How the Media Spins Science

This report at LSJ.com shows how, based on a sociology study on the faith of scientists.  1/3 reported that "they did not believe in God," but the papers reported that "2/3 DO believe in God" - which turns out to be false if you look more closely at the data - at best, only 1/3 believe in God if you examine the data closely.

This is why I almost never believe the MSM on scientific findings, because partisan politics always spins scientific reports.  And the MSM is not the primary report, it is someone else's interpretation.  I mean, even the primary article may contain falsified data, as my previous post, Why I Trust Science in Principle, But not in Practice, discussed.

Comments

[Louis]

Excellent! Stick your head in the sand when confronted with a fact you don't like, Mohammed!

[Lonnie]

Louis must have seen that South Park...

[seeker]

Well, attacking the faith of the faithful always angers them.

[Louis]

Oh, boo-hoo! What are you gonna do, fly some airplays into some buildings?

[seeker]

I'm talking about how YOU react wnen YOUR faith in science is challenged - you gat all wacky and make intelligent replies like stuff about sticking one's head in the sand.

There are good reasons not to trust everything that comes out of the back end of Science magazine. The "relibility" of science, despite it's excellent track record, is now something to seriously question, and I keep providing more evidence of the corruption of our current scientific results machine, and the MSM political spin on scientific papers.

YOu paint those who have lost unswerving faith in sc9ience as anti-science religionists, but that's just a low-brow knee-jerk charicature, not real discussion of the issue.

[Septeus7]

Quote: "The "relibility" of science, despite it's excellent track record, is now something to seriously question..."

What excellent track record? Big Science has a horrible track record starting with Galileo. The more you examine the track record of Big Science the worse it gets. Its not "sciences" fault but perpetual deception and corruption is the nature of any human institution.

I suppose Louis will now tell us that scientist aren't humans and don't make cascading mistakes in proceedure and analysis.

My favorite Biology teacher who was an actual scientist
unlike most biology teachers once paraphased a certain Asian philoshoper saying "90% of what we (scientist) is untrue but we say it so that you will understand the 10% which is true." I would say its more like 9.999999999% untrue and 0.0000000001% true.

Yes, I am a fundamentalist cynic and member of the first church of cynicism.

[Cineaste]

"What excellent track record? Big Science has a horrible track record starting with Galileo." -Septeus7

So two bodies of mass don't fall at and equal rate in a vacuum?

So moons don't orbit Jupiter?

Wow, dat Galileo shure a twicky un. I tink I taw he on Tee Vee once.

[Louis]

Whatever mistakes or fraud science has endured are child's play compared with the record of religion. I don't have FAITH in science because "faith" is belief without evidence. At least science takes as its starting point the need for evidence: objective observation, formulation of hypotheses based on that observation, rigorous testing of those hypotheses, and logical thought to form conclusions and theories based on this process (when the whole process circles back). What does religion propose? Belief in unsupported or anecdotal claims from people who could be mistaken for (or actually are) schizophrenics, and blind faith in ancient texts which are so full of such wild claims as to be laughable. Yes, religion CAN contain some wisdom, but do does philosophy, art, literature, dance, history, anthropology, psychology, etc., and without the mystical baggage and fundamentalist authoritarianism it most usually displays. Your emotional tirade notwithstanding, seeker, I'll stand by my position.

[seeker]

I don't have FAITH in science because "faith" is belief without evidence.

I think that we all exercise faith in our technologies, and our scientits every day. We trust that the scientific method keeps us safe. But the problem is, the scientific method has been compromised by the pressures to publish, and the other market and ideological forces of our day. As the increasing reports show, science has in a lot of ways been corrupted in our day.

I mean, ever heard of Vioxx? Just one example.

I don't think of my post as an emotional tirade, but as an impassioned presentation of evidence, showing why unquestioning faith in science is not a smart game to play. I certainly acknowledge the great benefits science has and does bring to humanity, but in our current day, I'd also say that there are siginificant corrupting forces, that's all.

