Primitive Dimwits For President!
Biologist Jerry Coyne comments on the level of intellect we have in the presidential aspirant bullpen:
Suppose we asked a group of Presidential candidates if they believed in the existence of atoms, and a third of them said "no"? That would be a truly appalling show of scientific illiteracy, would it not? And all the more shocking coming from those who aspire to run a technologically sophisticated nation.Yet something like this happened a week ago during the Republican presidential debate. When the moderator asked nine candidates to raise their hands if they "didn't believe in evolution," three hands went into the air—those of Senator Sam Brownback, Governor Mike Huckabee, and Representative Tom Tancredo. Although I am a biologist who has found himself battling creationism frequently throughout his professional life, I was still mortified. Because there is just as much evidence for the fact of evolution as there is for the existence of atoms, anyone raising his hand must have been grossly misinformed.
I don't know whether to attribute the show of hands to the candidates' ignorance of the mountain of evidence for evolution, or to a cynical desire to pander to a public that largely rejects evolution (more than half of Americans do). But I do know that it means that our country is in trouble. As science becomes more and more important in dealing with the world's problems, Americans are falling farther and farther behind in scientific literacy. Among citizens of industrialized nations, Americans rank near the bottom in their understanding of math and science. Over half of all Americans don't know that the Earth orbits the Sun once a year, and nearly half think that humans once lived, Flintstone-like, alongside dinosaurs.
Now maybe evolutionary biology isn't going to propel America into the forefront of world science, but creationism (and its gussied-up descendant "Intelligent Design") is not just a campaign against evolution—it's a campaign against science itself and the scientific method. By pretending that evolution is on shaky ground, and asserting that religion can contribute to our understanding of nature, creationists confuse people about the very form and character of scientific evidence. This confusion can only hurt our ability to make rational judgments about important social issues, like global warming, that involve science.
I don't know about you, but for me, rationality is a bare minimum in presidential candidates. If I can't get one who doesn't have an evidence-free belief in god, I'll go, at the very least, for one who has a post-Enlightenment view of the world.
Problem is, ALL candidates in both parties still believe in an invisible man (actually 3 in 1) in an invisible place in the sky who loves us, but has prepared a place somewhere below the surface of the earth where those who reject his love will be punished for eternity after death. One of the candidates apparently believes the son part of this 3 in 1 god was running around in North America(near present day Missouri) a thousand or so years ago. Sounds like a bunch of Latter Day Silliness to me!
Bill Henry at June 12, 2007 3:27 AM
It's really embarrassing. As is the fact that an atheist probably couldn't get elected president in the USA. And the fact that the president -- the leader of the free world -- is rather open about the fact that he's guided by an imaginary man in the sky. Oh yeah, and that man wanted him to go into Iraq. How come the guy is in The White House for this, and not in some institution?
Amy Alkon at June 12, 2007 4:12 AM
The term “evolution” is as much a political litmus test as is creationism or intelligent design. A real scientist admits what he or she does not know and the simple fact is that no one truly knows if all life originated when a puddle of goo was hit by lightning. The stridently vocal atheist does not believe in the THEORY of evolution but rather that evolution is a proven fact. A person of faith might well study biology or other sciences within the framework of the theory of evolution and still believe in a divine creator and still be well-respected within their fields (God made the lightning, God made the goo.)
But on the topic of faith in general and what is says about a person that they have faith in things they can’t see and can’t prove: tell me that you go through a day of your life without great leaps of faith in things you only hope are true. If you travel by airplane, you place your life in the hands of people you never see (pilot, ground controller, maintenance chief, security personnel, baggage loaders etc.) As you drive in traffic you have faith that the strangers in the on-coming lane will not swerve into your path. You eat packaged foods and use medicines and household appliances, any of which could kill you if those who prepared them have been negligent or malicious.
If it makes a person stupid to have faith then the very smartest are those muttering people in the tin-foil hats living at the fringes of society.
