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

Patrick The scientific literacy of American 15 year-olds compared to non-Americans is meaningless. 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. Most of those who have high math & science aptitude and are college bound for science or engineering degrees are in the accelerated programs. Those who want to be entrepreneurs or businessmen, tradesmen, liberal arts majors, and things of that nature don't sign up for physics and calculus classes in high school. And why should they - they'll never have any practical need for it. Better to spend any extra time they have on the athletic field where they learn about discipline and teamwork and fitness which will help them succeed in their chosen path through life. Furthermore, we have enormous recruiting abilities when it comes to having the best & brightest from around the world choosing to live in America if they can. You don't hear about many American citizens breaking down the doors to become citizens of Europe or Asia but there's no shortage of Europeans and Asians who breaking down our doors to become US citizens. If fewer natural born Americans want to become scientists and engineers it's not a problem as there's no shortage of science and engineering talent from around the world that will jump at the chance to become American scientists and engineers. And, by the way, if Sylvia was in the United States legally to begin with there would have been no problem with her returning. Undoubtedly she was working here with no legal right to be working here. Canadians can't just walk across the border and legally work here forever. You might think they can but they can't and if they get caught they get the boot. There's probably just more scrutiny on border crossings these days which is why she got busted now and never had in the past. American employers who can show they can't fill a job because of a lack of qualified candidates in the US get a pass to import qualified candidates from abroad. There's no shortage of American web developers. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting one. As long as we're trading anecdotes I'll give you one of mine. I happen to have a 15 year-old who's in accelerated math & science at our public high school. She gets exceedingly good grades but I happened to ask if her test scores are the highest in her class. She said "No dad, a few students beat me." I said "Why is that?" She said "Because I'm competing with Asians. Those people are inhumanly smart. All they do is study, study, study and I have a life outside science & math. You liked seeing me play on the team that won the Texas state soccer championship didn't you? That takes a lot of work too and I can't very well give up sleep to be the very best at everything." I conceded the point to her. Unlike the Patriots her team had a perfect season last year. 20 games and not a single defeat right up through winning the state championship and I loved seeing every last one of those games. DaveScot_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Interesting data, Dave, and at least that survey supports your statement. Also, other data from larrynormanfan supports the conclusion that we don't do as bad on science tests as public opinion thinks we do. I also think (but I could be wrong) that some of these international comparisons are skewed because we educate everyone in the same public education system, and most other countries have a tiered system where students are segregated by ability at about high school age. (That wouldn't skew 4th and 8th grade data, though.) 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.Jack Krebs_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Timaeus Why don't you did what I did before I wrote anything about China and google china religion then when you discover that China is still 80% or more Buddhist/Taoist then you can google buddhism evolution darwin I'm growing a little tired of people who question me and are too lazy to perform a small amount of research to discover that I'm correct. Don't pull your foot out of your mouth too fast. You could cut yourself badly coming through the spots where ignorant hillbillies usually have missing teeth.DaveScot_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

More on topic: http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XL/Issue_3/Features/features4.shtml
Young people going into the physical and biological sciences are greeted with an atmosphere of great hostility toward the design proposition; not just by their professors but by fellow students, so many students choose to change what it is that they’re going to do—who wants to live their life working in an area where they are going to be a pariah if they actually speak their mind? And so you’ve got a lot of students who are choosing to do other things, and not go into the sciences.
That hits home. I started my career in software engineering before I became an ID proponent. I've always had an interest in biology and teaching. I was considering pursuing them. But honestly I pretty much chickened out. Who wants to put up with that stress?Patrick_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Here's an interesting tidbit from the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which studied fourth and eighth graders. The report is by the National Center for Education Statistics.
In 2003, U.S. fourth-grade students scored 536 in science, on average, exceeding the international average of 489 for the 25 participating countries. U.S. fourth-graders were outperformed in science by their peers in 3 Asian countries—Chinese Taipei, Japan, and Singapore. On the other hand, U.S. fourth-graders outscored students in 16 countries.
And for eighth grade:
In 2003, U.S. eighth-grade students scored 527 in science, on average, exceeding the international average of 473 for the 45 participating countries. U.S. eighth-graders were outperformed by their peers in seven countries, including five Asian countries (Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Korea, and Singapore) and two European countries (Estonia and Hungary). On the other hand, U.S. eighth-graders outscored students in 32 of the 44 other countries.
So, better than average, but not the best. And more countries beat the US as the children grow older. Here is the link.larrynormanfan_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

