Damage

[Meatros]

I was thinking about this a while ago, and I even submitted a question to Talk Origins about it.

How bad is creationism? I mean, I know that the "theory" (it hurts to even call it that, but I digress) is full of the same stuff that's in a babies diaper and that it has had some success at influencing some public schools (at least at one time); but how much damage is creationism doing to science as a whole?

Is the public attitude becoming better, in regards to placing creationism (either ID or YEC) in the waste bin that it belongs in?

I mean, I realize that there will always be "flat-earthers" and people with their "bible-blinders" on, but when is this trend of mass ignorance going to end?

I suppose this has turned into more of a rant, but I am curious as to what the current effects of creationism are towards the scientific community.

[Duvenoy]

At the risk of getting snarled at, I will say; very little. However much AiG and others spew their oral and printed offal, science continues on.

Of course, those who either can't or refuse to think for themselves will follow the course of least resistance and believe, against all evidence, that ancient texts hold all truth. Thus it has always been, but the sciences still continue on and even these reap the benefit of it.

And those who are not only willing but eager to do their own thinking will assist that continuance.

Is it not so?

doov

[pz]

It shows no signs of ending. In the US, at least, it's growing, and is also fueled by quiet encouragement from the ruling regime. I'm seeing slowly increasing numbers of fundamentalist idiots in the entering college classes, and even greater numbers of students who are abysmally ignorant of basic biology, because their high school curricula have been gutted.

Creationism shouldn't even be on the table in any discussion of education standards, yet there it is every single time science in the public schools is brought up. Often it is the frontmost issue.

I worry. Everyone should worry. The US is on the road to becoming a backward, illiterate, religious state ruled by fundamentalist godidiots with apocalyptic dreams and fistfuls of nuclear weapons. Creationism is just one symptom.

[Coragyps]

What pz said.
You can't imagine how bad it is out here in the provinces - honor-student contemporaries of my daughter that "doubt that dinosaurs existed"....

Any of you here, particularly those in biology and those in Texas:
August 21 is the deadline to either submit written statements or to register to testify at the hearings on biology text adoption on September 10 in Austin. From a mail group I'm on:
------------------
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/textbooks/announcements/publichearing9-03.html
August 21, 2003
Final Date for Texas Residents to Submit Requests to Speak at the September 10, 2003 Public Hearing on Textbooks and Date for Receipt of Written Comments

Two public hearings are scheduled before the State Board of Education (SBOE) concerning instructional materials under consideration for adoption in November 2003. The first public hearing was held on July 9, 2003. The second public hearing will be held at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 2003, in Room 1-104 of the William B. Travis Building at 1701 North Congress Avenue in Austin.

Proclamation 2001 calls for new instructional materials in Biology, Advanced Placement Biology; International Baccalaureate Biology; English as a Second Language; Agricultural Science and Technology Education; Business Education; Family and Consumer Sciences; Technical Education/Industrial Technology Education; Marketing Education; Trade and Industrial Education; Technology Applications; Career Orientation; and Health Science Technology Education. For a detailed list of subjects included in Proclamation 2001, go to www.tea.state.tx.us/textbooks/proclamations.

August 21, 2003 is the final date for Texas residents to request in writing to appear at the September 10, 2003, public hearing. August 21, 2003 is also the final date for receipt of official written comments concerning instructional materials for consideration.

§ Requests to Speak at the September 10, 2003 Public Hearing: Texas residents should submit their requests to speak at the September 10, 2003 hearing in writing on or before August 21, 2003. Requests may be made by e-mail to rjackson@tea.state.tx.us; by fax to 512-936-4319; or by mail to State Board of Education Office Texas Education Agency, ATTN: Renee Jackson, Room 2-190, 1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701. Telephone requests to speak will also be accepted. The telephone number for the State Board of Education Office is 512-463-9007. Requests shall include subjects, titles, and publishers of instructional materials to be addressed.

§ Official written comments shall also be filed with the State Board of Education Office by 5:00 p.m. Written comments may be submitted to State Board of Education Office, Texas Education Agency, ATTN: Ms. Renee Jackson, Room 2-190, 1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701. Comments submitted by e-mail should be sent to rjackson@tea.state.tx.us.

Note: Distribution of written material at the September 10, 2003 hearing should be limited to the text of oral testimony. Written comments other than the text of oral testimony should be submitted by August 21, 2003, in order to allow time for copying and distribution to State Board of Education members prior to the date of the hearing. Speakers who wish to distribute the text of their oral testimony should bring 35 copies for State Board of Education members and agency.

A registration sheet for public testimony can be found at www.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/input/register.html and procedures for public hearings before the SBOE can be found at www.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/input/hearing.html.

In accordance with SBOE rule 19 TAC §66.60(b)(3), a record of the hearing will be made and transcribed. The transcript will be provided to State Board of Education members, Education Service Centers, participating publishers, and persons who have filed written requests. The official record will be held open for 14 calendar days after the close of the hearing. During this period, any person who participated in the hearing and any official representative of a publishing company may submit a written response to written comments and/or oral testimony presented at the hearing.

For questions related to the adoption, purchase, or distribution of textbooks, contact Textbook Administration. The telephone number is (512) 463-9601; e-mail is textbooks@tea.state.tx.us.

---------------------------------
If I can wangle the vacation day, I'm going - I don't know what I'll say yet, but hell, it'll be fun to wear a suit where nobody is getting married or buried. ;)

[Gregg]

When the creationists were all YEC's with southern accents and funny pompadours, I don't think they were that much of a danger. But they've gotten much more sophisticated. And the debate over teaching "alternatives" to evolution in schools has been tied into the "culture war," which is supposedly between godless, hedonistic baby killers on one side and virtuous "God, guns'n'guts" true-blue Americans on the other. It really has nothing to do with science, it has to do with preserving SOME kind of "God of the gaps" in order to rescue the children from the horrors of a meaningless, empty atheistic existence and the torments of hell. (And, of course, to appease God so he restores the invisible shield of protection over the country.)

[Heathen Dawn]

What are they going to write in their new textbooks? "X years ago, the dinosaurs were designed"? They don't even agree about how many years this X represents, but that's a minor detail. How do you write an ID-oriented curriculum without sounding like you're describing Santa Claus? After all, creationism is the account that God just poofed creatures into existence. How is this going to be more credible than Harry Potter?

Dembski loves the example of how plate tectonics replaced the geosynclinal theory in textbook. But it was one scientific theory replacing another, not a magical theory replacing a scientific theory. If there's something I haven't seen yet and really want to see, that's Plan 1 of the Wedge - research. I'd like to see what those ID textbooks looks like. I'd like to see them describe Historical ID without resorting to magical statements, and I'd like to see how they get over their squabbles (what with Behe being a theistic evolutionist, Philip Johnson an OEC, and Paul Nelson a YEC).

[Division By Zero]

Originally posted by pz
I'm seeing slowly increasing numbers of fundamentalist idiots in the entering college classes, and even greater numbers of students who are abysmally ignorant of basic biology, because their high school curricula have been gutted.
No kidding. When I took high school biology around six or seven years ago, evolution wasn't even part of the curriculum. The closest we got to the subject was "some creatures have similar DNA." I certainly hope things have improved since then, but I don't expect too much.

I think the mass ignorance among the public is extremely distressing. Creationists aren't just loonies that live on the fringes of society, they're everywhere. I'm a college student, and many of other students my age, who are otherwise rational and intelligent individuals, are also dogmatic creationists. It's almost too much to believe that such idiocy could be so stubbornly entrenched in the population, and yet it's true.

I guess enough propaganda, and the reinforcement of having others share your delusion, can be enough to build a concrete wall around one's brain...

[Novowels]

When I was watching the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode about creationism with a couple of friends (both fairly liberal apatheists) they both thought that the "evolutionists" were "just as bad" as the "rabid creationists." Admittedly, that show was fairly over-the-top as far as the EvC controversy, but it did frighten me that my friends would fall for the creationist "wedge" of equal time.

I've brought this up a couple of times with some of my other friends, which range from conservative Catholic to lukewarm deists w/ a twist of Christian, and it's depressing how many of them parrot that evolution is "an unproven theory" and that people should be "allowed to choose" their theory. As I'm the only out-and-out atheist in the group, arguing just plays to their hand, unfortunately. They say I seem rigid and intolerant, even though I have the facts on my side.

So yeah, I'd say the creationists are adversely affecting the public attitude. The scientific community, of course, I cannot comment on.

