Where does disbelief in Darwin lead?

_{February 13, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A commenter to my article about John McCain supporting the teaching of ID in public schools replies that he won’t vote for McCain because of it. The stated reason is the United States is falling behind other industrialized countries in science literacy.

Piffle! The notion that science literacy in the U.S. is substandard is rooted in the results of science surveys that include questions about evolution. Without doubt a much larger fraction of the US populace doesn’t believe in mud to man evolution than compared to any other industrialized nation. So in those surveys they give the “incorrect” answer to questions about the origin of life. In all other category of science questions Americans score as well as or better than non-Americans. But the weight of the “wrong” answers about evolution pulls down the average and makes it appear a few other countries are doing a better job of science education.

Be that as it may I’m a results oriented guy. Instead of presuming that “poorer” science education leads to poorer scientific output I instead look at what America actually produces in the way of science and engineering. Without question America’s output in science and engineering leads the world. Not just a little but a lot. We don’t steal nuclear technology secrets from China, they steal ours. We don’t use European GPS satellites for navigation, they use ours. The list can go on and on. We put a man on the moon 40 years ago while to this day no one else has. America has almost 3 times the number of Nobel prize winners as the next closest nation. That doesn’t support the notion that disbelief in Darwin is causing any problems. In fact it supports just the opposite. Disbelief in evolution makes a country into a superpower – militarily, economically, and yes even scientifically.

Education in America is working just fine, thank you, judging by the fruits of American science and engineering. Disbelief in Darwinian evolution, if anything, leads to greater technological achievements not lesser. If it isn’t broken, don’t try to fix it.

Comments

I want to ask a question directly related to this post that I don't think has been addressed. Just what kind of questions are typically asked on these international surveys? My experience is that they rely on facts and very little critical thinking. For example, the question "what percentage of the air is nitrogen" is meaningless. Its just a number. It may be an important number in the right context, but as a science question, on a standardized test, it means nothing. However, the question " how would the boiling point, with all other things being equal, change if the percentage of oxygen was doubled? " is more meaningful. However, most science tests focus on facts, which admitidly, Americans would probably do worse on than Asians.DrDan_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

In Post 36, Aaron asks the question: "To know this argument to be sound I will have to know what percentage of working nuclear scientists and satellite and GSP software engineers in the US were born and educated in the US and not the products of foreign education systems" I can tell you from personal experience. I work at a large nuclear weapons lab. Very few of the nuclear scientists are foreign born simply because it is very difficult to obtain the security clearance required to do their job if they are foreign born. Also, most of the ones that were foreign born, actually got their PhD's in this country. Same goes for other defense related tech jobs like GPS software engineers. The high school's in this country do not compare well with the high school's in some other countries for the many of the reasons already mentioned: many countries have a "tiered" system and their is a stronger tendency in this country to focus on breadth early on rather than depth. However, the U.S. colleges and universities are the best in the world.DrDan_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

bFast: I looked up Von Neumann, and found interesting stuff about his attempts to create artificial life, but I found no support for your position that he questioned Darwinism. I have heard only Berlinski mention in one of those YouTube videos that Von Neumann laughed at the idea of Darwinian evolution. Not that I doubt that it's true but I searched everywhere and could not find a single quote or article to corroborate Berlinski's claim. It's kinda strange.Mapou_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

PannenbergOmega, thanks for the list of non-Darwinian thinkers. I looked up Von Neumann, and found interesting stuff about his attempts to create artificial life, but I found no support for your position that he questioned Darwinism. The others clearly have. I think that Denton, raised in a Christian home and clearly on a pursuit to integrate biology and his faith, is hardly a prime example of one who has no religious motives. That said, I find Denton to be a very honest, searching individual.bFast_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

