Here’s an interesting piece from the Guardian by Salman Hameed. He’s arguing that the Islamic world will be the next front in the battle over evolution, and discusses how scientists should respond to the “rising challenge of creationism” among Muslims:
Despite surveys showing hostility towards evolution, there is also an overwhelmingly pro-science attitude. This is particularly true for sciences that have practical and technological benefits. The message about evolution in the Islamic world therefore needs to be framed in a way that emphasises practical applications and shows that it is the bedrock of modern biology. This is the approach advocated in the US in the recent National Academy of Sciences publication Science, Evolution, and Creationism. The arguments for evolution will have to be framed differently in each country. The national academies of Muslim countries can tailor the specifics of the message according to the political and cultural realities of their respective communities.
Hameed warns:
If a link between evolution and atheism is stressed, as some prominent scientists in the west have been advocating, this will undoubtedly cut short the dialogue and the vast majority of people in the Muslim world will choose religion over evolution. Muslim creationists know this and they have been stressing this link in their anti-evolution works.
Hameed’s point of view is, I reckon, reasonable. I’ve never felt that religious faith is necessarily incompatible with an acceptance of evolutionary science, and it’s almost certainly counterproductive to argue that it is. The debate over the existence of God is (so to speak) a theological dispute, important to those who like to worry about such things, but not so important, surely, as to be something that should take priority over the defense of basic scientific knowledge…
Andrew, I fear it may be too late – Harun Yahya & Western Creationists have already appear to have much influence in the middle-east.
On a slightly related issue, I’ve never heard much about Jewish creationism. Does it actually exist?
On a slightly related issue, I’ve never heard much about Jewish creationism. Does it actually exist?
Yes. I think some Hasidics, etc. Obviously they aren’t doing much “outreach” to gentiles 🙂
Low Information Public Underscores Importance of Communication Strategy:
The National Science Foundation has tracked the public’s knowledge of basic scientific facts since the 1970s. The most recent data available from 2001 includes four true or false questions intended to measure understanding of natural history and human origins. Results indicate that a third (33%) of Americans believe that “The universe began with a huge explosion,” nearly eight out of ten (79%) believe that “The continents on which we live have been moving their location for millions of years and will continue to move in the future,” and a slight majority (53%) agree with the statement that: “Human beings as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.” Scores on these items are strongly positively correlated with education. However, it is unclear whether these items are actually capturing “factual” understanding of science, or rather in some cases; reflect the ongoing political contest pitting scientific knowledge against religious beliefs.
A respondent, for example, may know that scientific research concludes that humans evolved from earlier species, but disagree with the statement because it is inconsistent with his or her religious beliefs. The finding that 79% of all adults correctly answer that continents have drifted over millions of years, but only 48% indicate that humans evolved from earlier species is perhaps indicative of the tension in choosing between scientific knowledge versus religious doctrine.
In other words, it is likely that few respondents recognize that accepting the notion of continental drift is inconsistent with their religious opposition to the notion that humans evolved from earlier species. Education not only informs the individual, providing a greater integration of knowledge, but also likely cultivates a stronger commitment to the scientific worldview, easing some of the tension in choosing between scientifically and religiously correct answers.
Evidence from a 2002 survey of Ohio residents sponsored by the Cleveland Plain Dealer reflects, in part, the deep ambivalence that the public might feel in choosing between the competing worldviews encountered at church and at school. When asked: “Which of the following is the principal source of your views on the development of life on Earth?,” more than half (54%) of Ohioans surveyed answered “religious teachings,” compared to 15% who answered “science classes in school,” 10% “the work of scientists,” and 5% the news media. In contrast, when asked “Which of the following is the primary basis for your opinion about what should be taught in science class about human development?,” 44% of Ohioans answered their “personal education,” compared to 29% their “religious beliefs.”
