The Public and Evolution

Eric Kleefeld is shocked to see 47.1 percent of the vote in the Iowa Straw Poll going to avowed creationists: "And we trust these same Republican activists to run the Iowa caucus, where they'll pick the man who could be the next president?"

I'm consistently taken aback by how unaware people are of the popularity of creationism. The data is a murky, but Wikipedia has a good discussion of the subject and all evidence indicates that there are tons of creationists in the United States: "A 2005 Pew Research Center poll found that 70 percent of evangelical Christians felt that living organisms have not changed since their creation, but only 31% of Catholics and 32 percent of mainline Protestants had the same opinion. A 2005 Harris Poll estimated that 63 percent of liberals and 37 percent of conservatives agreed that humans and other primates have a common ancestry."

Gallup polled on this in June 2007 and asked how people felt about "Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." 39 percent said it was "definitely true" with a further 27 percent volunteering that it's probably true. You just need to remember that a majority of people believe in ESP and in UFO coverups. Thanks to Google, one can spend hours freaking oneself out about this sort of thing, but we mostly seem to muddle through.

Comments

Deja vu.

Posted by Freddie | August 13, 2007 8:28 AM

Well, an article of faith is an article of faith.

Posted by MattF | August 13, 2007 8:33 AM

Well, an article of faith is an article of faith.

It's not an article of faith. It's just fear and ignorance. Don't elevate it to something principled.

Posted by Bill | August 13, 2007 8:50 AM

"Well, an article of faith is an article of faith.

It's not an article of faith. It's just fear and ignorance. Don't elevate it to something principled."

It's a joke, son. If a tautology elevates your principles, you've got a problem.

Posted by MattF | August 13, 2007 9:03 AM

One guy's joke is another's badge of honor, in this case.

Posted by Bill | August 13, 2007 9:05 AM

Japan used to have a Grade Four science text which taught that the difference between a rocket and a jet was that a jet could push against the air, while a rocket operated on Newtonian principles.

I got myself elected to the Nishi-Ogikubo School Board and then waltzed into the Ministry of Education waving this nonsense in the air and screaming, and everybody bowed and gave me tea and said that the text would be taken off the market toot sweet, which it was.

Now if this had been Kansas or Iowa or some such bizarre place, I assume that they would have branded me an atheistic Communist and made the Atmospheric-Push Theory compulsory at all levels up through the engineering department of the local land grant college.


.

Posted by David Lloyd-Jones | August 13, 2007 9:11 AM

It's not an article of faith. It's just fear and ignorance. Don't elevate it to something principled.

I don't think it's "elevating" anything to call a belief in creationism an article of faith. Especially when it really is an article of faith.
The fact that it's an article of faith is exactly why it's so impossible to change creationists opinions, and why the creationist movement will never, ever stop trying to push their faith into schools.

Posted by gorillagogo | August 13, 2007 9:14 AM

There are multiple issues here that need to be separated:

1) Issue 1: That some people have religious beliefs that are matters of faith --i.e., are not based upon scientific evidence -- becomes an issue only when such people want to use the power of the state to ENFORCE those beliefs on others in a fanatical way. To force children in science class to learn junk science, for example.

This problem here is not even one of religion -- St Augustine noted circa 500 AD?? that if one's interpretation of the Bible conflicts with what one sees in reality, then the problem likely lies with the all too fallible person.

We should not allow people to use religion to enforce their own ignorance or prejudices.

Posted by Don Williams | August 13, 2007 9:20 AM

2) Issue 2:
That some Presidential candidates are creationists is a problem because we have already seen the disasters that occur when you have a President who conducts "faith-based" foreign policy. WHo just knew (or claimed to know ) those nukes were in Iraq.

The creationist candidates should be cross-examined on this. I can understand someone saying that he has not had the time or inclination to examine the scientific evidence-- and hence has no opinion on the subject.

But I think someone who claims to have examined the subject and who rejects physical evidence in favor of "gut feeling" is not someone who should be trusted with nuclear weapons and the power to destroy the world. I think that should be a major question raised in Presidential debates.

