New Poll From Gallup on Human Origins

Gallup has released a new poll on what people think about human evolution.  Here is their takeaway blurb:

Forty percent of U.S. adults ascribe to a strictly creationist view of human origins, believing that God created them in their present form within roughly the past 10,000 years. However, more Americans continue to think that humans evolved over millions of years -- either with God's guidance (33%) or, increasingly, without God's involvement at all (22%).

Beyond this are details in the numbers.The poll was conducted from June 3-16 and contained a random sample of 1015 adults.  Some of this is not new and has changed little since the last poll.  There is a high correlation between those with a college education and those who accept human evolution.  The correlation is also high between those who have no religious affiliation and those who accept human evolution.

Other interesting tidbits from the attached PDF:

• Acceptance of God-guided human evolution does not seem to change with political party affiliation, gender or ethnic background
•  Acceptance of God-guided human evolution rises only slightly with age
• The idea that God created humans in their present form drops substantially from 55% (Republican) to 34% (independent and Democrat) as well as ideology (54% Republican, 29% democrat)

There are more observations buried in the data. Have a look.

Another Example of Why There Should Be Science Tests For People Serving on Education Committees

This story made the rounds last week and the commentary I found was on Patheos.  Evidently, the Arizona Senate has selected Sylvia Allen to be their chairwoman.  Why is this an issue?  She is a young earth creationist, that is why.  From the story by Michael Stone:

In an assault on public education in Arizona, a Republican lawmaker who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old has been selected to lead the legislative committee overseeing education.

Senator Sylvia Allen of Snowflake, Arizona is the new chairwoman of the state Senate committee that oversees education-related legislation. Allen was selected by fellow Republican and Senate president Andy Biggs on Monday to be the new chair of the Arizona Senate Education Committee, according to a report issued by 12News.

Allen is a controversial figure: a radical Christian extremist who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old, she previously suggested legislation that would mandate that every citizen be compelled “to attend a church of their choice” every Sunday.

In addition to her religious extremism, she is also a conspiracy theorist, who believes the U.S. government regularly sprays its citizens with mind-controlling chemtrails.

Once again, there should be a basic science test that people in public office should have to take before they are selected to education committees. It took Texas years to rid themselves of Don McLeroy and his position that someone had to “stand up to the experts.” Yet another Republican beclowns themselves. 

New Gallup Poll on Belief in Human Evolution

On June 2, the Gallup organization released another poll on acceptance of human evolution.  In a random sample of 1028 adults (18 years +), they found the following:

• The percentage of people that accept some form of theistic evolution has dropped since 2012 from 46% to 42%.
• The percentage of people who accept a young earth creation model of human origins is exactly three times that of people who seldom or never attend church: 69% to 23%.
• While the percentage of people who have less than a high school education and who accept the young earth model of human origins is 57%, of those who have a college degree, only 27% accept this model. 

The authors of the poll results hasten to mention that education may not play as large a role as one might think: 

These relationships do not necessarily prove that if Americans were to learn more about evolution they would be more likely to believe in it. Those with less education are most likely to espouse the creationist view and to be least familiar with evolution, but it's not clear that gaining more education per se would shift their perspectives. Many religious Americans accept creationism mostly on the basis of their religious convictions. Whether their beliefs would change if they became more familiar with evolution is an open question.

This tracks with modern-day young earth creationism, for which I do not know a single adherent who is not an evangelical Christian.  I do not know whether or not the relationship is real or not.  I do know that I have several friends who are Ph.D.s who are highly skeptical if not doubtful of evolution.  This is not because they have familiarity with the subject (one is a materials scientist, the other a chemical engineer) but because they think it is inherently anti-Christian.  My pastor, who is quite intelligent, and I engaged in a long conversation about it and yet I am quite certain that he remains unconvinced of its authenticity because, as he has stated since then, it conflicts with his understanding of scripture.

The writers also note:

However, significantly fewer Americans claim familiarity with "creationism" than did so seven years ago. In 2007, 86% were familiar, including 50% who were very familiar. Now, 76% are familiar, with just 38% very familiar. In short, even though the adherence to the creationist view has not changed over time, familiarity with the term "creationism" has diminished.

