Unrealpolitik

[imomus]

On 11th August Science magazine, under the low-key heading "Public Acceptance of Evolution", published research by Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott and Shinji Okamoto which showed that only 14% of adult Americans think the theory of evolution is "definitely true" (around 40% give more qualified consent to the idea). In Europe and Japan, in contrast, around 80% of the adult population believes that human beings developed from earlier species of animals. (There's a more accurate graph than the New York Times one I've used here.)

In the days that followed, the story got picked up by National Geographic Magazine ("Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds") and the New York Times ("Did humans evolve? Not us, say Americans") before spreading waves of amusement, despair and disbelief through the blogosphere ("Americans not developed from earlier species of animals").

The researchers, who found that American anti-Darwinism is growing quite quickly (from 7% of skeptics to 21% in the past 20 years), blamed "widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States" for the difference between the US and Europe and Japan. But by most measures the US differs quite radically from other advanced nations. Back in the early 90s Bantam Books published "Where We Stand", a comparison of the US with other wealthy nations. In table after table, the US ranked either at the top or the bottom, revealing its fundamental difference from European nations. Here's a brief summary (based on this page) of the factors on which the US was either the lowest or highest ranking (it's probable that most of these differences have only become more extreme in the intervening 15 years). The US has the:

Lowest overall tax rates as a percentage of GNP
Highest purchasing power
Highest individual worker productivity (but in both cases, other nations have been catching up)
Highest percentage of families earning two paychecks
Highest average household debt (double next nearest, UK)
Lowest average household savings
Biggest trade deficit
Biggest current account imbalance
Lowest investment levels as a percentage of GDP
Highest inequality of income (Gini)
Highest disparity between CEOs' pay and other workers' pay
Lowest percentage of unionized workers
Smallest middle class
Highest percentage of people below the poverty level
Highest percentage of below-poverty-level children
Most deaths from malnutrition per million
Highest healthcare expenditure as percentage of GDP
Highest doctor's incomes
Lowest percentage of population covered by public health care
Highest infant mortality rate
Highest toddler death rates
Highest rate of death in 15-24 year olds
Highest premature death rate
Highest number of people who think healthcare system needs fundamental change
Highest percentage of single-parent families
Lowest percentage of girls who are still virgins aged 20
Lowest percentage of sexually active single 15 to 19-year olds using birth control
Highest teen pregnancy rates
Highest teen abortion rates
Highest rates of reported police brutality
Biggest percentage of its population in prison
Largest number of death row inmates
Largest percentage of houses with a handgun
Largest number of handgun murders
Highest murder rate
Highest rape rate
Highest armed robbery rate
Lowest percentage of people using public transport
Highest annual air miles per person
Lowest average price of gallon of gas
Most oil energy used
Most carbon dioxide per person released
Most carbon monoxide per person released
Most CFCs emitted
Most major oil spills
Most forests cleared
Most coal burned
Most debris inhaled per person per year
Most municipal waste produced per person
Least glass recycled
Least paper and cardboard recycled
Shortest paid vacations
Least news as percentage of all TV
Most manufacturing employee turnover
Most employees fired
Lowest voter participation levels
Lowest number of referenda (zero)
Largest number of political scandals

A more up-to-date account of fundamental differences between the US and Europe appears in The Economist magazine. In an August 3rd story headed "To Israel With Love", the magazine reports a gulf between American and European perceptions of the current war in the Middle East.

"A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted on July 28th-30th," the Economist says, "showed that eight in ten Americans believed that Israel's action [in Lebanon] was justified... Americans are far more likely than Europeans to side with Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A Pew Global Attitudes survey taken between March and May found that 48% of Americans said that their sympathies lay with the Israelis; only 13% were sympathetic towards the Palestinians. By contrast, in Spain for example, 9% sympathised with the Israelis and 32% with the Palestinians."

This, says the magazine, is because Americans have strong cultural affinities with Israel; the average American is much more likely to find something in common with the attitudes of Israelis than the attitudes of Europeans:

"Americans are staunch nationalists, much readier to contemplate the use of force than Europeans. A German Marshall Fund survey in 2005 found 42% of Americans strongly agreeing that “under some conditions, war is necessary to obtain justice” compared with just 11% of Europeans. A Pew survey found that the same proportion of Americans and Israelis believe in the use of pre-emptive force: 66%. Continental European figures were far lower."

The article points to the power of the AIPAC (Israeli) and Christian fundamentalist lobbies on the American political system, and says:

"The Christian right is also solidly behind Israel. White evangelicals are significantly more pro-Israeli than Americans in general; more than half of them say they strongly sympathise with Israel. (A third of the Americans who claim sympathy with Israel say that this stems from their religious beliefs.) Two in five Americans believe that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, and one in three say that the creation of the state of Israel was a step towards the Second Coming."

Which brings us back to the refusal to believe in Darwinian evolution. Isn't there something tremendously dangerous in this combination of stubborn irrationality and tremendous geo-political power? Unrealpolitik, we could call it.

Comments

[verlaine.livejournal.com]

Isn't it the mark of more advanced thought to give "qualified" consent to the theory of evolution? I mean, last I checked that's what a theory was, something we're *not* sure is definitely true.

[33mhz.livejournal.com]

A common argument, and one that's flawed because it misunderstands what "theory" means in a scientific context.

From wikipedia:
"A theory is an attempt to identify and describe relationships between phenomena or things, and generates falsifiable predictions which can be tested through controlled experiments, or empirical observation. Speculative or conjectural explanations tend to be called hypotheses, and well tested explanations, theories."

[mcgazz.livejournal.com]

In other words, verlaine is right - we think theories are true, but we don't *know*. If we did, they'd be theorems.

[33mhz.livejournal.com]

The word you were looking for is "law."

[imomus.livejournal.com]

You're right, the Christian fundamentalists' refusal to take Darwin's theories on trust are indeed a mark of highly advanced thought, exactly the sort of skepticism that scientific progress itself is based on. Darwin, were he not dead, would feel his heart swelling with pride. But what am I talking about, of course he's not dead, he's burning in hell.

[verlaine.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that there aren't idiots who will have voted for "qualified support", just that some fairly bright, decent people probably did so as well. I don't see unquestioning acceptance of anything rubberstamped by "scientists" as being that much more attractive than Biblical fundamentalism. In a world where you can petition in the street to ban dihydrogen monoxide (for being deadly when accidentally inhaled) and get thousands of signatures, it seems that worrying ignorance cuts both ways.

[ex-newironsh15.livejournal.com]

I'm ashamed to say that I fell for the DHMO scare when I was younger. But only briefly.

[ex-newironsh15.livejournal.com]

If this survey was like the ones I did in school, there was probably a 5 point scale that went something like this:

1 - Evolution definitely true
2 - Evolution probably true
3 - Not sure
4 - Evolution probably not true
5 - Evolution definitely not true

with groups 1&2 being combined as the "accepts evolution" group and 4&5 becoming the "don't accept evolution" group.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

"And one last thing for clarification - the chart says that ~40% of adults in the U.S. believe in evolution while the article I quoted from noted the 14% "definitely true" statement - the chart takes into account the "definitely true" and "probably true" to come to that number and the "probably false" and "definitely false" for the other side."

Booman Tribune (http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/8/11/114713/108)

[audiodregs.livejournal.com]

I would guess that the fact that you must pay for a good education in the US is part of the reason it ranks so low, since very few people can afford the sort of education that is free in many of the higher ranking European countries on the chart. Most Americans have no real concept of what really evolution is (and I would say too lazy to teach themselves). It would appear that some people commenting on this thread do not have a clear definition of "science" as well.

I think that these charts are alarming, but saying Nick has nothing nice to say about America makes this chart no less alarming.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Quite frankly, Verlaine, the fact that morons like Bush are in charge does not mean we have to go back and re-invent the wheel, intellectually speaking, just because some of his fan-base doesn't like the way it looks. I hope you're aware of how your arguments play into the hands of some of the worst, meanest and lowest people ever to have dragged their knuckles across "God's" Green Earth.

[polocrunch.livejournal.com]

I hope you're aware of how your arguments play into the hands of some of the worst, meanest and lowest people ever to have dragged their knuckles across "God's" Green Earth.

Momus, for shame!

Evolution is not unquestionable fact, because no scientific claim, no part of science, no matter how fundamental, is permitted shelter from scrutiny. As a scientific explanation the Theory of Evolution must be falsifiable () - in other words, there is theoretically room for it to be proven wrong. Therefore one cannot say that it is absolute truth. However, the Theory of Evolution is (and I'm sure Verlaine would agree here) the very best explanation anyone has ever come up with, with lots of evidence pointing directly at it and none (currently) contradicting it. So the Theory of Evolution is technically a theory, but no-one who seriously understood its mechanisms and the mountain of evidence in its favour would ever bother mentioning that.

Fundamentalist Christians exploit this philosophical technicality - that NO scientific theory or law can ever been definitely known to be true - as a sort of thin end of a wedge, the thick end being to shove their own laughable philosophies of origins into the education system, public discourse and ultimately the scientific community. They take Verlaine's statement ("all scientific statements are to an extent theoretical, even the really fundamental ones, although only in a technical way"), extrapolate incorrectly from it ("evolution is just a theory") and push their idea onto a largely scientifically illiterate public.

Verlaine is correct, basically, and fundamentalist Christians warp his point to suit their own ends. I find it rather objectionable that you reject his point - because you don't do so on philosophical grounds but on the grounds that the 'enemy' might misuse his statement. Doesn't that sound like the sort of claim that right-wingers often come out with - like calling well-intentioned criticism of the homeland 'unpatriotic'? Don't you often lambast the right-wing in the US for doing exactly what you have just done?

It seems to me that Verlaine is being attacked for pointing out an uncomfortable truth (not that it's really all that uncomfortable when you think about it), and that someone owes someone else an apology. :P

[polocrunch.livejournal.com]

Oops, I forgot to insert the link properly. I was trying to link to the Wikipedia page for Falsifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability).

[imomus.livejournal.com]

It seems to me we're saying the same thing. Verlaine's arguments play into the hands of Bush-supporters and fundamentalists, I say. Fundamentalist Christians warp his point to suit their own ends, you say.

But he wasn't just saying "all scientific statements are to an extent theoretical, even the really fundamental ones, although only in a technical way". He also said "I don't see unquestioning acceptance of anything rubberstamped by "scientists" as being that much more attractive than Biblical fundamentalism." In other words, he makes a moral equivalence between science and religion.

[polocrunch.livejournal.com]

OK, so his comment was more open to misinterpretation by naughty Christian fundamentalists than mine, but it would be more consistent for you to agree with him (with some minor qualifications) than to try to shut him up.

[uberdionysus.livejournal.com]

All of modern biology is predicated on evolution, as is, of course, all of molecular biology and genetic engineering. You will find NO biologist who doesn't believe in evolution.

Gravity is also a theory, as is light, yet no self-respecting scientists doubts their validity. There are many questions that remain about how and why they work, but for the most part, we have a pretty good idea about what they are and how they do what they do.

Anyone who uses that argument to call evolution into question doesn't know what they're talking about.

[verlaine.livejournal.com]

I just don't think that a particularly clever answer to fundamentalism is more fundamentalism, and this is basically what I'm getting from a lot of people. "If you don't agree with our position you're a knuckle-dragging idiot." Way to win the floating voters!

[uberdionysus.livejournal.com]

How is science fundamentalism? Didn't you say that science changes frequently?

If the ideology of science is always changing then there can't be any fundamentalism.

Again, I hate to be blunt, but the only way to disprove evolution is by claiming that all of science and the ideas of evidence and scientific theories is bunk. Every experiment has shown backed up the theory of evolution.

Point blank: you can claim the Earth is flat, or that light comes from the Fairy-Godmother's anus, but that doesn't make it so.

Science is predicated on hundreds of years of repeatable and demonstrable observations, predictions, and tests. You can run these tests, if you are so inclined. Until the 20th c., most of the tests were pretty easy to do at home.

I don't really care about the "floating voters." Plenty of people out there believe that virgins await them in the afterlife. Others believe that aliens are going to take them away. I don't care in what people believe - I care in what has been demonstrated and proved. It takes belief to deny that, but no belief in order to know that it is right.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I find it pretty amazing that we're having to even argue this at all. Even Pope John Paul II accepted the soundness of evolutionary theory (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html) in 1996.

[polocrunch.livejournal.com]

Oh! So now if the Pope says something it has to be true. :P

[verlaine.livejournal.com]

I think it *is* fundamentalism to claim that "the method by which I choose to engage with the universe is good and pure and right, and anyone who does not subscribe to that method, for whatever reason, is a contemptible idiot". I happen to agree with you that repeatable observation and prediction constitute an extremely useful tool for making discoveries liable to enhance the human condition. That doesn't stop me from caring about the people who don't have the wealthy, middle-class background, with the automatic university place and subsequent cushy lifestyle that makes it childishly easy and non-controversial to reach the conclusions you have.

Whoa! Easy with the presumptions.

[uberdionysus.livejournal.com]

I grew up in a trailer in the middle of the Mojave desert: Goffs, Ca., U.S., population 23. Unless you slept on the ground and worried about being hungry, you grew up richer than me. Unless you grew up in a fundamentalist household, I doubt your family was religious as mine (fundamentalist family who firmly believed in creationism, knew nothing about science, and generally believed in all kinds of superstition).

But now I know that science doesn't "claim" anything as an "institution." It definitely doesn't claim to be "good and pure and right." What it does claim is that you can follow all of the experiments of your predecessors and you WILL the same results. Not only that, but those results describe a SMALL chunk of what we know and there are endless things to be discovered. Science is simply a way of understanding the world and it is falsifiable, predictable and endlessly repeatable. I did a lot of the experiments of the early practitioners, and saw first hand that those experiments work, and they work every time.

Praying won't show you how a TV works, but science will. Likewise with every object in your house - science will show you how it works and why. It won't tell you anything about 'good' or 'pure' or 'right,' only about what it can talk about. One of things it can talk about is how life, and the human organism, has evolved from other organisms.

I grew up with the very poor, but that doesn't make me excuse their ignorance.

Re: Whoa! Easy with the presumptions.

[(Anonymous)]

You gotta admit, that is pretty poor. With that kind of credibility, I might be able to find you a deal as a rap artist.

[constructionism.livejournal.com]

I find those numbers hard to believe. What's strange is that some of the country's better schools are in the so-called "heartland", places like Kansas. I don't know where all of those people are coming from, maybe the south or somewhere.

So much of it has to do with the lack of support for science education in areas outside of the cities, though - I'm guessing. If you don't live in or near a big city, you're cut off from so much information and news and perhaps that creates distrust.