Miss USA answers on the Evolution question

Random other video: At NESCent's Evolution 2011 video competition, these were the contestants: http://evolutionvideo.wordpress.com/2011-entries/ . My favorite: Odonata.

The only thing that came to mind while watchng this was, Eloi.

Dog that's depressing.

Someone needs to teach these women what a theory is.

@ Mike Elzinga, I take it you are referring to The Time Machine.

wildcat48 said: @ Mike Elzinga, I take it you are referring to The Time Machine.

I think the positive impact is being underestimated here.

It is perfectly legal and honest to appear in one of these pageants, but the contestants are highly, highly biased to give answers that they think are the most inoffensive, slanting to the conservative and religious side. For many religious viewers, the contest is already shocking and sinful in some ways, and that this is partly done to compensate for that issue.

Although the career payoff is pretty low, the women who go for these contests take them very seriously.

The bad news is that a number of contestants thought that smug creationism was the "right answer", but the very, very good news is that the contestant who gave the reasonable answer went on to win the contest. If anyone thought that arrogant, facile creationism was a key to victory, they turned out to be wrong.

Not many eighteen year olds could give the fantasy answer from above, nor would giving an answer that long or complex necessarily be the choice of a canny contestant who actually could, if she wanted to win.

The US public is not majority science-denying YEC by any stretch of the imagination, but they don't like to "contradict religion" either. Virtually all polls the mention evolution are heavily, heavily biased, dealing only with human evolution and presenting the strongest evolution choice as "contradicting religion". This type of poll biasing is not restricted to this subject.

Unfortunately, some science supporters seem to be biased to accept such polls at face value. A particularly silly way to interpret such polls would be "I am very superior to half of Americans, how wonderful". And a silly way to express that sentiment would be to constantly express exaggerated "concern" about biased US poll results. But in the first place, the polls are biased, and in the second place, the US is a major world influence and will continue to be even if the economy declines. All rational people should hope for strong science education in the US.

I once saw a poll that asked whether plants and bacteria had evolved, and it had something like a 70% "yes" rate. I have searched for that poll many times since, and it seems to have disappeared. This is not so surprising; there are literally innumerable polls taken in the US for many reasons; in may cases the results aren't even publicly released.

I'd love to see some polls that asked about evolution in a non-biased way.

Personally, I'm more interested in presidential candidates answers to this question than I am in Miss Ohio. Maybe we will see this type of question in the next round of presidential debates. Unfortunately for the candidates, a definite answer is a sure way to lose votes, which to me would be the hallmark of a good candidate.

Mike Elzinga said:

wildcat48 said: @ Mike Elzinga, I take it you are referring to The Time Machine.

Yup. :-)

Harold makes a valid point - although it is depressing that 49 of 51 contestants said something about creationism being ok to be taught in schools - we don't know if they really believe this or if this is the answer they (or thier coaches) believe to be what the judges want to hear - Ms. California also was asked a question about legalization of marijuana- she took the stance that marijuana as 'medicine' should be legal but implied that abuse was a danger (recreational use?)

it is a sad statement that 49/51 either held the view that creationism is legitimate in science curiculum or were willing to publicly advocate that view

I have to wonder WHY Miss America bimbos...err, contestants were asked about evolution vs. creationism. Inasmuch as creationism is at root a religious belief, they were being asked about their religion. Is that a germane question for women whose strongest talent is parading in bikinis and spike heels? Is it even legal? The women are essentially applying for a job--can job applicants be asked about their religious beliefs?

Maybe what the organizers had in mind was avoiding another fundagelical nutcase like Carrie Prejean getting the crown.

Just Bob said: Maybe what the organizers had in mind was avoiding another fundagelical nutcase like Carrie Prejean getting the crown.

Just Bob said: I have to wonder WHY Miss America bimbos...err, contestants were asked about evolution vs. creationism. Inasmuch as creationism is at root a religious belief, they were being asked about their religion. Is that a germane question for women whose strongest talent is parading in bikinis and spike heels? Is it even legal? The women are essentially applying for a job--can job applicants be asked about their religious beliefs? Maybe what the organizers had in mind was avoiding another fundagelical nutcase like Carrie Prejean getting the crown.

I listened to the lot of them. I should have taken notes. A majority ended up with "teach the controversy" bullshit.

If anyone thinks that any of them are making any sense with their "both sides" nonsense, just ask yourself if it would make sense if the question concerned teaching about a round earth.