It’s urban legend that the U.S. is falling behind in science literacy. It’s based on science questionaires
My understanding was that the "falling behind" had more to do with the percentage/number of science-related degrees being produced annually? And that there has been a growth in the demand for such people but there are not enough people to meet demand? It's the next generation of US scientists and engineers that's supposed to be the problem, not the current generation (which will start retiring eventually). http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008016
This report summarizes the performance of U.S. students on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), comparing the scores of U.S. 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy to the scores of their peers internationally in 2006. PISA, first implemented in 2000, is sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental agency of 30 member countries. In 2006, fifty-seven jurisdictions participated in PISA, including 30 OECD jurisdictions and 27 non-OECD jurisdictions. The results show the average combined science literacy scale score for U.S. students to be lower than the OECD average. U.S. students scored lower on science literacy than their peers in 16 of the other 29 OECD jurisdictions and 6 of the 27 non-OECD jurisdictions. Twenty-two jurisdictions (5 OECD jurisdictions and 17 non-OECD jurisdictions) reported lower scores compared to the United States in science literacy. On the mathematics literacy scale, U.S. students scored lower than the OECD average. Thirty-one jurisdictions (23 OECD jurisdictions and 8 non-OECD jurisdictions) scored higher on average, than the United States in mathematics literacy in 2006. In contrast, 20 jurisdictions (4 OECD jurisdictions and 16 non-OECD jurisdictions) scored lower than the United States in mathematics literacy in 2006. Differences in student performance based on the selected student characteristics of sex and race/ethnicity are also examined. Following the presentation of results, a technical appendix describes the study design, data collection, and analysis procedures that guided the administration of PISA 2006 in the United States and in the other participating jurisdictions.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2004/tc20040316_0601_tc166.htm
Already, "we have developed a shortage of highly skilled workers and a surplus of lesser-skilled workers," warned Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan in a Mar. 12 address at Boston College. And the problem is worsening. "[We're] graduating too few skilled workers to address the apparent imbalance between the supply of such workers and the burgeoning demand for them," Greenspan added. As a result, "the future strength of the U.S. science and engineering workforce is imperiled," the National Science Board warned in a sweeping report issued last year.
For a specific example, the average age of NASA's workforce now is over 45. Within the science and engineering department, the over-60 population outnumbers those under 30 by nearly 3 to 1. Now it's possible there are other factors like a lack of motivation and negative PR is what is scaring away young people. I know someone who works in NASA's HR so I could ask. Of course, a large part of the overall issue probably has to do with the establishing of universities and growth of localized job markets in overseas areas. People used to desire to come to the US for their education, but now they can stay at home. Another issue is the increase in national security. It's now very difficult for people overseas to come into the US. For example, I am friends with a married couple with Chinese heritage. Sam is from Hong Kong but Silvia's family is from Canada. Both have degrees and work as web developers. They've lived in the US for almost 10 years. A little over a year ago Silvia went to visit her family, but on the way home she was denied entrance and interrogated for several days. The short version is that Sam still lives in the US trying to sell their house in a declining housing market and Silvia is in Canada. Silvia CAN visit but cannot stay. This last Christmas she was stopped again and interrogated for days. Merry Christmas. Sam and Silvia are still not sure what triggered these actions. My guess is that it's partially due to their Chinese heritage and they live in an area with a fairly heavy concentration of defense contractors. But they don't work for any of those companies so... (BTW, in general I do support good national security but this particular situation is just nuts!) Finally, I personally think the youth in the US have a feeling of entitlement and a major lack of personal motivation. They don't realize it takes hard work to maintain their cushy lifestyle. In contrast, a good number of people overseas are highly motivated. And even if these people represent a smaller percentage compared to the US their overall population numbers still results in them outnumbering us in highly motivated people.Patrick_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Jack I really find this hard to believe. Do you have a source for this statement, or any evidence, Dave. Of course I have a source, Jack. You should know by now I always do. You can find it here in the this article I wrote 13 months ago: US Leads in ID Belief, Trails in Astrology BeliefDaveScot_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