Given the current news climate and what I perceive to be the increased importance of this subject in Christian circles, I find this unusual. Given that these results are not broken down by age, however, it is possible that the drop is related to the rise of people that are more a-religious and thus do not come into contact with this controversy.  If this is the case, this is disheartening. 

Hugh Muir Writes on the Problems in Britain

Hugh Muir of the Guardian muses that the diversity in Britain is causing schooling issues. He writes:

A friend from an urban comprehensive – who, for the sake of his continuing employment, we shall not name – says there are days when you need the patience of Mother Teresa and the wisdom of Solomon. Everyone demands respect. They don't always deserve it.

"Fancy a row?" he tells me. "Try teaching evolution, based on hard evidence, when the Muslim parents and the evangelical Africans would rather you taught one of the variants of creationism. That's to spend a less than enjoyable day between a rock and a hard place. I'll say sorry, I just can't teach something that has no scientific basis. If it's religious belief you're interested in, the subject for that is RE. They'll say, 'Well if that's your final word, we'll have to withdraw our children. Then the children lose out. We can't have that either. Tricky."

Things here are compounded by the fact that the schools are not the best on the planet. But, of course, pulling your kids out because of socio-political or religious reasons means pulling them out for science reasons as well. Baby? Bathwater?

----------------
Now playing: Pat Metheny and Lyle Mays - It's For You
via FoxyTunes

ICR Loses Suit

The Institute For Creation Research has lost a suit to the Texas Higher Education Board, which denied the organization's request to grant master's degrees in science education. As the NCSE reports:

The issue was not, strictly speaking, about accreditation, but about temporary state certification, which would have enabled the ICR graduate school to operate while it sought accreditation. When in California, the ICR graduate school was accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, which requires candidate institutions to affirm a list of Biblical Foundations, including "the divine work of non-evolutionary creation including persons in God's image." TRACS is not recognized by the state of Texas, however, and after the ICR moved from Santee, California, to Dallas, Texas, the ICR expressed its intention to seek accreditation from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

This was the out for the court. That way, as the NCSE site explains, there would be no construal of anti-religious sentiment by the court. On a scientific note, many breathed a sigh of relief when this decision was rendered. While the decision was legally-based, that ICR simply is not qualified to issue masters degrees in science education as long as what comes out of the ICR isn't science. This becomes clear when reading their posts about new scientific discoveries (see here ). The ICR says they will appeal the verdict.

----------------
Now playing: Alan Parsons - Alpha Centauri
via FoxyTunes

The School Choice Debate Across the Pond

The British have some different ideas about how to do some things in education, that's for sure. Yahoo News UK and Ireland is reporting on some controversy that has erupted about how to fund some schools not under state control. The article notes:

The Conservatives' plans to allow parents and teachers to set up schools have been denounced as "barking mad" by a teachers' leader. Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), raised concerns that children could be taught more about subjects like creationism than literacy and numeracy if the plans go ahead.

Steve Hackett called the British public school system "Darktown" because of what he thought was its demoralizing, dehumanizing atmosphere

What typically happens over here is that schools that want to teach creationism (like Paideia Academy) are private in nature and do not get any state funds. To use state funds for such a school would violate the establishment clause. It appears that no such clause exists in the british system. The counter position is this:

"The Conservatives will create a new generation of independent, free, and non-selective schools. This will give all parents, not just the rich, what they want - smaller schools with smaller classes, good behaviour, great teachers and restored confidence in the curriculum."

Education is not neutral. One of the reasons those of us that have our kids in private school have gone that route is because of the increasing liberal, morally relativistic bent that is in the public schools. On the whole, I think that private schools more than give the public schools a run for their money, creationism aside. Many of these parents feel that they are up against the wall with regard to their kids' education. While I cannot condone the teaching of creationism, I can understand how they would want a school that taught traditional values and curricula.

It is unfortunate, however, that along with this movement to try to educate children more in keeping with traditonal values, certain subjects suffer greatly. This might not be the case if the radical creationist movement did not have such a stranglehold on the evangelical church.

