DOCSLIB.ORG

Intelligent Design Movement and Other Creationists

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Intelligent Design Movement and Other Creationists © 2009, Dustin J. Penn V. Myths and Misconceptions A. General Misconceptions about Evolution "Thus the creationist's question - 'What is the use of half an eye?' - is actually a lightweight question, a doddle to answer. Half an eye is just 1 per cent better than 49 per cent of an eye, which is already better than 48 percent, and the difference is significant." - Richard Dawkins, 19951 Summary There are many myths and misconceptions about evolution and this section provides an overview of the most common ones, especially those promoted by the intelligent design movement and other creationists. Misconceptions about evolution have been addressed by many scientists and educators, both religious as well as non-religious ones.2-10 The many misconceptions about evolution help explain its low acceptance by the public, especially when combined with the numerous misconceptions about the implications of evolution for humans. (See Section V.B) Myths: 1. Myth: Evolution is a theory, not a fact 2. Myth: Evolution is scientifically controversial 3. Myth: Evolution cannot be observed or scientifically tested 4. Myth: The Earth is only 6000 years old, so there has not been enough time for evolution to occur 5. Myth: Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics 6. Myth: The complex, functional features of organs cannot be explained by evolution 7. Myth: Evolution is merely a random process and therefore cannot explain life 8. Myth: Darwin’s theory fails because it does not explain the origin of life and other mysteries of life 1. Myth: Evolution is a theory, not a fact Creationists often claim that evolution is "just a theory," but such claims are misleading.7 Evolution is both a fact and a theory (the theory is Darwin’s theory of natural selection). However, evolution is not a theory in the colloquial sense of the word, which implies a mere hypothesis, conjecture, or speculation. Darwin’s theory is a theory in the scientific sense, which means that it is a comprehensive explanation strongly supported by evidence, and useful for making predictions. Other scientific theories include the Germ Theory, Atomic Theory and Quantum Theory, and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Scientific theories are not less than scientific laws, contrary to what is often assumed. Scientific laws describe facts whereas theories explain them. Darwin’s Theory, for example, explains the fact of evolution. It is crucial to understand that evolution — like all facts in science — remains open to question. This tentativeness of facts is a fundamental distinction between science and religion. This is precisely the reason that "intelligent design" and "creation science" are not sciences: no amount of empirical evidence will alter creationists’ faith in creationism. Thus, evolution is not "just a theory", in the usual sense of the word, and it is accepted as a fact by the vast majority of scientists. The "just a theory" claim is a misrepresentation that exploits the fact that scientists use the word theory differently than the general public.11-12 For example, a school board in Atlanta, Georgia (USA) placed disclaimer stickers on Biology textbooks to warn students that 13 Figure 1. Disclaimer stick- "evolution is a theory, not a fact" (Figure 1). The disclaimer was er.13 meant to appease more than 2,000 parents who complained about the absence of biblical creation in science textbooks. In 2005, a federal judge ruled that the disclaimers were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The board challenged the decision and then settled out of court: the board agreed to drop the disclaimers and to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees in the case. Nevertheless, the creationist lobby continues to promote the "just a theory" myth. 2. Myth: Evolution is scientifically controversial Creationists often misrepresent evolution as "a theory in crisis".14 Evolution has long been accepted as an established fact among the vast majority of scientists. Scientists spend no more time debating the fact of evolution than the existence of atoms. Scientific controversies about evolution exist, and they can be heated, but these debates are over how – not whether – evolution occurs. For example, some scientists debate the relative importance of natural selection versus genetic drift and other processes for explaining the evolution of life. The scientists involved in these debates, such as S.J. Gould (1941-2002), have voiced their objections to being misrepresented by creationists (Figure 2)11,16-18,21. Creationists continue to promote the myth that evolution is scientifically controversial as a Figure 2. Stephen J. deliberate strategy to raise doubts about evolution, just as corporate lobbyists Gould11,16-18,21 use this tactic to create confusion and doubts about the health risks of tobacco and climate change due to fossil fuels.15 Evolution is controversial, but the debates are political rather than scientific, and creationists generate the controversies themselves. 