1. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press: “Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media”

What do Americans think of science? What do they think of scientists? What do scientists think of science? A Pew Research Center study suggests answers.

The study, which amalgamates the results of three surveys, reveals both surprising and unsurprising results on public and professional attitudes toward science in general, scientists, science in the U.S., and more. Among the highlights:

• The U.S. public overwhelmingly agrees (84 percent) that science has had a “mostly positive” effect on society. Only 6 percent considered science to have had a “mostly negative” effect. Correspondingly, 70 percent believe scientists contribute “a lot” to society’s well-being. Slightly less (60 percent) believe government funding of scientific research is “essential.”
• The public has a much more negative view of U.S. success in science than scientists do themselves. Only 17 percent of the public consider U.S. scientific achievements the “best in the world,” compared to 49 percent of scientists. And 31 percent of the public considers U.S. scientific achievements to be average or below average, compared to only 6 percent of scientists. Also, the percentage of the public who consider science/medicine/technology to be the country’s greatest achievement in the last 50 years has fallen from 47 percent in 1999 to 27 percent.
• Scientists’ political views are not reflective of the public’s. The majority of scientists self-identified as Democrat and liberal, while only 6 and 9 percent consider themselves Republican and conservative, respectively. That’s at odds with the public perception: 64 percent of the public consider scientists as a whole neither liberal nor conservative in particular. Furthermore, among the general public, those self-identifying as Republicans scored better than those self-identifying as Democrats on the science knowledge test attached to the survey.
• Scientists’ religious views are not reflective of the public’s. While 83 percent of the public believe in God, only 33 percent of scientists do. Only 17 percent of the public consider themselves atheist, agnostic, or “nothing in particular,” compared to 48 percent of scientists. Fascinating is that among scientists, those who are younger are “substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God” (42 percent for scientists 18 to 34 years old; the fraction steadily drops to just 28 percent for those 65 years and older). Also fascinating is that chemists are distinctly more likely than those in any other scientific specialty to believe in God (41 percent, about ten percentage points higher than in all other fields surveyed).

The origins controversy was addressed in the surveys as well (no surprise). While 87 percent of scientists think that “humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes,” only 32 percent of the public does. (Another 10 percent of scientists believe humans and other living things evolved over time “guided by a supreme being,” while 22 percent of the public agrees with that statement.) Similar divides exist between the professional and the public perspectives on global warming and embryonic stem cell research, though the study does not note that the latter has more to do with moral values than it does with scientific fact.

One flaw in the study centered on a survey question that asked the public to side with either the view that humans and other living things have “evolved over time” (due to either natural processes or divine guidance) or that they have “existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” Presumably this was an uninformed attempt to neatly separate evolutionists from creationists. Yet we, a creation ministry, should note that we might have answered yes to the former and no to the latter! If one defines “evolution” as simply changes in the genotypic or phenotypic characteristics of a population over time (that occurs, for example, through the observed process of natural selection), we agree. On the other hand, very few, if any, modern creation scientists believe the creatures of today are identical to the created beings. Thus, we are especially skeptical of the accuracy of that question’s results.

Nonetheless, the study concluded that both creationists and evolutionists (as well as those on the two sides of other debates) generally view science positively. On that point, we agree; Answers in Genesis is filled with and supported by individuals who love sound, observationally rooted science, which helps us understand our world better and develop new technology. Since we consider Darwinian evolution to be pseudoscience, it does not tarnish our conception or admiration of good science.

Religion and science need not be at odds. Rather, each contains metaphysical elements that cause the two to interact with each other. Many professional scientists (but not all) have metaphysical commitments (in the areas of religion and science) that compel them to accept evolution by natural processes as the sole origin of all biodiversity. We disagree with those commitments, and we disagree that evolution accounts for the origin and history of life.

2. PhysOrg: “Study Catches Two Bird Populations as They Split into Separate Species”

Thanks to a difference in a single gene, one bird species is splitting into two. Does this mechanism illustrate how evolution works, or is it compatible with the Genesis model of created kinds?

Actually, that’s a trick question; the mechanism of speciation fits with both the evolution and the creation model. That said, we argue that the creation model better explains the types and speed of speciation we observe. A new study of monarch flycatcher birds gives us a chance to explain.

A team led by Syracuse University biologist J. Albert Uy examined two populations of flycatcher birds in the Solomon Islands. One of the populations, on the large island of Makira, have all black feathers. The other population, spread among smaller islands, have some black feathers but also a chestnut-colored underside. Coloration is the only known difference (other than habitat) between the populations.

Uy’s team needed to determine whether the all-black and black-and-chestnut populations of flycatchers were still breeding with one another. If not, then—by one definition of species, anyway—the two populations can each be considered unique.

It would have been impossible for the team to be in all places at once, confirming that members of one population never mated with members of the other. Instead, the scientists looked at territorial rivalry between males in the two populations. The males attack any potential rival that enters their territory. So, the researchers hypothesized, if the all-black flycatcher males reacted less violently to black-and-chestnut flycatchers entering their territory, that could be a sign they no longer see the other population as sexual rivals—and, thus, that interbreeding is uncommon.

Using taxidermic models, Uy and his team “invaded” mating territories—presenting (live) all-black males with both all-black and black-and-chestnut models, then doing the same to (live) black-and-chestnut males. The birds were much less likely to attack models representing members of the opposite population than those representing their own population. The team also found a genetic basis for the difference in plumage coloration: different versions of the gene MC1R, which regulates the production of melanin.

