Monday, January 7, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

by Physorg

Thanks to John for the link.

http://www.physorg.com/news118756781.html

US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists
A day after ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee finished first in the opening round to choose a Republican candidate for the White House, scientists warned Americans against electing a leader who doubts evolution.

"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of "Science, Evolution and Creationism."

Former Arkansas governor Huckabee said in a debate in May that he did not believe in evolution.

A poll conducted last year showed that 53 percent of Americans do believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life -- the theory of evolution -- while 47 percent do not.

Some of those polled said they believed in both evolution and the opposing theory of creationism -- the belief that God created mankind at a single point in time.

The evolution versus creationism debate has crept into American schools and politics, where it is mainly conservative Republicans who espouse the non-scientific belief.

In 2004, a Pennsylvania school district found itself at the center of a national storm after its education board voted to require that a statement on creationism be read to students when they began learning about evolution in science class.

The school board was ousted the following year.

"Science, Evolution and Creationism" targets the general public and teachers, and presents in simple terms the current scientific understanding of evolution and the importance of teaching it in the science classroom.

A day after his win in Iowa, Huckabee toned down his anti-evolution stance, saying in a television interview that the question of whether to teach creationism in schools was "not an issue for our president."

US President George W. Bush has said he supports teaching "intelligent design" creationism to American students, to present youngsters with differing schools of thought.

Intelligent design is a theory advocated by conservative Christian groups and some scientists in the United States, which says that complex biological organisms cannot be explained by evolutionary chance alone and must be the work of an intelligent designer -- namely God.

Omenn and the other panel members at the book launch said categorically that creationism should be banned from science classrooms.

"Scientific inquiry is not about accepting on faith a statement or scriptural passage. It's about exploring nature, so there really is not any place in the science classroom for creationism or intelligent design creationism," said Omenn.

"We don't teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy, or witchcraft as an alternative to medicine," said Francisco Ayala, a professor of biological sciences at the University of California, Irvine.

"We must understand the difference between what is and is not science. We must not teach creationism as an alternative to evolution," he said.

"Holding deep religious beliefs is not incompatible with believing in evolution," Omenn said.

"But that's different to saying the two can be taught together in science class, because religion and science are two different ways of knowing about the world. They might not be incompatible but they don't overlap each other's spheres.

"Science class should not contain religious attitudes," he added.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, January 7, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 177 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #108570 by padster1976 on January 7, 2008 at 9:02 am

Same old same old.

I think i'll start writing a history book - the rise fall of the american empire.

Just as Christians brought about the end of pagan rome, the christians are bringing the end of america.

Why should we think that americans will vote with their heads? They put Bush in for a 2nd term for crying out loud!

This guy is practically in the door!

Patrick.

Other Comments by padster1976

2. Comment #108571 by SRWB on January 7, 2008 at 9:08 am

because religion and science are two different ways of knowing about the world.

I've always wondered how religion is truly a "way of knowing". "Knowing" implies a degree of certainty that religion definitely doesn't possess. I would agree that religion is a way of viewing or thinking about the world, but that's a far cry from knowing.

Other Comments by SRWB

3. Comment #108572 by Bueller_007 on January 7, 2008 at 9:09 am

List of known creationist candidates:

Sam Brownback (already dropped out)
Mike Huckabee
Ron Paul
Tom Tancredo (already dropped out)

Other Comments by Bueller_007

4. Comment #108573 by BAEOZ on January 7, 2008 at 9:10 am

Holding deep religious beliefs is not incompatible with believing in evolution," Omenn said.

That is wrong. Are scientists in the states so scared of losing their funding that they lie? Evolution is an indifferent process. It has no purpose. There's not one piece of evidence to suggest that evolution has an outcome, namely humans. Thus any providential religion such as christianity is incompatible with evolution.

"But that's different to saying the two can be taught together in science class, because religion and science are two different ways of knowing about the world. They might not be incompatible but they don't overlap each other's spheres.

I'm still waiting to hear how religion allows us to know the world. All it is is a pap where devotees can tell themselves how wonderful and knowledgeable they are without actually engaging the real world.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

5. Comment #108579 by _J_ on January 7, 2008 at 9:24 am

SRWB

I've always wondered how religion is truly a "way of knowing".

and BAEOZ

I'm still waiting to hear how religion allows us to know the world.

Yes, quite right.

It's all about the perspective of the individual believer/student of science, isn't it?

Science allows us to actually discover things about the world, and thereby also gives us an acute sensation of how much we don't know yet. For anyone who finds discovery exhilerating, it's the bee's knees.

Religion does nothing to help us actually find anything out, but gives us blanket answers that allow us to feel as though, on some deep level, we understand everything. For anyone who finds uncertainty frightening, religion offers 'knowledge' as a big, warm comfort blanket.

As a religious friend of mine commented upon seeing me reading a copy of New Scientist not long ago: 'But how do you know who to believe?'. The impression that science gives of 'always changing its mind' seems genuinely to unsettle many long-term religious people.

I suppose this is why it's probably prudent for people like Omenn to advance the NOMA argument, as he apparently does here. Tell religious people that understanding evolution means throwing away their cherished feeling of 'knowing' what the world's all about is likely to guarantee that many of them will never risk giving it a chance. Slowly, slowly, baby steps...

Other Comments by _J_

6. Comment #108580 by SilentMike on January 7, 2008 at 9:25 am

...religion and science are two different ways of knowing about the world.

Yes. The right way and the wrong way.

Saying that religion is a way of knowing about the world is like saying the listening to the president of Iran is a way of knowing about the jewish holocaust.

Edit: And about the Iranian homosexual community. And about Iran's military agenda. and about... Say. Just what is wrong with that guy? Oh yes. Religion. Of course.

Other Comments by SilentMike

7. Comment #108581 by al-rawandi on January 7, 2008 at 9:26 am

Scary... If it weren't for the religious nonsense, Huckabee isn't a terrible candidate. He brings a very populist message by GOP standards, and he has been compassionate with both immigrants and the poor. However we can get that in someone like Obama or Edwards without the religious insanity.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

8. Comment #108582 by SilentMike on January 7, 2008 at 9:31 am

I think that if Ronald Mcdonald ran in america, he could win. Question is what party would he join, and what would be his stance on evolution.

Other Comments by SilentMike

9. Comment #108591 by clunkclickeverytrip on January 7, 2008 at 9:57 am

"Holding deep religious beliefs is not incompatible with believing in evolution," Omenn said.

Once again with my pet peeve - evolution is not to believed, it is to be understood. Apart from the fact that the whole statement by Omenn is incorrect, the phrase "believing in evolution", or the like, should never be invoked by a scientist. It's a non sequitur, or an oxymoron (like "religious education") - take your pick.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

10. Comment #108599 by annabanana on January 7, 2008 at 10:22 am

I've already said this, but I'll say it again. If one of the a-holes gets elected, I'm moving to Europe. I just have to figure out what to do with my car...anyone need to buy a car?

Other Comments by annabanana

11. Comment #108603 by naeone on January 7, 2008 at 10:27 am

well said clunkclickeverytrip

its doesn't matter if you believe in gravity or not it is still there doing its thang

same with evolution, just a fact, a mere observation if you will

Other Comments by naeone

12. Comment #108610 by Matt7895 on January 7, 2008 at 10:42 am

I tell you what though, it's damn nice to see scientists come out in support of evolution for a change. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong circles but from what I see these days it seems like only atheists are holding creationism to task.

Annabanana: Come to the UK, the water is warm (figuratively).

Other Comments by Matt7895

13. Comment #108616 by quill on January 7, 2008 at 10:53 am

After seeing the numbers in New Hampshire, I'm not as worried about Huckabee as I once was. It seems the old-school industrialists within the Republican party are actually starting to pit themselves against the Evangelicals this time around, since they can no longer just take them for granted as they did during the Bush years. McCain and Romney both look to beat Huckabee by 20 points in the next caucus.

Other Comments by quill

14. Comment #108618 by ianmkz on January 7, 2008 at 11:00 am

believing in evolution

I think this is reasonable shorthand for "believing that the history of the world that is painted by evolutionary theory is correct."