Notice that the question that was asked concerned only evolution. Nothing was mentioned about "both sides" or any religious positions. If the contestants wanted to interject comments about their own personal religious beliefs, that doesn't mean that the question was in any way improper.

Mike Elzinga said: The only thing that came to mind while watchng this was, Eloi.

I don't think the answers given show much of a science victory. Only a couple of these women said that evolution should be taught because it's good science, Miss New Mexico did it best. Miss South Carolina was close, but added "only if parents agreed to it". Miss Vermont was pretty good too but still put it in religious context. Miss Washington said that "facts, not theories" should be taught, implying that evolution is a theory--at least I think that's what she meant. Most of them described or implied that evolution is a sort of belief system. Some used the word perspective, some used theory (read hypothesis the way they said it) others used opinions or options. I also heard point of view, perspective and philosophy. One contestent said "credited theories" should be taught and included creationism as one of those. I think these women display a typical USian response to the question. Religion wasn't even mentioned in the question, yet nearly all these women mentioned it in their response. What needs to be done is to remove any comparision to religion when discussing evolution. That would be real progress.

OK, I didn't actually use preview that time. My parenthetical statement should read: (the "new comments" link and preview).

I did a little statistics and tried to be on the save side if the statements were ambiguous.

First concerning if the misses belief in evolution:

Just 1 has unambiguously said that she beliefs in evolution (California) while 4 have stated that they don't (Alabama, Alaska, North Carolina, Tennessee).

Second concerning the question whether evolution should be taught in school:

It should not be taught:
2 (Alabama, Kentucky)

It should be up to the government / individual school:
2 (Arkansas, Indiana)

Total in favor of teaching:
47

Endorsements for teaching more or less without qualification / stressing the importance:
4 (Illinois, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont)

Should be taught so students get a different perspective in contrast to what they learn at home:
2 (Delaware, Idaho)

Should be taught (no reason given):
4 (California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Utah)

Should be an elective / parents should decide:
4 (Delaware, Iowa, South Carolina, Texas)

“Fact” of evolution should be taught not “theory”:
3 (Mississippi, Virginia, Washington)

Should be taught but the misses didn't understand what evolution is:
3 (Alaska, Forida, Nevada)

Should be taught but along every perspective / both sides / religion:
22

The rest mostly has not explicitly stated that alternatives should be taught but has mentioned that students should at least be exposed to evolution to make up their mind.

More disturbing than the women's lack of basic science knowledge was how almost all of them deliberately appeared stupid while answering it. It was necessary for them to appear to be unknowledgable - dumbed down. They wanted viewers to know that not only did they not know much about the subject, but they thought it was funny that they be asked about something related to science. The urge to give an answer that they thought wouldn't upset anyone was secondary. The first consideration was that they not appear to be a "geek". Only California and Vermont bucked the dumbing down programming.
This is, of course, an old phenomena in our culture. Girls are the smartest kids in the class, until they become teenagers and are taught that they're more attractive if they're dumb.

Mike

lynnwilhelm said: All my favorite blogs (or websites) have posted this. The Sensuous Curmudgeon was first--http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/miss-usa-contestants-asked-about-evolution/.

I don't really consider this news worth screaming about. I couldn't care less who wins a beauty pageant.

Somewhat OT (unless you consider the presidential race a beauty contest), but while you're checking the Curmudgeon's blog, check his thread on Michele Bachmann. IIUC, the treasurer of her PAC is an occasional commenter on PT. Hint, unlike Generalissimo Franco and me he's not "still dead."

The question that was asked was "Should evolution be taught in schools?" However judging from the responses, the majority of contestants heard it as "Should creationism be taught in schools?"

By itself, the question "Should evolution be taught in schools?" is rather ridiculous. Sort of like asking "Should reading be taught in schools?" and then hearing contestants respond by saying "No, I don't believe in it" or "We should teach TV-watching skills alongside reading so we present both sides to students."

Shocking and disheartening, to say the least. But then in a nation where polls show about 90 percent of the populace "believes" in tooth fairies or other omnipotent deities in the sky, and where two-thirds say creationism should be taught in school, this video is pretty much what I'd expect. Sad times for science.

Shocking and disheartening, to say the least. But then in a nation where polls show about 90 percent of the populace “believes” in tooth fairies or other omnipotent deities in the sky, and where two-thirds say creationism should be taught in school, this video is pretty much what I’d expect.

— Biomusicologist

Put a bit more simply: most people don't care about science. I would rather than they did, but personally it seems a bit condescending to make too much of it: "You bumpkins aren't meeting up to the standards of us science geeks."