Our society was built by people of faith who understood that there is a higher law than “everybody just do your own thing, man (long, gurgling bong-hit.”) No one in their right mind would come out of the house if society were only a collection of people doing what they thought was right at any given moment. We have…aggregations of our ideas of what it means to be decent. Our system of laws and political institutions is one of those aggregations. People have faith in government even though polls show most people don’t have a clue how any of it works. That there should be a clear and inviolable line between the political and the religious is ridiculous. People can not live without faith and it is not for you or me to tell people what is deserving of our faith.
(And don't worry, we've had plenty of atheist presidents and we always will.)
martin at June 12, 2007 9:44 AM
There is a difference in having faith in something/someone you know exists (ie air plane pilot) and having faith in something that, by definition, no one can prove or disprove (ie flying spaghetti monster).
I have faith in things that have a history of behaving in a particular way, cars don't swerve into my lane, my processed foods and medicines aren't dangerous, etc. I don't believe in prayer because it doesn't have a consitant history of working. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, it's about as predictable as flipping a coin.
That said, I don't begrudge anyone their faith in anything as long as it doesn't impact me. Jehovah's Witness can practice to their hearts content, but I was out drinking Friday night and I don't need my doorbell ringing at 7am on Saturday.
meshaliu at June 12, 2007 10:49 AM
The word "evolution" is not about politics, it's about insight, hard won, and achieved none too early.
> A real scientist admits what
> he or she does not know and
No, a "real" scientist is someone with a mind open to This is not the same thing.
> the simple fact is that no
> one truly knows if all life
Consideration of these matters is not "simple." I think words like "real" and "simple" in these contexts cheat the magnitude of the argument. By your model, you live in metaphysical certitude without a shred of evidence, whereas the scientist considers huge volumes of evidence for an issue he's willing to think about again. I think the scientists approach is more admirable. He's not afraid of thinking hard about complicated things, and he's not terrified of being wrong... He can change his mind when he needs to.
Not so for the faithful. The Vicar says your immortal soul's on the line just for reconsidering.
Crid at June 12, 2007 11:54 AM
i hate bad edits
Crid at June 12, 2007 11:55 AM
I would vote for a searching agnostic.
Roger at June 12, 2007 12:02 PM
Crid,
The issue here is the attempt by evolutionists to piggyback on other parts of Physics. The existence of atoms is a verified fact. Much of their behavior has been discovered and verified. The same cannot be said of evolution between species in the way that would take you from a rodent, to a great ape, to a human.
I also have to wonder what sort of person can actually call another person a moron for failing to give the theory of evolution the same credence that ought to be given to the fundamental laws of Physics. (You didn't say that, so don't think I'm putting those words in your mouth.) Theories, by nature, do not share the same stature that laws are entitled to.
MikeT at June 12, 2007 12:03 PM
That should be have been "piggyback on other parts of science."
MikeT at June 12, 2007 12:03 PM
[quote]The Vicar says your immortal soul's on the line just for reconsidering.[/quote]
Let's not confuse faith and religion.
martin at June 12, 2007 12:15 PM
MikeT: "The existence of atoms is a verified fact."
How so? You can't see an atom. We know that matter is built from atoms because the stuff we can see behaves in a way consistent with the idea that it is built from sub-microscopic particles. In exactly the same way we know that life evolved millions of years ago because of how organisms we can observe today.
If you're going to say that "Evolution is not a fact, it's a theory.", then atoms are not a fact, gravity is not a fact, vaccines are not a fact. Everything in science is a theory. Evolution is, however, the way that the overwhelming consensus of knowlegeable scientists and data believe that humans developed on Earth. And by over whelming, I don't mean 51% of the Electoral College, but over 99% of anyone who knows anything.
Jon Tyken at June 12, 2007 12:46 PM
Martin,
"A person of faith might well study biology or other sciences within the framework of the theory of evolution and still believe in a divine creator and still be well-respected within their fields (God made the lightning, God made the goo.)"
