American Idiots: 46% Of Americans Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

If the recent political climate has you feeling that not much has changed in the past 30 years, the latest Gallup poll will come as no surprise.

According to Gallup:

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question.

It's amazing, right? Despite the oceans of data supporting evolution, nearly half of all Americans believe humans were created in their present form. If Gallop had dug a little deeper, we would have learned that these folks believe that men were molded out of dirt, and that women were an afterthought, fashioned from Adam's rib.

Half of all Americans believe that National Geographic, The Smithsonian, The Science Channel, the Discovery Channel, and PBS are all part of a vast secular conspiracy (along with an overwhelming majority of scientists and every major US scientific organization).

Denial is a powerful drug.

We shouldn't be surprised, then, to learn that "the more religious the American, the more likely he or she is to choose the creationist viewpoint."

Two-thirds of Americans who attend religious services weekly choose the creationist alternative, compared with 25% of those who say they seldom or never attend church. The views of Americans who attend almost every week or monthly fall in between those of the other two groups. Still, those who seldom or never attend church are more likely to believe that God guided the evolutionary process than to believe that humans evolved with no input from God.

Now, if I were to ask you whether Republicans or Democrats were more likely to be creationists -- that's a no-brainer, right? Right.

"58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years."

Now, before you start laughing at the Republicans' ignorance, get this: "39% of independents and 41% of Democrats agree [that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.]"

We have a serious problem in America. It's a phenomenon unlike anything else in the world.

We are a different animal altogether.

All in all, there is no evidence in this trend of a substantial movement toward a secular viewpoint on human origins.

Most Americans are not scientists, of course, and cannot be expected to understand all of the latest evidence and competing viewpoints on the development of the human species. Still, it would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution. Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief, at least as measured by this question wording, that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature.

Pat Robertson: Scientists "Can't Speculate About The Origins Of Life Because They Weren't There"

Pat Robertson doesn't think scientists can speculate about the origins of life 'because they weren't there.' In the same breath, he also says it's okay to believe a 'geologist who tells you something existed 300 million years ago.'

Come again, Pat?

And, of course, it's also okay to believe the Genesis origin story that was written by guys who weren't there.

Watch:

Institute For Creation Research's 'That's A Fact!' Video Series Doesn't Contain Any

If, for some strange reason, you enjoy pounding your forehead into your desk, I have great news for you.

Head over to the Institute for Creation Research's Vimeo page and behold their new campaign entitled "That's a Fact!"

I'm not entirely sure what "facts" they're referring to here, as each video is the same old creationist nonsense, just served up Web 2.0-style.

Consider this entry in the series, entitled "Useless Body Parts," which discusses vestigiality.

The Institute for Creation Research states:

Body parts like tonsils and the appendix were once considered unnecessary organs left over from evolution. But scientists have discovered that these “unnecessary” organs are actually very useful.

The video states that scientists now know that the appendix is useful to our immune system, and that the gall bladder is now known to be useful for digesting fats.

With this information, the video draws the following conclusion:

"God doesn't create junk. When he made Adam and Eve, he declared them...very good! Their sin against god started the process of sickness, decay, and death even after God's judgment upon creation, he activated intricately designed backup systems, like the immune system, so that Adam and Eve, and all their descendants could survive after the fall."

I believe that by "facts," they mean "myths."

While their remarks on the appendix and the gall bladder are partly true, they leave out a lot of important information (this seems to happen a lot with creationist propaganda).

For instance, if a supreme being had designed the appendix as part of a human (a human which was designed and created in its current form), then the appendix would be kind of like the Ford Pinto's exploding gas tank. (OK, that's a bad example, you actually need a gas tank to operate a car, but you get the idea) Yes, the appendix may provide some minor functions in modern times, but it might also kill you. Brandon Miller wrote in LiveScience: "In 2000, in fact, there were nearly 300,000 appendectomies performed in the United States, and 371 deaths from appendicitis. Any secondary function that the appendix might perform certainly is not missed in those who had it removed before it might have ruptured."

(Side bar: we have to stop looking at biological traits and features as having "purposes." A chameleon's camouflage mechanism doesn't have a "purpose" (i.e. hiding from prey), it is simply a mechanism that evolved because the chameleons who were less capable of camouflaging themselves died before they could reproduce.)

Regarding the coccyx, I'm not sure the Institute for Creation Research has a true understanding of atavism. Humans occasionally are born with tails.

