Transcript Cohort Differences in Science Literacy and

Creationist/Intelligent Design vs.
Evolutionist Heuristics
Raymond A. Eve, Ph. D.
Professor of Sociology
The University of Texas at Arlington
[email protected]
Prepared for the Southwest and Rocky Mountain
Division of the AAAS
April, 2007
Clear Lake City, Texas
Intelligent Design ≠ Creationism?


It is commonly argued by its
adherents and proponents that
intelligent design is not just recycled
creationism.
I decided to try to test the assertion
at least insofar as it obtained or not
in a sample of university students in
“a large public university in or near
the state of Texas.”
Among current college students

I created a “Creationism Scale” = the sum of:
• There is a good deal of scientific evidence against
evolution and in favor of the Bible's account of creation.
• God created humanity pretty much in its present form
within the last 10,000 years or so.
• Evidence of Noah's Ark has been found on Mt. Ararat in
Turkey.
• Adam and Eve, the first human beings, were created by
God.
• One can believe in the Bible and Creation, OR in
atheistic evolution-- there is really no middle ground.
So are they the same thing?


The creationism scale correlated with “Humans
are too complicated to have come to be through
natural processes, their existence reflects the will
of an intelligent designer.” Pearson’s r = .41
Creationism scale correlated with “Humanity was
created over a short period of time by an
intelligent designer.
Pearson’s r = .49
*both relationships significant at the .00001
level.
Etiological factors in support for
creationism/ID

Since there is a lot of face validity,
and at least some empirical support,
for the argument that intelligent
design theory is the latest mutation
of creationism, it seems likely we can
consider it a pseudoscience too, and
seek its etiology in the same manner
as for other pseudoscientific beliefs.
Possible Causes of Belief in
Pseudoscience and Fantastic
Science Claims




Common errors in human reasoning
Poor or sensationalistic coverage of
science in the mass media
Poor science education
Sociocultural factors
•
•
•
•
Gender and race
Religious preference and denomination
Political “framing” of wedge issues
Different subcultural rules for testing truth
claims
“Poor Science Education?”



Let’s have a look at a sample taken
last year at “a major public
university located in or near Texas.”
Survey was given to about 400
primarily junior/senior level students
Admittedly, a “convenience sample”
that probably somewhat underrepresents science and engineering
majors
NSF science literacy measure



Every year NFS publishes a report
entitled “Science and Engineering
Indicators”
There is always a chapter on public
knowledge of science and attitudes
towards science
The following measures are used in
the NSF annual assessment of civic
scientific literacy
Students Scores on the NSF
Science Literacy Items


The following items are taken from
the annual NSF survey of public
attitudes towards science and
technology given to several nations.
However, here the percent wrong
answers are for the students in the
2006 sample in our study
The Earth revolves around the Sun
“false” = 12%




Radioactive milk can be made safe
by boiling it. “true” = 13.4%
Human beings as we know them
today developed from earlier species
of animals. “false” = 54%
The continents on which we live have
been moving their location for
millions of years and will continue to
move in the future. “false” = 16%
Antibiotics kill viruses as well as
bacteria. “true” = 47%


Electrons are smaller than atoms.
“false” = 24%
Laser work by focusing sound waves.
“true” = 33%

It is the father’s gene that decides
whether the baby is a boy or a girl.
“false” = 24%

The Oxygen we breath comes from plants.
“false” = 14%


All radioactivity is manmade
“true” = 25%
The center of the Earth is very hot
“false” = 10 ½%
Teacher Qualifications


Raymond A. Eve and Dana Dunn. 1990. "Psychic
powers, astrology and Creationism in the
classroom?
Evidence of pseudoscientific
beliefs among high school biology and life-science
teachers. The American Biology Teacher (Journal
of the American Biology Teachers Association)
52(Jan.): 10-21.
Random survey of several hundred biology and
life science high school teachers chosen from the
rolls of the American Biology Teachers Association
indicated that 40 percent of the science teachers
polled believed that “there are sufficient problems
with evolutionary theory to cast doubt on its
validity.”
“Were You Taught Evolution in High
School?”
Student samples from same university at 2 points in time
50
45
40
35
30
1983
2006
25
20
15
10
5
0
Yes
w creation
No
Evolution Correctly Explains the
Development of Life on Earth
45
40
35
30
25
1983
2006
20
15
10
5
0
Agree
Unsure
Disagree
“The theory of evolution correctly explains the development of life on
earth.”
Dinosaurs and Man Were
Contemporaries
45
40
35
30
25
1983
2006
20
15
10
5
0
Agree
Unsure
Disagree
“Dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, as is shown by finds of
their footprints together.”
Mankind Was Created about
10,000 Years Ago
45
40
35
30
25
1983
2006
20
15
10
5
0
Agree
Unsure
Disagree
“God created humanity pretty much in its present form within the last
10,000 years or so”
Note: Gallup poll of general U. S. Public in 2006 had 46% saying “agree”
Previous Chart