3. Myth: Evolution cannot be observed or scientifically tested Since creationists have failed to convince courts that "creation science" and "intelligent design" are legitimate sciences, they now assert that evolution is not a science either. In particular, they argue that no one was around to observe whether or how life originated, and therefore evolution is untestable. This claim is misleading for the following reasons. First, it misrepresents the importance of indirect evidence in science. Scientific facts come from both indirect and direct observations, and there is a great deal of indirect evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. How can the fossil record potentially disprove evolution? J.B.S. Haldane, one of the founders of evolutionary biology, once pointed out that evolution would be disproved if someone discovered a fossil rabbit in the Figure 3. Experimen- Precambrian Era (i.e., millions of years before mammals had even evolved). tally testing evolu- tion.23 Second, no one was around to observe the evolution of life, however, there is a tremendous amount of direct evidence showing that life continues to evolve. Scientists have recorded genetic changes over time in many species, such as the evolution of pesticide resistance in crop pests. A large and growing number of experimental studies, mostly with microbes and fruitflies, confirm evolution and Darwin’s theory (Figure 3). Some studies have even documented speciation in the laboratory.22 Thus, evolution is testable, and it is supported by a massive amount of evidence, direct as well as indirect. 4. Myth: The Earth is only 6000 years old, so there has not been enough time for evolution to occur Creationists who promote this notion ("Young Earth Creationists") base their estimate of the age of the Earth on Genesis, and reject radiometric dating techniques that show the Earth is around 4.6 billion years old.24-25 The 4.6 billion years estimate comes from a large number of measurements using different dating methods, and there is no scientific controversy about this figure. There used to be a scientific controversy about the age of the Earth. In fact, one of the most important objections to evolution in the 1800’s was the age of the Earth. William Thomson (a.k.a. Lord Kelvin) estimated that the Earth was only 24 to 400 million years old, which if correct would have indeed posed a problem for Darwin. Thomson’s calculations turned out to be wrong, however (as it was Figure 4. Scientific dating techniques not yet known that heat from the sun is generated by radioactive fusion). Once radioactive dating methods were discovered, they showed that there has been more than enough time for evolution to occur. Thus, creationists' belief that the earth is only 6000 years old is not a trivial mistake, and as Richard Dawkins points out, it is like believing that the distance from New York to San Francisco is only 28 feet! Not all Creationists are Young Earth Creationists, and many other creationists accept the scientific estimates for the age of the Earth. These "Old Earth Creationists" realize that they have lost this battle and instead are focusing on other criticisms of evolution. 5. Myth: Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics To make "intelligent design" and "creation science" appear to be science, creationists have increasingly been using scientific jargon. For example, creationists sometime argue that evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since the universe tends to decrease order (entropy) rather than increase order and complexity, creationists claim that evolution is inconsistent with the physics. However, the Second Law only applies to closed Figure 5. No miracles systems, in which energy cannot enter a system, whereas the earth is an in Science! open system with energy provided by the sun and captured by plants in photosynthesis.26 Evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics any more than does photosynthesis. The "evolution-violates-the-Second-Law" notion misrepresents physics as well as biology. 6. Myth: The complex, functional features of organs cannot be explained by evolution Creationists argue that the amazing complexity of living organisms cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution (or any other natural process), and can only be explained by a supernatural Creator. The idea that the complexity and design-like features of life provide evidence for design by a supernatural agent is called the "Argument from Design" or "teleological argument", and it goes back to Thomas Aquinas and even ancient Greek philosophers.27 The most well-known version is William Paley’s "watchmaker analogy" from his book, Natural Theology. Paley argued that if one found a watch in the woods, full of complex and intricate working parts, one would have to conclude that it was designed by a watchmaker. It could not have arisen by chance. Similarly, complex traits of organisms, such as eyes, are taken as evidence for purposeful design by a supernatural Creator.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals
    UNDERSTANDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT: ITS TRUE NATURE AND GOALS A POSITION PAPER FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY AUTHOR: BARBARA FORREST, Ph.D. Reviewing Committee: Paul Kurtz, Ph.D.; Austin Dacey, Ph.D.; Stuart D. Jordan, Ph.D.; Ronald A. Lindsay, J. D., Ph.D.; John Shook, Ph.D.; Toni Van Pelt DATED: MAY 2007 ( AMENDED JULY 2007) Copyright © 2007 Center for Inquiry, Inc. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the reproduced materials, the full authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the Center for Inquiry, Inc. Table of Contents Section I. Introduction: What is at stake in the dispute over intelligent design?.................. 1 Section II. What is the intelligent design creationist movement? ........................................ 2 Section III. The historical and legal background of intelligent design creationism ................ 6 Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ............................................................................ 6 McLean v. Arkansas (1982) .............................................................................. 6 Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ............................................................................. 7 Section IV. The ID movement’s aims and strategy .............................................................. 9 The “Wedge Strategy” .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1
    Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1 Abstract Background: The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. Methods: We analyzed creationist texts according to type (young earth creationism, old earth creationism or intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data). Results: The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including the direct ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionists are accused of breaking the rules of debate that they themselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated that evolutionists would not consider supernatural explanations in any situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals to consequences and guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities, and slippery slopes to abortion, euthanasia and genocide. False dilemmas, hasty generalizations and straw man fallacies were also common. The prevalence of these fallacies was equal in young earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism. The direct and indirect ad hominem were also prevalent in pro-evolutionary texts. Conclusions: While the fallacious arguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, they can be effective for the reception of creationist claims, especially if the audience has biases. Thus, the recognition of these fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompanied by attempts to avoid counter-fallacies and by the recognition of the context, in which the fallacies are presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Dawkins
    RICHARD DAWKINS HOW A SCIENTIST CHANGED THE WAY WE THINK Reflections by scientists, writers, and philosophers Edited by ALAN GRAFEN AND MARK RIDLEY 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Oxford University Press 2006 with the exception of To Rise Above © Marek Kohn 2006 and Every Indication of Inadvertent Solicitude © Philip Pullman 2006 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should
    [Show full text]
  • The Spindle Assembly Checkpoint and Speciation
    The spindle assembly checkpoint and speciation Robert C. Jackson1 and Hitesh B. Mistry2 1 Pharmacometrics Ltd., Cambridge, United Kingdom 2 Division of Pharmacy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom ABSTRACT A mechanism is proposed by which speciation may occur without the need to postulate geographical isolation of the diverging populations. Closely related species that occupy overlapping or adjacent ecological niches often have an almost identical genome but differ by chromosomal rearrangements that result in reproductive isolation. The mitotic spindle assembly checkpoint normally functions to prevent gametes with non-identical karyotypes from forming viable zygotes. Unless gametes from two individuals happen to undergo the same chromosomal rearrangement at the same place and time, a most improbable situation, there has been no satisfactory explanation of how such rearrange- ments can propagate. Consideration of the dynamics of the spindle assembly checkpoint suggest that chromosomal fission or fusion events may occur that allow formation of viable heterozygotes between the rearranged and parental karyotypes, albeit with decreased fertility. Evolutionary dynamics calculations suggest that if the resulting heterozygous organisms have a selective advantage in an adjoining or overlapping ecological niche from that of the parental strain, despite the reproductive disadvantage of the population carrying the altered karyotype, it may accumulate sufficiently that homozygotes begin to emerge. At this point the reproductive disadvantage of the rearranged karyotype disappears, and a single population has been replaced by two populations that are partially reproductively isolated. This definition of species as populations that differ from other, closely related, species by karyotypic changes is consistent with the classical definition of a species as a population that is capable of interbreeding to produce fertile progeny.
