June 17, 2012 |
Photo Credit: Shutterstock
Public education and even modern science are relatively new
developments in human history. So it makes sense that it would have
taken the populace a while to catch up to understanding that evolution
did happen, and that angels probably aren’t real.
But recent polling data suggests that gradual acceptance of the facts may
not be the trend when it comes to the theory of evolution. In the 30
years since Gallup started asking people whether they believe humans
evolved, evolved under the guidance of God, or were created fully formed
by God, the percentage of people adhering to the creationist view has
actually gone up slightly over time, and now stands at 46 percent of the
population. This is just the tip of the iceberg of a growing problem of
public rejection of science.
At the same time, there’s been a steady rise in people who believe that
humanity evolved without any supernatural guidance, and now stands at
15 percent. What this seeming conflict suggests is that the issue is
getting more polarized, as people feel they either have to pick Team
Evolution or Team Creationism.
It turns out that education isn’t enough to fight ignorance, not when
it comes to heavily politicized issues like evolutionary theory.
As Chris Mooney argues in his book
The Republican Brain,
political
identity generally trumps sober-minded assessment of the facts when it
comes to convincing people of an argument or idea. The theory of
evolution isn’t being rejected on its merits by the people who don't buy
it. It really can’t be by someone who is honestly assessing the
evidence.
The Tea Party has only intensified social pressure on
conservative-leaning Americans to shun anything perceived as irreligious
or academic. Science has always had a political edge to it, but the
culture wars ramped up by the Tea Party have taken the problem to a
whole new level.
The past decade-plus have turned science from a mostly politically
neutral issue into a heavily partisan one, with Republicans becoming the
party of anti-science while Democrats increasingly tout their
dedication to research and evidence-based policy. According to a study
published in
American Sociological Review, since 1974,
conservative trust in science has
been in a free-fall, declining 25 percent. In 1974, conservatives were
the most pro-science group, higher than liberals and moderates. Now
they’re the least pro-science group of all, with liberals showing the
most trust in science.
People who frequently attend church were the most likely to lose their
trust in science, reinforcing the cultural sense that faith precludes
acceptance of religious facts.
Evolution is hardly the only scientific reality to suffer from
conservatives' growing sense that their ideology is not compatible with
science.
In the short period between 2010 and
2012, the percentage of conservatives who accept global warming
declined from half of conservatives to only 30 percent of them. That
doesn’t reflect any kind of major shift in the evidence or the arguments
around global warming--the scientific consensus that warming is
happening and human-made has only solidified in the past couple of
decades--so much as the strengthened perception that conservatism and
believing in global warming are mutually exclusive. As the political
media pays more attention to conservative distrust of science and
liberal embrace of it, the image of who believes what will only
intensify.
Climate change is strongly associated in the public mind, rightly or
wrongly, with anti-capitalism. The theory of evolution faces a similar
problem, especially as it’s routinely linked by religious and other
thought leaders with a kind of subversive atheism. These kind of
identity politics that create doubt about science have immediate
negative impacts for all of us, especially with regards to global
warming, but as with many things pushed by conservatives, working class
and poor people are likely to pay the greatest price. Any liberal who
focuses on economic issues should pay close attention, because in many
ways, the war on science is a war on the most vulnerable among us.
The public’s resistance to evolution might not seem like a big deal at
first, since the main result of conservative activism is that high
school biology programs give up teaching evolution, while universities
retain their evidence-based curriculum. In fact,
Kevin Drum argued in Mother Jones that
creationism in schools didn’t really matter because, “knowledge of
evolution adds only slightly to a 10th-grade understanding of biology.”
The problem with that is that someone who doesn’t get proper education
early tends to lag behind for the rest of their educational career, and
the 10th-grader who doesn’t get real biology courses will often be too
far behind her better-educated peers in college to even consider a
career in science. How many potential doctors and scientists are being
lost because they didn’t have the economic advantage of going to a
private school that did provide a proper education, but instead went to a
public school that dished out creationist propaganda?
As PZ Myers argued,
the poor public education in science means that a shrinking portion of
the American public is going into careers in science. Americans from
working class backgrounds who go into these careers are far more likely
to use their education and career contacts to return to their
communities and improve the economic and health conditions back home.
But with these declining numbers of American scientists, that
possibility is being shut down.
The public’s rejection of global warming is even more dangerous for
working class and poor people. It’s well-understood that poorer people
bear the brunt of environmental destruction, since they can’t afford to
move out of polluted areas that are linked to health issues like asthma
and cancer. There’s no reason to think that global warming won’t create
similar problems, with wealthier people abandoning areas that are now
flood plains. As summers get hotter, air conditioning is going to become
all the more necessary, but soaring fuel prices will start putting it
out of reach for ordinary people, even as the annual death toll from
heat stroke continues to climb.
But because the media portrays climate change as
“controversial”--strictly because of conservative distrust of
science--most Americans are oblivious to the severity of the problem.
Campaigns barely touch it, and lower-income people have even more
obstacles when it comes to demanding action on this issue, because
they’re usually too busy worrying about immediate economic concerns.
Better science education and more trust in science could help the raise
the issue higher on the priority list for all voters, but especially
those who will be most affected. As it is now, it’s nearly impossible to
get the conversation started.
Science and science education feel like they’re academic issues that,
while interesting and important, aren’t top-tier progressive issues like
economic justice or healthcare access. But without strong social
support for science, these goals will be much harder to reach, and in
some cases, impossible. The high levels of scientific illiteracy in the
U.S. should be as upsetting to liberals as high levels of reading
illiteracy would be, and should be addressed just as seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment