scientists that is the real danger.
Most people don’t understand _science_, period, as the famous “heavy boots” survey has demonstrated. (Question: is there gravity on the moon? Answer: No. Follow-up Question: then how did the astronauts not fall off? Answer: Heavy Boots. This, I kid y’all not, is a typical question-and-answer sequence about the moon and gravity.) Evolution is no different in this respect.
Given the scope and depth of general scientific ignorance, which it might or might not be possible to change in the long term, I think the scientists fighting the evolution battle are basically right in their rhetorical strategy of “all the real scientists accept the theory of evolution; those who argue otherwise are opportunistic charlatans or religious fanatics.” Anyone of intelligence who cares to investigate the subject in depth and with reason will see that the scientists are basically right. I don’t think there’s any likelihood that the scientific establishment in the U.S. will collapse because of an influx of bad scientists whose scientific practice has been corrupted by creationist teachers.
A few religious fanatics with control over government funding can do a lot more damage to the U.S. scientific establishment, and no amount of good teaching of high-school science is going to eliminate religious fanatics, though I suppose better science education in high schools might help to keep them from getting elected or at least encourage them to keep their fanaticism to themselves when administering government programs that fund the sciences.
I think the scientists should oppose creationists in courts and at school board meetings, but that the place where scientists have the opportunity to win more decisively is in the training of secondary school biology teachers. Even if the teachers are obligated to present “intelligent design” (or whatever the attractive lie emanating from the religious fanatics happens to be at the moment) together with evolution as competing theories, the teachers can do much to make the case for evolution clear.
The other issue is that one purpose of the courts is to protect minorities who will never be popular. Various and sundry freedom of speech examples come to mind, but i’m sure there are other examples. We’ll have gay marriage 50 years from now, so it’s easier to say that we should be willing to let it go for now. But there are things for which there will never be legislative support, and some of those things should be protected anyway.
Regarding teaching of evolution in the schools: I think the argument isn’t that evolution should be taught (rather than, say, creationism) just because it is right. The argument is that religious belief should not be used to determine what should be taught on any subject. Yes, certainly, if religious influence is removed from the decision, than evolution will be taught (since it is right) but the argument happens before that — we agree to decide on scientific rather than religious grounds, and let the chips fall where they may.
The real argument, then, is between supporters of the separation of church and state, and people who oppose that separation.
The fact is that the majority has problems with many parts of the Bill of Rights. I fear that this won’t change soon. Who else but the courts will enforce those rights?
The fact is that the majority has problems with many parts of the Bill of Rights. I fear that this won’t change soon. Who else but the courts will enforce those rights?
If that’s true, those rights will not last in practice.
Perhaps it’s an unwillingness on my part to accept an uncomfortable truth, but I don’t believe that “the majority” has problems with many parts of the Bill of Rights. In this particular case, I think a determined, well minority has problems with the separation of church and state as that has been interpreted in the courts during the second half of the twentieth century.
The argument is that religious belief should not be used to determine what should be taught on any subject.
My understanding is that the current battle of creationism and evolution is not directly engaging with this question. It appears that the creationists are not trying directly to argue that religious belief should determine what is taught. Rather, they are trying to argue that “intelligent design” is just as valid a “scientific theory” as “the theory of evolution,” so that both should be taught.
This line of attack doesn’t overtly challenge the “church and state” divide, but it does attack the foundations of scientific truth. It covertly subverts a criterion on which the separation of church and state is based–the distinction between science and religion–by implying that science is an ideology.
What Nathan Newman suggests, if I can interpret, is that not only do the courts not help the underlying argument of whether religion should be used to determine curricula, but they actually hurt the argument, by providing the religious movement ammunition. They exploit the court cases to exacerbate a feeling of grievance amongst the majority. That makes the majority less open to the underlying argument, and also frames the entire thing in such a way to put them on the side of those exploiting the issue, and against the ‘scientists’. Remember, lots and lots and lots of people believe that Democrats hate the Bible. In part, that’s because Democrats have backed court cases that (correctly) tried to remove the Bible from the classroom, from the courthouse, and from the halls of government, and leave it to people’s homes, houses of prayer and hearts.
