Evolution Survey

A Survey of the Public Understanding of Evolution

I filled out in this survey the other day. It’s relatively short, though it contains two essay questions. I found myself struggling to define and describe evolution in my own words. It revealed to me, what I already knew, that I need to educate myself on the topic. Whether you accept evolution or not, you should consider taking the survey.

If you are interested, you can read my answers below. If you plan to take the survey, stop reading after this paragraph. Otherwise you might be influenced by my words, whether they be good responses or bad.

. . . . .

To the best of your understanding, and in your own words, please explain what “evolution” means.

“Descent with modification? The change in allele frequency over time? Just kidding! Evolution is the theory which explains the origin and diversity of all species on Earth (maybe other places too). It explains how genetic information is inherited through generations, and what factors are responsible for genetic changes. At its core, though not singularly, the mechanism of natural selection, which is driven by environmental pressures such as competition, favors individuals of a species which are able to survive long enough to reproduce. That reproduction passes along genes, however alike or different from the parent, suitable for survival in the current environment. All members of a species which are genetically different, in any degree from the previous generation, are describes having evolved. Evolution describes this process and is useful for determining ancestry among all living things.”

If you accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why; or if you do not accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why not.

“I accept evolutionary theory because, of the evidence I have reviewed, it has been adequately supported. I am convinced, even though my knowledge on the subject is little. Examples like the inability of apes and humans to synthesize vitamin C due to genes which are mutated, disabled in the same way has helped me understand just what kind of evidence really exists on the subject. I’m no expert, obviously.”

How confident are you that you understand the scientific theory of evolution?

“60-70% sure”

On the question of the origin and development of life and humans,
what do you believe?

“I believe that life and humans evolved through natural forces without guidance by God.”

I consider myself to be:

“a fiscal/economic conservative” to “a fiscal/economic liberal” – 3
“a social conservative” to “a social liberal” – 5
“not very interested in science” to “very interested in science” – 4
“not religious at all” to “very religious” – 1

Do you believe there is a God?
(a purposeful higher intelligence that created the universe)

“Definitely No”

On average, when you were growing up, how often did you attend religious services?

“Once a Week”

How often do you presently attend religious services?

“Never”

Current religious organization membership:

“None”

What is your highest level of education?

“college degree”

Gender

“male”

Age

“30 to 39″

Ethnicity

“White/Caucasian”

What is your country of residence?

“United States (USA)”

If you are a Canadian or United States resident, in what state or province do you live?

“North Carolina”

Suspicious Voter Registration Call

I received a suspicious automated phone call recently concerning voter registration. I emailed the North Carolina State Board of Elections. Here is the exchange.

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: “J.S.Brown”
Subject: Phone call about voter registration
To: elections.sboe

I just received a phone call. It was a recorded message that said something like this:

“Hello. This is Lamont Williams. In a few days you should be getting a voter registration form in the mail. Please fill it out and return promptly and you will be able to vote. Thank you.”

Is this legitimate? I thought I was already registered to vote. Should I ignore whatever arrives in my mailbox concerning voter registration? And who is Lamont Williams?

Subject: FW: Phone call about voter registration
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:42:53 -0400
From: “Don Wright”
To: “J.S.Brown”

The State Board of Elections knows nothing of this. If you get anything from this man or group, fax to my attention at [FAX NUMBER REMOVED] and we will investigate.

Don Wright
General Counsel

The automated phone call seems, to me, like an attempt to trick new, unregistered, and unsure voters into submitting sensitive personal information. So far, I haven’t yet received any mail about voter registration. For now, it’s no more than a suspicious phone call. I advise everyone to be cautious.

I apologize for not posting this sooner.

NC Democratic Primary: Unaffiliated Voters

I’ve been hearing that unaffiliated voters won’t be allowed to vote in the upcoming North Carolina Democratic primary election. Since I have been planning to vote in said primary, I was unhappy to hear this.

Good news! According to the North Carolina Democratic Party’s website:

In North Carolina, unaffiliated voters are permitted to vote in the Democratic primary.