----------------
Now playing: Michael W. Smith - Rocketown
via FoxyTunes

David Schwimmer: Creationism as a Cultural Issue

David Schwimmer, a professor of geology and chemistry at Columbia State University argues that creationism is more a cultural phenomenon than a scientific one and should be treated accordingly. In contrast to the science, evolution is well-studied:

Evolution is the central unifying tool around which all modern biological and paleontological science is based, and it is also fundamental to parts of biochemistry, geology, anthropology, and even pharmacology (e.g. that’s why we test drug safety on expensive monkeys rather than cheap mice — they are our close relatives).

Each of these sciences has its own specific areas where evolution applies, and they are wide ranging. But central to all is the basic fact (yes, fact) that life and earth have changed over time — which is the definition of “evolution.” How those changes occur, and the complex details, comprise the theory of evolution.

Evolutionary theory has itself evolved — after all, this is the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” and we have learned a great deal since Darwin. But his basic concept of evolution by natural selection is still at the core of the life sciences.

It is hard to convince most creationists that the young earth, flood geology model which they so dearly cling to is a very recent formulation of the Primeval History and dates to the 1930s.

Of Evolution and Population Migration

An article by Riazat Butt in the Guardian relays an interview with Michael Reiss who, if you will recall, was the Director of Education at the Royal Society before he, innocently enough, suggested that creationism should be explained in the public schools as an unscientific alternative to real science rather than not discussed at all. Reiss argues that creationism is marching across Europe, the product of migration. Butt writes:

"These things can no longer be thought of as occurring in other countries. In London, where I work, there are increasingly quite large numbers of highly intelligent 16, 17 and 18-year-olds doing Advanced Level biology who do not accept evolution. That's either because they come from a fundamentalist Christian background or from Muslim backgrounds."

This rejection of evolution even extended to young people training for the medical profession. "Around 10% of UK undergraduates in some medical schools are creationists. Some people think this is unacceptable and that such students are not worthy to become doctors."

But when asked if their patients should be concerned, he said: "I am quite comfortable with people being first-rate doctors but not accepting evolution."

Here, I think that Dr. Reiss is wrong. I am not sure you can be both. One needs only recall the tragic circumstances of Baby Fae, recounted by Donald Prothero:

A more concrete example [of scientific illiteracy] happened in 1984, when a surgeon at Loma Linda University in California attempted to replace the defective heart of “Baby Fae” with the heart of a baboon. Not surprisingly, the poor baby died a few days later due to immune rejection. An Australian radio crew interviewed the surgeon, Dr. Leonard Bailey, and asked him why he didn’t use a more closely related primate, such as a chimpanzee, and avoid the possibility of immune rejection, given the baboon’s great evolutionary distance from humans. Bailey said, “Er, I find that difficult to answer. You see, I don’t believe in evolution.” If Bailey had performed the same experiment in any other medical institution except Loma Linda (which is run by the creationist Seventh-Day Adventist Church), his experiments would be labeled dangerous and unethical, and he would have been sued for malpractice and his medical license revoked. But under the cover of religion, his unscientific beliefs caused an innocent baby to die of immune rejection, when other alternatives might have been available.¹

Read the Whole Thing.

¹Prothero, D. (2007) Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters. New York: Columbia University Press. P. 356.

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips - 1984 Part 2
via FoxyTunes

Discord Among Seventh-Day Adventists

According to an article in the Riverside Press-Enterprise, a petition has been submitted to stop evolution from being taught at La Sierra University, an Adventist school. The author, David Olson, writes:

The ultimate goal of the petition drive is to require Adventist teaching on creation in La Sierra biology classes, said Shane Hilde, the Beaumont man and La Sierra graduate spearheading the petition drive. If that doesn't happen, petition supporters may push La Sierra to disassociate itself from the Seventh-day Adventist Church, he said.

The petition does not single out La Sierra, but Hilde said it is the target. Evolution opponents are looking into allegations of pro-evolution biases at other Adventist universities, he said.

The petition does not call for the dismissal of the three La Sierra biology professors who are at the center of the controversy. But Hilde said "that ultimately is what happens in these situations."

What I find unusual about this story in the first place is that evolution is taught at an SDA university at all! A large number of creationists that began the movement were Adventists. Jerry Bergman has a short article on the origin of the American creationist movement and, of course, Ronald Numbers' book The Creationists, is loaded with information of this sort. It is clear from the article that these three professors have an uphill battle in front of them.

UPDATE: sorry, forgot the link. It is there now.