It is readily noted that the chart shows a
very slight increase in the proportion of
students supporting a very recent creation
of mankind. This is all the more striking
because the recent sample included fewer
business majors, who are strikingly likely
to support the proposition. (More than
50% agreement in the earlier sample).
So the true prevalence of support for a
recent creation may have increased
somewhat more than the chart indicates.
Sociocultural Factors



We’ve examined science literacy above
We’ve also examined teacher
characteristics
Let’s turn our attention now to the central
thesis of this presentation:
that most belief in creationism/ID is
best explained by looking at
sociocultural factors
Creationism v. Evolution???


People don’t argue in parlors and
bars about whether continents drift
or whether atoms actually exist. So
why the controversy over evolution?
The emotional character of the topic
is a dead give-away to a social
scientist that there must be far more
than just a discussion going on about
what is good scientific method or
evidence
Sociology and ID

The approach to be taken here is a
sociological one. More specifically, for the
most part we will adopt a model of social
movement formation and movement
career based on the concepts of a struggle
for the means of cultural reproduction -between movement and
countermovement. We will also examine
some questions of member recruitment,
ideology, and movement tactics and their
desired outcomes.
Defining “Creationism”

There are many types of “creationism”
• “Young Earth” or “strict” creationists

Literal and concrete reading of scripture. They follow
Archbishop Usher’s chronology, believe the world created in
4004 B. C. Flood geology. We will use this definition.
• “Old Earth” creationists – believe in an ancient Earth
Gap Theory – An huge amount of time passed
between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis. God destroys all
that and the six 24 hours days of Genesis then occur
Day-Age Theory – the six days of Genesis were not
24 hour days. Hebrew word “yom”
Defining “Intelligent Design”

Currently, the concept of intelligent design
is best understood to refer to the question
of whether or not the complex patterning
seen in nature is the result of the will of a
deity.
- R. Eve, World Book Encylopedia, forthcoming.
Behe would add words such as: "Design is
evident when a number of separate,
interacting components are
ordered in such a way as to accomplish a
function beyond the individual components”
and when this systems demonstrates
“irreducible complexity” – hence it must have
been “designed”
Antievolution Tactic 1 – Outlaw the
Teaching of Evolution

Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968
• Sought relief from an Arkansas law that
held it to be unlawful for a teacher in
any state-supported school or university
to teach or to use a textbook that
teaches "that mankind ascended or
descended from a lower order of
animals."
Antievolution Tactic 2 – “Two
Model” or “Equal Time” Approach

Edwards v Aguillard – Louisiana, 1987
• The case struck down a requirement that
required that if evolution is taught in public
schools then creationism must also be taught.
• The 7-2 decision ended any prospect of public
schools in the United States being legally
forced to teach ICR style creationism
Crucial SMO- The Foundation for
Thought and Ethics


Founded in early 80s in Richardson, Texas
Published the book Of Pandas and People
in 1989
• First reference to an “intelligent design”
• 2nd edition figures large in Dover, PA trial
Also published The Mystery of Life’s Origins
Newest crucial SMO –
Discovery Institute

The Discovery Institute is a
conservative Christian “think-tank.”
It’s structured as a non-profit
educational foundation, founded in
1990 and based in Seattle,
Washington
• Currently the driving force behind ID
Wedge Strategy of the
Discovery Institute



The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan created
by the DI, an organization that works to promote a religious
agenda centering around use of ID theory
The purposes of the DI were originally brought to the public's
attention by a leaked fund raising tool that is now known
informally as the “Wedge Document”
Wedge Document states goals of the Institute and ID are to:
• defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral,
cultural, and political legacies
• to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic
understanding that nature and human beings are
created by God.
It details a massive public relations campaign meant to influence
the public, the mass media and public policy makers
ID adherents cf prior “Creationists”




