Intelligent Design, for anyone with an open mind who reads its tenets, is not only religious but clearly ridiculous from the standpoint of science. Most kossacks I think would agree that intelligent design is trying to fit a round peg into a square hole - with religion trying to answer the 'why' question, and science trying to answer the 'how' question. The success of intelligent design (and religion) in the United States has less to do with the merits of either, and more to do with the public relations war that is currently going on.
I only bring this up because I recently read the article More Than Half of Americans Reject Evolution, Back Bible. There is no major setback here, as this has been true for a long time. The reason that I'm bringing this up is that the merit of science as a self-reducing explanation of things is simply not good enough to win the trust of the public.
More below the fold...
Why Does Science Have no Public Relations Dept.?
This is a simple question, and one that will soon have to change. The Discovery Institute does no scientific experiments and no study, but wins the public relations battle every time. The reason that it needs a public relations department and all this news on its front page is because it has no merit. Science, on the other hand (I'm speculating) has no public relations department because they deal in fact through experimentation. Because experimentation can only be challenged on its merits, this means that they shouldn't have to explain themselves.
In our modern world, this is no longer true. This creates a more serious problem then I think we can understand.
As the problem in language in relation to the term 'theory' continues, being that 'theory' in standard English and scientific English are defined extremely differently, we continue to have a lack of understanding between the scientific community and the average citizen. This could be because of many reasons, but I would like to float a few that I believe are prevalent, especially today:
- The average citizen is lacking a basic understanding of experimentation: the scientific method.
- The government (at least publicly) is often angered by science because fact tends to disagree with what they say. This is unfortunately true, often, on both sides of the aisle.
- Modern evangelical religion (the kind espoused by Reed, Dobson, etc.) is less interested in spirituality and more interested in anger and fear (for easier population control).
- Corporate profit is often challenged by the results of experiments in science.
Now, nobody is challenging the theory of gravity, obviously, but a challenge in one portion of science automatically creates a kind of general distrust of science. This is in the interest of those who would on occasion want science under wraps for the interest of profit and control.
The problem is that scientists are not interested in public relations. Certainly, on occasion, scientist find a humorous way to respond to such threats, but they are ill equipped, being scientists primarily, to make headway into the public realm. They already have difficulty getting money to complete experiments, especially in areas that are important.
The Ramifications
As the public is less trusting of science, it is likely (to avoid fallacy) that less money will be earmarked for scientific projects in the future. There is the distinct possibility that this could lead to a slippery slope of dissent against science. The problem with this is that we are at a point historically that science is probably of the utmost importance.
Without the evolutionary and modern geological explanations of life and the earth, oil would not be possible, but let us imagine that these scientific explanations are rejected. What does oil become? I have seen articles that suggest that oil is a renewable resource (but these are of course ridiculous, unless considered on a scale of millions of years). With this belief (being the only one that could possibly be available in a 10,000 year old earth) oil might as well be mana from God. Biology, and as a result medicine, are both extremely dependent on evolutionary explanations of life. Global warming, easily rejected by those who already distrust scientists (and with no help from Michael Crichton), puts us at a turning point in human society, seriously.
The Solution
There isn't one! Not that I can think of, at least. An atheist, or one whose campaign seriously fights on the merits of scientific development is going to face a major uphill battle, I would think (except in a few parts of the United States). Scientists will find it more difficult to win because science is not tested as a part of the standardized testing in the NCLB act. Therefore, less time is spent in science at schools.
This might sound like a small tent idea, but this is as important as winning the battle for the government. A large percentage of democrats believe also that the earth is only 10,000 years old, according to the survey. I don't know the margin of error on the survey, but that is still huge. A considerable number of people with doctorate degrees (25%) also believe this.
I fret over the future of my daughter, just as I fret over the future of our world and what modern ignorance will do to it. This is a battle that cannot be lost, but one that is easily lost in the hopes of capturing the next election. The battle is not only to convince the American people of the corruption of those in charge, but the importance of scientific development and trust.
I look around the world, and I can only hope that other countries don't end up having to fight this battle to the extent that we do today. The religious zeal and pool of individuals that they have to use for public relations is greater than ours, and they are cultivated specifically for the purpose of the battle.
Science must find a way to battle this threat, but unfortunately, scientists and their ilk were not made for nor are they seriously interested in this kind of work.
I can only hope for the best.