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.

John Evans — “Science and Religion: A False Divide?”

I missed this when it came out. John Evans of the L.A. Times (not normally a newspaper I pick up) wrote an interesting column about the controversy between science and religion and his contention that the whole thing is overhyped. He writes:

On most issues, there is actually very little conflict between religion and science. Religion makes no claims about the speed of hummingbird wings, and there are no university departments of anti-resurrection studies — scientists generally are unconcerned with the vast majority of religious claims and vice versa.

There are, of course, a few fact claims in which conservative Protestant theology and science differ, such as the origins of humans and the universe. Here we find that typical conservative Protestants are likely to believe the teaching of their religion on the issue and not the scientific claim.

We could complain that they are being inconsistent in believing the scientific method some of the time but not always. Yet social science research has long shown that people typically are not very consistent. The people who are more consistent are those who are punished for inconsistency: philosophers, media pundits, political activists and politicians.

I have often marveled at how much emphasis this topic has taken up in the media and religious world. As I pointed out in my post on the Miss America pageant, that the contestants were asked whether or not evolution should be taught in public schools had very little relevance to them. All it did was single out the religious conservatives and also point out that science education had all but failed them in this area. For your average person, the creation-evolution controversy has little traction and most view it as a curiosity of modern society. Consequently, when my church friends ask me about it, I always ask them why it is important to them to learn the science behind the old earth model since such knowledge will needlessly complicate their lives. That doesn't seem to stop them, though.

Evans has one other nugget:

The greatest conflict between fundamentalists, evangelicals and science is not over facts but over values. While scientists like to say that their work is value-free, that is not how the public views it, and conservative Protestants especially have homed in on the moral message of science.

This is a slow realization for most scientists. I tend to view evolution in much the way that I view nuclear energy: regardless of what values we attach to it, it exists—independent of those values. David Klinghoffer, over at the Discovery Institute, argues that “Darwinism” has ruined society and caused evils of all sorts, as if somehow if we brand it as evil, it will just go away.

It is also not just that the vast majority of scientists tend to view science amorally, they view attempts to infuse scientific discourse with morality with repugnance. It is the few here and there that seek to venture beyond the bounds of science to argue for or against the existence of God and even if they are highly regarded in their fields (for example Richard Dawkins), their efforts to do this are not.

The problem is these few are very highly visible and, unfortunately, set the tone for the discourse and the understanding of the scientific enterprise. After all, if Richard Dawkins is an eminent evolutionary biologist and he claims, vociferously, that God doesn't exist, why shouldn't evangelicals attach morality to his science?

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips - The Geese and the Ghost (2008 Remaster)
via FoxyTunes

Science and Religion: Always in "Mortal Combat?"

Matthew Reicz of the Times Higher Educational Supplement has an interesting article on the conflict between religion and science.He writes:

One person who has looked closely at this issue is Elaine Howard Ecklund, assistant professor of sociology at Rice University in Texas. She surveyed nearly 1,700 natural and social scientists in elite American universities - "Arik" is a pseudonym for one of the academics she interviewed in depth - and she presents the results in her new book, Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think. By asking them about how religion and spirituality have had an impact on their lives, she hopes to offer "a balanced assessment of information gathered scientifically from scientists themselves".

Although they are undoubtedly less religious than the American public as a whole, the scientists Ecklund interviewed are far from a uniform band of militant atheists. Only 34 per cent say they concur with the statement "I do not believe in God" (and 30 per cent confess to agnosticism), 71 per cent believe "there are basic truths in many religions" and 18 per cent attend religious services at least once a month. Close to half could be said "to have a religious tradition" in some sense, and the age data in Ecklund's survey suggest that levels of faith among US scientists are rising.

This is similar to the numbers that Neil De Grasse Tyson was quoted as using and is encouraging, if nothing else because scientists are normally thought to be outside the norm of mainstream religion in the US. This has especially become a problem as of late with the GOP's more moderate members embracing the party line of the Discovery Institute while the evangelical base of the party leans toward the young earth creation perspective.

Reicz quotes Karl Giberson of the BioLogos Institute, who has a special dislike for young earth creation groups. Of people in the United States, he writes:

Many, notes Giberson, are left with "the impression that there is a religious objection to every scientific advance. Yet the most aggressive critics of the Creation Museum are more moderate Christians, not militant atheists. They believe young-Earth creationists have to be rejected, for turning Christians into anti-intellectual hillbillies."

Atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, typically ignore the YEC groups and go after the mainstream population, pointing out how ridiculous these groups are. Increasingly, as the GOP continues to go down this path, these atheists will point out how ridiculous it is to be a Republican. As long as those of us who are EC are considered by many evangelicals (including people like Ken Ham) to be apostate, the battle will be an uphill one.

The article is long but very illuminating. As Glenn Reyolds would say: "Read the whole thing."

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips & Harry Williamson - Gypsy Suite - Movement IV: The Crystal Ball
via FoxyTunes

A New Harris Poll on Belief

A Harris Interactive poll on belief in the United States was released on December 15 of this year. It consisted of a poll of 2303 adults and was taken between November 2 and November 11 of this year. There were several notable findings:

• 82% of surveyed adults believe in God
• 45% believe in "Darwin’s theory of evolution" (32% didn't)
  
• 40% believe in creationism (30% didn't)
  

The religious breakdown was even more interesting.

• 80% of Jews polled accept evolution (20% accept creationism)
  
• 51% of Catholics accept evolution (37%)
  
• 32% of protestants accept evolution (56%)
  

Unfortunately, the "protestant" category is not more finely resolved. I would be very curious to see what the breakdown is between Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists. I also find it odd that there is such a large disparity between the acceptance of evolution between Jews and protestants, despite the two groups having the Old Testament in common. I don't recall Jesus saying anything about not accepting evolution. It must be one of those commandments with which I am not familiar like "thou shalt not dance," and "thou shalt not play cards."

----------------
Now playing: William Ackerman - The Opening of Doors
via FoxyTunes

The Dividing Line?

Peter Lindsay has written an op-ed for the Atlanta Constitution-Journal in which he tackles the confluence of evolution and religion. He writes:

That people do not accept widely held scientific conclusions is troubling. More troubling still, however, is that so many seem so unclear on what science even is. With this thought in mind — and in the spirit of the month — perhaps it’s time for supporters of Darwin to take the offensive with a different sort of public policy, one inspired by the Cobb County school district.

What if the state mandated that stickers with the following disclaimer be affixed to Bibles distributed by any tax-exempt Christian organization? “The existence of God is just one theory among many about the origin and purpose of the universe.” Or better yet: “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.” Both statements are, after all, accurate. There are many theories about the origin of the universe, and there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of any deity, Christian or otherwise.

So what do we think? Good idea? Well, perhaps not. These stickers ignore boundaries that exist between two quite distinct ways of knowing the world, the religious and the scientific.

This is another take on the bumper sticker "Keep your stickers out of my science books. I don't paste crap in your Bibles!" that I have seen. Kind of makes me wonder what the Charles Darwin Bible has to say about that (No, i still haven't picked up my copy!). He continues:

To know something in a scientific sense is not to have faith in it. It’s to look at what we think we know and do our level best to disprove it. In a sense, the security of scientific knowledge rests, somewhat paradoxically, on the ultimate insecurity of its claims.

While this means there can be no complete certainty, it certainly does not rule out high degrees of it. The more a claim conforms to the way we understand the world, and the more that our repeated and persistent attempts to refute it fail, the greater our certainty about it. Such is the case with scientific conclusions about the shape of our planet, the laws of thermodynamics and, gulp, evolution.

On this last claim we need to be quite clear: It is simply not the case that evolution is disputed in the scientific community. There is debate within evolutionary theory — about the rate at which species arise, about the precise mechanisms of natural selection, about the validity of evolutionary psychology, about the role of contingent events — but on the general claim that species evolve through natural selection there is no scientific disagreement.

It doesn't help that there are some people who argue vociferously that evolution is all fact. Some is, to be sure, but some is conjecture and some is probably fact. As we fail to refute a theory like evolution, the probability that it is correct increases. That is as far as science can go.

The last bit is quite correct. The only folks who dispute the theory of evolution are creationists, some ID proponents (not Michael Behe, though) and scientists who are very far removed from either biology or geology (the Dissent from Darwin list). This is often over-exaggerated by these individuals and organizations to the point where evolution is thought of as a "theory in crisis." Read the whole thing.

