I should know better, but the results of this survey are shocking to me. 45% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form just 10,000 years ago. Forty-five percent! In another question, 35% answered that they believed Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was not well supported by the evidence.
Who are these people, and how can they be so blind to science? I’m not preaching atheism here–not by a long shot. It’s entirely possible to believe in a Christian God and accept Darwin’s theories (Darwin himself being a case in point). I’ve tried, but I’ve never found a satisfactory scientific explanation from the Creationists on the planet’s apparent age.
On a related note, if you didn’t read Wired’s insightful article on Intelligent Design, you should. Speaking as a marketing professional, it’s just a new, more socially-acceptable spin on Creationism, but it’s apparently making real inroads in the States.
UPDATE: On another related note, here are some amusing alternative textbook stickers.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
With regard to Christianity and Darwinism being compatible, I agree.
However, with regard to Intelligent Design being a “new, more socially-acceptable spin on Creationism”, I must respectfully disagree. Intelligent Design, as I understand it, is “creationist” in the sense that it believes that there is an intelligent mind (i.e. “creator”) behind the universe (hence the name: the universe has the appearance of design, which implies intelligence). It is not creationist in the sense of believing in a young earth and a literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis (i.e. a literal seven day creation).
In fact, the Intelligent Design theorists I have heard about are all experts in their field (be it astronomy, biology, biochemistry), not necessarily Christians, and believe in an old earth and universe (billions of years, or whatever the number is) and the big bang, etc.
Where Intelligent Design theorists are different is that they think that chance and natural selection (the basics of Darwinian evolution) cannot adequately explain many of the scientific discoveries that have been made in the last 50 or so years.
My two cents, anyway. I’m on my lunch break, so I haven’t had a chance to read the article, but I will when I get a chance.
Didn’t you know, the Earth is just a big computer program, run by mice.
Marc: Thanks for your comments. In truth, pretty much all I know about Intelligent Design I learned from that Wired article, so I’m no expert. I probably should have clarified what I meant when I said “more socially-acceptable spin on Creationism”.
I’d say you’ve correctly defined the theory of Intelligent Design. However, theory aside, Intelligent Design represents a strategy for putting Creationist (and Creationist-type) ideas on the national agenda. The Wired article describes this approach in some detail, and is worth reading.
From that article: “But scientists aren’t buying it. What Meyer [a ID advocate] calls ‘biology for the information age,’ they call creationism in a lab coat. ID’s core scientific principles – laid out in the mid-1990s by a biochemist and a mathematician – have been thoroughly dismissed on the grounds that Darwin’s theories can account for complexity, that ID relies on misunderstandings of evolution and flimsy probability calculations, and that it proposes no testable explanations.”
Another quote: “Ultimately, they have an evangelical Christian message that they want to push,” says Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at Florida State. “Intelligent design is the hook.”
And a third: “They have not been able to convince even a tiny amount of the scientific community,” says Ken Miller [an ID opponent]. “They have not been able to win the marketplace of ideas.”
Interesting article. I am by no means an ID expert. Neither am I exceedingly knowledgeable about science in general. Just as your knowledge of ID is limited by the Wired article, mine finds its source mostly among those “pushing the evangelical message”.
What I find irritating about the discussion along these lines is the suggestion that ID theorists have an agenda whereas neo-Darwinists are completely objective. Clearly everyone has a bias of some sort. The implication of the Wired article was that ID theory was laughable–“scientists aren’t buying [ID theory]” says one opponent, implying of course, that despite having doctorates in relevant fields, ID theorists are not scientists.
“[ID] proposes no testable explanations”–ID theorists would argue that Darwinian theories are also difficult, if not impossible to test.
Anyway, sorry for rambling on about this. I tend to get a little testy at the suggestion that someone has a completely objective worldview.
Anyway, if Darwinism and Christianity (or other religions) are, in fact, compatible (as you and I both believe), at some point some level of ID theory will come into play. Purely materialistic/naturalistic Darwinism has no room for God.
(By the way, this isn’t supposed to be a hostile comment. I’m not trying to start a debate!)
This quote in particular bothered me:
“An exasperated Krauss claims that a truly representative debate would have had 10,000 pro-evolution scientists against two Discovery executives. “What these people want is for there to be a debate,” says Krauss. “People in the audience say, Hey, these people sound reasonable. They argue, ‘People have different opinions, we should present those opinions in school.’ That is nonsense. Some people have opinions that the Holocaust never happened, but we don’t teach that in history.”
My question is, how is this any different for purely materialistic evolution? The public is generally fairly ignorant about science (I include myself in there), and thereby quite fickle and prone to agree with anyone that sounds “reasonable”, and that includes Darwinists.
Of course, that the holocaust did not happen is not a “reasonable” position. The same cannot be categorically said about Intelligent Design.
The education system should do more to explain what a scientific theory is. I find that Creationists think that the theory of evolution is “just a theory”, as in something Darwin whipped up one night. The lay use of “theory” causes confusion for many people, who don’t understand that a theory is a system of accepted principles and rules of procedure that can analyze, predict and explain a phenomenom.
Marc: “Reasonable” is a relative term. Therefore, while persons A through Y may not perceive Holocaust deniers as reasonable, person Z may.
By the same token, I could make a pretty sound argument for or against the reasonableness of Intelligent Design. I’d be harder pressed to make a case against the reasonableness of Darwinism. Clearly, in our society (and specifically in our schools), a theory has to reach a commonly-accepted level of reasonableness to gain approval. You think that’s the case with Intelligent Design. I’d have to read some more, but I’m not so sure.
Fair enough. But this leads me to this question: Who decides the ‘commonly-accepted level of reasonableness’? The ‘experts’? Which ‘experts’? It is presupposed that the scientists with an atheistic/materialistic worldview will have a more accurate position. Why is this?
I’m not a scientist, so I’m not qualified to debate the finer points of science–my concern is a philosophical one. Materialism is not, as far as I know, a proven fact (and neither is God, for that matter), and yet materialism always wins the day. It is simply presupposed. As such, any position that suggests otherwise, even if this position is working with the same material and scientific discoveries as that of the materialist, is considered not just inferior but, in fact, fallacious.
I find it difficult to believe that any theory that deals with the ultimate origin of life, the universe and everything can be anything other than a matter of faith, be it theism, materialism or otherwise.
The best site I’m aware of for general discussion of Intelligent Design from the evolutionary-theory-supporter perspective is Panda’s Thumb. For links to hardcore ID debunking, see antievolution.org and talkorigins.org.
One thing to be aware of with ID is that they aren’t offering anything in terms of a scientific (i.e., provable/falsifiable) theory, and mostly seem to be about throwing spitballs at evolutionary theory, really. That this annoys scientists working in the field sometimes shows through in criticisms of ID. (e.g.)
Thanks. I’ll check them out.
Darren, at the risk of making myself unpopular… what are your criteria for determining that belief in creationism is bad, while belief in The Christian God is not? I don’t think, on the basis of scientific evidence, that you can say that one belief is actually worse, or more or less justifiable than the other.
You know what, this one has me scratching my head, not least because I myself think that faith is kind of OK, despite being an atheist myself, but creationists are basically retarded. But I cannot honestly say I have a reasonable basis for making that judgement.
Mark: I disagree that I can’t differentiate based on science. There’s plenty of evidence that supports the idea that humans have been here for more than 10,000 years (and sundry other historical, geographical and geological phenomenon that Creationists deny). On the other hand, there’s little or no scientific evidence to disprove the existence of God.
More generally, believing in God is an act of faith. Believing in Creationism requires that the science agree with you.
Science requires analysis of evidence and the outcomes of experiments. For those outcomes to be accepted, others must be able to replicate the study under the same conditions. The theory of evolution is based on the study of systematics, novel traits, dinosaur discoveries, and vertebrate flight.
A scientific theory must accurately describe a large group of observations on the basis of a model. It must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. No one needs to decide that a theory is true, although the scientific community will not accept a theory until it has been replicated and tested. The scientific community is willing to accept changes to the theory, although the original theory and its original conditions will still stand. New theories simply show how the theory can be applied to other conditions.
I should note that Darwin’s original theories do not sum up all of evolutionary science. Darwin only presented natural selection — he didn’t explain how traits were passed along. Mendel took up that study, although it wasn’t accepted at the time.
Darren,
For sure, there is no scientific evidence – nor will there ever be – that a God categorically does not exist. For that reason my atheism is no less an act of faith than an agnostic’s belief in God.
But we’re not talking about agnostics here: my understanding is that currently – unless things have changed a lot since my church school days in the 1970s – belief in The Christian God requires a literal belief in virgin birth and resurrection.
From my point of view, this requires no less disagreement with scientific evidence than a belief in creationism. But for some reason I am still prepared to cut those people a lot more slack. Maybe it’s just for an easy life, maybe I’m happy to see people approach reality one step at a time, I dunno : )
BTW, before someone quotes dictionary.com at me – I seriously misused the term “agnostic” in my previous post. Really, an agnostic is an “I don’t know”. What I was trying to differentiate between is people who believe there is a God, and people who say they believe in the Christian God. I think I will stop now before I dig any deeper.
Coincidentally, the headline on the latest issue of National Geographic is “Was Darwin wrong?” I snatched it up immediately. I suspect that the answer will be “No”. I look forward to reading it (this will be the first NG article I have ever read, after years of just looking at the pictures).
(Another selling point: a free map of Earth at night)
Well, let me just lower the discussion’s intellectual level here and mention Pheobe from Friends. She challenges evolutionary theory by pointing out other scientific ideas that have proved wrong, and then (if I remember correctly) posits that maybe aliens put the bones there. I personally like the program run by mice idea. Or maybe we’re all in the Matrix.
I think part of the problem between science & everybody else is that science keeps rejecting mythology: from “turtles all the way down” to Gaia to The Night of Brahmin to Christian Creationism. Obviously Evolution fits the available data best. However, it doesn’t seem to sate some mythological *need* in many people; and science often seems untrustworthy to someone getting their dose from the blurbs in mags and papers – available data has been known to shift.
As long as science lauds itself as the only way of knowing truth, it can’t live comfortably in a world of mythos and spiritual striving. The problem is two groups of people who have the “ultimate” truth. Dangerous. Land war in Asia dangerous!
As for not understanding Creationism, it’s a simple logic puzzle that makes perfect sense given basic premises:
Accept: There is a God who is omnipotent.
Accept: The Bible’s description is literal.
It’s not hard with these premises to say that God created a world complete with Carbon Dating and Math Systems and Dinosaur Bones. Dude’s omnipotent, man.
You sound like you can accept the first but not the second premise. Some can’t accept either. Some accept both. They’re basic givens, though. Like !(a & !a). Like a * 1 = a. They’re the basis of a system. Science comes from humans. Myth comes from humans. Humans are flawed. Everybody’s wrong. Yay!
(( Also plus: for those of us who love Mendel, we’re happy to state that Darwin was wrong, at least in terms of mutation. Didn’t get the genetics thing pat.))
There is, of course, a middle ground, of sorts. Not all Christians read Genesis 1 literally. See “http://www.stimulus.org.nz/index_files/Stim12_4RikkWatts.pdf “>Making Sense of Genesis 1”
I noticed, as Marc did, the National Geographic cover “Was Darwin Wrong ?” Those dudes are just as marketing-clever as the rest of them. I picked up the magazine at the shelf in the store, turned to the article and started reading. It only took 2 paragraphs for them to state … clearly and directly .. that there has never been more evidence than at the present that Darwin was RIGHT … they just want the creationists to buy the magazine.
It also had the amazing stat that there have never ever been less than about 44% (if I remember correctly) of people in the US that believe in Creationism … never LESS than 44%. Wow.
To be fair, the poll also showed that 37% of those interviewed were satisfied with the compatibility of Darwinism and theism.
Interestingly, National Geographic frames the positions this way: “No less than 45%” don’t believe in a young (10,000 years or so) vs. “Only 37%” (emphasis mine). I’m not a statistician, but 8% isn’t a huge difference, is it?