leo, You have used the argument from authority to back acceptance of Darwinian processes in evolution. That means you bow to the experts even if you do not know what the experts actually know. Yet when the experts are questioned they frequently do the same thing. They often bow to other experts and never themselves present relevant empirical support. There are many books written by the experts. I suggest you go to any of them and bring their arguments here for us to discuss. it shouldn't be hard and then you won't have to rely on the argument from authority which is by the way is a fallacy. Also an expert on evolutionary biology named Allan MacNeill from Cornell has said that Darwinian processes are nonsense. He has said it to us here on this blog. So what are we to think when experts disagree.jerry_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Jack: One possible explanation for the data in Dave's chart is that the reason we don't get questions right about evolution and the Big Bang is because teachers shy away from teaching those subjects due to public pressure. DaveScot's reply: Another explanation might be that the U.S. has a larger percentage of rebels and cowboys who aren't afraid of telling self-anointed scientific "authorities" to take a long walk on a short pier and take their heathen dogma about the universe and our place in it with them. This is the primary thing I like about you Dave. You tell it like it is, and don't care what others think. This is particularly interesting since it is obvious that you have no religious agenda -- just following the evidence where it leads. GilGilDodgen_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Timeaus How about if I defer to your expertise and ask you to explain to me how Darwinian evolution is at odds with Buddhist and Taoist philosophies. I think we can probably agree that it's at odds with Christian beliefs, particularly beliefs in biblical inerrancy and the 7-day account of creation in Genesis and backed up by the large number of practicing Christians who object to it being taught as scientific fact. Are there parallels in Buddhism - i.e. revealed religious accounts in opposition to Darwin and practicing Buddhists who object to the Darwinian account? My source for number of Buddhists and Taoists in China was wikipedia article Religion in China and it provides links to sources. I won't belabor the quality of those links which is easily questionable. China doesn't keep statistics on religious practices so there's probably no authoritative source to back up the numbers wiki gives. The CIA World Factbook doesn't supply any percentages, lists Buddhism, Taoism, and Christianity in declining order and does give a 3-4% estimate for Christians in China. It also notes that atheism is the "official" religion of China. Darwinian evolution fits quite well with atheism so my point that the Chinese are disinclined to dispute Darwin, even though they are free to do so, still stands. DaveScot_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

Aaron Since you were the first to make an unsubstantiated claim I think it's only fair that you be the first to spend time backing it up. You stated that you wouldn't vote for McCain because he supports teaching ID in public schools and that U.S. students were already falling behing the world in science. I take it you meant to imply that teaching ID would worsen the scientific literacy of high school students exposed to it. What is the basis of your implied claim that teaching ID in a public school would cause science students to perform more poorly? Keep in mind correlation is not causation so make sure the linkage is direct between exposure to ID and declining scientific acumen. Good luck. I'm quite certain you're a troll but in all honesty I'm not so certain that no controlled study of ID exposure and scientific literacy has been done so I'm willing to give you a chance to show you didn't make an unsubstantiated claim based on your personal bias and agenda. What I'm looking for from you is a controlled study where, all other variables being controlled as well as possible, one group of HS biology students was taught ID and the other not which was then followed up by testing both groups for general scientific literacy. Again, good luck. DaveScot_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

I agree with Frost, let's allow the two theories to compete. That would include 'teaching the controversy' in public schools. It should be mentioned that there are many highly intelligent people (Denton, Schutzenberger, Von Neumannm, Polanyi, Godel) that thought Darwinian Evolution was absolutley rediculous. These people should be mentioned, because they are a far cry from Biblical Fundamentalists. Rather than bringing religion into the classroom, just mention the fact, that alot of legit scientists and mathimiticians sneer (or sneered) at Darwin's theory.PannenbergOmega_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

FtK, jerry is right about the prestige issue. you also have to distinguish between undergraduate and graduate schools. You can get a superb undergraduate science education throughout the world, but most of the best science Ph.D. programs are in the States. Hence the problem of the foreign graduate student TA'ing in halting English to a group of American undergraduates.larrynormanfan_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

jerry, I don't know what field your son was in, but physics is among the hardest in science to find a job. The biological sciences, where the action is, is much, much different.larrynormanfan_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

