Re: [asa] Jerry Coyne sides with Dawkins and Hitchens

I don't have crosstab data on evolution but I do have it on climate
change. Rasmussen polled people on that topic April 3-4, 2008. He
didn't poll for religious affiliation but he did for everything else.
Rasmussen asked the scientifically verifiable question of what is the
primary cause of global warming, everybody agreed except men over 40
(42% long term planetary trends, tied with human activity) and R
epublicans (56% long term planetary trends). Compare this with the
scientific data of 90% attribution to human causes (it would have been
higher if the Chinese hadn't objected). Other polls have showed that
religious affiliation doesn't show this profound this of an effect and
evangelicals have been coming on board here. Also, the change with
time was as the aggregate came on board when there was more and better
information while R epublicans moved in the opposite direction. One
thing to note for later is Rasmussen shows the lowest R-D percentage
in the ten years he has been polling -10%.

I've noticed that the same people who oppose evolution also oppose
anthropogenic climate change. The same publisher publishes the P
olitically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and the P olitically Incorrect
Guide to Global Warming. FotF is also opposed to both. Same with Rush.
There's an alternative hypothesis that the prime cause is not religion
but ideology. So, Coyne most likely has confounded variables here.

Ideology has more explanatory power than religion, too. While religion
encourages the search for truth, ideology encourages conformity to
"our group". This also explains that with respect to climate change
that is no threat to the authority of Scripture that so many c
onservative Christians oppose it. When I did my class on climate
change at church the push back response was the learned climate
scientist Jim Dobson said this or that.

Now note the date of his data (2005) and come back to Rasmussen. In
April 2005, the R-D percentage was -3%. If my hypothesis is correct
then the data will have moved. Specifically between 2005 and the
present:

1. Younger people will be more amenable to evolution than older people
2. A greater aggregate percentage will be more amenable to evolution

If anyone has more recent polling data (particularly with separate
crosstabs for religion and ideology), I would greatly appreciate it.
Exit polls include religion but only for R epublicans.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

On May 27, 2008, at 5:37 AM, Nucacids wrote:

> Hi Rich,
>
> You wrote:
>
> “The why is Coyne's graph at the end of the speech. Many of us have
> been telling the atheists don't worry we will get the facts out and
> since religious people are reasonable they can change their minds.
> The atheists are calling our bluff. We said that we could preserve
> American religiosity while improving the state of science education.
> (This the "move the curve upward" in Jerry's speech.) But, as Genie
> readily admitted, this has gone nowhere in the U.S. As long as
> evangelical lay people remain blinded with respect to the facts we
> really don't have a good rebuttal to Jerry's proposal of moving the
> curve to the left.”
>
> Coyne left out two important points of context.
>
> 1. What is the freq of acceptance of evolution in the United States
> as a function of time? Coyne only mentions that things have not
> changed in the last 20 years, but has the freq of acceptance EVER
> been higher in this country? To turn religion into a problem, he
> needs to make the case that things are getting worse rather than
> discover how things have always been. In fact, I’d bet that the
> freq of acceptance of evolution in the USA is at a historic high.
>
> 2. To turn religion into a problem, Coyne does not mention that
> rates of science literacy in America are no different than they are
> in Canada,Europe, or Japan (the nations that make up his graph). In
> fact, they appear to be higher:
> “As disgracefully low as the rate of adult scientific literacy in
> the United States may be, Miller found even lower rates in Canada,
> Europe, and Japan—a result he attributes primarily to lower
> university enrollments.”
>
> From: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040167&ct=1
>
> -Mike Gene
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rich Blinne
> To: Nucacids
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 11:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Jerry Coyne sides with Dawkins and Hitchens
>
>
> On May 26, 2008, at 7:09 AM, Nucacids wrote:
>
>> Jerry Coyne gave a presentation on Creationism and ID at The
>> Rockefeller University on May 1. You can watch the video here:
>> http://www.rockefeller.edu/evolution/video.php?src=coyne
>> What’s troubling about the presentation is the last 5 minutes or
>> so, where Coyne focuses on religion and basically sides with
>> Dawkins, Hitchens, and the New Atheist movement. He propagates the
>> war between religion and science viewpoint and argues that we need
>> to “get rid of religion.” He plugs the books by Dawkins and
>> Hitchens. He argues that we need to more publicly express the
>> opinion that religion is the enemy of science. And then he turns to
>> the NCSE position and says, “At least do not pretend that religion
>> and science are alternative and compatible ways of looking at the
>> world.” He claims the National Academy of Science’s recent
>> statement is “soft-pedaling the dichotomy” and describes Gould’s
>> NOMA as “hogwash.” He even contrasts religion and science by
>> peddling the stereotype that religious people “blow each other up”
>> while scientists behave in a civilized manner.
>> I find this truly disappointing, as I did not realize that someone
>> as smart as Coyne has bought into the New Atheist rhetoric. At
>> they very least, when it comes to religion and science, I think he
>> is expressing what Lee Ross calls naïve realism:
>> “Naïve realism is the conviction that one sees the world as it is
>> and that when people don’t see it in a similar way, it is they that
>> do not see the world for what it is. Ross characterized naïve
>> realism as “a dangerous but unavoidable conviction about perception
>> and reality”. The danger of naïve realism is that while humans are
>> good in recognizing that other people and their opinions have been
>> shaped and influenced by their life experiences and particular
>> dogmas, we are far less adept at recognizing the influence our own
>> experiences and dogmas have on ourselves and opinions. We fail to
>> recognize the bias in ourselves that we are so good in picking out
>> in others.”
>> http://daily.swarthmore.edu/2008/04/11/lee-rosss-lecture-on-barriers-to-conflict-resolution/
>>
>> -Mike Gene
>
> I am not at all surprised that this happened. I knew it the moment
> Jerry said that Genie was going to take him out to the woodshed.
> Despite what Expelled said the NCSE has been on the moderate side of
> the issue. Gishlick, Elsberry and Matzke said the following in
> August 2004. Note this is the very first public comment on the Meyer
> paper and pre-dates any comment made by the DI.
>
> http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html
>
>> The fact that [the Meyer] paper is shaky on these grounds is much
>> more important than the personalities involved. Intemperate
>> responses will only play into the hands of creationists, who might
>> use these as an excuse to say that the “dogmatic Darwinian thought
>> police” are unfairly giving Meyer and PBSW a hard time. Nor should
>> Sternberg be given the chance to become a “martyr for the cause.”
>> Any communication with PBSW should focus upon the features that
>> make this paper a poor choice for publication: its many errors of
>> fact, its glaring omissions of relevant material, and its
>> misrepresentations of the views that it does consider.
>>
>
> The NCSE has been arguing for some time that making an issue of
> religion was counter-productive. Note the review above was
> prescient. So, people have stepped up presenting the facts behind
> evolution. One thing you can see from Coyne's comments is the
> atheists have been opposed by AAAS and NAS and NCSE thus countering
> the thesis of Expelled. But, the problem with the AAAS/NAS/NCSE
> approach is that at least among the general public in the U.S.
> nothing has moved. This has as of late emboldened people like Jerry
> Coyne and has put Genie Scott on her heels.
>
> A more recent expression of the AAAS/NAS/NCSE opinion is found in
> the science blog, Framing Science:
> http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/03/why_the_pz_myers_affair_is_rea.php
>
>> If you haven't seen this clip yet, above is a preview of the
>> central message on how "Big Science" views religion in the
>> documentary Expelled. There's little work needed on the part of the
>> producers, since the message is spelled out via the interviews
>> provided by PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins.
>>
>> Notice the very clear translation for audiences as to what
>> supposedly establishment science believes:
>>
>> A) Learning about science makes you an atheist, it "kills off"
>> religious faith.
>>
>> B) If we boost science literacy in society, it will lead to erosion
>> of religion, as religion fades away, we will get more and more
>> science, and less and less religion.
>>
>> C) Religion is a fairy tale, similar to hobgoblins, a fantasy, and
>> even evil.
>>
>> The simplistic and unscientific claim that more knowledge leads to
>> less religion might be the particular delusion of Dawkins, Myers,
>> and many others, but it is by no means the official position of
>> science, though they often implicitly claim to speak for science.
>> Nor does it stand up to mounds of empirical evidence about the
>> complex relationship between science literacy and public perceptions.
>>
>> Unfortunately, you couldn't focus group a better message for the
>> pro-creationist crowd. And this message is already reaching well
>> beyond the theaters, on display most recently with the PZ Myers
>> Affair chronicled at the NY Times.
>>
>> As long as Dawkins and PZ continue to be the representative voices
>> from the pro-science side in this debate, it is really bad for
>> those of us who care about promoting public trust in science and
>> science education. Dawkins and PZ need to lay low as Expelled hits
>> theaters. Let others play the role of communicator, most
>> importantly the National Center for Science Education, AAAS, the
>> National Academies or scientists such as Francis Ayala or Ken
>> Miller. When called up by reporters or asked to comment, Dawkins
>> and PZ should refer journalists to these organizations and
>> individuals.
>>
> And did Matthew Nisbet get accolades from his fellow science
> bloggers for his erudite analysis? Nope. He was pig piled. The why
> is Coyne's graph at the end of the speech. Many of us have been
> telling the atheists don't worry we will get the facts out and since
> religious people are reasonable they can change their minds. The
> atheists are calling our bluff. We said that we could preserve
> American religiosity while improving the state of science education.
> (This the "move the curve upward" in Jerry's speech.) But, as Genie
> readily admitted, this has gone nowhere in the U.S. As long as
> evangelical lay people remain blinded with respect to the facts we
> really don't have a good rebuttal to Jerry's proposal of moving the
> curve to the left. [Note: the curve mentioned is the inverse
> proportionality of the religiosity of countries vs. acceptance of
> evolution. Evolution is not the only such effect you can see the
> same with climate change and political party affiliation.]
>
> My political sense is the Coyne thesis is gaining traction. There is
> increased hostility toward all scientists who are religious. The
> ultimate of ironies is that Expelled may become a cause of religious
> persecution. And he is not alone. Look for the Red As in the
> blogosphere. http://outcampaign.org
>
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1466 - Release Date:
> 5/25/2008 6:49 PM

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 27 08:57:30 2008