Let’s say that humans did not evolve from rodent but they were created by the God. My understanding is that the God created everything on earth including the lightning, goo and cockroaches. It appears to me that prerequisite to make it to heaven is to die as a human. I am dying to know why cockroaches have zero chance to make it to heaven while I have a shot at it. I have not done a thing to be born as a human. The only reason why I am a human is because my parents are. I am very uncomfortable with this privilege given to me which I did not ask for.
Once in this county, the colored people could not enter the same bathroom used by the white. We eventually put “white only” sign down. I have “this dream”, we will evolve out of this and some day, the God will put down “human only” sign down on the heaven’s gate.
Chang at June 12, 2007 1:00 PM
> The existence of atoms
> is a verified fact.
I think you're overstating things. Certitude doesn't work that way. Atoms are a model that explains a whole bunch of stuff much better than any earlier, competing models. Mostly they're of interest to the chemists with the mathmatical insight to know what all their numbers represent. Atoms aren't "facts" like coffee tables and blog posts and other things in human experience. They're no fun to photograph: The most famous images of them are wholly bogus abstractions. They occupy tiny amounts of space and twitch wildly for fractions of a second and share parts with neighbors. You can't take an atom each of eggs, tomato, cheese, green pepper and milk and fry up a tiny atomic omelet. (But if you try, invite me over.)
This is almost certainly wrong, but when I was a little boy, the components of atoms were as small as the universe got to be. And since then their have been two more cellars dug underneath that size with prions and gluons and their components still below.
But it's wrong to say that Newton was superceded by Einstein. Einstein explains more than Newton did, but Newton got us into the industrial age. If someone tells you that "Things in motion tend to stay in motion," you can believe him.
> The same cannot be said
> of evolution between
> species in the way that
> would take you from a
> rodent, to a great ape,
> to a human.
What on Earth would make you say something so horridly, nakedly wrong?
(By the way, the tone of your wording makes it sound like the branching of species is some sort of team achievement, rather than just an individual fight for survival.)
> Theories, by nature, do
> not share the same stature
> that laws are entitled to.
Nature is not concerned with "stature," and doesn't "entitle" its mechanics with handsome certifications of "law." The laws of gravity aren't any more effective merely because we're so comfortable with them. There are curves in space-time that are just as real as gravity, even though you and I are less happy about it.
Listen, faith-people have this this grade-schoolers habit of saying "Gotcha!" whenever a serious student of science (or sex or anything) admits that there's more to learn.
> Let's not confuse faith
> and religion.
If you'd care to try distinguishing them, we'd all love to watch.
Crid at June 12, 2007 1:04 PM
We're sliding back into the dark ages.
HOW is this possible?!?!
RedPretzel in LA at June 12, 2007 1:55 PM
"If you'd care to try distinguishing them, we'd all love to watch."
You can have faith w/o religion and religion w/o faith. Religion is a cultural artifact and faith is a personal belief in something in the absence of empirical evidence. In our present case, the "something" is a divine creator of the universe that knows us and cares about us. Or you can look up your own at dictionary.com or whatever floats your boat.
Chang, some religions do include an equal sacredness of all living things.
Martin at June 12, 2007 1:59 PM
Why are you fond of the distinction? Which are we supposed to admire, religion or faith?
Crid at June 12, 2007 2:42 PM
The term “evolution” is as much a political litmus test as is creationism or intelligent design. A real scientist admits what he or she does not know and the simple fact is that no one truly knows if all life originated when a puddle of goo was hit by lightning.
I'm afraid you fail this litmus test, Martin, and reveal that you don't know much about evolution. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not an explanation of the origin of life, but of the origin of species once life has started. I found a copy of Darwin's book while on holiday and started reading it. Even though it's dated, it's a good read. Why not try it? Most objections to Darwin are, ironically enough, arguments from ignorance.
Darwin's theory is an explanation of observed facts - lots and lots of facts. So far it's the only explanation of these facts. Religious so-called "explanations" don't explain anything. Why is the sky blue? Because God wants it that way. Why does malaria exist in damp places? Because God wants it that way. Why do we get earthquakes? Because God wants it that way. Perhaps you can begin to see why this is not an explanation. Especially when it's backed up with "... and you'd better not ask any more questions about God if you know what's good for you."