There are numerous examples of vestigial limbs, organs, and other features: Hind leg bones in whales, male nipples, human wisdom teeth, goose bumps, and wings on flightless birds.

If a designer were hired to create efficient organisms, she would certainly be sent back to the drawing board for many of these useless and extraneous features. She certainly wouldn't be receiving praise for efficiency or conservation of building materials.

The kind of silliness we see in these Institution for Creation Studies videos are straight from the creationist propaganda playbook. The willful ignorance is astounding.

These organizations are so fixated on the mission of proving the Bible's inerrancy, that they are willing to completely ignore all evidence except for the few pieces of evidence that work in their favor. If they can blind their captive audience with just a little science, then they believe they have done enough and can then swoop in with their message of hope and salvation.

"Those silly evolutionists say X is true! But what about Y and Z? Wait! Look over there, it's Jesus and heaven and salvation forever! Amen!"

It's the same approach every single time.

Watch for yourself. Watch them all. Or save yourself the headache.

Bryan Fischer & The Creation Museum's Scientist Link Evolution To Hitler

Today, AFA spokesman and all-around horrible person, Bryan Fischer, had Dr. Georgia Purdom on his show.

For those unfamiliar with Dr. Purdom, she is one of the actual scientists employed by the Creation Museum. In other words, she is a scientist who has found a way to completely ignore science in order to indoctrinate children with the idea that the earth is only several thousand years old, and that God created humans in their present form.

As I've mentioned before in these pages, evolution deniers like Bryan Fischer, Ray Comfort, and the crew at Answers in Genesis love to play the Hitler card in their attacks on evolution.

Take Fischer and Purdom from today's Focal Point (video segment is below)

FISCHER: So it seems like you could draw a straight line between Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, the eugenics movement, and Adolph Hitler. You have an unbroken line from the theory of evolution to Hitler's Germany. Is that an over-exaggeration?

PURDOM: No it's not.

What Fischer and Purdom are trying to do is sully Darwin's name, and his theory of evolution -- a theory which is considered to be a fact by most modern biologists -- by association.

I guess the idea is that if they keep repeating over and over that "evolution = Hitler," the poor souls who pay attention to these loons (over 200 radio stations and over 1 million visitors to the Creation Museum) will simply say, "Welp, Hitler was evil, so evolution has to be a lie!"

Here's the thing:

Evolution doesn't care. Evolution happens, has happened, and will happen, regardless of who embraces it, or who mirrors its mechanisms for whatever nefarious purpose.

It doesn't matter if Mother Theresa, Pope Benedict, or Adolf Hitler embraced the theory of evolution. It doesn't change anything. Because change is always occurring, and it doesn't give a shit about you, politics, religion, or Bryan Fischer.

Next thing you know, Fischer and Purdom will be bad-mouthing Sir Isaac Newton and his theory of gravitation because of the millions who have died by falling.

Get Your Crayons Ready! It's The Creation Museum Dinosaur Coloring Contest!

The folks over at Kentucky's Creation Museum have announced a fun way to get your children on their way to needing remedial instruction in science.

Can you draw a saddle and a human?

The Creationist Disneyland, as NCSE director Eugenie Scott likes to call it, will give your child $5 off their admission for coloring a picture of their friendly dinosaur. (The dinosaur was created by God on day 6, it says on the page.)

Or, if your child likes to draw, they can turn in a drawing of their favorite dinosaur. If a child were to go this route, I imagine they might get bonus points for drawing Adam & Eve, perhaps saddled atop the dinosaur on a romantic ride through Eden.

The contest will be judged in four age groups: preschool, 5–7 year olds, 8–11 year olds, and 12–14 year olds.

While the Creation Museum is a bit vague about what exactly kids might win, they have confirmed that "prizes will be awarded."

One can be fairly certain that science education is not among the prizes.

Here's what some smart people have had to say about the museum:

British scientist, doctor, and professor Robert Winston:

It was alarming to see so much time, money and effort being spent on making a mockery of hard won scientific knowledge. And the fact that it was being done with such obvious sincerity, somehow made it all the worse.

The National Center For Science Education received over 800 signatures from scientists in the three states closest to the museum (Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio) on the following statement:

We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum. Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis.

Lisa Park, professor of paleontology at University of Akron, and an Elder in the Presbyterian Church:

I think it's very bad science and even worse theology... and the theology is far more offensive to me. I think there's a lot of focus on fear, and I don't think that's a very Christian message... I find it a malicious manipulation of the public.

British writer A.A. Gill:

A breathtakingly literal march through Genesis, without any hint of soul...This place doesn't just take on evolution—it squares off with geology, anthropology, paleontology, history, chemistry, astronomy, zoology, biology, and good taste. It directly and boldly contradicts most -onomies and all -ologies, including most theology.

I think they owe thousands of childen an ap-ology.

Anti-Science: In Which 'Age of Autism' Boos Me, And A Scientist Responds

This morning I criticized the website Age of Autism by way of a tweet highlighting their site as part of a list of the 10 worst anti-science websites. They subsequently blocked me, and tweeted 'Boo!' back to me.

As a big fan of free speech, peer review, and dissent, it peeved me that a benign public tweet mentioning AoA as part of a list, would result in being blocked. This is, after all, an organization who, in their own 'About Us' section, condemns those who "aren't interested" in other points of view, and who "don't listen."

Their choice of words, "Boo!", while annoying, perfectly distilled the essence of AoA's willful ignorance. It was the twitter equivalent of sticking fingers in ears and exclaiming, "Lalalalalalalalaaa!"

The science writer, biologist, and autism activist Emily Willingham was also peeved. (Full disclosure: I am one of Emily's followers on Twitter (and she is one of mine), and we have several mutual acquaintances. She has been featured in these pages, and I happen to think she kicks ass.)

Emily wrote a post on her blog, The Biology Files, where the AoA 'Boo!' episode served as a jumping-off point for a screed on the anti-science movement and the value of real science.

She writes:

This nadir of discourse is a perfect example of why the anti-science movement in this country is so damaging. The refusal to think critically, to alter conclusions as necessary based on new evidence, to budge from some pre-set notion regardless of information to the contrary--that "BOO!" sums it all up. It says, "We do not care that you think we're anti-science, and we have taken our ball and gone home." It says, "We are incapable of defending our position, as usual." It says, "We are childishly adherent to our cause, no matter its level of failure, no matter evidence to the contrary." That "BOO!" encapsulates well the attitude and argumentative capacity of those who promote anti-science values.

Yes, I said, "Values." Because the anti-science crowd operates together on a fundamental set of values, whether they're evangelizing against evolution, climate change, or vaccines. They place more emphasis on boastful "gotchas" than they do on getting it right. They use half-truths to get buyers for what they sell--and yes, they're usually selling something--and make people forget that the yin to a half-truth's yang is a half-lie. They value the power of emotion and testimony over method and evidence, and they use emotion and testimony cynically and unabashedly. But most of all, they value the opportunity to say "BOO!" to the folk who rely on the long-term, unemotional, data-gathering process we call "science" to form conclusions.

We see denialism everywhere these days. You can't turn on a news channel today without being bombarded with anti-science sentiment: climate change is a hoax, evolution is 'a theory that's out there,' a blastocyst is a person, Gardisil causes mental retardation. The list goes on and on.

Willingham on the damage caused by anti-science:

This clash of values between science and anti-science intersects every sphere of our lives. People turn to the anti-science practitioners and place their health and lives and their children's health and lives in jeopardy. People turn away from the conclusions of science based on available evidence and endanger everything from the food we eat and water we drink to the very balance of the biosphere. People turn away from educating our children in science, preferring the value of ignorance over the value of knowledge. People turn our nation away from being competitive by making a mockery of the value of knowledge and emphasizing instead the anti-science value of embracing half-truths and promoting scientific illiteracy. Were they able to spin in graves, our founding fathers, many of whom were extraordinary critical thinkers, would be spinning like tops to see the people of this nation they founded so proud in their emphatic and willful ignorance.

We live in a world in which, more than ever, critical thinking abilities and a broad and deep knowledge across the spheres of life and the rest of the physical world will be required tools for function and advancement. The anti-science emphasis on and exploitation of values of half-lies, ignorance, and illiteracy can only endanger us and the world around us, sometimes fatally. It's difficult for me to understand the mental processes of a person or a group of people who prefer ignorance and failure over method and evidence. But then again, my values don't involve resorting to playground childishness like "BOO!" as a retort to legitimate criticism.

Read Emily's entire post here. Share it. Tweet it to AoA, if you want. Warning: you will be blacklisted.