[Cineaste]

I think one of those corrupting forces is the introduction of Christianity in a field that should be empirical. Example, Intelligent design.

[seeker]

And I previously presented an article about how evolutionary thinking may be hindering science.

Science should be empirical. However, foundational world views and their associated assumptions should not be considered as unwavering fact. But evolutionists can't separate their fact from their worldviews, so they call them all fact. That's the beef here.

ID is asking a perfectly logical question, but we are not willing to address it because we don't like the answer. Sure, we want to stick to naturalistic answers, but we must observe what is there, not what we wish was there.

[Cineaste]

"Science should be empirical. However, foundational world views and their associated assumptions should not be considered as unwavering fact. But evolutionists can't separate their fact from their worldviews, so they call them all fact. That's the beef here."

Evolution is not considered "unwavering fact." If another scientific theory comes along which better explains species, so be it. We extablished before that ID is not true empirical science because it assumes a creator. There is nothing empirical about a creator, it's all metaphysical. Sure, ID is asking a logical question, but don't pass it off as a scientific question. It's a philisophical/metaphysical question, not empirical.

[seeker]

Sure, ID is asking a logical question, but don't pass it off as a scientific question. It's a philisophical/metaphysical question, not empirical.

Actually, it is both. One possible practical (read "scientific") application of ID theory is, if someone introduced an engineered bio-organism into the environment, how would we recognize that it was engineered and not naturally occuring?

I am not a huge ID supporter, though, and agree that it leans towards a God in the gaps type of thing - although ID supporters deny such.

I think biblical creationism is much more robust as a theory with scientific implications for history and research.

[Cineaste]

"Actually, it is both. One possible practical (read "scientific") application of ID theory is, if someone introduced an engineered bio-organism into the environment, how would we recognize that it was engineered and not naturally occuring?"

How? :) Because life can be patented now, which I think is sad. Corporations own the rights to any life they bio-engineer in the lab. To answer your question, you would have to call the patent office to tell :)

Seriously though, as you mentioned, we are speaking of divine intervention when we speak about ID, not man creating life. It's like asking in a fatal car accident, how did this person die? Did another person kill him when they swerved into his lane or was it the will of God? You can prove man's involvent scientifically, not God's. That's like ID.

[seeker]

This is not about patents, but about recognizing engineered organisms, like pathogens or accidental release of harmful bio products by unscrupulous industry?

The question is, how would you recognize something that is not an "accident of nature"?

Right now, evolution pretends to be reponsible for all life that we see.

Again, the question here, though, is not about ID. It's about the believability of modern science and the gullibility of the public.

[Cineaste]

The patents was my little joke. I would say that in order to recognize a bio-engineered organism from something naturally occuring you would have to ask a geneticist, "Is there is a way to tell if an organism has been altered or cloned." Man has not created life, just altered and cloned the original forms. I would think there would be tell tale indications that genetic alteration took place in such organisms. The answer may be as simple as count the number of genes. Take a genetically altered dog for example; if it has more or less or different genes than natural dogs it means it's bio-engineered. This may be too simplistic though. I am not a geneticist so honestly, I'm not qualified to answer this question. Here is a good site that may have the answer though :) You should ask this question there for a good answer.

http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/search.pl?st=&topGenetics=genetics&action=Cat

Joke: Also, man made breeds like poodles can't survive without man's help. Had evolution followed its natural course the poodle abomination would never exist. Remember that Far Side cartoon, poodles of the Serengeti?

There are ways to prove man's intervention in evolution but not divine intervention.

[Cineaste]

Seeker, I just realized that you don't want to ask the scientists your question because you don't trust what their answer will be. So, how will you you learn the answer to,

"if someone introduced an engineered bio-organism into the environment, how would we recognize that it was engineered and not naturally occuring?"

I would think that is a question for someone who is an authority in the field. If you can't ask these questions from the people who are experts, how will you ever learn the truth? Open your thinking up a bit and ask them and then judge for yourself if what they say has merit. Otherwise, you will remain uneducated about this question. I can ask for you if you like :) I am curious myself.

