by Salman Hameed

There is a new paper out in the Journal of the Academy of Religion that provides a broad overview of the various creationist movements in Europe. The title of the paper is Creationism in Europe: Facts, Gaps and Prospects (you can download the full paper!) and it is authored by Stefaan Blancke, Hans Henrik Hjermitslev, Johan Braeckman, and Peter Kjaergaard. The same team is also behind a follow-up edited volume on this topic coming out in 2014, where I have also contributed a chapter on Islamic Creationism in Europe, and Martin Reixinger has a chapter on Turkey.

I had a chance to have a conversation with the lead author for the paper, Dr. Stefaan Blancke, who is affiliated with the Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences at Ghent University, Belgium. If you have 15 minutes to spare, here is the video:

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

This is for your entertainment purposes only. Now we have seen hilarious statements from the likes of Zakir Naik, Harun Yahya, Yusef Estes etc. But they are not alone. Here is a state senator from Louisiana asking a high school teacher about evolution - and wondering if E. Coli turns into a human being. Yup. There are no minimum education limits or any requisite analytical abilities to be a state senator (tip from Farid Alvie and Shahid Saeed).



Not to be ever left behind, the agents of the Saudi Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice decided to prevent the vices of some dino fossils in Dammam. It is unclear why they  did that - but shutdown they did:

A lady in Dammam, the hub of the oil industry on the kingdom’s Gulf coast, tweeted a complaint from a local shopping mall. Agents of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV), she said, were causing an unpleasant scene. The government-salaried vigilantes, a bearded auxiliary police force familiarly known to Saudis as the Hayaa, had marched officiously into an educational exhibit featuring plaster models of dinosaurs, turned off the lights and ordered everyone out, frightening children and alarming their parents. 

It was unclear precisely why the religious police objected to the exhibit, which apparently had been innocently featured at shopping centres across the Gulf for decades. Malls are one of the few public spaces where Saudis mix socially, and so often draw the Hayaa’s attentions. Gone, however, are the days when its agents can go about their business unchallenged.

Remember that dinos are a problem for young earth creationists, like Ken Ham of the Creation Museum. But I don't know if this shutting down has anything to do with science. It could be any number of things. But if they were going after Barney - the purple dinosaur, then I'm all for the Vice- preventing, Virtue-promoting, agents:


But what is more entertaining (and hilarious) is the reaction on Twitter, which is becoming an excellent place to ridicule such actions in the Kingdom (though it also turned ugly for another Saudi, Hamza Kashgari. See this earlier post: This guy is probably going to die because of his tweets). Here is the reaction to the shutting down of dinos:

Within minutes of the incident, a freshly minted Arabic Twitter hashtag, #Dammam-Hayaa-Closes-Dinosaur-Show, was generating scores of theories about their motives. Perhaps, suggested one, there was a danger that citizens might start worshipping dinosaur statues instead of God. Maybe it was just a temporary measure, said another, until the Hayaa can separate male and female dinosaurs and put them in separate rooms. Surely, declared a third, one of the lady dinosaurs had been caught in public without a male guardian. A fourth announced an all-points police alert for Barney the Dinosaur, while another suggested it was too early to judge until it was clear what the dinosaurs were wearing.
...
Several contributors injected bawdy innuendo into their comments. Noting that one of the displays showed a dinosaur riding on the back of another, one message declared that this was obviously sexually suggestive and possibly could be categorised as a Westernising influence. "I confess," declared one penitent, "I saw a naked dinosaur thigh and felt aroused." Another tweet provided this helpful tip to the suspicious CPVPV: "No, no, that long thing is a tail!" 

But most of the messages singled out the religious police for ridicule. "They worried that people would find the dinosaurs more highly evolved than themselves," explained one. "It’s the Hayaa that should be stuffed and mounted so future generations can learn about extinct animals," quipped another. This message adopted a more pedantic tone: "Dinosaurs are a paleontological life form from an ancient geological era, and our clerics are a paleontological life form from an ancient social era." "Hello? Stone Age? We have some of your people; can you please come and collect them?" pleaded one tweep. Another wrote: "If the dinosaurs were still alive they’d be saying, thank God for extinction."

Read the full article here.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

This is part of a continuing battle over evolution in Turkey - and this battle is also quite political. Here is the news item (tip from Rainer Bromer):

The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) has put a stop to the publication and sale of all books in its archives that support the theory of evolution, daily Radikal has reported.  

The evolutionist books, previously available through TÜBİTAK's Popular Science Publications’ List, will no longer be provided by the council.  

The books have long been listed as “out of stock” on TÜBİTAK's website, but their further publication are now slated to be stopped permanently.  

Books by Richard Dawkins, Alan Moorehead, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levontin and James Watson are all included in the list of books that will no longer be available to the Turkish readers.

Read the full article here.

