American political conservatism impedes the understanding of science

Well... so much for the last hope of avoiding the politicising of science...

"...likely to accept evolution than a conservative fundamentalist"

I wish to swap the word "accept" with "acknowledge". Acknowledge implies that, regardless of what you believe the fact of Evolution is what it is.

Like Gravity, whether you accept it or not, it's there.

Just my 2 cents.

This actually explains the DI and some of the regular ID posters here.

This explains why an Ann Coulter book had an anti-evolution section. It explains why the Dover trial involved the TMLC - a Catholic, not evangelical organization but a self-proclaimed conservative one. It explains a lot more than that. It works the other way, too. Is there anybody at the DI who has a "liberal" view on economic or social issues unrelated to the theory of evolution? There is a very strong relationship between claiming to "doubt evolution" and claiming to think that Mallard Filmore is funny.

Indeed, I might even argue that it's almost as common for someone to claim to be a fundamentalist because of their political beliefs, as for someone to be be a conservative because of fundamentalist faith.

Forget about "believe" vs "acknowledge" vs "accept the evidence". Those points are valid, but people knew what the question meant.

I have no doubt that there are honorable, independent thinking individuals who, for one reason or another, arrive at something that could be described as a "conservative" point of view. I personally see no logical rationale for the so-called conservative stances on economics, the environment, social policy or foreign policy that are advanced in the US today, but that's neither the subject of this blog nor the point of this message. I'm just being honest about what some could construe as a "conflict of interest".

The American "conservative movement" has been well-know, for at least 15-20 years, for demanding that "members" take the correct opinion on a wide variety of issues. "Disagreeing with evolution" is one stance that has become understood to be required or encouraged (the rationale on this, and some other issues, perhaps being to capture the support of evangelicals who might disagree with right wing economic, enviromental, or forgeign policy ideas, but that's just my guess). It is not the only science-denying stance, either. Actually, the views that the media touts as "conservative", including this one, are not necessarily traditionally conservative.

People are very much denying evolution and pretending to because their political biases compel them to. It's important to remember this.

Oops, the last line should read "pretending to find ID convincing".

harold wrote:

"There is a very strong relationship between claiming to "doubt evolution" and claiming to think that Mallard Filmore is funny."

I'm glad to hear that others think this. I find the strip cynical and whiney, not funny. At least Doonesbury entertains while it offends. (although I personally don't find it offensive)

I'm in the 57% of conservative, non-fund. grad school group. You beat me to the punch that many people "believe in" evolution because they are politically supposed to. And the converse must be true for many who deny it. For me, evolution just "made sense" all along, from before high school, through my phases as an atheist, agnostic, theist, liberal, etc. The big difference, though, is that for 30 of those 40 years I still had many misconceptions of evolution, as I suspect >90% of respondents of such polls do. I'm not sure how one would even conduct such a poll, but if one could weed out those who deliberately misrepresent evolution, I'd bet that, among those who have been corrected on the common misconceptions, >90% of liberals and conservatives alike would accept it.

I've always wanted to do a survey like this, but with a slight difference.

The first part would gather demographic information. The second part would gather information about whether the person being surveyed accepted/acknowledged evolution. The third part would be a short quiz on the basics of biology and what evolutionary theory actually says.

I'd love to see what the results would be if you plotted actual knowledge of evolutionary theory against acceptance of evolutionary theory.

I think it is ok to say "accept" versus "believe." Acceptance at least has some shred of what actually happens - the acceptance that the evidence presented to you has been discovered in a professional manner - and is therefore acceptable. Belief implies human constructions of interpersonally shared imagination. revelation and acceptance of authority. I do like acknowledge as well.

Lamuella,
That's a great idea. Do it if you can.

It's certainly true that the theory of evolution, although not actually hard to understand at a purely intellectual level, is widely misunderstood.

This is even true, sometimes, among its supporters (albeit much less commonly and much less eggregiously).

However, this trend is not independent of the political trend discussed above. If some people were not motivated, for reasons of political bias, to constantly make inaccurate claims about evolution, and if the media and publishing industry were not prone, no doubt also partly for political reasons, to give such claims excessive respect and coverage, there would be less misunderstanding.

I forgot to mention, above, the disturbing parallel between Soviet Lysenkoism and the embrace of ID by the current "conservative movement". In each case, loyalty to a rigid ideology is made to demand, or at least strongly encourage, denial of scientific reality.

There has also been a historical tendency for people with a variety of viewpoints to claim that the theory of evolution, uniquely among scientific theories, somehow compels other people to adopt some particular behavior, attitude, or political stance. I would say that the theory of evolution could be said to indirectly add support for some public policy goals (not radically altering our own environment, taking antibiotic and pesticide resistance seriously, perhaps taking a prudently cautious approach to the initial introduction of genetically modified crops). In the same sense, the theory of gravity could be said to support requiring a high degree of safety precautions for passenger aircraft. Although claiming that one's personal philosophy is justified or exiged by the theory of evolution is far less obnoxious than denying scientific reality to show loyalty to an ideology, this tendency, too, can promote misunderstanding of evolution.

Acceptance of evolution is an indicator of development of analytical skills. These correlations suggest that failure to develop analytical skills is a factor in conservatism and a larger factor in fundamentalism.

There are a great number of factors not accounted for in a survey like this one. This includes the "supposed to believe" effect, but extends to direct indoctrination in the colleges about what is "right" (don't get me wrong, colleges are obliged to teach that it is a fact that life evolved---yet for many college grads, their "knowledge" goes no further than that), class effects, socialization, perceptions of what the "lower classes" are up to, and group economic interests.

The fact that a "well-educated" person is likely to be more liberal and more likely to accept evolutionary explanations has to be considered in light of a host of complex phenomena. Post hoc ergo propter hoc ("hoc" being the supposed greater reception of education among liberals) is no more appropriate on our side as it is for cosmological IDists (who are especially prone to it) or for biological IDists (yes, I know they're typically one and the same, but not always). For just how long did leftists and liberals complain about the pretensions of conservative upper classes, who took pride in the relative uniformity of their "upper class virtues" which they ascribed to their "superior educations"?

The truth is that acceptance of science really has no apparent requisite linkage to political affiliations, hence it would be difficult to demonstrate that conservatism per se impedes the understanding of science (does this survey noticeably measure the actual understanding of science?), or that liberals are more receptive to science in general rather than more receptive to what professors tell them. It could be all, or none, of the above.

Studies have concluded that "liberals" were in the past more receptive to new theories like evolution, but also more receptive to new ideas like phrenology. On the whole this relatively greater openness might be thought to be more admirable, since an open-minded person would presumably find out eventually that phrenology was a crock while evolution was not. However, even if that can be considered to be a true advantage (and one would still have to parse out what makes one a "liberal"), it would on the face of it have little to do with a "better understanding of science", rather it would reflect quite another value. One may understand established science quite well and be too conservative (I don't mean in the political sense here, even if the political conservative might be more likely to be a scientific conservative) to think through a new scientific concept.

Of course, having said that, one should also point out that the IDists, along with the tendency of conservatives, is not to be "early adopters" or to consider new ideas. Apart from whether or not being an early adopter is "good", it points up the fact that IDists aren't "considering ID" because they are open to new ideas, but because they are not (nothing new there, however I'm pointing out that the studies have demonstrated this to be the case, vicariously). IDists aren't even open to certain well-established ideas, really never thinking through evolutionary evidence to what they otherwise consider to be legitimate conclusions in paternity and copyright cases, or even in "microevolution". The fact is that IDists are claiming to be the liberals on the issue of evolution, when they have typically never thought outside of their own little boxes.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

If a political ideology is rigid enough that adherents will, in the face of a conflict between their positions and science, deny specific scientific findings, then such a political ideology will indeed interefere with understanding of science. Granted there may be some cognitive dissonance along the way.

The word "conservative" is ill-defined and has many meanings.

In the US, there is a group of people who are generally thought of as being the "conservative movement". The ideological positions of this movement, exemplified by figures like Dick Cheney, are well-known and inflexible. Almost any American can quickly tell you the "conservative" opinion on many issues.

The cooption of the term "conservative", and one political party, by this identifiable ideology took place over the last 15-30 years; prior to that, both major political parties were said to contain "liberals" and "conservatives", and people could make statements like "I'm basically conservative but I support strong environmental regulations". Today, such a statement in public would result in angry retorts that the speaker was not "really conservative".

There are certainly reasonable, flexible people who do not belong to this "movement" whole-heartedly, and who consider themselves in some sense "conservative", using the term the old-fashioned way. But if you ask an American whether they are "conservative", they will understand that you are asking them whether they adhere to the widespread ideologic movement that currently goes by this name.

A number of "conservative movement" positions are in conflict with science. Hence, twenty years ago when I was in college, we thought of scientists as often being "conservative"; today, the image of scientists or science being dismissed by George Bush or other "conservative" political figures has become a staple of the editorial cartoonist.

ID is essentially an invention of, and an arm of, the "conservative movement", and indeed, almost any mention of the DI in the media, however fawning, does refer to it as a "conservative" institute.

All members of the DI are "conservative", virtually all politicians who ever introduced "ID in public schools" legislation, at every level of government, are "conservative" and belong to one political party.

The reason why a right wing ideology would invest in denying evolution is to broaden membership and fund-raising. Evangelicals are perhaps the most recent and least dependable, but also most numerous, members of the "conservative movement". In the past, evangelicals often took "liberal" or even "left wing" stances on many issues - slavery, civil rights, minimum wage, social safety net programs - but today, in essence, economic and foreign policy right wingers pander to evangelical social concerns to create a "movement" large enough to get them into power.

Although I am not "conservative", lest my words be thought to imply extreme political beliefs or be to excessively critical, I hasten to add that I am a firm believer in the capitalist system (I support sustainable, humane, capitalism coupled with democracy and human rights, and I am almost the opposite of "anti-business" or "anti-capitalist".) This is irrelevant, but I am explaining for extra clarity.

If ID were a sincere crackpot belief rather than a political boondoggle, there would be no DI, no Cobb County, no Dover, no ID screed in an Ann Coulter book, etc.