[seeker]

Well, I do have a B.S. in biochemistry, and studied the biochemistry of genetics. But I don't know the answer to that question either. As I said, I think ID is interesting, but may be weak.

However, creation science is not weak, nor is it unscientific (though it can be depending on how you approach it).

But again, the essence of this post is about the believability, and relative fallibility of modern science, and how despite the growing evidence that science is more fallible than we thought, many people put unwavering faith in it, and even more, they confuse evolutionary assumptions and faith with fact, and in so doing, adopt what amounts to a world view that is held by many scientists, but not corroborated by science itself. Scary. Group think. A hegemony of thought, for sure.

[Cineaste]

I read the LSJ article. I don't see the connection between science and belief in God in the article. Einstein believed in a God, so what? They also had a little poll about scientists being less likely to believe in God. So? Make that a poll of scientists in Japan and I bet the numbers would be even lower. No surprise. I don't get the point of this article. It seems to me like they are trying to say something but not doing a good job of it. Maybe lots of scientists realize that they can't accept the bible literally, if at all if the are not christians, because so many of the events in the bible don't make any sense. The high percentage of Americans who take the bible literally is kind of sad because it shows they are not very well educated. If we can get these people to ask questions and think for themeselves, just not take things on faith, maybe we could catch up with other industrialized countries in terms of education.

[Cineaste]

Here is an example of my point that religion is detrimental to our nations educational well being. Check out these statistics...

Below is a list of the top fifty countries containing the largest percentage of people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or non-believer in God.

Country Total Pop.(2004) % Atheist/actual # Agnostic/Nonbeliever in God (minimum - maximum)
1 Sweden 8,986,000 46-85% 4,133,560-7,638,100
2 Vietnam 82,690,000 81% 66,978,900
3 Denmark 5,413,000 43-80% 2,327,590-4,330,400
4 Norway 4,575,000 31-72% 1,418,250-3,294,000
5 Japan 127,333,000 64-65% 81,493,120-82,766,450
6 Czech Republic 10,246,100 54-61% 5,328,940-6,250,121
7 Finland 5,215,000 28-60% 1,460,200-3,129,000
8 France 60,424,000 43-54% 25,982,320-32,628,960
9 South Korea 48,598,000 30%-52% 14,579,400-25,270,960
10 Estonia 1,342,000 49% 657,580
11 Germany 82,425,000 41-49% 33,794,250-40,388,250
12 Russia 143,782,000 24-48% 34,507,680-69,015,360
13 Hungary 10,032,000 32-46% 3,210,240-4,614,720
14 Netherlands 16,318,000 39-44% 6,364,020-7,179,920
15 Britain 60,271,000 31-44% 18,684,010-26,519,240
16 Belgium 10,348,000 42-43% 4,346,160-4,449,640
17 Bulgaria 7,518,000 34-40% 2,556,120-3,007,200
18 Slovenia 2,011,000 35-38% 703,850-764,180
19 Israel 6,199,000 15-37% 929,850-2,293,630
20 Canada 32,508,000 19-30% 6,176,520-9,752,400
21 Latvia 2,306,000 20-29% 461,200-668,740
22 Slovakia 5,424,000 10-28% 542,400-1,518,720
23 Switzerland 7,451,000 17-27% 1,266,670-2,011,770
24 Austria 8,175,000 18-26% 1,471,500-2,125,500
25 Australia 19,913,000 24-25% 4,779,120-4,978,250
26 Taiwan 22,750,000 24% 5,460,000
27 Spain 40,281,000 15-24% 6,042,150-9,667,440
28 Iceland 294,000 16-23% 47,040-67,620
29 New Zealand 3,994,000 20-22% 798,800-878,680
30 Ukraine 47,732,000 20% 9,546,400
31 Belarus 10,311,000 17% 1,752,870
32 Greece 10,648,000 16% 1,703,680
33 North Korea 22,698,000 15% ( ? ) 3,404,700
34 Italy 58,057,000 6-15% 3,483,420-8,708,550
35 Armenia 2,991,000 14% 418,740
36 China 1,298,848,000 8-14% ( ? ) 103,907,840-181,838,720
37 Lithuania 3,608,000 13% 469,040
38 Singapore 4,354,000 13% 566,020
39 Uruguay 3,399,000 12% 407,880
40 Kazakhstan 15,144,000 11-12% 1,665,840-1,817,280
41 Estonia 1,342,000 11% 147,620
42 Mongolia 2,751,000 9% 247,590
43 Portugal 10,524,000 4-9% 420,960-947,160
44 United States 293,028,000 3-9% 8,790,840-26,822,520
45 Albania 3,545,000 8% 283,600
46 Argentina 39,145,000 4-8% 1,565,800-3,131,600
47 Kyrgyzstan 5,081,000 7% 355,670
48 Dominican Rep. 8,834,000 7% 618,380
49 Cuba 11,309,000 7% ( ? ) 791,630
50 Croatia 4,497,000 7% 314,790