    [Show full text]
  • Clearing the Highest Hurdle: Human-Based Case Studies Broaden Students’ Knowledge of Core Evolutionary Concepts
    The Journal of Effective Teaching an online journal devoted to teaching excellence Clearing the highest hurdle: Human-based case studies broaden students’ knowledge of core evolutionary concepts Alexander J. Werth1 Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden-Sydney, VA 23943 Abstract An anonymous survey instrument was used for a ten year study to gauge college student attitudes toward evolution. Results indicate that students are most likely to accept evolu- tion as a historical process for change in physical features of non-human organisms. They are less likely to accept evolution as an ongoing process that shapes all traits (including biochemical, physiological, and behavioral) in humans. Students who fail to accept the factual nature of human evolution do not gain an accurate view of evolution, let alone modern biology. Fortunately, because of students’ natural curiosity about their bodies and related topics (e.g., medicine, vestigial features, human prehistory), a pedagogical focus on human evolution provides a fun and effective way to teach core evolutionary concepts, as quantified by the survey. Results of the study are presented along with useful case studies involving human evolution. Keywords: Survey, pedagogy, biology, evolution, Darwin. All science educators face pedagogical difficulties, but when considering the social rami- fications of scientific ideas, few face as great a challenge as biology teachers. Studies consistently show more than half of Americans reject any concept of biological evolution (Harris Poll, 2005, Miller et al., 2006). Students embody just such a cross-section of soci- ety. Much ink has been spilled explaining how best to teach evolution, particularly to unwilling students (Cavallo and McCall, 2008, Nelson, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins Is Another
    BOOKS & ARTS COMMENT ooks about science tend to fall into two categories: those that explain it to lay people in the hope of cultivat- Bing a wide readership, and those that try to persuade fellow scientists to support a new theory, usually with equations. Books that achieve both — changing science and reach- ing the public — are rare. Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) was one. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is another. From the moment of its publication 40 years ago, it has been a sparkling best-seller and a TERRY SMITH/THE LIFE IMAGES COLLECTION/GETTY SMITH/THE LIFE IMAGES TERRY scientific game-changer. The gene-centred view of evolution that Dawkins championed and crystallized is now central both to evolutionary theoriz- ing and to lay commentaries on natural history such as wildlife documentaries. A bird or a bee risks its life and health to bring its offspring into the world not to help itself, and certainly not to help its species — the prevailing, lazy thinking of the 1960s, even among luminaries of evolution such as Julian Huxley and Konrad Lorenz — but (uncon- sciously) so that its genes go on. Genes that cause birds and bees to breed survive at the expense of other genes. No other explana- tion makes sense, although some insist that there are other ways to tell the story (see K. Laland et al. Nature 514, 161–164; 2014). What stood out was Dawkins’s radical insistence that the digital information in a gene is effectively immortal and must be the primary unit of selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Alleged Scientific Opposition to Evolution
    Evolution Features Alleged scientific opposition to evolution Nick Matzke (University of California, Berkeley) Biological evolution — descent with modification — became generally accept- from chemical precursors through chemical laws. Explore Evo- ed in the scientific community in the same fashion as all other major theories, lution blithely cites Schwabe as if this bizarre view was a serious i.e. it survived repeated testing against research data. Creationists, especially contender in the scientific community. Schwabe’s most surpris- creationists who support the notion of ‘intelligent design’, are so desperate for ing molecular incongruency was his finding of pig relaxin in this kind of secular credibility that they will trumpet any quote, citation, or scien- tunicates, but this finding has not been replicated in the Ciona tist that can be interpreted or misinterpreted as authoritative dissent from the genome and thus was probably due to contamination. Michael mainstream evolutionary theory. This occurs whether or not the cited authority Denton’s 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis assembled is actually dissenting, or is actually an authority. In an almost automaton-like quote-mines and misunderstandings in support of the conten- Downloaded from http://portlandpress.com/biochemist/article-pdf/31/1/23/4256/bio031010023.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 fashion, creationists compile collections of such ‘authorities’ and deploy them in tion that evolution was about to collapse and be replaced by a an attempt to convince school boards, teachers, students, and eventually judges typological view of biology. For example, Denton thought that that there is scientific ‘controversy’ over evolution. on evolutionary theory, frog sequences should be intermediate between fish and mammal sequences, not realizing that living The most spectacular recent example is a 2007 supplemental textbook for high-school biology fish have been evolving for just as long as living frogs and mam- classes, misleadingly entitled Explore Evolution: the Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism.