However, if an unaffiliated voter chooses to vote in the Democratic primary, he or she cannot vote in a Republican runoff (or second primary). Similarly, an unaffiliated voter who votes in a Republican primary cannot vote in a Democratic runoff.

To Pray or to Reason

Astoundingly, today is National Day of Prayer in the USA. Fortunately, there are some smart people in this country who have countered it by starting a National Day of Reason, which falls on the same day.

This day offers a choice: will you pray, or will you reason? It’s an easy choice for me. I’ve tried both. Only one has ever been useful to me.

I wrote about this last year, though my blog was on Yahoo! 360° at the time. I brought that post with me to WordPress. You can read it here, if interested.

PZ has a good post on this today: Happy National Day of Prayer!

Clinton and Obama will debate faith but not science

This is an email I received today from the ScienceDebate 2008 website.

Dear J.S.,

I am sorry to send two emails in such short succession, but I thought you should know that after declining our invitation to debate science in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton yesterday agreed to attend “The Compassion Forum,” a forum of “wide-ranging and probing discussions of policies related to moral issues.”  CNN will serve as the exclusive broadcaster of the “presidential-candidate forum on faith, values and other current issues” at Messiah College near Harrisburg, Pa., April 13 at 8 p.m.  You can read more here.

Perhaps among the moral issues discussed should be whether they have a moral obligation to more fully engage on science issues, since the future viability of the planet may hang in the balance, for starters.  Is there a larger moral imperative?  How about the future economic health of the United States and the prosperity of its families?  Science & engineering have driven half our economic growth since WWII, yet but 2010 if trends hold 90% of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia.  Then there are the moral questions surrounding the health of our families with stem cell research, genomics, health insurance policy, and medical research.  There’s biodiversity loss and the health of the oceans and the morality of balancing destruction of species against human needs and expenses, there’s population and development and clean energy research, there’s food supply and GMO crops and educating children to compete in the new global economy and securing competitive jobs.  Science issues are moral issues.

I would encourage you to write letters to the editor, emails to the campaigns, and blog postings pointing this out.  And if you can, support our ongoing effort to turn this country around.

Shawn Lawrence Otto

ScienceDebate2008.com

Representative Foxx Responds

On 5 May, I posted an entry about Representative Virginia Foxx’s sponsorship of the Public Prayer Protection Act. That last part of the post was an email that I sent to her expressing my disagreement. To my surprise, she actually responded.

Dear Mr. Brown:

You certainly have a right to your beliefs and should be grateful to the God-fearing people who helped create and have preserved this nation over the years. I will continue to pray at every opportunity. You have the right to run for any office also.

Sincerely,

Virginia Foxx
Member of Congress

VF/rc

Though this response is brief, its content is revealing. She didn’t explain why prayer by elected officials needs protection, or what actual affect it has ever had on real problems. She didn’t respond concerning a clear violation of the Constitution. She didn’t express any reluctance in alienating part of the constituency. She didn’t make any attempt to defend belief in a magical entity that is ready and waiting to intervene upon request.

What she did offer is what seems to be an attempt to justify religious people. Yes, “[g]od-fearing” have helped to create and preserve freedoms in this country. But so have rational, atheistic citizens. Let’s not forget the positions of the founding fathers. If she is suggesting that an appeal to good actions of the religious justifies their superstition, then she has committed a fallacy.

I wasn’t sure my email would even be read. I certainly never expected a response. I am pleased that I reached her, even though it probably made no difference.

(mis)Representative Virginia Foxx

Congresswoman Virginia Foxx represents the district in which I live. I learned of her co-sponsorship for the Public Prayer Protection Act in an article on the front page of my local newspaper. It was included in an article on the national day of prayer. I then visited her website and read this article to get her position on it. I’ve already made clear my position on prayer in the previous post, so I won’t mention that again. It’s enough to say that she does not represent me.

The Public Prayer Protection Act is presented to protect the rights of elected officials so that they may pray freely. But they already have freedom of religion and the right to pray like all citizens. The only purpose this act is serving is to insert religion into the government. And by the way, does it seem like any of them refrain from praying? President George W. Bush has ridden religion to the top, praying and quoting the bible all the way. The citizens are who need protection. How about a Public Protection from Prayer Act?

