Anti-Science in America..well, part of America

The United States is still the most technologically advanced country in the world (or number 2, depending on the criteria) but in the realm of science and math education, we are nowhere near the top; 23rd and 30th in math. (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2009highlights.asp).  This is indeed disheartening news.  Our society is becoming more dependent upon science and technology each passing day, yet we are falling behind.

While the above clip is just a goof, and I am not in any way suggesting eugenics or any "Social Darwinism", we have very real problems regarding the scientific literacy of our nation. When I was 4 I wanted to be a paleontologist, at 8, an astronaut, and at 17, I wanted to be an engineer.  My last teaching gig saw me interact with, and teach bright students, but students with analytical skills so deficient, that few, if any, loved science. Still, our children are bright and motivated, and despite the surliness that surrounds teenage life and attitudes,  I do not see our country heading toward the realm of "Idiocracy".  Yet. However, I see a consistent rise in various groups and lawmakers espousing such nonsensical "science", that I do indeed fear for our collective future.

I grew up in a time (and place), where evolution was taught to me at my CATHOLIC SCHOOL!  It was a great high school.  I took genetics, botany, advanced physics, chemistry, and biology. Not once was 'god' ever mentioned in those classes. I graduated in 1985, two years before the Supreme Court finally struck down the teaching of creationism in public schools.  I am including an original ABC news link just so you can see the same arguments are still being put out by groups today. (http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/creationism-public-schools-unconstitutional-10179175).  While the constitutionality of such laws are repeatedly struck down, the most recent and famous being the 2005 Dover, PA trial (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/#.TnlHS09ApbY) conservative christian groups continue to attempt to bring creationism into the public schools.  Recently, no fewer than 7 state legislatures floated "academic freedom" bills to mandate the teaching of intelligent design.  I contend that the great danger is not in the legalities of the 1st Amendment, but in the reactionary nature of Christians and Muslims worldview due to their slavish devotion to a single piece of literature (the Bible and Koran, respectively).

So, why this incessant attempt to inject religious doctrine into our science classrooms?  Conservative Christians most likely believe that most diseases and infections are brought about by microorganisms; a belief which agrees with the germ theory of disease (1822-Pasteur). If they use any electronic device to make their living, they are proponents of the electromagnetic theory, put forth in the 19th Century.  And, in the most obvious example, if they push a dish off a counter, it will most likely fall downward; you know, the theory of gravitation.  Why is the theory of evolution, also a 19th Century product so incredibly distasteful and suspect?

The simple explanation is that Christians not only cherry-pick their scripture, but also their science to fit their belief system.  The same "test-observe-report" process that is used in the theories mentioned above is at the core of our investigation of the natural world.  To embrace it for some and refute it for others is another example of the cognitive bias I wrote about previously.  And a theory, in science, carries a lot of weight.  The term theory has a very different definition in science, as opposed to events we witness daily in the world.  In common terms, a theory is often interpreted to mean an idea or a supposition to a conundrum.  No doubt we have all seen this on the innumerable crime shows on TV.  But, in those cases, a theory is just for the exact matter at hand; and is not applicable to every crime that has been committed.  In science, a theory must work in all cases that can be observed and tested.  If it doesn't stand up to repeated testing, it is refined or discarded outright.

Sadly, creationist ignorance regarding evolution does not stop at their improper use of the word 'theory'. "Survival of the fittest" is another term they twist into a pretzel of stupidity.  To them it means the strong survive and gave rise to social Darwinism and eugenics. To an extent they are right but they, as the Nazis before them, misunderstand what the term means in science.  In Biology, the term 'fitness' simply means a fitness to reproduce and does not necessarily refer to only strength and size.  "Natural selection is random" is another thing you will hear them say.  While genetic mutations are indeed random, there is NOTHING random about natural selection.  If you have adaptations that allow you to thrive in a particular environment, you'll be more genetically fit, fuck more, have more offspring that will share that adaptation, etc.  There is so much ignorance about this theory in conservative circles, either willful or not, that it scatters the imagination.