Other Comments by ianmkz

15. Comment #108619 by thirdchimpanzee on January 7, 2008 at 11:01 am

A day after his win in Iowa, Huckabee toned down his anti-evolution stance, saying in a television interview that the question of whether to teach creationism in schools was "not an issue for our president."

The media have got to do better (perhaps study Jeremy Paxman) - the question is very simple:

Do you, Mike Huckabee, accept that Humans are evolved from earlier species?

I don't care whether he wants creationism in classrooms or not - it's how his mind works that is at issue. To their credit, the scientists in this piece are saying the same thing - how does the potential political leader of the largest economic and scientific community in the world evaluate evidence in coming to conclusions.

So its doesn't matter if Huckabee tones it down or shouts from the rooftops - if the answer is the same as it was months ago the decibel level is irrelevant.

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

16. Comment #108621 by ianmkz on January 7, 2008 at 11:03 am

Once again with my pet peeve - evolution is not to believed, it is to be understood.

So you don't believe in evolution?!;)

Other Comments by ianmkz

17. Comment #108647 by radiohead1000 on January 7, 2008 at 11:34 am

If evolution is currently taught in American schools, how can 47% of you reject it for a fairy tale? I'd like to see how the questions are phrased in these polls because 47% is really scary for such a powerful nation.

BTW Annabanana you can come to Leeds anytime ;)

Other Comments by radiohead1000

18. Comment #108649 by annabanana on January 7, 2008 at 11:40 am

radiohead1000, public schools in the U.S. are lacking in a lot of areas. Somehow I came out unscathed, but I think that was mostly due to the fact that my mother nurtured my inquisitive mind. Didn't you hear about Miss Teen South Carolina? Apparently, most people can't even point out normal geographical things like the PACIFIC OCEAN on a map. I don't recall evolution being covered an any detail whatsoever. It would be easy to ignore it if you were used to ignoring other things in the name of religion.

Is Leeds anywhere near Sheffeild (sp?)?

Other Comments by annabanana

19. Comment #108650 by al-rawandi on January 7, 2008 at 11:40 am

radiohead1000,

You're scared? I fucking live here man. A friend set me up with a girl for drinks. I went, she is successful, smart, and didn't buy into evolution.

I almost vomitted on the table. She said "I believe that Genesis is true etc..."

I told her: "You are a contradiction, that beer you are holding was invented before you think the world began."

I got up and walked out. All this creationism was fine, until it cut into my love life (she was a good looking girl).

Other Comments by al-rawandi

20. Comment #108651 by al-rawandi on January 7, 2008 at 11:41 am

Anna,

25% of Americans can't find the Pacific. The was a Natl. Geo. study a while back.

Many can't find their home state on a map.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

21. Comment #108655 by annabanana on January 7, 2008 at 11:48 am

Yeah, but with crappy policies like "no child left behind" which sounds good only nominally, what can we expect?

Other Comments by annabanana

22. Comment #108659 by al-rawandi on January 7, 2008 at 11:51 am

I don't like this place as much as I used to.

I don't know what to expect, I am very worried. Let's hope Obama gets elected and follows through on a few things. Assuming the electoral college allows a black man to be prez.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

23. Comment #108661 by annabanana on January 7, 2008 at 11:52 am

Why do think my roommate and I seriously have plans to move if the election ends badly?

Other Comments by annabanana

24. Comment #108663 by al-rawandi on January 7, 2008 at 11:54 am

anna,

I am going for New Zealand citizenship, my mom is a citizen, I think I can get it.

I will adopt a hobit and live happily ever after.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

25. Comment #108664 by radiohead1000 on January 7, 2008 at 11:55 am

What exactly do they teach your kids? no geography, no history, I think that most people here in the UK at least know where we are and who our neighbours are.

Anna: Leeds is 25 miles north of Sheffield, sort of our Shelbyville.

Other Comments by radiohead1000

26. Comment #108665 by posiedon on January 7, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Annabanana.
I've already said this, but I'll say it again. If one of the a-holes gets elected, I'm moving to Europe.

Shetland is very good (even if a bit wet and windy)
I think it's probably the least religious place in the UK.
Unlike the rest of Britain, we have NO "faith" schools, (out of a total of 33 schools) and you can't drive more than a few miles without passing a derelict Kirk/church.