----------------
Now playing: Synergy - Phobos And Deimos Go To Mars
via FoxyTunes

Simon Barnes Goes on a Tear

Simon Barnes of the TimesOnline is peeved at both the fundamentalists and at Richard Dawkins. In a post titled Caw, is that black thing a bird or a pterodactyl? he laments that the use of science by both sides is causing more problems than solutions:

He [Dawkins] says that evolution is a fact. Fine. He also holds up the non-existence of God as a fact, but that can never be the case. If you believe in an ineffable God who started the whole business of evolution, that’s your business. It can’t be proved or disproved — and therefore, it’s beyond the scientist’s scope. You can’t prove you have a soul; you can’t disprove it either. You can believe that life continues after death, and all that anyone can say is good old you, I wish I did.

Dawkins is right to point out that biblical literalism is wrong. Religion has no more business interfering with fact than science has in messing about with belief. It is not religion’s place to tell us that God created light and then a couple of days later He created the Sun as an after-thought, and if you don’t believe that you will go to Hell.

And it is not the place of science to tell us that Christ did not die for our sins. Science deals in fact; religion deals with belief and faith. Throughout history, when science has revealed facts that contradict religious belief, belief has shifted its ground. These days, nothing remains but faith — but faith is unshakable, at least by science.

Amen!

----------------
Now playing: Mannheim Steamroller - Still, Still, Still
via FoxyTunes

Marching Bands and De-evolution

This could only happen in the United States. Sedalia, Missouri is on the map, in a way that probably nobody foresaw or wished. A Marching Band has been asked not to use their band shirts because they portray an evolutionary message. As Tonya Fennell of the Sedalia Democrat writes:

The shirts, which were designed to promote the band’s fall program, are light gray and feature an image of a monkey progressing through stages and eventually emerging as a man. Each figure holds a brass instrument. Several instruments decorate the background and the words “Smith-Cotton High School Tiger Pride Marching Band” and “Brass Evolutions 2009” are emblazoned above and below the image.

Assistant Band Director Brian Kloppenburg said the shirts were designed by him, Band Director Jordan Summers and Main Street Logo. Kloppenburg said the shirts were intended to portray how brass instruments have evolved in music from the 1960s to modern day. Summers said they chose the evolution of man because it was “recognizable.” The playlist of songs the band is slated to perform revolve around the theme “Brass Evolutions.”

In other words, it was a perfectly harmless idea that was blown way out of proportion. The story continues:

While the shirts don’t directly violate the district’s dress code, Assistant Superintendent Brad Pollitt said complaints by parents made him take action.

“I made the decision to have the band members turn the shirts in after several concerned parents brought the shirts to my attention,” Pollitt said.

Pollitt said the district is required by law to remain neutral where religion is concerned.

“If the shirts had said ‘Brass Resurrections’ and had a picture of Jesus on the cross, we would have done the same thing,” he said.

How bad is the science education in this country that a school superintendent thinks that portraying evolution is a "religious" issue? The comments below the story are amazingly caustic. Pharyngula has a poll on whether or not the shirts should have been pulled, as well as a picture of what the uniform looked like. The story is, as one commenter wrote, making the rounds on the science blogs.

DesMoines Addresses Evolution (Sort of)

The DesMoines answer to the problem of evolution is to make a class that critiques it an elective. The Spencer School District, according to a story by Stacy Hupp in the DesMoines Register:

Public school students in Spencer will get to study the Bible and pray at graduation if school district leaders approve a proposed "religious liberties" policy, the first of its kind in Iowa.

The plan calls for elective classes such as "Critic of Darwinism," which includes arguments against the theory of evolution, and "The Bible in History and Literature."

School officials say they want to set clear rules for religious expression without discouraging students, for example, from writing "Merry Christmas" on holiday cards in class.

Spencer Superintendent Greg Ebeling said most public educators who fear lawsuits go too far to exclude religion from schools.

"We're going to have critics, but we're not out to cram religion down anybody's throats," said Ebeling, whose northwest Iowa district enrolls about 2,000 students. "It's just about what's the right way to handle it. The way we handle it right now is to avoid it at all costs."

What about the teaching of evolution? The story doesn't say, although one would hope that if they have a class critiquing it, the students would know what they are critiquing. And how do you make the class "Critics of Darwinism" academically sound?