And yet the United States of America accounts for more than one-third of the global scientific output despite representing only 4.5 percent of the global population. The scientific overperformance of religious America is a factor of 7.89, representing 28.7 percent more scientific output per capita than the most atheistic nation in Europe, France.
That's Numberwang!larrynormanfan_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Where does disbelief in Darwin lead?
It leads to good science, better societies, and less materialism (both philosophical and financial). Darwin's theory has helped absolutly nothing in the development of true empirical testable science.Mats_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Here's the source for those numbers: "33 Braun, Tibor, Wolfgang Glänzel, and András Schubert. “A Global Snapshot of Scientific Trends,” The UNESCO Courier, May 1999."FtK_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

"The idea that religion is the enemy of science is a remarkably silly one when examined in scientific terms. Consider that Christian nation and the hostility to science that it supposedly harbors due to its extraordinary religiosity. And yet the United States of America accounts for more than one-third of the global scientific output despite representing only 4.5 percent of the global population. The scientific overperformance of religious America is a factor of 7.89, representing 28.7 percent more scientific output per capita than the most atheistic nation in Europe, France. -"The Irrational Atheist", Vox DayFtK_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

I agree with DaveScot's argument that science achievement has nothing to do with the acceptance or rejection of Darwinism. However, I am doubtful about some points made in his post #4. He writes: "The overwhelming majority of Chinese are Buddhist or Taoist. Darwinian evolution fits very well within those philosophies." Historically speaking, China was heavily Buddhist and Taoist, but I don't know whether those traditions are represented in large numbers in the China of today. 60 years after the Communist revolution there, and all the religious repression which came with it, is there much Buddhism or Taoism left? As for whether Darwinian evolution fits in well with these philosophies, that's debatable. Buddhism is not a monolithic block, but has many variations. Classical Indian, Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese Buddhism are all quite different from each other. My impression of the Classical Chinese variation of Buddhism was that it wasn't at all oriented to explaining the laws of nature, physical or biological, but to adjusting one's inner attitude towards the world. As for Taoism, the fundamental principle of nature (including inanimate nature) is an interplay between masculine and feminine principles, which is not the motive power of Darwinian evolution. I think that Hinduism is likely more compatible with evolution than any view from classical China. However, even there, it is doubtful that specifically Darwinian evolution could be fit into the framework. Notions of evolution in classical Hindu thought would have to be based on either Samkhyan spirit/matter dualism or on some version of Vedantic monism, and so any evolutionary theory in Hindu biology would resemble the notions of evolution found in Bergson or in Hegel, not in Darwin. The mainstream of Hindu thought always rejected pure materialism, and Darwinism is pure materialism.Timaeus_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Dave writes,
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.
I really find this hard to believe. Do you have a source for this statement, or any evidence, Dave. First of all, I doubt there are very many questions about "the origin of life" or evolution on those tests: certainly not enough questions that getting them wrong would make a significant difference in our scores. Furthermore, for the questions about evolution that are there, I seriously doubt that the right and wrong answers are such that evolution non-believers would get them wrong just because they don't believe in evolution. And I doubt that most high school kids would choose the anti-evolution answer to a question, even if there was one, just because they don't believe in evolution. I'm quite familiar with the high school science curriculum, standardized tests, and high school kids, and I just don't think Dave is correct. So, Dave, can you provide any evidence that what you claim in the above paragraph is true?Jack Krebs_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Yes, Daniel. In the words of Robert Whitaker in Mad in America (2002), "In the United States, eugenics led to a different end [From Nazi Germany], but one clearly consistent with eugenic beliefs. It led to a quartet of therapeutics, applied regularly without the patient's consent, that filled the mentally ill with terror, broke their bones, robbed them of their memories, and, in the manner of a partial euthanasia, 'relieved' them of the very part of the mind that makes us human. The path to lobotomy, it becomes clear, began not with Moniz [Portuguese physician who introduced perfrontal lobotomy] but with Charles Davenport [America's leading eugnics spokesman] and his scorn for the 'unfit.' . . . Metrazol [a drug used to stimulate convulsion in shock therapy], forced electro-shock, and lobotomy were medical solutions consistent with a eugenics concept of the mentally ill" (p. 137).Flannery_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

