Richard Dawkins Speaks to CNN About Scientific Literacy, Morality & Creationism

CNN has a nice in-depth video interview with writer/biologist Richard Dawkins. It's definitely worth your time if you care about scientific literacy.

A few highlights:

On whether or not evolution should be taught to young children:

You can't even begin to understand biology, you can't understand life, unless you understand what it's all there for, how it arose - and that means evolution. So I would teach evolution very early in childhood. I don't think it's all that difficult to do. It's a very simple idea. One could do it with the aid of computer games and things like that.

I think it needs serious attention, that children should be taught where they come from, what life is all about, how it started, why it's there, why there's such diversity of it, why it looks designed. These are all things that can easily be explained to a pretty young child. I'd start at the age of about 7 or 8.

There’s only one game in town as far as serious science is concerned. It’s not that there are two different theories. No serious scientist doubts that we are cousins of gorillas, we are cousins of monkeys, we are cousins of snails, we are cousins of earthworms. We have shared ancestors with all animals and all plants. There is no serious scientist who doubts that evolution is a fact.

On the source of morality:

We have very big and complicated brains, and all sorts of things come from those brains, which are loosely and indirectly associated with our biological past. And morality is among them, together with things like philosophy and music and mathematics. Morality, I think, does have roots in our evolutionary past. There are good reasons, Darwinian reasons, why we are good to, altruistic towards, cooperative with, moral in our behavior toward our fellow species members, and indeed toward other species as well, perhaps.

There are evolutionary roots to morality, but they’ve been refined and perfected through thousands of years of human culture. I certainly do not think that we ought to get our morals from religion because if we do that, then we either get them through Scripture – people who think you should get your morals from the Old Testament haven’t read the Old Testament – so we shouldn’t get our morals from there.

Nor should we get our morals from a kind of fear that if we don’t please God he’ll punish us, or a kind of desire to apple polish (to suck up to) a God. There are much more noble reasons for being moral than constantly looking over your shoulder to see whether God approves of what you do.

Where do we get our morals from? We get our morals from a very complicated process of discussion, of law-making, writing, moral philosophy, it’s a complicated cultural process which changes – not just over the centuries, but over the decades. Our moral attitudes today in 2012 are very different form what they would have been 50 or 100 years ago. And even more different from what they would have been 300 years ago or 500 years ago. We don’t believe in slavery now. We treat women as equal to men. All sorts of things have changed in our moral attitudes.

Watch:

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.

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.

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.

Protestant Pastors Overwhelmingly Believe God Did Not Use Evolution, Adam & Eve Were Literal People

Protestant pastors overwhelmingly believe that God did not use evolution to create humans, and believe that Adam and Eve were literal people. They are, however, evenly split on whether the earth is only thousands of years old.

This is according to a survey of 1,000 American Protestant pastors released on January 9 by LifeWay Research.

Via Baptist Press:

When asked to respond to the statement, "I believe God used evolution to create people," 73 percent of pastors disagree, with 64 percent strongly disagreeing and 8 percent somewhat disagreeing. Twelve percent each somewhat agree and strongly agree. Four percent are not sure.

In response to the statement, "I believe Adam and Eve were literal people," 74 percent strongly agree and 8 percent somewhat agree. Six percent somewhat disagree, 11 percent strongly disagree and 1 percent are not sure.

Of course, Lifeway is in the business of selling bibles, so I'm not so sure how seriously we should take this survey. Regardless, those numbers are not terribly encouraging.

However, there are several telling (and fairly obvious) findings from the survey:

• Evolution denial is significantly less-prominent in the Northeast, where we also find lower overall rates of religiosity.

• Mainline Protestant pastors were more likely to accept evolution (25%) than their Evangelical peers (8%).

• Evangelicals were more likely than Mainline Protestants to strongly agree that Adam and Eve were literal people (82% vs. 50%).

• Pastors with graduate degrees were more likely to disagree that Adam & Eve were literal people, compared to those with a bachelor's degree (16% vs. 2%).

• Younger pastors were the least likely to strongly disagree that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

• Pastors with a graduate degree were more likely to strongly disagree that the earth is 6,000 years old than pastors with a bachelor's degree(42% vs. 18%).

So, even if LifeWay is looking to sell us bibles, their survey shows us that if young Protestants get a college degree and move to an area that is not saturated with religious ideology, they have a decent chance of escaping the ignorance they were born into.

Are You A Young Earth Creationist? Take The Quiz!

Are you a Young Earth Creationist? In case you're unsure, you may want to answer the 9 questions below, which Creation Ministries International put together to help "ascertain whether your future pastor, youth group leader or Bible College principal takes a straightforward view of Genesis."