A gallup poll shows that only about 40% of Americans believe in evolution (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx) and as church attendance of respondents increased, this drops to a paltry 24%.  This IS NOT a hallmark of a society that is forward thinking; in fact it is quite the opposite.  And, as we all have seen, the Tea Party favorites like Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Jim Demint, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum all believe in Creationism, no matter what term you use for it. Scientific literacy is not knowing the atomic mass of Iron (55.8) or the acceleration of gravity on Earth is 9.8m/sec squared.  Those are just facts.  Scientific literacy is a way of thinking that helps solve problems.  And we are faced with many problems right now. Science self-corrects itself; not so with religious dogma.  Would you vote for a candidate that believed the earth moved around the sun? Or that the world was flat? Or that disease is caused by "bad air"? So why does evolution get shit on by these people?  At a time when our children are falling behind in school, do we really want to bring this nonsense into the classroom?

The simple truth is that evolution and natural selection is a VERY strong theory.  It has been tested for over 150 years and continues to satisfy the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.  Intelligent design should not be kept out of science classrooms because of the first amendment, although that is the only reason that matters to our litigious society; it should be kept out because it is NOT science!  99% of people that say evolution is "just a theory" are most likely conservative evangelical Christians who want their worldview to dominate this country.  They are running for school boards all over the country and some of them are running for president.  Okay, maybe the idiocracy video at the top is a little more ominous than I had hoped.

Morality and cognitive bias

       Exodus 21: 20:

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property"

            Luke 6:31   

       "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

Above are two "morally acceptable" precepts (remember the definition of morality from the last post) set down in the bible.  According to the majority of conservative, evangelical Christians, the bible is, at the very least "the inspired word of god" and to some, inerrant and to be taken literally. Now, if we ask an American evangelical "is slavery is immoral?", and they say yes and then we follow by asking if the golden rule IS moral, and they say yes as well, the conclusion is obvious.

Our morality comes from us and not from scripture.  And the rule of law is indeed the codification of those morals. No doubt that sometimes this morality is proper (our 19th Amendment) and sometimes misguided (our 18th Amendment). In 1772, a case came before the British courts to rule on whether or not a slave in England could be sold to work in the colonies.  Since there was no legislation on slavery in Britain at the time, English Common Law was used. The ruling can be found here (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/rights/slave_free.htm).   America's legal system is based on English Common Law (with the exception of Louisiana), not biblical law, or sharia, or halakha.   I find it alternately amusing and frightening that those so worried about sharia becoming part of our legal system (don't worry, it can't and it won't), are the same people who tend to have a "biblical worldview".

Cognitive bias is simply a distortion in the way we perceive reality.  There are oodles of them and my 2 semesters of Psychology does not allow me the luxury of "expert testimony".  But, we all have them as they are a product of evolutionary processes.  They can be highly beneficial in certain decision-making processes, such as assuming an unknown animal is dangerous (i.e. perhaps erring on the side of caution so as to continue to live).  However, in our modern world, there are social and belief biases that can go a long way in helping to understand how people frame moral arguments.

My opening example addresses a couple of these biases.  Here are a couple more.  When a judge rules on legislation that is an anathema to conservative tenets, such as legal marriage of homosexuals, the cry of "Activist Judges who legislate from the bench" is heard.  However, if the judge rules in favor of a conservative belief, they speak of the importance of the "rule of law" in our country.  Another example would be our 10th Amendment.  Here in Oregon, voters passed the "Death with Dignity Act" was passed in 1994 and affirmed again in 1997. However, in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft (an evangelical Christian conservative) attempted to supersede Oregon's state rights with federal action.  This was applauded by the conservative right, despite Oregonians voting on it twice.  However, just 2 years later, when the public voted to amend Oregon's constitution to limit marriage to heterosexual couples only, conservatives once again applauded the "rule of law" and "states rights".  Hmmmm..does anyone else see the bias here?

Sometimes these biases border on hypocrisy.  Conservative and religious states (who claim that our morals come from god) in the USA rank near the top in teen pregnancy ( http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2009/01/08/teen-birthrates-where-does-your-state-rank)  divorce rates and porn subscriptions (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/06/27/opinion/20090627blowchart.html); all no-nos according to the "good book".

Again, recognition of these biases not only compel us to critically self-examine our own bias but also to attempt to base moral behavior on something empirical, rather than an outdated belief system.  In the same way that Copernicus and Galileo disproved the biblical contention of a earth-centered universe using empirical data, so we should look at moral questions with the same tools in an attempt to be as unbiased as possible.

Moral Atheism? YES!

I'm an atheist.  I know now that I have reduced credibility as atheists are one of the "least trusted groups" in America according to a University of Minnesota study in 2006 (  http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1).  Although the data is a little bit old, I think that it generally still holds true.  Super!  I always wanted to be a minority!
I have been told, directly and obliquely, that atheists lack a "moral compass" or that we "don't believe in anything".  I disagree. Most Christians point to the bible for their moral code, Jews use the Decalogue, Muslims, the Koran and the hadith (since there are very few rules and regulations in the Koran itself).  However, I always ask that is it probable that any pre-Mosaic societies had a code of proper(moral) behavior for the group?   Of course!  There is even one written down: The famous "Code of Hammurabi", which predates the 10 commandments by at least a couple of centuries (1700 BCE as compared to approximately 1450-1513 BCE various souces). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, morality is defined as"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong behavior". "If we have written proof of a legal code that outlined the morals of a society that existed before any of these distinctly monotheistic codes were "handed down", then it is safe to assume that moral (good or right) behavior existed well before a "god" got involved. I am sure that, universally, people had problems with somebody fucking their wife, stealing their livestock, or murdering a friend or family member long before the idea of "one true god" ever became fashionable.
Turning to the idea of an "absolute morality", i.e. one that crosses all cultural and ethnic lines (a religion-based morality) versus "relative morality", i.e. that morality is dependent upon the situation, we atheists often hit a hurdle in the debate.  I agree that moral relativism is indeed a slippery slope but I put forth that many things that are accepted in the bible as moral that are no longer considered moral in the majority of developed nations, most notably slavery and women's equality.  You would be hard pressed to find any American that would be pro-slavery.  So if biblical morality has changed due to new ideas, rational thought, and debate, we can say that there is no true absolute morality (god given or otherwise).
In 2010 Sam Harris published "The Moral Landscape--how science can determine human values"(http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211).  Harris' thesis is very intriguing.  He seeks to define moral behavior as something that "leads to human flourishing" and immoral behavior as something that "leads to human suffering".  So, by Harris' reckoning, we can begin to close the gap of moral relativism using empirical data and science to determine what behavior helps humankind flourish. Harris freely admits that this hypothesis is a work in progress but it is a fascinating new look at one of the world's oldest questions.  I'll place a video of Harris speaking (20 minutes but well worth it)

There is plenty of biological and sociological evidence regarding moral behavior that is not religiously based.  Many religious people counter that Hitler and Stalin were atheistic mass murderers therefore they are examples of atheists having no morals.  This logic is incredibly poor, so please don't post it in comments.  For example I could say that they both had mustaches, so therefore all people with mustaches are immoral.  Absolute morality most likely does not exist at this time, and I am heartened that moral relativism is being examined scientifically. I'm a good, moral person and I am an atheist.

Opening Thoughts

Why a blog?  Well, to be entirely honest, I like to write and I like the free exchange of ideas.  For most of my posts I will use citations whenever necessary as I would like this to be as scholarly as possible. An example of this would be citing sources on empirical data to advance my argument or to contradict those with whom I disagree. However, at times there will be posts that are purely my opinion about the issues of the day.  
I encourage feedback but please, don't be a douche!  Of course, if you are a douche, you'll probably ignore my request in the first place!  Such are the slings and arrows of the internet.