Politics with Marc Ambinder

« Abortion Activists Squaring Off Before Senate Health Bill | Main | Faux Rabble-Rousing In Minnesota »

Nov 16 2009, 2:36 pm by Marc Ambinder

Where Palin Fits On The Creation - Evolution Scale

Much more so than abortion, the issue of life's origins wedges itself between the scientifically literate elite and everyone else. No surprise. This is the Big Question, and it has implications for politics: what is humanity? What do we owe each other? From where do we derive our ethics? How do we solve irreconcilable value claims? As evidence for evolution grows, the number of Americans who accept a literal creationist account of human origins has shrunk. Most of these beliefs have been channeled into the "intelligent design" movement, which shares virtually everything with creationism except the name and the implication that macroevolution didn't happen naturally on at least some level. So -- think of public opinion along a line. Very roughly, between 15 and 25%, believe that evolution is a natural process and either know -- or doubt -- that God directed it, and about 75% are willing to acknowledge God's role. Of that 75%, half accept at least some parts of evolutionary theory. The other half is made up of Biblical creationists.

Palin accepts creationism's critique, which is that there is no way that species share a common lineage, or that humans descended from apes, or that terrestrial creatures descended from aquatic creatures.

"But your dad's a science teacher," Schmidt objected. "Yes." "Then you know that science proves evolution," added Schmidt. "Parts of evolution," I said. "But I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt." Schmidt winced and raised his eyebrows. In the dim light, his sunglasses shifted atop his head. I had just dared to mention the C-word: creationism. But I felt I was on solid factual ground.

No, she is not. Evolution, the change over time of species by various unguided (but not always random) selection pressures, is as close to a fact of science as there is. It is as much of a historical fact as the Holocaust. There is plenty of debate within evolutionary science, but with each successive discovery, each new transitional fossil found, each advance in developmental embryology, the case for evolution grows more and more tight. Macroevolution, microevolution, the evolution of complex cellular structures -- there's a lot we don't know, but not a single scientific discovery in recent years can be deemed evidence against the theory of evolution.

Its acceptance in the years after Charles Darwin popularized the concept fundamentally established science as the foundational text of modernism.   Most biological scientists don't believe in God. Those who do, like the new chair of the NIH, Francis S. Collins, are Christian Deists; they accept that "progress" in evolution seems random, but they believe that, somewhere beneath the quarks, the God spark is slowly directing this complicated process - or that God created the laws of the universe in such a way so as to lay favorable conditions for evolution. But they don't reject the evidence.  

Polling evolution is a political act, so it's hard to come up with sensible data. Pew tried, and decided that the best available evidence suggests that about 13% of Americans understand what evolution is, believe that it happened, and it was not directed by God. That corresponds, roughly, to the pool of atheists. When "God" is not mentioned in evolution polls, the number of people who endorse a natural selection process doubles, suggesting that there is a still a stigma in affirming to a pollster that God did not do something -- or that "natural selection" leaves room for God in the gaps.  

The American people are finicky about their creation/evolution debate. Even though a majority of Americans clearly believe at least a thin form of "intelligent design," about a majority staunchly opposes something called "creationism" -- even though it is, in the real world, indistinguishable from creationism in its animating principles and aims. What this means is that Americans accept the chronology of evolution without accepting the science of evolution. Disproving evolution to scientists would mean finding a rabbit fossil in the Burgess Shale. Disproving "intelligent design" to most Americans would mean disproving the existence of God. And Americans aren't willing to give up God. But they're not willing to ignore at least parts of the evidence. Sarah Palin -- she is.

:: Comments (67) :: Share This

Comments (67)

AlchemyToday

"except the name and the implication that macroevolution didn't happen naturally on at least some level"

I don't know that many and certainly not most intelligent design folks would agree that current evidence supports macroevolution. In fact, they often claim to support microevolution (random mutations acquired by adaptation) without support macroevolution (speciation/divergence), claiming that the latter is so improbable as to be impossible.

As far as "the evolution of complex cellular structures" goes, we can't observe this process but can now infer quite a bit about it thanks to genomics. Phylogeny is rather damning proof unless you believe in a God that's out to trick us.

Lastly, you can't disprove intelligent design. That's precisely why it isn't science. You couldn't disprove that heavenly bodies didn't orbit the earth in impossibly complex epicycles either, but I think/hope that a majority of Americans have been persuaded on the merits of heliocentricity.

