5 facts about evolution and religion

[cbayer]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/30/5-facts-about-evolution-and-religion/

OCTOBER 30, 2014
5 facts about evolution and religion
BY DAVID MASCI



Are faith and belief in evolution necessarily at odds? According to Pope Francis, the answer is no. Indeed, the pope recently reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church’s view that “evolution in nature is not inconsistent” with church teaching on creation, pushing the debate on human origins back into the news.

Although most U.S. Catholics accept the idea of evolution in some form, a substantial percentage of American adults reject the scientific explanation for the origins of human life, and a number of religious groups in the U.S. maintain that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection is not correct because it conflicts with their views of creation.

Here are five facts about evolution and faith:

1 The Roman Catholic Church has long accepted – or at least not objected to – evolutionary theory. Pope Francis is not the first pontiff to publicly affirm that evolution is compatible with church teachings. In 1950, in the encyclical “Humani Generis,” Pope Pius XII said that Catholic teachings on creation could coexist with evolutionary theory. Pope John Paul II went a bit further in 1996, calling evolution “more than a hypothesis.”

2 A minority of Americans fully accept the scientific explanation for the origins of human life. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, 60% of Americans say humans have evolved over time, but only about half of that group (32% of U.S. adults overall) believes that humans and other living things evolved solely due to natural processes, the explanation accepted by the vast majority of scientists. About a quarter of U.S. adults (24%) say that humans and other life evolved, but that this evolution was guided by a supreme being. The same survey found that a third of Americans (33%) reject evolution entirely, saying humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

more at link

[NYC_SKP]

1. "White Evangelical Protestants"

Usually, the expression of hatred is a symptom of some fear.

I wonder what they have to fear?

[cbayer]

2. I think what they fear is that some of the things they champion might be wrong.

It's very tribalistic as well.

[longship]

3. These numbers have been remarkably stable for quite some time.

The only way one could conceivably overcome this is with a robust science education, like what happened when Sputnik I was launched -- thank you Ike and JFK. Certainly my education was improved by that, especially my tenth grade biology class, taught by Mr. Locket, who was the first black teacher I ever had, this in the city of Detroit. He was brilliant, charismatic, and his students universally loved him. He also demanded high standards. It was first exposure to real science.

Science is not about facts; it is about methodology.

That's what's missing now.

[cbayer]

4. I agree that education in science is the key to fixing this rather massive problem.

But it needs to be done in a way that doesn't cause believers to move further into their corner and double down on the convictions they hold that are not consistent with science.

Bill Nye has talked about this and I think he is on the right track. There has to be a way to teach the known science without completely undermining their beliefs.

I don't have the answer, but I think it can be done.

[longship]

5. Well, the iconic exemplar of this is Kenneth Miller.

For some number of years he has had the number one high school biology text, which has been through a few revisions. It is unapologetic in its support of evolution.

Yet Miller is also unapologetic in his Catholicism. He was prominent with his testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which basically killed Intelligent Design, for once and for all. He also has debated with the infamous creationist, Duane Gish, on at least two occasions.

I would hate to be the creationist who brings up god in any debate with Ken Miller.

Plus, he knows his shit!

Kenneth R. Miller.

For an example of a science clear win over intelligent design, I invite people to view the William F. Buckley Firing Line program that pit Eugenie Scott, Kenneth Miller, Michael Ruse and Barry Lynn against William F. Buckley, David Berlinski, Michael Behe and Philip Johnson.

The science side trounces the ID side. Two (Lynn and Miller) are believers. Two on the ID side (Buckley and Johnson) have no idea what they are talking about. One could add Berlinski and Behe to that list as well, but at least Berlinski is an engineer and Behe a biologist.

Eugenie Scott and Kenneth Miller walk right over the ID side. Michael Ruse furnishes his philosophical expertease. Barry Lynn addresses the political and religious points.

By the end, Buckley becomes nearly a babbling fool. He apparently had no idea what he was up against. Amazingly, it was broadcast regardless. I saw it live, but it is instructive to see it again because the anti-science brigade -- one is tempted to substitute the more descriptive title brigands -- end up with nothing but embarrassment.

Best regards,
longship

[cbayer]

6. I think you have spoken about Kenneth Miller before and he is

a great example of how to do this right.

I can't stream videos right now, but would love to watch this one at some point.

Hope you are well. I am back in beautiful but still extremely hot Mexico.

[longship]

7. It snowed here on Holloween night.

No accumulation, but it still sucks. Big flakes and lots of wind. Time to get the long johns out.

[cbayer]

8. As usual, we are having markedly different experiences.

I just spent some time in Northern California where it got pretty cold at night. But here it is in the 90's. No long johns for me.