U.S. Lags World in ... Acceptance of Evolution #1

U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution, LiveScience, Ker Than, 10 August 2006 ...

[Graphic: The Emperor's New Clothes, Wikipedia]

A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower. [Of course whether one thinks it is "bottom" or "lower" depends on whether one thinks that "evolution," i.e. "the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process'" (my emphasis):

"In one of the most existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that `the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.' Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February 2002. My emphasis)

is true. Because if God did in fact have a part in the process of the origin of man, then "the standard scientific theory" of "evolution" is false. Then in that case the USA and Turkey would be top and higher in relation to the truth than those other countries who have been deceived by Darwinist propaganda not to notice that its emperor has no clothes (see graphic above).

But in fact, the result of the survey may owe more to the usual Darwinist tactic of manipulating that all-flexible word, "evolution" (see future part #2).]

Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say. [This in itself sounds like Darwinist propaganda. It is difficult to believe that the USA is at the bottom of 34 countries in its "understanding of biology, especially genetics."

And as for "the politicization of science," it is hypocrisy (or self-deception) if the Darwinists don't accept responsibility for their part in same. John Durant, who was later to become Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Imperial College in London, referring to a "deification of Darwinism in the twentieth century" amounting to "idolatry," noted that "much of the energy of the creationist movement arises from a sense of moral outrage at the advance of an evolution-centred worldview that has the audacity to parade its secular, liberal values as if they were the objective findings of science" and warned that "Here creationism has a point of which the scientific community might do well to take heed" (my emphasis):

"One of the most ironic aspects of the deification of Darwinism in the twentieth century has been the encouragement that such idolatry has afforded to the forces of religious anti-evolutionism. I have argued that in the 1920s the association between evolutionism, on the one hand, and secularism and liberalism, on the other, helped to fan the flames of popular anti-evolutionary sentiment. Significantly, the same association appears to be playing its part in the current battle between evolutionists and so-called `scientific creationists' in the United States. ... All that needs to be said here is that this phenomenon is as deeply ideological today as it was 60 years ago. In the foreword to the bestknown textbook of scientific creationism, for example, the authors declare that, `in the name of modern science ... a nontheistic religion of secular evolutionary humanism has become, for all practical purposes, the official state religion promoted in the public schools' (Morris, ed., ["Scientific Creationism"] 1974, p.iii). To learn more about this religion we have only to read on, for at various stages in the book it is linked with atheism, materialism, mechanism and liberalism, as well as with behaviourism, libertinism, racism and communism (Morris, ed., 1974, pp.196-201, 252). Obviously, none of these labels is intended as a compliment, but it would be wrong to dismiss them as nothing more than a cheap exercise in mud-slinging. For much of the energy of the creationist movement arises from a sense of moral outrage at the advance of an evolution-centred worldview that has the audacity to parade its secular, liberal values as if they were the objective findings of science. Here at least, if not in matters of biological fact and theory, creationism has a point of which the scientific community might do well to take heed." (Durant, J.R., "Introduction," in "Durant, J.R., ed., "Darwinism and Divinity: Essays on Evolution and Religious Belief," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1985, pp.33-34)]

"American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, [This is the usual Darwinist poisoning of the well "official caricature" that anyone who doubts "evolution" must be a "fundamentalist who insist that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old and the fossil beds were laid down in Noah's flood":

"A laudatory review of Weiner's book (The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time) appeared in the Time book review section a week later. Like Weiner's essay, it began by commenting on the astonishing persistence of biblical creationism among persons who appear to be otherwise perfectly reasonable. The reviewer attributed this to a lack of knowledge of the overwhelming proof of evolution which scientists have discovered. ... The Weiner article and book review illustrate what I would call the `official caricature' of the creation-evolution debate, a distortion that is either explicit or implicit in nearly all media and textbook treatments of the subject. According to the caricature, `evolution' is a simple, unitary process that one can see in operation today and that is also supported unequivocally by all the fossil evidence. Everyone accepts the truth of evolution except a disturbingly large group of biblical fundamentalists, who insist that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old and the fossil beds were laid down in Noah's flood. These baffling persons either are uninformed about the evidence or perhaps choose to disregard it as a temptation placed before us by God to test our faith in Genesis. There is no conceivable intellectual basis for their dissent, because the evidence for evolution is absolutely conclusive." (Johnson, P.E., "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1995, pp.72-73)

But as the above quote by Shermer shows (and I expect Miller's own survey of other countries would have shown if the question was put that way), the majority of the public in the USA reject "evolution," when it is defined as "the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process'" (my emphasis). Indeed, since even the strictest "biblical fundamentalist" can accept much natural process in the history of life, but Miller, Scott, Shermer and their atheistic/agnostic ilk cannot accept any supernatural process, the latter are the real "fundamentalists"!]

which is why Turkey and we are so close," said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University. [This is "Jon D. Miller" a Professor of Political Science. He seems to be closely allied to the NCSE's Eugenie Scott who was a co-author of the paper in Science that this is a report of. That alone should indicate that Miller is a partisan on the pro-evolution side and not an impartial surveyor.

As is evident from the following quote, Miller was the organizer of a recent AAAS symposium falsely called "Science Under Attack" (no one is attacking science itself - what is being attacked is, as Durant above quoted Henry Morris, "in the name of modern science ... a nontheistic religion of secular evolutionary humanism [that] has become, for all practical purposes, the official state religion promoted in the public schools" - my emphasis):

Designed to create controversy, San Diego Union-Tribune, Bruce Lieberman, February 16, 2006 While scientists have refused to speak with believers of intelligent design and creation science, politicians have long courted them, said Jon D. Miller, a professor at Northwestern University Medical School who studies the public's understanding of science. Miller is the organizer of "Science Under Attack," a Saturday session at the conference in St. Louis. In his view, the struggle over teaching evolution in schools has been fueled largely by religious conservatives hoping to secure office in Republican-dominated states. "There's a very pragmatic reason why these (debates) reappear, and it's not at all accidental that they appear right before major primary elections," Miller said. "These issues become in right-wing politics a very powerful tool, because it's a way of mobilizing a base. . . . It's a litmus test, and besides, it's kind of a throwaway issue. It doesn't really make any economic difference to anybody." The tactic is hardly new in American politics, Miller said. For years, he noted, Democrats in the South exploited the politics of race to win elections.

A report of his talk at that AAAS symposium was in Skeptical Inquirer, May-June, 2006, titled "U.S. 'out on a limb by ourselves' in evolution rejection, Jon Miller tells AAAS" which presumably is also what the gist of Miller's Science paper is (I don't have access to the full text) and therefore of this Livescience article.

But if Miller was a true political scientist (as opposed to a scientist being political), he would have even-handedly noted that a "struggle over teaching evolution in schools" has to have two sides (including two political sides)!

Besides, it is simply false to portray it as "the struggle over teaching evolution in schools" (my emphasis). It is actually the "the struggle over teaching" nothing else but "evolution in schools," which is what Miller, Scott and their ilk want it to continue to be!

The fact is that no mainstream IDist or creationist group is arguing (and has not argued for at least a quarter-century) that evolution should not be taught in schools. Indeed the ID movement's position is that more about evolution should be taught in schools! And polls consistently show that the public want evolution to be taught alongside its main alternatives, including ID (see US Today, LifeSiteNews, WorldNetDaily, etc).]

To be continued in part #2.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'