Harold,
For more thoughts on other parallels to Lysenkoism see my and other's comments on an older thread:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_16.html#comment-125461

Please don't confuse "conservative" with "right-wing ideologue." A conservative is, simply put, one who wants to "conserve" -- who is skeptical of new and radical ideas (not hostile, that would be a "reactionary"), and reluctant to abandon what he knows for what he does not know without considerable debate and study. There are plenty of conservatives who accept evolution, not because they understand it themselves, or are atheists, but because they understand it works, and what works is good. (They would probably accept General Relativity and Quantum Physics for the same reasons.) They want their kids to go to good schools and get good educations so they can get good jobs and benefit both themselves and their country; and if their teachers say evolution is solid, they'll just accept what the trustworthy authorities and experts say, and let the teachers do their jobs.

The American "conservative movement" has been well-know, for at least 15-20 years, for demanding that "members" take the correct opinion on a wide variety of issues.

Really? Gosh, they must have been sending those demands to the wrong address, because I sure didn't get one. Nor, apparently, did John Derbyshire, George Will, or Charles Krauthammer.

Mr. Meyers,

I'm as "liberal" as a food stamp, myself---"left-wing radical" would be a more accurate label---but let me put in a word for the conservatives here, somewhat along the lines of Mr. Davidson's comment:

Aren't you jumping the inductive gun by using in your title the word "impedes," as in "conservativism impedes the understanding of science"? That word appears to me to specify a causal relationship. But the data depicted do not establish a causal relationship, only a correlation. "Belief in evolution rises along with political liberalism, independently of control variables," the authors of the Science letter are careful to say. It is the reader's job to notice that only a handful of relevant variables are shown on this graph out of scores that might be easily imagined. (We should also note two of the variables considered are highly simplistic---political belief is projected onto three discrete values on a one-dimensional axis, religious belief onto a mere two.)

It is quite possible, for all these data tell us, that conservatism's negative correlation with belief in evolution arises from some shared cause or complex of causes, rather than that "conservatism impedes the understanding of science." Plus, "science" is way too broad a word for describing the meaning of a study that only examines beliefs about evolution---a study that, in fact (another quibble with your title), examines only belief in evolution, not understanding of evolution. There's nothing here on the question of how many believers in evolution have a reasonable "understanding" of it and how many disbelievers do not. Although it might seem plausible to us (it does to me) that disbelievers in evolution would have a relatively low understanding rate compared to believers, this graph does not tell us. I would guess, based on the usual random conversational sample, that there is a fairly low "understanding" rate even among members of the general population who affirm the truth of evolution.

As for general ability to understand "science" or tendency to think scientifically, and their correlation of either or both with political attitudes, if we did a survey on the correlation between belief in chakras, energy healing, and the ability of microwave ovens to "kill qi" instead of a survey on evolution, would we find a higher rate of disbelief among self-identified liberals or conservatives? Self-identified fundamentalists or non-fundamentalists? And would disbelief in such things go up, or down, with educational level? I would not bet large sums on any of the answers.

Better title: "Political conservatism correlates strongly with disbelief in evolution."

Sincerely,

Larry Gilman

What disturbs me is that even in the highest-educated group, grad school, not-fund, there are still 15-20 % of moderates or even liberals who do not acknowledge evolution. Is our science illiteracy really that bad?

Also disturbing is that in no less a magazine than Science there is a graph that speaks about "believing in evolution" - as if science is something you "believe" in (and no, as a Catholic I have no problem with the concept of believing per se).

But why should disbelieving evolution reflect a lack of understanding of it? Alternatively, does understanding evolution automatically force one to believe it? I remember speaking at the University of Toronto in 2002 when a biologist challenged me about how holding to ID renders one a nonscientist. I asked him if that disqualified Isaac Newton from being a scientist. His instant response was, "but he didn't know about evolution." Is it that ID proponents don't understand evolution or that we understand it well enough and think it's bogus?

If I ever became the president of a university (per impossibile), I would dissolve the biology department and divide the faculty with tenure that I couldn't get rid of into two new departments: those who know engineering and how it applies to biological systems would be assigned to the new "Department of Biological Engineering"; the rest, and that includes the evolutionists, would be consigned to the new "Department of Nature Appreciation" (didn't Darwin think of himself as a naturalist?).

Gerard Harbison -

The figures you mention have sometimes deviated, in my mind almost trivially and perhaps in a "token dissent" way, from lockstep support of every single position of a very clearly defined ideology. And there are a few "movement conservatives" (possibly including these) who don't like ID.

As for not getting the message - I mean seriously, you've got to be kidding. Fox News, AM radio, the editorial page of the otherwise excellent Wall Street Journal, the token "conservative" commentator in every local newspaper (eg David Brooks in the NY Times, Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe, the ones you mentioned 95% of the time, etc, etc, etc), the conservative talking heads featured on every news commentary show on every station (Ann Coulter and her many imitators) - they all missed you somehow? You must be admirably shielded from media influence.

Raging Bee - I am trying to fair and acknowledge that some people who are not right wing ideologues define themselves as conservative, and that the work once had a broader meaning.

At the same time, let's admit it, all right wing ideologues always refer to themselves as "conservatives", and increasingly, the people who call themselves "conservative" mean that they are right wing ideologues.

The right wing has coopted the term.

If someone under 35 were to tell me that they were "conservative", and they meant anything else, I'd be astounded.

Again, the sole reason that this stuff is relevant is that ID is a political entity.