(?): certainty/validity on these figures is relatively low

We can also include Mexico (2-7% do not believe in God), Poland (3-6% don’t believe in God), Moldova (6% don’t believe in God) Romania, Georgia, and Uzbekistan (4% don’t believe in God), India (2-6% don’t believe in God), Ireland (4-5% do not believe in God), and Chile (3% do not believe in God).

From the top 50 countries, along with those additionally mentioned above countries, the grand total worldwide number of atheists, agnostics, and non-believers in God is somewhere between 504,962,830 and 749,247,571. These minimum/maximum numbers are conservative estimates; had I factored in a mere .25% of such highly populated countries as Egypt, Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, Burma, Tanzania, and Iran, as non-believers in God, estimates would be significantly larger. Also, these numbers are only for non-believers of God, specifically. Had I included all “non-religious” people in general, the numbers would nearly double.

Given the above estimates, we can deduce that there are approximately 58 times as many atheists as there are Mormons, 41 times as many atheists as there are Jews, 35 times as many atheists as there are Sikhs, and twice as many atheists as there are Buddhists. Finally, nonbelievers in God as a group come in fourth place after Christianity (2 billion), Islam (1.2 billion), and Hinduism (900 million) in terms of global ranking of commonly-held belief systems.

Explaining High Rates of Non-Belief

What accounts for the staggering differences between nations in terms of rates of non-belief? Why do most nations in Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia contain almost no atheists, but within many European nations atheists are in abundance? There are numerous explanations (Zuckerman, 2004; Paul, 2002; Stark and Finke, 2000; Bruce, 1999). One leading theory comes from Norris and Inglehart (2004), who argue that in societies characterized by plentiful food distribution, excellent public healthcare, and widely accessible housing, religiosity wanes. Conversely, in societies where food and shelter are scarce and life is generally less secure, religious belief is strong. This is not a new theory (Thrower, 1999). For example, Karl Marx (1843) argued that people who suffer in oppressive social conditions are apt to turn to religion for comfort. Sigmund Freud’s (1927) central thesis was that belief in God served to comfort humans in the face of earthly pain, suffering, and death. However, Marx and Freud provided no data. Norris and Inglehart (2004) do.

Through an examination of current global statistics on religiosity in relation to income distribution, economic inequality, welfare expenditures, and basic measurements of lifetime security (such as vulnerability to famines, natural disasters, etc.), Inglehart and Norris (2004) convincingly argue that despite numerous factors possibly relevant for explaining different rates of religiosity world-wide, “the levels of societal and individual security in any society seem to provide the most persuasive and parsimonious explanation” (p.109).( vii ) Of course, as with any grand sociological theory, there are holes. The glaring cases of Vietnam (81% non-believers in God) and Ireland (4-5% non-believers in God) prove to be exceptions to Inglehart and Norris’s analysis; Vietnam is a relatively poor/insecure country and yet quite irreligious, while Ireland is one of the wealthiest/most secure countries in the world, and yet very religious. But aside from these two glaring exceptions, the correlation between high rates of individual and societal security/well-being and high rates of non-belief in God remains strong.