Some IDers are not Protestant fundamentalists
Many are not young Earthers
Some have better educational credentials than
their predecessors in the creationist movement
Many accept some type of evolution albeit with occasional miracles and/or
supernatural guidance included in their
own definition of science
Rejection of “Darwinism”
- Two types of IDers

I. “Vulgar” ID argues that “God did it” – “in
person” and “all at once” – direct intervention to
effect a sudden creation
- “Darwinism” for them is the rejection of a literal
reading of the Bible”
II. “Rachet evolutionists” Also theistic evolutionists,
but their primary concern is a rejection of strict
naturalism (such as Richard Dawkins’
The Blind Watchmaker)
- their rejection of “Darwinism” equates to a
rejection of pure materialism
Past scholarly explanations for
adherence to creationism/ID
• Ignorance – “backwoods bumpkins”
• Authoritarian Personality or Subculture
• Status inconsistency theories
• Reaction against materialist philosophy
HOWEVER, a more likely
explanation is:
Different Epistemological Rules
It appears that much of the
mainstream creationism vs. evolution
debate arises because the two sides
use different rules for evaluating
truth claims.
A Typology of Epistemologies
Cultural traditionalists: A claim is
considered true by reason of faith,
authority, tradition, and/or revelation.
“God said it, I believe it, end of argument!”
 Cultural modernists: Paradigmatic
descents of the Enlightenment: Claims are
true by reason of applying logical rules
and using empirical data for hypothesis
testing
 Cultural Postmodernists: There are no
totalizing truths. Truth is subjective, timebound, localized, and internal to each
individual. (“God is within you”).

Type 1: Cultural Traditionalists as
ID Proponents

Hypothesis: Type 1 adherents to
creationism/ID primarily subscribe to
such a belief as part of a
constellation of socially and politically
conservative beliefs.
It seems likely that for a very large
percentage of the public, attitudes
towards the issue of creationism/ID v.
evolution are more strongly related to
adherents’ social and political views than
to their respective levels of knowledge
concerning the relevant scientific data and
methods. This we will term here as
“vulgar creationism/intelligent design”
(after the fashion of “vulgar Latin)
An empirical test with three
samples



Cultural Traditionalists:
Approximately 300 persons from a
“Creationism Fair” in Glen Rose,
Texas
Cultural Modernists: Approximately
300 university students from a
variety of majors
Cultural Postmodernists: 200+
Wiccans (neopagans) at a Magical
Arts gathering near Austin, Texas
Samples differ as expected vis-àvis opinions on human origins
Social Issues
Civil Religion, or the tendency to
treat certain secular topics as
sacred
Issues of Vitality
Checking Epistemological
Predictions
Political Orientation
Evolution, Materialism, and
Secular Humanism


Many supporters of creationism/ID believe that
acceptance of “Darwinism” is the first step down
what they believe to be a slippery slope to their
favorite whipping boy “secular humanism.”
Secular humanism is “setting man above God.”
If the Bible is not the inerrant guide to moral
behavior, then humans will have to decide such
issues.


Many public opinion surveys show
conservatives to hold very
pessimistic views of human nature in
the absence of strong laws and other
forms of social control.
Therefore they believe that is secular
humanists are allowed to decided
upon moral values, they will do so
very poorly. This will lead, they
believe, to prostitution, pornography,
homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia,
etc.
Cultural Reproduction

The above situation results in a
struggle for the means of cultural
reproduction. This is easily seen
because it takes place in precisely
those places in which society
sanctifies the value set that will be
passed on to our children. I.e.,
• Schoolrooms
• Courtrooms
• State Legislatures
More sophisticated camp of
supporters of ID
proponents:
Natural Theology
The Influence of William Paley

In 1802, British theologian William Paley
published Natural Theology. In which which
Paley argued that divine truth could be
revealed not only through Christian
scripture, but also that the patterning in
nature could reveal to humankind the
activity and will of a creative deity. Paley
illustrated his position by citing the example
of a person finding a watch while walking in
the countryside. From the functions that
various parts of the watch performed, Paley
argued that the only logical conclusion
would be that the device had a maker who
had designed it. Paley, teleologically and by
analogy, argued that there was evidence of
design in humans.
Evolutionism


More recently some IDers follow in the footsteps of
Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (The Phenomenon
of Man)
Chardin influence by fellow Frenchman Henri Bergson
– b. 1859


