Few topics cause more controversy than the discussion about science vs religion. Here Thomas Dixon of Queen Mary, University of London examines the way the debate has been played out in the American political sphere in recent times.
Thomas Dixon is the author of Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction, which publishes here in the UK next month.
During a televised debate last year between the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, the host asked if any of them did not believe in evolution. First one, then a second, then a third raised his hand. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee later elaborated on his opposition to evolution, mocking those who ‘believe they are the descendants of a primate’ rather than ‘ the unique creations of a God who knows us and loves us, and who created us for his own purpose.’
Although to most educated people – especially anyone unfamiliar with the historic strength and depth of creationist beliefs in the United States – these remarks may seem to reveal a shocking level of scientific ignorance, Huckabee knew what he was doing. He is just the latest in a long line of populist American politicians keen to tap into grass-roots religious beliefs. Huckabee, in short, was seeking the approval of that fifty percent of the American population who opinion polls consistently find believe in creationism and not evolution.
The most famous moment in the history of American anti-Darwinism came in 1925 in the small town of Dayton, Tennessee. A local school teacher there, John Scopes, was prosecuted for violating a recent law banning the teaching of evolution. The Scopes ‘monkey trial’ became the focus for a circus of pro- and anti-Darwinism in Dayton that summer, avidly reported by the world’s press. The prosecution case was led by the Democrat politician William Jennings Bryan. Bryan spoke up for the ordinary Christian folk of America against the perceived arrogance and infidelity of the intellectual elite. ‘Does it not seem a little unfair,’ Bryan asked, ‘not to distinguish between man and lower forms of life? What shall we say of the intelligence, not to say religion, of those who are so particular to distinguish between fishes and reptiles and birds, but put a man with an immortal soul in the same circle with the wolf, the hyena and the skunk? What must be the impression made upon children by such a degradation of man?’
Although William Jennings Bryan was a Democrat and Mike Huckabee a Republican, they are from the same political stock, and both aspired to become President. Bryan was the (unsuccessful) Democratic candidate for the presidency on three occasions. Known as the ‘Great Commoner’ because of his belief in the absolute sovereignty of the people, Bryan predicted that local school board elections would become more important than national elections, because parents would care more about the education and morals of their children than about foreign policy or economics. Huckabee’s anti-evolution stance appeals to just the same kinds of populism and localism. Like Bryan eighty years before him, he suggests that the only proper policy is for taxpayers and parents to decide what their children are taught in public schools. What could be more democratic, or more reasonable, than that?
And here is the heart of the liberal dilemma about evolution and creationism. Those who would identify themselves as progressive, enlightened, and liberal, usually consent to the proposition that school curricula should be set in a way that is open to the democratic process rather than being handed down by an autocratic intellectual elite. It seems right that the voters should have a say. But, what when those voters are creationists? Does the liberal instinct in favour of democracy then give way to some more powerful desires – to preserve the division between church and state enshrined in the First Amendment, for instance, or to give due weight to scientific expertise?
Finally it is worth noting that something else that Mike Huckabee has in common with William Jennings Bryan is that, despite his popularity, he is not going to be President. And neither of the men who might in fact be the next President of the United States is likely to provide the kind of encouragement to creationists and proponents of ‘Intelligent Design’ that Huckabee would have offered.
John McCain, during the same debate in which Huckabee indicated his support for creationism, was asked for a yes or no answer to the question ‘Do you believe in evolution?’ McCain looked momentarily uncomfortable, no doubt thinking of that hefty fifty percent of the electorate who would answer ‘No’, before giving a pretty confident ‘Yes’ to evolution. McCain has given some indications that he is happy for ‘Intelligent Design’ to be taught alongside evolution, but it is clearly not a cause for which he has any enthusiasm. Barack Obama has generally avoided the topic too but, when pushed in a recent interview, stated that religious instruction should be provided by parents and that it is ‘a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry’, by which one can assume he meant creationism and ‘Intelligent Design’.
So, although the next incumbent of the White House is certain to be someone who, unlike Bryan or Huckabee, believes in evolution (as well as God), the fact that the question is still asked of presidential hopefuls speaks volumes about the historical role of Christian fundamentalism in shaping American political culture.