I think it is also worth noting that the majority of people working in the sciences, and therefore winning all the Nobel Prizes that you so covet (really a terrible gauge of the scientific literacy of a country) are the ones who have looked at the data and fall overwhelmingly on the side of evolution. That is apart form the many foreign born scientists who work in the US due to the huge amount of funding and resources, like our good friend Steve Pinker.leo_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Jerry. You answered my question as I was posting it.FtK_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

Probably a stupid question, but if it's true that other countries better educate their science students, why are they then flocking to the US? If the US is so backwards in science, technology, and output, why don't they stay in their own countries? Money? We must have something to offer in the field of science if we attract those from around the world.FtK_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Aaron, you said "In 2000, 38% of U.S. jobs requiring a PhD in science or technology were filled by people who were born abroad, up from 24% in 1990" Read the comment I made about my son in law. Ph.D. positions don't pay as well as most private sector jobs. But they pay better than what foreign students can get at home so they come here. Meanwhile my son in law designed children's toys which paid a lot more than any offers he had to use his Ph.D. degree. Also Ph.D's do not have much prestige in this country while in many foreign countries educational success is at the top of the social scale. I cannot tell you the number of Ph.D's I have met who do not want to be called Doctor.jerry_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

DaveScot, Thanks for addressing my response to your post about the pro ID statement John Sidney McCain made in 2005. I'd be happy to know my fears that the US is falling behind other countries in science and technology are unfounded. The arguments you made in response to my comments rely heavily on certain information which I'm sure you sought out before replying. To put my mind at ease I hope you could provide me where you found this information so that I can know your arguments are logically sound. "Without question America’s output in science and engineering leads the world. Not just a little but a lot. We don’t steal nuclear technology secrets from China, they steal ours. We don’t use European GPS satellites for navigation, they use ours." To know this argument to be sound I will have to know what percentage of working nuclear scientists and satellite and GSP software engineers in the US were born and educated in the US and not the products of foreign education systems. The same goes for the men and women who worked on the technologies you mentioned in the comment you left to mine: aircraft, communications, military hardware, medical technologies, particle accelerators, etc. "We have...more Nobel prizes..." Again your argument relies on the percentage of Nobel prize winners in science categories were brought up in the American education system. Could you please provide that information? I'm sure you understand the reliance your arguments have on these statistics and I trust your intellictual honesty, therefore, I'm sure you had this information on hand when you made those claims and so I assume it wouldn't be much of a bother for you to provide sources. "Put that in your pipe and smoke it." I don't smoke. Finally, could you please explain the following which IS based on a National Science Board report in 2004: In 2000, 38% of U.S. jobs requiring a PhD in science or technology were filled by people who were born abroad, up from 24% in 1990, according to the NSB. Similarly, doctoral positions at the nation's leading universities are often filled with foreign students. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2004/tc20040316_0601_tc166.htmAaron_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

IMOP, all of this "education is substandard" stuff is just an echo from the teacher's unions that want more power and funds and a higher salery and fear the right wing of the country which amount to the largest part of the ID movement advocates. You often see and hear people saying things like "look at all these Chinese people and Indians that come here and are smarter and better educated than our kids" -but the fact that most people miss is that those foreigners that come to the US to work in most cases are not representative of the average citizen of their home land but are in fact the best that their country has to offer. Most Chinese people have no education at all as poverty is widespread due largly to their communist government- People come to this country because we have jobs- and we have jobs because we are free and capitalistic (well more so then any other country that comes to mind). The lesson we need to learn is that freedom and competition breed the best results possible—whether it’s into in an economy or an education system- It is about time that the intellectually competitive theory of ID be free to be taught in schools. Until then we will have to settle for a less intellectually robust science curriculum at the cost of the unholy yet accepted radical religion of politics and its brain child PC.Frost122585_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Berlinski, has no known religious motivations for critiquing Darwinian Evolution. He is also blessed with the ability to deflate Darwinist claims in a way that makes Dennett and Dawkins look very silly. I suggest, to anyone interested in the ID controversy, that they read his articles on the Discovery Institute Website. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery&query=David%20Berlinski&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all&includeBlogPosts=truePannenbergOmega_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

