Blue Collar Scientist

It has finally penetrated the awareness of the Sciblings, or whatever the heck they call themselves, that Ken Miller, noted witness in the Dover trial and author of a good biology textbook that was attacked by intelligent design creationists in South Carolina, has used the term “design” when describing biology and wants those of us who do science education and outreach to do so as well. I’m not sure why it took so long - Miller’s halfhearted publicity blitz on his new ideas came at the time of a controversial panel discussion at the AAAS meeting organized by Matt Nisbet about a week ago. The topic of that panel discussion was framing science, and the discussion deliberately excluded the voices of scientists who oppose framing. That was the source of the controversy and much of the notoriety of the panel.

The Sciencebloggers reactions are muted.¹ PZ Myers says:

The word “design” carries other implications: purpose, planning, calculation. These are not present in evolution! Miller isn’t even trying to propose purposefulness in evolution — design, he is saying, is a consequence of the natural mechanism.

I don’t think it can work.

Greg Laden, after an extensive analysis of word frequency in the works of Erasmus and Charles Darwin:

So, I reject design. Both the intelligent kind and the use of the word in standard biological writing.

John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts:

Ken Miller is going to bow to the intelligent design crowd and try to refurbish design as a biological concept. And why? I ask myself. There’s no need. Design in the absence of information about the manufacturers of an object is a totally otiose notion.

I’m amazed by these understated reflections. Kenneth Miller’s proposal is suicidally destructive to science education, and his actions are are already causing problems among people trying to offer sound science outreach. Perhaps the above feel a natural reluctance to offer the appearance of delivering a bitch-slapping to a respected colleague, but their response is a little surprising considering the severity of the problem.

My concern over this situation is a result of understanding that most science education and outreach comes from people who are not scientists, and a close familiarity with intelligent design creationist tactics.

Scientists are, with certain notable exceptions, not well known for being good at science outreach and (nonmajor) education. Laden, Wilkins, and Myers are exceptions to the rule, but despite this they enjoy a status that people doing the trench warfare of science education do not. As a result of their academic credentials and affiliations, they enjoy a reasonable assurance that people in their community will at least respect them. It is my observation that you don’t often see people in such positions volunteering at the local kid’s science museum², dealing with laypeople in this direct way, day after day. While these people have correctly discerned the insanity of the various antiscience activists, they don’t have to deal with it except at a fairly high level: I’ve never seen Behe or Ham putting in time at the local science museum either, and the antiscience crowd generally sends first-stringers into radio debates and the like, not an everyman armed with the standard talking points. The professors provide a very necessary service for those of us who are working in education and outreach outside our fields of expertise. Without their work, we couldn’t as easily respond to the waves of cannon fodder that the antiscience activists throw at us on a daily basis. But I doubt it is in the daily routine of a PZ Myers or a Greg Laden to deal with the cannon fodder directly.

Let’s step back a bit and look at what Miller’s publicity says:

Miller will argue³ that science itself, including evolutionary biology, is predicated on the idea of “design” — the correlation of structure with function that lies at the heart of the molecular nature of life.

Let’s contrast that with an interaction I experienced with an antiscience nutcase:

Me (talking to an ID creationist): But what is it that you mean when you say “design?”

They: Design means that, or it refers to the idea that structure is associated with, or coupled with function.

If this guy had thought of⁴ the word “correlated,” he probably would have used it. The intelligent design creationists are already using Ken Miller’s talking points. Miller knows this - this is why he’s adopted them.

The framist’s ideas are supported by research into how people perceive rhetoric. There is some support for the notion that appropriating an opponent’s semantic space can convince undecided people to support your side. That’s fine as far as it goes, and in policy debates those tactics can help. The problem is that when doing this, you have to be very careful not to give the appearance that there’s no difference between you and your opponent. If you do that, the audience will conclude your opponent got there first and knows better what they are about. You also have to avoid giving the appearance that you are trying to ride on the coattails of an idea with wide appeal, which you don’t really accept. These problems have plagued political campaigns for generations - this isn’t a new realization.

One problem with framing science, as Miller and Nisbet propose doing it, is that they apply research on questions of public policy debates to science education. Policy debates have no clear “right” or “wrong” conclusion; some policies are obviously not good, and some may be better than others; but these conclusions aren’t as black-and-white as science issues. In many science concepts, the only choice is between reality, and wrongness. I think it is a methodological error to apply research about influencing people to adopt ideas of indeterminate correctness, to the problem of educating people about reality.

Perhaps I am wrong. If I am, it is still incumbent upon people proposing these ideas to provide us with techniques to avoid the two big pitfalls of appropriating someone else’s rhetorical space. We don’t want to be confused for intelligent design creationists, or even as people who, with slight adjustments to the way we think about things, would find such ideas amenable. And we don’t want to give the appearance that we’re hitching a ride on the supposed “popularity” of ID ideas.