ShareThis
_
Today, I'd like to welcome Loree Griffin Burns, author of Tracking Trash: Flotsam, Jetsam,
and the Science of Ocean Motion
(Houghton Mifflin, 2007 - middle grade nonfiction ).
Tracking Trash chronicles the work of scientists who study ocean currents by following cargo -- 
everything from rubber ducks and basketballs to computers and sneakers -- that has fallen off container ships. The book then looks at how this science is being used to help preserve and protect ocean habitats.
Loree and I met in an online group of children's nonfiction writers shortly after she'd received the contract offer for Tracking Trash. Since then we've "talked" many times via email and shared many cups of cyber tea. We came "this close" to meeting in person during one of her research trips to the left coast (next time, for sure!) Loree is a smart cookie, a fabulous writer, and simply one of the nicest people you could ever meet. It's been a pleasure to follow her journey to publication, and to share the excitement of her successes. I'm so pleased she's here today to tell us more about it all.
FIONA: So, Loree, Tracking Trash was released to wide critical acclaim. It received a constellation of starred reviews, and went into a second printing within a couple of months of first hitting book store shelves. It has been recognized by prestigious awards, including the Orbis Pictus, Boston Globe-Horn Book, Suburu SB&F, and Cybils awards. Whew! By all accounts, girl, this book is a success. When did you know it? What was it that made you say, "Yes! It's a success!"?
LOREE: That's a tough question. There was a moment when I knew I had gotten the book to a place I was happy with, that it was Finished. That was a nice moment. But a "Yes! It's a success!" moment? Not really. Just a string of amazing "OH MY GOD!" moments ... each of which I am extremely grateful for.
Oh, please share the string of OMG moments! What were they and why did they make you say OMG?
This feels dangerously like tooting my own horn, Fiona. And I have never been comfortable with that. Tell your readers to skip ahead if they want.
So, dear readers, consider yourselves told. :^) But I hope you won't skip ahead, because what comes next is Loree sharing her genuine joy and delight -- no tooting of her horn here, I'm sure you'll agree.
Loree's OMG moments:
--- First printed review arrives, from VOYA, and it is very, very good. OMG!
--- First starred review arrives, from School Library Journal. It's good, too. OMG!
--- I get an email from Sally Walker. Sally -- Secrets of a Civil War Submarine -- Walker! She tells me she read Tracking Trash, found it "totally fascinating", and is adding it to her spring book talk lists. OMG! Sally's books have meant so much to me ... Fossil Fish Found Alive is the very book that inspired me to try my hand at writing about science for a young audience. It was so kind of her to take the time and send that email, and finding it in my inbox remains one of my favorite OMG! moments of all time.
--- My high school biology teacher -- a man who inspired me in so many ways and to whom I dedicated Tracking Trash -- surprises me by coming to my release party. Seeing him for the first time in twenty years was incredible, acknowledging him and all that his teaching has meant to me in such a public forum was a gift.
--- My editor, Erica Zappy, calls to tell me Tracking Trash was named a Boston Globe-Horn Book Honor Book. I played it very cool on the phone with Erica, but there was a lot of OMG-ing when I hung up! Then I realize I will have to give an acceptance speech. Live.
--- Favorable review in the The LA Times and, shortly after, in The NY Times Book Review.
I've had more OMG! moments than I probably deserve. But I never grow tired of them and I try very hard not to take them for granted.
Let's talk a bit about process. I know a book like this takes a tremendous amount of planning. I also read on your website that some parts of the process were "organic". I'd love to hear how the planned vs. organic balance shifted at various points along the way.
There was a point when the book was ostensibly done, but not finished: I had told Curt and Jim's story, and Charlie's story, and well, then the book just sort of ended. It was not a satisfying conclusion and, worse still, I didn't know how to fix it. While I was struggling with what to do about this, I got a call from a friend. He had heard an NPR piece about scientists collecting net debris in Hawaii and wanted to be sure I had heard it too. I was too worried about my bad ending to be listening to the radio (!) and hadn't heard the story. But I quickly found the report online, learned about the work of ghost net hunters Jim Churnside, Tim Veenstra, and Mary Donohue, and began to envision a new ending.
