Education Series: Lesson 14
Here is part 2 of the original Lesson 11, which was so long I broke it up into two lessons — which is why this one says lesson 12. This IS the last “beta” version posting of my education series. The original lesson 12, which was supposed to be a wrap-up, wasn’t really that great. So when I release the final versions, the closing lesson (which will be #15) will be something new. However, when I return from vacation I will post a script for comment so there will be no surprises. If you recall from earlier discussions, the new lesson 15 will focus on our handling of Scripture in the context of science education. I actually think that will wrap up the series better than my original ending, which was basically a summary of the previous lessons.
Now to this video: I had a lot of fun writing the script for this one, but now that I see it all cut together, I’m not sure if all the pieces and parts are worthy of keeping. It might come across to some as a rant against ID, which I guess it is. The first 5 min are fine, but I’d like to get some reader feedback on the last 3 min — over the top? There is another direction I could have taken after the opening argument and I’m tempted to revisit it (how the design inference has historically paralyzed scientific investigation). But if everybody likes it as-is, then I’ll leave it. I could probably do both and still keep it under 10 min.
One quick note: I make a tongue-in-cheek parody of how ID could be used during a forensic crime scene investigation, but I didn’t chose my words well. I said something like, “What if a body is found with a knife stuck in the chest, and there is no apparent evidence that a murder took place?” I think finding a body with a protruding knife is by itself evidence of foul-play, unless of course the victim was running with a knife, tripped and fell on it. I should have said something like, “What if a body is found with a stab wound but there is no apparent evidence pointing to a killer?”
Also keep in mind, on the night that I shot all of these (back in June), it was probably 1 or 2 in morning by the time I got to this lesson. So while it appears as though I may have sampled some of the “happy juice” referred to earlier in the series (the type made by ordinary providence), I’m actually wicked-tired. (Note to self, do not attempt to shoot entire series in one night, fix the lighting, and don’t stand so close to the green screen).
July 17th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I like every argument and example, but the presentation is too abrasive throughout (even in the first 5 minutes). The beauty of your “Does Science Contradict the Bible” and “What’s so Great About Evolution” series is that you come across as a likeable, regular Joe who is an evangelical Christian but disagrees with most of your religious compatriots on the theory of evolution. All of those videos offer thought-provoking arguments and convincing evidence in a non-confrontational, non-threatening way. You go out of your way to avoid putting stumbling blocks up in front of your audience. In this video, you pretty much abandon that strategy and vent some of your frustration with the inanities of ID.
Remember, you’re not just taking on folk science, you’re taking on the folk science of your audience. To them, it’s really not about the scientific evidence. It’s about avoiding cognitive dissonance. Most of the people who you want to watch this series will be looking for ways out of the conclusions that you’re pushing them towards. And when evidence is secondary in the mind of the viewer, “that guy’s not very nice” is as good a reason as any to ignore an argument. It’s ridiculous, I know. But it’s true.
I recommend that in the reshoot you keep most or all of the material, but put on the kid gloves when it comes to presentation. Lower the lights, light some candles, put on some mood music, and speak gently.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
AMW, I fully understand where you’re coming from. I thought the same thing about the other series, as did my wife, who is still has qualms about evolution. But Gordon’s toeing a fine line: I understand his desire and the need for someone to convey to skeptics the fact that ID isn’t just another reasonable option, but an unreasonable way of approaching science. We can’t continue to allow them to think of it as a viable alternative if it is not one. As for not being annoying, yes, that’s a valid concern; but an entirely kid gloves approach leaves the impression that science as Gordon’s presenting it is simply a not-as-heretical-as-we-thought rather than the most reasonable way of doing science.
You were also quite right that this is their folk science. I suppose the best way to navigate these waters is to frame it not as an attack on their own current beliefs but as an expose on the irrationality of the philosophy of the people they learned it from (”Look at what they’ve tried to pawn off on you!”).
Gordon, if you do end up toning it down, make sure you don’t lose the humor or the fervor. That’s an attractive feature of this series.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Stephen Douglas,
I didn’t think Gordon’s other series left any room for doubt that all forms of creationism are sorely lacking, non-scientific attempts to poke holes in a robust and well-supported theory. In fact, in one video the voice over makes reference to “wacky theories” while the Creation Science museum is shown on screen. But the overall tenor was non-confrontational. He’s inviting you to check out this neat theory of life, and stop stressing out with conspiracy theories about how all the atheist humanists in the scientific community are hushing up the evidence against evolution so they can sleep around and abort their children.
My concern boils down to this. In any discussion where emotions can run high (like evolution vs. creation), you run the risk of generating more heat than light. I think Gordon has an incredible gift for simultaneously maximizing the light and minimizing the heat in his discussion. He should use that gift in this series as he’s done in the others.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Don’t get me wrong, AMW, I’m not saying that he shouldn’t strive to maintain an irenic tone. I just wanted to point out the difficulty of assaulting a ridiculous idea without making it look ridiculous and offending its adherents. This becomes really, really difficult when you try to add a layer of levity and reduce the life-or-death seriousness of the presentation while trying to summarize and bring the thing to a conclusion. I sympathize with Gordon on this one.