DaveScot: Re #19: No need to bristle. I posed the material about current religion in China as a question, not as a declarative statement, and I'm quite delighted by the fact (if it is a fact, which you still haven't shown me by reference to a specific reliable source) that Buddhism and Taoism are alive and kicking despite Communist tyranny. As for the relations of Eastern religion and evolutionary theory, I based my remarks on a certain degree of familiarity with the classical versions of the Eastern religions. I did my Ph.D. minor comprehensive exams in Eastern philosophy, in the 5th-ranked religion department in North America, and I have a shelf full of scholarly books by world-class authorities on Eastern religion. The internet is so full of unrefereed articles and false "information" about religion written by undergraduate students, cranks, hobbyists, and other people who don't know what they are talking about (e.g., Wikipedia), that I rarely rely on the internet as a major source for anything I write or say, especially if I already have independent knowledge of the subject. I have no doubt that many modern writers have suggested that Buddhism is compatible with evolution, and it may well be. However, as one who has studied primary texts in Buddhism and other Eastern traditions, I advise you to take such notions as speculative, and check them against primary sources and leading works of scholarship. Try reading Edward Conze's classic study on Buddhism. You won't find any discussion of evolution. And have a look at the Pali Dhammapada, or the Chinese Platform Sutra, two foundational texts of Buddhism. Not much of evolution or biology of any kind there. This is not surprising, as Buddhism, like all the religions originating in India, is ahistorical in orientation. It is less concerned with where we came from than with where we are going (spiritually speaking). Its emphasis, to put it in Western terms, is soteriological rather than historical or cosmological. As for Taoism, I'd be glad to be enlightened. If you know one or two primary Taoist texts from Classical China, or one or two books written by scholars of Taoism, which show that Taoist cosmology is even compatible with Darwinian evolution (let alone 'fits in very well' with it, to use your phrasing), I'd like to know what they are. Generally speaking, I prefer to check the sources myself, rather than accept an internet writer's interpretation of them, as relayed through a third party (even an intelligent third party such as yourself). I'm also of an older school of thought regarding the relation between writer and reader. In the intellectual tradition I was raised, it is expected that writers will give sources for their claims, and not, when challenged on them, ask readers to go do research to confirm them, as if it is the reader's fault, not the writer's, that no sources have been provided. So when someone makes a large and sweeping statement in my field of graduate study, i.e., religion, I'm accustomed to asking the person who made the statement to document it, not to being told I am lazy because I haven't gone out to dig up the supporting evidence that the writer should have himself provided.Timaeus_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

We can define a new shortest unit of time as that between the moment the Berlinski book is available for sale and the first 1 star review appears on the Amazon website.jerry_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Calling all Berlinski fans! Calling all Berlinski fans! The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski. A new book. http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0307396266PannenbergOmega_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Ditto, Mapou. Good one, Dave! Go get 'em, rebel cowboy!!!FtK_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

DaveScot: Another explanation might be that the U.S. has a larger percentage of rebels and cowboys who aren’t afraid of telling self-annointed scientific “authorities” to take a long walk on a short pier and take their heathen dogma about the universe and our place in it with them. LOL. You crack me up, man. But seriously, there's nothing like a bunch of rebels and renegades to keep self-appointed authorities on their toes. So watch out, Darwinistas. Natural selection has a tendency to breed badass rebels.Mapou_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