Not much to be done but to sell science as best as possible and trust that some people will get into it. And I've put a fair amount of effort into that.

trnsplnt said: (snip) Girls are the smartest kids in the class, until they become teenagers and are taught that they're more attractive if they're dumb. Mike

Gary_Hurd said: I listened to the lot of them. I should have taken notes. A majority ended up with "teach the controversy" bullshit.

Not much to be done but to sell science as best as possible and trust that some people will get into it. And I’ve put a fair amount of effort into that.

— mrg

Not sure if it’s what he means, but the polls you usually see show a consistent 40-45% over 30 years choosing the answer “humans were created in their present form in the last 10,000 years. But when the question is more strongly whether the Earth is that onld, only ~20% answer yes.

Virtually all polls the mention evolution are heavily, heavily biased, dealing only with human evolution and presenting the strongest evolution choice as “contradicting religion”. This type of poll biasing is not restricted to this subject

Which suggests that the 40-45% includes OECs,

and possibly many theistic evolutionists who are “thinking souls, not cells.”

Most importantly, it shows that most people simply don’t think it through before answering.

When it comes to what ought to be taught, it gets even worse, as you note. That 2/3 (I have read as much as 3/4) must include many who accept evolution. I admit being in that group briefly in the ’90s - as a mid career chemist who had accepted evolution for 30 years.

Frank J said: True, but I hate the word "sell," because if one has to "sell" something it must not be good enough to "sell itself."

mrg said: "Huh?" The best product in the world still needs a sales program, particularly if the competition has an aggressive sales program for their schlock product. You have the bulk of people out there who don't know evolution from Edsels and don't care. If it's an issue to us, we either have to make the case and sell them on it, or just sit in the ivory tower and carp. In an open society, we have a competitive marketplace of ideas, and if we're going to compete, we have to remember the first law of sales: "The customer is always right." Customers sometimes may have ignorant and mad ideas, but the bottom line is that if they don't like the product, they're not going to buy it no matter how indignant we get. Or put another way, if we don't perform, the audience doesn't applaud, and complaining about the audience isn't going to cut it.

mrg said: Customers sometimes may have ignorant and mad ideas, but the bottom line is that if they don't like the product, they're not going to buy it no matter how indignant we get. Or put another way, if we don't perform, the audience doesn't applaud, and complaining about the audience isn't going to cut it.

lynnwilhelm said: The customer is not always right no matter how often it is said. Customers need to learn to accept the expertise of those who are better informed than they are.

I really do think that actual honest-to-goodness “OECs” are rare birds, Frank. OEC was a transitional form between naive, sincere, traditional non-political creationism and full acceptance of the theory of evolution.

— harold

mrg said: You do not understand what the phrase means. I spent a lot of my life handholding customers and tactfully correcting their mistaken ideas. Customers can have bizarre ideas and every person who has dealt with them in quantity has their share of war stories about along such lines. That isn't the issue.

The one thing I could not do, that cannot be done, is make them want to buy a product they do not like or simply doesn't interest them. In that respect, they are always right by definition. If they don't applaud your performance, then your performance was not successful. You can complain about the audience, but there's nothing you can do about it.

I said, "Customers need to learn to accept the expertise of those who are better informed than they are." mrg said: Here's the issue: "They don't have to." Ask any of them, they'll tell you that -- guaranteed. And if you don't like it, what are you going to do about it? Sit up in the ivory tower and complain? The punchline is that if we want to sell our ideas to the public, the burden is entirely on us to do so.

I have heard ID types say again and again things along the lines of: "Nobody has yet to disprove what I have established!" News for ya, Intellyjent Dezner, they don't have to, they have no obligation to give you the time of day, they'll listen to you if they feel like it, and if they do and you don't convince them, that's all she wrote. These guys are clueless of course. Hopefully we can do better than them.

I love beauty contests although they only a little deal with beauty now.
Glad they are still around despite some problems within the business.
They do reflect more the conservative majority of the country then Hollywood.
I don't know if the pro evolution opinion was worth more points. i understand the right answers on issues is a factor in these shows.
The bigger point is that they do reflect the great majority of Yanks support both sides of origin issues in the schools being taught.
This is the fair, decent,natural, American reply to issues of contention in the country.
Thats why creationism in the schools will prevail in time. its just a matter of getting people interested. not moving more people to agree with us.
Gotta love the girls eh.

lynnwilhelm said: They don't need to buy science. But I'll play the analogy out.

Whether they buy it or not, their non-acceptance may one day bite them in the ass.

