Why I Believe in 'Teaching Controversies'

In recent years, I have found myself embroiled in countless debates over intelligent design, creationism and other religious ideologies that challenge Darwin’s theory of evolution. Two of these disputes involved the internet show Bloggingheads.tv, on which pundits talk about, well, almost everything, including politics, culture and science. I’m a science correspondent for Bloggingheads.

The first incident began when I talked on Bloggingheads about Expelled, an anti-Darwin documentary, or mockumentary, as some called it, made by the columnist, TV personality and gadfly Ben Stein. Some science-lovers treated the film as a threat to civilization that should be banished from any serious intellectual discourse. I made some of these critics mad when I said that parts of the Expelled were funny. I also argued that the best way to counter anti-evolutionary propaganda like Expelled is not to ignore it but to confront it and point out where it’s wrong or misleading.

I feel this way not only about religious theories of creation but also about homeopathy, astrology, parapsychology, psychoanalysis and other belief systems that have no scientific basis. Both as a college professor and a journalist, I like to “teach the controversy.” Some of my scientific friends don’t like this phrase, because it is usually employed by Christian creationists trying to gain a foothold in science classes. The creationists claim that science teachers should “teach the controversy” over creationism and evolution. I say, Bring it on!

Shortly after this incident, the debate over how—or whether--to handle anti-Darwinism boiled over again as a result of two other Bloggingheads discussions. One featured Paul Nelson, a creationist who believes that the earth is only a few thousand years old (instead of 4.5 billion, which is what science tells us). The other discussion featured Michael Behe, a biologist who is a prominent advocate of intelligent design.

Two regular science correspondents for Bloggingheads.tv—the biology writer Carl Zimmer and the physicist Sean Carroll—were outraged that Bloggingheads.tv gave a platform to these opponents of evolution. Zimmer and Carroll quit Bloggingheads after the journalist Robert Wright, the founder of Bloggingheads, would not rule out having anti-Darwinists back on the site. Wright is a staunch Darwinist himself, but his most recent book, the bestseller “The Evolution of God,” takes a respectful attitude toward religion.

I have enormous respect for Carl Zimmer and Sean Carroll. They are extremely smart and knowledgeable, and they upgraded the level of discourse on Bloggingheads.tv. But I disagree, strongly, with their stance that some topics should be shunned. The basic premise of journalism and academia, as I see it, is that dialogue and debate are intrinsically good, leading to enlightenment and progress in human affairs and all sorts of other good things—even though of course it doesn’t always work out that way in practice.

My placement above of psychoanalysis alongside astrology, parapsychology and homeopathy was my sneaky way of making the point that it isn’t always easy to draw the line between real and pseudo-science. Some modern scientists think psychoanalysis, created by Freud a century ago, is utter bunk, but others think it remains one of our best frameworks for understanding and treating the mind.

Moreover, some, titans of modern science have espoused beliefs that, to put it mildly, are unsupported by science. The chemist Linus Pauling insisted that massive doses of vitamin C could prevent cancer. The astronomer Fred Hoyle suspected the flu virus comes from outer space.

Bloggingheads features conservatives with extremely hawkish views, which I think are potentially far more dangerous than creationism or astrology. Should they be excluded? No! My attitude is, Let’s talk about it! I’d like to find out why you hold these views, and to tell you why you’re wrong. Maybe you’ll persuade me you’re right (although I doubt it), but at least we may achieve some mutual understanding, which can’t be bad.

I try to apply this principle in my personal and professional lives. I have smart, knowledgeable friends who believe in ghosts and extrasensory perception and don’t believe in universal health care and human-induced global warming. If I shunned everyone who holds what I consider to be irrational beliefs, I’d have very few friends left, and boring ones at that. Call me naïve and sentimental, but I have faith that human reason will ultimately help us prevail over superstition and intolerance and war and other bad things, as long as we keep exchanging views. Teach the controversy!

Email the writer: