Before overflow from the other posts get here, I think it’s important to note (as the person who gave the H/t) that this post was put on a timer a good six hours before the dispute alive and well in other posts. There is, in fact, no relation to said posts, and I would have written the thing myself if I hadn’t been so busy today (though I probably would have gone lighter on the Turkey aspect and stronger on the science aspect).

I’d say that there is a blowback effect though in that the way that you and Michael have reacted to our responses to these sorts of things has had the effect that I no longer want to comment on them. I do have an opinion about this but I’m unwilling to express it in an environment where I feel that any objection I raise will be used as evidence that I can’t handle hearing anything critical of the US.

Hear, hear, Christine.

Double standards are very frustrating. It’s like debating the French sometimes. After all, if we’re throwing around stereotypes about overly patriotic nationalist Americans, let’s by all means also throw in some about snooty Europeans.

I also had a discussion yesterday about "intelligent design" and its place (or lack thereof) in American schools. But I don’t want to post it just to get stuffed into yet another stereotype about ignorant nationalist American bobos who exist only to be laughed at by Dutch students…and professors.

And Claudia: If any Turks do think you are being unfair to Turkey, feel free to just say that they are all just dumb nationalists who are incapable of recognizing any flaws with their country.

I second Christine’s comments, but have not yet completely given up the ghost, just very close to it.

Some very quick Google research, Claudia, would have allowed you to cite <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5788/765">the original paper</a>. In fact, it appears that Dr. Miller has a strong track record of methodical research in this area. It is unfortunate that he slips in political attacks at Republicans, as that undermines his credibility. Overlooking that, the questions asked in the survey appear to be neutrally phrased and objective. The actual question (in English, at least) asked was: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." Some of the more vocally atheistic proponents of evolution attempt to cast evolution in terms that basically allow no room for God in the picture at all, either at the Big Bang, at the first evolution of life from the primordial soup, or otherwise. This question does not appear to suffer from that bias.

I would note, however, that his own study suggests that at least some of the response is a sensitivity to labels rather than scientific ignorance:

When presented with a description of natural selection that omits the word evolution, 78% of adults agreed to a description of the evolution of plants and animals (see table S2 in SOM). But, 62% of adults in the same study believed that God created humans as whole persons without any evolutionary development.

Thus, the Americans surveyed appeared not to be ignorant of basic scientific principles, but merely an unwillingness to apply them to humans.

I also agree with Dr. Miller’s concluding paragraph:

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.

However, I would place the blame for that on both the left AND the right. Much of the most vocal left is so relentlessly hostile to the mildest mentions of religion that it has caused a blow-back which has actually had the effect of pushing religious believers into more zealous advocacy positions just in an effort to maintain the previous status quo. As evidence, I would point to the fact that Dr. Miller’s data decreasing public understanding of religion over the same time period that the Supreme Court was allowing groups like the ACLU to force religion farther and farther from the public square.

Pat if you could provide a link to the original science article I’d appreciate it. Believe it or not, I did look for it, through Pubmed, the google of scientific articles, and failed to find it. It may sound silly but putting it in google didn’t occur to me, since scientists tend to work around pubmed.

As for the difference between the journalist article and the scientific article, that doesn’t surprise me in the least. Witness how often scientists claim to have cured cancer. Usually when you look at the actual article the claims a far more modest, but reporters have a very annoying habit of going for the big headline, even when they often totally destroy the actual meaning.

But I’ve got to say that I disagree vigorously with the idea that resistance to evolution comes from people on the PRO-evolution side forcing a choice between religion and evolution. The resistance to evolution by religious groups has been well recorded since the very time of it’s discovery. Likewise, current advocacy of evolution teaching by authors such as Dawkins has happened as a RESPONSE to such absurdities (and I’m sorry to use such strong language, but as a scientist it’s a very emotional topic) as trying to sneak pseudoscientific nonsense into science classrooms.

I also disagree about how forcefully religion is pushed out of the public square in America. The huge influence of religion in America is proof enough that it’s hardly being driven out. I can, however, accept that some people can have a reasonable disagreement about the matter from their point of view. I can’t do that for "intelligent" design, it makes me think of this.

The link is in my comment, Claudia. Alas, I keep forgetting that this TinyMCE comment editor thingies requires me to not just type in the HTML code, which is my deeply-ingrained habit. Sorry about that.

Actually, I don’t know if the article I linked to is the most recent version which led to the newspaper report today; I think it’s dated 2006. But it’s clearly something that Dr. Miller does every year, and the results appear basically the same. Anyway, the 2006 paper is here.

I agree with you that most advocates of intelligent design are loopy. I discredited the concept long ago, back at Centerfield. But at a deeper intellectual level, there are plenty of people who say they adhere to the concept of intelligent design who are not denying evolution. They use ID only to mean that God played some part in the big bang or the creation of life in the primordial soup of the Earth in order to set evolution on the way in such a way that it would, in the end, produce us. That’s not a denial of science, as science can neither prove nor disprove that point.

My point is that Dawkins and others often use science and evolution in an effort, basically, to claim that God cannot exist. They frame the debate in such a way as to suggest that accepting the doctrine of evolution is tantamount to abandoning your faith. This causes a strong push-back, and rightly so, because they extend their science past the point to which it can be supported. Evolution standing alone is fine. To use evolution, however, to try to prove some broader philosophy of materialism, however, is improper and helps play to the worst fears of the religious minded, who might otherwise leave science to its own devices.

Of course there has always been a religious movement in opposition to the concept of evolution and the teaching thereof, just as there has always been bigots and eugenicists who have perverted evolution to support their own misguided ends. My point, however, is that to the extent Dr. Miller’s data shows that public disbelief in evolution has increased over the past 30 years, a time period during which court-mandated separation of church and state (particularly in education) has INCREASED, that correlation should indicate that the court cases may be having the opposite of the desired result.

Many folks in the U.S. can be quite obstinate and independent minded. Tell them they can’t do something, and they’re likely to work hard to prove you wrong. Tell folks they can’t pray at school, they can’t pray at the football game Friday night, and they’re going to fight back. In doing so, they may become political allies with people who have harsher agendas than simply a moment of silent prayer at the beginning of class.

Gosh, just another fun fact to know and tell your friends!

If anyone is interested in some more detail on the gallop version of basically the same poll including break-down by party affiliation and education level: http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/American-Beliefs-Evolution-vs-Bibles-Explanation-Human-Origins.aspx

it’s a shame they don’t do the breakdown for their intermediate category too "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"

Kevin, for that, try Pew.