Politics of evolution

[PhDP]

Creationists have a noticeable impact in the political arena, especially in the GOP. But while the creationist movement is vigorous and show no sign of fatigue, it's hard to imagine how they could win. Sure, most Americans are on their side, fortunately, science is not a democracy and their "Teach the Controversy" strategy is doomed to fail, no serious courtroom would allow pseudoscience to be taught in science classes. Equally obvious is the fact that creationists will not be able to infiltrate science.

 

Of course, this issue is important enough to make headlines, less important than abortions and gays, but more than many economic issues. In less than 2 weeks I saw it 3 times; IDist Gonzalez was denied tenure (the opposite would have been surprising), an IDist will probably be elected president of the National Association of State Boards of Education, and everybody knows about the republican debate.

 

When (and “how”) will this nonsense end ?

[MolotovCocktail]

Well, contrary to your claim, I don't think most Americans are on the creationists side. I'm pretty sure that most support evolution. Its just that the creationists are the ones who are the loudest and make it appear that way.

 

I don't know if this will ever end. I'm sure it will though, since at this day and age this issue is now nothing more than an annoyance.

 

And just because a creationist is president doesn't necessarily mean that schools will be forced to teach intelligent design as a science, as that would obviously cause some serious issues.

[CDarwin]

Well, contrary to your claim, I don't think most Americans are on the creationists side. I'm pretty sure that most support evolution. Its just that the creationists are the ones who are the loudest and make it appear that way.

 

55% of Americans believe in special Creation; 37% would rather see it taught exclusively in schools.

 

And just because a creationist is president doesn't necessarily mean that schools will be forced to teach intelligent design as a science, as that would obviously cause some serious issues.

 

As I have said. The courts and the states are more important, and Presidents don't appoint that many federal judges, nor do that they have that much control over the ones they appoint. See Sandra Day O'Connor.

[MolotovCocktail]

Well, I stand corrected then. What I'd like to know though is how many of those people who do believe are the older generation. In my school most anybody believes in evolution, or at least that evolution did take place.

 

Again I don't think we have anything to worry about from the creationists.

 

The bigger concern is that America is reported to have the lowest science and mathematics scores of any industrialized country, developing country, and even some third world countries. Take a look at this disturbing article written as recently as last year!

link: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338

 

One has to wonder if there is a direct correlation...

[CDarwin]

The bigger concern is that America is reported to have the lowest science and mathematics scores of any industrialized country, developing country, and even some third world countries. Take a look at this disturbing article written as recently as last year!

link: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338

 

Well, you have to take into account the fact that the US has absolutely universal education. Most countries won't even bother with the idiots, so they aren't covered in surveys like that.

[timo]

Can you explain what "absolutely universal education" means?

[Pangloss]

55% of Americans would answer "yes" to a poll just to get the pollster to stop asking them annoying questions.

 

But seriously, I think that's one of those off-the-cuff reaction answers that doesn't necessarily reflect what people think when seriously considering the various implications of their beliefs.

 

And it's also worth noting that the margin of error in that poll was 3%. Almost as great as the difference between majority and minority. Out of 885 people that's a 27-person margin of error. That's way too close to use in support of a sweeping statement like "most Americans believe in creationism", especially since the implications of that statement are far greater than the seriousness most people were probably giving to that poll.

 

We're talking about a telephone poll, for pete's sake. Statistically speaking you know how the overwhelming majority of people called answered that poll, right?

 

<<CLICK>>

[MolotovCocktail]

55% of Americans would answer "yes" to a poll just to get the pollster to stop asking them annoying questions......

 

 

We're talking about a telephone poll, for pete's sake. Statistically speaking you know how the overwhelming majority of people called answered that poll, right?

 

<<CLICK>>

 

So true. I'm sure that those statistics represent at most less than 20% of the total population (Actually, that is probably giving them too much credit). After all, a little more than 40% of the total population of the US actually vote for president, and even less for state governments and senators, so why would they even bother to answer this poll...

[PhDP]

That's way too close to use in support of a sweeping statement like "most Americans believe in creationism", especially since the implications of that statement are far greater than the seriousness most people were probably giving to that poll.

 

It depends, many will answer they believe in evolution BUT with the hand of god, which is not really better. It also means they are likely on the side of IDists in this debate. No more than 20% of the American public believe in evolution without anything supernatural, and that number is closer to 10% in most polls. That's why I say "most American" believe in creationism.