Several weeks later I interviewed Jim Churnside by phone and asked him how he and his colleagues knew where to look for the ghost nets. His answer gave me goosebumps: "Our first step was to talk to Jim Ingraham about where in the North Pacific Ocean we should look for the ghost nets." These trash trackers -- people I knew nothing about when I started writing the book -- were using computer programs perfected with Curt's tub toy data to find their ghost nets. The story had come full circle ... and I had no idea in the beginning that it would.
I am anal by nature, and so had the writing meticulously planned: proposal, check; interviews, check; drafting of chapters, check; collection of photographs, check; meeting deadline, check. But I found that each step caused me to reexamine the step before.
Did these organic shifts affect the overall shape of the book? If so, how?
During my first sit-down interview with Curt [Ebbesmeyer - oceanographer] he told me that up to 10,000 cargo-laden containers fell into the ocean each year. That translates into a lot of floating garbage. This got me thinking about his work in an entirely new way. My thinking moved away from the oceanographically important aspects of tracking trash (learning about how currents move) and toward the darker side of the story: what happens to all that trash? The book I had planned -- a book about an interesting man practicing quirky science -- grew into a book about several interesting men and women trying to protect the ocean and everything in it.
Will this change the way you approach your next books?
The lesson I've taken from this is to loosen up, to let go my stranglehold on "process" and allow myself to meander as I research and even as I write. Sometimes the next step simply isn't ready when I want it to be. And so I wait, live, wander, talk to my radio-listening friends. Eventually, things sync and I get there.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading Tracking Trash. Please share a bit about what writing it was like. What part of creating this book was. . .
. . . most exciting?
The entire thing ... all of it was new and thrilling.
. . . most frustrating?
There was a period of time when I struggled with how to pull the book together. I had submitted a first draft and it was good, but not good enough. I felt (and my editor agreed) that the book was missing something. But I didn't know what. Blech.
. . . most gratifying?
Before I worried about readers and reviewers, I worried about how Curt Ebbesmeyer would like the book. I had spent two years corresponding with Curt, interviewing him, getting to know him and his work and his passion for understanding and protecting the ocean. Handing him a copy of Tracking Trash, watching him read it, and seeing him smile in approval was very, very gratifying.
. . . most fun?
1. Visiting John Anderson's house. He's a beachcomber in Forks, Washington, and his collection of beachcombed debris is astounding.
2. Collecting water samples on the Pacific with Charlie Moore. We were in sight of land the whole time, which was just fine by me.
You live with three young kids. What do they think about all this author business?
The day the first hardcover copies arrived, my kids were more relieved than excited. I had been talking about it for so long that they had started to think my book was simply a ploy for alone time. As in: "My mom's up in her office ... working on her book." You have to imagine their little hands making air quotation marks around the word "book" to get the full effect.
During a visit to the Worcester Public Library we passed a huge Tracking Trash display at the entrance to the Children's Room. My kids walked right by, unfazed. "Uh, guys? Did you notice anything over here in the doorway?" They remained UNIMPRESSED. Bored even. Instant grounding. :^)
All in all, they are tremendously patient with me and how much of myself is now put into things besides them.
So, what's next, Loree? I know you've got some cool projects in the works. Anything you'd like to tell us about them?
I am working on a new "Scientists in the Field" book about the dream team of scientists working to understand the baffling disappearance of our managed honey bee populations. That book is called The Hive Detectives (for now) and is scheduled for publication in Spring 2010. I've also written a picture book biography of French entomologist Jean-Henri Fabre that I am terribly excited about. More on that one soon. . .
Thanks, Loree, for giving us this terrific peek into your process and writerly life.
Please visit Loree Griffin Burns at her website and blog where she tells the behind-the-scenes story of her Tracking Trash journey. And if you haven't read Tracking Trash yet, do. It's a fascinating read, clearly written in Loree's engaging style and beautifully ilustrated with fresh photos by Betty Jenewin (who also deserves credit for Loree's author shot above).
_
