Darwin, God, and Politics

[roo_ster]

I was wondering which three topics would be most likely to set off a blood-letting here on APS and figured a post touching all three would be...a demonstration of Darwinian superiority...er, no...a holy and blessed endeavor to bring God's light to the heathen...maybe not...of interest to data weenies like me who can't pass a mess of data without parsing it.

I would hope to constrain this discussion to the practical politics / political impact of the data set on conservative/liberty-minded folks and the implementation of their agenda.

http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2009/09/darwin-god-and-politics-i-see-that-hbd.html

Darwin, God, and politics: I see that the HBD-ers and social conservatives are currently duking it out. Since I consider myself to be both, I suppose I should punch myself in the face.

It seems to me that what is essential for a viable political movement is that it tells a persuasive, coherent story to a large segment of the population. I say coherent, but I didn't say something that was so internally tight, it must have been developed by Aristotle. Conservatism, I don't think, has ever claimed such internal consistency. It's more like a stance.

We can't all be Burkes. Someone needs to do the market research: I volunteer. This time around, let's look at the two Men who people seem to be siding with: God or Darwin. A movement needs to either: 1) favor a thing; 2) oppose it; or 3) shut up about it. The data indicate that in America, on the question of Darwin and God, it's probably best to shut up about both of them, but if we need someone to rally around, just make sure he's not Nietzsche.

In 2000, 1,023 Americans (GSS) were asked: 1) their confidence in the existence of God; and 2) how true is the statement that humans evolved from animals. Here are the top ten most common combinations of answers:


Percent of all respondents

1. Knows God exists--Evolution definitely not true 33.0
2. Knows God exists--Evolution probably true 14.7
3. Knows God exists--Evolution probably not true 11.5
4. Believes but doubts--Evolution probably true 7.7
5. Knows God exists--Evolution definitely true 5.8
6. Believes but doubts--Evolution probably not true 4.1
7. Some higher power--Evolution probably true 3.7
8. Believes but doubts--Evolution definitely true 2.9
9. Some higher power--Evolution definitely true 2.5
10. No way to know--Evolution definitely true 2.0
10. Doesn't believe in God--Evolution definitely true 2.0


Any American who likes to push atheism or likes to criticize believers must enjoy having no political voice whatsoever.

People are divided, on the other hand, when it comes to evolution. It's not popular with most people--my students think the whole thing stinks, as much as I push it--and it's especially unpopular among folks on the Right. On the other hand, it's intellectually satisfying to smart people.

So what's the solution? [What you y'all think?--jfruser] It looks to me like the only realistic way to go is for conservative elites to inform their worldview by sneaking peaks at HBD stuff when no one is looking, but they will have to fashion their ideas in a way that appeals to the common man. Does that sound like lying? Of course it does because that's what politics is, or haven't you noticed?


I did some of the addition for y'all (all in percentages)
65   theist
75.6   theist+doubt
41.3   ev_true
48.6   ev_not_true
4   atheist_ag
10.2   atheist_ag_shp


Acronyms:

GSS = General Social Survey, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey
The General Social Survey (GSS) is a survey used to collect data on demographic characteristics and attitudes of residents of the United States. The survey is conducted face-to-face with an in-person interview by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, of a randomly-selected sample of adults (over 18) who are not institutionalized. The survey was conducted every year from 1972 to 1994 (except in 1979, 1981, and 1992). Since 1994, it has been conducted every other year. The survey takes about 90 minutes to administer. As of 2008 27 national samples with 53,043 respondents and 5,364 variables had been collected.

HBD = Human BioDiviersity, (no wiki, but here's a stab) http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/06/hbd-human-biodiversity.html
Human biodiversity is an acknowledgment that humans differ from each other in various ways because of our different genotypes. Differences include, but are not limited to, physical appearance, athletic ability, personality, and cognitive abilities.

One especially significant genetic difference between humans is whether or not they have one X and one Y chromosome or two X chromosomes. In addition to looking different, humans with two X chromosomes have different behavioral and cognitive predispositions than humans with one Y and one X chromosome.

Even when humans are of the same race and sex, they can have vastly different cognitive and behavioral predispositions. This is also part of HBD.

[red headed stranger]

It really is too bad that this issue has become such a political football.  IMO, the only people benefiting from the "God vs. Darwin" issue are the statist parties who need wedge issues to differentiate themselves from one another. 

