Yesterday was Charles Darwin's 200th birthday, and it has been about 150 years since he published The Origin of Species. And still, almost two-thirds of Americans alive today believe that life on Earth has either always existed in its present forms, or has changed over time under the conscious and direct guidance of God (thanks to a substantive barrage of research from The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life).Talk about a classic, well-established brand that is suffering these days. It's a good excuse to ponder for a moment the true efficacy and sustainability of our business marketing efforts. Fundamentally, it shows that you just can't dictate what individuals will do with the information they're given. Evolution is an observable and demonstrable fact. End of story. The human-focused sequel to Origin (The Descent of Man) is a robust theory only because we've yet to collect enough data to prove or disprove it. It's not a belief, because it could be changed or ultimately rejected based on future discoveries (Darwin knew nothing about genetics, had never heard of quantum physics, etc.), so there's nothing in which to believe; the question of how life came to be -- and we human beings in particular -- isn't answered by the theory of evolution, or by some heretic named Charles Darwin. At some point, all science -- and knowledge overall -- becomes theory, doesn't it? You can play that child's game of "but why?" until every interpretation reaches the point where the facts are few to none, and the answer becomes "well, just because." We can prove that electricity will do things, and even describe the qualities of its constituent electrons. But we can't explain why they move the way they doDitto for gravity, which operates according to steadfast rules (general relativity notwithstanding), but there's no observable proof of the mechanism of its transferHuman emotions can be traced to hormones and chemicals, and areas in the brain identified with particular thoughts, memories, or command functions. Nobody can explain why, or prove the causal how it beyond a shadow of a doubtSo is all of this knowledge nothing more than a basket of theories up for debate? Better yet, does it mean that we need to consider whether we believe in them or not?Of course not. There's an unanswerable question at the end of every inquiry, whether scientific, social, or otherwise. Yet the mechanism of that inquiry need no more threaten religious belief than the discoveries themselves...because there's always that "but why?" question to follow every latest discovery. Belief and faith will always exist just beyond the reach of the powers of human understanding, so shouldn't otherwise educated people be able to agree on the what of scientific discovery without fast-tracking to that inevitable why later on.At risk of reveling in my dim bulbness, I see at least three connections to business, and how we expect customers and consumers to respond to our outbound communications:Context trumps content. What people already know and believe is far more important that whatever you want to tell them, and no matter how compelling you can tell it. The primary problem with evolutionary theory is that it scratches (or directly attacks) heartfelt religious beliefs, and it can only be understood within that context, not outside of it. When we say that consumers "own brands," what's really happening is that they absorb the info, and then reform it based on what else they've formed in their hearts and mindsPriorities shift. People carry inside of them To Do Lists For Their Lives; these are approximate checklists of activities and insights that are constantly sorted and recast, depending on need and circumstance. One message might be high on the list, and then low, only to rise again, and perhaps do so many times in a single day. So the idea that our marketing communication stands for anything absolute or reliable within consumers' consciousness is a joke. The elevation of the evolution issue on many peoples' to do lists has nothing to do with the merits or content of the line entry, but rather with the requirements of that ever-changing listNothing is a given. You'd think that 150 years of learned scientific literature and near-incessant experimental testing would have been enough to convince all but the rabidly resistant that evolution is a fact of science. It hasn't. Now let's try to debate the efficacy of that 30-second TV spot, not to mention the "engagement" of an amusing social media campaign. There's just no way to know if anything really stuck unless you have some way to constantly restick it and, better yet, relate it back to behaviors beyond the effort (like sales).I'm also struck by how well the detractors of evolutionary theory have adapted their arguments over the years. Creation Science and Intelligent Design are a far cry from Bryan's blunt Biblical retort at the Scopes Trial. Ultimately, their approach to proving their disbelief in evolution has evolved. Res ipsa loquitur?
Link to original post