The problem with saying “It’s religion” is that that is nothing more than sloganeering. There are a few religious traditions that are frightened by the concept of undirected Natural Selection and vocally oppose it. Phrasing that particular opposition as “religion” is simply a way to mindlessly sneer at all religion at all times and it gets in the way of fruitful discsussion.
I suspect that poorly taught science actually has more to do with the situation than the opposition of various religious groups. Similar polls through the 1990s showed a larger number of people accepting evoultionary theory than more recent polls. There has always been a large contingent of theistic evolutionists who saw God’s hand behind all physical reality, but people who thought that God created humans in their current form were a much smaller part of the population. When the Religious Right began making a more concerted effort to push their agenda, larger numbers of people (who had previously accepted the scientific explanation without much thought) did not have the education to resist the (often dishonest) arguments that that group presented and were swung to that position.
People who had been educated to understand exactly what evolutionary theory says (including several posters on this board who were raised as Fundamentalist Christians–and some who remain in those faiths) have been able to judge and reject the claims from the theocrats.
As to “religion” opposing the Theory of Natural Selection: just as some Christians need to be reminded, some anti-theists also seem to need to be reminded that the two greatest contributors to the foundation of neo-Darwinist thought, Mendel and Dobzhansky, were quite devout Christians.
When did Jeb Bush become a Catholic (per the linked story)?
I think what distresses me about this whole “evolution debate” is that it is almost always presented as a simple-minded dichotomy-- * either * you swallow hard core neo-Darwinism straight with no chaser * or * you are an ignorant yahoo dwelling in the outermost darkness, unfit to associate with enlightened and civilized beings. Myself, I believe most devoutly in evolution, and I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that new species evolve in increments out of old species, largely in response to the needs of survival and reproduction. I am, however, immensely skeptical that Darwin and Mendel will have the last word on biology any more than Newton had the last word on physics–and it is this heresy that makes my * persona * so very much * non grata * amongst the lumpenintelligentsia who haunt this board.
I’m sorry I cannot come up with a cite. I read it in the St Pete Times 3-4 days ago as an adjunct to the main content of the article which was a few days after the gov said this on a religious Christian TV interview. The article stated a reporter asked him if intelligent design should then be part of the curriculum and Mr. Bush just refused to answer the reporter’s question. Maybe somebody else can do a better job than I with a cite.
The U.S. is a very superstitious country. Moreover there is a widespread, profound mistrust of or disrespect for science in general and intellectuals in particular. “Eggheads” don’t win elections, because they’re seen as out of touch. They live in an Ivory Tower, don’t live in the “real world,” etc. Academics (including scientists and medical doctors, even those in private industry) are often smeared with the same brush: out of touch with reality. When a group is mistrusted, there is a tendency in human nature to demonize that group, to deny its reasonableness or humanity and force it into a category of “other.” People who deny evolution to great extent do this to scientists, even to the point of positing the existence of some sort of evil cabal bent on destroying or subverting their cherished beliefs. Academia is constantly under attack for being liberal, secular, anti-religious, for being disconnected with the reality according to some archetypal common man.
Science for many people isn’t a venerable, and democratic process of discovery, experiment, and thought; people would much rather cling to their old superstitions than accept that long-held beliefs might be erroneous. I think this is true the world over, but it is especially true of the U.S., conspicuously during a time when fundamentalists have garnered an unusual amount of attention and political influence.
It’s nothing new, really: it’s illimunating to read about the brouhaha created by the Copernican/Galilean model of the universe. Galileo faced the Inquisition for his scientific discoveries, and was justly afraid for his life. Be thankful that we do not presently live in a true theocracy.
I’m not saying your source is wrong - but I am stunned at that figure. Wow! I truly don’t know anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution. I know some who believe that it was God’s plan, but none who actually says we don’t evolve.
Well, I’m afraid you’re on to us. We ignorant, unwashed, racist, sexist, homophobic * hoi polloi * who infest the flyover regions are so deranged that we are obsessed with burning you noble advocates of scientific enligtenment at the stake. I’m gonna hafta report you to the Committee, fella; which means that, come the Counter-Revolution, you’re gonna be one of the first to go. But first I gotta burn a cross on your lawn. What’s your address?
Galileo’s martyrdom, by the way, is largely mythical. He was an ambitious, quarrelsome man who had an uncommon talent for making unnecessary enemies, and most of his troubles would never have come about if he had simply shown a decent respect for his peers. See Arthur Koetsler’s * The Sleepwalkers * for a thorough debunking of the Galileo myth.
I knew a Sioux who was very, very offended by the concept the “we came from Animals” – you might call it a religious belief – phrased like this :
The National Center for Science Education, which promotes the teaching of evolution. Spokesperson Eugenie Scott commented: “It goes to the meaning and purpose of life. I think many Americans believe that somehow they are less special to God if they evolved from nonhuman animals.”
Ultimately I think it comes from the idea of what Humans are: I think that “I don’t belive we came from Apes” will be a more common answer than “I think everyword of the the Bible is literally true” - which 51% of Americans DO NOT believe … This Poll from 1991 makes the point that belief in Evolution was no where near universally accepted anywhere in the world – and it had little to do with belief in God.
I would also nit pick this poll (sorry) it almost certainly isn’t a majority of Americans - altho it is probably high 40’s. The poll in the thread had a margin of Error of 4 points - very good Washington Post Column on this subject I think shows that.
Included this interesting tidbit:
Men, younger people and blacks were more likely to be creationists than women, those 60 or older, or whites, according to Gallup data.
Personally, I find Knorf’s assessment generally accurate, and I’m baffled as to how the poster above managed to interpret any statement by anyone in this thread as indicating that he personally is ignorant, racist, sexist or homophobic. Of course, I’ve never seen a post from this person that didn’t seem to be seething with unreasonable anger, so there you go.
If the Left Behind series was less popular, that might work as a joke. As it is, I think a great many of my fellow Americans would kill “evolutionists” if they could get away with it.
If millions of people like reading bloodthirsty descriptions of mass death and mutilation and suffering inflicted upon unbelievers, it’s perfectly reasonable to worry about them wanting to fulfill their fantasies. It’s not like it’s unknown behavior in the religious, after all.
I think religion and science intersect whenever religion is the basis for a statement about the operation of the natural world. And in that case religion and science are not equally valid ways of knowing about that operation.
For example, when church leaders call for the members of a congregation to pray for someone who is ill, they are tacitly endorsing the proposition that prayer will affect the progress of a disease. In spite of claims to the contrary, there have not yet been any well designed experiments that show that such a thing actually happens.
A more accurate statement would be that there have been no reported, well designed experiments that show that prayer affects the progress of a disease.
It makes sense for evolution to not be taught in a science class since it is not truly repeatable, if it is taught it should be taught in a philosophy class along with other similair and dissimilair philosophies.
Of course it’s repeatable. Any time a cancer develops drug resistance, every time insects develop pesticide resistence; that’s evolution. Evolution is everywhere; denying it is like denying gravity.
Besides, evolution isn’t a philosophy; it’s a description of how life works. It doesn’t belong in a philosophy class.