For Dave M: Fundamentalism within the three Abrahamic religions is the major foe of the secular traditions of the West.The fact that religion has been secularized in the West is profoundly disconcerting for fundamentalists who, perhaps somewhat correctly, perceive great danger in the moral decline attendant to that secularization.The emerging waves of violence are seen as part of the war between truth and falsity, God abd Devil, Good and evil. Once the cosmic struggle was symbolic but today it is being brought to earth by fundamentalists who prefer real war to symbolism.Non-fundamentalists of all three religions interpret their great books as a grand catharsis allowing life to have meaning without resorting to violence.
Authoritarian movements have an enemy in the Internet.As people communicate across national and religious boundaries, as we are on this blog, the vulnerabilities of such fundamentalisms will be detected widely. The West, however, trapped in a dark pit of political correctness, may pay a large price unless the liabilities of liberalism are also refuted.
My primary point is that fundamentalist Islam will be an easy takeover for those radicals who realize its conceptual value as a counterweight to secular liberalism.Islam might very readily buy more deeply into ideas that reinforce their fundamentalist beliefs.In general American fundamentalists may be irritating and stupid, but they rarely engage in suicide bombings.
If you study Zionism you see immediately that religion and nationalism can mix in emotionally profound ways. Our own Founding Fathers were mostly religionists whose writings often referred to Christian beliefs and values. Fortunately, they were wise enough to separate Church and State.However, Darwin introduced a revolution in thinking that has now generated culture wars and may well grow into a global confrontation between science and religion.
Islamic societies are far more impervious to Enlightenment values than was the West during pre-secular times. Their religious movements are highly politicized and driven by reactionary impulses against the satanic West.
Creationism is a perfect fit for Islamic fundamentalists who will demonize Darwin in much the same way as our home-bred types. They, however, carry their fundamentalism further than our noisy but more benevolent fanatics. If the conversion of millions of Islamists to creationism can be forestalled, then we must act with haste.
Most Muslims are almost certainly Creationists already. That’s the default “common sense” human orientation. Organized Creationism only crops up when scientific evolutionary thinking achieves enough prominence to threaten people. That’s why organized Creationism in the Muslim world is prominent in Turkey.
Islamic societies are far more impervious to Enlightenment values than was the West during pre-secular times
This may be true. But many societies were very impervious to Enlightenment values before they weren’t.
Hameed’s point has been a hobby horse of mine with regard to our domestic arguments over the subject:
[M]ost people are not inclined to care that much about evolution in and of itself. Unless you work in the sciences, you are unlikely to derive any obvious benefit from the truth or falsity of evolution (the key word in that sentence being ‘obvious’). A religious person might find many daily applications for his religion – solace through prayer, strength in the face of adversity, guidance in ethical behavior, etc.* – but few will find so many practical, daily uses for evolution.
When they do think of evolution… they tend to be resistant to it. Most people, quite understandably, find more fulfillment in thinking of themselves as ensouled creations of a divine intelligence than as imperfect, mortal organisms shaped by the unguided hand of Natural Selection.
It should come as no surprise then, that when asked to choose between an uncomfortable theory with no (obvious) practical application and deeply-held beliefs with clear benefits, most people chose the latter. They are all the more likely to do so when the purveyors of the Uncomfortable Truth delight in disparaging their deepest convictions, however true the former and ridiculous the latter may be…
For good or for bad, scientific literacy and atheist apologetics are not complimentary goals in America today; Myers and Dawkins do themselves, their profession, and our civilization great harm by their failure to acknowledge this.
I had a friend forward me a pair of articles from seemingly conservative/fundamentalist Muslims that oppose creationism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/11/religion.darwinbicentenary
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/25/creatingcontroversy
However this seems to me a minority position.
I don’t think, however, that finding a correlation between creationism and islam or creationism and animism is a particularly good idea. Africa and the Muslim world are incredibly far behind in science in general. Here is a ranking of the top 31 scientific nations in the world. Iran is the only Islamic nation and South Africa the only African.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/jul/15/highereducation.uk1
Btw, Mr. Post Author:
I re-formatted your post with the pretty block quotes cuz the way you had done it just wasn’t aesthetic =)
I assume you were using an iphone to make your post…
Africa and the Muslim world are incredibly far behind in science in general.