Bergson argued for “vitalism” – the idea that
living things strive towards some higher, final
ending
So evolution had to produce humans and will
eventually bring about some type of unification with
God (i.e. selection leads to progress)
Contemporary Natural Theologians
Largely accept an ancient Earth, even
an ancient humankind, but:
• See humans as inevitable, no other
courses of evolution could possibly
have occurred
• See evolution as leading to
“progress.” I.e., some type of
ratcheting up effect until some
unification with deity occurs.
Some conclusions so far:


Clearly, for many people the debate over
creationism vs. evolution is driven far more
by values and world views than by the depth
of their knowledge of scientific data and
procedure.
To a large extent, the controversy seems to
arise because of different aggregates in
society who adhere to different
epistemological rules for evaluating truth
claims who are locked in a struggle for
cultural dominance
Scholarly ID proponents

For a small proportion of all ID
adherents, the matter is less one of
a conservative social and political per
se. Instead, they follow in the
tradition of natural philosophy.
These tend to be the university
scholars who debate on behalf of ID
theory and enjoy the support of the
Discovery Institute.
Creation scientists, etc.

The scholarly component of the ID
movement serves much the same
role that “creation scientists” did for
the traditional ICR style creationist
movement. I.e., the creation
scientists were few in number, but
very disproportionate in their
influence because they represented a
rallying point and source of apparent
legitimacy for other adherents
The Future

The Discovery Institute is a
conservative Christian “think-tank.”
It’s structured as a non-profit
educational foundation, founded in
1990 and based in Seattle,
Washington
• Currently the driving force behind ID
“The Wedge Strategy”



The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan created
by the DI, an organization that works to promote a religious
agenda centering around use of ID theory
The purposes of the DI were originally brought to the public's
attention by a leaked fund raising tool that is now known
informally as the “Wedge Document”
Wedge Document states goals of the Institute and ID are to:
• defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral,
cultural, and political legacies
• to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic
understanding that nature and human beings are
created by God.
It details a massive public relations campaign meant to
influence the public, the mass media and public policy
makers
Wedging Politics

Clearly, numerous political strategists
have realized many potential constituents
belief evolution to be the “cause” of wide
array of social problems (see above).
Thus is becomes a symbol carrying far
more baggage than the age and the origin
of the Earth and humans. It becomes a
lever for manipulation of the voters to
favor voting for a word view, even to the
exclusion of their own economic self
interest?
SMOs

Social movements succeed or fail
due to:
(1) degree of internal cohesion
among their component smo’s
(2) maintain member commitment
and enthusiasm
(3) efficacy at mobilizing resources
(4) degree to which they can recruit
“bystander publics”
(5) social control by outside
Cooperation


To date, the creationist/ID
proponents have shown much more
willingness to put aside their
differences in order to advance the
cause
Resistance from the
countermovement (anti-ID forces)
has been rather weak:
• Scientists don’t want to “dignify” the
position of the opposition
• Scientists are notoriously poor joiners of
social movements for any reasons
• Scientists tend to believe that the “truth”
Resource Mobilization



Discovery institute has received
millions from California Savings and
Loan heir Howard Fieldstead
Ahmanson
Evangelically oriented Maclellan
Foundation of Chattanooga, Tenn.,
for example, awarded $350,000
Total Budget seems to be about $4
million per year (far more than for
the counter SMO, the NCSE)
Discovery Institute
Disbursement

Since its founding in 1996, the center has
spent 39 percent of its $9.3 million on
research, Dr. Meyer said, underwriting
books or papers, or often just paying
universities to release professors from some
teaching responsibilities so that they can
ponder intelligent design. Over those nine
years, $792,585 financed laboratory or field
research in biology, paleontology or
biophysics, while $93,828 helped graduate
students in paleontology, linguistics, history
and philosophy.
• - the New York Times
Revitalization Movement


Perhaps it’s best to see the ID movement as
part of a general “revitalization movement.”
A term that anthropologists use to describe
social movements intended to restore to
power a formerly dominant elite that has
fallen from power.
I.e., this is not exclusively backwoods Biblethumpers v. scientists and educated people
generally. Rather it’s a struggle for the
means of cultural reproduction between an
earlier cultural elite and a current one. Just
because a country is modern or postmodern
does not mean that cultural traditionalists
have disappeared.