[Rhaedas]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
If there's something I haven't seen yet and really want to see, that's Plan 1 of the Wedge - research. I'd like to see what those ID textbooks looks like. I'd like to see them describe Historical ID without resorting to magical statements, and I'd like to see how they get over their squabbles (what with Behe being a theistic evolutionist, Philip Johnson an OEC, and Paul Nelson a YEC).

One the one hand, I'd love to do the same, tell them, "Okay, put up or shut up. Where's the replacement theory?"

But, as the battle goes on, I begin to think like the others have said...you give them any ground to stand on, and what little they can scrape together will be lauded by a good percentage of the public that, see, ID DOES exist, so teach it!

Common sense would tell you otherwise, but if common sense ruled, ID books wouldn't make it TO the bookstands, much less sell well, and be used as "proof" against evolution.

I'll close with the usual ending to any post on ID and church-state separation.

:banghead: :banghead:

[scigirl]

Originally posted by Meatros
I suppose this has turned into more of a rant, but I am curious as to what the current effects of creationism are towards the scientific community.
Very good question - I've thought about this one a lot actually.

My immediate response is to agree with what's been said, and say that creationism probably doesn't specifically or directly hurt the progress of science. Because most legitimate scientists ignore it.

My concern, however, is what it is doing to children who are interested in science and learning? If they are taught at an early age that some science is not just wrong, but in fact evil, how likely are these kids going to become the next Nobel Prize winner in Physics or Medicine?

Think about this for a minute. How much more would we know about astronomy if the early church had not suppressed Galileo's discovery? I think a similar thing is happening right now with the creationist movement, although not as dramatic, obviously.

Also, I think the prevalence of creationism is a symptom of a much larger problem. The problem of eliciting truths about society by picking/choosing from an ancient text, rather than use good solid science and critical reasoning.

scigirl

[Heathen Dawn]

Just a thought...

I found the PBS Evolution Series guide on the web a few weeks ago, and I visit it regularly to fill in the gaps in my knowledge. I especially like visiting this interactive exhibit:

Evolution: Change: Deep Time (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deeptime/index.html)

and I'm constantly fascinated by what I learn. Compared to this, the creationist fantasies are so ... so ... PUERILE! No religion has ever produced a story comparable to what science has uncovered for us. To think people want to give up this stupendous story for childish myths is simply shocking. The immaturity of religion is made fully apparent by comparing it to the glorious scientific account!

[scigirl]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
No religion has ever produced a story comparable to what science has uncovered for us.
Very well put, Heathen Dawn. I couldn't agree more.

scigirl

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

It's their attempt at bringing about the Second Coming. Force a one-world government lead by a psychopath/idiot, you are bound to have wars, famine, and a plague (when biloogical weapons come loose). People in the US used to (and still do, strangely enough) use their rational thinking skills--but its in decline. When it hits rock bottom, then they can step in, force the Second Coming and the Rapture soo they can be with the G man.

That's the real agenda--selfish assholes looking to be raptured so they don't havve to die to go to heaven. The fuckwad crazies.

I may be paranoid, but you know what? At least I see it coming when it does come. :)

[The_Unknown_Banana]

Originally posted by Novowels
When I was watching the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode about creationism

Love that episode! Though was both incredibly scary and amusing at the same time..

[Nic Tamzek]

The basic dangers are to (1) objective science and (2) separation of church and state. Neither of these are (IMO) in great danger due to creationism -- but mostly because there is vigorous opposition, which ramps up if the creos get a foothold somewhere.

Given the dire consequences that have happened in numerous instances in history when democratic practices have lost out to the theocratic/ideological, it behooves us to be vigilant.

What was that someone said, "democracy requires the constant attention of its citizenry", or something?

[Nic Tamzek]

FWIW, I think that in the big picture, ID is really a sign of the waning of creationism. ID was a response to several intellectual and legal defeats for creationism, and its forced the antievolutionists back to *much* weaker claims. They manage to obscure this by keeping their rhetoric as heated as ever and developing newish buzzwords, but think about how much less the age of the earth is contested these days.

It took a few hundred years for everyone to learn to "deal" with heliocentrism. So we're maybe halfway through the process with evolution.

[pz]

You are so optimistic. I see it more as a symptom of the growing ascendance of anti-intellectualism in the US. We got trouble. If we don't fight it, it's not going to fade away.

[DMB]

As a non-American, I have to say I agree with pz. Looking on from the sidelines, I get the impression that in America the people whose knuckles drag on the ground are slowly winning.

While creationism doesn't appear at the moment to be a serious issue in Europe, we do seem to be affected by postmodern relativism and irrational new age beliefs, so that people are reluctant to get to grips with critical thought. There is also a mistrust of scientists as people responsible for "Frankenfoods", etc.

There is a very real problem about the public understanding of science and scientists. We need far more top scientists to come out of their ivory towers and engage with the general public.

[pmurray]

Originally posted by pz
I worry. Everyone should worry. The US is on the road to becoming a backward, illiterate, religious state ruled by fundamentalist godidiots with apocalyptic dreams and fistfuls of nuclear weapons. Creationism is just one symptom.

Dont know how true this might be, but I once heard:

Anti-evolutionism, anti-science in general, was a real issue for the US in the 50s. You know what put an end to it? The soviets launched sputnik.

Instantly, the US zeitgeist understood how precious, how important science is. Unlike religion, it actually works.

I wonder what might catalyse a pendulum swing these days?

[Gregg]

Originally posted by pmurray
Dont know how true this might be, but I once heard:

Anti-evolutionism, anti-science in general, was a real issue for the US in the 50s. You know what put an end to it? The soviets launched sputnik.

Instantly, the US zeitgeist understood how precious, how important science is. Unlike religion, it actually works.

I wonder what might catalyse a pendulum swing these days? There should be plenty of them already--the growing resistance of insects to pesticides and of bacteria and virii to antibiotics and serums, global warming, the hole in the ozone layer, overpopulation and famine, combating terrorism. Science must be a major part of the solutions, if any, to these problems.

[pz]

Unfortunately, although I agree with you that science is the only reasonable solution to these problems, what we see in the political responses is a rejection of science, at least by certain dominant political groups in the US.
Originally posted by Gregg
There should be plenty of them already--the growing resistance of insects to pesticides and of bacteria and virii to antibiotics and serums,Disease outbreaks are the result of terrorist conspiracies. Scientists designed AIDS as a weapon of genocide, and SARS is mostly hysteria...and it mainly affects commies, anyway. global warming, Isn't happening. And if it is, it's good -- everyone likes to be warm.the hole in the ozone layer, Who cares? It only affects the arctic and antarctic, and no one lives there.overpopulation and famine, There is no such thing as overpopulation. We need more growth, or we'll be overrun by the madly breeding hordes of Chinese and Mexicans and Africans.

Famine? What famine?combating terrorism.The way to fight terrorism is to turn our country into a police state and strip all the bad guys of their civil liberties. Who needs science for that? Science must be a major part of the solutions, if any, to these problems. There is no shortage of science deniers who will pretend these problems don't exist, or who will blame science as their cause.

[Godot]

Originally posted by pz
There is no shortage of science deniers who will pretend these problems don't exist, or who will blame science as their cause. For a change, "goddidit" doesn't quite cut it. Might as well make science out to be the bogeyman.

[KeithHarwood]

Originally posted by scigirl

My concern, however, is what it is doing to children who are interested in science and learning? If they are taught at an early age that some science is not just wrong, but in fact evil, how likely are these kids going to become the next Nobel Prize winner in Physics or Medicine?

scigirl

How many of the US Nobel Prize winners of the last twenty or thirty years were actually educated in the US? Primary education, that is?

[KC]

pz writes:

There is no such thing as overpopulation. We need more growth, or we'll be overrun by the madly breeding hordes of Chinese and Mexicans and Africans.

I have always been dumbfounded by creationists who argue that there is no overpopulation because all of the people in the world could fit into a space the size of Texas. And to think that such mud-fucking stupidity can vote.

KC

[Nic Tamzek]

I wouldn't mind if all the people who thought that would move to Texas.

[Coragyps]

Just a damn minute, now Nic! We got a bunch of dumbasses here already! :eek:

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by Coragyps
Just a damn minute, now Nic! We got a bunch of dumbasses here already! :eek:

I think the idea might involve some sort of impenetrable wall.

[theyeti]

Originally posted by KC

I have always been dumbfounded by creationists who argue that there is no overpopulation because all of the people in the world could fit into a space the size of Texas. And to think that such mud-fucking stupidity can vote.

Heh, I heard that one from Rush Limbaugh; I didn't know it was popular with creationists too, but I guess they get a lot of their information from him. My immediate thought was, "Who cares if you can stuff everyone in there, what are they supposed to eat?" I guess that's what most of you guys thought too. :)

theyeti

P.

[theyeti]

As for the damage that creationism might do, I don't think it poses any harm to the scientific community. Science has always been carried out by a relatively small fraction of nerds, and it will continue to be for the forseeable future. From my first-hand experience, the scientific community is not about to abandon the scientific method, or modify it significantly, and the same rigorous standards that have always been applied to scientific thought continue to be applied without apology. On the occasions when I've tried to explain ID to my colleages, I inevitably get weird looks. They immediately ask all the hard questions that IDists assiduously avoid answering. They're trained to think scientifically, to ask, "What's your model and how do you test it?," and upon finding out that ID not only doesn't have a model, but doesn't even want one, they're left with nothing to do but scoff. We're currently in a golden age of scientific discovery in the biological sciences, and no one's about to change the rules of the game when we're kicking so much ass. Those in the ID/Cre movement who assert that there's something fundamentally wrong with the scientific method are quite frankly off their rocker.

On the other hand, it is making significant inroads with the public. The primary danger I see here is that this will only widen the wedge already driven between the scientific community and a public that increasingly has no clue what it is that they do. Thus they tend to polarize the public between those who strongly support scientific "rationality" and those who are suspicious or downright hostile to the scientific community. This is made bad enough by the fact that science is becoming increasingly specialized, so that other scientists in the same sub-field sometimes can't evaluate each other's research. But when the general public gets the notion that scientists are somehow suppressing the Truth, or that droves and droves of them are being converted to ID when they're not, and you only make it that much harder for the public to understand science. And as others have pointed out, there are too many important issues that the public must make the right choices on for them to be ignorant or easily misled.

I'm not sure how it's all going to end. There are times when I think we're going to the shitter, and there are times when I'm an optimist. Like Nic said, we may be seeing the dying gasp of religious fundamentalism. They're becoming increasing bold, but it's because they're becoming increasingly desperate. They know they're losing ground, so they're thowing everything they've got at it right now. Believe me, as much as we may get discouraged, if you read fundie publications, they're always convinced that the world's going to hell in a handbasket. (Which for most people means things are getting better.) While I used to chalk that up to paranoid ravings, which most of it certainly is, I've come to realize that they know they're on the losing side of their self-imposed culture war. What they don't realize is why, but that's another topic. Hopefully we've hit a peak with the growing influence of the anti-science fundies, and while there will always be cycles of religious "awakening", we're hopefully going to see the current trend start to wane.

theyeti

[Roland98]

Originally posted by DMB
There is a very real problem about the public understanding of science and scientists. We need far more top scientists to come out of their ivory towers and engage with the general public.

I agree, but that's a difficult thing to do. Even many of the biologists I work beside don't realize the extent of the beliefs of much of the general public regarding the creation/evolution "controversy" here in America. Hell, even though I'd been mired in the ID debate for awhile due to their attempts to get it into my state's curriculum, even I didn't realize how prevalent YEC beliefs still are in my area. :eek:

So how should they engage the public? Some debate creationists to expose the plethora of holes in their ideas; others refuse to do so publicly because they feel it gives some validity to the creationist movement. I can see both sides. I've seen some talk to church groups to try to educate them about what science does and how evolution shouldn't be threatening to their beliefs; then I've seen creationists spin that into a "scientists are after our kids" fear tactic. The NCSE, a group that certainly "engages the general public," is often a target as well. Personally, I'd like to do more myself, but am not sure what else to do...perhaps someone has suggestions?

[RufusAtticus]

I find it interesting that many biologists really don't have a clue about creationist objections. Their simply not prepared to deal with the wild claims of pseudoscience on initial sight. The fact that people think that there are human and dinosaur footprints found together is rather shocking to most of us. It's up there with people wearing tinfoil hats to keep the Saturnians from invading your mind. I remember giving my advisor fits when I played creationist and said that her example of evolution was simply variation within kinds. (Perhaps it bodes well for my university that no student had ever told her that before.)

[DMB]

Originally posted by Roland98
So how should they engage the public?
I think the answer is to cultivate the media. After all, newspapers have acres of blank space to fill and TV stations have demanding schedules to fill. If you can become friends with editors, and you don't have two heads they will probably be delighted to have you on board.

[Roland98]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I find it interesting that many biologists really don't have a clue about creationist objections. Their simply not prepared to deal with the wild claims of pseudoscience on initial sight. The fact that people think that there are human and dinosaur footprints found together is rather shocking to most of us. It's up there with people wearing tinfoil hats to keep the Saturnians from invading your mind. I remember giving my advisor fits when I played creationist and said that her example of evolution was simply variation within kinds. (Perhaps it bodes well for my university that no student had ever told her that before.)

Hah, that's been my experience as well. I showed a colleague one of the essays on AiG and he thought it must be a parody site. And the "increasing numbers of scientists have accepted creationism/YEC/goddidit" allegation always is good for a laugh.

[Roland98]

Originally posted by DMB
I think the answer is to cultivate the media. After all, newspapers have acres of blank space to fill and TV stations have demanding schedules to fill. If you can become friends with editors, and you don't have two heads they will probably be delighted to have you on board.

Hmm, an interesting idea. I don't know much about the newspaper in my current city; I'll have to check it out a bit more. In the last town I lived in, the word "Republican" used to be in the newspaper's name, and they wrote an editorial in favor of teaching ID alongside evolution, so I doubt they'd be much of a help.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Roland98
Hah, that's been my experience as well. I showed a colleague one of the essays on AiG and he thought it must be a parody site. And the "increasing numbers of scientists have accepted creationism/YEC/goddidit" allegation always is good for a laugh.

I actually get AiG's newsletter sent to my school box. It's good for a laugh, and every month they waist probably over $0.50 in stamps to send their mail to me. It's not much but it makes me smile every time I trash one.

[Roland98]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I actually get AiG's newsletter sent to my school box. It's good for a laugh, and every month they waist probably over $0.50 in stamps to send their mail to me. It's not much but it makes me smile every time I trash one.

Ooh, is that free? I'll have to check it out. I would be fun to share around.

[RufusAtticus]

Yeap. Free for me. Not for them. :D

[acidphos]

The problem of eliciting truths about society by picking/choosing from an ancient text, rather than use good solid science and critical reasoning.

IMO the lack of reasoning and critical thinking are the crux of the problem. The door is opened that you don't have to face the truth if you don't like it and pseudoscience is just a natural flow from that- I don't like that I have agressive pancreatic cancer and have on average 6 months to live, therefore I will buy the magic cancer cure formula and live! Creationism just happens to be common among those that need all answers to be yes/no rather than shades of grey. I am not quite sure how the religion aspect fits in to it- it seems that just as many are from upbringings where it was constantly reinforced as are from "cult" affiliations formed later in life.

[DMB]

Originally posted by Roland98
In the last town I lived in, the word "Republican" used to be in the newspaper's name, and they wrote an editorial in favor of teaching ID alongside evolution, so I doubt they'd be much of a help.
Well you don't know until you try. If you are an important professor, they're more likely to be impressed than if they judge you nobody special, but in any case there are ways. Journalists like freebies, so invite them to an open day where they get free food and booze, for example, and ply them with suitably clear and simple information. Most journos are generalists and don't have the time or capacity to cope with technicalities (but that doesn't make them thick).

It helps to think like a journalist as well. Give them a ready-made angle. For example, a population organisation I was involved with in the UK put out a press release headed "<famous conservationist> calls for Green Sex". We got huge coverage in all the papers from the top broadsheets to the least literate tabloids. His message was really that people should be able to enjoy sex without necessarily associating it with reproduction and that the resulting smaller population increase would benefit the environment (hence "green").

Scientists often make the mistake of thinking that if they spell out their message in their own terms the world will beat a path to their door. It doesn't work like that. You need hooks to catch journalists. One way is to be a reliable source of information whenever they need it quickly. If you are established in their eyes as an expert in X, they will tend to call on you at least for a quote whenever they touch on X.

Something else that you might try is getting to know an editor or two socially. If they already know you in such a context, they are going to be a bit more likley to trust you professionally.