Buzz Feedback

The Earth is 2,000 years old, Jesus rode dinosaurs like a rodeo cowboy and that's final. Can I get an Amen!

Deborah

Marc, it was good to read you having the same reaction to "But I felt I was on solid factual ground" that I did.

I realized this week that the reason I can't look away from Palin is that she has become the leader of the Know-Nothing strand of conservative politics. So when the AP lists a bunch of lies she has recently told--many of them things she had claimed in the past that had already been discredited--her fans just beam that facts and truth don't matter. What she represents terrifies me.

I wonder which parts of the Theory of Universal Gravitation she's okay with, and which parts she figures don't sound so good so she believes something else?

AlchemyToday (Replying to: Deborah)

The theory of universal gravitation is on shakier ground than the theory of natural selection.

Elvis Elvisberg (Replying to: Deborah)

It is the very model of modern mainstream conservatism-- "I felt I was on solid factual ground." That's not true, of course, but hey, if it feels good, do it! And anyone who suggests otherwise is just part of the gotcha media's bias.

Lon

Palin does come across as a know-nothing here. It is not clear even which facts she sees as supporting her view (or for that matter what her view is, does she think that humans were an act of special creation while the rest of the species evolved? Who knows).

But there are two over simplifications in the above which are problematic.

First, Evolution is a theory it is not a historical fact. This does not minimize its support. It has more support than most historical facts and less than some. But the nature of that support is different in kind than for an historical fact like the Holocaust. That comparison is unfortunate, not because the Holocaust is sactosanct, but rather because the support for it is so different. The same problem would arise if it was claimed it had as much support as the historical fact that Obama is the president.


Second, it is a mistake to equate religious people's acceptance of evolution to Deism. I don't know much about Collins' religion, but nothing in the link provided suggests he is a Deist. I am even more confident that Ernan McMullen, the roman catholic priest/philosopher of science who has defended evolution in religious debates, is not a Deist. Believing that Evolution unfolded without additional miracles in the development of species is not the same as saying that God does not take an active role in the world, and does not perform miracles for other purposes.

Given the negative connotations of Deism to many religious people, it is a mistake to contend that accepting evolution limits ones religious belief to Deism.

vestris (Replying to: Lon)

As a practicing Christian,I agree with you that an acceptance of the theory of evolution does not limit us to a deistic understanding of God. The mistake is to attempt to explain God (who is transcendent) through a framework that is limited to the material world. I accept the mechanism of evolution because the evidence compels me to do so, but at the same time that same evidence in no way compels me to deny the existence of a God whose very transcendence places him/her outside the boundaries of time and space. My reasons for the acceptance of such a God are admittedly experiential, but there we are.

My objection to your post is that there is no binary opposition of "theory" and "fact," as you seem to imply. Or are you simply drawing a distinction between scientific and historical facts? As an historian, I am not comfortable with the implication that the historical record is somehow more verifiable or transparent than the geological record. While it is incontestably true that the Holocaust occurred and that millions of people were murdered in death camps, there is and always will be debate about the exact nature of the mechanisms used to implement the genocide in all of its complexity or the level of complicity of the various individuals and organizations involved in its execution. This is every bit as provisional a process as the study of the fossil record and will be debated and parsed by historians for generations to come.

The problem with your assertion that evolution is a theory and not a "fact," is that theories do not become facts after enough evidence is collected to "prove" them. Theories are explanations that account for what we think we know. The more that facts can be shown to support a given theory, the stronger the theory, but no theory ever becomes a fact, as the creationists maddeningly and consistently suggest.

Lon (Replying to: vestris)

I was making both points with regard to the issue of theories and facts. Supporters of science often seem to make the mistake of thinking that all knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that is silly. As I noted, historical facts can be harder to know and so more open to revision than scientific theories. The Holocaust, because it is so recent and so well documented, happens to be one that is more certainly known than any serious scientific theory. But almost anything we teach about ancient Rome, for example, is probably les well supported than the theory of evolution.

But the post above also buys into the mistake you are talking about in claiming that evolution is a fact. It is a theory, and that is a different kind of thing. I don't see a value to dumbing things down to try to avoid the Creationists being able to make their error of finding significance in the description of evolution as a theory. There will always be scientists who correctly describe evolution as a theory, and trying to mollify creationists by inaccurately describing it as a fact just plays into the creationists hands.

It is not at all a problem with my assertion that evolution is a theory and not a fact that theories do not become facts after enough evidence is collected to prove them, since I never claimed they did. In fact I noted that theories can have more support than facts. It is generally not a good thing to object to accurate characterizations of things on the grounds that they can be misread so that they are inaccurate. Nor is it good to do the misreading oneself.

What I said above is accurate. And it happens to be inconsistent with taking theories to be things that are less well supported than facts. I think we should be able to describe things correctly without twisting our words to avoid misreadings.

BigDawg (Replying to: Lon)

A theory is a model that explains observed facts. No theory can be better supported than a fact. Facts are data. A theory is an interpretation of those facts and can be used to predict the existence of new facts that are not currently known. The Theory of Evolution is so well-supported by the body of facts, it is accepted as "true" by the vast majority of scientists. There is also the fact of evolution. It has been observed in the laboratory and in the wild. Species evolve. The question the theory of evolution attempts to answer is: Why?

I think, from a Christian theological perspective, evolution is completely incompatible. What reason would God have to allow evolution? Why extinctions? If man evolved from an ape-like ancestor at what point did God ensoul this being?

Kochevnik81

"13% of Americans ... corresponds, roughly, to the pool of atheists."

Just wanted to quibble with this. About 15% of Americans have been found to "have no religious affiliation". This does not equal "atheist". The number of self-identifying atheists in the US is supposedly somewhere around 2 million. The rest in the "no affiliation" category would includ, among others: humanists, agnostics, deists (given a shout-out in the post no less!), and those with "no preference".

Just sayin'...

se-rat-o-SAWR-us

she “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.”

Sarah Palin, meet your baby daddies Tiktaalik rosae, who was a fish that sprouted legs, and Ardipithecus, who may have been shaped by sexual selection to walk upright.

We have the fossils, the DNA, and lab evidence. We win. Unless Sarah and her ilk win.

Almatt

Why do you folks think you're so right on evolution? Put another way, how can you be so closed minded?

On every other debate, you criticize conservatives for being haters and know-nothings, but on this one issue, when Sarah says she's keeping an open mind the biggest of all Big Questions, you cover your ears and mock her.

Why do you refuse to hear what she has to say? Why can't you accept that she might be right and you might be wrong?

You "say" that Darwin "proved" she's wrong. But did he? Not to most Real Americans, apparently.

se-rat-o-SAWR-us (Replying to: Almatt)

Face palm. Because all the evidence supports eveolution, and none of the evidence contradicts it. Se we think we're right about evolution just like we think we're right about the germ theory of disease and the spherical earth theory. So yes, Darwin proved that she's wrong on the basis of the evidence. Embracing creationism in the light of the evidence isn't open minded, it's plain stupid.

In the event that you're not actually stupid, but merely ignorant, please read a good book on the subject, such as Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True, before expressing your uninformed opinions.

MAreader (Replying to: Almatt)

Almatt,

What do you mean by that suggestive, suspicious term "Real Americans?" Is it a freudian slip showing that you regularly separate your fellow citizens into "real" and some other category? Be honest with yourself about this usage. (No one is expecting that you'll 'fess up here.) Here's hoping you're practicing lots of and open-mindedness to all of us Americans.

debbieqd (Replying to: Almatt)

Almatt, the Real American,

If you're the only Real American writing here, just who is it that is closed minded?

We evolution believers refuse to hear what Sarah Palin has to say? No, we don't. We simply disagree based on years of scientific evidence. Why can't she (and you) accept THAT?

You (and Sarah Palin) will never be content until every single American citizen believes and becomes exactly what you are. That is the attitude we hold in contempt. Hitler had that same attitude, but you refuse to accept those facts as well.

sj (Replying to: Almatt)

"Why do you refuse to hear what she has to say? Why can't you accept that she might be right and you might be wrong?"

Ok, I'll give Sarah Palin the benefit of the doubt: I'll show her evidence for evolution and she can show me the evidence for creation- best evidence wins. I got Archoepterix, Ardopithicus, and Tiktaalik; what's she got?

"You "say" that Darwin "proved" she's wrong. But did he? Not to most Real Americans, apparently."

I didn't realize that the veractiy of scientific belief rested merely on what "real Aericans" believe. If that's the case, then the sky must be blue because it reflects the ocean (not because of absorption and reflection of light waves). Since I'm not a "real American" my understanding is that science rests on theories based on concrete, observable evidence, not popular opinion.

mgoodfel

Look as a real atheist (not "unaffiliated") who believes in evolution, I'm not on her side. But are you really going to get anywhere with this kind of sneering at 75% of the population?