 

Anyway I never wanted to start a debate about polls , I want to know how you think this debate will end. It's not the kind of issue where a compromise is possible, either scientists will have to accept that pseudoscience is taught in schools, or the powerful creationist machine will slowly die.

 

And Molotov, even if the president can't force schools to teach creationism, can you trust his judgment when it comes to science if he prefers his bible to reason ?

[JohnB]

And Molotov, even if the president can't force schools to teach creationism, can you trust his judgment when it comes to science if he prefers his bible to reason ?

I don't know if that's a truly valid question. Can you trust someones judgement if they prefer Karl Marx to reason? Or any ideology for that matter.

 

Can you trust the decisions of a person who believes that all theists are fools who cannot reason properly and whose opinions are therefore flawed?

 

It cuts both ways.

[MolotovCocktail]

It depends, many will answer they believe in evolution BUT with the hand of god, which is not really better. It also means they are likely on the side of IDists in this debate. No more than 20% of the American public believe in evolution without anything supernatural, and that number is closer to 10% in most polls. That's why I say "most American" believe in creationism.

 

Well, if you look at those numbers closely, you will notice that the people who took this were adults, as I had suspected, and that the vast majority of people who believed in literal creationism are the uneducated people (those without the high school diplomas). If those number mean anything, that means that we have to reform our education (Refer to post 4 for more details).

 

And even if the majority of Americans with an education believe that God assisted evolution, does that matter? After all, the theory of evolution does not imply nor does it assert that God doesn't exist. Just because evolution doesn't make a reference to God doesn't mean that it disproves his existance. What you are doing is the Appeal to the Consenquences fallacy.

 

Anyway I never wanted to start a debate about polls , I want to know how you think this debate will end. It's not the kind of issue where a compromise is possible, either scientists will have to accept that pseudoscience is taught in schools, or the powerful creationist machine will slowly die.

 

Well, accept for the hardline creationist fanatics, I'm sure they have already compromised for the most part. I know that schools who actually teach intelligent design will usually put it in their philosophy classes instead of the science class (thankfully).

 

And Molotov, even if the president can't force schools to teach creationism, can you trust his judgment when it comes to science if he prefers his bible to reason ?

 

This can apply to just about any ideology. This is an Ad Hominem.

[Pangloss]

It depends, many will answer they believe in evolution BUT with the hand of god, which is not really better. It also means they are likely on the side of IDists in this debate. No more than 20% of the American public believe in evolution without anything supernatural, and that number is closer to 10% in most polls. That's why I say "most American" believe in creationism.

 

I totally agree with this, with the one stipulation that I don't think it's a very "deep" thought. It's a very superficial thing. That doesn't make it right, of course, or less dangerous to society.

 

Most Americans treat the issue as part of that pool of opinions that one keeps hovering around near the surface of the mind for use in polls, first dates, job interviews, and "meeting the parents".

[Pangloss]

This is an Ad Hominem.

 

I don't believe it was.

[Dak]

It depends, many will answer they believe in evolution BUT with the hand of god, which is not really better.

 

why? it's not inconsistant with science.

 

sure, science says that evolution was completely unguided, but thats due to lack of evidence that it was: theres no actual evidence that it was unguided.

 

'evolution guided by god' is not scientific, but it's not incompatable with science. 'god did it', otoh, is incompatable with science.

 

"scientifically, we evolved; religiously, i believe that said evolution was guided" is a vast improvement over ID.

[PhDP]

Can you trust the decisions of a person who believes that all theists are fools who cannot reason properly and whose opinions are therefore flawed?

 

I wouldn't. Politics should be primarily based on issues, but the personality of the leaders also counts for something. I don't want my government to have any theocentric tendencies, people can believe in whatever they want, I don't care, but if they start saying they'll do this and that because of the bible, I'm starting to feel uneasy and it's the case for many US politicians. I have no clue about the religious beliefs of most of the prime ministers we had here, and I'm happy about it.

 

However I think I should have been more nuanced, obviously I would like politicians to accept evolution, but what's really important is what they're going to do with their belief. The GOP debate is a good example, McCain said he believed in evolution but he also endorsed teaching ID. On the other hand, Huckabee raised his hand when the moderator asked "Who doesn't believe in evolution", but he also said it has nothing to do with being president and that he had no intention of making any chance to the way evolution is taught in school. I respect that, it's much more reasonable than McCain's stance.