It's almost trivial to state it. Scientists who make legitimate discoveries don't bypass peer review, publish books for laymen, insist that their ideas be taught in public high school science, and secretly circulate "wedge documents" confessing a social and political motivation.

In fact, even honest, well-meaning, misguided crackpots don't act that way. I don't see anybody trying to use the courts and legislature to force astrology, UFOlogy, homeopathy, or phrenology into public schools. Nor do the adherents of these belong to a single homogenous political ideology.

ID is exclusively a creature of political entities - its proponents are active almost exclusively in courtrooms, legislatures, glossy news magazines, editorial columns, talk shows, staged debates, and privately funded "conservative institutes".

Conservatives have generally had a respectable history in politics, and there have been many well-educated and articulate advocates of conservatism.

However, the conservative movement, as it has been co-opted by the likes of Ann Coulter (The Whore of Babble On and On and ...), William Dembski, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et. al. of the same stripe, is nothing more than bigotry gussied up to make it appear to be respectably based on reason and science. Coulter's book, "Godless", is a condescending sneer at anyone who doesn't agree with her religious beliefs. It is the prototype of most of the pronouncements and commentaries of the others in that crowd.

To extend the phrase that has been applied to intelligent design, modern conservatism is nothing more than bigotry dressed up in a cheap tuxedo.

The American "conservative movement" has been well-know, for at least 15-20 years, for demanding that "members" take the correct opinion on a wide variety of issues.

... admit it, all right wing ideologues always refer to themselves as "conservatives", and increasingly, the people who call themselves "conservative" mean that they are right wing ideologues.

There are plenty of conservatives who accept evolution, not because they understand it themselves, or are atheists, but because they understand it works, and what works is good. (They would probably accept General Relativity and Quantum Physics for the same reasons.)

Wouldn't it be nice if "rational" conservatives like George Will called some of these others on the carpet for their crackpot ideas! After all, George Will, I recall, said that ID wasn't science in a column he wrote. I hate to lump him in with the Right Wing, because it is clear that he does his homework before he forms an opinion.

Maybe so, but a sensible conservative does not need to understand evolution in order to understand that ID is useless nonsense. And, in fact, MANY conservatives are rejecting ID (and Bush) for precisely that reason.

As for not getting the message - I mean seriously, you've got to be kidding. Fox News, AM radio, the editorial page of the otherwise excellent Wall Street Journal, the token "conservative" commentator in every local newspaper (eg David Brooks in the NY Times, Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe, the ones you mentioned 95% of the time, etc, etc, etc), the conservative talking heads featured on every news commentary show on every station (Ann Coulter and her many imitators) - they all missed you somehow?

David Brooks is pro-evolution.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050704&s=adler070705

As the link indicates, there is a consdierable diversity of opinion on the right about evolution.

Facts are wonderful things, and less boring, on the whole, than long-winded rants against political opponents.

General comment: it's not a novel observation that conservatives in the US tend to include libertarian conservatives, who in Europe would be called 'liberals', and 'social conservatives'. The two united under the Republican banner because of an apparent common interest in smaller government. The social conservatives were more numerous, and their claimed interest in smaller government was belied by the pig-at-a-trough spending of the last few Congresses, and by their promotion of an anti-freedom agenda. The GOP is currently in the process of fracturing, as libertarian conservatives more-or-less deserted it in the 2006 elections.

Now it may seem that the disenchantment of libertarians with the GOP might be a wonderful way to attract them to the Dems, but alas, the Dems are doing very little to help. Pushing socialized medicine, tax increases, etc., will drive libertarians right back to the GOP, as the lesser of two evils. And it's hard for me to see, say, John Dingell as pro-science. He's anti-science in a different way from Rick Santorum, that's all.

Well... so much for the last hope of avoiding the politicising of science...

Of course science is political. Everything is. Art is, whether or not the work makes a "political statement." It's about choices--the choice to seek an answer rather than just accept one, the choice to create something rather than celebrate what has already been created, etc. The apolitical person or object is one that does not exist.

Dembski: But why should disbelieving evolution reflect a lack of understanding of it?

William Dembski! How many times have I seen you yak-yakking on the Web: "I'm not an antievolutionist! I believe in evolution! You don't have to be a creationist to believe in intelligent design." Oh, yes you do. You are a creationist, sir. Fess up.

See 'Conservatives Against Intelligent Design' mission statement, signatures, etc., at:

http://www.caidweb.org/blog/

David Brooks is pro-evolution.

Maybe so, but a sensible conservative does not need to understand evolution in order to understand that ID is useless nonsense. And, in fact, MANY conservatives are rejecting ID (and Bush) for precisely that reason.

Speaking as a former libertarian-who-holds-his-nose-and-votes Republican, the thing that has made the difference to me and my likeminded friends has been a perceived shift in the science and data driven edge, from the Republicans to the Democrats. In the 80's and much of the 90's, you didn't have to listen to Democrats talk much about guns, affirmative action, human nature, or the environment to find plentiful errors of logic and statistical analysis, if not outright denial of facts. That attitude has shifted, it seems, to the Republicans, perhaps starting with the continued blinkered support of the Laffer curve, and the more egregious errors we've seen recently with regard to evolutions, stem cells, and global warming.

