Do they put something in the water there?

[robinturner]

I know this has been blogged to death, but I can't refrain from commenting ....

The Washington Post reported that three Republican presidential candidates (Huckabee, Tancredo and Brownback) do not believe in evolution (not even the soft version which has God as the architect of evolution). That's not so worrying - they are, after all, fringe candidates, and not much closer to the finishing line than Michael the Archangel. The worrying part comes later in the article: "a 2004 ABC News poll found 61 percent said the creation story in the Bible - that God created the world in six days - is 'literally true.'"

I am normally quite happy for people to believe in whatever creation myths they choose. I rather like the Egyptian one about the world being created by Ptah masturbating. But I still find it worrying that a majority of the population in the world's most powerful country are seriously disconnected from reality. These people can vote, which means that the leader of the world's most powerful country is dependent on the support of people who haven't a clue about the world they inhabit. That person will be making decisions about things like climate change.

Comments

[circumambulate.livejournal.com]

ah, yes, the puritanical heritage comes home to roost.

Pretty much sums up the last six years.

[oblomova.livejournal.com]

And yet most of these people wouldn't bat an eye at using science to confront, say, a brain tumor in their children. (Unless they're Christian Scientists, of course.) And I rather doubt they would ask the neurosurgeon where she or he stands on Darwin.

[solri.livejournal.com]

There is the slightly more hopeful explanation that only 1% of Americans believe that the creation story is literally true, and the other 60% don't know what the word "literally" means.

[oblomova.livejournal.com]

One of the funniest throwaway lines in Urinetown, The Musical! comes in the middle of a gospel anthem to freedom, called "Run Freedom Run." One of the would-be revolutionaries says "I'm scared!" To which the young hero, Bobby Strong, replies "You should be! Freedom is a blast of cool air that slaps your face to wake you up!"

"Literally?"

"Yes!"

[solri.livejournal.com]

My favourite abuse of the word is from a BBC radio news programme back in the 1970s: "The council were literally caught with their trousers down."

[oblomova.livejournal.com]

Well, to be fair, these are politicians, so maybe not so wrong after all! ("Good day, Mr. Profumo!")

[miss-next.livejournal.com]

America is an embarrassment to Christians in other parts of the world. It really is. I don't know what sort of God it is that these people believe in, but I become more and more convinced that he's a poor weak sort of God by comparison to the one I know. Why else would he need his followers to twist reality in order to convince people of his power?

As far as I'm concerned, God gave us brains in order that we should use them, and ignoring the evidence in front of us, sticking our fingers in our ears and going "la la la, can't hear you", is not only deeply unscientific but, au fond, deeply un-Christian. It offends me as much as it offends you.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Maybe the USA is to Christendom what Saudia Arabia is to the Umma ;-)

[word-herder.livejournal.com]

Now, I'm not trying to sound bellicose, but...

That person will be making decisions about things like climate change.

This is a rather unfair leap to make. Many Christians who believe in the Creation story are "green" for precisely that reason: God told Adam to tend the garden; hence the original role of the human on this earth was stewardship of nature. In fact the vast majority of Christians do not approve of how this Administration has turned out, feeling duped by people they should never have trusted. (The only reason the majority of Christians vote Republican is because the majority of Democratic politicians believe in abortion rights, which is reprehensible to them. What many Christians haven't figured out yet is that most Republican politicians are exactly the same.)

I am a Christian. I believe God created the earth, but I'm not going to say how He did it or how long it took. All religions have creation stories; many of them are remarkably similar (sort of like how many of them also have a "great flood" story). I'd rather not restrict Him to a set paradigm, and my faith does not rest on the creation story but on a Person whom I believe was God in human form, was crucified, and rose again three days later, thereby conquering death for eternity. Since I believe in the resurrection of the dead at an appointed time, it is not hard for me to imagine that God could have created the earth in 6 days flat.

Oh, and I'm a member of the Green Party.

[solri.livejournal.com]

You are right that many Christians are ecologically minded, though the only religions I know of that are explicitly ecological are paganism and, perhaps, Taoism. (There's a fair amount of ecological stuff in Islam, but it generally gets ignored.) As I said, in their private lives, people are free to believ in whatever creation myths they like (see also my previous post about public and private epistemologies).