Lobotomies?Daniel King_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

A nice and pertinent post, DaveScot. Godslangauge suggests little benefit to medicine or its practitioners and writes, "It seems that it would be a big risk if anyone implemented a Darwinian framework in any field." You bet! They tried it under the banner of "progressive" social policy; it was called eugenics. In medicine it gave us forced, state-sponsored sterilizations; lobotomies; "mercy killings" of the retarded; state-sponsored human breeding programs; and other assorted efforts a "giving nature a helping hand." All under the guise of Darwinian "science" as crafted by his cousin, Francis Galton. I wonder if people who fret over science standards and evolution really know what they're fretting about. As DaveScot points out, proably not!Flannery_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT}

Upright The Chinese paleontologist who started all that said (my recall so the quote isn't exact): "In China we are free to question Darwin but we can't question the government. In American you are free to question the government but you can't question Darwin." It's true enough but that doesn't mean there is more belief in an intelligent designer in China than in America. The overwhelming majority of Chinese are Buddhist or Taoist. Darwinian evolution fits very well within those philosophies. So while they have the freedom to consider alternatives to Darwin they also have little inclination to do so. Maybe that will change but I wouldn't hold my breath. The long and the short of it is that there's no practical benefit for science in belief or disbelief in macroevolution by chance & necessity because it works too slowly to have any consequences measured in human lifetimes. The question can be ignored and science will march on without missing a beat. That said I strongly believe there are other consequences to presenting a godless narrative account of the origin of man as legally unquestionable scientific fact in public schools. It isn't a fact at all and is supported by rather flimsy circumstantial evidence. While I don't personally have any strong faith in the divine revelations of Christian scriptures I do strongly feel that Christianity as practiced in modern western culture has a very positive influence. For that reason I strongly object to the questionable science underlying the neo-Darwinian narrative having the legal authority to be beyond criticism or question in public education. It deserves criticism and when that criticism is objectively presented it becomes apparent just how flimsy the case for neo-Darwinian evolution actually is. That's why the godless pundits of it are so up in arms about it. The emperor has no clothes and they don't want that to become widely known amongst the unwashed masses lest the number of people who swallow the story become even smaller than it already is. Many decades of teaching Darwinian evolution as scientific fact in public schools hasn't caused a majority to believe it. Imagine what would happen if it was legally allowed to be criticized. DaveScot_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT}

I wonder how the views of several promonent Chinese paleontologists would fit into your readers' scenario. They claim they are seperated from the Darwinian dogma of the West, and able to look at alternative reasoning - design. http://www.fredheeren.com/boston2.htmUpright BiPed_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

I agree with DaveScot, how has Darwinian Evolution helped in developing the transistor (or semi-conductor technology), for that matter, how has it done anything in terms of technological advances before or after that? Not only has it done nothing to improve the way society functions technologically, it hasn't contributed a iota of knowledge to medical science and its practitioners. Who in they're right mind would want to take `just so` stories and attempt to apply them. It seems that it would be a big risk if anyone implemented Darwinian framework in any field.godslanguage_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

Disbelief in Darwinian evolution, if anything, leads to greater technological achievements not lesser.
I was just having a debate about this today. Belief or disbelief in Darwinian or any other evolution, or any metaphysical or scientific theory, or any religion, is completely orthogonal to performance. Some atheists behave well, and some Christians behave poorly. Some scientists are superstitious, while some homeopaths are rational. Performance depends on what you do not what you believe.William Wallace_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply