Creationist/Intelligent Design vs. Evolutionist Heuristics Raymond A. Eve, Ph. D. Professor of Sociology The University

1. Creationist/Intelligent Design vs. Evolutionist Heuristics Raymond A. Eve, Ph. D. Professor of Sociology The University of Texas at Arlington eve@uta.edu Prepared for the Southwest and Rocky Mountain Division of the AAAS April, 2007 Clear Lake City, Texas

2. 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.”

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. “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 under-represents science and engineering majors

8. 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

9. 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%

10. 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%

11. 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%

12. All radioactivity is manmade “true” = 25% • The center of the Earth is very hot “false” = 10 ½%

13. 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.”

14. “Were You Taught Evolution in High School?”Student samples from same university at 2 points in time

15. Evolution Correctly Explains the Development of Life on Earth “The theory of evolution correctly explains the development of life on earth.”

16. Dinosaurs and Man Were Contemporaries “Dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, as is shown by finds of their footprints together.”

17. Mankind Was Created about 10,000 Years Ago “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”

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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”

23. 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 areordered 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”

24. 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."

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. Past scholarly explanations for adherence to creationism/ID • Ignorance – “backwoods bumpkins” • Authoritarian Personality or Subculture • Status inconsistency theories • Reaction against materialist philosophy

32. 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.

33. 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, time-bound, localized, and internal to each individual. (“God is within you”).

34. 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.

35. 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)

36. 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

37. Samples differ as expected vis-à-vis opinions on human origins

38. Social Issues

40. Civil Religion, or the tendency to treat certain secular topics as sacred

44. Issues of Vitality

49. Checking Epistemological Predictions