My point was rather different. Assessing climate change and devising policies to deal with it requires the ability to look objectively at scientific data, and if you believe the world is only 6,000 years old, you're saying that not only evolution, but pretty much the whole of science is rubbish.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

With respect, your final sentence is mostly incorrect. People I've met who believe in creationism have usually compartmentalized their inability to apply critical thinking to specific issues. While their general educational context isn't one of relentless application of scientific thinking, they generally don't discard it's usage wholesale. For the record, yes, I do think that belief in creationism is often a *pointer* for a more global inability to think critically, it's important to remember that it's often carefully compartmentalized. I know that the singular of "data" is not "anecdote", but the person that performed my dad's heart bypass is a creationist. Since bypass technology has not become the battleground issue for the existence of God, it clearly didn't bother her that it was the result of thousands of iterations of the scientific process.

[solri.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't mind if they compartmentalised it enough so that it becomes a kind of fideism. Neither would I mind if it were some relatively insignificant belief that would have little effect on science even if it were true (e.g. UFO abductions). I hold some pretty weird beliefs myself (or at least entertain some weird possibilities). However, the latest brand of Creationism is actively trying to pervert science, and that's dangerous. It's Lysenko for the conservatives, and I can see a strong possibility of its affecting debates such as climate change.

[notebuyer.livejournal.com]

You are missing one other possibility: that those asked that question prefer to send up the pollster, and those who rely on him. I am one of those, as are most of my friends. We know from experience that evolution is not a scientific theory in real life: it's merely a stalking horse for the idea that there is no God. It affects nothing we see and nothing we do. I know people who quietly leave any lecture involving the word "quantum" -- though physics is mentioned, it is a stalking horse for the idea that people magically affect the world merely by deciding to (new age stuff, that. Heh.) The idea that science is a unity, denying one thought automatically discredits all other possible consequences in other domains, is another form of philosophic posturing: but it's yours, and this is your board, so you're entitled.

[solri.livejournal.com]

We know from experience that evolution is not a scientific theory in real life: it's merely a stalking horse for the idea that there is no God.

People have of course used evolution for this purpose: personally I can't see how it has much bearing on the question of whether there is a god, no god, or a multiplicity of gods. However, we can't jump from that to the position that evolution is not a scientific theory; it is, and it is as well-established as the heliocentric theory (which was also roundly condemned by theologians, of course). What I find disturbing is the idea that we can ignore facts if they disturb our idea of how we would like the universe to be.

I didn't mean to imply that science was a unity: it's a set of shots in the dark, and the only thing it has to recommend it is that these shots hit the mark more often than those fired by other methods (not that I dismiss other methods - I'm all for mysticism and occultism so long as they stay in their place). However, scientific theories depend on each other, and if you believe that the world is 6,000 years old, you can't believe in any of the theories that tell us that it's several billion years old, which means you're not only rejecting geology but also physics.

We need to get a sense of scale here. Let's say that someone believes in the ability of certain people to heal or curse through the power of thought, angels, demons or whatever. This is not a scientific theory, since with our current level of knowledge, we have no way to test the validity of this claim. But it may be true, so let's assume that it is. Some scientific disciplines would have to do a lot of work to explain the phenomenon, but it's likely that eventually it could be made to fit in with the rest of what we know about the universe. On the other hand, young earth creationism requires throwing out just about everything: we'd have to go back to Pythagoras and start over. Such a project would be necessary if there were incontrovertable evidence for creationism, but as it happens, there isn't a shred.

[notebuyer.livejournal.com]

To the extent you describe the differentiation and development of species as the theory of evolution, the most ardent "creationist" I know believes it. It's at the point you say that it is an adequate explanation for the origin of life that saying that the world is 6000 years old strikes us as equally appropriate. The right answer to a nonsense question is a nonsense answer.

