When Chemists Attack

An open thread on Pharyngula leads to this article about an outfit called “Biblically Correct Tours”, which seems to specialize in trying to squeeze scientific data through a very narrow view of the Christian bible.

For a minimum of a hundred bucks, they will take a group through a museum and put their own spin on history, science, art, et cetera. Because …

“Museums are the secular temples of our day,” founder Bill Jack says. “If you watch people walk in, especially in (Denver’s) Museum of Nature and Science, they fold their hands reverently, they speak in hushed tones, they don’t let kids touch.

“The kid says, `What’s this?’ Dad reads the sign and they say, `Ooh, ahh.’ They worship the creature rather than the creator.”

I went in a few museums during my childhood, and I certainly don’t recall worshipping dinosaurs, sharks, stars, or even electricity. I found all of those topics interesting, but I hardly think that qualifies as “worship”.

Another person from Biblically Correct Tours continues…

Carter, who has a degree in biblical studies, admits feeling somewhat intimidated when he first gave tours, knowing scientists were listening. “I used to think, `What are they thinking? Are they going to come out and correct me?'” he says.

This is an interesting admission. He’s basically saying that he knows he’s presenting things that are wrong. What kinds of things?

• Evolution promotes racism and abortion.
• Hitler’s racism was motivated by evolution.
• “Evolution kills people”
• “If you believe you came from slime there is no reason not to, if you can, get away with anything.”

Sad, isn’t it?

I’d say that a lack of knowledge about evolution can kill – since evolutionary theory has a lot to say about things like infectious diseases.

Biblically Correct Tours also has media for sale, which sheds more light on what sort of ideas kids get exposed to on these tours.

One video is called The Emperor’s New Clothes – Bill Jack exposes the naked truth behind “progressive” creationism (and theistic evolution). The description makes it appear that the video is a diatribe against rational Christians that accept modern science.

It gets better. Have a look at Jack Theist Meets Dr. Secular!

Plan 9 from Outer Space is a great film.

I’d also really love to see how “Jack Theist destroys Dr. Secular’s arguments with Biblical Truth”, as the description says. If it’s anything like Kent Hovind’s videos, it’ll be a laugh riot.

If only these people weren’t serious…

I’ve been to Summerville. It seems like a nice enough place. Just make sure you keep your kids out of any school where Pastor Mike Moore (scroll down to Prayer and creation) has any influence.

I also want to comment on intelligent design versus evolution. The biggest problem here is that the evolutionists are just plain ignorant on the subject. I don’t mean that in an insulting way, but you must deeply study both sides.

It’s certainly possible to deeply study the evolution side, since it’s been a subject of much scientific inquiry for more than a century. The “intelligent design” side, on the other hand, doesn’t provide much of a side to study. Even their Of Pandas and People textbook is creationism with the word “creation” replaced by “intelligent design”. Is it really any wonder that we science folks don’t find a whole lot to “deeply study”? The arguments are old and discredited. They don’t lead us to useful new things to study. For that matter, there’s not really that much to look at. That Amazon link above will lead you to most of the intelligent design books.

I challenge those who are one-sided on the subject to investigate the material.

Read Dr. Carl Baugh, an expert on both sides and a leading expert on creationism and intelligent design. I know you evolutionists are asking: “Dr. Carl who?” I rest my case. Expand your horizons.

Actually, the first thing I thought of when I read that was “Oh no, Doctor Baugh and his man-tracks again. We science types have seen his stuff and we’re not impressed with his work. (Even creationists tend to distance themselves from Baugh these days. I guess they’ve seen too many questionable finds and fakes from him.)

Both should be taught, and let young, inquisitive and intelligent American minds decide for themselves.

We have little enough time as it is to get our students a good science background. Why make the situation even worse by wasting class time with unsubstantiated junk?

The State has a selection of viewpoints called “IN FOCUS: Debate over evolution“. It should be called “NEEDS FOCUS“, since it’s a pretty good compilation of all kinds of misconceptions about evolution and science as a whole.

Looking at some bits of the article should be instructive.

One writer rails against naturalism.

The naturalistic world view, which undergirds modern science, is privileged, so that to object to a naturalistically framed theory, such as Darwinian evolution, is to have one’s intelligence questioned.