 

And even if the majority of Americans with an education believe that God assisted evolution, does that matter? After all, the theory of evolution does not imply nor does it assert that God doesn't exist. Just because evolution doesn't make a reference to God doesn't mean that it disproves his existance. What you are doing is the Appeal to the Consenquences fallacy.

 

You lost me here. I never said evolution implied God doesn't exist, I'm not interested in a debate over the validity of evolution or the validity of religious beliefs, I'm interested in the development of the creationist movement in the US, and, more specifically, when will their crusade to make some form of creationism part of the curriculum end? It's why this topic is in the "Politics" subforum.

 

Well, accept for the hardline creationist fanatics, I'm sure they have already compromised for the most part. I know that schools who actually teach intelligent design will usually put it in their philosophy classes instead of the science class (thankfully).

 

This is not the issue; many creationists want Intelligent Design to be taught in science classes, the "Teach the Controversy" movement won't be happy until ID gets a mention in science classes. Many high profile politicians support their view, that's the problem.

 

sure, science says that evolution was completely unguided, but thats due to lack of evidence that it was: theres no actual evidence that it was unguided. 'evolution guided by god' is not scientific, but it's not incompatable with science. 'god did it', otoh, is incompatable with science.

 

Again it depends what is meant by "guided", but most of the time it refers to a direct intervention. They think that, without God, evolution is impossible. That's simply not the case; it's just another, more refined form of creationism. I totally disagree that science says evolution is unguided due to lack of evidence, au contraire, just look at molecular genetics, not only can we see the ravage of random evolution, but many predictive models are explicitly based on this fact. Does it mean God has nothing to do with evolution? Of course not, god could've created the universe to make such process possible. But many Americans believe evolution is incomplete without a divine spark, that's not the case. I hope, as Pangloss remarked, that it's only because Americans don't take this issue very seriously.

[Dak]

well, yeah, but i was thinking more about (say) the catholic view, e.g. that animals randomly evolved (because god set things up like that, iirc), but that god guided the evolution of man, which is impossible to rule out.

 

at least stuff like that bows to, and works around, facts and established science, rather than completely ignoring them (which is what ID does)

[CDarwin]

"God guided evolution" is a nice, pretty Oprah answer, and if it helps people live with the science, who are we to begrudge them that. However that feeling lends itself as much to a scientifically compatible notion of theistic evolution as it does to ID, and I'm afraid most people just aren't scientifically and philosophically sophisticated enough to tell the difference (wow thats sounded pretentious... I don't know any other way to put it, though).

 

Theistic evolution can also dangerously limit the range of questions that actual scientists feel equipped to examine. If you're going to start assigning things simply to the hand of God, then you stop questioning them. I think the best science is always agnostic.

 

55% of Americans would answer "yes" to a poll just to get the pollster to stop asking them annoying questions.

 

But seriously, I think that's one of those off-the-cuff reaction answers that doesn't necessarily reflect what people think when seriously considering the various implications of their beliefs.

 

And it's also worth noting that the margin of error in that poll was 3%. Almost as great as the difference between majority and minority. Out of 885 people that's a 27-person margin of error. That's way too close to use in support of a sweeping statement like "most Americans believe in creationism", especially since the implications of that statement are far greater than the seriousness most people were probably giving to that poll.

 

We're talking about a telephone poll, for pete's sake. Statistically speaking you know how the overwhelming majority of people called answered that poll, right?

 

I must say I'm a bit surprised that everyone has this much trouble with there being that many Creationists in the US. I know of a grand total of 4 non-theistic evolutionists out of school of 1000. There are probably more, and certainly many theistic evolutionists, but I have no doubt that the majority of the school is strait young-earth Creationist. Obviously its where I live.

 

As for the validity of that poll: There are also the Gallup polls listed here. There's this. There's this too.

 

Are Gallup polls valid enough? Special Creationists may not be a true majority, but they're the single largest group. The point isn't that there is necessarily a statistical majority of Creationists in the US, its that there are too bloody many, enough to be a significant voting block.

 

I do think it is safe to say that a lot people don't care much, though.

[D H]

There's this too.

Newsweek recorded the results for evangelical Protestants, non-evangelical Protestants, Catholics, and agnostics/atheists. Fully 73% of evangelical Protestants chose the "created in present form" option, while only 39% of non-evangelical Protestants and 41% of Catholics followed suit.

Oddly, 13% of the agnostics/atheists who responded chose the "created in present form" option and 27% chose the "God guided process" option.