But on the main point: science has very little effect on daily life. What I have for breakfast, though it may be different because of technical achievements based on scientific discoveries, is indifferent to my beliefs about those scientific discoveries. It is at the point that you say, "You have to believe X! If you don't, then all sorts of other things would follow, all negative!" that I recognize the cant of the evangelist from the Sunday morning TV programs. If I had to justify all of my choices with logical reasons, you might have a point. I don't.

In the same vein, I would suggest that belief in global warming appears to be strongest in those who have not lived through prior media predictions of the end of the world. By my current count, only about 25 to 30 percent of the articles reporting one study or another in the newspaper ever gets borne out -- and that's what I get for paying attention to them. Occasionally, I get the odd pleasure of reading a newspaper article and being able to do some quick figuring that shows that its statistical basis is pathetically bad: ones on the change in force of atlantic hurricanes (http://notebuyer.livejournal.com/71673.html) come to mind. there are similar problems with global warming in other studies. (http://notebuyer.livejournal.com/97278.html)

In short: yes, science is wonderful. We're not very good at it, but it does come through in the very long run. And in that vein, I'll buy you a steak dinner at Billingsley's if we're even discussing the peril of global warming in six years' time.

[solri.livejournal.com]

I was born in 1961 and started taking a serious interest in ecology around 1970s, so I've seen a lot of theories come and go. Generally, what strikes me is how many of the prophecies espoused by the long hair and brown rice brigade in the 1970s are now being accepted as true (especially those coming from the longhairs who happened to work at places like MIT). People were saying that nuclear power was dangerous way before Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. People were saying that CFCs might damage the ozone layer before we had satellite photographs of the hole. People were warning us about the greenhouse effect back in the 1970s.

Of course this doesn't prove that the greenhouse effect is actually happening, or that we are responsible for it. But a responsible person will look at the data we have and conclude that while we can't be sure of anything, if you're playing Russian roulette, it makes sense to have as few bullets in the revolver as possible.

[notebuyer.livejournal.com]

And Three Mile Island and Chernobyl proved that the predictions of how severe accidents were were wildly overstated. Poor example. The "greenhouse effect" is one of the aspects of "global warming" which defies basic physics -- you'd best pick another.

And a responsible person will never (http://notebuyer.livejournal.com/147108.html) use the precautionary principle.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Ecological activists were making a variety of claims about nuclear power in the 1970s. One was that accidents at nuclear power stations could result in radioactive material escaping into the environment: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl proved that conclusively (along with a lot of more minor accidents). Another was that nuclear reactors could go boom and kill lots of people. These two accidents do not prove it, of course, but neither do they disprove it. The debate is, I think, fairly irrelevant now, since nuclear reactors are a hell of a lot safer than they were back then. The real problem is what to do with all the waste, but that's a different issue.

How does the greenhouse effect defy basic physics? I have yet to hear a physicist make this claim.

As for the precautionary principle, it doesn't apply in cases where there is a majority opinion that an action is likely to cause harm. IT could turn out that a lot of climatologists have been very wrong, and human-created warming is insignificant or even nonexistent. I for one, would not prefer to bet on that.

[notebuyer.livejournal.com]

Likely to cause harm? (http://notebuyer.livejournal.com/152774.html) A reasonable interpretation of the data? (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.html) Or just another boondoggle for the least accurate method, computer models? Limits to Growth was my first experience with wildly inaccurate computer models cited as science: just as Paul Erlich was my first experience with hysteria masquerading as science (you remember the starvation riots in Europe, right? the sinking of Great Britain?) Rachel Carson was my first experience at wildly exaggerated claims about chemicals (and it's amazing what a course in physiology can teach about dose and effect, isn't it? Pity she didn't take one.)

Finally, of course, comes the recognition that it is not a problem (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Greenhouse_not_a_problem.html). I have had to adapt to larger temperature swings (http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese363.html) going out my front door. Finally, for a note on reality, look a bit more closely at your "consensus".. (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af) and the problem of "leading scientists" with opinions well in advance of the facts available to them. (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/HansenTestimonyCritique.pdf) (or who just don't know how to read their own studies).

Just as with the die off from heterosexual AIDS in the US, the swine flu, this is just another bid by grant-seekers in the sciences for more money, and institutions for more publicity (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6703679.stm).