Something along the lines of :
"Sir, you've stated you are a creationist. Which means you've rejected a large amount of physical evidence in favor of trusting your gut feeling. Would you use this approach when making decisions re war as Commander in Chief? Would you, for example, launch nuclear weapons even if the physical evidence suggested someone is not an enemy or that other options to solve a conflict were possible?"

Posted by Don Williams | August 13, 2007 9:21 AM

Yes, we mostly seem to "muddle through" with a superstitious and egregiously scientifically illiterate public exercising democratic sovereign control over an empire whose might is based on modern technology and scientific enlightenment.

Just like the way the New Orleans levee system "muddled through" despite being chronically undermaintained.

Systems like this always "muddle through" until... suddenly they don't.

Posted by moron | August 13, 2007 9:30 AM

I agree with your larger point Don, but as soon as you substitute the phrase "gut feeling" for "belief" or "faith" I think you're guaranteeing the candidate will respond that "faith is more than just a gut feeling" rather than actually answering the question.

Posted by gorillagogo | August 13, 2007 9:33 AM

What percentage of lefties believes in evolution, but doesn't believe that evolution has had any effect on the divergence of human races over the last 60,000 years, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? At least a creationist is trying to remain loyal to a religious faith in blinding himself to reality; what faith are lefties trying to remain loyal to?

It's rather ironic to see lefties mock creationists for ignoring the blindingly obvious evidence of evolution, while lefties ignore the blindingly obvious evidence of human biodiversity.

Posted by Harry | August 13, 2007 10:03 AM

Issue 3 is: "What should be the criteria for electing someone to be President, why doesn't the news media acknowledge those criteria, and why aren't our candidates measured against those criteria?"

1) As a strawman, I would suggest a candidate for President should have the following qualities:

a) A HISTORY showing an ability to make good decisions and to reason well

b) A HISTORY of success in EXECUTIVE positions -- where the candidate was a leader with ultimate responsibility for the success or failure of the organization he was leading

c) Wide knowledge of the world, but with an ability to identify the important matters and to disregard the trivial and nonessential. Someone who tells you something you did not know but tells you tersely.

d) Someone, above all, who is devoted to all the citizens of this country, who thinks wealth and privilege should entail responsibility, and who will fight special interests who place their agendas above the national interest.

2) Given the above, it is deeply hilarious for Hillary CLinton supporters on the left to criticize religious creationists for "irrational beliefs" and "faith unsupported by evidence".

Posted by Don Williams | August 13, 2007 10:13 AM

In fairness, the evidence for the "blindingly obvious" differences between people that you are alluding to (I assume you are talking about intelligence and not skin color?) is orders of magnitude weaker than the evidence for evolution in general.

Also, I think most lefties these days believe in the scientific method, and will accept the conclusions that come from it, once the dust settles.

Posted by Jim W | August 13, 2007 10:18 AM

What percentage of lefties believes in evolution, but doesn't believe that evolution has had any effect on the divergence of human races over the last 60,000 years, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Harry, you loon, if you think that, it's because you are ignorant of the evidence.

Posted by rea | August 13, 2007 10:21 AM

Folks believe in a wide range of faith.

Fine.

I have no problem with allowing anyone to believe whatever they wish.

That also means no one should ever try to impose their faith on another.

NO ONE.

If some think we should include their *faith(s)* in our general populace school systems, then they will have to allow ALL *faith(s)*...satanism, atheism, voo-doo, on and on.

The founders were smart cookies. Fortify the wall between church and state.

Posted by G Davis | August 13, 2007 10:43 AM

Re "If some think we should include their *faith(s)* in our general populace school systems, then they will have to allow ALL *faith(s)*...satanism, atheism, voo-doo, on and on."
-------
1) Exactly. In my opinion, some of the evangelicals are violating the Commandment against lying in their political lobbying. They argue, for instance, that the Pledge of Allegiance's reference to "One nation under God" (developed circa 1950s) does not refer to the Christian God -- but to the universal deity that most religions believe in.