Incidentally, atomic theory is not much older than evolutionary theory. It was not until about 1800 that evidence for the atomic structure of matter began to outweigh the evidence for a continuous structure of matter. That's another interesting read.
Norman at June 12, 2007 3:03 PM
"Why are you fond of the distinction? Which are we supposed to admire, religion or faith?"
I make no appeal for admiration for anything. A person can have faith in a divine creator w/o having to answer for the failings of one or another of the world's religions.
"I'm afraid you fail this litmus test, Martin" The term "litmus test" outside of a lab concerned with pH levels is used to denote a process of winnowing out unsuitable candidates which may overlook or ignore important considerations by placing arbitrary criteria at the top of the list. Thus a person who admits to "not believing in evolution" is quickly labled a retard and marginalized. I think you are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about exactly what I believe. Who, for instance, said "... and you'd better not ask any more questions about God if you know what's good for you."???
(Questions about God are the best.)
Cards on the table, I actually DO believe in the idea that organisms change and adapt (as species) to changing environments. I just don't think life originated by accident from a mud puddle on this planet and nothing Darwin wrote implies that it did. But the popular understanding of the TOE has been used to advance political agendas just as people's spiritual needs have been misused throughout history; one is no better than the other.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs places transcendence at the top of the pyramid but still accessible and useful to people still struggling with the lower needs. Faith is a healthy human characteristic, it's too bad some people see any expression of religious faith as an attempt to drag humanity into the dark ages.
I find the idea that atheism is a mark of great intelligence and sophistication hard to let slide. Some people make a better case for it than others. Amy is fun to read and is usually dead-on in most of her observations and opinions. But many secular humanist are as narrow-minded, hostile and intolerant of other viewpoints as any religious zealot. Declaring one's self an atheist might seem like a quick and easy way to appear well-educated but not everyone will fall for it.
Martin at June 12, 2007 4:21 PM
> The stridently vocal atheist does not believe in the THEORY of evolution but rather that evolution is a proven fact.
Evolution is a proven fact. Set up a culture of fast-dividing bacteria in a lab, place some stress on them (by making the pH of their environment non-optimal, for example), and yes, you can watch them evolve. What started off as a tiny minority that could, just by chance, tolerate the new environment, becomes the majority and eventually the entire population.
It is a theory that this PROVEN FACT can account for the entire panoply of life on Earth, starting from a single random strand of tRNA. So far, as I have written in this forum before, the story is incomplete, but no better theory has yet popped up.
Stu "El Inglés" Harris at June 12, 2007 5:12 PM
Stu,, you're perfectly correct, but your last seven words will strike believers as a dodge.
> I make no appeal for
> admiration for anything.
Then, again, why is the distinction important to you?
> A person can have faith
> in a divine creator w/o
> having to answer for
> the failings
Well, you care or you don't. If your faith has zero consequences for me and the education of children, then have at it. But most religions, Judaism and Christianity in particular, forbid their believers from denying their faith. (The blog has taught us that Muslims do what they need to do.)
> a person who admits to
> "not believing in evolution"
> is quickly labled a retard
> and marginalized.
Not by anyone whose opinion they'd care about, right? What are they being marginalized from? Such a person is not going to be teaching science anyway.
> one is no better than
> the other.
Sorry, fella... This one's winner-take-all. Somebody's right and somebody's wrong.
> some people see any expression
> of religious faith as an
> attempt to drag humanity
> into the dark ages.
I've made a similar case in these comments --to Amy's annoyance-- more times than I can count. But while I agree with every word in your last paragraph, it remains the case that you believe your beliefs place you at the moral and intellectual pinnacle. Funny how that works out that way.
