Interview with Wesley Elsberry

I had written a college paper on the subject of introducing intelligent design into the public school classroom. For that paper I had to do some primary research, which involved either an interview with a subject expert or a survey. I opted for an interview and I chose Wesley Elsberry of the National Center for Science Education because I have worked with him briefly in the past when I took over this Florida Citizens for Science website. It was a good, informative phone interview way back in October of 2006. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to use many quotes from him in the paper. So I thought I would get some other use out of the interview by posting it here.

Wesley is just starting a one-year leave-of-absense from the National Center for Science Education. According to his blog:

Where I am headed is Michigan State University where my new position is as a Visiting Research Associate in the Lyman Briggs School of Science where I will be working with Prof. Rob Pennock on a project looking at the evolution of intelligent behavior using the artificial life platform Avida. This project brings together a number of the topics that have interested me throughout my life: computation, evolutionary biology, and cognitive science. We’re likely to be applying some ideas from artificial neural systems, which was the topic of my master’s degree. I’m looking forward to it.

I asked him if I could publish the full interview here and he agreed. Here it is for your information …

Question 1:
Through my research, I have found that intelligent design (ID) activists have a thin, almost nonexistent body of scientific research in support of their claims. However, they loudly clamor for time in the public school classroom. If ID activists believe so strongly that they should be in the science classroom, why do you believe intelligent design proponents are not engaging evolution and intelligent design through the standard scientific process of research and peer review?

Answer 1:
They can’t actually do any science based on their creationist ideas. This requires them to redefine science or resort to political pressure. When Michael Behe was on the stand during the Dover trial, he said under oath that he would redefine science, which would include accepting such things as astrology.

We should be cautious in saying that creationism doesn’t have any peer-reviewed material. Having something peer-reviewed doesn’t mean the scientific community has accepted the ideas. Peer-review is a minimum requirement. For instance, a search for cold fusion in science journals turns up 900 articles. That doesn’t mean the idea is ready for school kids or that the scientific community is convinced.

Question 2:
Challenges to evolution certainly make headlines all across this country. Does any other branch of science endure so much public conflict outside of the scientific community?

Answer 2:
Other challenged concepts include sex education (if you stretch science education to include health) and climate change. New textbooks that discuss climate change now may face challenges.

Question 3:
With a good 150 years of challenges and controversy over evolution, what do you see in the future? Will there be more of the same, or is there an end in sight? Where does the “evolution” of ID/creationism lead next?

Answer 3:
A recent study about the acceptance of evolution among several countries around the world shows that the United States is all the way at the bottom with only Turkey below it. European countries don’t care about the issue; accepting evolution is more socially accepted there. The only ones who don’t generally accept evolution are developing countries and the United States. That’s a sad commentary on our country.

The only way to break this trend is to constantly teach it and get a generation to accept it. A generation has to understand that evolution is not against religion. Once people see that and say, “Is that all? I thought there was more controversy to it,” we’ll break this anti-science hold. The anti-evolutionists have been very successful in keeping each generation ignorant concerning evolution. What is really at issue is acceptance of common descent with other animals. As more discoveries are presented, such as the mapping of the chimp genome, fewer and fewer people will deny what is being presented.

The scientific community got behind evolution pretty quickly. They read Darwin’s work and said, “Looks like you got it.” Common ancestry was quickly accepted, but natural selection took a little longer. The American resistance to evolution is not scientific, but rather socio-political.

Question 4:
In relation to the last question, what lasting impact, if any, did the Dover court decision (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, 20 December 2005) have on ID proponents?

Answer 4:
They will need to reevaluate their arguments. ID was just a label to grant them plausible deniability that they’re not talking about religion. But this trial was able to trace ID back to their textbook Of Pandas and People. This was just a game they were playing, doing a word processing search and replace in this book. They will still try to stuff as much anti-science into the classroom as they can. One of the newest strategies is that they want to “permit but not mandate” ID in the classroom.