The Tea Party people are convinced that American is run by elitists who think the denizens of "fly-over country" are morons who should be ignored. This kind of thing just proves them right.

I don't agree with the right wing, but if people treated me that way, I'd join the opposition too.

kadzimiel

Almatt, being openminded requires looking at the evidence and drawing a reasonable conclusion. So far, we have no evidence for Creationism, except a small segment of a religious text - one which is the product of human minds, written over time, not always consistent with itself, and which went through a sifting process at the hands of various religious groups to determine which books should make the final cut.
.
Also, Palin doesn't keep an open mind at all. She is anything but agnostic on creationism. How you managed to find openmindedness in her words is a mystery and a marvel.
.
Sarah Palin has proven herself to be dishonest, malicious and ignorant on many occasions - why should we give her more time to display this unattractive combination of qualities?
.
Whether Americans are real or not hardly affects the issue: is Palin's creationism supported by evidence? The answer is clear that it is not. Your allegedly "real" Americans need to get a life and drag themselves out of pig ignorance. If they choose to burn books rather than reading them, they can hardly be surprised at the negative reactions they inspire.

kadzimiel

mgoodfel, given that the teabaggers are considerably less than 75% of the country, perhaps you shouldn't conflate the two groups?

grrizzly (Replying to: kadzimiel)

A comment without an anti-gay slur would be much more convincing.

kadzimiel (Replying to: grrizzly)

Since when was calling the whackadoodle right "teabaggers" an anti-gay slur? You'll have to try a lot hard than that, my friend.

grrizzly (Replying to: kadzimiel)

Since always. The term would have never become popular if it hadn't been associated with "gross" gay sex. The leftists' abuse of the deeply seated discomfort with gay sex is inexcusable.

kadzimiel (Replying to: kadzimiel)

Poor old grriz, trying to pretend that the tiny minority of teabaggers are the victims of prejudice. Those sleazy bigots deserve all the mockery they get for their lies and thuggish violence. We don't need secessionists and traitors - we need real, patriotic Americans.

grrizzly (Replying to: kadzimiel)

You are the one using homophobic bigotry here by spreading gay-layered innuendo. Shame on you. And shame on Obama for using the same slur.

kadzimiel (Replying to: kadzimiel)

grrizzly, let's just recall one simple fact: the teabaggers began by calling themselves teabaggers and waving around.. yes.. teabags. If you can't deal with their witless stupidity without inventing gay slurs, perhaps you should resume your high school education.

grrizzly (Replying to: kadzimiel)

First, Tea Party activists did not start calling themselves "teabaggers". It's a lie. Also, they didn't engage in thuggish violence, their opponents did.
Second, I understand that you don't mind calling African-Americans n****rs since many of them use the word themselves.

kadzimiel (Replying to: kadzimiel)

Grizzjizz, I see that you are a proud teabagger and an advocate of racist speech. I shall pray that your hate-filled mind be redeemed from the darkness of Satan, and that you find the resources with which to complete your high school education.

grrizzly (Replying to: kadzimiel)

I see. You lost on all points. I take this as a surrender.

Stacy (Replying to: kadzimiel)

grrizzly,

There is nothing homosexual about a teabag. One can easily teabag their wife or girlfriend. Grow up.

Stacy (Replying to: kadzimiel)

"Second, I understand that you don't mind calling African-Americans n****rs since many of them use the word themselves."

This is seriously one of the worst points I've ever read. Are you being serious?

kadzimiel (Replying to: kadzimiel)

Poor grizz, you haven't said a single intelligent thing, and you've tried to use racist language to cover your own ignorance. Now you want to declare Mission Accomplished? Surely you remember what happened to the last rightwing klutz who tried that gambit! Still, I guess your membership of the Ku Klutz Klan is the only spark of hope in your benighted life.

grrizzly (Replying to: kadzimiel)

OMG, I said n****r. I must be a racist KKK member. And I must go directly to the PC hell. My only chance for redemption is to kiss Al Sharpton's ass. I absolutely refuse to use the euphemism "n-word" when I'm comparing this slur to the homophobic slur the left wing uses without a second thought. Your racist-bating tactics will not work on me.