Crid at June 12, 2007 5:21 PM
Stu, thanks for bringing this up. Tell me, does the experiment prove or disprove whether the genome for the bacteria did or did not (4 logical tests) already contain the trait for tolerating the different pH? Look at it this way: There is a weed in my yard and I try to kill it by placing a rock on top of it. A few days later, the weed sends up a shoot on the north side of the rock. I move the rock to the north and a few days later a shoot comes up on the west and on and on. The weed is not developing a "north growing trait" in response to stress. It already has the capacity to send up shoots looking for light. The strain of bacteria likewise already may have contained in its genetic make-up the ability to tolerate the new environment even if some of the individuals did not.
Even Darwin didn't claim to understand where truly new traits came from.
Martin at June 12, 2007 5:41 PM
> Even Darwin didn't claim
> to understand where truly
> new traits came from.
Red herring. Nobody said this was all about what one man believed. The precise mechanics were under investigation elsewhere:
http://urltea.com/r8c
For my whole lifetime, faithypeople have been saying, "Oh yeah? Well, what about this little piece of the puzzle that no one's figured out?"...
As if -
A) science ever promised any individual that there'd be no more questions (quite the opposite, which is one reason we like it) and
B) There was any answer that would be as comforting as an omnicient, omnipotent being with a personal interest in the conduct of one's own life... A being who will inexplicably torture and maim, and for whose presence we haven't a shred of evidence.
People want God to be true so badly....
Crid at June 12, 2007 6:07 PM
Crid,
"it remains the case that you believe your beliefs place you at the moral and intellectual pinnacle" I regret that my words give this impression. Maslow's hierarchy is not a vertical array of a person's virtues but rather represents the order in which a person typically pursues various kinds of things. I'm not at the pinnacle of anything.
Regarding the "red herring" : that traits appear and disappear in a population in response to environmental change is not a proof of the TOE as Stu seems to imply.
"People want God to be true so badly...."
Yes, they do. Whatever form that "God" might take.
martin at June 12, 2007 7:07 PM
> is not a proof of the TOE
It's bothersome that you'd quibble over this, because it makes it look like you skipped lectures on natural selection to double up on choir practice. The mechanism of differential reproductive success that Stu describes, whether by heritable traits or mutation, is the engine of evolution.
Crid at June 12, 2007 8:30 PM
Martin-
I'm still not 100% clear whether you mean the origin of life or the origin of species, when you refer to TOE. You know thw difference, but you refer to "the popular understanding of the TOE" and that is often msitaken.
Maslow's hierarchy is neat. Once you have sorted out your lower level needs (eg air, food, sex) then you can devote your energies to higher level needs (eg esteem, transcendence). For most people, transcendence comes from religious faith. It doesn't follow that faith is a good thing. Maslow's needs are individual needs. There are 6 billion of us here, and we have to take account of the social effect of our individual behaviour. Recent posts about the social impact of individual polygyny are a case in point. In any case, religiosity (which can be observed) as opposed to faith (which cannot be observed) is a major source of social interaction, so meeting one of Maslow's higher needs. You might be mistaken to conclude anything about the invisible object of this invisible faith.
Declaring one's self an atheist might seem like a quick and easy way to appear well-educated but not everyone will fall for it. A 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota involving a poll of 2,000 households in the United States found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities, more so than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other groups. [wikipedia] Not so much "quick and easy" as "quick and risky", then. But why do you associate atheism with education?
Norman at June 12, 2007 11:50 PM
> ....whether the genome for the bacteria did or did not ... already contain the trait for tolerating the different pH?
No, you can in fact count the corpses of the many, many bacteria that did not survive the new conditions.
This experiment is repeatable at will, and it's the reason your doctor emphasises, when prescribing an anti-biotic, that you MUST finish the entire course even if you "feel better" before the end. Think about it.
Stu "El Inglés" Harris at June 13, 2007 7:07 AM
The human genome carries genetic coding for things like blonde hair, blue eyes, blood type AB neg, attached ear lobes and many other things I don't personally have. If any of those things ever become crucial to survival, I will die. The traits I do have may continue to be a part of the genome (through recessive genes)even if they are not represented in any living individuals. As circumstances change, the traits may emerge again.
