Why Evolutionary Biology Needs Intelligent Design: Part I
This is the first in a series on the need for rapid synthesis between evolutionary biology, genomics, contemporary art, and design research.
About six years ago I had the opportunity to attend the annual meetings of the Society for the Study of Evolution held at my then home campus, Indiana University in Bloomington. By the time of the meetings, I had fully immersed myself in the study and culture of evolutionary biology. I maintained affiliations with at least two different labs in the department and well as a few different research paths, all as I was finishing my undergraduate degree in biology. What I remember most clearly from the meeting was the sort of call to arms that took place at a town hall meeting of the society. There was the perceived threat that an insurgence in creationist policy maneuvering would reduce funding for evolutionary biology at the federal level. All of the sudden, evolutionary biologists had to do some PR and identity management of their own so that their message and relevance was clear to all. The result was a whitepaper that spelled out the relevance of contemporary evolutionary biology for society.
It struck me later that this seemed an entirely disingenuous reason for organizing and thinking critically about how evolution and evolutionary biology is portrayed publicly. Granted, we rarely act unless our livelihood compels us to do so, yet for an organization of people committed to teaching and researching the many facets of the theory, I was surprised that we wouldnÂt be more concerned about the image and images arising out of their practice. Now that six years have elapsed and the nation has witnessed another in a series of sustained policy and legal debates concerning creationism and evolution in the public schools, I am again left wondering why more effort isnÂt being directed towards perceptions of evolution and evolutionary biology as opposed to the linguistic wordplay that dominates most public debates on the controversy. After attending the symposium composed of participants from the Kitzmiller v. Dover legal case at the Society for the Study of Evolution Annual Meeting, I couldnÂt help but attune my senses for proposed solutions to these cultural conflicts. A handful of solutions were offered with the vast majority coming directly from the National Center for Science Education, but a recurrent sentiment was that evolution, as a cultural commodity, has a perception problem. When compared to the idea of creationism, evolution has produced few visual artifacts that are both broadly accessible and engaging for the mind and body. Yes, creationism did get a sizable headstart, but when beer commercials provide some of the most valuable public articulations of macroevolution, we might ask ourselves if we might do better. At the Kitzmiller v. Dover symposium everyone agreed that there is no single solution, and one respondant even suggested that we ought not engage in an image makeover or try to make evolutionary biology flashier. Yet when questioned about biologists use of visual imagery, education specialists have had limited responses in my experience, saying that indeed they seem to be important, but only as subordinate resources for text. My reading of the situation is that we need to think more critically about the images we are producing by working across different disciplinary domains.
Let me offer this. It would seem that evolutionary biologists are unaware of their audiences, or that communication design for biology is targeted for too specialized an audience. Given that evolution and evolutionary biology are firmly entrenched in social questions and problems (e.g. disease, social relationships, origins or life), biologists need to recognize that evolutionary biology has moved beyond the scientific arena to affect many aspects of life. In doing so, biologists must also recognize that they are compelled to create and distribute their findings and interpret their meanings in cooperation with other members of society. One example of this is the tension and influence of visual and verbal articulations. Verbal articulations are useful and preferred up to a point. However, we often fail to recognize that some populations and constituencies do not employ verbal methods as their preferred means of communication. Children are one of these populations.
Do-It-Yourself or collaboration among specialists?
I once corresponded with the chairperson of a major biology department about the importance of having artists and designers work in cooperation with scientists on their visual communications. At first I concurred that the democratization of illustration and imaging tools had made it easier for biologists to do it themselves, but the more I thought about it the less comfortable I was with that idea. For one thing, all of the special tools and gimmicks provided by these Âdemocratic tools tend to clutter the visual landscape and insert meanings unintended by their authors. Furthermore, it is rare that biologists are taking into account the various histories of representation, social contexts, and political consequences of visual presentations. Reliance on readymade software and drawing tools can contribute to the predominance of monocultural visual perspectives. The overwhelming majority of science is communicated with written text, as, perhaps, it should be. Still, this necessarily tends to exclude all but those well versed in the specialized terminology. That is, the verbal conventions are not shared amongst a wide audience. Visual articulations, on the other hand, can make difficult material clear while exposing hidden nuances and sources of uncertainty in the data. Nothing is hidden in the subtle phrasing of a word, and while there is subjectivity in the interpretation of the data or message one might consider the import of uncertainty to scientific communication as a preamble to wider participation and more fluid discussions of perceived risks and likely consequences.
Domino effects
The stakes for evolutionary biology are high. While it is true that science has accepted the role that evolution play in the development and diversification of living organisms, many people have cited irreconcilable differences between their beliefs and their understanding of evolutionary theory as their basis for rejecting its place in the cultural milieu. Unfortunately, misunderstanding of the basic principles of evolution all too often influences the rejection of scientific explanations outright. Conversely, scientific explanations have made little effort to reach out to diverse constituencies and expand the range of dialog and communication. What every designer knows is that his or her practice is centered on creating dialog. The scientist is intent on communicating results. Dialog does happen at public presentations and the like, but we are after widespread appreciation of the phenomena at a minimum and engagement or participation as an ideal.