I do not have much information about this particular action. But here are a couple of quick thoughts: If this is true, then this is simply idiotic. Evolution has become a political issues between the secularists and the Islamists (terms used very broadly here) for a while - and this may simply be another salvo. The same had happened in 2009, when a TUBITAK magazine cover commemorating Darwin's bicentennial was replaced by a story on global warming (see this post: Controversy over Darwin censorship in Turkey). All said, because of the political underpinnings, we still have to be cautious in believing every reason given by both sides.

Also, for outsiders, this may seem like another episode of Harun Yahya's influence. However, this may have nothing to do with Yahya. Even when I attended the creationist symposium in Istanbul last May, the presence and influence of his group was quite minimal.

I will post an update if I hear something more about this.

Also see:
Students attack anti-evoltuion fossils in Turkey

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

Here is Bill Nye simply saying that evolution is an essential concept in biology, and if we want a scientifically literate society, then it is important to understand it. And for the sake of the future, keep the children away from the idiocy of creationism. This is a short 2 minute video - and I agree with his basic message. I liked his analogy of biology without evolution is like geology without plate tectonics. But what I didn't like was the sole focus on young earth creationism (YEC) - the idea that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. I know that this is the most popular form of creationism in the US, but this is  a geology/astronomy problem and not a problem of biology. If one starts with the premise that the world was created with the last 10,000 years, then the implausibility of evolution would naturally follow from that. From science communications perspective, I think it is better to separate out the the problem of understanding deep time and the fact that species have evolved over billions of years. By the way, this simple video has generated quite a bit of a reaction in the comments - and the video has been viewed 2.5 million times!

We have been looking at the responses to evolution in the Muslim world and find that young Earth creationism is completely missing (though biological evolution - and in particular, human evolution, is rejected by a significant part of the population, depending on the country). The only place it has popped its head is amongst some Muslim groups in North-America - which is a fantastic example of how cultural influences shape these views. 

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

For our Friday Journal Club, here is a recent paper by biologist Jerry Coyne: Science Religion, and Society: The Problem of Evolution in America, published in the journal Evolution.

Summary: 
The paper looks at the reasons why a majority of Americans reject biological evolution. Coyne attributes the central reason reason to the "extreme religiosity of the United States". I think the Abstract does a pretty good job of laying out the basic position of the paper:

American resistance to accepting evolution is uniquely high among First World countries. This is due largely to the extreme religiosity of the United States, which is much higher than that of comparably advanced nations, and to the resistance of many religious people to the facts and supposed implications of evolution. The prevalence of religious belief in the United States suggests that outreach by scientists alone will not have a huge effect in increasing the acceptance of evolution, nor will the strategy of trying to convince the faithful that evolution is compatible with their religion. Because creationism is a symptom of religion, another strategy to promote evolution involves loosening the grip of faith on America. This is easier said than done, for recent sociological surveys show that religion is highly correlated with the dysfunctionality of a society, and various measures of societal health show that the United States is one of the most socially dysfunctional First World countries. Widespread acceptance of evolution in America, then, may have to await profound social change.

I have to say that I expected more from this paper. I think the topic is really interesting and it is, of course, worth exploring the reasons why a majority of the population in the world's most advanced nation reject evolution. The paper, instead, turns into a polemic against religion and is often sloppy with definitions. Even if religiosity (or religion) is the main correlation with the rejection of evolution, one has to look into the reasons why evolution became a controversial topic for American religions. Just saying "religion is the cause" is too simplistic and too broad. For example (from the Pew Survey), within the US, 81% of Buddhists, 80% of Hindus and 77% of Jews agree with the statement that "evolution is the best explanation of human life on Earth" (in case, you are wondering 45% of US Muslims also agree with this statement). So one has to be careful in using the term "religion" or "religiosity" for the causation.

Now it is true that much of the US resistance to evolution comes from Evangelical Christians. But that opposition has a particular context rooted in the politics and culture of early 20th century US. For example, it became part of the Evangelical opposition as a reaction to the spread of public education, as well as a legitimate complaint of having Social Darwinism (which is not biological evolution, but its application to society) and Eugenics as part of biology textbooks (plus, Eugenics-based compulsory sterilization was part of 30 US states in the early 20th century). This is not to excuse the poor reception of evolution in the 21st century, but to provide some context of why most Evangelical groups ended up rejecting evolution. I find it a bit odd that a paper focusing on the reasons for the rejection of evolution in the US does not mention - even in a cursory manner - any historical or cultural context.

Much of the remaining paper focus on showing the incompatibility of science and religion, and then arguing that the only reasonable solution to increasing the acceptance of evolution is by reducing religion in the US:

After having taught evolution for years, we have finally recognized where our real opposition lies: creationism is simply one of many symptoms of religion. A continuous stream of anti-evolution propaganda pours from the religiously motivated, distorting the public understanding of evolution. It follows that naturalistic evolution will not attract a majority of Americans until our nation becomes less religious. That, of course, is contrary to accommodationism, which takes religion as a given.

Okay - now these are huge topics to cover - bit couple of quick points. Coyne argues that "religion breeds resistance not only to evolution, but also to science itself (emphasis in the original paper). Well - it depends on what science and what religion. I know that Coyne is critiquing Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) - and indeed there are some valid critiques out there - but a blanket statement regarding religion and science is equally problematic. Most religions (and most religious beliefs) do not have much to say about most sciences. It is only a small sub-set of sciences - usually dealing with the questions of origins - where there is explicit interaction with some (or most) religions. But then we have to address the myriads of ways individuals address these questions of origins and interpret those within their own religious traditions. Wait a minute - but then this becomes a complicated mess which cannot be reduced to a simple answer: "religion did it". In fact, the blame for all this messiness goes to the long process of evolution that led to these complex bipedal species that defy simple explanations.

Towards the end of the paper, Coyne looks at socio-economic factors that may explain the high religiosity of America, which for him, explains the high rates of rejection of evolution. Josh Rosenau on his Thoughts from Kansas blog has done a thorough job addressing this part of the paper, so I will let him deal with this:

Coyne’s causal model holds that income inequality (and economic insecurity in general) -> religiosity -> creationism. To back this causal model, he works from aggregate levels of support for evolution in 34 industrialized nations, correlating those with national measures of religiosity, then correlates national religiosity with national income inequality. As we know, correlation is not causation, and this pattern of correlations could imply many other causal pathways: e.g., religiosity -> creationism -> income inequality or income inequality -> creationism -> religiosity. 

Certainly, the inequality -> religion -> creationism causal chain has an intuitive logic, but there’s an intuitive logic to other causal chains of these three items. Correlation alone doesn’t let us decide what order makes the most sense for a causal chain. For instance, Coyne and other gnu atheists have long sought to attribute all manner of social ills to the persistence of religion, so might high levels of religiosity cause both social inequality and creationism? Or might income inequality create little incentive to learn science, and then low science literacy leaves the population without a viable alternative to religious explanations? There are, naturally, ways to statistically test these different causal chains, but this would require Coyne to have tested his model by seeking to falsify alternative explanations, or even in considering potential confounding factors, and he shows no interest in rigorously testing his model. 

As with all such correlational studies, it’s also possible that the three variables at issue are connected by some fourth factor not present in Coyne’s model. The most obvious factor which Coyne ignores is education. Studies consistently show that, even after controlling for religiosity, how educated someone is has a tremendous impact on his or her views on evolution. Countries with better educational systems also tend to be more accepting of evolution, and countries with high income inequality tend to have worse education systems. The correlations Coyne uses to justify his causal model may, then, be spurious. Oddly, his paper never even mentions differences between national educational systems in discussing different nation’s attitudes towards science. Nor does the paper discuss differences in economic and social development, as measured by GDP or GNI or broader measures like the Human Development Index (which includes economic factors, life expectancy, educational statistics, and other factors to generate a more comprehensive picture of a nation’s development). 

This omission is surprising because controlling for GNI per capita is common in such international comparisons. Lots of things correlate with economic development, and factoring that out of a comparison is usually an important first step. Indeed, among the 34 countries Coyne examines, income inequality has a strong negative correlation with GNI per capita, and the median years of schooling among adults has a strong positive correlation with GNI per capita. Many measures of religiosity also correlate with GNI per capita and income inequality. These correlations make causality especially tricky to ascertain, though he could have controlled for them if he wanted to. 

You should read his full post here.

One final thought on the paper. I think it is important to understand the impact of religion on evolution acceptance,  debates over stem cells, issues related to the beginning and the end of life, etc. However, we need to do it in a way that takes into account the complex ways people interact with their beliefs. Plus, we need to appreciate the interplay of religion with culture and politics - and devise ways to distinguish them for a study on evolution acceptance.

Also see last week's Friday Journal Club: "Science Teachers' Views of Science and Religion vs the Islamic Perspective".

_________________
Coyne, J. A. (2012), SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY: THE PROBLEM OF EVOLUTION IN AMERICA. Evolution, 66: 2654–2663. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01664.x

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

I had earlier posted some of my thoughts about Ridley Scott's new film, Prometheus. While I am disappointed with the film, there are indeed elements of the film that can generate good discussions. But then there was so much potential...

For another look at the film, here is my dialogue about Prometheus with UMass film professor, Kevin Anderson, for our regular Film Autopsy (see here for all our other reviews). And below that is a spoiler discussion ("no-glove autopsy") about science and religion in Prometheus.

Here is the review of Prometheus:


And here is a discussion of science and religion in Prometheus (warning: this contains plot spoilers):


What did you think of the film?

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

It seems that some of the publishers in South Korea are planning on removing some examples of evolution from biology textbooks. The campaign (and yes, it is only a campaign) has been led by a Korean creationist group. This is a shame as South Korea has also been at the forefront of stem cells and genomic research. The country has a thriving research program and I doubt that this kind of creationist idiocy will last very long. Nevertheless, this is a shame that South Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) would succumb to that. Here is the story from Nature (tip from Muhammad A. Ahmad): 

A petition to remove references to evolution from high-school textbooks claimed victory last month after the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) revealed that many of the publishers would produce revised editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx. The move has alarmed biologists, who say that they were not consulted. “The ministry just sent the petition out to the publishing companies and let them judge,” says Dayk Jang, an evolutionary scientist at Seoul National University.