If we’re going to do this framing thing, we need a rigorous method to prevent these outcomes. We need some focus groups and polling to determine the relative appeal of different methods. We need to get the word out in an organized way so that everyone can at least understand what is being done.

Miller offers none of this. He’s a loose canon, acting unilaterally, releasing a trial balloon that is dangerous because he is the one letting it go, rather than some insignificant third-string underling (like me).

Finally, the framists want to adopt a body of research about influencing people on matters of opinion - questionably adopted for the task of educating people about facts, as I see it - instead of adopting evidence based biology education techniques that are unquestionably pertinent to the issue at hand, and result from research methods that have a long history, wide acceptance, and proven effectiveness.

Let’s get back to the crank I mentioned above. Here’s how I responded to that guy’s definition of design:

Me: Well, ok, but does that mean it is intelligently designed?

They: Yes, because when things are used for a task they are the things that are best able to do that task.

Me: Well, that sounds nice, but it isn’t true. I have a shed in my backyard. When I use a screwdriver to chip ice off the latch, I’m not using the “thing that is best able to do that task.” It just means I don’t own an ice pick. Or a heat gun. And that’s how organisms use their body structures. When a chimp hits another chimp with his fist, the fist isn’t the “best thing” for hitting, it’s just what he has. An Ankylosaur tail would be better⁵, but he doesn’t have one of those.

This response was not great, but it was good enough - my interlocutor was speaking during Q&A at a public speaking engagement, and the audience understood what I was saying. Contrast and compare:

Antisciencer: But if all these creatures are so well adapted to the long winters, why don’t you think they are designed?

Me: Just because these animals body designs are well adapted, doesn’t -

Antisciencer: So you admit there is design there, then?

That’s what you call a stupid and embarrassing mistake. You now have to back up and explain what design means, so that you don’t leave your students with a misconception. In doing that, you are going to look like some smug and pedantic college professor type. Some people are going to think you are splitting hairs in order to look smarter than the other person. Some people are going to say “they were saying the same thing, they just didn’t want to admit it to each other, they both want to be right.”

If you do get through to some percentage of the audience, you still have the burden of explaining the difference between “design” the way you used the word, and “design” the way it is commonly understood. That adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to the concepts you are trying to teach. It’s a needless burden upon the instructor. Miller seeks to impose this burden, and I’m unhappy with that.

More, from a different talk:

Me: Sure, the structure of organisms have functions. We eat with mouths. We also speak with them. And we ski down mountainsides, but that doesn’t mean the owner of the ski resort made the mountain for that purpose.

Antisciencer: Why can’t you just admit there is design?

Me: Because it doesn’t look like there is design. There are attributes, but to say design means that something was put together deliberately for an intended effect. That might be right, but nobody can come up with an experiment that shows that it is, so it isn’t science. And I don’t see how molecules work with “intent.” Genes don’t want to do things, they just make proteins. So as long as I’m up here to talk about science, I’ll use scientific concepts and scientific language. Design isn’t one of them, in this case.

Antisciencer: So you really do disagree?

Me: Oh, yes, I disagree completely. Our ideas about biology are completely incompatible, this isn’t a matter of splitting hairs. Now if you could tell me how to do an experiment which would prove a designer, I’d sing a different tune. Until then, I’m sticking with the science.

I came out of that one in considerably better shape. I had an educable moment there, in which I could make clear to the whole audience the depth of disagreement between science and antiscience. Some of the other material from this interaction, which I haven’t reproduced here, shed some light on that difference.

What the sciencebloglingadingalinglongs don’t seem to fully appreciate here is the way that antiscience activists are constantly in your face when you are doing this kind of education, looking for any opportunity to take something that you say, and twist it into support for their strange beliefs. Now that Miller has taken leave of his senses and begun worshiping at the church of framing, I am shortly going to have to deal with this:

Antisciencer: You may say that, but Kenneth Miller is a real biologist, and he says there is design. Why should we believe you instead?

And frankly, I’ve got nothing.

1. Presumably, Nisbet is in favor. [↩]
2. You know, the kind of place usually called the “Imaginarium” or “Exploratorium” - a place where kids go to get overstimulated with sciencey stuff. [↩]
3. The quotation refers to the AAAS panel discussion, which has now taken place. [↩]
4. Or knew. [↩]
5. This tactic works better if you have a cartoon monkey with an Ankylosaur tail to project on the screen at the proper moment. As I do. [↩]

Tags: antiscience, creationism, design, education, intelligent design, Kenneth Miller, public outreach

This entry was posted on Monday, February 25th, 2008 at 4:04 am and is filed under education and public outreach. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.