Belief in Evolution: Slow but Positive Progress

The most recent Gallup poll on belief in evolution shows a small but positive (+4%) increase in the number of Americans who accept the scientific consensus, agreeing that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life". Currently 54% of Americans share this viewpoint which is good news for those of us who agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous statement that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Unfortunately 40% of Americans still agree with the young earth creationist view that "God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years."  This is an astonishingly high number, however it is actually the lowest level of support for young earth creationism in the history of the Gallup poll.

American Belief in Evolution
(Data Source: 2010 Gallup Poll)

So why do so many Americans reject the theory of evolution? Level of education is one factor. The less educated you are the less likely you are to believe in evolution. For example, only 43% of Americans whose education level is high school or less believe in evolution.

Another key factor is a person's religious beliefs. According to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, the more fundamentalist your religion the less likely you are to accept evolution.

Percentage of Adherents Who Believe in Evolution
(Data Source: Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

So how does America compare with other countries when it comes to belief in evolution? According to a study published in the August 2006 issue of Science, the United States ranks second to last with Turkey being the only country in the survey with a lower acceptance of the scientific consensus.

Ranking of Countries by Belief in Evolution
(Graph Source: Science, August 2006)

The study identified two reasons for America's low ranking: 1) widespread religious fundamentalism and; 2) the ongoing politicization of science. Since the former is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, and the latter is outside the control of scientists, educators and pro-science citizens, any strategy that hopes to increase evolutionary literacy in the US needs to take these issues into account.

Evolution is the foundation for modern biology. A thorough understanding of it is an absolute necessity for any person going into biology-based professions such as genetics, agronomy, medicine, etc. To remain competitive in the global economy, and possibly to even just survive the 21st century, we need to do much better than our current 54% acceptance. The Gallup poll shows progress has been slow but positive so we are doing something right, but to make serious gains I think we need some fresh new ideas.

Stop the Hate - Don't Take the Bait

I don't like Rush Limbaugh. He says very stupid things. A recent example is his suggestion that "The White racist leadership of the Democrat Party is trying to ace out [current majority whip Rep. James] Clyburn" who is vying to become minority whip in the newly Republican controlled House. He follows this crass accusation up with the equally inane opinion that Clyburn is just "...worried about not having the perk of a big office, driver, and so forth." He then offers the 'solution' that a new position should be made for Clyburn rather than minority whip.  "Clyburn's new position: Driving Miss Nancy [Pelosi]. He gets to keep the car. He gets to go everywhere she goes, parties and everything else. He's not in the back of the bus. He's in the driver's seat, and she's in the back of the car being chauffeured. Solved problem."

Stupid? Yes. Racist? Yes. Something we should take seriously? No. Rush is just doing his normal 'liberal baiting' routine. Normally I'd let this sort of thing slide because I don't want to give Rush any more attention than he deserves (which is none), however the article that highlighted this particular bit of Rush-nastiness included a number of comments from ostensibly liberal readers that I found equally offensive. They respond to Rush's racist 'humor' with equally intolerant (and decidedly unfunny) jabs - comments on Rush's weight, his struggle with substance abuse, hopes that his marriage falls apart soon, that his life should end in agony, etc.

Of course this all plays into Rush's hand because he has stirred up more left/right hate and he gets the attention and notoriety he's looking for. I'm sure some of the more provocative comments were provided by Rush fans who are helping stir the pot by masquerading as liberals, however I'm very disappointed with any of my fellow true liberals who would sink so low as to play Rush's game with him.

Duane Harkness

Patty Murray Wins

This is just a quick note to say I'm happy Patty Murray won re-election as senior senator from our state. She is a strong advocate for taking action to avert the consequences of global warming, including the development of clean energy alternatives to petroleum. You can find a quick summary of her votes on energy and oil legislation here:

http://www.ontheissues.org/international/Patty_Murray_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Unfortunately global warming denial was a big winner elsewhere in the election. According to the ThinkProgress blog, half of newly elected Republicans deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming. What's worse is 86 percent of those same Republicans oppose any form of climate change legislation that increases government revenue requirements. That's sad. We have a lot of work ahead of us.

Duane Harkness

Washington Senate Candidates and Climate Change

According to a September KING 5 poll, Patty Murray has a slim lead over Dino Rossi in the race for U.S. Senate here in Washington State. Given the current avalanche of GOP Senate candidates jumping over each other to claim the crown of king climate skeptic, I was curious where Murray and Rossi fit in the climate science consensus/criticism spectrum.

Murray, a vocal climate activist, is clearly in the consensus camp as you can see from the following statement from her campaign website (though she probably needs to add a comma somewhere since "less clean freshwater shortages" doesn't sound like such a bad thing to me, lol):

Climate change is real – scientists agree that it is happening and that there is a better than 90% chance that it is being caused by humans.  Climate change can mean more serious natural disasters and storms like Hurricane Katrina, less clean freshwater shortages and food production.  We owe it to our children and future generations to get this issue under control and soon.

I would categorize Rossi as falling in the "lukewarm-to-tepid" camp since he acknowledges the earth is warming but doesn't believe it is necessarily anthropognic in origin. Here's a typical quote:

I believe the Earth is warming. There is still debate in the scientific community about the level of human impact on climate change, which is why I think the more important question is what we are actually going to do in order to reduce carbon emissions.

Murray aligns closest to my own opinion on climate change, i.e. it is real, it is the result of human activity and the consequences could be dire if we don't do something about it. I'm happy to see Rossi's eyes aren't totally closed. Unfortunately I think his interests lie more in limiting the options for dealing with it (e.g. his opposition to cap-and-trade) rather than in actually solving the problem.

Things could have been worse because Rossi's position is light years ahead of the other major GOP candidates who lost out in our "top two" blanket primary. Former NFL football player Clint Didier, who was endorsed by Sarah Palin and finished in 3rd place, pulled no punches regarding climate change: "This global warming is a joke." When asked about a carbon tax or lid he said "We need more of it [carbon], to tell the truth". Not a particularly enlightened candidate. Businessman Paul Akers who finished a distant 4th in the polling was no better: "[Climate researchers] are not scientists. They are people with a political agenda... [Global warming is] part of the natural cycle." I don't trust anyone who throws out an entire branch of science and replaces it with a simple phrase like "natural cycle".

Bottom line: Murray's position on climate change is a big plus for me. I'll give Rossi a slight minus, not because he's 'almost right' (because he isn't) but because he deserves bonus points for not jumping on the hardcore denial bandwagon that seems popular in the GOP these days.

Cuccinelli's Fishing Expedition Gets Skunked, at Least for Now

Back in April, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli used the state's Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA) to command the University of Virginia to hand over mountains of paperwork associated with research performed by climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann who taught at the University from 1999-2005. Mann (currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State) is a high profile climate researcher who is well known for his work on the historical temperature record. He is a strong proponent of the scientific consensus on climate change and has been a controversial figure in the ongoing political debate because his "hockey stick" graph (published in 1999) has been the subject of intense criticism by several members of the community who oppose the scientific consensus.

But controversy and debate are not synonymous with fraud. In my opinion, Cuccinelli's investigation is a politically motivated assault not just on one lone researcher, but on the entire research community itself. As the 500 Virginia academic scientists who signed a letter opposing Cuccinelli's investigation state:

"Science thrives on rigorous debate and a frank exchange of differing ideas and perspectives. The freedom of scientists to openly disagree and discuss critical scientific topics has brought Virginia and the United States prosperity and global leadership in science. Research shows that scientific discovery is held back when government officials harass scientists."

And that's exactly what I believe Cuccinelli is doing - he's harassing Mann and  in the process indirectly intimidating any researcher who is working in a field that might generate debate or political controversy. This is a very bad state of affairs. I agree with the American Association of University Professors, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and the ACLU who filed an amicus brief with the court stating:

"...the Attorney General’s approach – investigating a professor on suspicion of fraud simply because his work has sparked political and scientific controversy – could have a grave chilling effect on scholarship and research at universities."

Fortunately on August 30, 2010 a Virginia judge ruled against Cuccinelli saying he had provided no "objective basis to issue a civil investigative demand". In other words, Cuccinelli has been accusing Mann of fraud without ever stating the nature of the alleged fraudulent behavior. That's not the kind of public service want from my attorney general, that's for sure. Which reminds me - I need to see what Washington's attorney general Rob McKenna is doing with regards to climate change these days. I hope he's keeping his nose out of it.

Political shenanigans by grand-standers like Cuccinelli will always be an issue for science. Fortunately, in the long run the truth prevails but rarely without a lot of  hard work by scientists, academics, well informed members of the press and dedicated science amateurs. I wish the judge had been able to put this particularly odious assault on common sense to bed quickly. Unfortunately he left Cuccinelli a bit of wiggle room so he hasn't given up yet and is planning to revamp his demands and try again. Ugh. When does he come up for re-election again?

US District Court throws out California Prop. 8

I was very disappointed back in 2008 when the state of California passed Proposition 8, which stated "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." I opposed this proposition then and still do because I believe same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Not only that, if you read the text of the ballot measure, it was clearly about more than just what constitutes the legal institution of marriage. How else do you explain anti-gay fear-mongering sentences like "...protects our children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage" or "...the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father", or that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry it "...redefine[s] marriage for everyone else".

Fortunately Prop. 8 was challenged by two women and two men. Both couples sought to marry their partners but were denied marriage licenses because of Prop. 8. After reviewing the facts in the case (known as "Perry v. Schwarzenegger"), the U.S. District Court last week determined there was "overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights". It was patently obvious to me Prop. 8 ran afoul of the 14th amendment and I'm glad the court sees it the same way. As a result of this ruling, same-sex marriages can again be performed in California as of August 18th. I am very happy for all of the gay and lesbian couples who can finally exercise the same rights we straight people have reserved for ourselves all these years.

The full text of the case findings and other relevant information can be found at the official case website. There is also a fairly extensive wikipedia article on the subject.

Duane Harkness

Introduction

This blog exists because I need a place to air my thoughts and opinions on a wide range of subjects. I've done blogging on social networks before, but that has always been either focused on a specific subject (e.g. I write about music at last.fm) or to keep in touch with friends and family (e.g. Facebook). I prefer to avoid controversy on those sites but blogger seems like a good avenue to dish the dirt. I'll likely focus on a few specific areas of interest - science, philosophy, human rights, civil liberties, etc. but pretty much anything will be fair game. Of course it's easy to plan all of this and another to follow through so only time will tell. I've also chosen to use my real name so I hope that doesn't come back to bite me some day, lol.