Stacy (Replying to: kadzimiel)

I say it one more time, grrizz. There is nothing homosexual about 'teabagging' someone, unless you do it with someone of the same sex. That's true of many, many, many sexual acts. Grow up.

grrizzly (Replying to: kadzimiel)

Stop patronizing my, Stacy. You reveal a very unpleasant trait of explaining differences of opinion by calling your opponent "uneducated", "ignorant", or in your case not being "grown up".

kadzimiel (Replying to: kadzimiel)

Poor old grizz, you really are as clueless and racist as Palin, aren't you? No wonder you and the teabaggers get along so well!

MAreader (Replying to: kadzimiel)

The left is not using "teabagger" as a slur, but it certainly provides a chuckle considering the other meanings. But really, once the tea party groups started using teabags as a prop, it was inevitable that the term would be used, and used on Fox News, no less. The tea party groups walked right into it. A reasonable person can hardly find it horribly outrageous that this term is used in this context, but Grizz is not letting this go. That says something about him.

Stacy (Replying to: kadzimiel)

Well it's true, Grrizz. You seem really immature if you can't get over the fact that 'teabagging' is something that two gay men CAN do together. Grow up.

grrizzly (Replying to: kadzimiel)

I'm not letting it go, guys, because you're not convincing. I don't have any problem with two gay men "tea bagging" -- I personally find heterosexual sex disgusting. Nonetheless, the vast majority of people have different sensibilities, and the left is brutally exploiting them.

As an aside, I think that CNN's Anderson Cooper was the first to bring the "teabagging" term to the mainstream use. It's very unfortunate that a man in his position has to resort to such a dog whistle to detract attention from suspicions about his sexual orientation.

Now back to the main program. I can play politically correct games better than you. If I say that the term "teabagging" is homophobic then you cannot possibly contradict me unless you're gay yourself. If I find the term offensive, then your claiming that it is not offensive is homophobic bigotry, straight up! Your only legitimate move at this point is to use the help of, say, Chief Queer (that would be an equivalent of Chief Negro), who vouches that "teabagging" is not a homophobic term. The problem is there is no Chief Queer. No, Andrew Sullivan doesn't count.

To sum up, if you're straight you can't possibly argue with my claim that "teabagging" is homophobic. If you do -- you're a homophobic bigot, straight up. All you can do is to sincerely apologize to me. Kissing my ass is optional.

kadzimiel (Replying to: kadzimiel)

grizzly, you are so pathetically unconvincing in your attempt to argue from a politically correct standpoint. But I am glad you and your husband enjoy tea-bagging on an equal opportunity basis. Now, if you work on your basic logic, and get a grip on reality, you might, in about five years, be qualified to discuss matters on blogs like this one. Until then, you will continue to amuse passersby as you rant incoherently on subjects where you are demonstrably ignorant.

think4 (Replying to: kadzimiel)

Grrizz - Griff Jenkins of Fox News first coined the term "teabaggers". (Remember the "news" guy who got caught on camera being their cheerleader rather than reporting the news? That guy.) That's the whole joke: they gave themselves the name.

The idea that the left uses it to describe "gross gay sex" is just plain ignorant. Loving sex between two consenting adults is a beautiful thing...who on earth thinks gay sex is gross except the extreme religious wackos? And stacey is correct - teabagging isn't reserved for homosexuals...but as men are clearly the recipients....

Kadz - you are right, passersby will read that tripe and be saddened by the ignorance. Some of us will sign up just to make the point.

sj (Replying to: grrizzly)

1) I'm gay and I find nothing offensive by calling the teabaggers by their self-given name (except that it gives a bad name to the usual teabaggers).

2) Since when have any of the tea-bagging lot given a a rat's ass about gay people, except to scream hystericaly that they are corrupting the children or threating their own marriage somehow.

grrizzly (Replying to: sj)

sj, you've got your talking points on right-wing movements wrong. The religious right is worried about gays corrupting the children. Tea parties, on the other hand, simply would rather starve the poor and let the sick die without health care.

jb

I am confused....

"But I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt."

That quote right there says what most Americans seems to believe and imposes ID with creationism. If you believe in a higher being who is to say that that higher being did not create the first signs of life, than that being did not create evolutions that brought on further species ending with the most complex and evolved.....

Based on that direct quote I disagree with your total premise that she is outside the realities of modern science. Rather, that quote seems to put her within it.

