I’ll cut to the chase. I’m issuing an invitation to anyone interested in having an open conversation about the communication gap between the scientific community and the general public: what its roots are, and how we can fix it. This conversation will take place in the Brickyard at 1 p.m. on Sunday, Feb. 9, and all are welcome, regardless of belief. The following article explains my motivation for this discussion.
On Tuesday night, thousands tuned in to watch a live debate between AIG director Ken Ham and science communicator Bill Nye about the validity of creationism as a scientific model. Though many were entertained by the spectacle, all came away with the same realization: Nothing is different.
So why does this issue matter?
The endless back-and-forth argument about human origins was temporarily revived last semester when a group of creation scientists came to the Brickyard to present their views. The campus reaction was widely polarized. The primary reaction was well represented by Technician Staff Columnist Tim Gorski’s column “Creation ‘scientists’, get off campus!”
As Gorski notes, a college is a place of science. When it comes to evolution, the scientific consensus is clear: Darwin’s theory of evolution is simply the best fit to the data we have. The figure Gorski quotes from Brian Alters is that 99.9 percent of scientists believe in evolution; the Pew Research Center reported a more modest but still overwhelming 97 percent in 2009. With this level of scientific consensus, it seems that the argument is irrelevant.
And yet, that same PRC poll reported that only 32 percent of the general public believes evolution is “due to natural processes such as natural selection.” A Gallup poll in 2012 placed the percentage of creationists in America at 46 percent. This number has hardly changed in the past 30 years, during the peak of the “culture wars.” What’s the deal?
It’s typical for scientists to use this as a warning sign for the United States’ scientific literacy, but I want to posit another explanation. As noted in Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer’s book, Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America’s Classrooms, only 52 percent of Americans are aware that there is a scientific consensus. It is no wonder, then, that so many choose to believe in creationism: They truly believe that scientists are undecided.
Therefore, though there may be an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community, that consensus has completely failed to permeate into the general public, despite all the best efforts of science communicators. Unfortunately, most supporters of evolution seem unaware of this extreme divide. Often they will marginalize the creationists they argue against, as Nye did occasionally—perhaps unintentionally—in Tuesday’s debate.
We cannot marginalize creationists. They comprise almost half of our nation. There are creationists teaching in schools, working in various fields of scientific research and serving in public office. They matter, and their minds cannot be changed by pretending that they are irrelevant. Creationists and evolutionists are partners in education, in business, in charity and in government. And creationists can be just as intelligent as evolutionists: I say this as a person who was raised in a primarily creationist community.
Gorski says that one rarely sees scientists going out, spreading their message—why not? I claim that scientists can take more of a responsibility of actively inviting creationists into discussion. How often does one see a safe environment for creationists to pose their questions without the threat of being mistaken as “uneducated?” The ultimate purpose of a university is for education; we ought to facilitate, rather than marginalize, discussion of these issues at N.C. State.
Therefore, I would like to invite anyone interested to join me in the Brickyard on Sunday, Feb. 9, at 1 p.m., for a conversation on how to bridge the communication gap. Everyone is invited: creationists, evolutionists, and anyone undecided. Come with questions, as well as answers to questions you may be asked. I only ask that you do not come if you don’t think there is any way your perspectives might shift.
The reason why creationist scientists and evangelicals come to the Brickyard is simple. As the Christmas story goes, when Jesus was born, an angel appeared to nearby shepherds, saying, “Do not fear. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.” For 2,000 years since, this has been the basis of evangelical ministry: that the Gospel is meant for all the world.
Science tells us, ultimately, that we don’t need to accept what we’re told. You don’t have to be afraid to question things: All who seek the truth with honesty and integrity will ultimately find it. That’s good news if I ever heard it—it is certainly good news for all people.