    [Show full text]
  • Was Hitler a Darwinian?
    Was Hitler a Darwinian? Robert J. Richards The University of Chicago The Darwinian underpinnings of Nazi racial ideology are patently obvious. Hitler's chapter on "Nation and Race" in Mein Kampf discusses the racial struggle for existence in clear Darwinian terms. Richard Weikart, Historian, Cal. State, Stanislaus1 Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel? Shakespeare, Hamlet, III, 2. 1. Introduction . 1 2. The Issues regarding a Supposed Conceptually Causal Connection . 4 3. Darwinian Theory and Racial Hierarchy . 10 4. The Racial Ideology of Gobineau and Chamberlain . 16 5. Chamberlain and Hitler . 27 6. Mein Kampf . 29 7. Struggle for Existence . 37 8. The Political Sources of Hitler’s Anti-Semitism . 41 9. Ethics and Social Darwinism . 44 10. Was the Biological Community under Hitler Darwinian? . 46 11. Conclusion . 52 1. Introduction Several scholars and many religiously conservative thinkers have recently charged that Hitler’s ideas about race and racial struggle derived from the theories of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), either directly or through intermediate sources. So, for example, the historian Richard Weikart, in his book From Darwin to Hitler (2004), maintains: “No matter how crooked the road was from Darwin to Hitler, clearly Darwinism and eugenics smoothed the path for Nazi ideology, especially for the Nazi 1 Richard Weikart, “Was It Immoral for "Expelled" to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Racism?” (http://www.discovery.org/a/5069.) 1 stress on expansion, war, racial struggle, and racial extermination.”2 In a subsequent book, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress (2009), Weikart argues that Darwin’s “evolutionary ethics drove him [Hitler] to engage in behavior that the rest of us consider abominable.”3 Other critics have also attempted to forge a strong link between Darwin’s theory and Hitler’s biological notions.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Approach to Evolutionary Perspective of Richard Dawkins
    World Journal of Environmental Biosciences All Rights Reserved WJES © 2014 Available Online at: www.environmentaljournals.org Volume 6, Supplementary : 78-82 ISSN 2277- 8047 Critical Approach to Evolutionary Perspective of Richard Dawkins Ghodratollah Shirzadi , Dr.Mahdi Dehbashi Department of Islamic philosophy and kalam, Khorasgan (Isfahan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran ABSTRACT This paper presents an analytical descriptive study to review and criticize the evolutionary perspective of Richard Dawkins. Using his own interpretation of the theory of Darwinian evolution he denies religion, God and other metaphysical beliefs. Dawkins criticism is based on rational approach and it is believed that Dawkins theory suffers from rational methodological weaknesses and lacks adequate explanation needed to prove his claim. He also deals with major proof that acts as a basis for his theory and leads to a vicious circle to prove his theory. Dawkins theory lacks internal consistency because he presents many of its claims including complexity of God's existence without providing any logical proof and merely by considering it as incontrovertible which presents his system’s weakness more than before. Keywords: Dawkins, evolution, denial of God, natural selection, cumulative selection Corresponding author: Alireza Sargolzaei existence, he has rejected them all. The important point in criticism of Dawkins thoughts is that although it is possible to explain the complexities of the universe from the perspective of INTRODUCTION biology, this cannot lead to the denial of the designer and order in the universe. After presenting the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin in History 1859 and its completion by the evolutionary biologists as his It may be thought that Darwin's theory is the first theory that followers, some scholars like Richard Dawkins decided to believes in the evolution of species but this is contrary to fact rejects theism by providing naturalistic and atheistic because this view of the different species existed before Darwin.