Other Comments by posiedon

27. Comment #108667 by quill on January 7, 2008 at 12:01 pm

25% of Americans can't find the Pacific. The was a Natl. Geo. study a while back.

I have a lot of trouble believing that's accurate. If it is, then there's something peculiar going on since looking at the UN Human Development Report 2006, the US seems to be ranked higher than the UK in education, for some reason. That's not to bash the UK--it's only a difference in score between 0.971 and 0.970--but I really can't believe that more than 1% of people in either country would fail to identify the Pacific Ocean if asked.

Other Comments by quill

28. Comment #108668 by al-rawandi on January 7, 2008 at 12:01 pm

radiohead1000

I went to a Montessori school, so I got lucky in that sense.

I went to a public High School (16-18 yrs. old). It was a top school and I was shocked. There were a few really smart kids, and a bunch of people who were borderline mentally handicapped (in my humble opinion).

I had a govt. teacher explain welfare as a way for blacks and mexicans who have too many kids to cash in on the government. He and I had problems.

Our history courses are shallow. They are very self congratulatory, and no mention of massacres of native americans.

Many Americans DO NOT know where they are.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

29. Comment #108669 by al-rawandi on January 7, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Quill,

They were 18-24 yr. olds a couple of years back. It isn't total population. It also may have been 13%. There was one category at 13% and another at 25%.

I will try to find it online.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

30. Comment #108670 by quill on January 7, 2008 at 12:05 pm

I can believe that in one school, one district or even one state, but it's just beyond my capability to accept that if I go outside and start asking people to identify the Pacific Ocean on a map, even one in ten will not be able to.

Other Comments by quill

31. Comment #108671 by al-rawandi on January 7, 2008 at 12:05 pm

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/

3 in 10 could not find the Pacific Ocean on a map.

Only 89% could find the United States on a world map.

Most could not find New Jersey. (Who could blame them though.)

Other Comments by al-rawandi

32. Comment #108672 by al-rawandi on January 7, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Quill,

Buuuuuhhhhlllliiiieeeevvveeeee it. Scary.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

33. Comment #108674 by quill on January 7, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Waiiiit a minute.

It says at the end that "at least 300 people" were surveyed. That's what, six people per state? Assuming they even got to every state.

I'm going to remain skeptical. I don't think 30% of Americans my age are unable to identify the Pacific Ocean.

Although I will confess that I probably would not have been able to tell Iran apart from Iraq prior to 2003.

Other Comments by quill

34. Comment #108679 by zenmite on January 7, 2008 at 12:17 pm

"3 in 10 could not find the Pacific Ocean on a map.
Only 89% could find the United States on a world map.
Most could not find New Jersey. (Who could blame them though.)

I think it's because U.S. Americans and such don't have enough such maps so they can help South Africa and such be better countries...

Other Comments by zenmite

35. Comment #108683 by annabanana on January 7, 2008 at 12:19 pm

No seriously, it's really bad. I went to a not so good public high school. I took all honors classes except for the ones we were forced to take along with everyone else. One of those forced classes was government/economics where the teacher literally went over each test IMMEDIATELY BEFORE we took it and a lot of people still failed or didn't score above 70%. Also, not that this is an accurate sampling of the population, but haven't you ever seen the surveys Jay Leno does on the streets and they find all of these "normal" people that can't answer a question you'd think a three year old would know? It's disheartening to say the least.

I have a friend who lives in Sheffeild, he says we can stay with him until we get a place. :)

Other Comments by annabanana

36. Comment #108684 by al-rawandi on January 7, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Quill,

I will tell miss SC anything she wants to hear... Wait she isn't 18.... nevermind.

Incredible. I was embarrased to be an American that day.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

37. Comment #108685 by annabanana on January 7, 2008 at 12:20 pm

...And like, the Iraq, and stuff...

Other Comments by annabanana

38. Comment #108686 by annabanana on January 7, 2008 at 12:21 pm

al-rawandi, How do you think I felt????!!!!! I'm from there!!!

Other Comments by annabanana

39. Comment #108687 by al-rawandi on January 7, 2008 at 12:24 pm

New Motto:

America Solidarity in Stupidity!