 

I added the emphasis to that last sentence. 40% of atheists/agnostics think god created humans in their present form or guided the evolutionary process??? Something is deeply wrong with this polling on creationism versus evolution.

[CDarwin]

I added the emphasis to that last sentence. 40% of atheists/agnostics think god created humans in their present form or guided the evolutionary process??? Something is deeply wrong with this polling on creationism versus evolution.

 

That is odd... perhaps a typo. Atheists/agnostics might cover people who are simply non-religious too.

 

This is from the same site:

[waitforufo]

Lets all face the fact that most people don’t get science. The vast majority of people believe that the lights come on because they flip the switch or that the toilet flushes because they pull the handle. They also believe that it is some great injustice that these “rights” will stop if they don’t pay their electric or water bill. These bills must be paid due to the mighty power of “Big” business. I sometimes wonder if the word “Big” hasn’t replace the word “god” at least from the perspective of fear.

 

I think another reason people reject evolution is that evolution has not had a great track record in politics. Evolution supporters brought us eugenics. Not too many happy outcomes there. It also brought us Nazism with at the master race and all its purifying humanity crap. Then there is Communism where the masses are more important than the individual. This is just survival of the species through political action. You often here people talk about the human casualties brought about by religious belief. All the human suffering brought about by all the worlds religions throughout the ages don’t hold a candle to the bright inferno of politics motivated by evolution that came about in the 20th century.

 

Evolution is marvelous science, but it has so far brought us mostly horror is politics.

[PhDP]

Evolution was used to justify a lot of things, but I highly doubt any of the things you mentioned were CAUSED by evolutionary biology. Even eugenics was only a pseudoscientific justification to racism.

 

There's a very important distinction between "motivation" and "justification", Nazis were very interested by anything confirming their faith in the superiority of their "race", and they've created a whole science to flatter their egos, but in the end Nazism was caused by a particular social and historical context, not by religion or science. And Soviets, well, they believed in Lysenkoism, which looks a lot more like Intelligent Design (some even say ID is neo-Lysenkoism).

[Haezed]

why? it's not inconsistant with science.

 

sure, science says that evolution was completely unguided, but thats due to lack of evidence that it was: theres no actual evidence that it was unguided.

 

'evolution guided by god' is not scientific, but it's not incompatable with science. 'god did it', otoh, is incompatable with science.

 

"scientifically, we evolved; religiously, i believe that said evolution was guided" is a vast improvement over ID.

 

 

If someone believes the universe is designed by intelligence, must they also believe that the intelligence has to intervene in the operation of its design?

 

"It is tempting to see the entire cosmos unfold like a giant factory driven towards the production of organic life -- the cycle of life and death and regeneration."

 

J. Levin, How the Universe Got its Spots

 

If someone gives into this temptation and also believes that the factory was created with intention, they can still believe in evolution. I see these as two completely unrelated concepts which are mixed both by the religious and those who oppose them.

[the tree]

Then there is Communism where the masses are more important than the individual.

I'm going to leave you to work out why for yourself, but there is absolutely no way that communism was based on evolution.

[MolotovCocktail]

This is not the issue; many creationists want Intelligent Design to be taught in science classes, the "Teach the Controversy" movement won't be happy until ID gets a mention in science classes. Many high profile politicians support their view, that's the problem.

 

Yeah, but there are also high profile politicians that support those who say that Intelligent Design should be kept out of the science classroom. The Judges also back them up as well because it is religion.

 

Lets all face the fact that most people don’t get science. The vast majority of people believe that the lights come on because they flip the switch or that the toilet flushes because they pull the handle.

 

Yeah' date=' this is very true. Most people usually have a very little understanding of science. It's not just the services and natural phenomena that they are ignorant of, but also on how they are made and/or how they/it works in the first place. Ignorance shows especially when people talk of environmental issues, or just nature in general (e.g. the stereotypical "green and trees" picture).

 

if they don’t pay their electric or water bill

 

Haha, sucks for you! I have a water well so my water is free .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Also, religious beliefs were used to justify atrocities and continue to be perfect for justifications for horrid actions to this day. It isn't just evolution that was used in this manner. And I'm not sure how you got the idea that communism was based on evolution.

[CDarwin]

Communism is tied in the atheism which is tied in with evolution, etc. Marx also personally admired Darwin. That's where people get connections between evolution and Communism.

 

As for the role of evolution in scientific racism, it was really rather minor and cosmetic. Science was racist long before Darwin. Just look at the work of Agassiz.