    [Show full text]
  • Dawkins's Gambit, Hume's Aroma, and God's Simplicity
    PHILOSOPHIA CHRISTI VOL. 11, NO. 1 © 2009 Dawkins’s Gambit, Hume’s Aroma, and God’s Simplicity ERIK WIELENBERG The editors of a recent anthology on natural theology observe that since the time of David Hume, “the vast majority of philosophical attacks against the rationality of theism have borne an unmistakable Humean aroma.” Hume’s aroma became particularly pungent with the publication of Rich- ard Dawkins’s book The God Delusion in 2006. One of Dawkins’s more well-known remarks is that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”2 In the same paragraph in which he makes that remark, Dawkins credits Hume with effectively criticizing the logic of the design argument, but suggests that Hume’s writings nevertheless would likely leave the atheist feeling “unsatisfied” and that it was only the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species some eighty-three years after Hume’s death that put the atheist at ease. It is somewhat ironic, therefore, that the central atheistic argument of The God Delusion is remarkably similar to an argument advanced by the character Philo in Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. In this paper I analyze the central atheistic argument of The God Delu- sion and expose its Humean roots. It turns out that Dawkins’s argument is a fragment of a more comprehensive critique of the rationality of theism that is ABSTRACT: I examine the central atheistic argument of Richard Dawkins’s book The God De- lusion (“Dawkins’s Gambit”) and illustrate its failure. I further show that Dawkins’s Gambit is a fragment of a more comprehensive critique of theism found in David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring and Understanding Public Opinion on Human Evolution
    Measuring and Understanding Public Opinion on Human Evolution A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science of the College of Arts and Sciences by Misook Gwon, M.A. Political Science, University of Cincinnati December 2012 Committee Chair: Stephen T. Mockabee, PhD ABSTRACT The theory of evolution has long generated controversy in American society, but Americans‘ attitudes about human evolution are often neglected in studies of ―culture wars‖ and the nature of mass belief systems more generally (Berkman and Plutzer 2010; Freeland and Houston 2009). Gallup and other survey organizations have polled about evolution, but offered limited response categories that mask complexity in public opinion (Bishop 2006; Moore 2008). The main problems concerning the leading survey questions about evolution are: first, questions measure only a single dimension, thus they ignore the potential for multidimensionality in people‘s attitudes. Second, depending on question wording and response options, the results of public opinion surveys vary by polling groups. This is an example of measurement error which misleads the interpretation and impression of American public opinion on the origin of humankind. A number of studies have analyzed Americans‘ beliefs about evolution and hypothesized about the influential effects of several factors (Deckman 2002; Mazur 2005; Mooney 2005; Miller et al. 2006; Newport 2006; Forrest 2007; Nisbet and Goidel 2007; Scott 2009). However, there remains a lack of complete understanding of what Americans know and believe about human evolution. Given the salience of this issue and the significant influence of public opinion on policy-making in America (Page and Shapiro 1992; Stimson 2004; Newport 2004), the measurement error and explanation of polling results on controversial issues related to this topic are in need of clarification.
    [Show full text]
  • Objections to Evolution Theory Impulses from the Brain
    But Sammy's transplanted heart began to fail. He was immediately placed on a heart-lung machine. This supplied oxygen and removed carbon dioxide Letters to the Editor from his blood, and it circulated blood through his body. * Brief letters-one or two pages-are more likely to be The doctors consulted bioengineers about Sammy. printed than are long ones, which may be cut. Because almost all of his life-sustaining functions were being carried on by machines, it might be pos- sible to compress all of these machines into one mobile unit, which could be controlled by electrical Objections to Evolution Theory impulses from the brain. This unit would be equip- James T. Robinson, in his article "Incommensura- ped with mechanical arms to enable him to perform bility of Evolution and Special Creation" 33 A (ABT manipulative tasks. mechanism to create a flow of [9]: 535-538,545), said that I do not understand the air over his vocal cords might enable him to speak. nature of the evolution theory. To do all this, they would have to amputate at the In refutation I have analyzed the four recurring neck and attach his head to the machine, which arguments for evolution and find them weak. These would then supply all nutrients to his brain. Sammy are (i) the rock record, (ii) homologies, (iii) extra- Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/34/5/287/40549/4443934.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 consented, and the operation was successfully per- polated mutational data, and (iv) the appeal to formed.
    [Show full text]