I think the letter author misses the point, here. To object to a theory in science is not at all a sign of poor intelligence, if one has data and observations to back up the objections and an alternative that explains them. Intelligent Design folks effectively have neither. They have objections, but no backup. And they have no explanations, except “God, whoops … sorry … The Intelligent Designer, who might be God, but could also be space aliens, did it”. If they had something that explained as much or more data than current evolutionary theory does, scientists would be all over Intelligent Design.

Far from protecting our children from state-sponsored religion, we actually continue to indoctrinate them in one: scientific materialistic naturalism.

Science merely requires that things that fall under its umbrella be observable in some way and testable in some way. At least this letter writer appears to be honest – it’s not so much evolution that he rejects, it’s all of science. And this is why I, a humble chemist, care about this whole creation/evolution debate. It won’t stop with just evolution.

Another writer appears merely confused, preferring to fall back on so-called “problems” with evolution copied from out-of-date creationist literature or web sites.

Statistically, it is more likely that a tornado whirling through a junkyard will emerge leaving behind a fully assembled and functional Boeing jet than it is that evolution alone is responsible for our being (i.e. evolution in the context of being random and spontaneous) or that all the components for the jet were there when the tornado came through (analogy: that all of the life-sustaining components are here on Earth randomly and coincidentally, in the right mix).

Fred Hoyle’s objection is one that biologists and other scientists have answered time and time again, and it’s getting old. Would the writer have a problem with a bunch of randomly distributed sodium and chloride ions in salt water coming together and forming ordered, cubic crystals of sodium chloride as water evaporates? That’s a simple example, but it proves a point – chemistry is not a completely random process.

Not much has happened to animals and mankind since the extinction of life and species at the time the dinosaurs departed this Earth.

I guess that’s better than saying that evolution has not been observed, but not a lot better.

While some evolution may occur over time (billions, not millions, of years), a goodly number of highly notable physicists and astronomers now agree that all this didn’t just happen.

Fred Hoyle and, er, … Fred Hoyle? (And why does this writer want to only cite physicists and astronomers? What about biologists? You know, people who actually study the stuff?)

This topic deserves to be fully and openly discussed and all the facts presented, even if some of them are in fact rooted in religion.

If the “facts” are observable and testable, I don’t think scientists would have a problem including them. But these may not be the “facts” the the writer wants presented.

Yet another writer doesn’t like science’s focus on the natural world.

Evolution assumes a closed, naturalistic universe – all is mechanical – time plus space plus chance – like rocks tumbling down a hillside. Where does the breath of life come from? Where do our consciousness, conscience, soul and spirit originate? Who or what installs it?

The issue of where consciousness comes from is an old one, and most scientists are probably comfortable saying that they, well, can’t yet explain the origin of consciousness. But anyone who’s taken an introductory psychology course knows that things that happen to the brain affect personality, behavior, etc.

Evolution proclaims the “survival of the fittest.” Applying that to people seems to preclude the need for compassion, charity, welfare for the weak, hurting, the aged and hurricane relief. Should smaller, weaker ethnic groups be eliminated, too?

This one is another old question, and partly a misunderstanding of what “fit” means. (I like the linked comic, but the link at the bottom of the page is more informative.)

We apparently need more evolution education, not less!

In The State today, I see an article on the “evolution debate” and how it could effect our children’s (and our state’s) future.

Right off the bat, it doesn’t look good.

The state’s Education Oversight Committee recommended Monday that theories other than evolution – such as “intelligent design” – should be taught in high school biology classes.

Have we learned nothing from the the Dover trial? The problem with these alternatives to evolution is that they’re not scientific alternatives because they (1) don’t explain anything and (2) don’t have sufficient scientific support to be taught as mainstream scientific theories.

We are, after all, talking about grade school and high school courses here. In these introductory classes, we teach sound, established science – the kind that’s produced actual results. We don’t teach fringe science (I’m being rather charitable here to intelligent design) even to most college students, so why the heck would we teach it to younger kids?

State Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum said the vote would water down the quality of science education in public schools.

… and put our high school graduates at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to succeeding at the best colleges. And what of industries that might not come to South Carolina because they perceive our workforce to be uneducated? This is the brush that we will tar our students and our state with if we weaken our science standards.

Reading South Carolina’s letters-to-the-editor pages is probably bad for my blood pressure.

Here’s a letter sent to the Post and Courier by one Duncan Jaenicke, who has aparently written some book on extramarital affairs (if a quick Google search is accurate and this is the same guy).

The front-page article (Jan. 31) about including intelligent design in South Carolina’s public schools is a welcome addition to the process of democracy. I have been doing extensive research on this subject in preparation for writing a book, along with co-author Skip Owens, who is a pastor and leader at Charleston Southern University.

While I would love to see more “intelligent designing” of the South Carolina public school system (so that students would come to me with more well-developed reading comprehension and mathematics skills), I don’t think Mr. J is talking about the same kind of “intelligent design” as I am. I think he’s talking about the one that certain overly-religious people want to teach instead of teaching biology.

Mr J doesn’t say he’s researching the book with the aid of a scientist. I can’t wait to see how good his science is – although if this letter to the editor is any indication, the book will be a real knee-slapper.

I support Gov. Sanford’s belief that our schools should present a balanced and impartial “menu” of theories about life’s origins to our children.

I think it’d be fascinating for students to learn about the different hypotheses that attempt to explain how life might have originated on Earth. As a chemist, I find things like the Miller-Urey experiment and its relatives, which showed that biomolecules could be synthesized by nature from inorganic materials under conditions similar to the early Earth, to be fascinating. But that’s not what Mr. J means.

After all, no one was there at the “beginning” (even Charles Darwin), so they are all theories, not fact. There’s no good reason that evolutionary theory should have a monopoly on our science curriculum.

Here’s where Mr. J shows us that his “research” probably involved careful reading of the backs of a few cereal boxes. Evolution covers what happens after there are organisms around to evolve. If Mr. J’s problem is with the uncertainty of what happened before there were organisms, why rail against evolutionary theory?

The whole “no one was there” argument is a bit silly, too. How would Mr. J propose to solve any crime committed without witnesses? Would he deem it impossible to figure out with any degree of certainty whether a fire was caused by lightning or arson? These things leave evidence. That evidence that is sometimes very difficult to unravel, but it is evidence nonetheless. You don’t have to directly witness something to find out it occurred. (But you do need to find some other kind of evidence.)

While I’m at it, Mr. J doesn’t even know what a scientific theory is. (In science, it’s an explanation of some natural process that is backed up by extensive experimental support. It’s not a mere conjecture. Saying that evolution is bad because it’s “only” a scientific theory is like saying that Bill Gates is poor because he’s “only” one of the richest men in the world.)

I have to take issue with College of Charleston Professors Dillon and Dukes, as quoted in Chris Dixon’s excellent article. They throw rocks at intelligent design based on their assertion that it “isn’t provable by experimentation.”

It’d be a safe bet to assume that Dillon (biology professor) and Dukes (dean of sciences and a physics professor) have looked more closely at the issues than Mr. J. “Not provable” might be a bad way to phrase it, though. “Not testable” or “devoid of any useful content” might be a more useful way to think of intelligent design.

After all, what does intelligent design predict? What, for instance, might it tell us about how we should use antibiotics? Evolutionary ideas would tell us to be sparing with them, to avoid killing off all natural competition of some of the nastier antibiotic-resistant strains.

Intelligent design would say … what?

Pardon me, but the theory of evolution isn’t provable by experimentation, either.

You can certainly demonstrate that evolution happens. Scientific debate at this point seems to be about the relative importance of different mechanisms driving evolution.

In the laboratory you cannot swirl together non-living elements (as in their precious “primordial sea” concept) and have a red snapper or yellow-finned tuna appear.

… and if that’s what evolutionary theory actually predicted, Mr. J, you might have a point!

The two professors also make statements concerning the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that all matter tends towards “maximum entropy.” This is an inside-out way of saying that systems trend toward disorder, not order.

Let’s look at Gov. Sanford’s statements (given in this article).
Sanford said that “The idea of there being a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with one of the laws of thermodynamics, which is the law of, in essence, destruction.”

He then went on to say that “Whether you think about your bedroom and how messy it gets over time or you think about the decay in the building itself over time. Things don’t naturally order themselves towards progression, in the natural order of things. So it’s against fairly basic laws of physics […]”

This was a staggeringly uninformed thing for the governor to say. It clearly demonstrates a misunderstaning of basic evolutionary theory, common natural processes, and the laws of thermodynamics. As the professors rightly point out, we observe order coming from disorder all the time. Neither Mr. J nor Gov. Sanford seem to understand that this is not what the second law says cannot happen.

For example, the sandcastle built on Sullivan’s Island’s beach will eventually collapse (ie, go toward disorder, not the order it enjoyed after the child built it). Wind erosion, gravity and the tides will make it flat in a relatively short time.

Yet look at that same salt water from Sullivan’s Island. It contains many different kinds of free ions – two of which are the sodium ion and the chloride ion. When that salt water evaporates (a natural process), highly ordered cubic crystals of sodium chloride get left behind. Order from disorder.

What was Mr. J’s point again?

Or, take our bodies: after reaching adulthood, our bodies start on a slow-but-sure downward arc that eventually leads to death and decay (as in worm food) – clearly states of disorder.

And the process of growing up in the first place? Digesting food and using it to construct those bodies that Mr. J is observing the “death and decay” in?

Or, take the old Cooper River bridges. Time yields decay, as in rust and metal fatigue, thus proving the Second Law of Thermodynamics: if left alone over time, they would both fall into the harbor – in a profound state of disorder.

Plain old carbon, under intense heat and pressure inside the Earth, bonds together to form an extremely ordered and highly desired crystal called diamond.

The more I read Mr. J’s letter, the more convinced I am that he hasn’t really studied any of the laws of thermodynamics. Natural processes can produce both order and disorder, and don’t violate the second law.

Gov. Sanford certainly did not take that law “out of context,” as the professors claim.

If Gov. Sanford thinks that the second law of thermodynamics is some sort of problem for evolution, then he most certainly did take the second law out of context – and needs to take a thermodynamics course before putting his foot in his mouth again. The second law doesn’t say, as both Mr. J and Gov. Sanford seem to imply, that nature cannot create order from
disorder. If that were so, then it would be impossible for it to rain (liquid water forming from the more highly disordered gas) or snow (even more highly-ordered ice crystals forming from that same gaseous water). Frost would even be out of the question.

Intelligent Design deserves a seat at the table of public education’s science offerings, thus enriching our children as they consider what they believe, which is the essence of education itself.

Intelligent design deserves no such seat because it has done nothing to deserve such a seat. We have little enough time in science class to cover the established, tested science without wasting it covering every unsubstantiated fringe notion that comes along. If that means that we don’t teach astrology in physics class, alchemy in chemistry class, and intelligent design / creationism in biology class, then so be it. We need time to cover the stuff that’s given us real results! South Carolina’s children deserve to learn the good science, not the junk.

The Greenville News has several things to say on the topic of science education in the Palmetto State. First, the good:

We fail the children of our state if we dilute science

Print it out, read it, paste it to the wall. (Of course, this is from a biology professor, so it’s no surprise that she’s for not teaching junk biology.)

Now, the not-so-good:

Scientists’ theories often wrongheaded (Scroll down – it’s a letter to the editor from one Gary Keener of Easley)

I have recently read a number of articles about conflicts due to the theory of evolution. I saw this week an article stating scientists were backing the teaching of this theory in public schools.

I wonder if the writer here realizes that to most scientists, teaching evolution in science class is no more controversial than, say, teaching atomic theory in chemistry class – or that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun in general science classes.

I would assume these are the same scientists who have predicted they would be able to duplicate major human body parts, slow down hurricanes and tornadoes and master human behavior. Unfortunately, many scientists have a history of opening their mouth before engaging their brain, so why would anyone be interested in what they think about the theory of evolution?

Mr Keener gets his science information, it seems, from old black and white sci-fi movies rather than from actual scientists. Do scientists sometimes make predictions that are wrong? Do scientists sometimes make overly optimistic predictions? Sure, they do. But some of this is part of science. An explanation (called a theory) in science must have explanatory and predictive power to be useful. If a theory is either not quite right or simply wrong, it will make predictions that are wrong. That’s the way the method works – theories that make incorrect predictions are revised or replaced by ones that make better predictions. The neat thing is this – science’s predictions tend to get better over time. Show me another field with a better track record – and real results.

Generally, the closer you are to the fringes of any particular scientific field, the shakier the science will be. Mr Keener apparently doesn’t realize that the theory of evolution is not fringe science. The theory of evoluition has been around in some published form since the publication of Darwin’s work in 1859 – and it’s been experimented on and refined ever since. Compare with the atomic theory in chemistry (1808). Does anyone seriously question the notion of the atom these days?

This theory has more holes in it than a baking sieve. Any educator who would justify teaching this garbage to our schoolchildren should never be elevated to a position of leadership in our public school system.

You will notice that none of these holes, which are supposed to be so obvious, will be pointed out.

Anyone who analyzes the complexity of the human body, and pinpoint placement of the earth in the universe, and concludes it just happened through some evolutionary process is not smart enough to make decisions about what students in school should be taught.

In answer, I’d say anyone who knows so little about evolutionary theory to suggest that it has anything to do with the placement of the Earth in the universe is not educated enough to make decisions about whether students should be taught evolutionary theory. (And just what the heck does Mr. Keener mean by “pinpoint placement”?) Even I, a humble chemist, know better.

Belief in God is the beginning of wisdom. You would think an educator would at least have this much wisdom.

Many, if not most, people who have no problem with evolutionary biology also believe in a god. There’s a whole group of people often called theistic evolutionists who believe that evolution was the mechanism used by their god to create the diversity of life we see on the planet.

So what’s Mr. Keener’s point again?

Charles Darwin, the individual who came up with the theory of evolution, raised some serious questions about the validity of his own theory later in life.

For one, the mechanism by which organisms inherited characteristics from their parents and the way that variation came about wasnt yet known. But this was also a long time ago – when the theory was new. Darwin didn’t have all the answers. (Neither do we, but we have improved evolution quite a bit since then.)

Someone said people become wiser just before they die. Maybe he was afraid he would have to face the God he had spent an entire life rejecting.

… or maybe Mr. Keener’s read one of those urban legend e-mails about Darwin having some kind of “deathbed conversion”?

A judge who would rule against the teaching of Divine Creation, but allow the teaching of a method of creation that is in direct conflict, should be classified as a judge with restricted vision.

I believe the bible says something about noticing the splinter in someone else’s eye without noticing the log in your own? Mr. Keener would do well to actually educate himself about what he’s calling “garbage” before criticizing scientists and educators.

From the Greenville News:

ID debate demands a look at all evidence

A letter on Jan. 18 questions whether scientific ideas that challenge the writer’s concept of “science” should be introduced into science classes. My answer is yes! Any scientist knows this is the only way science advances because all of its theories are ultimately tentative and must re- main open to challenge. Karl Popper called this “falsifiability.”

Ironically, the writer here has shot down the very idea (intelligent design) that he advocates. How does one falsify the idea that a divine being who is not subject to the laws of nature did … something to create or design life. You can’t. You can always say … “Well, my god still did it – just using your method.” or “Well, however it is, it’s like that because my god designed it that way.”

Like the letter writer, I believe in God and in science. Unlike the letter writer, I believe the only source of truth is God. Man is dismally unable to arrive at truth by himself. This is adequately demonstrated by believing that only “science” belongs in science classes.

Well what else would the writer suggest goes there? Should I barge into my college’s English classes and demand that chemistry be taught? Or barge into a local church demanding the teaching of physics? There is a reason it’s called science class…

But the scientific method itself addresses the writer’s point. It’s self-correcting, so we can get closer and closer to what’ right over time. And it gives results – which is why you can read this post on a computer right now. (This is also why we feel the need to teach science to people. Because it works!)

Skipping a bit…

Yet most evolutionists adamantly deny intelligent design has anything to do with the origin of species. So which is it — does evolution depend on intelligence or upon chance?

False dichotomy. Unless you believe that there can be no order without design (and therefore that your god is really, really busy making sure all the atoms line up in a cubic structure in each and every crystal of table salt you put on your French fries), then new structures can come about partially by random events and partially by the rules of the universe. Evolution might have some random elements, but it isn’t an entirely random process. Selction sure isn’t random! (How about those antibiotic-resistant bacteria?)

Now if you want to say that your god made up the rules, well then why bother trying to stifle the teaching of evolution – and waste time in an already overloaded science class with the notion? Just teach that in your church.

Poking around on WIS-TV’s web site, I find this article from a couple of weeks ago about the teaching of science in the South Carolina schools.

Biology students learn about Darwin’s evolution theory at South Carolina schools. But should they be taught other theories, too, like intelligent design, the idea that Darwin’s theory cannot explain all of life’s mysteries?

What’s that sound? I think it’s the sound of the heads of many biologists exploding.

The question is a bit revealing, though … Intelligent design is “the idea that Darwin’s theory cannot explain all of life’s mysteries.” It’s the intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting “Nuh-uh!!!” when you hear something you don’t like.

On the one side, there’s biological evolution – which explains how forms of life got from self-replicating molecules to here, gives possible mechanisms for change in organsims, etc. etc. And on the other side, there’s intelligent design: “Nuh-uh!” At least it’d be a short lesson.

Scrolling on down in the article, we find this gem from an intelligent design advocate:

[…] Rebecca Keller agrees, “A teacher must also allow students the academic freedom to think for themselves, and should not discriminate against any viewpoint.”

True, students must be allowed to think. (Does any teacher out there, at any grade level from K through college, want their students to not think?) But in science, all viewpoints are not equal. That’s the whole point of the scientific method, actually – to discriminate between different viewpoints (explanations) of data and pick the one that is most correct. Not all viewpoints are equal in science because some viewpoints are simply wrong. Still other viewpoints are worthless in science because they lack explanatory power.

Let’s say that on an introductory chemistry test I ask my students to describe the current scientific understanding of the burning of wood in air. Should all these answers be marked correct?

• The wood combines with oxygen from the air to form primarily carbon dioxide and water (along with some other stuff in the ash). This means that the fire could be extinguished or prevented by removing oyxgen from the air around the wood or covering the wood with an inert gas that would prevent oxygen from reaching the wood (and thus stop the fire).
• That wood burns by releasing a substance called phlogiston. All substances that burn contain this phlogiston, and thus ashes are lighter than the original wood that they came from.
• Fire is cast down upon wood by the fire faeries as punishment for the sins committed by trees against the green faeries of the forest.

Obviously, not all of these viewpoints are correct. Phlogiston theory has few backers these days, and I just made up the “faery theory of combustion” a minute ago without a shred of supporting scientific evidence.

Should I waste time presenting the “faery theory of combustion” in my introductory chemistry class? Surely not, except perhaps as a good example of what a scientific theory is not. The “faery theory” doesn’t explain anything at all. It might make a good bedtime story, but it’d be lousy science.

Just like some other “theory” I know …

CNN has an article on the apparent popularity of online classes. Why are online classes so popular?

Motives range from lifestyle to accommodating a job schedule to getting into high-demand courses.

One of those listed reasons really bothers me – accommodating a job schedule. It’s not that I think that students who have jobs shouldn’t take any classes – it’s that I’ve seen far too many students think that they can work a full-time job and use online classes as a way to take a full-time class schedule as well. These students almost always end up either flunking the courses or dropping out of them – wasting either their hard-earned money or someone else’s (through financial aid). The phrase “full-time student” means exactly what it says – online courses or not. This is especially true when that full-time load is a bunch of science courses. Most science classes are quite time-consuming, and trying to juggle a bunch of these is tough even for students who don’t have any other job!

One thiing some potential online students should remember:

But online classes aren’t necessarily easier. Two-thirds of schools responding to a recent survey by The Sloan Consortium agreed that it takes more discipline for students to succeed in an online course than in a face-to-face one.

I’d tend to agree. Online and distance-learning classses are usually harder than on-campus courses, presuming you’re going to a school that cares about its reputation. (Why harder, and not just equal? Likely because much more responsibility falls on the student in an online course with no scheduled face-to-face meetings than in a more traditional lecture-based course.)

I forgot to mention yesterday that the local news outlet, WBTW 13 has a poll up asking what should be taught in South Carolina schools.

I don’t much care for the phrasing of the question:

Which origin of the species theory should be taught?
* Creationism
* Evolution
* Intelligent Desgn
* All three

As far as I know, out of that list only evolution fits the scientific definition of the word theory – an explanation of a series of observations backed up by extensive experimental data. The results as of now aren’t as encouraging as the comments from Horry county were – 36% want straight creationism, 25% want straight evolution, 3% want straight Intelligent Design, and 35% want all three.

Since creationism and intelligent design are the same thing (intelligent design just leaves out the “god” language), call it 39% creationism, 25% evolution, and 35% who want both. They must’ve lost 1% to rounding. Not very encouraging except on one point – nobody seems to want the intelligent design version of creationism.