As I said above, it would be less offensive to treat the audience as victims of someone else’s misguided crusade than as victims of their own stupidity (and I’m not saying Gordon actually did the latter).
July 17th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Although I loved the humor and satire, I have to say that my first impression was along the same lines as AMW. Then again, maybe, anyone still viewing this late into the series is ready for a little heavier hitting. Still, the comments about stupid questions (”if Christians are supposed to ask stupid questions about biology …”) maybe is a little too strong.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Cliff, I agree. That was definitely a humorous (and true), but perhaps too caustic, line.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I agree that you do come off a little strong, but I am not sure whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. Since people watching this will look for any reason to dismiss your arguments, it will be best to give them as few reasons as possible.
I like what others have mentioned…
“expose on the irrationality of the philosophy of the people they learned it from”
“less offensive to treat the audience as victims of someone else’s misguided crusade”
… really, the average evangelical is not doing ID “research” or writing Answers in Genesis articles. The average evangelical is looking for answers about creation and evolution, he believes the Bible is true, and he is bothered by evolution, because it doesn’t seem to make sense in the context of Genesis. So the ID crowd comes along, gives him an alternative that they say is “scientifically sound,” and he goes for it. No fault of his own really, only a regular person trying to follow God the best he can, trying to hold true to the scriptures.
So your job Gordon, is not to beat down on the average, misguided evangelical, but to reveal the deception of the ID crowd. So to your audience you will need to appear and ally, and you will, in one sense, need to portray the ID crowd as the “enemy,” no the audience.
Important Note: I use the word “enemy” with great caution, because in the grand scheme of things, the ID crowd, even the YEC people, are still brothers and sisters in Christ. I would be very saddened if we took an “us versus them” position that divided our fellowship in the kingdom of God. However, in the context of science, I believe that ID theory is very much an enemy to good evolutionary theory and science. The reality is that the ID crowd is trying to discredit an established and important scientific theory, and even attack the character of the scientific community. And I cannot abide by that.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
I agree with the others here, this video is harsher in tone and the audience will be very sensitive to that. I heard an interesting piece on NPR today where a professor turned filmmaker was commenting about how to reach a non-scientific audience with his message of global warming. He had some interesting points that I think apply here. First he mentioned that all self-righteousness should be avoided. It kills the message. Second he focused on the importance of narrative, contrasting scientific fact and storytelling at two ends of a spectrum. You can lose folks with perceived arrogance and too many cold facts, but you can win folks over with a strong narrative to which they can adopt and relate.
Gordon, I think the strength of you case lies in what you GIVE people rather than what you take away. You are giving a new narrative for Genesis- the ANE model. I can work with that, I can chew on that. You are also giving a historical narrative that illuminates the mistakes that our Christian forefathers have made in regard to scientific discoveries. Now I can relate myself to them. I can understand how and why they were mistaken and yet this does not undermine their Christian credibility in my mind. That makes it easier for me to realize that I’ve made these mistake too.
Now when you do need to take something away, like the notion of a young earth or the option of ID, you need build for your audience a theological narrative in its place. Explaining how our faith was never to be in creationism or origin theories but in the Sovereign Lord of creation. I know your theology and love of the God is strong. Point folks to the gospel as they wrestle with big adjustments in their understanding of beginnings. Show them how we needn’t throw away the baby with the bathwater. Remind them of the history narrative. Oh yeah, a heliocentric universe didn’t bring a death blow to Christianity. Maybe old earth evolution is just like that. Help folks digest this in a palatable way.
I’m not sure anyone needs to be the “enemy,” some folks deeply believe that faith falls apart if evolution is true. Give them a new narrative for without it they must hold tight to the old. Of course, I realize that some of this will come in Lesson 15 and I do look forward to reading that transcript. First and last impressions are very critical.
Have a great vacation.
Jul
July 18th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Seeing the banter being exchanged here is like seeing my own conflicting thoughts written out by other people. I’m constantly wrestling with where to draw the line between exposing foolishness for what it is and convincing people that there is a better way. Given the harsh rhetoric of the ID crowd, I tend to take the gloves off when dealing them (accommodation?).
But, as I am contantly reminded, those folks really are not my primary audience. Bill Dembski is not going to walk away from ID just because some unknown person makes a 7 min case against it. I’m sure he does very well for himself capitalizing on the ignorance of theists who have been led to believe that secular biology is godless. And me? I may as well be selling electrical appliances to Quakers!
No, my primary audience are folks who are on the fence. They are believers first and foremost, but might be uncomfortable with the rhetoric and combative tone that the various forms of creationism take with mainstream science. As good as it “feels” to turn the flame thrower on full blast, burning somebody to a crisp isn’t always the best to way to win an argument, even though “flame throwing” is my natural tendency.
My first few drafts of BTF were pretty harsh. My original part 4 had to be completely scrapped after I had already considered the manuscript complete. And that was after my own reviewers had already helped me to tone it down!
But like my cathartic buzzers of Lesson 8, starting out at the keyboard with “how I really feel” can sometimes calibrate my emotions for the final product. Sort of like that nasty e-mail that you know you’ll never send, but you write it anyway and just keep it in your outbox for a few days while you calm down and think about what really needs to be said.
