Intelligent Design is just a flavor of creationism. It’s not science, for many reasons – chiefly that its advocates look for data that supports their conclusion and ignores other data and conclusions, rather than actively trying to disprove their own hypothesis.
As for Carson, medicine is not biology, though there’s obviously lots of overlap. It would be impossible to be a good biologist while rejecting evolution, just as it would be impossible to be a good astronomer while rejecting that the earth is roughly spherical and revolves around the sun.
The point here is that just like Bush did talk about “teaching the controversy”, we can expect lots more of anti-science from the biggest bully pulpit if Carson is elected.
As Tyson said: “Science literacy is an inoculation against charlatans who would exploit your ignorance of scientific law to then take your money from you or your opportunity from you.” Well, I have to say that Carson’s opportunity to become president has been (or must be) taken away from him by the many voters that do appreciate science.
Then Dawkins isn’t being a scientist when he made the allegation in the OP, since he apparently didn’t even try to test it, and didn’t produce any data to show it.
It sounds like the range of science that is being negatively impacted by religion is getting narrower and narrower. If Dawkins meant only the field of evolutionary biology, he should have said so.
Plus, see what puddleglum said. If the US spends so much more per capita, and we are more religious than Europeans, then what’s the Europeans’ excuse?
There’s no reason to think that religion in particular, even fundamentalist religion, is what’s holding back science in the United States. While it probably accounts for the disproportionately lower rates of the population holding to evolutionary theory, it does not account for other anti-scientific policies pursued elsewhere in the developed world such as prohibitions/restrictions of nuclear power and GMO in several European countries which in terms of actual impact on the world, is more harmful than thinking the cosmos is 6000 years old. Even with vaccines this map (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/06/us/california-measles-vaccines-map.html) ably demonstrates that some of the most well-educated, prosperous, and liberal parts of California have abnormally low vaccination rates-keep in mind until California’s recent reforms West Virginia and Mississippi were the only states that did not allow for exemptions for personal reasons for children intending to enroll in public schools.
Being anti-science has little to nothing to do with religion. There are lots of non-religious people who are afraid of GMO and work to retard it. PETA and similar groups work very hard to stop animal testing.
I’d guess it’s because its much easier for Dawkins to come to the US and badmouth us horrible Americans, that work within his own country and continent.
Some Americans, especially those on the left, are so damn stupid in the way they soak up what someone says as long as they have a British accent.
He wasn’t making a scientific claim, but I think Dawkins is only right here in a trivial sense – that believing in and advocating for nonsense (like ID/creationism) hinders scientific research. But believing in religion doesn’t necessarily mean believing in nonsense, and doesn’t necessarily impair research – points on which I imagine that Dawkins disagrees.
I think the greater point is believing “god did it” and believing the earth is 6000 years old and that humans were made in the garden of eden, that global warming is false, belief in stories like noahs ark, etc, all create a climate this is distrustful or disinterested in science. Our failing education system is the biggest culprit but religion has probably played a minor role in the decline of interest in science in the USA.
I’ve seen some arguments (no cite handy) from hard core fundamentalists that environmentalism is a waste of time, because the Rapture is going to happen any minute now, and we shouldn’t be wasting time worrying about a world that God’s getting ready to toss out anyway. But I don’t think this view is particularly common among either Christian fundamentalists or climate change deniers.
I was referring more to the USA’s place at the bottom of the list for math/science among industrial nations. I think that is mainly the fault of our educations system though.
If Americans are not becoming biologists personally I think its more of a money than a religious issue. Also I just dont see how one can make alot of money in most science fields unless they have a Phd.
Take Dawkins for example. He taught zoology. However according to this site, zoologists is about $36,000. With the top people making about $93,000.
This site says a marine biologist with a Phd makes about $54,000 topped out. Other sites say its closer to $74,000 to $124,000.
Many STEM jobs make that much and only require a 2 year certificate.
So with that in mind, a student interested in science would probably go into engineering.
I am a semi-Christian fundamentalist and I can assure you that such views are very rare to the sense nobody in our Christian group has them and I cannot remember anyone saying such things in my life and believe me, I’ve been around many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians.
In past discussions I found evidence that indeed a slight majority of Republicans do want the government to do something, but the media is not telling many how much out of touch their Republican representatives are.
To that we have to add that the current Republican congress critters, even the ones that claim to follow science, are just letting the deniers rule because they do not complain when the worst of them get into committee positions where they can do the most harm.
I think I have mentioned this situation before, it may be that science is funded more than in other countries, it may be that educationally speaking we are in a good place, but the problem is that the ones in power are indeed the weakest link on the way to make the changes that are needed.
“My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous,” [Senator James Inhofe] said in a 2012 address given to a Voice of Christian Youth America radio program. And in his theological belief that the environment is outside of humanity’s control, Inhofe is not alone.
For evangelical Protestants, accepting climate change but attributing it to God’s direct or indirect intervention, rather than human activity, appears to be the new party line …
Religion has been in opposition to science throughout recorded history, from Copernicus and Galileo to modern-day embryonic stem cell research, climate science, and the teaching and study of evolution. In some jurisdictions textbooks are being mutilated to downplay science that challenges religious orthodoxy like evolution. Stephen Hawking was once cautioned by the Pope to “not inquire” into the origin of the universe.
And I respectfully disagree with John Mace on the critical importance of federal funding, which is influenced by political factors which are in turn influenced by the religious vote. No individual(s) could possibly hope to match, either in dollar amounts nor in the expertise with which – and long-term goals for which – federal funds are allocated to such institutions as DARPA, the NSF, NIH, and NASA, to name a few.
All that said, I agree with the numerous posters here who consider Dawkins’ observation to be a relatively trivial matter. Does religion tend to set back science? Yes. How much? In the US and throughout the first world, not much.
Dawkins is a brilliant scientist, an interesting and often provocative thinker, and sometimes annoying in his stridency.
I like Dawkins and am super-atheist, but to me there is no particular surprise: except in extreme cases, religion is simply not a dominant factor in the overall scientific progress of a nation. There are obviously effects at a small scale, like the whole stem-cell thing, but averaged out the effects are totally dominated by factors such as economic health, presence of top-tier education, creative spirit, and so on.
For all I know, religion may have a positive effect in some of these other areas. I don’t necessarily think it’s true, but the “Protestant work ethic” is often held up as one source of American economic power. Scientific progress is going to be primarily based on how much of your total output you can dedicate to research.