2) The way to cut through their crap is to ask them -- and their children -- to cite the Pledge of Allegiance with the following clause:

"And to the Republic for which it stands,
One nation, under ALLAH, with liberty and justice for all"

3) Inform them that subsequent weeks will have the Pledge being said with the phrase
"One nation, under VISHNU, with ..."

and that they and their children will be asked to state the Pledge with those terms

4) See how long they want to push for religion in the schools if it is other religions/Gods which their children will be citing.

5) Which is why sincerely religious people -- vice political con artists singing for their supper -- defend the separation of state and church.

Because to allow the State to specify religious acts is to allow the massive power of the State to be used to coerce true believers into Blasphemy.

Posted by Don Williams | August 13, 2007 11:11 AM

Re Don Williams

Much as it pains me, I have to agree with Mr. Williams. As another example, it will be recalled that candidate Ronald Reagan in 1980 not only denied the theory of evolution but also claimed that many scientists were also questioning the theory. I have always maintained that one could have predicted a scenario such as Iran/Contra from his response. Thus Mr. Reagan not only rejected expert opinion but also maintained that expert opinion agreed with his notions.

Posted by SLC | August 13, 2007 11:22 AM

"What percentage of lefties believes in evolution, but doesn't believe that evolution has had any effect on the divergence of human races over the last 60,000 years, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? At least a creationist is trying to remain loyal to a religious faith in blinding himself to reality; what faith are lefties trying to remain loyal to?

It's rather ironic to see lefties mock creationists for ignoring the blindingly obvious evidence of evolution, while lefties ignore the blindingly obvious evidence of human biodiversity."

What really are you referring to here? The Bell Curve, which was an embarrassment to the statistics field and whose funders had connection to German Nazis? I think liberals tend to recognize that black people and white people look different. However, if you're claiming that some bs like black people are genetically dumber or something, you really don't know what science is.

Posted by Reality Man | August 13, 2007 12:27 PM

Even scarier: upwards of 100% of the votes were cast for Republicans. Clearly these voters can't be trusted with picking the next president.

Posted by phil | August 13, 2007 12:48 PM

I'm continually taken aback by how unaware people are that much of the Republican base is nuts. Look at the declared field - Ron Paul is by far the sanest candidate. That should tell you something.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | August 13, 2007 1:11 PM

Don Williams:
a candidate for President should have the following qualities:

So you're still holding out for Wes Clark or Al Gore or Howard Dean or Mark Warner to decide to run? I'm sorry to inform you that is very unlikely. We're stuck with the offal we've got.

Posted by Adult | August 13, 2007 1:28 PM

From the 2006 General Social Survey:

Percent who think the sun goes around the earth

American Indians 33.8%
Blacks 24.5
Mexicans 24.1
Italians 21.8
Germans 21.8

USA 19.2

Irish 16.2
English/Welsh 12.6
Scots 4.0

Men 15%
Women 24%

http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2007/07/whoo-ee-only-geek-like-me-would-be-this.html

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 13, 2007 1:32 PM

"A Private Universe"

The video from the late 1980s of graduates at the Harvard U. commencement explaining why it's hotter in summer than winter (because the Earth is closer to the sun!) is available online for free here -- click on the VoD symbol in the upper right corner.
http://www.learner.org/resources/series28.html?pop=yes&vodid=39449&pid=9#

To be precise, it appears that 21 of 23 randomly interviewed Harvard graduates, professors, or alumni got wrong at least one of two astronomical questions (Why are there seasons? and Why are there phases of the moon? Because the Earth's shadow falls on the moon!)

One thing you'll note from the video is that the Harvard grads sound much, much more confident in their wrong answers than the working class kids at the local high school. I guess that's the Harvard Edge!

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 13, 2007 1:35 PM

Wow, looks like the Anti-Copernicus League has really stepped up their membership drive.

Posted by gorillagogo | August 13, 2007 1:35 PM

Well, Oxford graduate Thomas Friedman has put out a book claiming the Earth is flat.

Maybe that's what happened to Bin Laden -- he fell off the edge?