If we may wax simplistic and look at things as either/or, the liberals have an advantage over the conservatives. The assumptions they hold that lead to their errors tend to be more flexible and open to change (eg, the blank slate), because after all, they are liberals. Questioning authority is an inherent part of the mindset. Dogma is more comfortable among Republicans, usually via fundamentalist religion, and that stays stuck in the same mud forever. Time is passing them by, and I predict it will get way worse long before it gets better, until the fundamentalist religious influence becomes no more pronounced than the astrological one.

Well everyone is dancing around the obvious; liberals are smarter,prettier and are better in bed.

I have argued with many creationists, and have never met one who understood evolution. It's usually hard to tell if their misunderstandings are deliberate or not, but the most common one, to which they desperately cling, is that "evolution" is somehow to be equated with "random mutation."

I thought you might like this story out of Seattle

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/299253_inconvenient11.html

Federal Way schools restrict Gore film
'Inconvenient Truth' called too controversial
(creationist parents object)

Thursday, January 11, 2007

By ROBERT MCCLURE AND LISA STIFFLER
P-I REPORTERS

NOTE: This story has been altered since it was originally published. The computer program Al Gore uses to present scientists' findings in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is Keynote. A competing software program's name was mentioned in the earlier version of the story.

This week in Federal Way schools, it got a lot more inconvenient to show one of the top-grossing documentaries in U.S. history, the global-warming alert "An Inconvenient Truth."

After a parent who supports the teaching of creationism and opposes sex education complained about the film, the Federal Way School Board on Tuesday placed what it labeled a moratorium on showing the film. The movie consists largely of a computer presentation by former Vice President Al Gore recounting scientists' findings.

Paramount Classics
Al Gore's documentary about global warming may not be shown unless the teacher also presents an "opposing view."
"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. "The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. ... The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."

Hardison's e-mail to the School Board prompted board member David Larson to propose the moratorium Tuesday night.

"Somebody could say you're killing free speech, and my retort to them would be we're encouraging free speech," said Larson, a lawyer. "The beauty of our society is we allow debate."

School Board members adopted a three-point policy that says teachers who want to show the movie must ensure that a "credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented," that they must get the OK of the principal and the superintendent, and that any teachers who have shown the film must now present an "opposing view."

The requirement to represent another side follows district policy to represent both sides of a controversial issue, board President Ed Barney said.

"What is purported in this movie is, 'This is what is happening. Period. That is fact,' " Barney said.

Students should hear the perspective of global-warming skeptics and then make up their minds, he said. After they do, "if they think driving around in cars is going to kill us all, that's fine, that's their choice."

Asked whether an alternative explanation for evolution should be presented by teachers, Barney said it would be appropriate to tell students that other beliefs exist. "It's only a theory," he said.

While the question of climate change has provoked intense argument in political circles in recent years, among scientists its basic tenets have become the subject of an increasingly stronger consensus.

"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations," states a 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which advises policymakers.

"Furthermore, it is very likely that the 20th-century warming has contributed significantly to the observed sea level rise, through thermal expansion of seawater and widespread loss of land ice."

The basics of that position are backed by the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences.

Laurie David, a co-producer of the movie, said that this is the first incident of its kind relating to the film.

"I am shocked that a school district would come to this decision," David said in a prepared statement. "There is no opposing view to science, which is fact, and the facts are clear that global warming is here, now."

The Federal Way incident started when Hardison learned that his daughter would see the movie in class. He objected.

Hardison and his wife, Gayla, said they would prefer that the movie not be shown at all in schools.

"From what I've seen (of the movie) and what my husband has expressed to me, if (the movie) is going to take the approach of 'bad America, bad America,' I don't think it should be shown at all," Gayle Hardison said. "If you're going to come in and just say America is creating the rotten ruin of the world, I don't think the video should be shown."

Scientists say that Americans, with about 5 percent of the world's population, emit about 25 percent of the globe-warming gases.

Larson, the School Board member, said a pre-existing policy should have alerted teachers and principals that the movie must be counterbalanced.

The policy, titled "Controversial Issues, Teaching of," says in part, "It is the teacher's responsibility to present controversial issues that are free from prejudice and encourage students to form, hold and express their own opinions without personal prejudice or discrimination."

"The principal reason for that is to make sure that the public schools are not used for indoctrination," Larson said.

Students contacted Wednesday said they favor allowing the movie to be shown.

"I think that a movie like that is a really great way to open people's eyes up about what you can do and what you are doing to the planet and how that's going to affect the human race," said Kenna Patrick, a senior at Jefferson High School.

When it comes to the idea of presenting global warming skeptics, Patrick wasn't sure how necessary that would be. She hadn't seen the movie but had read about it and would like to see it.

"Watching a movie doesn't mean that you have to believe everything you see in it," she said.

Joan Patrick, Kenna's mother, thought it would be a good idea for students to see the movie. They are the ones who will be dealing with the effects of a warmer planet.

"It's their job," she said. "They're the next generation."

--------------

P-I reporter Robert McClure can be reached at 206-448-8092 or robertmcclure@seattlepi.com.

© 1998-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

""The principal reason for that is to make sure that the public schools are not used for indoctrination," Larson said."

Curses! We've been found out, boys!

Now that the public knows that indoctrination is the primary goal of schools, no one will believe anything we teach.