Praying while representing a group of diverse citizens all of whom are guaranteed freedom of religion is clearly contradictory. How can I be free in my religious position if my representative is making decisions on my behalf based on the doctrine of a religion with which I disagree? More to the point, why should I trust such a person who claims to be guided by a magical entity that no one has ever seen? This is not what I consider a trustworthy public servant.

You disagree? Consider how you would feel if the president’s speech included quotes from the Qur’an, the book of Mormon, or the Vedas. Would you want the leader of this country blessing you in the name of Allah or Krishna? What about Satan? Think of a religion which you trust the least, or consider the most dangerous… even ridiculous. Now think how you would feel if your government officials were basing decisions about your life and the lives of all citizens upon it. I realize that religious beliefs will be present regardless of the ability to pray while on the job. But this act will not just allow, but encourage religiosity by our elected officials. The dangerous potential outcome of this is further movement toward the combination of church and state- theocracy.

Instead of ranting further, I will conclude with the message I sent to Rep. Foxx through her website.

Congresswoman Foxx,

On the front page of my local paper, the Statesville Record & Landmark, I read about the National Day of Prayer. I also learned that you are co-sponsoring the Public Prayer Protection Act. I am greatly disappointed that you are working to violate the establishment clause of the US Constitution. Why does prayer need protection? All citizens are completely free to pray in their private lives. If you haven’t noticed, the United States is comprised mostly of religious people. Elected officials should not be free to express religious beliefs while serving the public. Like the rest of the citizens, they can pray in private. All people should be served equally fairly. An elected official praying on the job alienates part of the group she represents. That might be over religious differences for those in other religions, or in my case, by an official being religious at all. Appealing to a god shows me that a person is superstitious and unreasonable in at least part of her thinking. It’s a silly, useless waste of time. If our elected officials aren’t capable of fulfilling their duties without appealing to unproven supernatural powers, they should resign and make way for those of us who are able to deal with reality. Human problems require human solutions.

Sincerely atheistic,
J.S.Brown

National Day of Religious Superstition

The first Thursday in May has come and gone, and many of the citizens of the U.S. have wasted time performing a superstitious ritual. This time each year marks the national day of prayer designated by Congress. This is a clear violation of the first amendment, and yet it continues.

The founders of this country were well aware of the problems with combining the church and state. That was one of the primary reasons for coming here and starting anew. They wanted freedom from oppression including that from religion. This is exactly why our Constitution is void of supernatural references. The authors had the opportunity to compose a religiously centered document to govern us, but chose not to.

Thomas Jefferson was adamant about protecting citizens from the tyranny of religion, backed by the power of the government. One of our founding fathers, he was opposed to the state supporting prayer. He knew that individual religious organizations were free to practice religion as they chose, including prayer, but that government did not have the right to decide such things for its citizens.

Surely this annual day of prayer must be helping somehow, somewhere. Millions of people appealing to (who knows how many?) different gods are sincerely trying to affect this world. Does the world seem much different since Thursday? No, not to me either. The local, national, and world news is not reporting that humanity’s major problems have been corrected. Apparently nothing has changed.

The ineffectiveness of petitionary prayer has been studied quite a number of times. Each time the power of prayer is put to the test, it fails. Despite the easily demonstrated failures, religious people are still praying. Why? Because prayer gives those who feel helpless something to do that assures them they can still help in some way. Handing off problems to someone that has the power to handle them is relieving. And if that someone is an omnipotent problem-solver, the relief is that much greater. So prayer does have some function, but it’s not one that I recognize as beneficial in the long-term.

The problem with encouraging prayer for comfort is that it discourages action. There are actually a lot of things that we humans can do to solve our problems. Kneeling and praying for an issue allows people to pass the responsibility on to someone else, a god that doesn’t seem to exist. So instead of taking action that might help, they do nothing at all, but call it prayer.

“The hands that do are holier than the hands that pray.” I’ve heard this in various forms over the years. I don’t know the source, but I wholly agree with it. Prayer never seems to fix anything that might not have been fixed anyway. And often times, humans are thanks as being manifestations of the power of a god to answer the prayers. The evidence that any of it trickles down from supernatural goodness is nowhere to be found. There is a blindness that religious people have that cheapens the humanity and our abilities as a species. It’s unfortunate that so many are willing to ignore their talents to improve the human condition and instead give credit to absent divinity. I haven’t yet seen any god that deserves credit.

Like the existence of a god, if there was good evidence to support the power of prayer, I wouldn’t mind a day for it encouraged by the government. It wouldn’t violate anyone’s faith or religious beliefs. It would be a scientifically supported fact like gravity and germ theory that clearly benefited us all. But this is not the case, and it’s easily demonstrated. Prayer is a waste of time, and one encouraged by the U.S. Government. Forget prayer and the national day of prayer. Be reasonable, do something rather than nothing, and recognize the national day of reason.

God, Guns & Glory

From the Statesville Record & Landmark newpaper’s Community Forum section, 30 March 2007:

God wants us to have guns and use them to carry out his will

The debate on guns has a long history. The debate continues. I am writing to state again the evil of anti-gun laws. Anyone holding to such laws is showing an evil character. I say that because it is true and such souls need reformation. To deny one’s right to keep and bear arms is hell instigated. The record shows that God uses the means of weaponry to carry out his will. We must not deny what God confirms.

But are guns the invention of man? Warring is conducted by man. What weapons are used, even bare hands, is not the point. God did bring guns into existence for His own glory.

God has a purpose for wars. Everything does bring glory to God. Man conducts wars justly or unjustly.

The gun is a part of the scheme of things. Each person or nation must choose the use thereof and will be judged for that choice.

Jerry Allie
Statesville

It astounds me that real people say and think things like this. Scary.

Jerry Allie is an open-air evangelist. I can remember him standing on the corner near a local bar and pool hall I used to frequent when I was younger. He would shake his bible at passers-by, calling them sinners and screaming out biblical platitudes. He was good for a laugh after leaving the bar and feeling a little tipsy. Other than his annoying ranting, though, he seemed harmless. Now I have an idea how dangerous such a person can be.

I want to say, first, that an omnipotent god – one that actually exists – can do anything it wants. That includes creating guns for humans to carry out its will for a glorious outcome. However, like gun laws, the debate over claims that various gods exist has a long history. This issue hasn’t been resolved for a whole list of gods, except by those with faith in them. This is why his position is so insane. His certainty mirrors that of religious people all over the world in many other religions. If he is right… then so are they.

Everything that Mr. Allie has said is based on the assumption that his particular notion of god exists, and that his particular version of his particular holy book contains the accurate information about it. It’s a safe assumption that the Muslims who hijacked planes back in 2001 for use as weapons felt the same way. Their actions perfectly fit Jerry’s idea for using weapons of all kinds for carrying out the will of a god, and yet he likely considers their actions to be evil. He isn’t different from them except that he hasn’t yet received his orders to kill. I hope he nevers does.

Why does an all-powerful god need humans to carry out its will, and why are guns necessary to do so? The modern age of science has crippled the gods so greatly that they can’t get along without their followers. After such feats as creating mountains and oceans, planets and stars, and even existence itself, the gods have become impotent. Without the ignorance of nature’s workings to disguise divine manipulation in our world, it’s hard to get things done. Any evil that needs irradication must be carried out by a naive, faithful gopher instead. And why guns? In short, expedient justice.

A common idea among religions is obedience to the ultimate divine authority over all else. God comes first, and everything else is secondary. It’s not a big deal to break the law if a god says it’s okay. Such devotion has nasty implications if the devotees have mistaken natural phenomena for metaphysics. The contradictory claims of a number of religions guarantees that, at least, most of these gods don’t exist. So what happens when a person uses a weapon to carry out the will of a nonexistent god? An expedient dose of justice becomes a hasty mistake, and humanity suffers.

He was right. The gun is part of the scheme of things and every man must be judged on his usage. I am judging you, Jerry Allie. You fail to see that you are part of the problem rather than the solution.