I suspect that the current battle to put ‘intelligent design’ in the classroom is simply designed to force Democrats and other progressives to take a stand against it, which will be exploited to reinforce this idea that we hate the Bible (not that Intelligent Design fits with an inerrant Genesis any better than Natural Selection, but the facts are not what will sway people). Thus, people who claim to believe in the separation of church and state in principle will come to believe that the Democrats are violating that in their ruthless attempts to destroy a particular faith, that is, theirs. And, of course, there is just enough truth in this farrago of lies to hold it together.
Anyway, what I took out from my original post was a rant about how the result of Darwin in the classroom and two generations of backlash against him is that natural selection has been taught, but taught badly and unpersuasively, often enough by teachers who don’t understand it themselves. Which isn’t too surprising, as the whole thing is fractally complicated, and besides many high school science teachers have no great aptitude for science themselves.
I suspect that, as Chris say, people don’t understand or like science very much, and as david says, they may well resent it for failing to give us our air cars and make us happy and showing that we are, in fact, Princes of Maine. It’s perfectly possible that the Scientific Era, where scientist rockstars from Darwin to Einstein to Hawking signal the tremendous respect for rigorous thinking and empiricism, is over. Certainly it’s gone on for longer than one might have expected. I don’t want it to go without a fight, though; I think the scientific mindset is closely tied with pluralism, and for that matter with democracy, and I’m not sure where either go without it.
Thanks,
-V.
Um, that great “Scientific Era” is a bit of a nostalgic generalization, isn’t it?
To allude across threads for a moment, Darwin was “an enemy of the people,” not a rock-star, in his time. Had the Church been stronger, he might have received the Galileo treatment.
Einstein escaped from a regime whose genocidal policies were derived in part from the pseudo-science of eugenics.
Hawking is a star, true, but more for the triumph of his intellect over his physical disabilities than for his intellectual achievements, independently considered.
Here’s the story I would tell about the changing times:
The ascendance of the liberal-scientific governing alliance in the United States, which set the direction of the United States from Roosevelt to Carter, is over, and both halves of that alliance have been smeared by the conservative ideologues, who want science to serve the rightwing-corporate governing alliance.
Chris wrote
I don’t believe that “the majority” has problems with many parts of the Bill of Rights.
Well, as with all attempts to measure public opinion, it depends how you ask the questions. Ask people “should we scrap the First Amendment?” and they’ll say no. Ask them “should we ban flag burning/pornography/Nazi propaganda/Communist propaganda/etc.” and I think a majority will say yes (for their pet nastiness), even though it is fundamentally the same question.
Same deal with, say, due process of law. “Should we scrap the Fifth Amendment?” Majority: No. “If the police make a procedural error that violates a suspect’s rights, should we still be able to use the evidence to convict a murderer?” Majority: Yes.
I hope I’m wrong.
Re: science
When Sputnik went up, and we found ourselves losing the space race (and by implication the Cold War) part of the national response was an increase in math and basic science education (if I have my facts correct). We seemed to understand that if we want good technology, we have to teach our kids good science.
We still want good technology, but perhaps we’ve lost sight of the connection. One of the most popular areas of science nowadays is medicine. Perhaps there could be a campaign to convince people that kids who don’t grow up understanding evolution are much less likely to cure cancer (which I believe is true)?
I suspect that the current battle to put ‘intelligent design’ in the classroom is simply designed to force Democrats and other progressives to take a stand against it, which will be exploited to reinforce this idea that we hate the Bible
the phrase itself stinks of this.
* the redundancy: design, by most definitions, requires intent, and intelligence. the tautology also acts as a mnemonic, and to reinforce…
* the fake humility: divine force isn’t “superlative,” it’s reduced to “intelligent” – therefore, scientists aren’t intelligent, because everybody on earth has to be lower than the divine standard.
* that certain stacato sing-song, product marketing sound: in-tel-li-gent de-sign. tra la la la, la la. “darwinism” and “evolutionary biology” compare poorly in the fun-to-say department.
to me evolution is a profoundly positive message from the universe. which i guess seems to be, in sum, that no hunger lasts forever. maybe this isn’t as comforting to kids as it is to me, now. but i found it incredibly liberating, even as a kid, to think of just how many things were in motion. changeable. that we are a reflection of, a product of, and a component of our environment’s volatility, and we can handle it, because it’s us.