It also seems to me that a significant amount of resistance to the idea of evolution is due to the way it is often characterized by its opponents.  There are a number of people I have met who have gone through a university level biology class in which evolution is discussed, and they still believe the theory states that we are direct descendants contemporary apes and/or monkeys.  Not because of what they learned in class, but because of the insistent rhetoric of opponents, which they hear much more often. 

[makattak]

It really is too bad that this issue has become such a political football.  IMO, the only people benefiting from the "God vs. Darwin" issue are the statist parties who need wedge issues to differentiate themselves from one another. 

It also seems to me that a significant amount of resistance to the idea of evolution is due to the way it is often characterized by its opponents.  There are a number of people I have met who have gone through a university level biology class in which evolution is discussed, and they still believe the theory states that we are direct descendants contemporary apes and/or monkeys.  Not because of what they learned in class, but because of the insistent rhetoric of opponents, which they hear much more often. 

And the same can be said for those who falsly characterize either creationism or intelligent design.

I understand evolution quite well. I also reject it.

I further don't think it's an important point to argue as your eternal soul does not depend on your position on evolution or creation. (Or any of the myriad of intermediate positions.)

Further- why are HBD'ers fighting with social conservatives? I have to agree with a number of the commenters to that article- what in their theory requires creating a fight over origins?

[BrokenPaw]

I further don't think it's an important point to argue as your eternal soul does not depend on your position on evolution or creation. (Or any of the myriad of intermediate positions.)

I have often wondered why so much effort is focused upon discrediting Darwinian Evolution, with the fallacious premise that, with it done away with, the only other alternative is Biblical Creation/Intelligent Design.  And vice versa (discrediting BC/ID under the idea that doing so somehow "proves" DE, because it's the only alternative).

While I have my own views on these various points (and I'm not attempting to favor either viewpoint with this post), it's disingenuous for people on both sides of the debate to argue from these premises.  It's no better than a bunch of mathematicians shouting back and forth: 

"Look!  2+2=/= 6!  That proves that 2+2==5!"
"No!  Look!  2+2=/= 5!  That proves that 2+2==6!"

I always wonder:  what if 2+2==4, and there's an answer out there that isn't BC/ID, and isn't DE.  What then?  Do both factions then gang up on the new kids?

-BP

[MicroBalrog]

Technically, evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive.

[Iain]

Technically, evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive.

Technically, probably not. In reality, the ID movement is the anti-evolution movement.

[Racehorse]

As a religious whacko myself, I too am baffled by the debate over evolution. Not only is it irrelevant to salvation, as mak pointed out, but belief in evolution does not preclude belief in deity. It's possible to believe in guided evolution, that God provided the initial "spark" or whatever and evolution took it from there, or that God created life elsewhere that migrated here to earth and subsequently evolved.

In my opinion, the whole public debate has never been about scientific inquiry or searching for the truth, but rather about politics and grabbing power. Not to mention making some money along the way.

[Balog]

I fail to see how the fed.gov has anything to do with either religious principles or scientific theories.

[MechAg94]

Technically, probably not. In reality, the ID movement is the anti-evolution movement.

I would say it is more the anti-evolution-as-religion movement.  The ID stuff I have read was simply pointing out some of the shortcomings/unknowns of the theory/hypothesis of evolution.  Not a big deal to me.  The primary people I see getting all upset about ID are the Evolution True Believers who can't seem to entertain any objectivity at all.  They can get more defensive than any Christians. 



Evolution is just a theory.  It just happens to be the first theory to gain widespread acceptance that didn't involve a higher power.  Because of that, it was bound to create a lot of debate and argument between atheists and non-atheists.  In 200 years, will our current theories still be same? 

I think some or a lot of the Christian push back against evolution is a reaction to Evolution True Believers postulating that it proves God doesn't exist or something like that.  Certainly not all the pro-evolution crowd says that stuff, but some do.  Just like not all Christians are anti-science though some would say that. 

I'm with makattak.  My Christian beliefs are not threatened by evolution or debating the potential of the theory. 

[tyme]

Technically, evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive.

It's possible that there was an intelligent designer (alien) that jumpstarted or manipulated evolution on Earth.
Without resorting to religion, it's not possible for life in this universe to have been created by an intelligent designer, because that designer would be, by definition, God (since the premise is that no life existed in the universe before God created it, God must not be in the universe).

ID proponents tend to be religious believers who think that the intelligent designer of life on earth is God.  They just don't say that explicitly.  As such, it is religion attempting to masquerade as science.

If you reject religion as a plausible explanation for anything, as I do, it's simple: either abiogenesis occurred on Earth, or it occurred somewhere else and resulted in life that intentionally or unintentionally seeded life on Earth.  It really doesn't matter very much which scenario is true.  There's not much philosophical or practical difference.

[red headed stranger]

I think some or a lot of the Christian push back against evolution is a reaction to Evolution True Believers postulating that it proves God doesn't exist or something like that.  Certainly not all the pro-evolution crowd says that stuff, but some do.  Just like not all Christians are anti-science though some would say that. 

And there lies the heart of the controversy.  It is defined by those at the extremes.  A LOT of people believe in some combination of both ID and DE and get on with their life.  Moderates make crappy activists.   

[Balog]

Tyme: given science's inability to conclusively prove abiogenesis is even possible, it requires just as much faith as any other religion.

Also, everyone having those Obama-Joker avatars confuses me, I keep thinking you're mtnbkr at first. :)

[Jamisjockey]

I fail to see how the fed.gov has anything to do with either religious principles or scientific theories.

They get to dictate the teaching of whatever the current administrations whims are, thanks to federal tax dollars and the public school system.

[roo_ster]

They get to dictate the teaching of whatever the current administrations whims are, thanks to federal tax dollars and the public school system.

What JJ wrote.

A fine argument to go to a 100% voucher system, IMO. 


Folks, say you are a policritter running for office.  You have whatever views you have on Darwin & God.  Do you hide them, trumpet them, finesse them, ignore them, or what? 

Same question, but you are head of the APSNC: APS National Committee in charge of the APS party re-election efforts.

[Balog]

JJ: that is the exact reason fed.gov needs to be totally neutral on the subject. "Group A believes this, group B believes this, neither can prove their view or disprove the other." Done. What we have now is fed.gov sanctioned indoctrination of one particular religion, and it's not acceptable.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

I was wondering which three topics would be most likely to set off a blood-letting here on APS

Thread fail. You didn't mention Walmart or the Civil War. 

[makattak]

Also, as we've gotten WAY afield of the original question (I'm aware that's a feature, not a bug), I will reiterate my related question:

How and why are the proponents of Human Biodiversity arguing with social conservatives? The article just says they are, I'd like to know how and why in the world they'd do something so stupid?

[MicroBalrog]

Arguing with social conservatives is stupid?

[tyme]

How and why are the proponents of Human Biodiversity arguing with social conservatives?

I was not familiar with the term HBD, so I researched it briefly.

It appears that HBD is newspeak for the well-known pro-immigration, pro-diversity, pro-affirmative-action paradigm (i.e. that people should make all social and political decisions as if blinded to genetic, and possibly cultural, traits).

Not to say that it always means that, just as Intelligent Design doesn't always mean "God is the IDer", but it appears that it usually does.

Thus it's not hard to see why social conservatives would complain about it.

[roo_ster]

I was not familiar with the term HBD, so I researched it briefly.

It appears that HBD is newspeak for the well-known pro-immigration, pro-diversity, pro-affirmative-action paradigm (i.e. that people should make all social and political decisions as if blinded to genetic, and possibly cultural, traits).

Not to say that it always means that, just as Intelligent Design doesn't always mean "God is the IDer", but it appears that it usually does.

Thus it's not hard to see why social conservatives would complain about it.

Weeeeel, maybe.

My understanding from reading a couple of self-pronounced HBD-folk is that they are sort of realists when it comes to human diversity.  It exists, even between the races and expecting that every group will be proportionally represented in every endeavor is asinine.  Then, they are so gauche as to bring data to the argument and it usually ends with lefties accusing them of being racists and social conservatives accusing them of being atheists or darwinists.

Some examples of HBD-ish folk:
Steve Sailer: "Am I the only Republican who knows how to use Excel?"
Charles Murray (I don't know if he is explicit, he just produces some of the most rigorous quantitative social science out there)
John Derbyshire

One of my favorite quotes from Steve Sailer:
"The Right believes in biology, but not in evolution; the Left believes in evolution, but not in biology."
----Steve Sailer

[roo_ster]

Thread fail. You didn't mention Walmart or the Civil War. 

Hey, I was running with the "Rule of Three," not the "Rule of Three or More."

[Gewehr98]

I'm actually pleasantly surprised the thread has survived in a civil form this long.  :)

[Balog]

I'm actually pleasantly surprised the thread has survived in a civil form this long.  :)

What the hell do you mean by that, jackass?!?!?! 





 

[Gewehr98]

Ok, there we go.  That's the APS I'm used to.   

[Balog]

Ok, there we go.  That's the APS I'm used to.