"teach facts, not theories"-- I loved that one.

Thats why creationism in the schools will prevail in time.

— Robert Byers

Frank J said:

Thats why creationism in the schools will prevail in time.

— Robert Byers

I try to keep feeding to a minimum, but this is too good to pass up: Have you broken the news to the DI, and if so, what was their reaction? As you know, the DI does not want creationism taught. At least as they, and most people, define it, namely as your YEC or an OE version of Genesis. What they want taught is, as you know, only the long-refuted "weaknesses" of evolution - with the refutations censoresd of course. If "creationism" ever gets taught, students will ask about its weaknesses, not the least of which are fatal contradictions between several versions.

mrg said: Again, the underlying point is that though we can complain all we like about how good it would be for all concerned to buy into evo science -- if they don't want to, what to do then? Sit up in the ivory tower and complain? We're the ones who are trying to sell the idea, the burden of doing so is completely on us.

lynnwilhelm said: We just keep trying. Not selling; informing.

Frank J said:

Thats why creationism in the schools will prevail in time.

— Robert Byers

I try to keep feeding to a minimum, but this is too good to pass up: Have you broken the news to the DI, and if so, what was their reaction? As you know, the DI does not want creationism taught. At least as they, and most people, define it, namely as your YEC or an OE version of Genesis. What they want taught is, as you know, only the long-refuted "weaknesses" of evolution - with the refutations censoresd of course. If "creationism" ever gets taught, students will ask about its weaknesses, not the least of which are fatal contradictions between several versions.

If the troll can't give a simple yes or no answer to a yes or no question, I guess there's no point in asking for a link to the website where "they (DI?) always hint the schools should do this (teach the Biblical creationism that they do not want taught now?)."

If public schools ever get to teach "great presentations to argue for God or gEnesis" it would be Genesis (what happened, when and how) not God, and only in the extremely unlikely event that fresh new evidence supports one of the mutually contradictory literal interpretations. And in that extremely unlikely event no one will want to "argue against old ideas of evolutionism" any more than chemistry teachers want to obsess over the "weaknesses" of phlogiston theory.

But thanks again for reminding us that it is the anti-evolution side that is demanding censorship.

mrg said:

lynnwilhelm said: We just keep trying. Not selling; informing.

I would say that I am puzzled as to why the word "sell" seems to upset you so ... but then you might think I wanted an explanation. Since I don't, I guess that ends the conversation, doesn't it?

Unfortunately we're stuck with the same terms for both.

mrg said:

Unfortunately we're stuck with the same terms for both.

What puzzles me is how there's a distinction between that and "inform". You think creationists and conspiracy theorists don't believe they are out to "inform" the public? With all the absolutely sincere and absolutely dishonest conviction of the blinkered and blindered? To them we're the ones delivering misinformation. They have the TROOTH. I have learned that when I see a website for "Association of Somebody or Other for TRUTH About Whatever", I see the BS is coming down the chute. But this is all very much getting past the heart of the matter and zeroing in on the inessentials. Whether we want to "sell" or "inform" or "teach" or "instruct" or "promote" or "enlighten" or "empower" -- choose your fave or come up with something else if you prefer -- the simple fact remains: like it or not, the public recognizes no obligation to care about evo science, and the burden falls entirely on us. We either take ownership or we just sit up in the ivory tower and complain.

Dave Wisker said: One of the things we educators can try and do is teach biology (not just evolution) better. How can one expect to teach evolution to students who don't even know tomatoes have genes?*

mrg said: Consider it a challenge, right? I'm not saying it's good the burden falls entirely on us, it's just that -- well, it does.

You think creationists and conspiracy theorists don’t believe they are out to “inform” the public? With all the absolutely sincere and absolutely dishonest conviction of the blinkered and blindered?

— mrg

* I saw a poll that suggested 49% of Americans don’t think tomatoes naturally have genes– only genetically-modified ones do.

— Dave Wisker

Dave Wisker said: We have to teach students, from day one, how evolution is the central organizing concept of biology, and not some annoying side-topic. Not only that, the scientific case must be made for evolution and the scientific bankruptcy of its rivals must be explained early on. That way at least, the phony "controversy" idea can legitimately be strangled at birth, and students can truly "make up their own minds". ID creationism thrives on on the ignorance and scientific naivete of the general population, not on any bona fide scientific case. Finally, teachers must familiarize themselves with the numerous bad arguments used by the IDC's, and know how to refute them in a methodical, scientific manner. Simply saying IDC is not scientific just won't cut it anymore. There are far too many IDC hacks with advanced degrees out there pushing their poor ideas on a public that doesn't know any better. We must be willing to discuss IDC in science classes, show students how IDC just doesn't measure up, and how we aren't simply dismissing IDC summarily. Easier said than done, of course.

