Do not expect deep thoughts or even controversy today; I’ve been working since 5:15 a.m. and just was interviewed by Neil Denny for the Little Atoms podcast (check the link for a passel of wonderful interviews), so I’m worn out. Neil is taking a four-week road trip from California to New York, interviewing scientists along the way (see his ongoing itinerary, with interviews, here). He’s just come from the Creation Museum, and has had chats with Genie Scott and Francisco Ayala in California; he’ll be writing a piece for the Guardian this weekend on the Creation Museum. He’s then headed to North Carolina, New York (where he’ll talk to participants at the World Science Festival), Boston, and Ithaca. What a great job: he gets paid to drive across America and chat with scientists!
The interview was almost completely about evolution and its evidence. Neil asked good questions and was a delightful chap. I’ll link to his evolution pieces in the Guardian and the interview when they appear.
At any rate, I feel like I should post something this afternoon, so here’s a U.S. News and World Report interview with Richard Leakey (via Matthew Cobb and Roger Highfield’s Twitter), in which the renowned anthropologist makes one palpably false and one dubious statement about the acceptance of evolution.
The palpably false statement is this:
Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.
Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that “even the skeptics can accept it.”
“If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive,” Leakey says, “then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges.”
Well, things haven’t moved much in 60 years in the U.S., so I’m not nearly so optimistic. And he’s even more wrong if he thinks the change in acceptance of evolution will come about because people will finally grasp the evidence. That evidence has been around for a gazillion years. No, the change will come when people aren’t resistant to evolution because of their faith. And that will take a few more decades than Leakey predicts.
I suspect Leakey doesn’t realize the full import of belief as an obstruction to accepting evolution; at least that’s what’s implied by a his further statements:
Leakey insists he has no animosity toward religion.
“If you tell me, well, people really need a faith … I understand that,” he said.
“I see no reason why you shouldn’t go through your life thinking if you’re a good citizen, you’ll get a better future in the afterlife ….”
Maybe he’d have a bit more animosity if he realized that religion—not lack of appreciation of the evidence—is the major impediment to what he sees as a life-or-death need for the world to accept evolution. And about that “seeing no reason why you shouldn’t think you’ll have a nice afterlife”, well, Dr. Leakey, what about the evidence? The evidence you have for human evolution in Africa isn’t there for an afterlife.
Leakey thinks that accepting evolution is the linchpin to a better world. Much as I’d like to believe that, I can’t share his sentiments:
Any hope for mankind’s future, he insists, rests on accepting existing scientific evidence of its past.
“If we’re spreading out across the world from centers like Europe and America that evolution is nonsense and science is nonsense, how do you combat new pathogens, how do you combat new strains of disease that are evolving in the environment?” he asked.
“If you don’t like the word evolution, I don’t care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It’s not covered by Genesis. There’s no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I’ve read from the lips of any God.”
The people who are designing new antibiotics and pathogens already appreciate evolution; licking those problems doesn’t absolutely require that everyone else share that appreciation. I would love it if that happened, but I have no illusions that our world will suddenly change for the better if everyone accepted evolution. If a genie gave me a choice between two wishes: 1) everyone in the world suddenly accepts evolution in the way we scientists understand it; or 2) all religious belief would suddenly vanish from our planet, I know which one I’d pick. Choice number 2 would eliminate far more harm than #1, and has the added benefit that it will automatically produce acceptance of evolution as a byproduct.
I do love my job, and want to inspire people to understand why evolution is so marvelous—the true story of our origins, with fantastic organismal “design” the result of a blind, mindless process of gene competition—but I’m under no illusion that the battle to get it accepted will make a huge difference to our planet. What will make a bigger difference is to inculcate general habits of skepticism, rationality, and respect for truth—and a general disdain for superstition. Those, of course, are the habits of science.
Word.
You’ve been working since 5AM? And on the Sabbath too…
As for Leakey’s comments, they are a bit strange. I mean, it’s not as though there are any good reasons for not realizing that the theory of evolution is correct. And it’s not as if there was a lack of evidence 40 years ago either.
People reject evolution almost entirely because of religious reasons, there are exceptionally few individuals out there who are “skeptical” of evolution for other reasons.
Perhaps he thinks that in general religiosity will wane and become more moderate and benign as general education and better standards of living increase. But I get the impression from reading these statements that he doesn’t really regard religious belief as a major factor in evolution denial.
I’m not sure about your genie’s wishes, Jerry. I’d wish for (1). If everyone in the world suddenly accepts evolution in the way “we” scientists understand it, I cannot see how any religion in the world can survive intact…
Just getting rid of religion would still leave you with an uphill educational battle!
/@
All I can say is I couldn’t agree more, and of course it’s the youth of today who will decide what happens in the next 50 years, so if we look at what they are being taught at school, at home and at church, we can see what the future will be like in terms of acceptance of science
In other words…we’re screwed!
Well and truly.
I am not so sure. As a parent with kids in school I can say with confidence that there is definitely some wheat among the chaff. Of course the parent has to actively participate in educating their children, and most don’t seem to do so, or if they do they actually cause damage. But some do a pretty good job. I don’t see it as a sure thing, but I think there is a chance. I think things could look quite different in the US 20 years from now.
For sure, there are wheat among the chaff. I’ve been thinking in terms of how religion is gaining ground in some parts of the world, and of the, what I perceive to be a decent sized chunk of parents that are not religious at all but are agnostic, complacent or accommodationist, and whose children who could therefore easily be swept up by religion. Like you say there are parents who do actively participate in their kids education and, like the author puts it, inculcate general habits of skepticism etc so of course these kids are naturally less likely to fall prey.
Actually.. I’m quite happy to hear my some of my daughters friends are militant atheists! Which is something that was completely unheard of when I was a kid – back then either you were religious or….’not’! So maybe there is hope in that thought.
Bottom line is, I’m not really sure what the solution is, just pointing out that the future lies with the kids of the world.
I’d be even happier if being an outspoken, unapologetic, active atheist was no longer equated with being “militant.”
It’s slow progress, but progress nonetheless.
Intereestly, when I asked my daughter why a certain friend had become quite a staunch atheist all of a sudden, she told me it was because a boyfriend had shown pity on her for not sharing his christian views.
I didn’t know (or care about) Leakey’s beliefs until he said that – either he hasn’t thought about or looked into belief before, or he’s a bit clueless. Of course, he isn’t from around here, IIRC, so his experiences are different.
Of course, don’t you know that if we just tell the Christians that evolution is compatible with their faith, then surely they will fall in line and accept evolution. That’s what some keep telling us, so it must be true…the last 60 years (+) were just an anomaly. I’m sure it’ll happen. Sometime. Just keep thinking them positive waves, Moriarty!
/accomodationist
Those last two paragraphs were truly inspired.
Indeed and I think that really sums up the point of books like The God Delusion that are completely lost on people
In deed IF. Still, you must remember that in addition to his anthropological achievements, he lost his legs and nearly his life over ivory. Even if he’s wrong in estimation of the time it will take, he’s an esteemed voice championing the idea.
Always good to have some optimists in the camp.
There’s a reason why Holocaust deniers deny the Holocaust, and it’s not because they are sceptical of the evidence.
Religion poisons everything.
One of the best posts I’ve ever seen Jerry make on this blog.
I remember reading somewhere that the Leakey’s used to throw wild orgies with villagers in Africa. It all sounds pretty disgusting and pagan to me.
So you have verified this and passed judgement, I see.
Never heard or read that.
Are you sure your source isn’t just the voices in your head. Again.
BTW, most villagers in Africa are either xians or Moslems.
Kenya, where Richard Leakey was born and where he is a citizen, is 83% xian, much higher than the USA at 76%. You need to update your mythology.
Richard Leakey has spent most of his life in Africa, England, and a bit of time on the American East Coast (where Christians are somewhat less strident). He has never lived in the American MidWest or South. This goes a long way to explaining his perspective.
They have some pretty wacko religious types in East Africa. You’d think he might have noticed.
Do you mean Christian fundamentalists or voodoo witchdoctors or something else? Please let me know.
Yes. All of the above.
While I am fully aware of the atrocities that have occurred in the name of religion, I often wonder if the problem isn’t much deeper.
Jerry asks the question which he would prefer 1) for the world to accept evolution or 2) for the world to be rid of religion.
I don’t know if the answer is that obvious. The reason why is because I feel the problem is much deeper than religion in general. I often wonder if the problem is humanity’s continual pursuit of power and humanity’s control of their communities when power is obtained. Of which religion is one means for them to control their communities. But if we rid the world of religion, won’t humanity just use another means for control?
We often mention the atrocities that religion has caused but until recently most societies have had some sort of political ties to their religious beliefs. What of the societies that have tried to vanquish religion? Many of these societies (the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, atc) commit (or have committed) gross atrocities as well. I understand the sample size of non-religious societies to religious societies is small, however; could the problem be humanity’s pursuit of power and control (of which religion is a means)?
I would love to know your thoughts.
My thought is that there are many bad things are done on this planet. A large number of them are done as the direct or indirect result of religious belief. Ridding the world of delusion will improve the place but not solve all of our troubles.
They didn’t try to vanquish religion so much as substitute one religion for another.
Most of Mao’s victims starved to death during one famine or another. It wasn’t so much malevolence as incompetence that killed them.
North Korea has deified its ruling family as gods or demigods. The ruling oligarchy and ideology is far more similar to a state religion than anything else.
Atrocities in Cuba? Really? I’ve never heard about them. I did grow up hearing about for example, the Vietnam war, and the My Lai massacre among others. I knew kids not much older than me who were killed there. What was the name of that North American superpower that was involved there for about two decades?
The religious societies today haven’t done any better. The most violent, dysfunctional, and backwards societies today are among the most religious, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia.
Did you read Jerry’s paper that he posted links to a couple of days ago? Very much one of his points – that the religiosity of America [correlates with / is a consequence of] it’s general social dysfunctionality.
I will start by addressing the fact that some of the greatest atrocities in history were caused with religious motives. Whether we look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, or Colonization. More recent examples of what religion can do include the Iraq/Iran War, the Genocides in Bosnia, Rwanda and Sudan, and 9/11.
I did read and very much agree with Jerry’s paper as well. It was a great piece of reading and was extremely helpful and informative. One of the things I would say isn’t that religion itself needs to be vanquished but that the ties that bind religion to politics, power and society do.
If you look at his chart of developed nations, many of the nations haven’t rid themselves of religion altogether but found a way to sever the ties between religion and power.
Jerry mentioned four nations ranked substantially higher than the US on the scale in his paper (Sweden, Japan, Italy and Australia). Sweden allows for full religious freedom (meanwhile 70% of Swedes are members of the Swedish Church). About 70% of Japanese claim no formal religious membership though 84%-96% of Japanese adhere to Shintoism and/or Buddhism in accordance to birth records. Italy is obviously highly Catholic (85%-90% of the population claims to be Catholic with about 35-40% being “practicing”). Finally, Australia has 64% of the population claiming Christianity (though only a quarter of the population regularly attends Church). I think this shows that religion can exist in a society that is functional as long as it is not tied to every aspect of a society.
To further show my point about how an incorporated system (not a separated one) is more hurtful for societal advancement, we can see those nations listed in the comments above. In the cases of Afghanistan, Iran, and Somalia; each nation is Islamic. A main component of Islam is power and control. This leads itself to a society that is permeated on all levels with religious laws and rules. In true Islam, there is no possible way to separate religion from society.
With this said, is it possible for the US to follow the lead of nations like Sweden, Italy, Japan and Australia? Can the US still keep a part of it’s religious culture in-tact while severing the ties that bind it to society, politics and schools?
If we rid the world of religion the way we want to rid the world of religion — by encouraging thoughtful critical analysis of “sacred” issues — then humanity will be left with less powerful means of control. When right and reason is invested in supernatural “facts,” then there is no way to admit or arbitrate disputes with the unenlightened. As bad as secular totalitarian systems are, in the long run their lies can be caught out, checked, and corrected. They are forced to acknowledge and deal with a reality we can all see.
A religious or spiritual State, however, has all the built-in immunizing strategies of Faith. It can look the hardest reality of failure in the face and deny that it means anything. Nothing is as it seems: the Godly can safely ignore what the ungodly point to, for the supernatural truth behind all things is hidden from those of the World. They appeal to something Higher, which has no mundane checks and balances. Making no sense is a feature — not a bug.
That ups the level of control.
That is so clear; it’s surprising to me that Leakey would not recognize it.
Creationism lost a century ago.
The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming now that increasing it 10 fold won’t make it any more convincing.
20% of the US population think the sun orbits the earth, Geocentrism and can’t diagram the solar system, a task I learned in the first grade. The evidence for Heliocentrism was overwhelming centuries ago.
There are still a few Flat Earthers around. Boko Harum, the current in the news terrorist group, are Flat Earthers.
Half of the US population have IQ’s less than 100.
20% of the population will believe anything, no matter how silly or wrong it is. But I doubt if those people really matter all that much.
“Half of the US population have IQ’s less than 100.”
Hmm… we can only hope for the day when more than half will be of above-average intelligence! 😉
/@
That 20% who will believe anything are, unfortunately, important. They are the base of today’s Republican Party.
“Four legs good, two legs bad”. The sheep in Orwell’s Animal Farm, the base of the porcine leadership.
I’m sure that some of that 20% is indeed the Tea Party base. The ones who scream about US government “Socialism” and would be dead in a month without their Social Security and Medicare checks. The ones who listen to Satanorum froth about the dangers of a university education, while he himself has three degrees from good public universities, one an advanced degree in law.
They are just baggage being dragged along behind or society and holding it back. Many of them are fundie xians.
We can live with that though. We already do. And it isn’t just us. All societies have baggage that they have to drag along.
One can’t just ignore the “baggage”. They must be confronted or they will dominate public policy by virtue of being loud and aggressive. It is how theocracy and fascism take hold. Ignore them at your risk.
Sometimes you gotta take the chicken with the feathers. Leakey’s words will reach an order of magnitude more ordinary folks than WEIT or any other * cough cough * blog. He’s an unapologetic atheist, FFS, and he’s anything but naive. His words were chosen carefully, whether you agree with all of them or not. He has his own agenda to be sure (AKA the “Leakey Brand”), but sniping at his calculated optimism doesn’t advance yours.
Since when is pointing out where someone is wrong “sniping”? And might it not be equally valid to say that sniping about someone’s comments about Richard Leakey doesn’t advance yours?
The comments section on Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/scientist-evolution-debate-soon-history-155252505.html) supports your dismal expectations. Individuals are not going to drop their magical thinking because someone named Leakey shines a light in the darkness.
Typical comment: “I think that God is smart enough to have created the universe and everything in it using a process that we call evolution. For me creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive terms.”
Unclear on the concept, and he has lots of friends agreeing with him.
12,065 comments so far…low signal to noise ratio to be sure.
“Individuals are not going to drop their magical thinking because someone named Leakey shines a light in the darkness.”
…or someone named JC (as in Jerry) for that matter. But the more lights, the better.
I think religious belief is a sign of mental illness, but I’m not optimistic enough to think it will ever “vanish”.
Not everyone wants to think. Thinking can be hard. Thinking critically harder yet.
Religion gives a “pass” to those who wish to opt out of thinking. “Believe this” is a whole lot easier than “examine this”.
I think of religions as cults. Cult members may or may not be mentally ill, but they are good followers.
An interesting take on the Leakey story is that for whatever reason, it was featured on ArtDaily, which is a daily online site dedicated to news about the (visual) art world. Link to their article: http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=55639.