"Intelligent Design" and "Dumbth"

I was struck by a recent letter by Ejnar Fjerdingstad in Science Magazine: a European perspective on the so-called Intelligent Design movement (reproduced below in full - emphasis added):

It is a strange experience for a European biologist to read about the growing support in the United States for so-called "intelligent design," the current name for good old unintelligent creationism. Strangest of all, though, are the recent activities of the Kansas Board of Education (Y. Bhattacharjee, "Kansas gears up for another battle over teaching evolution," News Focus, 29 Apr., p. 627; E. Reynolds, "A cry for help from Kansas," Letters, 29 Apr., p. 631). The Kansas Board's proposal to "[change] the definition of science" is unheard of in a western democracy, although similar activities have been common in dictatorships. In Nazi Germany, relativity was considered "Jewish science" and therefore unacceptable, while in the Soviet Union, modern genetics was rejected as unmarxist in favor of the ravings of the charlatan Lysenko. Is this the way the good citizens of Kansas (and the many other states where similar initiatives are seen) want to go?

Obviously, there must be a profound ignorance of science and the scientific method among the U.S. public for such a thing to happen (an ignorance that intelligent design supporters evidently hope to perpetuate), and for this, scientists must be held responsible. There is too much looking down at colleagues who engage the public through popular science, such as the late Carl Sagan (1). All scientists, not just biologists, should realize that an attack on the very roots of science concerns every one of them, and accordingly, they should do their utmost to counteract it by actively participating in the debate.

Ejnar J. Fjerdingstad*
Montauroux, France.
*Retired Professor of Anatomy, University of Aarhus, Denmark.

References

S. J. Gould, Science 275, 599 (1997).

As troubling as this new-fangled creationism called 'Intelligent Design' is, it's important to keep it in perspective: in some ways it's just a new expression of a very old problem: stubborn, stupid, mulish American ignorance. It's very hard for scientists to effectively combat it, because the administration of American education is decentralized among the various states, and vulnerable to political enthusiasms: scientists thus have to divide their attack so as to be effective in many places simultaneously.

Over the last several decades, the late comic, television personality, and social critic Steve Allen noticed, and attempted to label, what he saw as a new efflorescence of American stupidity: he chose the word "Dumbth". I picked up Steve Allen's book again, for the purpose of relating Dumbth to Intelligent Design, when an acquaintance, who is a prime example of the concept in action, began perusing the book. "He is a vociferous! He is a defiance!" she proclaimed. Then my acquaintance began reading aloud from Allen's book, playing inartful word games with Steve Allen's writing, so as to make Allen's work the "dummiest" one, and expose Allen to the scourge of criticism that he was all-too-willing to levy against others. It was really much too funny, especially when she disagreed whether Allen correctly-reproduced Lincoln's 'Gettysburg Address': "that's not what I read in the American History!"

What I wanted to say is that Intelligent Design is a response by an inherently-skeptical American audience towards a wooden caricature of Evolution. Creationists use this usually-beneficial skepticism for their own ends.

I've heard that evolutionary biologists say that whales descended from cow-like mammals that moved from land to sea. Two decades ago, I saw Creationists made a mockery of this idea with a cartoon cow-whale, with a cow's head and udder, and fins for limbs. How could this happen in a rational manner, they ask? Presumably today Creationists are a little more sophisticated, but not much. It doesn't help having the know-nothing Bush Administration, the Creationists' friends, in power.

The answer is patience, and education, and maybe a little muscle. Scientists are a notoriously short-tempered, intolerant group of people (a justified intolerance, by the way, but inappropriate for the task at hand), but kindness can work wonders. People are genuinely curious about the world, and willing to listen to scientists, but it's most-effective to relate the findings of science directly to people's lives.

An effective approach to teaching Evolution might revolve around the lethality of viruses and bacteria. The menace of the invisible world depends on Evolution in a way quite distinct from what 'Intelligent Design' might be inclined to suggest, and thus affects the design of vaccinations required to combat them: something that directly affects people's health. And muscle: nothing would set off a shock wave better than a few of the Ivy League colleges getting together and regrettably informing the State of Kansas that graduates of their public school system have to meet a higher standard before being allowed to enroll, on account of their substandard education. Sticks and carrots!

And remember, "Dumbth" is not just an American phenomenon, it's a universal experience. Dumbth exists anywhere and anytime ignorance or stupidity afflicts people. I like the example Bertrand Russell provided of dumbth in action:

The philosopher Bertrand Russell served six months in prison as a war resister during World War I. As is customary in prison, Russell's incarceration began with an interview with the Prison Warden. He was asked the customary questions – name, age, place of residence.

Then the warden inquired, 'Religious affiliation?' 'Agnostic,' Russell replied. The poor man looked up, 'How do you spell that?' Russell spelled 'a-g-n-o-s-t-i-c' for him. The warden wrote the word carefully on the prison admission form, then sighed, 'Oh, well; there are a great many sects nowadays, but I suppose we all worship the same God!