Right. Creationism is only relevant when a culture becomes “scientific.” Evangelicals who went to college, got degrees in engineering and medicine, were the ones who created the modern Creationist movement.
This sort of thing is going to be tough for the liberal educational establishment to come to a decision on. On the one hand, they’re dead-set against allowing creationism and intelligent design into biology classes. (It’s my opinion that ID is “trying to sneak religion in through the back door”, although it doesn’t strike me as a key issue right now.)
On the other hand, the establishment doesn’t usually stand up to stealthy moves by Muslim immigrants to impose their customs on the places they move to. Health workers in the UK have been instructed not to have lunch at their desks during Ramadan. As long as the courts are forbidding businesses from firing Muslims who refuse to do parts of their jobs for religious reasons, I’m not sure why the courts would stand up to Muslim objections to modern biological education.
Muslim plaintiffs will be followed by Muslim voters. My guess is that the establishment left, having criticized Christian fundamentalism (sometimes accurately, sometimes excessively) for years, will radically readjust their attitude to the same ideas coming from Muslims. At some point, we may reach the odd situation of Christian fundamentalists trying to pass their kids off as Muslim so they won’t have to take regular biology class (since exceptions made for Muslims are almost never extended to any other group). The same uncertainty applies to establishment views on sexual matters – are the leftists going to stand up for gay marriage and abortion rights when Muslim voters start weighing in on these matters?
At some point, we may reach the odd situation of Christian fundamentalists trying to pass their kids off as Muslim so they won’t have to take regular biology class
They don’t care about evolution THAT MUCH 🙂 It’s just a notional ingroup marker, but it doesn’t have the emotional valence of something like sex education. As it is, in most American schools the teachers take the safe route and teach biology as stamp collecting without any system. My high school biology teacher admitted that he did this because when he talked too much about evolution, beyond a nominal mention, some students and parents would start agitating so much that he would get caught up in lots of minor kerfuffles that distracted from his ability to develop coherent lesson plans. Depends on school district though, my peers were around 1/2 Mormon with the balance being disproportionately conservative Protestants. Biology teachers had to pick their battles, and would discuss evolution in depth once they got advanced students who were taking their courses as electives as opposed to requirements.
In any case, Dawkins has already spoken out against Islamic Creationism. Harris has been beating the drum for years. The issue here is modern liberalism, not secularism. In England atheists aren’t so ostracized, so perhaps they can be the necessary shock troops. Also, you have to be careful not to mix & match the UK situation with the American one; they don’t have a theoretical church-state wall of separation so there is a lot of stuff weird that might confuse us.
Also, re: evolution & education, last I checked it was generally taught only in areas where the teachers wouldn’t get hassled about it. There’s a connection to the nature of textbooks too, Texas tends to serve as a dampener on anything that’s too “cutting edge.”
I had a friend forward me a pair of articles from seemingly conservative/fundamentalist Muslims that oppose creationism.
I’d be a bit loath to believe anything by Inayat Bunglawala at least – he’s the de facto head of the British version of the Muslim Brotherhood and speaks with forked tongue.
David Hume is probably right that creationism thrives where science is culturally successful. Religionists with a bitter taste in their mouths will lead the flock against the demon Darwin. It is also true that militant atheists like Harris and Dawkins engage in the same emotional rhetoric as do the worst religious zealots. They do indeed provide a poor example of humane and reasonable atheism.
Tom Meyer is right that most people do not think deeply about the metaphysical implications of Darwinism. The fraction of heavyweight thinking is miniscule indeed. Religion, especially Cristianity, seems well suited for adaptation to science and liberalism. In all probability the effects of creationist “teaching” was and is insignificant. The bigger problem is scientific illiteracy on a large scale combined with the gullibility and stupidity Mencken once decried. Pop culture and liberal postmodernism have produced a new species of ignoramus that is drawn to a black presidential candidate on the basis of skin color, charm, and a message of “change.” Thin resumes go far these days!