Other Comments by al-rawandi

40. Comment #108692 by radiohead1000 on January 7, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Anna:
Go Huckabee!!!
Then you can visit Leeds :)

Other Comments by radiohead1000

41. Comment #108693 by Matt7895 on January 7, 2008 at 12:32 pm

I've seen polls where many Americans couldn't find the UK on a world map, and they thought the Queen still ruled over us.... I can't bring myself to accept that, though. So I prefer just to think stupid people happen to be surveyed, and the intelligent majority have better things to do with their time.

Other Comments by Matt7895

42. Comment #108694 by tiikki on January 7, 2008 at 12:34 pm

annabanana
You should consider Scandinavian countries too ;) I can recomend Finland :)

Other Comments by tiikki

43. Comment #108706 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #108649 by annabanana

Is Leeds anywhere near Sheffeild (sp?)?

As radiohead1000 said, they are pretty close together. If you did come to Britain you would be better "Up North" rather than London. It is less frenetic, the people are friendly and the beer is better and cheaper. The only hassle would be seems to be accents, my elder daughter's boyfriend comes from Arkansas and he still has to listen carefully to get everything.

Oh, and both Leeds and Sheffield are in Yorkshire which is "Gods own county", but only because there is plenty of beautiful countryside and we have the best cricket in England.

Other Comments by epeeist

44. Comment #108709 by annabanana on January 7, 2008 at 12:56 pm

It sounds wonderful. We are planning to visit for two weeks this summer, even if we don't move there. I'm very excited. It will be my first time in the U.K.!!

Other Comments by annabanana

45. Comment #108710 by marcomerlin on January 7, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Can anyone please tell me what did Miss SC say? I'm curious now!

Other Comments by marcomerlin

46. Comment #108711 by quill on January 7, 2008 at 1:01 pm

I attended a public school as well, but I don't think there was anyone in my class so stupid as to not be able to identify the Pacific Ocean. Even those who eventually dropped out could have done that.

I do recall one experience--being asked by a senior, when I was a junior, who won the Civil War. I was aghast. That was easily the dumbest girl in the class, hands down--yet I think even she would have been able to identify the Pacific on a map.

Actually, now that I think about it, the education I received from my public school was not that bad. I recall one test in Sociology class, on which we were asked to list several reasons for the economic and social stagnation of Europe during the Middle Ages. One of the correct answers, a theme which our textbooks hit on repeatedly, was: "Only the priesthood was allowed to read." ;)

Other Comments by quill

47. Comment #108712 by Steve Zara on January 7, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Epeeist: You are a Yorkshireman? Good for you! So is my husband. I am a Southerner, I am afraid. We try and get up to Yorkshire whenever we can. It is the most wonderful countryside. I took an M.Sc. at York 29 years ago, and it was quite a culture shock for a Southerner, I can tell you!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

48. Comment #108714 by annabanana on January 7, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Miss Teen SC: "I personally believe the U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh...people out there in our nation don't have maps, and, uh, I believe that our education like such as South Africa and, uh, the Iraq everywhere like, such as and...I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., err, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our...

Mmmhmmm...

Other Comments by annabanana

49. Comment #108715 by arogop on January 7, 2008 at 1:07 pm

A couple of thoughts:

Chicken Little seems to have rubbed off onto to many people these days.

Each time Bush ran for office we kept hearing about how people were going to move to another country. I say that if you don't like how things are set up then either work productively to change it, or stop yapping and move already. (BTW I helped put Bush in office twice and didn't see anyone move to Canada as a result.)

Quill- It's not exactly the "old school industrialists" that are getting feed up with the religious right. It's the Libertarian and Fiscal Conservatives that are starting to wake up. I myself was ok with dealing with some of the minor stupidities that resulted from the "big tent" policies, but when Bush's policies that were designed for our side of the party were killed by the Christian right in '05 I decided enough was enough.

Other Comments by arogop

50. Comment #108716 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Comment #108709 by annabanana

It sounds wonderful. We are planning to visit for two weeks this summer, even if we don't move there. I'm very excited. It will be my first time in the U.K.!!