Atheism and Societal Health

Indeed, countries containing high percentages of non-believers are among the most healthy and wealthy nations on earth (Paul, 2004). Of course, we must always distinguish between those nations where non-belief has been forced upon the society by dictators (“coercive atheism”) from those societies wherein non-belief has emerged on its own without governmental coercion (“organic atheism”). Nations marked by coercive atheism -- such as China, North Korea, Vietnam, and former Soviet states -- are societies marked by all that comes with totalitarianism: poor economic development, intellectual censorship, widespread corruption, ubiquitous depression, etc.. However, nations marked by high levels of organic atheism – such as Sweden, the Netherlands, and France -- are among the healthiest, wealthiest, most educated, and most free societies on earth.

Consider the Human Development Report (2004), commissioned by The United Nations Development Program. This report ranks 177 nations on a “Human Development Index,” which measures societal health through a weighing of such indicators as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rate, per capita income, and educational attainment. According to the 2004 Report, the five highest ranked nations in terms of total human development were Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. All five of these countries are characterized by notably high degrees of organic atheism. Furthermore, of the top 25 nations ranked on the “Human Development Index,” all but one country ( Ireland) are top-ranking non-belief nations, containing some of the highest percentages of organic atheism on earth. Conversely, of those countries ranked at the bottom of the “Human Development Index” -- the bottom 50 -- all are countries lacking any statistically significant percentages of atheism.

Concerning the infant mortality rate specifically (number of deaths per 1,000 live births), irreligious countries have the lowest rates, and religious countries have the highest rates. According to the CIA World Factbook (2004), out of 225 nations, the top 25 nations with the lowest infant mortality rates were all nations containing significantly high percentages of organic atheism. Conversely, the 75 bottom nations with the highest infant mortality rates were all very religious nations without any statistically significant levels of organic atheism.

Concerning international poverty rates, the United Nations’ Report on the World Social Situation (2003) found that of the 40 poorest nations on earth (measured by the percentage of each nation’s population that lives on less than $1.00 a day), all but one (Vietnam) are highly religious nations with statistically minimal or insignificant levels of atheism.

Concerning homicide rates, Fajnzylber et al (2002), looked at 38 nations (excluding those in Africa) and found that of the top ten nations with the highest homicide rates, all but one (United States) were highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. Conversely, of the bottom ten nations with the lowest homicide rates, all but one ( Ireland) are highly secular nations with high levels of atheism. Fox and Levin (2000) looked at 37 nations (again excluding Africa), and found that of the top ten nations with the highest homicide rates, all but two (Estonia and Taiwan) were highly religious nations containing statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. Conversely, of the bottom ten nations with the lowest homicide rates, all but two ( Ireland and Kuwait) were relatively secular nations with high levels of organic atheism.

Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization’s report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia( viii ). Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.

Concerning literacy rates, according to the United Nations’ Report on the World Social Situation (2003), of the 35 nations with the highest levels of youth illiteracy rates (percentage of population ages 15-24 who cannot read or write)( ix ), all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.

Concerning gender equality, nations marked by high degrees of organic atheism are among the most egalitarian in the world, while highly religious nations are among the most oppressive. According to the 2004 Human Development Report’s “Gender Empowerment Measure,” the top ten nations with the highest degrees of gender equality are all strongly organic atheistic nations with significantly high percentages of non-belief. Conversely, the bottom ten are all highly religious nations without any statistically significant percentages of atheists. According to Inglehart and Norris’s (2003) “Gender Equality Scale,” of the top ten nations most accepting of gender equality, all but two (United States and Colombia) are nations marked by high levels of organic atheism; of the bottom ten (those least accepting of gender equality), all are highly religious nations marked by statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism( x ). According to Inglehart (2003), countries with the most female members of parliament tend to be countries characterized by high degrees of organic atheism (such as Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands) and countries with the fewest female members in parliament tend to be highly religious countries (such as Pakistan, Nigeria, and Iran).

In sum, countries marked by high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies characterized by non-existent rates of organic atheism are among the most destitute. Nations marked by high degrees of organic atheism tend to have among the lowest homicide rates, infant mortality rates, poverty rates, and illiteracy rates, and among the highest levels of wealth, life expectancy, educational attainment, and gender equality in the world. The only indicator of societal health mentioned above in which religious countries fared better than irreligious countries was suicide.

Of course, it is essential to clearly state that I am in no way arguing that high levels of organic atheism cause societal health or that low levels of organic atheism cause societal ills such as poverty or illiteracy. If anything, the opposite argument should be made: societal health causes widespread atheism, and societal insecurity causes widespread belief in God, as discussed by Norris and Inglehart (2004) above.

The causes of the glaring differences in societal well being among the world’s rich and poor nations are numerous (Diamond, 1999; Landes, 1999). Certainly among them include the birth and development of the industrial revolution, the lingering residue of colonialism and international conquests, and international trade policies that heavily favor the interests of wealthy/first world nations and their multi-national corporations over the interests of developing/third world nations. Again, to suggest that widespread belief or non-belief in God is the cause of societal health or societal pathology is not my intention. Rather, I am simply seeking to clearly establish that high degrees of non-belief in God in a given society clearly do not result in societal ruin, and high levels of belief in God do not ensure societal well-being. This is an important fact to stress because politically-active theists often equate atheism with crime, immorality, and societal disintegration. From Muslim fundamentalists in Iran to Christian fundamentalists in Indiana, the argument is loudly trumpeted that belief in God is “good for society” – an ultimate panacea -- while rejection of the belief in God is bad for society. The above discussion reveals that this thesis is baldly incorrect.

Here is link to the full article...

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

[Cineaste]

Seeker,

We were talking about ID and you asked this question...

If someone introduced an engineered bio-organism into the environment, how would scientists recognize that it was engineered and not naturally occuring?

I submitted this to Howard Hughes Medical Institute¹s Ask a Scientist website on your behalf. Here is their response.

This depends upon what was actually engineered but in most cases the answer is probably yes. If an insect gene is engineered into a plant gene for example, the changes in the plant genome can be detected quite easily because the wild species will not contain the insect gene. If an 'improved' plant gene was introduced into a crop this could also be detected but this would need more careful and elaborate analysis to detect the more subtle changes between these genes in the wild versus the engineered species. We do not have the skills to engineer entirely new species and since evolution occurs over relatively long periods, should it ever become possible to genetically engineer some kind of new species, it would be obvious that it was not natural.

Genetic engineering could perhaps go undetected if you were accelerating a natural phenomenon. For example, and hypothetically, it is possible to engineer antibiotic resistance into a bacteria. This is mimicking an event that occurs naturally so it might be difficult to show the difference between a GE versus wild type transfer.

We appreciate your interest in Ask a Scientist.
Ask a Scientist Coordinator

Disclaimer
The Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Ask a Scientist website provides a forum for teachers, students, and others to discuss biology topics with scientists. Participating scientists answer questions to the best of their knowledge. The information they provide is intended for educational purposes only. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute assumes no responsibility for the scientific accuracy of Ask a Scientist responses or for the content of references and Web links that may be provided in responses. Views expressed in Ask a Scientist responses are not necessarily those of HHMI.

HHMI encourages everyone to continue exploring the topics discussed in Ask a Scientist.

In short, the question Intelligent Design asks is metaphysical not scientific. It is possible to prove scientifically that man is involved in evolution but a divine presence can not be proven or disproven scientifically. Conclusion: Intelligent Design is not science.

[seeker]

Well, I hardly think that brief answer covers it. It's a good start to a much more complex issue.

But what he is saying is that if they don't know an obvious mechanism, then it must be engineered? What if they found a vector that *did* insert insect genes into plants later? Would they then say "oops, maybe it wasn't engineered?" They are making an argument from lack of evidence. Just because we can't explain how it happens doesn't mean it was manufactured - I mean, that's what they accuse ID of saying!

But thanks for getting that answer. In the coming weeks, I'll run it by Michael Behe or Wm Dembski or the CSC and see how they respond.