Posted by Don Williams | August 13, 2007 1:43 PM

Just remember that in a 2001 survey, the National Science Foundation found that only 75% of American adults answered that the Earth goes around the Sun. And an unknown share of responses (correct and incorrect) were certainly guesses. If it makes you feel better, in Europe the share of correct answers was in the high 60s. Many, many people just don't know much of anything, because, frankly, they don't need to. Interestingly, though, half the respondents in that survey answered that 'human beings ... developed form earlier species.' And 80% knew about and believed in continental drift. Go figure.

Posted by DCBob | August 13, 2007 1:50 PM

Actually, we scientific types are quite willing to believe in evidence for evolution causing differences between different populations. But it has to be real evidence.

The ability of North European population groups to handle lactose even after adulthood vs. the difficulty of other populations to do so, for example.

But "intelligence"? Or "sports ability"? First of all, these are far more complex attributes to even define as opposed to the ability to digest lactose. Good luck even writing a consistent definition that makes sense. Second, good luck untangling the genetic effects from social and environmental ones. A small discrepancy in measurements means absolutely zilch if your error bars run the length of the page.

Funny how those wildly screaming about "differences between races" never understand error bars....

Posted by grumpy realist | August 13, 2007 2:01 PM

Re "Funny how those wildly screaming about "differences between races" never understand error bars...."
-----
Actually, I'm not sure natural selection is working any longer on the human race because of our cultural constructs. Institutions which ensure morons (e.g., George W Bush) are protected from their mistakes and not only survive but pass stupidity genes on to their young.

Certainly, the Washington DC environment selects more for butt-kissing sycophancy, a talent for plausible deceit, and amoral corruption rather than for intelligence and competence. Just look at the heroic technical means used to ensure Dick Cheney's genes are passed on.

It also seems to me that many highly intelligent people have few to no children -- whereas some of the not so bright breed like rabbits. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20134584/

I suspect Charles Darwin was making a sly joke when he wrote "The DESCENT of Man". In 200 years, we'll be working for the chimpanezes.

Posted by Don Williams | August 13, 2007 2:31 PM

In each of the last 6 Olympics, back through 1984, the eight finalists in the race to determine the World's Fastest Man, the men's 100m dash, have been blacks of primarily West African descent. That's 48 out of 48. Yet, West Africans and their diaspora make up less than 1/10th of the world's populations.

You do the error bars on th likelihood of that happening by chance!

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 13, 2007 2:33 PM

My cat chimes in to point out that I clean HIS litterbox -- not the reverse.

Posted by Don Williams | August 13, 2007 2:34 PM

"However, if you're claiming that some bs like black people are genetically dumber or something..."

Why would you think black people are "genetically dumber or something"?

Posted by Harry | August 13, 2007 2:35 PM

Similarly, Kenyans have won the 3000m steeplechase running race in every Olympics Kenya hasn't boycotted since 1968. Most, if not all, of those Kenyans belonged to a single tribe, the Kalenjin, who make up about 10% of the population of the country.

The Kalenjin win something like 1/4th of all the medals in world distance running despite being only 1/2000th of the world's population.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 13, 2007 2:46 PM

Re: Liberal creationism ...

The evidence that the modern human species has continued to evolve since exiting Africa 50,000 years ago is staring you in the face everywhere, but the hallmark of the sophisticated liberal intellectual is to take pride in being oblivious to the obvious.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 13, 2007 2:50 PM

Those Olympics stats are compelling, Steve, but "good luck untangling the genetic effects from social and environmental ones."

Posted by Harry | August 13, 2007 3:01 PM

Re "the hallmark of the sophisticated liberal intellectual is to take pride in being oblivious to the obvious."
----------
What's "obvious" is that being born in the USA vice being born is Rwanda gives you greater likelihood of your genes being passed on -- irregardless of how damm fast you can run. Our accumulated "wealth" --in multiple dimensions -- is greater. That's a cultural construct. Preserved not by wise men but by computer databases, infrastructure, capital base and libraries.

Being born rich is even better. It's certainly saved George W's ass on multiple occasions.

Plus its difficult to determine what gives one a "survival advantage". Being fleet of foot may be useful in some criminal enterprises, for example, but not in others. Just look at Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. Just so long as they can outrun "Scooter" Libby and Duke Cunningham, they're fine.

A vaguely defined trait called "intelligence" is supposedly of value -- but many with this trait aren't ..er..very bright. WHich may explain why so many of our self-maded billionaires are college dropouts who layoff/discard college PhDs like toilet paper. Ask the women you know who they would prefer to marry, given a choice.

Posted by Don Williams | August 13, 2007 3:06 PM

PS CHeck out Jared Diamond's "Guns , Germs and Steel". He makes a strong case that European descendants climbed to the top of the global food chain more from disease resistance -- picked up from sleeping with farm animals -- than because they are the next Master Race.

Posted by Don Williams | August 13, 2007 3:10 PM

Needless to say, women probably rank "blogging ability" WAY down on the list of desired Darwinian traits.

Posted by Don Williams | August 13, 2007 3:15 PM

Untangling isn't very hard -- running is something that everybody all over the world tries as a kid. You can make decent money at it if you have tons of natural talent. Indeed, sprinting is probably the easiest sport in the world in terms of how much you have to work out. For example, when Carl Lewis won four gold medals at the 1984 Olympics, his training regimen consisted of working out eight hours per ... week.

The old Communist regimes put enormous effort into sprinting, having huge success with women, where a given amount of steroids produces more bang for the buck because women only average about 1/10th as much natural testosterone. But, after Valery Borzov's gold medal in 1972, they never accomplished much else in men's sprinting, where blacks of West African descent continued to dominate.

The last time I checked, around 2004, men had run 100m in less than 10.00 seconds about 600 times since it was first done at the 1968 Olympics. Only once had it been accomplished by somebody not of West African descent: an Australian runner who was half Irish - half Aborigine.

The Kalenjin who dominate distance running are a poor people who eat a lousy diet, lack high tech training facilities, and whose training regimen is probably self-defeating. (Attempts by Americans to emulate the Kalenjin diet and training have flopped.) Nike ran a funny ad during the 2004 Olympics in which a Kenyan runner gently scoffed at all the environmental theories about why the Kenyans are so fast, said something like "I don't need these shoes to run fast, but you do," then turned and ran off with the most mechanically efficient stride imaginable.

The sources of the overall sub-Saharan African advantage in running is pretty obvious -- big mechanical advantages in stride from things like narrower hip bones (on average) and thinner calves relative to thighs, along with a tendency toward lower body fat percentages. The difference within Africa is that West Africans have biological advantages for sprinting while East African highlanders are better at endurance.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 13, 2007 3:18 PM

Re: "The evidence that the modern human species has continued to evolve since exiting Africa 50,000 years ago is staring you in the face everywhere, but the hallmark of the sophisticated liberal intellectual is to take pride in being oblivious to the obvious."

Two things to say about this:

First, I'd bet that most liberal intellectuals would accept the existence of most of these differences if presented with the relevant data.

Second, even though the evidence for many of these differences is reasonably strong, its just not comparable to the evidence for evolution in general, which a majority of conservatives reject.
Its not completely insane, for instance, to say you will wait for more data before concluding that West Africans are naturally faster at sprinting. It is completely insane, on the other hand, to say that the earth is only 10,000 years old.

Naturally, its more fun to poke holes at the liberals because they are generally rational but in certain cases let ideological blinders keep them from facing some racial differences. The conservatives, on the other hand, are so out to lunch that all you can do is throw up your hands.

Posted by Jim W | August 13, 2007 3:23 PM

In other words, this is all about status-competition, not understanding science.

Evidence for the evolution of racial differences over the last 50,000 years has been presented regularly in the Science Section of the New York Times for the last half dozen years, but, as these comments show, liberal creationism is largely immune to the facts because it is based on self-esteem, not on a desire to understand reality.

If you want to learn the facts, read the NYT's genetics reporter Nicholas Wade's 2006 book "Before the Dawn:"

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060507_wade.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 13, 2007 3:36 PM

There is too much crackpot on this thread. Movin' on...

Posted by Gregorio | August 13, 2007 3:38 PM

"PS CHeck out Jared Diamond's "Guns , Germs and Steel". He makes a strong case that European descendants climbed to the top of the global food chain more from disease resistance..."

Oh snap! DAMN! You just shut that mother-f'er up, my brother. Steve Sailer probably never even heard of Jared Diamond. "Guns, Germs and Steel" sets the record straight on this b.s.

Posted by Reality Man | August 13, 2007 3:47 PM

The self-proclaimed "reality man" says Steve Sailer probably never even heard of Jared Diamond. "Guns, Germs and Steel" sets the record straight on this b.s.

Uh, actually, I reviewed Guns, Germs, and Steel for National Review in 1997:

http://www.isteve.com/diamond.htm

As I said, this is all about self-esteem. Jared Diamond, like Stephen Jay Gould before him, has gotten rich pandering to the liberal's urge to believe he is superior to the average American because:

A. I believe in the empirical equality of everyone, and they don't.

B. I have a high IQ and they don't.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 13, 2007 3:53 PM

I reviewed Jared Diamond's entire career in 2005 here:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050724_diamond.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 13, 2007 3:56 PM

And -- what do you know? -- just yesterday, I reviewed a new book that directly challenges Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel:"

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070812_hart.htm

This like shooting fish in a barrel ...

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 13, 2007 3:58 PM

"There is too much crackpot on this thread. Movin' on..."

Shorter Gregario: "I can't refute what Harry wrote."

Posted by Harry | August 13, 2007 4:01 PM

i have trouble taking these types of surveys seriously. often, the wording of the question determines most respondents answers. I think its a much more complex matter than this survey would indicate.

Posted by thehova | August 13, 2007 4:26 PM

Re Steve Sailer's comment "In other words, this is all about status-competition, not understanding science."
----------
1) Actually, I thought this discussion was about natural selection leading to evolution of more successful animals (incl. human variations) by favoring mutations that give a competive advantage.

2) What I pointed out -- and what Steve ignored -- is that mankind's CULTURAL constructs have made selection in the state of nature largely irrelevant. Have very poor vision leads to an early death if you are being hunted by lions or tigers. In New York City, you simply buy a pair of glasses.

3) Similarly, the larger brain case associated with the growth of human intelligence also used to kill many women in childbirth. Today, we give Caesareans and have advanced technology to ensure women and children survive problems that killed only decades ago.

4) Being able to run fast may have been of great value on the African plains 40,000 years ago. It's not needed as much today.

5) But the Major issue Steve overlooks is how does one define "ADVANTAGE"?? Even on natural traits, that's unclear. I have a genetic trait called thalasemmina minor which made me somewhat anemic and weak in my youth. Nothing too serious -- I overcame it by conditioning and made the varsity wrestling team in high school but I was definitely weaker than my peers in earlier grades.

A disadvantage?? Depends on the situation. Turns out this trait gives me significantly greater resistance to malaria. One of my ancestors was from the Mediterrean and may have survived because of this trait. Some historians see the high death rate from malaria in southern Italy as a major factor in the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West.

6) But what constitutes a competitive advantage in TODAY's World?? Much of the rewards in our society goes not to highly intelligent, highly productive men but to selfish con artists --whether they be in politics, law or Wall Street.

7) Plus, Steve ignores my point that reproductive success today is NOT associated with competitive success. As I noted, many highly successful people don't have children or only one or two. By contrast, I noted one average family in Arkansas which has spawned 17 children and are looking for more.

The Roman Catholic Church may ultimately prevail simply because of its ban on contraception. When you have elections, the victories go to the factions with very large families.

Posted by Don Williams | August 13, 2007 4:39 PM

Plus the human gene pool is very homogeneous -- some have postulated that we are all evolved from a small group due to a catastrophic volcanic eruption in Indonesia 70,000 years ago that killed off much of humankind.

Plus globalization and easy travel is resulting in a huge melting pot in which people from different areas and historically isolated groups are combining in intermarriage. You don't get a series of wins in poker if the cards are well shuffled.

I also suggest Steve look up "hybrid vigor". I've had pure bred dogs and I've had mutts. The mutts were healthier.

Posted by Don Williams | August 13, 2007 4:48 PM

"Percent who think the sun goes around the earth

Scots 4.0"

That may appear to indicate greater sense among the Scots until you factor in that only 4.2% of them have ever seen the sun.

*There is nothing wrong with claiming the Sun goes around the Earth provided you don't claim it does so in a conservative reference frame. It is a claim that works fine provided you are not doing dynamics. If you just want to know what time it is, it is superior to assuming that the Earth goes around the Sun.

Posted by Njorl | August 13, 2007 5:02 PM

Don Williams,

Sailer made brief, logical points, with links to essays where he explicates them further, and you responded by rambling incoherently. Re-read your work and see if you can catch your most egregious mistakes and omissions, then please try again.

Posted by Juan | August 13, 2007 5:36 PM

Those of you familiar with my Transhumanist comments on TPM will recognize my response to this line:

"n 200 years, we'll be working for the chimpanezes" (sic)

You ARE chimpanzees.

BTW, Matt, there is significance evidence both for ESP and UFOs. However, a UFO "coverup" isn't clear - as journalist John Keel used to point out, the government isn't "covering it up", they just understand that the phenomena is real and there's nothing they can do about it, so they ignore it - it's called "denial", not "coverup".)

Compared to creationism, neither ESP or UFOs has anything like the stink of religious insanity connected to them. I will admit only that there are people into spiritualism who also believe in ESP, and some of the UFO contactee cults are definitely religious movements.

But the SUBJECTS are not religious as creationism is.

And I'd say having thirty to forty percent of your population believing such crap raises a serious issue about the educational mechanisms of the society and its capacity to hold onto "democracy".

But, then, you knew that, right? This is the same 30-40% that supports Bush.

Your problem is that these 30-40% get out and vote, while the more rational of us who believe voting is a frickin' waste of time don't. Which is why your so-called "democracy" happens to be gone right now, between the religious freaks and the vote-rigging politicians.

So I wouldn't dismiss the creationism stats off hand. It's a symptom of the decline of the American Empire.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 13, 2007 5:40 PM

Have any of you considered the possibility that a lot of creationists don't actually believe in the literal story of creation, but that they defend it because they are afraid if their children don't believe it, they will dismiss other parts of Christianity, such as its cultural mores? I'm guessing most creationists are less concerned with their daughters' thoughts about dinosaurs than whether their daughters have internalized Christianity's useful proscription against having a child before getting married.

BTW, Richard Hack: You do realize you are not helping the Left's cause by making invidious distinctions between believing in UFOs and creationism, don't you?

Posted by Fred | August 13, 2007 6:09 PM

One reason why the beliefs about evolution may matter: global warming is perhaps (dependent how you view the evidence and the conclusion) the most important issue for mankind in terms of the degree of global coordination and forsight it may require. The evidence refers to climate data that have more than 10,000 duration. If a politician, falsely, believes that such data must be false, as starting before the Creation, he or she may be unduly sceptical.

About the impact of the last 60k years in the evolution of the mankind: I read that Darwin himself, upon observing stone-age natives of Terra del Fuego, remarked that they must be the least evolved humans in the world, although he considered giving an exception for the Irish. On the other hand, "evolved" meant "developed".

More seriously, the divergence in the lifestyles of various groups of humans dates to the Neolitic Revolution that started ca. 10,000 ago. Moreover, it is not clear that Neolithic Revolution increased human intelligence; if anything, survival on small bands of hunters and gatherers could require more individual ingenuity, as compared with more complicated societies that can take care of village idiots. Would our neo-cons survive fending for themselves in African savanna?

Posted by piotr | August 13, 2007 6:41 PM

Shorter Piotr: Faith in Creationism is bad because it may undermine faith in Global Warming Alarmism.

Posted by Fred | August 13, 2007 7:12 PM

Juan
Thanks for providing empirical evidence to support arguments I made in my 2:31 PM
post.

Posted by Don Williams | August 13, 2007 11:09 PM