Joseph (Replying to: jb)

If you don't quote her selectively, Ms. Palin seems to clearly be rejecting some of the most dearly held propositions of the theory of evolution, which are largely accepted by most credible scientists. Ms. Palin is free to believe what she likes but there is nothing mainstream about her scientific views if you're talking about the scientific community and not the rest of the country. Just because a belief is popular doesn't mean it's correct... Americans believe all kinds of nutty things. I'm sticking with Darwin.

mgoodfel (Replying to: Joseph)

This isn't a scientific issue. It's all about the politics. Rejecting evolution is just another cultural marker.

The question in my mind is do you reject the majority of Americans on her side and call them idiots, or do you find a way to address them semi-respectfully?

We all believe a lot of things that probably aren't true, and none of us are using our belief in evolution (or disbelief) on a day to day basis. It has nothing to do with balancing the budget or providing health care, or dealing with global warming.

Why make an issue out of this?

kadzimiel (Replying to: mgoodfel)

You can't get anywhere by pretending that creationism is anything but nonsense. Don't encourage the deluded to think that their delusions are justifiable. Would you give more meth to an addict?

Joseph (Replying to: mgoodfel)

But that's just it. Obviously there's little progress to be made when you resort to name calling, but there are many Americans who willfully reject many of the things science has to say to us, while embracing modern medicine and technology. The idea that anything that doesn't affect our day to day lives in an obvious way isn't worth caring about is strange. The reason why evolution is so hotly contested (and why Palin would take an ambiguous position) is because it undermines religious belief in a significant, philosophical way. It is possible to reconcile a faith in God with an acceptance of evolution, but much harder to take even a slightly literal view of the bible. Evolution directly rejects many of the most fondly held tropes of the bible, and once you start unraveling the knots, well, the whole thing starts falling apart. It's much harder to demonize gay families when Leviticus is just one book of another big book full of things that may, after all, only be fables.

Our culture wars depend on ambiguous understandings of science to stay alive. Our culture wars are what impede balancing the budget, solving the health care problem. I'd wager you're more likely to find creationist hardliners who don't believe in global warming than evolutionary theorists who don't believe in it. There's a huge movement in this country to discredit science and what it has to tell us by falsifying information. Note Ray Comfort's heavily edited version of The Origin of Species he thinks every college student ought to have.

It's important to know how Sarah feels about these things, especially in light of the fact that her father is a science teacher. It's not like she lacks for exposure to information. To think that she still doesn't (or refuses to) get it is just another notch on the headboard indicating her willful ignorance of things that don't suit her adopted world view. Fighting a fear of science is an uphill battle in this country, and it's lousy to see people in leadership positions promulgating false information.

Nutella

Where Ambinder Fits On The Creation - Evolution Scale

He says: The "issue of life's origins" ... "is the Big Question, and it has implications for politics: what is humanity? What do we owe each other? From where do we derive our ethics? How do we solve irreconcilable value claims?"

And: "Most biological scientists don't believe in God. Those who do" ... "are Christian Deists"

This shows us all that Ambinder is completely, totally, and utterly ignorant about evolution, biology, and scientists.

The religious beliefs of biological scientists range from extreme devotion to complete atheism and include everything in between. Why? Because science and religion are not related. Because science tells us about evolution of humans and everything else but says nothing at all about what humans owe each other, about where we derive our ethics, about values. These are not and never have been scientific questions and do not and never will have scientific answers.

Anyone so ignorant about science should not be permitted to opine about it in a respectable national magazine.

Nutella (Replying to: Nutella)

Ambinder's conclusion: 'Disproving "intelligent design" to most Americans would mean disproving the existence of God. And Americans aren't willing to give up God.'

Americans don't have to give up God to embrace science. This is only necessary for those Americans like Ambinder who don't know anything about science or think that religion consists only of creation myths and nothing more.

His position is not just stupid but also dangerous because it justifies and promotes the wedge "between the scientifically literate elite and everyone else".

Stacy (Replying to: Nutella)

"Americans don't have to give up God to embrace science."

Unfortunately, a lot of Americans disagree with you. Otherwise, we wouldn't see such resistance to Darwin's theory of evolution.

Nutella (Replying to: Stacy)

Those are the ones who don't know much about science. And, tragically, they're never going to learn when ignorant fools like Ambinder publish junk like this. The Atlantic should have edited out his egregious errors. He's encouraging a conflict between science and religion that's based on a misunderstanding of science either because he (and his editors) are ignorant or because they like encouraging conflict.

umbrelladoc (Replying to: Stacy)

The theory of evolution is not incompatible with a belief in God or religion. This is a false choice - both creationists and intolerant atheists have been guilty of conflating the two.

Here is my point said more eloquently than I could:

"Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance."

Was this a deist? Hardly. It was Pope Benedict XVI in 2007.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore_en.html


think4 (Replying to: Nutella)

This actually has to do with christians thinking that they can force creationism into the science class as a viable alternative for the theory of evolution.

Creationism/ID are not scientific theories and have no place in science class. Period.

Lon (Replying to: Nutella)

What you are refuting here is not what Ambinder is saying. Ambinder is talking about what people think is involved in disproving intelligent design. He is not claiming that there is an incompatibility between science and religion, he is saying that people see such an incompatibility and it affects how they answer polls.

This seems to be a natural result of the politicization of such issues. And it is a problem that people like Dawkins worsen by combining support for evolution with attacks on religion.

But Ambinder seems to be accurately reflecting what people believe.

Part of the problem is that saying that God guides the process is ambiguous between God doing so in the moment of creation, and God doing so by shaping things over time. The former is not inconsistent with evolution, but the latter is in that it would invalidate much of the evidential support for evolution.

Lon (Replying to: Nutella)

I think that Ambinder is using the term "Christian Deists" wrong. He is taking the idea that God does not intervene in the process of evolution as establishing Deism. But Deists believe that God does not intervene in the world in ways that most Christians, even ones who accept evolution, would think he does. Most obviously most Christians, even scientifically minded ones, believe that God intervened in the world in miraculous ways in giving the world his only begotten son.

But that said, the fact that scientists have a wide range of religious views does not mean that those views are not concentrated towards the non-believing end of the spectrum, as polling suggests they are.

And while it is possible to have religious beliefs that are compatible with science, it is also possible to have religious beliefs that are not. A fundamentalist reading of parts of the Bible is incompatible with science and I am not about to say that that makes it not a religious view. The Catholic belief that there must be a single human from whom all others descend (because of the doctrine of original sin) is one that could turn out to be incompatible with science.

Religion can limit itself so that it cannot overlap with science. But there is a reluctance for actual religions to do so.

Eli

I admit to always having had trouble with how people sort out this difference: if evolution occurs through natural selection, which implies a randomness on par with any other natural physical process, how do theists reconcile this with their respective faiths?

I understand why literalists simply deny it. But what about those with a more "interpretative" perspective?

This appears to be exactly what Palin is hinting at when she says, "I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt."

And how is this any different than what Ambinder describes Collins and other Christian Deists as doing when they "accept that "progress" in evolution seems random, but they believe that, somewhere beneath the quarks, the God spark is slowly directing this complicated process - or that God created the laws of the universe in such a way so as to lay favorable conditions for evolution. But they don't reject the evidence."

These two perspectives seem to be entirely compatible, if not identical.

Joseph (Replying to: Eli)

Again, people are taking issue with the fact that she rejects the idea that humans evolved from an earlier species, or rather; that one species can evolve from another. She qualifies this by saying natural selection, which we can observe in nature, is apparently real. So apparently she believes that species can diversify but that there is no link between different species. Most creationists believe this as well, as it fits neatly into their belief that the earth is 6,000 years old. For Palin to use the word evolution where you quoted her implies she either doesn't actually understand what evolution is, or she's being purposefully misleading. She has completely rejected the most important parts of the theory. It's totally incompatible. You're free to believe in "intelligent" design all you want, or you're free to take a more liberal view of things and accept evolution and the idea that the hand of God is in there somewhere (or not at all if that's your gig) but it seems to me Sarah Palin is rejecting evolution outright while still trying to qualify her statement by saying she believes in natural selection and the diversifying of species, i.e. observational science. She's putting lipstick on the pig, as the saying that seems forever to apply to her goes.

JosephU

Athough the article says:

"Evolution, the change over time of species by various unguided (but not always random) selection pressures, is as close to a fact of science as there is."

On the other hand,
Cutting-edge science tells us:

"- Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.

- The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings.
...
- Many worldwide natural processes indicate an age for the earth of 10,000 years or less. These include population kinetics, influx of radiocarbon into earth’s atmosphere, absence of meteorites from the geologic column, and decay of earth’s magnetic field"

Partial quote from:
What does the Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?
http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm

MAreader (Replying to: JosephU)

Cutting-edge science? Hah! Science is based on observation of nature first and foremost, and lots of it, without the constraints of a particular dogma. The overwhelming evidence available to the UNBIASED observer is that the earth is hugely old. But that wouldn't include you, because you start from the premise that the Genesis story is objectively true, and then look for slivers of evidence, ignoring the mass of evidence that is contrary. Not very scientific, so please don't pretend otherwise.

BigDawg (Replying to: JosephU)

"- Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life."

Who passed this "law"? There is no such "law" in science.

Anyway, this is beside the point. The theory of evolution doesn't address abiogenesis at all. Nada. No where. That's a completely separate field of study.

"- The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings."

So when a gene duplicates itself and is inserted in the genome and then undergoes separate mutation this doesn't increase the total information in the genome? I think you don't know what the f**k you are talking about.

"- Many worldwide natural processes indicate an age for the earth of 10,000 years or less. These include population kinetics, influx of radiocarbon into earth’s atmosphere, absence of meteorites from the geologic column, and decay of earth’s magnetic field"

They indicate an age less than 10,000 years if that's what you a priori believe. Of course to those who actually know something about the matter, this is simply wildly erroneous.


MAreader

Oh Grrizz,

Your rules for argumentation are quite arcane (who can say what, with or without being homophobic, and with apologies owed and ass-kissing). But obviously you have won...in your own mind. Thanks for all the chuckles. Will there be more? I think a bunch of readers have been enjoying these exchanges.

Grabski

is as close to a fact of science as there is
..

Except that it has never been observed in nature. And that it can not be replicated by definition in a lab (since that would only be proof of intelligent design) And that you can not make an ex ante prediction of which change will come from what mutation. And that there is still conjecture about the speed of evolution.

Except for that it's close to being a fact.

BigDawg (Replying to: Grabski)

>
Except that it has never been observed in nature.

Except it has.

>
And that it can not be replicated by definition in a lab

Except it can and it has.

>
And that you can not make an ex ante prediction of which change will come from what mutation.

The theory of natural selection is not predicated on mutations. The theory predicts that there must be a mechanism that provides variation in offspring. Guess what? That prediction was proved true.

The fact that a prediction of which change will come from a particular mutation cannot be made is a creationist straw man.

>
...conjecture about the speed of evolution.

No there isn't. The speed of evolution is variable. This has been known for a long time.

>
Except for that it's close to being a fact.

Of course, even if you were close to being right about these "deficiencies" of the theory of evolution it would move you no closer to demonstrating creationism.

sv

This is stupid. You cannot begin to understand this topic with a binary telephone poll. Polls are mostly bunk. Most people believe in God *and* acknowledge the facts of the science of evolution; throwing out 'intelligent design' does *not* mean throwing out faith in God. Believing in God means believing in something extra-rational, something that's sort of ineffable, like the paradox of an all-knowing, omnipotent, benevolent God who answers our prayers taken together with free will. The idea of a system, natural evolution, which 'designs itself' but still exhibits the will of God is the same type of apparent paradox. I'll admit it isn't something I can wrap my head around.

BigDawg

"Grizz: I'm not letting it go, guys, because you're not convincing. I don't have any problem with two gay men "tea bagging" -- I personally find heterosexual sex disgusting. Nonetheless, the vast majority of people have different sensibilities, and the left is brutally exploiting them."

My irony meter just shattered into a billion pieces.

Robert Crowther

Mr. Ambinder is misinformed (not surprising, since his compatriots in the MSM have been misinforming the public on the issue for years). There are distinct differences between creationism and intelligent design. See the definition at www.intelligentdesign.org and you will see right away that it is remarkably different from creationism of any stripe.

He might do well to read up on atheists -- yes, godless atheists -- who are ID advocates like Dr. Bradley Monton, or at least ID friendly like Thomas Nagel. Myself, I'm an agnostic, one of the least religious (alhtough not anti-religious) people you'll find. I don't care to be labled as a creationist or in any way biblical.

Ambinder, like so many writers, is simply regurgitating what he's heard from dogmatic Darwinists, the party line that will safely keep the cocktail party invites flowing. How perfectly blasé. Yawn.

Larry Linn

What is all of this debate about. Sahra Palin is living evidence that human beings have not evolved. Just read and listed to logic (?).