Carefully Chosen Words on Antievolutionism

The November 2003 decision of the Texas State Board of Education to reject demands made by antievolutionists is good news for science. However, the report of this decision in the December issue of Physics Today (page 36) uses language that will offend some supporters of evolution and could be useful to the enemies of science.

The article refers to the textbook critics as “antievolutionist,” “creationist,” and “social conservative.” The first two terms are pertinent, since those critics are challenging the correctness of evolution and promoting creationism or intelligent design as alternatives. The term “social conservative” is irrelevant and misleading.

A social conservative may be a supporter of evolution, an opponent of evolution, or a person who is unconcerned about evolution. The number of physicists and readers of Physics Today who think of themselves as social conservatives is not negligible. Use of this characterization gives the appearance of criticizing supporters and potential supporters based on unrelated considerations. Thoughtless language is poor public relations.

The introduction of social and political terminology into the December story aids dangerous opponents of science. The following words, written by science historian Michael Riordan, appear on page 51 of the August 2003 issue of Physics Today: “Without such a rigorous standard of truth, science will have little defense against the onslaughts of the creationists and postmodernists, for whom it is just one of many ways to grasp the world.” Darwinian evolution is included in the biology curriculum because it is the accepted scientific interpretation of biological facts. Injecting social and political considerations supports the claim of postmodernists that the conclusions of science are socially determined.

Science cannot avoid interaction and conflict with various forces in society. Riordan’s statement calls attention to threats that confront science from two different sources—postmodernism and religious fundamentalism. In addressing these threats, I urge consideration of the following facts. First, postmodernism is a threat to both science and religion. Second, within the sphere of religion, only fundamentalism is a consistent opponent of science. Most people who believe in God accept science as true and regard as allegorical those elements of the Bible that conflict with science. Third, belief systems are not always based on religion—social conservatism is an example—and do not necessarily determine a person’s view of science.

Science might have more support if its institutions and centers of power were more diplomatic. I offer two recommendations. First, avoid linking science concerns with unrelated social and political disagreements. Second, when communicating about public issues of concern to both science and religion, avoid extending the conflict with religious fundamentalism to include religion in general.

Stephen Hawking’s immensely successful book A Brief History of Time (Bantam Books, 1988) provides an outstanding example of how to achieve that second objective. His text presents physics to a general audience in a manner that avoids showing disrespect for religion and demonstrates sensitivity to its concerns. Perhaps some eminent biologist will write A Brief History of Life in the same spirit.