And here is the group behind it:

The campaign was led by the Society for Textbook Revise (STR), which aims to delete the “error” of evolution from textbooks to “correct” students’ views of the world, according to the society’s website. The society says that its members include professors of biology and high-school science teachers. 

The STR is also campaigning to remove content about “the evolution of humans” and “the adaptation of finch beaks based on habitat and mode of sustenance”, a reference to one of the most famous observations in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. To back its campaign, the group highlights recent discoveries that Archaeopteryx is one of many feathered dinosaurs, and not necessarily an ancestor of all birds². Exploiting such debates over the lineage of species “is a typical strategy of creation scientists to attack the teaching of evolution itself”, says Joonghwan Jeon, an evolutionary psychologist at Kyung Hee University in Yongin. 

The STR is an independent offshoot of the Korea Association for Creation Research (KACR), according to KACR spokesman Jungyeol Han. Thanks in part to the KACR’s efforts, creation science — which seeks to provide evidence in support of the creation myth described in the Book of Genesis — has had a growing influence in South Korea, although the STR itself has distanced itself from such doctrines. In early 2008, the KACR scored a hit with a successful exhibition at Seoul Land, one of the country’s leading amusement parks. According to the group, the exhibition attracted more than 116,000 visitors in three months, and the park is now in talks to create a year-long exhibition.

Read the full article here.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

As I mentioned before, Berna Turam and I conducted our research interviews last week at one of the local medical hospitals and then by chance had an opportunity to attend a creationism conference in Istanbul. The evolution debate is a hot topic here, and a writer from a local newspaper, Taraf, talked to us and wrote a story about our experience so far. If you read Turkish and have access to the newspaper, you can find the article here.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

I have been in Istanbul only for a few days, and it already has been quite eventful. The research interviews with physicans and medical students about evolution have been going well. But yesterday, we were at the epicenter of the evolution-creationism struggle in Turkey. A university youth group organized an anti-evolution conference at Marmara University (see here for a news item on this). So of course, we decided to go and attend the symposium at the Marmara University. We took a boat to cross the Bosporus - and that already makes this the most picturesque travel route to a creationist conference. Take that Tennessee!

On the way to the symposium: Here is a Bosporus seagull wondering if it was suddenly created as is -  or if it was a product of evolution over billions of years. 

We took a cab from the pier to the campus. But when we got close to the campus, our cab driver cautioned us that there is some protest going on at the entrance of the building we wanted to go to. I guessed that it must be for some political stuff. But nope - it was against the creationism symposium. The crowd was boisterous and the security guys were checking university IDs to let people in. We used our college/university business cards to get in. The scene was intense. There were cops, placards decrying the inclusion of religion in the sciences, and faculty and students against the symposium. Their main point was that if you want to talk about religion, you should do that in the mosques - but don't bring religion in the science departments. Things remained calm, but the presence of cops was intimidating for such a protest at a university. Here are some pictures of the protest:

The opening of the symposium itself got delayed for an hour. The main theme of the symposium was about scientific evidence against inter-species evolution. Here is the audience at the symposium: 

Of course, I sympathize with those wanting to keep science and religion separate and in keeping religion out of science classrooms. There is no serious dispute about the acceptance of evolution amongst biologists. But one of the main points of the organizers was to seek out space for critical expressions - and I think this is a criticism that we should consider seriously. On the other hand, the symposium talks were mostly about endorsing creationism (the whole forum was about refuting inter-species evolution (for most, evolution was limited to only within species). This is a tricky and a really difficult issue - especially within Turkey's changing political and cultural landscape. Nevertheless, I think ignoring it or organizing a competing symposium may have been a better strategy. But I do have to wonder how I would feel if the students at my college decided to host an astrology conference on campus. 

Here is a report from the Hurriyet:  Huundreds protest anti-evolution meet in Turkey.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

The issue of Young Earth Creationism (the idea that the world was created in the last 6-10 thousand years) is specific to the US. It didn't really exist at the time of the Scopes Trial. In fact, the main proponent of creationism at the trial, the colorful William Jennings Bryan, was an old earth creationist. The idea of a young earth took hold after the publication of a couple of books in the 60s arguing for flood geology - that all of the geologic features of the Earth have been shaped by Noah's flood only a few thousand years ago. This kind of fantasy geology is, thankfully, missing from most of the Muslim world. This is very encouraging! An acceptance of the age of the Earth in billions of years opens up the possibility for the acceptance of a change of species over this very long time. It is really a shame that a significant fraction of population of the most scientifically advanced country in the world accepts such young earth creationism. I know that social and political factors, colored by a particular form of religion, shape much of this view. But really, there should be no excuse.

But the US problem is further exacerbated by the way the school system works here. Instead of a federal system, local school boards set the curricula. And the school board members are picked through local elections. Texas school board has attracted a lot of attention as most public schools in the US use textbooks published in Texas - and the Texas publishers follow the local school board recommendation. So it has been particularly crazy to see a young earth creationist Don McLeroy, who also happens to be a dentist, head up the Texas school board. He is no longer part of the board, but he led a fierce fight to include creationism in biology textbooks. Now there is a new documentary out, The Revisionaries, about folks like him who are trying to change the textbooks. I haven't seen the movie, but I don't think it is a complimentary to McLeroy or other creationists. However, our creationist dentist did decide to show up on the Colbert Report. Here is the entertaining segment (I think Colbert could have been harsher...):

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

I think McLeroy should team up with Harun Yahya and Zakir Naik. They will make first class Musketeers. Or they can be the Three Stooges. Actually Ken Ham - of the Creation Museum - may be a better candidate than McLeroy.

And here is the trailer for The Revisionaries:

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

As I write, the Tennessee legislature has passed a bill that allows teachers to discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of ideas such as biological evolution, etc. On the surface this may seem reasonable, but in reality this phrasing has a history and it is a another way of sliding creationism into the science classrooms in the US (for example, see this earlier post from 2008, "Strengths and Weaknesses" = Creationism). Since there are so many people covering creationism battles in the US, I usually don't have posts on this. But this is a good opportunity to point out a new book on creationism in the US: American Genesis: Antievolution controversies from Scopes to Creation Science by Jeffrey P. Moran. What is interesting about the book is its emphasis on the issues of race, gender, and regional identities in the Scope trial (also in Tennessee - in 1925). While it may seem obvious, but it is worth re-emphasizing that many of the evolution issues are not really about epistemology but rather about what evolution has come to symbolize for different groups of people.

Here is the review of American Genesis from Science (you may beed subscription to access the full article). Here is an interesting bit about the fact that most people were not really familiar with any issues or controversies surrounding evolution, and that the Scopes trial brought the controversy to the forefront:

One might expect that the earliest evolution debates were primarily found in southern states and rural areas. But in fact, as Moran points out, until the 1920s southern Americans paid scant attention to Darwinism. When potential jurors were questioned for the Scopes trial, most confessed that they had not heard of any controversy over evolution and the Bible until after Scopes had been arrested. Before that time, the conflict was largely confined to the Northeast, where modernist views were rapidly advancing and sectarian groups were emerging to combat them. 

Exploring the racial dimensions of the Scopes trial, Moran notes that teaching evolution in public schools was not a major issue for the African American community at the time. In the South, relatively few black students attended high school; for those who did, the segregated schools emphasized agriculture and practical trades. A general acceptance of evolution represented a no-win situation for African Americans. Although some black intellectuals hoped that scientific advancement would undermine the South's oppressive social structure, it was evident evolution could be marshaled to further justify black inferiority. In fact, George Hunter's Civic Biology—Tennessee's official biology text, used by Scopes—explicitly described a hierarchy of races. The lowest was the “Ethiopian or negro type,” and it culminated with “the highest type of all, the Caucasians, [are] represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America” (2).

I knew about the social Darwinism in some of the textbooks in Tennessee at the time, but I didn't know about the reaction of African-Americans to that. Yes, we know that social Darwinism is not biological evolution - nevertheless, it serves as a powerful narrative against the acceptance of evolution. Interestingly, Obama has started to brand Republican economic policies as "social Darwinism". This is in response to the Republicans calling him a socialist and I think this social Darwinism brand will stick with the general voters.

But back to the book. I think one of the interesting components is about gender:

Beyond race and regional identity, the most surprising insights in American Genesis concern the role of gender. Moran persuasively argues that in the 1920s antievolutionism was primarily a female-led reform movement that sought political support against threats to children's moral and religious development. Women had recently secured the right to vote, and given their high visibility in the prohibition movement, politicians felt obliged to heed their concerns. During debate over the Butler bill, the speaker of the Tennessee Senate “proclaimed he had been petitioned to support the bill by ‘the women of the state and the teachers association.’” At the time of the Scopes trial, nearly all letters to newspapers in support of the Butler bill were written by women, whereas dissenting letters more often came from men. 

In the decades that followed—particularly after the 1961 publication of The Genesis Flood (3)—the antievolution movement shifted in emphasis from moral arguments to more “scientific” rebuttals. This transition toward natural science has galvanized greater male participation. Nevertheless, the female voice remains strong. In a 2005 Kansas survey (4) on whether evolution should be taught in the public schools, 74% of men answered yes while only 58% of women agreed. Asked whether it was “possible to believe in both God and evolution,” 73% of men agreed, whereas only 57% of women did so.

This is fascinating. We have been interviewing Muslim physicians and medical students in several countries. Once we are done with the survey, we will be able to see  if we find similar trends amongst different Muslim groups.  

Read the full review here. 

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

A new poll is out that shows that an overwhelming number of Republican voters in Alabama and Mississippi believe that Obama is a Muslim. How overwhelming is this craziness?

The results of the new survey by Public Policy Polling reveal a lot of interesting things, but the question about Obama's religion is probably the most shocking.
In Alabama, 45 percent of Republicans said they thought Obama is a Muslim and 41 percent said they were not sure. Fifty-two percent of Republicans in Mississippi said they though Obama practiced Islam, while 36 percent said they weren't sure.

Now, the pollsters also asked a question about acceptance of evolution. So why would one ask a question about evolution when dealing with politics? Well...because we often find a correlation amongst Evangelical and Republican voters. This may point to the fact it is not necessarily about science - but rather about identity politics, i.e. there are a group of ideas that define a group (denial of global warming is also correlated with this). So what do we find about evolution:

Twenty-six percent of survey-takers in Alabama said they believe in evolution, 60 percent said they did not and 13 percent said they weren't sure. In Mississippi, 66 percent of those polled said they do not believe in evolution, 22 percent said they do, and 11 percent said they are not sure.

Okay - so that is more about science and politics. More entertaining (or you can call it more depressing) is the fact that 21% registered Republican voters believed that inter-racial marriages should be illegal.What? Yes, this is not a time warp.We are still living in the 21st century - despite these 21% of Alabaman Republicans.

Read the full article here.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

Adnan Oktar, also known as Harun Yahya, thrives on publicity. In particular, he has been successful in gaining attention from western media on the issue of evolution (for example, see these earlier post: The Media Coverage of Harun Yahya and Yahya still desperately seeking attention). This has happened because his brand of creationism fits neatly into the evolution-creation debates in US and in Europe - and these are framed as a threat to the educational system. The problem is that Harun Yahya has been writing about every crazy thing - from the end of the world and the return of Mahdi (he thinks of himself as a pretty good candidate) to the denial of reality itself (he believes in a Matrix-style world). But only his rejection of evolution really gained any traction outside of Turkey - and he started shaping emphasizing creationism more and more in his books - culminating in his laughably amateurish The Atlas of Creation (see this earlier post: The Evolution of Harun Yahya's "Atlas of Creation").

While science education people in Turkey remain concerned about Harun Yahya's influence, my sociologist and anthropologist friends always considered him a joke, a local oddity, and really a nobody. Yes, he did harass academics with lawsuits - but then that may be more consistent with the bullying nature of his organization - whose source of money is still unknown. Well, it seems that the latter group might have been right all along. Below is Harun Yahya on a show that he regularly hosts. Is there really a reason to take him seriously? Here is our "creationist intellectual" (hat tip from Berna Turam):



I had to get some help about his profound Turkish words in the video. It seems that he keeps on repeating "Wow, look at the music. How amazing. No prejudices." And, of course, his moves are untranslatable :)

Enjoy!

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

Last month I had a chance to give a talk as part of TEDx Pioneer Valley program: How Learning Happens. It was actually a fantastic experience and had a chance to sit through some fascinating talks and interact with some very interesting people. I will be posting some other talks in the coming days. In the mean time, here is the video of my talk When Evidence is Powerless... (about 19 minutes). Here is a brief description:

Millions of individuals in the United States believe in UFOs and ghosts; yet we know that there is no credible evidence for any visitation from outer space or for dead souls hanging out in abandoned houses. In contrast, there is now overwhelming evidence that humans and other species on the planet have evolved over the past 4.5 billion years; yet 40 percent of Americans reject evolution. It seems that for many there is no connection between belief and evidence. If evidence is powerless, what are some other factors that shape their beliefs, and what are the implications for science education?

Read More »

Last Sunday I had posted about the astonishing display of intellectual ignorance by Georgia Congressman Jack Kingston. For a change of language, below is a clip of a popular Pakistani TV anchor, Javed Choudhry, displaying an equal level of ignorance about evolution, and about the pursuit of knowledge, in general. Even if you don't speak Urdu, just play the clip for a few minutes, and you will detect a deep level of condescension in his tone and in his voice.

His main point here is that you don't have to read Aristotle, Socrates, Plato et al. for thinking about life (the topic of his talk this discussion is "Relationships"). After all, they have been dead for a long time (I don't think he knows exactly how long, since at one point he says 5000 years ago and at another he says 3000 - and both are wrong). So he urges us to use our own brains - since we know a lot more today than they ever did, and that we should be able to challenge any authority with own ideas. Now on the surface this sounds great - since this what we say about science also. However, he does not mention that your views have to shaped and informed by learning from the past. A key omission. 

And then just on cue, he demonstrates his own ignorance by arguing against evolution by bringing up the same old and stupid misconception: "if humans came from monkeys, how come monkeys are still around?". But just to demonstrate his level of thinking, he goes on to say that monkeys have been around in zoos for a while. How come not even one has started wearing pants or smoking cigarettes (I guess, he missed a whole slew of Hollywood films). Sigh! I mean how much effort does it take to at least look at what are some of the basic principles of evolutionary biology. But he does deserve credit for taking the level of discourse to even a stupider level.  I mean sure. You can criticize it. But at least know a tiny bit about what you are criticizing. Oh wait. But that would mean actually reading something. And I guess reading can be hard. But if you graduate from the Javed Choudhry university - you only need to think - and not read. I guess he is a born genius. First it was Einstein - and now we have Javed Choudhry.

Read about common misconceptions about evolution here and here.

Sorry to inflict this on you (blame Shahid Saeed for the tip :)). The fun about evolution begins around the 5-minute mark, but his anti-Aristotle/Socrates/Plato rant is before that:

Read More »

We write here a lot about the status of science in the Muslim world. Yes, we are also often critical about scientific misconceptions and how newspapers sometimes promote pseudoscientific claims (see, for example, this nonsense about Mars from the Business Recorder, or this about bizarre anti-evolution story from Al Jazeera). But what is astounding is to find a Congressman of the most scientifically advanced country in the world (it is by far the scientific leader in the world) not only deny climate change, but also evolution. See the clip of Bill Maher show below. Not just that, but here he demonstrate a stunning level of intellectual ignorance by saying that "well, I did not come from a monkey". I mean c'mon. Rep. Jack Kingston from Georgia sits on the House Appropriations Committee which decides how the federal government will spend its money. I know, know. There have even been US Presidential hopefuls (at least in the Republican primaries) who have also shown a similar level of intellectual ignorance. I just find it amazing that with all the science and scientists at hand, they choose not to seek out even some basic information. Heck, when next time he is in D.C., he can go and visit the hall of human origins at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. Or if he wants to stay in Georgia, then he can check out Yerkes National Primate Research Center. But please, ask someone about the basic concepts of evolution! Absolutely shameful. (note that I'm not saying any thing about D.L. Hughley's rejection of evolution. He is a comedian. It is not a big deal if he doesn't know much about it. But as a Congressman, you are supposed to be able to make reasonable - in the loosest sense of the word - assessments. For that, you even have staffers at hand to help you reach those decisions. If after all that, this is the best one can do - then it is indeed shameful).

Here is the clip:

Read More »

Here is a new Gallup poll on the acceptance of evolution in the US. Okay - so the numbers have more or less stayed the same for the last three decades (Only a small effect, but creationism seems to be at its lowest in 2010). I agree with those who say that this is no longer simply a misunderstanding of science issue - but rather this is a religious/ideological issue. There is, however, still a correlation with the level of education - with more educated having a higher level of acceptance for evolution.

And here is the table on education levels:

Will we find a similar trend in the Muslim world? Perhaps to a first order of degree. After that I think it will vary tremendously from country to country. We hope to have some answers at the high end of the education level by the end of summer 2011. So stay tuned.

In the mean time, read the full Gallup report here.
Read More »

Back in 2007, I had posted a lecture by Ken Ham - the creationist behind the ridiculous Creation Museum. At the time, the Creation Museum was about to open and I thought that there is no way that people will fall for this crap, especially after listening to the stuff that he says in his lectures. To give you some perspective, even Harun Yahya looks smarter when compared to Ken Ham.

Alas - I was mistaken. This Creation Museum has been able to attract thousands of people in its first couple of years. Now, Kentucky is planning a Noah's Ark theme park - about 45 miles from the Creation museum:

The theme park was conceived by the same Christian ministry that built the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., where dioramas designed to debunk evolution show humans and dinosaurs coexisting peacefully on an earth created by God in six days. The ministry, Answers in Genesis, believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old — a controversial assertion even among many Bible-believing Christians.

Although the Creation Museum has been a target of ridicule by some, it has drawn 1.2 million visitors in its first three years — proving that there is a sizable paying audience for entertainment rooted in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Yes, there are first amendment issues (the separation of church and state), as the state government is offering tax incentives for the builders of this park. But the bigger issue is the promotion of such ridiculous ideas. I can imagine many people taking their kids to the Creation Museum because they think that it is a science museum. Now this pseudoscientific narrative will extend to another site, and is expected to work in tandem:

The developers of Ark Encounter, who have incorporated as a profit-making company, say they expect to spend $150 million, employ 900 people and attract 1.6 million visitors from around the world in the first year. With the Creation Museum only 45 miles away, they envision a Christian tourism corridor that would draw busloads from churches and Christian schools for two- and three-day visits.

Read the full story here. I'm actually unclear on how to counter such ideas. If people believe in a 6000 year old, then evidence is definitely not going to play a big role in convincing them otherwise. Depressing. But a thank you is in order. Thanks to Answers in Genesis - the group behind the Creation Museum, Muslim creationists cannot be considered the bottom of the barrel. So thank you Ken Ham for taking reason and logic to an all time low!
Read More »

I have been traveling to Pakistan for the past few days (yes, plane delays, missed flights, and detours have made this into a multi-day odyssey). On the flight from London to Dubai, an Iraqi/British pilot was sitting next to me (no - I was not sitting in the cockpit). We struck a conversation and when talking about research, the topic of evolution came up. And oh-boy - he turned out to be a full blown creationist with all the bells and whistles (Adam was made by Allah using "hands" and Eve was literally made out of Adam's ribs, they were brought to Earth from the outside, etc). He did not know much about evolution, but he was thoroughly convinced that he opposed it. Okay - so I have encountered these kind of views before. But, perhaps not surprisingly, he also believed that humans never went to the Moon, was a believer in astrology and ghosts, and had our flight not landed, I'm sure he would have told me about the Lochness monster and the Big Foot too. 

So what's the big deal? I don't know. It bothered me that he is a pilot - and flies some of the most amazing technology developed on the principles of science. Plus, we were having this discussion while above the clouds at 35,000 feet. If all humans displayed this much lack of critical thinking, we would still be only talking about mythological figures flying in the skies. I don't know - his utter lack of critical thinking and this level of creationism really bugged me. He is a pilot after all! (yes, I know, the same applies to medical doctors as well...)

Oh and I was also admonished by a young bearded dude (a fellow passenger for the Pakistan-bound flight) for drinking coffee openly during Ramadan. It was 9am and we were waiting for the plane to board. Since there was still time to kill, I asked him for his precise reasons (I'm also aware of the fact that fasting is not an obligation for travelers. One may still choose to fast, but it is not a requirement). And he said he was worried about the temptation for the weak willed believers (weak "iman"). I asked him if he was being tempted. He said, no, no, his "iman" is strong, but others don't have the same "iman". Aah...but of course. To be fair, he was quite polite - apart from actually asking me to drink coffee in hiding. 

Next few posts will be from Pakistan (this is a family trip - so no talks and no research business). I should be back in the US by Sept 21st.

Read More »

An anti-evolution billboard on I-90 (Mass-turnpike) near Ludlow, MA

We hear rumblings of anti-evolution battles - but usually in Texas, rural Pennsylvania, Kentucky, etc. The New England area is often spared from this particular anti-science fight. However, just last week while driving to Boston I saw an anti-evolution billboard (see pic above) on Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90E) near Ludlow, MA (exit 6)! It says "In the Beginning, God Created...", and it has the iconic, but scientifically inaccurate, symbol of evolution with an X on it. Really? This close to the 5-Colleges area? What a shame. It is hard to see in the pictures, but a CBS logo is also under the billboard. I'm assuming that this billboard is not an endorsement by CBS - the broadcasting station, rather that this is a reference to some nutty program on CBS, like the 700 Club. Initially I thought of CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) - but I double-checked, and it is indeed CBS (you can see the "eye" of CBS in the second image above). In any case, it is just odd to see such anti-science crap in this area.

Talking about our area, we also have this story of self-censorship in neighboring Connecticut:

Evolution education is under attack in Weston, Connecticut, but not from the usual direction.

Nobody is promoting intelligent design in the curriculum, or asking schools to teach evolution’s “strengths and weaknesses.” There’s just an administration afraid that teaching third graders too much about Charles Darwin will cause trouble.

“They might have just been looking to avoid controversy, but that has the same effect,” said Steve Newton, programs and policy director at the National Center for Science Education. ” If you’re not looking to teach children the best science, that harms their education.”

At issue is a class section proposed in 2008 by Mark Tangarone, teacher of the third, fourth and fifth grade Talented and Gifted program at the Weston Intermediate School. Tangarone wanted his third graders to study and compare the accomplishments of Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin.

To learn about Darwin, students would have retraced the path of the HMS Beagle, the expedition that inspired a young Darwin’s theory of evolution. Each student would study a stop in the voyage, reporting on the animals and adaptations that Darwin observed.

When Tangarone ran his class plan by then-principal Mark Ribbens, he was denied.

In an email obtained by the Weston Forum, Ribbens explained that his objections had nothing to do with the soundness of the theory of evolution. Instead, he was worried about parent reaction.

“While evolution is a robust scientific theory, it is a philosophically unsatisfactory explanation for the diversity of life. I could anticipate that a number of our parents might object to this topic,” wrote Ribbens. “It is not appropriate to have [Darwin's] work or the theory part of the TAG program since the topic is not age appropriate.”

...

However, the class wasn’t out of step with official state science standards [.doc]. At the time, these instructed teachers to impart to third graders the ability to “describe how different plants and animals are adapted to obtain air, water, food and protection in specific land habitats.” That section of the standards was subtitled, “Heredity and Evolution — What processes are responsible for life’s unity and diversity?”

And when Tangarone's request was denied again this year, he resigned in protest - on February 12th (Darwin's birthday):

“I feel that Weston has become anti-science and no longer a place I feel comfortable teaching in,” said Tangarone, who will retire two years early.

“I never dreamed this would be an issue in Weston,” he said. It’s a highly educated community. Many parents work in New York. There are authors, artists and scientists. They’re committed to education for their children.”

Weston Public Schools superintendent Jerry Belair did not respond to requests for an interview.

According to Newton, the motives of school administrators are not in doubt. “They just wanted to avoid controversy,” he said.

This is simply disappointing. There is no need to back down when it comes to good science, regardless of the age group. Read the full article here.

Read More »