Question 5:
Public opinion polls frequently show animosity toward evolution and a clear lack of understanding of science. What can we do in public schools to reverse this trend?

Answer 5:
How do we get there? We haven’t solved that yet. NCSE is reacting to attempts to force bad science into classrooms. Our biggest tool is the establishment clause of the first amendment. That’s our big sledgehammer, while all of our other tactics are just little screwdrivers.

The driving force behind creationism can be traced to the Wedge Document. In the document are outlined two main goals: (Elsberry quotes from the document he has in front of him) I. to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies and II. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings were created by God. This is blatantly evangelism. The majority of people don’t have a familiarity with the wedge document, though. Rather, they are told by people who they trust that evolution is bad.

Question 6:
How about adults who are no longer in school but still can influence science education and understanding, such as parents, school boards and politicians? Is it even possible to turn opinions around? If so, how?

Answer 6:
People aren’t motivated to learn more. They are comfortable with what they are told. There is a distinction between the population and the anti-science professionals. The people believe what they are told when a “magic bullet” is presented to them that supposedly kills evolution on the spot. One example is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The professionals are the ones selling the magic bullets. They are our problem.

We will be seeing a lot less of ID and more of the push to “teach the controversy.”

Question 7:
Why not avoid the conflict by avoiding the subject in the classroom? Will skipping the subject really be detrimental to someone who has no lasting interest in science? Won’t evolution be covered in college for those who are interested in science?

Answer 7:
Teachers are sometimes scared to present evolution in the classroom. That is what has been so successful about the anti-science movement. They make things uncomfortable for the schools. However, this does a huge disservice to the students, as they won’t know what evolution is and what common descent is. Without this knowledge, how will kids decide on science careers? Biotechnology is an exciting career field nowadays. These companies are now setting up centers in Florida. But whom will these companies hire? Will they hire Floridians if students come out of school with no knowledge of evolution? Or will they import people from New York?

Question 8:
Why not appease the anti-evolution folks and teach the “controversy” or the so-called “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, which will then clearly demonstrate why evolution is the most complete explanation about how life on Earth has changed and continues to change?

Answer 8:
An underlying issue is the fairness question. People naturally want to hear both sides. However, there actually is no other side. Anti-science advocates literally can’t present ID in a classroom without mentioning evolution. The whole basis of ID is that evolution sucks. Since scriptural revelations are not allowed in the science classroom, all they have is attacks on evolution. They want to have evolution presented with the sole purpose of being allowed to then tear it down. There is no place in the classroom for this waste of time. There isn’t enough time as it is to present all the real concepts students need to know.

Question 9:
When a student or parent says that evolution conflicts with their religion, which might say that God created the world as it appears today, and therefore the student or parent doesn’t “believe” in evolution, how could a teacher or school administrator answer them?

Answer 9:
A teacher of mine once started his class by saying that this is a science class and he would be teaching only science in his science class. You need to learn this material even if you don’t believe it. You need to learn what science really is and not what you think science has discovered. Students absolutely need competence in the subject.

This is where state science standards are so important. In the next few years, No Child Left Behind will become tougher and require students to pass tests based on the standards. The standards are a powerful tool! They stipulate what a student needs to know upon exiting high school. NCLB is connected to money and teacher jobs, so skipping over important subjects won’t be an option anymore.

Question 10:
Does your organization gauge what the kids themselves think of this issue? There seems to be quite a focus on school boards, courts and parents when articles are written about ID and evolution. What about the actual students? To what extent do parents and community influence them? Is there any hope of one class or a series of classes overcoming that influence?

Answer 10:
NCSE doesn’t do its own polling, so we rely on other organizations that do. I don’t believe kids have been polled about this subject. Admittedly, this could be a gap in our knowledge. However, I do believe that kids typically have more flexibility than their parents. Some parents might be scared that what kids learn in the science class might tear them away from the family’s traditional beliefs. I also suspect that if kids were polled there would be only a little difference from the parents’ responses.

# # #