I regret blundering into the realm of evolution and religion when my only point was that the "do you believe" litmus test for politicians has more to do with the POPULAR IMPLICATIONS of the TOE than with the substance of the TOE.
martin at June 13, 2007 7:54 AM
I regret blundering
Well, exactly. The popular implication is that anyone who believes in TOE is a godless, untrustworthy, atheist. And probably a closet communist to boot. Declarations of faith are the only defence; if you can stand up and say that you believe Almighty God created us in his image, and that anyone who disagrees with that says we evolved from pond scum, then you get a pretty good popular reaction.
Now why would anyone object to that?
It even gives faith a bad name. Bah.
Norman at June 13, 2007 8:31 AM
Everybody cabbagepatch!
Go Nor-man! (click)
Go Nor-man! (click)
Go Nor-man! (click)
Go Nor-man!...
Crid at June 13, 2007 10:48 AM
Martin says "A person of faith might well study biology or other sciences within the framework of the theory of evolution and still believe in a divine creator and still be well-respected within their fields".
Well, exactly. And the very same person of faith might also believe that anyone who does not accept the theory (fact, whatever -- I'm not getting into the debate) of evolution is unqualified to hold high office, particularly if that office is responsible for administering our government's education and science bureaucracies. Or even low office.
And that very same person of faith might be entirely comfortable voting for a candidate for any office, from President to dog-catcher, who is a professed atheist, even voting for that person over someone of his own faith, if it appears that the candidate in question would do the job better.
Where's the contradiction?
Larry at June 15, 2007 12:36 PM
Larry-
I'm not sure what point you are making. A person of faith might not allow their faith to influence their work as a scientist or as a politician - is that it? If so, what you say is true, if only because the entire premise is phrased as a hypothetical - something that "might" be. It equally well might not be the case. There's no contradiction because you have not asserted anything.
I don't see how you can expect people to put their faith in a box and only take it out in the privacy of their own home or church. A person's faith permeates their life - but it doesn't follow that they will promote their faith at every opportunity, say by only appointing people of the same faith. People can have faith and integrity and intelligence. What is worrying is when they only have faith.
Norman at June 16, 2007 12:25 AM
Norman --
Agreed that a person's faith permeates their life, and forms their conscience. My point was that Ms. Alkon's implication (if not outright statement) that rationality and religions belief anre mutually exclusive is nonsense. And that not all people who hold religious beliefs are anti-science, evolution-denying morons.
I don't expect religious people to leave their faith at home. I'm in absolute agreement with you that people can have faith and integrity and intelligence. It's worrisome to me too when they have nothing but faith, and even more worrisome when that faith tells them that reason and intelligence are bad, dangerous and heretical.
Larry at June 16, 2007 2:29 PM
Larry - We seem to be in agreement more or less. Ms Alkon (that'll be Amy!) is persuasive but extreme. I can't see where her argument leads except to a religious test as a requirement for office. Which is almost where we are at the moment ... with a different test, is all. The test may not be official, but it is quite effective nonetheless.
Norman at June 17, 2007 2:46 AM
its fascinating that the debate always focuses on non-scientists trying to pull out snippets of the theory and disprove them, when in fact, it is the theory of CREATION which is utterly and unequivocally disprovable, both in terms of the observable facts that prove the universe is way more than 5,000 years old, and in terms of the logic of creating an immense universe so that one silly little planet can have life, where life is pitted one against another, where stars spontaneously explode every day, and where pain-reflex is a necessary part of survival.
jeff at June 23, 2007 12:54 PM
not all people who hold religious beliefs are anti-science, evolution-denying morons.
Anybody who believes in god is irrational. They may apply rationality to some issues in their lives, but ultimately, they allow themselves to be in large or small part, irrational and primitive.
Amy Alkon at June 23, 2007 1:25 PM
There are many, many people, starting with Origen and Tertullian, who would have been able to out-think anyone posting to this blog and they believed in an "imaginary man in the sky." Don't be quite so full of yourselves.
James Kidder at July 11, 2007 8:00 AM
Leave a comment