Frank J said: But I also think that many activists, and possibly all who sold out to the ID scam, know that their arguments are bogus. IOW that they know that the "snake oil" only "works" (doubt of evolution = better society) by the "placebo effect."

mrg said:

Dave Wisker said: One of the things we educators can try and do is teach biology (not just evolution) better. How can one expect to teach evolution to students who don't even know tomatoes have genes?*

Consider it a challenge, right? I'm not saying it's good the burden falls entirely on us, it's just that -- well, it does. I think back to university days and of some of the hero profs I had. Every university has them, they like students and they love what they're into, and it shows. Unfortunately, every university has its profs at the other end of bell curve, who detest students and throw their knowledge in front of them as if pearls before pigs at the trough.

Dave Wisker said: We have to teach students, from day one, how evolution is the central organizing concept of biology, and not some annoying side-topic. Not only that, the scientific case must be made for evolution and the scientific bankruptcy of its rivals must be explained early on. That way at least, the phony “controversy” idea can legitimately be strangled at birth, and students can truly “make up their own minds”. ID creationism thrives on on the ignorance and scientific naivete of the general population, not on any bona fide scientific case.

"...we need to “teach all theories” or to “teach evolution alongside religion”. We don’t do this when we teach Quantum Mechanics or Relativity in Physics or the Periodic Table in Chemistry or Plate Tectonics in Geology. "

But you know that if creationism gets its legal foothold in public education, those other disciplines will have to knuckle under to the fundie worldview too. I personally have seen objections raised in school against physics ("The speed of light HAS changed!"), world history ("There were no 'prehistoric times', there was a Flood, all languages came from Babel, and they HAVE FOUND Noah's Ark!"), astronomy ("Nuh-uh, the universe is only 6,000 years old!"), and even English ("I won't read that book, it's by an atheist [or makes fun of religion, or mentions evolution, or isn't 'christian'].")

Like Hitler (sorry), they will NOT be appeased by any concession short of total capitulation.

Why is Nick Matzke and the NCSE so afraid to allow critical evaluation of evolution to be allowed in schools across America? Does he fear kids will actually figure out that what they are being taught about molecules-to-man evolution by undirected processes in the textbooks is just baloney? I didn't realize the thought police was a good thing.

Atheistoclast said: Why is Nick Matzke and the NCSE so afraid to allow critical evaluation of evolution to be allowed in schools across America? Does he fear kids will actually figure out that what they are being taught about molecules-to-man evolution by undirected processes in the textbooks is just baloney? I didn't realize the thought police was a good thing.

Like Hitler (sorry), they will NOT be appeased by any concession short of total capitulation.

— Just Bob

Frank J said: Nice try, but they do allow critical evaluation of evolution in schools across America. Even taxpayer-funded schools. And even in science class. What they don't allow is the laundry list of misrepresentations that always censor "equal time" for refutation of those misrepresentations. But you are free to regurgitate them here. And even tell us some details about your "theory" and support it on its own merits.

Atheistoclast said:

Frank J said: Nice try, but they do allow critical evaluation of evolution in schools across America. Even taxpayer-funded schools. And even in science class. What they don't allow is the laundry list of misrepresentations that always censor "equal time" for refutation of those misrepresentations. But you are free to regurgitate them here. And even tell us some details about your "theory" and support it on its own merits.

Read the peer-reviewed literature, pal. There are plenty of good articles that the NCSE goons would rather students did not know anything about.

Well if they are in the real peer reviewed literature, how could they possibly stop them from reading them?

— DS

Another thing that ought to make irony meters explode is that, when the activist-wannabes and trolls on these boards pretend that we "censor" them, and I give them the opportunity to elaborate on their own "theory" and support it on its own merits, they always - and I mean literally always - censor themselves!

The Institute for Creation “Research,” in its response to this, has its usual take that evolution is a “belief.”

Jealous sectarians.

Most of the contestants seemed to be assuming that the default position was that creationism would be taught, and that the question was whether evolution would be allowed to be taught too.

Good for Miss Vermont. I was very disappointed with the answer from the contestant from my own state, New Hampshire.

lynnwilhelm said: Miss New Mexico

There comments on Math were even more revealing. Obviously they are critical thinking independents who look at all sides of an issue.