Hysteria.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the reading, though I can't see anything that shows how the greenhouse effect defies the laws of physics. You might care to look at www.realclimate.org for an alternative point of view. None of this, however, swings the pendulum very far one way or the other. The fact remains that there is a considerable amount of evidence that global warming is happening, and a fair amount of evidence that CO2 emissions are contributing to this. No certainty, but enough cause for concern to make it sensible to do what we can to reduce emissions.

To return to my Russian roulette analogy, the attitude of climate "skeptics" seems to be like saying, "Well nobody actually saw him put the bullet in the gun, so I may as well pull the trigger."

[notebuyer.livejournal.com]

The skeptics say three things:

1. There is no consensus of scientists on the subject.

2. The trend toward lower-carbon fuels has been in place for more than a century, and is unobjectionable.

3. Even if we're wrong, there's no harm.

CItes in the above article.

[notebuyer.livejournal.com]

You requested a physicist's view of global warming. Here is Freeman Dyson. (http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/06/freeman_dyson_g.html) Note that what he is saying is quite at variance with the usual claims.

THe point? Your precautionary principle, which I reject utterly, has panicked you into making a bet prematurely.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Dyson has never said that the greenhouse effect defies physics. His gripe has always been with over-reliance on computer modelling at the expensive of local measurements, as the first video indicates. In the second video he talks about stratospheric cooling, which is actually a symptom of the greenhouse effect. On the practical side, all Dyson is saying is that we might be able to do more by better land management than be reducing emissions, and he may be right - under the circumstances, it makes sense to do both.

What's happening in the current debate is that some people are seizing on any disagreement among scientists to say "There is no consensus." (This is in line with a more general trend in conservative thought that anything which threatens their economic interests is not only immoral but factually wrong.) It's rather like those Creationists who jump at any disagreement or unanswered question about the details of evolution and say "See? Even the scientists can't agree on this! So evolution is just a theory, and the world really is 6,000 years old!"

[notebuyer.livejournal.com]

And the fact that the cost is much less, and the regulations less intrusive, with the land management approch indicate to me that it won't be tried. This is not about global warming. This is about "panic and control" -- same as the other scares.

On the subject of whether there is a consensus, I already gave you the cite. to the article indicating that polling disagrees with you: consensus is more than a majority, and you don't have a majority. It's stated a lot. It just isn't true. So this is rather like those silly people who jump at any disagreement or unanswered question about the details of global warming and say, "See? It doesn't matter! There is a consensus, so I don't have to discuss whether there is a problem with the theory! This really is important and the best use of my time and money, because there is a consensus!"

Since, as a conservative, I infer what is important to you not by what you say, or by what you report you believe, but how you spend your time and money, I am interested in the discrepancy between reported spending patterns and values. GNP expenditure accounts are interesting from this point of view. From my perspective, the world may as well be 6000 years old. It affects nothing in what I buy, where I go, or who I spend time with: it is merely a cute epiphenomenon until someone decides that they want to take away my choices in food because asparagus is hard to grow, or take away my choice in who I can talk to because the internet is so unregulated, or take away my choice of where to live because they don't like suburbs. Then I suggest, ever so gently, that the burden of proof is on you: and it has to be high, because it is going to affect things that are really important, not mere epiphenomena of thought. Opinions are a dime a dozen. Theories are cute. Logic is indispensible: but the area it is applied in is limited to those things I make time for, and I choose them.

[solri.livejournal.com]

as a conservative, I infer what is important to you not by what you say, or by what you report you believe, but how you spend your time and money

That's an interesting take on conservatism. It sounds more like a crude nineteenth-century utilitarian liberalism to me, but as I said at the beginning, perhaps they put something in the water over there.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Ah, my apologies. I read your LJ profile and found that you are indeed a liberal, in the classical sense. But I still think it's a rather crude, Benthamite way of determining what is important to people.

some rambling

[word-herder.livejournal.com]

it requires the ability to look objectively at scientific data, and if you believe the world is only 6,000 years old, you're saying that not only evolution, but pretty much the whole of science is rubbish.