jerry A physics PhD is great credential for a wide range of science and engineering jobs. After all, everything in science and engineering boils down to physics. If you can get a physics PhD then you're demonstrably one very smart cookie who is likely able to quickly learn anything else on a need-to-know basis. The problem is unless you're applying for a job in rocketry or particle accelerators you're going to be getting entry level pay with a physics PhD until you can demonstrate some expertise in any particular science or engineering work that requires more specific knowledge than just physics. DaveScot_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Jack One possible explanation for the data in Dave’s chart is that the reason we don’t get questions right about evolution and the Big Bang is because teachers shy away from teaching those subjects due to public pressure. Another explanation might be that the U.S. has a larger percentage of rebels and cowboys who aren't afraid of telling self-annointed scientific "authorities" to take a long walk on a short pier and take their heathen dogma about the universe and our place in it with them. :-)DaveScot_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

jerry I became a senior engineer at Dell Computer with no degree at all and had incentive compensation on the order of major league basketball players. However, I hit a glass ceiling. If I'd an MBA I could have gone up to senior vice president and those guys got incentive pay on the order of Michael Jordan. Patrick The road is usually easier with a degree. When I was going to college in the early 1980's I was supplementing my GI Bill college assistance by moonlighting part time as an electronic technician. When I was ready to enter Cal State Fullerton as a junior with a computer science major I went looking for a job near the university. On a related note I was a computer hobbyist and had learned far more computer science on my own than in college at that point. Anyhow, I interviewed for a job as an engineering technician at place that was designing and manufacturing portable computers. They were so impressed at the interview they offered me a full time job at a salary far above the average for freshly minted BSCS graduates. I couldn't work full time and go to school full time so I abandoned college to accept the job. It worked out pretty well but if I had it to do over again in the 20-20 clarity of hindsight I'd have gotten myself an MBA and then went to work as computer design engineer. I couldn't have NOT gotten into computer engineering as that was a passion pursuit for many years. Having an MBA however would have allowed me to sail straight into upper level engineering management when I finally got sick to death of being chained to a lab bench slaving over hot oscilloscopes, in-circuit emulators, and digital logic analyzers. DaveScot_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

American primary education has much less focus on math & science than industrialized Europe or Asia and much more focus on team sports. There are only so many hours in a day and they must be prioritized. That said, accelerated math & science programs are available as electives to any American high school student who has the ability & desire to undertake them.
That was another aspect I was meaning to discuss. For those with motivation, there's also the issue of choosing the focus. It may simply be that the youth of today are not as interested in science and engineering. I've read that during the 80s (or was it the 70s?) there was a shift toward law degrees and then during the 90s a shift toward business degrees. I'm not sure what the current trend is.Patrick_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Just to show how much a science degree is worth, my son in law has a Ph.D. in physics and when he graduated in the mid 90's the best job he could find in his field paid $18,000 a year. There was a glut of Ph.D.'s in science. After a year he almost tripled his salary by going into industry helping to design children's toys such as "Speak and Spell." He then went into a defense industry job that paid much more but essentially he is not using his physics degree so much as his programming skills. Given, these factors it is not hard to understand why many do not consider science. It just doesn't pay much. I was a mathematics major in college but saw only boring low paying jobs for my math skills and decided to go into business instead where salaries were higher and there were more interesting jobs. I also think we should separate science from other technical fields such as engineering and computers. Pure science just does not pay the rent as well as the other areas. When I was at the Stanford Business School there was about a third of the class who had come from some form of technical area and science and were trying to get out of it for higher paying and more interesting jobs that a MBA provided. This does not mean that I think science uninteresting. I often thought what I would do if I had to do it all over. For many years I thought I should have majored in economics but now I wish I had majored in biology since it turned out to be the most fascinating of the sciences to me. But I still do not know how much it pays compared to other fields. Paying the bills for your family is important.jerry_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

bFast Et tu, Brutus? There have been a number of articles on UD about what's been found in the abundant Chinese cambrian and pre-cambrian fossil beds. Here's a link to find them: China, Darwin, and Cambrian or try this one which is a bit more focused Chengjiang site:uncommondescent.comDaveScot_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed (4) Thanks for the link. It really deserves its own thread. 'Seems that the cambrian explosion has been reduced to 2-3 million years. Further, I like that they discuss precambrian fossils.bFast_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply