Re: [asa] American political conservatism impedes the

understanding of science
Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
Precedence: bulk

PT reports on poll results found in today's issue of "Science." I'm
not the
least surprised by them. But grandiose conclusions should be carefully
avoided.

I would caution anyone against drawing too many conclusions from
studies of
this sort, which if not critically analyzed tend to support the
atheistic
conclusions of Daniel Dennett and company. The "bright" people,
according
to this line of reasoning, accept materialistic evolution, don't
believe in
"God" or any other "supernatural" entities, and are (of course)
Democrats.
In this current generation of the "culture wars" in the US, data can be
produced to support such claims--provided of course that we don't
inquire
into the hard realities of the details of people's belief systems.
Let me
add some comments, all anecdotal rather than statistical, but they do
point
toward what I mean.

The single most reactionary university professor I have ever known--the
only academic I can think of, in fact, who defends Richard Nixon's
actions
in the watergate scandal--is an atheistic Jewish historian of science, a
former (retired) professor at one of the nation's elite
universities. He
fully believes in Darwinian evolution and has probably never voted for a
"liberal" in his life. But I'll grant that he isn't a "bright" in
Dennett's
sense, b/c he respects the intelligence of scholars who believe in God;
indeed, he invited me to speak at his university 20 years ago.

Another very conservative, probably libertarian, professor I know is an
internationally known authority on the history of atheism, and he is
himself
an atheistic Jew.

The leading American scientist of the 1920s, Robert Millikan, was the
mirror image of William Jennings Bryan. Bryan was a fundamentalist,
antievolutionist, socialist, and pacifist who ran (unsuccessfully) 3
times
for president as a Democrat; Millikan was a modernist (he denied all
miracles and the deity of Jesus), evolutionist, and staunch Hoover
Republican. If a similar survey were conducted in the 1920s, I'm not
at all
sure that it would come out the same way. Many of the leading
scientists
and liberal clergy of that era were up to their ears in eugenics and
scientific racism, whereas the fundamentalists didn't buy that b/c they
rejected evolution. These kinds of things--ties between political
allegiances, science, and religion--are very strongly limited by time
and
geographical location. If you ran a similar poll of Soviet
intellectuals 30
years ago or Chinese intellectuals right now, you might also find that
support for evolution rises with educational level--and so would
support for
Marxist/Leninist politics. In an American context, Communist
sympathies put
one on the far left politically, but in other places it's a lot
harder to
say where those people end up.

[As for myself, I consider Pres Bush II to be a liberal (conservatives
don't lower taxes on the wealthy while fighting expensive wars against
countries who did not attack us), and Rush Limbaugh to be an
ideologue with
a microphone in front of his mouth. I hate to discuss politics in
public
and I do not want anyone to respond to my views in any way. I am
stating
them only for "full disclosure" on this. And yes, I think human
evolution
is pretty well supported by scientific evidence.]

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 13 16:59:40 2007