The news release describing the study emphasizes, “Speciation, the process by which different populations of the same species split into separate species, is central to evolution.” That’s true; Darwinian evolution requires a mechanism to create diverse species from a single common ancestor. But creationists believe observed speciation fits much better within the creation model for several reasons:

• Type of change—When one species becomes two, the biological basis reflects either no change or a loss of genetic information. For example, natural selection generally works to reduce genetic information within a population (only those with certain genotypes survive; others die out). More rarely, a mutation may alter a bird’s plumage color, for example, but otherwise the genetic information remains constant. The effect of natural selection and mutations over time may increase diversity around the globe, but at the cost of reducing the genetic information in each individual—the opposite of what Darwinian evolution would require.
• Speed of change—Scientists often observe new species forming in a relatively short time span, compared to what evolutionists assume has happened over millions of years. Such examples of “rapid” speciation show that the diversity of life we see today is possible given the original created kinds (with representatives on board the Ark) and the elapsed time since the Flood. See also Rapid Speciation (Video).
• Role of kinds—The speciation we observe never transforms a fish into a lizard, for example, or a lizard into a bird; fish remain fish, lizards remain lizards, and birds remain birds. We see a fixity and separation of kinds even though there are minor, information-reducing changes within kinds. Also, successful hybridization (between two different “species”) reminds us of the existence of underlying kinds. See also Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, Oh My!

If the creation model explains speciation better, why is there even a debate? The problem is that both creationists and evolutionists justify their models based on the unobservable past. Creationists’ “kinds” come from Genesis 1 . At the same time, evolutionists claim the information-adding genetic changes happen only rarely, too rarely for us to have observed them in the present (they instead point to claimed transitions in the fossil record). Thus, the controversy transitions from a debate over observational science (where both creationists and evolutionists see speciation) to a debate over the interpretation of those observed facts.

In related news, scientists at the National Human Genome Research Institute have discovered that short legs across various breeds of dogs all trace back to the same genetic mutation: “an extra copy of the gene that codes for a growth-promoting protein called fibroblast growth factor 4 (FGF4).” This mutation—a corruption of information—could have happened just once, such as in a dog lineage not long after dogs stepped off Noah’s Ark. As this mutation was passed on, it eventually gave rise to all short-legged dog breeds of today.

3. BBC News: “How the Turtle’s Shell Developed”

The incredible way a turtle develops a shell—is it an evolutionary accident or part of God’s design?

Turtle evolution seems to be a big topic in the news recently. We covered the topic last December, last November, and last October; then we covered it again this past March. So, what’s the latest?

A team of scientists from Japan studied turtle embryos as they developed to learn how and why their ribs grow into a hard upper shell, setting little turtles apart from, say, chicks or mice. In fact, those are the two other creatures the turtles were compared to.

Calling it an “evolutionary novelty,” the researchers learned that part of the turtle embryo’s body wall folds in on itself, causing the ribs to grow outward. The fold produces a thickening of the turtle’s skin called the carapacial disk. In the words of study coauthor Shigeru Kuratani, the folding “re-maps” the turtle’s body, preventing the ribs from growing inward. Before that point, the muscles and skeleton of a turtle embryo are in similar positions to those of a mouse or chicken embryo.

Is this “novelty” a perfect example of evolution or a perfect example of design? For starters, we should throw out the early similarities between turtles, mice, and chicks as support for evolutionary ideas. If all turtles, mice, and chickens (as with other vertebrates) begin their life as a (single-celled) zygote and grow into very different organisms, there must be a spectrum of similarity that steadily decreases during growth. The zygotes are very similar, with the stored genetic information the primary difference. By birth, the genetic differences will have given rise to a wide range of morphological differences. In other words, similarity in embryos is only a reminder of the similarity between all vertebrates, and need not be due to evolution. Additionally, Kuratani emphasized that relative to the other embryos, turtle embryos have “entirely unique [types of] connectivity” in some of their structures, such as their pectoral muscles.

If embryonic similarity does not show evolution, what about the turtle fossils we reported on last December? (Those fossils were missing a shell on top, having one only on their underside.) According to Kuratani, “The developmental stage of the modern turtle, when the ribs have not encapsulated the shoulder blade yet, resembles the (body) of this fossil species.” Yet creationists could, for example, explain the fossil just as easily as turtles whose genes had mistakes and therefore failed to initiate the upper-shell-forming fold. Or perhaps the fossils were from a separate reptile kind that were not designed with upper shells. It’s a game of interpretation: evolutionists see the incomplete shell as a halfway point in (constructive) information-adding evolution; creationists see the bottom-only shell as either intentional or as a result of (destructive) information-reducing devolution.

As for the embryonic development process itself, the scientists aren’t sure why it happens, nor do they propose how many millions of years of harmful mutations it took before the shell formed so perfectly as to be of use. Rather, Kuratani simply concluded, “Developmental changes in evolution give rise to an enormous diversity of animal forms. No matter how exquisite it may seem, as if it were some sort of magic, evolution is at most a good trick.” And ScienceNOW quotes University of Toronto–Mississauga vertebrate paleontologist Robert Reisz (whom we quoted in our March coverage), who says of the quirky turtle development, “It’s a wonderful design,” though he accepts the evolutionary explanation. (The article also states, “Turtles appear to spring up fully formed in the fossil record, which has led to a lot of debate about who their closest relatives are.”)

From the topic of embryonic similarity to the topic of how the turtle got its shell, the creation model is at least as successful as the evolution model. Both models have explanations for turtle fossils and embryonic similarity. But only the creation model can use observational science to account for the origin of turtle “design,” while the evolution model’s assertions—that this design is the product of unobserved, random mutations—are based on blind faith.