I have argued with many creationists, and have never met one who understood evolution. It's usually hard to tell if their misunderstandings are deliberate or not, but the most common one, to which they desperately cling, is that "evolution" is somehow to be equated with "random mutation."

(Sorry, John, for misspelling your last name.)

liberals are smarter,prettier and are better in bed.

Wouldn't it be nice if "rational" conservatives like George Will called some of these others on the carpet for their crackpot ideas! After all, George Will, I recall, said that ID wasn't science in a column he wrote. I hate to lump him in with the Right Wing, because it is clear that he does his homework before he forms an opinion.

I've often gotten into "discussions" concerning Evolution and Intelligent Design over at Fark.com, where the subject comes up almost weekly. Frequently, as a graduate student working in a molecular evolution lab, I find myself constantly correcting gross misunderstandings of evolutionary theory on such a basic level that I can never get to the point of discussing much more complex issues on the subject of why ID is bad. I don't read over on UD too much because frankly I know that any of my corrections would just get me banned from posting there. And of course I would be the one accused of misunderstanding evolutionary theory.

This is a bit confusing for me. Being in the UK I do not understand what the colloquial meaning of the terms Conservative and Liberal that are being used in this discussion.

Could anyone direct me to a site which explains these terms as the majority of commenters here understand them please?

Some of the ideas/people considered "Conservative" here would be classed as "Nationalist", "Fascist" or "Religious fundamentalist" over here. Likewise for "Liberal" except it would be "Socialist" etc.

These are very interesting findings and show that belief (and understanding of) evolution rise with education, political position and religious position. While some may argue that acceptance of evolution is not equivalent with understanding, it seems clear that ignorance and acceptance of evolution go hand in hand. Especially since groups like ID are pushing for a definition of evolution which places it head to head with religion even though evolution as defined and understood properly have little to fear from eachother.

Sure, evolution is explained in 'purely natural terms' but that neither excludes nor includes an intelligent designer. In fact, as Febble and others have argued, said designer by definition of ID proponents may very well be natural selection.

It's ID and other religious groups which insist on promoting ignorance that suffer from people with increased schooling as such people quickly come to realize the vacuity of ID as well as the scientific status of evolution. Note that the question also does not involve necessarily Darwinian evolution but merely 'evolution', and more specifically 'human evolution'. In other words, it is ignorance which explains the observed data, not familiarity with the data and a scientific rejection thereof as the data supporting human evolution is well established.

So what drives this ignorance? For one, religious forces have infiltrated conservatism and are using it for their own purposes. This is regrettable for various reasons as it undermines conservatism and exposes theology to unnecessary risks. In other words, this intermingling of political and religious viewpoints causes significant concerns to both politics and religion. Policy is no longer based on rationale political thought but based on faith based presumptions which force the political foundations to be ignored at the expense of religious dogma. Similarly, religion exposes itself unnecessarily to political actions. Good examples include global warming, Ozone hole, and even such issues as tobacco and big oil. All of which seem to be pushing the ID approach of ignorance and 'doubt', not for the sake of education but for the sake of promoting a political and religious path, often at the expense of politics and religion alike. Or in the case of ID also at the cost of science and education. In the poll's data we once again see clearly how ignorance correlates with rejection of science and how religiosity correlates with ignorance.
We have seen various examples of how religious organizations and people are misled by ID's 'teachings' and believe that there is indeed a scientific foundation for intelligent design, or that there truely exists a controversy ala ID.
As such, ID is not only doing a major disservice to science (although it likely does not really care) as well as to religion (although it may not even care either). Nevertheless, the cost of ID's approach may very well be expressed in the surge of interest in atheism and agnosticism and a skepticism towards religion. ID's major success seems to have been to educate and direct the youth to these sources.

liberals are smarter,prettier and are better in bed.

In the 80's and much of the 90's, you didn't have to listen to Democrats talk much about guns, affirmative action, human nature, or the environment to find plentiful errors of logic and statistical analysis, if not outright denial of facts. That attitude has shifted, it seems, to the Republicans, perhaps starting with the continued blinkered support of the Laffer curve, and the more egregious errors we've seen recently with regard to evolutions, stem cells, and global warming

The American South refutes this particular theory.

Nope. Poor people in the South also tend to vote for for liberals, though not in as high proportions as in other places. There are obviously outliers and exceptions, but the overall correlation between income and conservative voting habits is very strong and undeniable. Look it up.

Yeah, Alabama and Mississippi are quite the hotbed of liberal politics. Poor whites there all voted for Kerry in '04.

— Arden Chatfield

I find it interesting (tho predictable) how you're ignoring the huge causal connection between race and voting patterns in the south. In the south, race is a much better determiner of voting patterns than class -- southern blacks vote Democratic, southern whites vote Republican. And blacks constitute a disproportionate number of the poor people in the South.

Thanks for providing me with another example of how conservatives deny reality.

The left ... still keep doggedly trying to raise the minimum wage, despite the mountains of evidence that it creates unemployment among the poorest and most vulnerable workers.

I find it interesting (tho predictable) how you're ignoring the huge causal connection between race and voting patterns in the south.

— Arden Chatfield

In the south, race is a much better determiner of voting patterns than class --- southern blacks vote Democratic, southern whites vote Republican.