Every scientist I've ever met, including my husband, sneers at statistics. "You can interpret data any way you want to," many of them say. The only thing that keeps them in check is that they are honest people who genuinely want to solve the problems they encounter or explain the theories they've imagined. It's not one's religious belief that hinders one's objectivity; most often, it's one's pride that usually prevents one from interpreting data into a truthful representation of fact.

I once had a professor (at a Nazarene university) tell us that scientists could figure all the math and physics and biology for the evolution of the solar system, but the only thing they have yet been unable to determine is the trigger that starts the evolutionary process. It was an interesting point to make, and it has stuck with me for these many years. I grew up under the teachings of Ken Ham (horrible man); so this was a shock. This professor was a devout Christian yet he was able to live with the possibility that evolution was true? How could someone live with such a contradiction? And I realized that it was because he was able to look at various positions objectively, to gather information for all sides, and to discern truth.

Discernment is the one attribute that the majority of Christians are afraid of. They think that if they look at all sides of the issue, they'll lose their faith or be tempted into sinning. Hence, many Christians are unable to consider the possibility of evolution because it would contradict their very safe worldview. They are the worse for it because the Christian sub-culture of today is, shall we say, rather poor in the liberal arts.

Assessing climate change and devising policies to deal with it requires the ability to look objectively at scientific data, and if you believe the world is only 6,000 years old, you're saying that not only evolution, but pretty much the whole of science is rubbish.

Disagree with this point as well. But the other commenter in this thread pretty much said what I would have.

It is possible to believe in intelligent design and also believe that the earth is much older than 6,000 years. That date is based on incomplete genealogies recorded in the first five books of the Bible and cannot possibly be considered accurate.

Re: some rambling

[solri.livejournal.com]

It is possible to believe in intelligent design and also believe that the earth is much older than 6,000 years.

Of course. The universe may well have been designed by some external agent, or it may possess intelligence of its own which enables it to design its own evolution. On the other hand, it may be an insane chaos pulled around by the kind of creatures you see in H.P. Lovecraft stories. Our present state of scientific knowledge is unable to assess these theories.

Re: some rambling

[notebuyer.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, it may be an insane chaos pulled around by the kind of creatures you see in H.P. Lovecraft stories. Our present state of scientific knowledge is unable to assess these theories.

Re-read your other comments in this section. Then say to yourself, "I didn't really mean that."

The insane chaos would cause similar problems with other grand theories you are attached to. If there is a creator, he is a quite logical, methodical, and consistent being (as we judge the results of his thoughts).

Re: some rambling

[solri.livejournal.com]

I put in the Lovecraftian hypothesis partly out of a sense of fun, and partly because of a student paper from a course I gave. One essay question on offer was a challenge to provide a theory that would allow the world to be 6,000 years old but not allow it to be five minutes old (this was with reference to Chalmers' paper "The Matrix as Metaphysics" (http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/rl_cmp/new_phil_fr_chalmers.html)). Only one student attempted the question, and her answer used what Chalmers termed the "Chaos Hypothesis": "I do not receive inputs from anywhere in the world. Instead, I have random uncaused experiences. Through a huge coincidence, they are exactly the sort of regular, structured experiences with which I am familiar."

The Lovecraftian hypothesis isn't quite that radical, since it sees the universe we experience as a kind of bubble of order in a sea of chaos. The characters in the stories who are unfortunate to come into contact with the chaos (via its unpleasant denizens) go insane, but the rest of us can carry on quite happily applying rational rules to the cosmos, since they work perfectly well for the tiny portion of the cosmos that we inhabit.

Re: some rambling

[dtlw.livejournal.com]

I adore reading posts like this and well done Solri for starting a debate that has made me smile. I prefer to look at the points raised in this manner:

If a believer in Darwinism dies and finds him/herself in heaven the firsts words out of their mouth will be "Doh"!!!!!

If a believer in God and creation dies and there isn't a God, he/she won't be saying anything.

Re: some rambling

[solri.livejournal.com]

You might enjoy Bill Hicks' comments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk). (Note that the Bush he refers to here is the Bush the Elder.)