Related to the ignorance problem is the fact that evolution is itself difficult to teach. I have done it for years and agree with Charles Murray about the priority of IQ. Only the top 10% of students in public schools- essentially those in AP classes, have any prospect of understanding evolution in a competent way. Biology teachers are a mixed lot ranging from basketcases to my deceased friend George Schwartz, who taught Lewontin in high school, wrote biology texts, and was a first-rate naturalist the likes of which I have never seen again.
The problems related to teaching an abstract idea like evolution are discussed at length in my book called “Apes or Angels? Darwin, Dover, Human Nature, and Race.”
Only the top 10% of students in public schools- essentially those in AP classes, have any prospect of understanding evolution in a competent way. Biology teachers are a mixed lot ranging from basketcases to my deceased friend George Schwartz, who taught Lewontin in high school, wrote biology texts, and was a first-rate naturalist the likes of which I have never seen again.
Cornelius, I’ve not read your book (you’ll be glad to know that after looking at a précis its now on my to-buy list) but could you perhaps summarise a few comparatively easy steps that could be introduced to encourage better teaching of evolution and other biology?
Dave M: I hope you take the time to read my book and perhaps review it at Amazon.com or here. It is totally censored by the liberal publishing industry. While teaching at UCLA I was easily published by the best houses and even got in a shot against radical school reform in the 60’s.This book, however, contains a discussion of race that is controversial only because it deeply offends liberal PC sensibilities.I think you will enjoy it.
Go to the National Center for Science Education and refer to evolution for advice on teaching. Furthermore, you should also go to UNDERSTANDING EVOLUTION in order to get specific teaching advice by experts at UC Berkely’s Museum of Paleontology. Believe me it is excellent. Both of these sites have much helpful advice. I have not taught any biology for about four years and would have to haul out my old files to get at my actual lessons and conceptual framework. If you follow my advice you’ll learn much that is valuable. Good luck.
I’ve never felt that religious faith is necessarily incompatible with an acceptance of evolutionary science…
It’s not incompatible with faith strictly speaking, it just takes a lot of work to account for both things being true. Really, at some point, a truly Abrahamic faith is going to have to beg off real evolution. For them, “intelligent design” of some sort must be true. You simply can’t accept unplanned, undirected evolution of the human being (with all his mental capabilities; ie, the soul) and believe God did it all with a purpose. One is just not like the other.
Polichinello, I disagree. Yes, for myself I can not conceive of being an Abrahamist and not being a Creationist, but, I can not conceive of being an Abrahamist. I conclude on empirical grounds that the contention that sincere Christianity and acceptance of evolution can not fit in one mind fails the empirical test; therefore, my model of the mind, religion and science must have a weakness. I suspect the problem is that I, and many atheist and intellectual Fundamentalists, extrapolate our own cognitive processes as universal when they are not.
On empirical grounds, you’ve got me. Clearly there are people who hold to Abrahamic faith and accept Darwin’s theory. To this, I can only respond that they’re not being honest with themselves. Cognitive dissonance is hardly unknown. There are plenty of examples of people holding contrary beliefs on more mundane matters. Look at the history of Marxism. Given the stakes, it hardly surprises me that you have people doing the same thing here, even people as brilliant as Francis Collins and Ken Miller.
I suspect the problem is that I, and many atheist and intellectual Fundamentalists, extrapolate our own cognitive processes as universal when they are not.
Here, with respect, I must sharply disagree. I’m not talking about my cognitive process or yours or theirs. What we have are two propositions:
The first, that man descended from previous lifeforms by an undirected process. In short, man’s descent is no more providential than the Grand Canyon’s being carved by the Colorado. No tampering hands, breathing in life at a magical moment, and so forth.
The second proposition says that God created man and gave him a soul. Now, you can say that this creation took place over eons through an evolution, but it would not–by definition–be undirected. It would have involved an intelligence designing us.
These two propositions cannot both be true. If the former is correct, then God took no hand in our creation, and thus cannot be the God of the Bible or the Koran. If the latter is true, than the Intelligent Design school is quite correct to be looking for signs of God’s design.
Cognitive dissonance is hardly unknown.
It’s the norm. Our mind exhibits a lot of modularity. Most cognition is neither rational, nor conscious.
Here, with respect, I must sharply disagree. I’m not talking about my cognitive process or yours or theirs. What we have are two propositions:
First, most humans don’t think propositionally. Second, most humans don’t even know what a proposition is if English is there first language 🙂 Third, constraining the set of propositions is an easy way to affirm your previous position.
Oh, and finally, it seems that most people who identify as Christian and know about evolution accept evolution. The United States is exceptional (many Christians in the Global South reject evolution if told about it, but these semi or illiterate people probably don’t even know about the idea).
First, most humans don’t think propositionally.
Again, you got me, but that doesn’t invalidate the logic.
Third, constraining the set of propositions is an easy way to affirm your previous position.
If there’s a defect in my propositions, please, correct them.
Oh, and finally, it seems that most people who identify as Christian and know about evolution accept evolution. The United States is exceptional (many Christians in the Global South reject evolution if told about it, but these semi or illiterate people probably don’t even know about the idea).
Well, since we’re arguing ab populis, do you not find it striking that in those areas where Christians accept evolution, Christianity is fading?
If there’s a defect in my propositions, please, correct them.
I didn’t say there is a defect in your propositions. I implied that there are other sets of propositions. I will leave it to theistic evolutionists to argue their case 🙂 As I am not one….
Well, since we’re arguing ab populis, do you not find it striking that in those areas where Christians accept evolution, Christianity is fading?
The R2 isn’t that strong. Look at the chart.
Another fine chart from the Humester. (That’s Hyoom ster not Hyoo mester.) What leaps out at me is the much bigger areas of “Not sure” in Eastern Europe. Implying maybe that the people there were taught weirdo-evolution (i.e. Lysenkoism) under the Communists, and are now being taught Darwinism, genetics, etc., and are a little jaded and skeptical (can’t say I blame them).
Poster TJIC raises a good point about how the politicized “civilized minority” (to use Christopher Lasch’s term for the establishment left) has used evolution as such a hybrid political litmus test / IQ test. It drives people away from the left. A lot of people have decided that they’re HL Mencken reincarnated and that by golly they’re going to catch flies with vinegar if it’s the last thing they do.
The countervailing force is also quite strong in the US – a few loud fundies and Pentecostal types attacking Darwinism have caused a mostly false association between creationism/ID and Christianity in general.
It seems to me like there is a big possibility for some honey to attract flies to evolution. Theistic evolution, pantheistic evolution … I have no belief in the supernatural but if I did I would think it lay in big, complex processes which seem to act kind of like a brain, but don’t have any neurons or even a location. Natural selection fits the bill pretty well. I mean, if I were discounting old-fashioned tales on papyrus of bearded gods smiting their foes and all that, but I still wanted to know if there is a big ol’ force guiding us organisms, I think I would go straight to evolution.
Who gave me legs? Anyone could. Who gave me legs that work? A much more interesting question.
It’s the kind of thing that makes an agno/atheist say “God”, as in, “God, think how many times a nimble lioness must have caught a gazelle when a lioness with inferior musculature went hungry. God, think how many of my ancestors’ neighbors must have died because of blindness caused by something falling into their eyes – otherwise where did I get eyelashes?” (I admit I know little about eyelashes, I’m just riffing here.)
Forgive me for commenting late, but it’s easy for any moderate theist to reconcile Abrahamic faith with evolution. The holy book is metaphor where the moderate believer decides it’s metaphor, and it’s literal where they decide it’s literal; Yahweh didn’t literally create the world in six days six thousand years ago, but laid down the natural laws to set it all in motion. Easy.
If the creationism battlefront could be moved from “what caused the Big Bang?” and “what created life from non-life?” to “what created the natural laws?”, the discussion could truly be relegated to those that care, and everyone could collaborate on elucidating those natural “God-given” laws (like in the good old days).
It seems to me like there is a big possibility for some honey to attract flies to evolution.
There is another solution to the “flies problem”, pesticides!
And since this is about what the fundamentalists are thinking for a solution to the “godless problem” I am afraid that this is what we are headed for.
Batesons’s schismogenesis.