You wouldn't want your child to learn actual facts would you? Heavens, no.

From the introduction to the quiz:

CMI periodically receives requests for us to identify Bible colleges/seminaries that believe/teach a straightforward reading of Genesis. We also know of pastoral search committees lamenting that they would not have selected certain candidates if only they had known in advance of their compromise (long-age, or theistic evolutionary) stance on Genesis.

For a number of reasons, CMI does not provide a list of ‘young-earth’ theological colleges, nor do we get involved in church staffing matters. However, in response to such enquiries we have prepared the following questionnaire to meet an evident need.

Please feel free to reference CMI's explanatory notes for each question.

Good luck!

1. SIX DAYS 

Do you believe that God created the earth and universe in six ordinary-length (earth-rotation) days?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

2. AGE OF THE WORLD 

Do you believe that the earth and universe are only thousands (not millions or billions) of years old, as measured by Earth time?

☐  Yes

☐  No

___________________________________________________________________

3. THE FIRST HUMANS 

Do you believe that Adam and his wife Eve were the literal, historic ancestors of all (other) people who have ever lived?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

4. ADAM AND EVE’S ORIGINS 

Do you believe that Adam and Eve had no physical parents, but were created directly by God; Adam from the actual dust, and Eve from the actual flesh and bone of Adam’s side?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

5. HUMAN DEATH 

Do you believe that human physical death began only after Adam sinned?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

6. CARNIVORY 

Do you believe that all animals were originally created vegetarian?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

7. SUFFERING IN THE FOSSIL RECORD 

Do you believe that fossils showing evidence of bloodshed and suffering (e.g. half-eaten prey, dinosaur cancers,) could not have been formed before Adam’s Fall led to the Curse?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

8. GLOBAL FLOOD

Do you believe that the Flood of Noah covered the whole globe? 

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

9. THE SUPERNATURAL POWER OF JESUS

Do you believe that after Lazarus was physically dead for days, Jesus miraculously caused him to regain physical life? 

☐  Yes

☐  No

If you answered 'No' to any of the above questions, you have nothing to worry about. Wait -- I mean, you failed.

Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth: Why Does The US Not Fit The Trend?

via Calamities of Nature:

The United States is an odd bird, clearly. This graph reminded me of a post on PZ Myers' Pharyngula blog in which he discussed an international poll showing the US as being near dead last in acceptance of evolution (just above Turkey, another country with a distinct fundamentalism/modernism issues).

What, pray tell, could cause the US to remain such an outlier?

Well, first there is religiosity:

The total effect of fundamentalist religious beliefs on attitude toward evolution (using a standardized metric) was nearly twice as much in the United States as in the nine European countries (path coefficients of -0.42 and -0.24, respectively), which indicates that individuals who hold a strong belief in a personal God and who pray frequently were significantly less likely to view evolution as probably or definitely true than adults with less conservative religious views.

And then there's this:

Second, the evolution issue has been politicized and incorporated into the current partisan division in the United States in a manner never seen in Europe or Japan. In the second half of the 20th century, the conservative wing of the Republican Party has adopted creationism as a part of a platform designed to consolidate their support in southern and Midwestern states—the "red" states. In the 1990s, the state Republican platforms in seven states included explicit demands for the teaching of "creation science". There is no major political party in Europe or Japan that uses opposition to evolution as a part of its political platform.

As Myers noted, the paper ends on a sad note:

The politicization of science in the name of religion and political partisanship is not new to the United States, but transformation of traditional geographically and economically based political parties into religiously oriented ideological coalitions marks the beginning of a new era for science policy. The broad public acceptance of the benefits of science and technology in the second half of the 20th century allowed science to develop a nonpartisan identification that largely protected it from overt partisanship. That era appears to have closed.

Nigel Barber, in Psychology Today, asks if Atheism will eventually replace religion, as research shows that atheism "blossoms amid affluence where most people feel economically secure."

He writes:

It seems that people turn to religion as a salve for the difficulties and uncertainties of their lives. In social democracies, there is less fear and uncertainty about the future because social welfare programs provide a safety net and better health care means that fewer people can expect to die young. People who are less vulnerable to the hostile forces of nature feel more in control of their lives and less in need of religion. Hence my finding of belief in God being higher in countries with a heavy load of infectious diseases.

These findings are not surprising, but his piece does not acknowledge the fact that the US, a developed country where most have access to shelter, healthcare, and education, remains extremely religious (and relatively anti-evolution). Unfortunately, in the US, there appears to be no level of affluence and comfort capable of decoupling religion and politics, despite constitutional assurances explicitly requiring it.

Creationism Creeps Into Mainstream Geology

I am fairly vocal about my lack of patience for Young Earth Creationism.  There is a quote attributed to former US senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan that does a good job of crystallizing my issues with these folks: "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

Often when I voice my concern about Young Earth Creationists and their beliefs, there are two common responses: 1) Nobody really believes that, do they? 2) Why does it matter if they want to believe that stuff?

First, yes, many people actually believe that the earth is between 5,000 and 10,000 years old and that human beings were created in their present form (Adam and Eve are, naturally, according to these folks, the universal ancestors of all humans).  Most of the time, the people who doubt that these people exist live in places like New York or Boston or San Francisco.  I invite them to come visit North Carolina sometime.   According to a Gallup poll in December 2010, approximately 40% of Americans believe in Young Earth Creationism, rising to over 50% among Republicans (but falling quickly as the level of education increases -- hmmmm).

Secondly, we should be greatly concerned that this many Americans are this misguided (or willfully ignorant, as the case may be).  This means that 40% of Americans a) do not grasp basic biology and geology concepts, and/or b) willfully ignore the evidence, as well as the not-at-all-controversial scientific consensus regarding the age of the earth. And only 700 out of 480,000 US earth and life scientists give any credence whatsoever to creationism.

Earth Magazine has an eye-opening piece about some covert ways in which Young Earth Creationism is seeping into areas usually reserved for actual science.  Young Earth Creationists are organizing "educational" science field trips. They are infiltrating science conventions (such as the annual Geological Society of America meeting). They are presenting 'scientific' posters and papers.

Their methods are dishonest and sketchy.

Earth Magazine describes one particular field trip:

Together with about 50 attendees, I attended field trip 409 at the GSA meeting last October. The trip took us from Denver, where the meeting was held, to the area surrounding Garden of the Gods National Natural Landmark in Colorado Springs. The point, according to the field trip guide, was “to observe and discuss the processes of sedimentation and tectonics at superb exposures near the Garden of the Gods.”

Many attendees seemed unaware of the backgrounds of the five trip co-leaders: Steve Austin, Marcus Ross, Tim Clarey, John Whitmore and Bill Hoesch. Austin is probably the most well-known; he is chair of the geology department at the Institute for Creation Research, which describes itself as the “leader in scientific research from a biblical perspective, conducting innovative laboratory and field research in the major disciplines of science.” Austin has been very active in promoting a Noah’s Flood interpretation of the geology of the Grand Canyon.

Ross is a former Discovery Institute fellow, currently an assistant professor of geology at Liberty University in Virginia (the self-proclaimed largest Christian university in the world). The University of Rhode Island granted him a doctorate in geology in 2006 even though he professed that Earth was at most 10,000 years old. Clarey is a geology professor at Delta College, a community college in Michigan. Whitmore is a geology professor at Cedarville University, a liberal arts Christian college in Ohio. Hoesch is a staff research geologist with the Institute for Creation Research.

During the trip, the leaders did not advertise their creationist views, but rather presented their credentials in a way that minimized their creationist affiliations. Austin introduced himself as a geologic consultant. Hoesch said he worked “in a small museum in the San Diego area” (referring to his job as curator of the Creation and Earth History Museum in Santee, Calif., which was founded by the Institute for Creation Research and is now operated by the Light and Life Foundation). Likewise, Whitmore did not offer that Cedarville’s official doctrinal statement declares, “We believe in the literal six-day account of creation” and requires that all faculty “must be born-again Christians” who “agree with our doctrinal statement.”

Furthermore, the field trip leaders were careful not to make overt creationist references. If the 50 or so field trip participants did not know the subtext and weren’t familiar with the field trip leaders, it’s quite possible that they never realized that the leaders endorsed geologic interpretations completely at odds with the scientific community

These folks know the deck is stacked against them. They know that the oceans of data supporting an old earth, evolutionary view crushes the sparse data they claim disproves this view. They are engaging in a dishonest, and desperate culture war designed to stealthily push their religious reverse-engineering as actual science to people who are seeking scientific information. It is their hope that if they can repeat the lies enough times to enough people then they can hold the inevitable at bay -- that evolution, and a 4.5 billion year-old earth, are completely at odds with a literal interpretation of the Bible. They believe that without a young earth, without Adam & Eve, and without The Great Flood, the whole house of cards falls apart.

They are wrong about evolution, they are wrong about the age of the earth, and they are wrong about these things being incompatible with religion. There are many who have accepted the overwhelming evidence without losing their religion.