----------------
Now playing: John Coltrane - Moment's Notice
via FoxyTunes

Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Genius?

The Times Online has an article by Philip Ball that is a review of the book The Selfish Genius, by Fern Elsdon-Baker, who has, it seems, a quibble with how Dr. Dawkins perceives the importance of the gene in natural selection:

She accuses Dawkins of appropriating and, in the process, distorting Darwin’s message. The selfish-gene hypothesis, which makes the gene the autonomous agent of ­evolution that seeks implacably to replicate itself, has little to do with Darwin, she says, and not just because Darwin knew nothing of genes. The common view is that, once the work of the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel pointed to inheritable character-defining factors that became known as genes, the Achilles heel of Darwinism — lack of a fundamental mechanism — was healed. Genes that confer good survival prospects in the organism get passed on preferentially.

It is true that Darwin had a dickens of a time getting people to accept that Natural Selection was the driving force behind evolution because of the common acceptance of "blending" as the mechanism. It was not until the discovery of genes that evolutionary theory could take off. Having said that, Dawkins has had an enormously important impact on the teaching of evolution, unfortunately, at the expense of those with a religious persuasion (such as myself). It is because of this that the reviewer of the book cannot quite bring himself to agree with the author:

Science communicators today owe a huge debt to Dawkins for bringing the discipline back into popular discourse. Many will also agree that in both style and content he is starting to look out of date now. But Elsdon-Baker’s complaints are perhaps occasioned more by a lazy media that refuses to see how times have changed and continues to position Dawkins as the ­public voice of science. His accounts of evolution provide a beautifully drawn base that it must now be the job of others to modify and update.

I wonder how he will best be remembered: for this work on evolution or as the author of The God Delusion? He certainly galvanised the anti-evolution movement of the last ten years with his constant attacks on traditional religion.

----------------
Now playing: David Lanz - Faces of the Forest
via FoxyTunes

More on the Differences Between Scientists and Non-Scientists

Dan Vergano of USA Today has a story on how the public perceives science and how scientists perceive themselves. For example:

•Evolution. 32% of the public and 87% of scientists agree that people have evolved.

•Animal research. 52% of the public and 93% of scientists support drug testing or other experiments on animals.

•Nuclear power. 51% of the public and 70% of scientists support nuclear power development.

As the story notes, this is not surprising. I think this largely reflects science's understanding of the hows and whys and the limits of these topics, as opposed to the general public's understanding. I have been told that, here at the lab, support for nuclear power is much higher than it is out in either the cities of Oak Ridge or Knoxville. What I also find interesting is the huge drop-off with regard to evolution. This is probably due to the efforts of YEC and ID groups to promote the anti-elvislutionary, er anti-evolutionary message.

Creation, Evolution and Closed Minds

According to a story in the Australian, a new article called Science communication reconsidered, in the journal Nature Biotechnology suggests that people reject science and scientific findings for a variety of reasons. Of people who encounter a scientific topic, the article notes:

"If they lack a motivation to pay close attention to science debates, they will rely heavily on mental shortcuts, values and emotions to make sense of an issue, often in the absence of knowledge." The paper, wisdom of a Washington, DC, workshop bringing together a score of experts, including Melbourne psychologist Christine Critchley, suggests there is more to science communication than knowledge.

Scientists, it seems, are kidding themselves if they imagine mere ignorance explains public resistance to their projects. "Knowledge is only one factor among many influences that are likely to guide how individuals reach judgments, with ideology, social identity and trust often having strong impacts," the paper says.

This is frustrating to me, since I tend to be left-brained about the way that I view the world. "How can you ignore the evidence," I say. "Just look into the blinkin' telescope!"

Adding a Link to the Left

I am adding a link to the left for the free Springer journal Evolution: Education and Outreach. This is a journal that Springer has provided that has the newest papers that deal with evolutionary thought and discoveries. The most recent issue, for example, is devoted to transitional fossils in the geological record.

Its important to know that this journal is free only until the end of 2009. After that, there is no knowing what the price will be.

New Resources Over at Steve Martin's Blog

Steve Martin over at An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution has a post on new resources, the "Test of Faith" site, BioLogos, which I mentioned a few posts back and Gordon Glover's excellent series on teaching science in the context of Christian Education. Stop by and check it out.