And blacks constitute a disproportionate number of the poor people in the South.

adam, et al. --- Is not this rather far off the topic?

Maybe the several of you could agree on an appropriate blog for this (to me, dull) discussion?

We should never have let those slaves free, at least they had jobs and were taken care of.

— normdoering

By the way, where is this evidence?

Might it be of the same quality as the evidence against global climate change or as good as the "mountains of evidence" for Intelligent Design? Might it come from the same think tanks that produced that evidence?

However, there are many other variables that complicate the issue

and Republicans generally want cheap labor and might like to drive it towards the slave quality employment we have to compete with in China and such places.

Economists do disagree about the impact of minimum wages in the real world.

You're selecting the economists you like. Have you really looked at both sides?

David: Sorry, it's strayed off topic. Originally I just wanted to show that liberals also abuse and deny scientific reality, just in other areas. But it's now strayed. I apologize. I will cease and disist.

A recent tread on "overwhelmingevidence.com" shows that the level of understanding of evolution by your average Idist is very small. This tread http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/blog/hblavatsky/of_pandas_wolves_birds_and_people has them wanting to group Tassie tigers with wolves better still whales in with fish? These non creationist don't seem to spend much time arguing against the mainly creationist poster on their blogs. In fact I've yet to read anything from IDer's what there theory is, how it differs from say old earth creationist let alone young earth creationist?

First Freedom First works to ensure academic integrity!!! SIGN THE PETITION!
www.firstfreedomfirst.org

Public schools must give our children the best possible education, without preferring one religious tradition over others. Nearly 90 percent of our nation's students receive their K-12 education in public schools funded with our tax dollars.

Safeguarding separation of church and state and protecting religious liberty ensures that public tax dollars will not be invested in teaching religion as science or funding private religious education. Some advocacy groups want to change the science curriculum to reflect their religious beliefs. However, mainstream scientists flatly reject "intelligent design" and other forms of "creationism" as a thinly veiled attempt to bring religion into public schools.

The battle here is political, not scientific. Other advocacy groups seek to divert public funds to private religious schools through vouchers and other means. Americans must be free to contribute to the religious groups of their choosing. We should never be taxed to support religion. Vouchers and other similar programs violate this freedom by forcing us to support religious education. These programs also damage our children's education by diverting critically needed money away from public schools. Safeguarding the separation of church and state and protecting religious liberty ensures that none of us are coerced into funding religious education through our taxes, just as it guarantees people freedom to privately fund religious education if they wish.

We should never have let those slaves free, at least they had jobs and were taken care of.

The difference here is that the minimum wage takes away jobs from people who are willing to work at a lower wage. These people have a choice. The slaves had no choice.

...and Republicans generally want cheap labor and might like to drive it towards the slave quality employment we have to compete with in China and such places.

Adam
"The left is still denies facts just as much as it did in the '80's and '90's. For example, they still keep doggedly trying to raise the minimum wage, despite the mountains of evidence that it creates unemployment among the poorest and most vulnerable workers."

Evidence? Studies done by Australian Universities found that the evidence pointed to the opposite. There was no correlation with minimum wages and employment levels. It makes sense when you think about it. For unskilled work an employer will tend to pay the least he can and pocket the profit, they'll rarely if ever put on more people.

Michael

Posted without looking forward. The following link has some details from an Australian perspective, which shows that the costs are minimal

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1774

Adam:

Apologies for being unclear. My reference to the Laffar curve was in regard to the oft-repeated Republican claim (chanted like a mantra by Limbaugh) that "revenues doubled" in the 80's as a result of the Laffar-justifed tax cuts. Omce adjusted for inflation, however, there is no such effect as I once justifed for myself. If you doubt me, I suggest you get ahold of the figures and do the calculations yourself.

As for the other issues you raise, I submit that you are treating areas of thought as closed when they are in fact vigorously debated by experts in the field. Nothing you mentioned has the kind of factual backing, or near-universal support by experts in the field, that evolution carries, and that global warming is gaining. Liberals may be wrong on some issues right now, but I don't know of one where they flat ignore well-documented objective data as the Republicans seem to make a habit of these days, and that is why they are losing people like me.

My apologies for the OT effect of my post. I thought it might set off an inappropriate political debate. My bad.

Gerard Harbison wrote -

"David Brooks is pro-evolution.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050704&s=adl...

As the link indicates, there is a consdierable diversity of opinion on the right about evolution.

Facts are wonderful things, and less boring, on the whole, than long-winded rants against political opponents."

The facts are exactly as I stated them, even if David Brooks is a member of a handful of conservative columnists who have been at least enlightened enough to oppose some of the most objectively ludicrous claptrap. Naturally, I applaud them for accepting reality on this point.

Certainly the link indicates diversity of opinion - a few right wingers "courageously" acknowledge basic, mainstream scientific theories - it's just that right wingers are massively more likely to "deny evolution" under pressure of political ideology than are people who call themselves "liberal" or "moderate".

My other, related point - that ID was invented by the "conservative movement", for the "conservative movement", that it is almost exclusively a political entity - remains (in other words, even if not all conservatives are ID advocates, virtually all ID advocates are conservatives, and disturbingly many conservatives claim to accept ID). My posts contain passages of devastating evidence for this, but Gerard Harbison chose not to "box" those passages. It was invented by conservatives, conservatives were "told" to accept it as part of their ideology, and although a few columnists out of thousands raised meek objections, the data supports that this may be what happened. It was invented to pander to evangelicals, and obviously, the data supports this conclusion as well.

What's remarkable is not that a small proportion of conservatives acknowledge basic, fundamental science. What's remarkable and disturbing is that adherence to this political ideology is associated with denying basic science for political reasons.

By the way, arguing that some "liberals" or "moderates" accept some other pseudoscience would be meaningless here. There's no tailored, politically motivated pseudoscience aimed at those groups. Incidentally, making a comment about climate science here would be most telling.

It's also critical to note that ID should not be compared to sincere, well-meaning pseudoscience like astrology or UFOlogy, or the like, things which find adherents across the political spectrum. As I mentioned above, and have mentioned before, these more innocent movements merely seek to "add to" scientific reality (in a misguided way) rather than deny it, distort it, and lie about it to school children at taxpayer expense.

I admitted that I am not "conservative" for the sake of full disclosure and honesty, but that really is irrelevant. Even if I were an advocate of numerous right wing policies, the political nature of ID that I have pointed out remains true. Naturally, you can dispute this, simply by showing that a census or correctly selected random sample of ID advocates is not enriched in, or indeed, almost exclusively composed of, "conservatives". Of course, the article above is a already a stumbling block for such an effort.

Of course, even if you could do that, you'd still be hard-pressed to explain why ID advocates operate in the media, courtrooms, and legislatures, rather than in laboratories, the field, or research libraries.

But I have a more important question, one which will tell a great deal if answered, one which I suspect you will not answer. What is YOUR "opinion" on the matter, Gerard Harbison? Never mind David Brooks. How do you feel about the relative merits of ID versus the theory of evolution?

I'm just a layman, but I think I understand that certain people misconstrue the 2nd law when they don't realize that without it there's nothing to fuel life. But, what about the whole? I mean, since the 2nd law also fuels stars, galaxies, etc., and if the universe as a whole is a closed system, then, isn't the universe as a whole gradually losing it's capacity to fuel (anything)?

If so, then wouldn't that mean that the universe could not have existed forever, because if it had it would have 'run out of gas' by now? And, would such considerations also apply to a 'multiverse' or, would it be said that such a thing would have laws that don't require fuel to get work done, or, that fuel is somehow (like a perpetual motion machine?) eternally replenished, or...?

If the answer to this is something like the mulitiverse got fuel from prior multiverses, etc., then does the fallacy of infinite regress come into play here? I mean, is it proper to ask where everything came from in the first place?

It's Situational Scienceman!

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070114

I'm just a layman, but I think I understand that certain people misconstrue the 2nd law when they don't realize that without it there's nothing to fuel life. But, what about the whole? I mean, since the 2nd law also fuels stars, galaxies, etc., and if the universe as a whole is a closed system, then, isn't the universe as a whole gradually losing it's capacity to fuel (anything)?

— Chris

If so, then wouldn't that mean that the universe could not have existed forever, because if it had it would have 'run out of gas' by now?

And, would such considerations also apply to a 'multiverse' or, would it be said that such a thing would have laws that don't require fuel to get work done, or, that fuel is somehow (like a perpetual motion machine?) eternally replenished, or...?

If the answer to this is something like the mulitiverse got fuel from prior multiverses, etc., then does the fallacy of infinite regress come into play here?

Evidence? Studies done by Australian Universities found that the evidence pointed to the opposite.

— Michael J

I think there should be a minimum wage you can survive well at. Maybe there should be exceptions for kids living at home, "guest workers" from other countries and people on welfare. Some defined pool of labor that isn't exploited by low wages and get some other safe guards.

— normdoering

I'm just a layman, but I think I understand that certain people misconstrue the 2nd law when they don't realize that without it there's nothing to fuel life. But, what about the whole? I mean, since the 2nd law also fuels stars, galaxies, etc., and if the universe as a whole is a closed system, then, isn't the universe as a whole gradually losing it's capacity to fuel (anything)?

If so, then wouldn't that mean that the universe could not have existed forever, because if it had it would have 'run out of gas' by now? And, would such considerations also apply to a 'multiverse' or, would it be said that such a thing would have laws that don't require fuel to get work done, or, that fuel is somehow (like a perpetual motion machine?) eternally replenished, or...?

If the answer to this is something like the mulitiverse got fuel from prior multiverses, etc., then does the fallacy of infinite regress come into play here? I mean, is it proper to ask where everything came from in the first place?

But I have a more important question, one which will tell a great deal if answered, one which I suspect you will not answer. What is YOUR "opinion" on the matter, Gerard Harbison? Never mind David Brooks. How do you feel about the relative merits of ID versus the theory of evolution?

I'm a physical chemist/biophysicist. What the heck do you think my opinion is?

ID is a PR concoction. It shouldn't even be compared with evolution, perhaps the oldest and best tested theoretical construct in science.

I intensely distrust leftists who have no particular interest or stake in biology, but who wish for ulterior reasons to use the creationism/evolution conflict as a stick to beat conservatives. Sorry, the scientific truth of evolution is utterly unconnected with collectivization of the economy or identity politics or the rest of the modern leftist agenda.