There are a lot good comments here. As I work on the final script, I’ll be incorporating these ideas.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:06 am
And me? I may as well be selling electrical appliances to Quakers!
(Run for your lives, it’s my inner pedant!) Quakers aren’t technophobes. Maybe you’re thinking of the Amish?
Sort of like that nasty e-mail that you know you’ll never send, but you write it anyway and just keep it in your outbox for a few days
I don’t have the stones for that. I’d be way too scared of accidentally hitting send.
As I work on the final script, I’ll be incorporating these ideas.
God’s hand be on your thoughts and work.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Yes, Amish — that’s probably what I should have said.
I’m starting to think that lessons 10-14, which all have to do with evolution as science, and special creation as a folk-science (or pseudo-science), should be handled differently. Taking Jul’s concern from the previous post, I could start with the basic premise of evolution vs. special creation — much the way lesson 10 is now, but then move through the historic devlopments and show that as more and more is discovered, special creation becomes less and less tenable. The recent science of molecular genetics makes it all but irrelavent in the laboratory.
Then I could employ the tactic mentioned earlier: “look at how ID is playing on your fears of naturalism to keep your children 150 years behind the secular world when it comes to the life sciences”…etc… Wouldn’t it be better to deal with the difficult questions up front, prepare our children for sucessfull scientific careers, and send them out into the world with the credibility to be a part of whatever comes next? And we can still do this within the context of the Christian worldview education.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
No, my primary audience are folks who are on the fence. They are believers first and foremost, but might be uncomfortable with the rhetoric and combative tone that the various forms of creationism take with mainstream science. As good as it “feels” to turn the flame thrower on full blast, burning somebody to a crisp isn’t always the best to way to win an argument, even though “flame throwing” is my natural tendency.
You’ve got it, Gordon. I have the same “flamethrower” tendency as well. I would add to your point that your audience is also those who simply do not know about these issues.
I think you’re at your best when you are congenial, smiling, and in the same breath laying waste to the other side intellectually.
July 28th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
First, I agree with what others have written on this one. Not sure how to suggest a different approach necessarily, haven’t thought about it enough.
I want to add a few more comments. Great analogy about the periodic table! Make sure to keep that part, and maybe even draw out a little more emphasis on how our knowledge of chemistry is not helped in the least by simply detracting from the controversy over the standard theory.
I think in this video you assume way too much about what the average person knows about Intelligent Design. You need to explain, briefly, what they mean by “irreducible complexity” and possibly another term or two. Many people’s reactions, who haven’t studied this stuff, will be like that of my wife — “you dont’ believe in intelligent design any more?” It will be helpful to explain more explicitly that the doctrine of providence requires God at some level to be the intelligence behind the creation, but the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) makes the hypothesis that God is the scientific explanation behind certain items in the created world.
And oh, by the way, if the Intelligent Designer is only clearly responsible for some of those more irreducibly complex structures, does that mean that all the rest were created by blind, purposeless chance? This is the philosophical bankruptcy of ID, that it minimizes God’s providence in most of creation in order to highlight it in only a few chosen examples.
You said something like: “since ID is used in biology, it should also be useful in meteorology too, shouldn’t it?” My first reaction was, “No, that’s a non sequitur.” Just because one scientific or philosophical paradigm works in one field, it wouldn’t necessarily apply the same in another. I think you made a pretty good case for it, however, pointing out the ID characteristics of a hurricane, but fundamentally I don’t think ID is a necessary requirement to each and every scientific field, any more than gene duplication is.
Now, another good point that you made which could overcome the above logical deficiency, is that the Bible itself describes weather in overtly theological terms. Give some examples of God creating the hurricane, the wind, the rain. Maybe the better way to approach it is a more mild form of “Let’s see what happens when we apply the ID philosophy to other scientific fields”, coupled with, “Look, taking the Bible overly literal as a scientific textbook seems to require Intelligent Design in meteorology, just like in biology. Let’s see if it makes sense. And by the way, why aren’t the ID folks concerned about reforming this godless science with the ID hypothesis, as much as they are concerned about reforming biology?” (It’s the same argument made elsewhere about geocentricity and why Christians aren’t concerned about the integrity of the Bible in those passages any more).
July 28th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
jtandy,
These are great comments. They actually dovetail in quite nicely with the way my re-write of this lesson is going. I especially your point about explaining the design inference in more detail and then applying it towards the study of the hurricane (along with the scriptural support for God’s sovereignty over the atmosphere) to “reform the godless science of naturalistic meteorology”! Truly demonstrating absurdity by being absurd!
I’m also using the example of Newton invoking intelligent design when faced with the complexities of celstial mechanics (how the planetary orbits remain stable when each tugs on the others as they make their way around the sun) to demonstrate how ID is a “science stopper” — even for the most brilliant scientists. Of course, when LaPlace picked up where Newton left off (using the calculus that Newton himself invented), he found the answer to the problem.
I was on the fence about the chemistry thing, but it looks like it should stay.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Great idea to use the Newton/Laplace stuff; I was blown away when I first saw the relevance of that to the ID movement.