DEvolution in America

[EHK for Darwin]

Yeah, but that just speaks to the ill education of the masses, and not to their belief in Religion and/or Creationism. Which is kinda the point of separating the 2 groups.

There's the ignorant and the deliberately ignorant.

I don't really think most of them are deliberately ignorant. They're all victims of the mass propagandic plague that is religion. Even the 'No's'. But that doesn't give them a pass.

[TrackerNeil]

I guess That I'm on the fence.

I am not in the 61%, but could be counted as solidly anti-Darwinism only because I believe that more research is needed into how species have evolved and what catalysts drive evolution. I do not think that it is always the fittest that survive.

I am not in the other 39% either. I do believe in the Bible. I believe in the story of Creation. I do not believe that it is a literal word-for-word account of how things happened though. It is certainly one way of looking at how things came to be though, and I have no problems with a school teaching evolution in the science classes and Creationism in theology or sociology type classes. Let the children know that both theories exist. Let them take in as much knowledge as humanly possible. Then let them decide for themselves what they believe.

Blauer, I don't think most modern biologists would say evolutionary theory is "survival of the fittest", unless by "fittest" you mean "most likely to reproduce." That's not the same thing.

As to this statement about "both theories", you are dead wrong. Creationism is not a theory in the scientific sense; in fact, it's not scientific at all. So if you want to teach alternate theories to evolution you're first going to have to do decades of scientific research to find a scientific alternate to evolutionary theory. Good luck.

I commend you, however, on having readily picked up the creationists' new tagline for their attempt to displace the teaching of evolutionary theory. First is was "Evolution is just a theory!", which become "Intelligent design is science!" and has now become "Teach the controversy." There really is no scientific controversy, so I don't see why we should teach it in science class.

[Shryke]

I don't really think most of them are deliberately ignorant. They're all victims of the mass propagandic plague that is religion. Even the 'No's'. But that doesn't give them a pass.

But neither does it mean "Creationism has won" or some such.

A large percentage of those 61% aren't pro-Creationism, their just too ignorant to be sure about Evolution.

It's like asking someone if they believe in Quarks. Many will give an "I'm not sure", not because they don't believe in particle physics, but because they don't understand the subject.

[ljkeane]

Scientific basis? As understood today, none. The original field of philosophy (love of wisdom) has branched out into natural philosophy (what is now known as science) and theology. Both are important fields of which no one (regardless of his beliefs) should be ignorant.

If you want to study the religious beliefs of various major religions in some sort of theology class, so long as no specific religion was endorsed I would have no issue with that. It's the suggestion that creationism has some sort of scientific equivalence to evolution and should be taught as such that I object to.

[TerraPrime]

Scientific basis? As understood today, none. The original field of philosophy (love of wisdom) has branched out into natural philosophy (what is now known as science) and theology. Both are important fields of which no one (regardless of his beliefs) should be ignorant.

Denying creationism and/or Intelligent Design ideas equal footing to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is nowhere near to be the same as discounting the importance of philosophy. Would you say that not teaching Socrates' understanding of the world, with elements and humors and such, in Chemistry is similar to disrespecting philosophy? I'd hope not.

Not to mention, even in the area of philosophy, ideas like Intelligent Design, which is built on faulty premises and bad reasonings, are quite thoroughly inane. These ideas fail the most basic of argumentation. The only merit they have is they serve as a veneer to cover up the religiously-motivated rejection of science.

[CiaranAnnrach]

Questions that detailed make for alot of self delusion bias. Some responders won't have a problem saying 'religion is the reason I don't believe in evolution'. But some will intentionally or unintentionally assert that they have non-religious reasons for not believing it. They may not recognize the awesome cultural influence of Christianity, the role it played in the information they received from every possible source (school, media, politics, parents, community), and how such factors may have influenced where they fall on the issue. Religion may still be the dominant factor in their position whether they're heavily religious or not and whether they personally realize it or not. Giving them that option simply gives us their own subjective impression, it does not answer the question.

[ljkeane]

One of the biggest correlation is the degree of schooling you've had. People who never complete high school, only 21% believe in evolution. Out of those who graduated college, it's 53%, and 78% for postgraduates. Schooling also has the highest degree of people "on the fence" - 52% for high schoolers, 26% for college graduates and 18% for postgraduates. And until they do a study that correlates your degree of schooling with your religious beliefs, you can't claim that all those graduates are atheists.

[HT Reddy]

I guess That I'm on the fence.

I am not in the 61%, but could be counted as solidly anti-Darwinism only because I believe that more research is needed into how species have evolved and what catalysts drive evolution. I do not think that it is always the fittest that survive.

I am not in the other 39% either. I do believe in the Bible. I believe in the story of Creation. I do not believe that it is a literal word-for-word account of how things happened though.

[CiaranAnnrach]

Also, EHK, take another look at the Gallup poll. Towards the bottom they start asking people if they can even attribute which scientific theory Charles Darwin is responsible for. The correlation between people with low schooling and being unable to associate him with evolution is astounding, (only 31% correctly guessed) while the numbers remain fairly constant across all church goers (49-61% across the board.) There's a very clear link between the level of schooling you've received and how much you know about evolution, and it's hard to make an opinion on something you know nothing about.

[Merentha]

Only 53% of people that have graduated from university in the US believe in evolution?, that would be a concern for me if those statistics are true.

[CiaranAnnrach]

BD, evolutionary theory is complex and fascinating, and as TrackerNeil and many others would agree, it can't be reduced to a slogan like survival of the fittest (not a phrase coined by Darwin let us remember). We could have a thread about it if you want, cos it really is amazing - like today we were in maths looking at game theory and how it applies to evolution - point being that it is often the case that the Evolutinarily Stable Strategy adopted by natural selection by a species is one which actually means that every individual of that species is less fit than if they all adopted another strategy. And I should say that I am a Christian in case you didn't already know.

[ljkeane]

At least in most of the US unis I know, you're only required to take one science course as a general education requirement, which might not involve any kind of work on evolution at all. A good few college grads may very well have no more bio education than their high school counterparts.

[Merentha]

We weren't required to take any science courses in the UK either, I would just expect anyone who has achieved that level of educatation to be suffciently intelligent and open minded enough to assess the scientific evidence for evolution in a rational manner.

[Shryke]

Also, EHK, take another look at the Gallup poll. Towards the bottom they start asking people if they can even attribute which scientific theory Charles Darwin is responsible for. The correlation between people with low schooling and being unable to associate him with evolution is astounding, (only 31% correctly guessed) while the numbers remain fairly constant across all church goers (49-61% across the board.) There's a very clear link between the level of schooling you've received and how much you know about evolution, and it's hard to make an opinion on something you know nothing about.

[EHK for Darwin]

It's like asking someone if they believe in Quarks. Many will give an "I'm not sure", not because they don't believe in particle physics, but because they don't understand the subject.

Quarks are a tad new, not well publicized, and haven't been exhaustively confirmed and reconfirmed a thousand times over for a century like Evolution has. But even if there is that level of confirmation, its not like there's a massive theological smear & misinformation campaign out against quarks.

Level of schooling/Intelligence.

Which would be less necessary and relevant without the massive cultural influence of religion peddling nonsense and misinformation on a daily basis. These people aren't coming from a blank slate and simply being asked to choose based on what they learned in science textbooks. They've been indoctrinated with this nonsense to one degree or another since childhood. Science would have a HELL of alot easier time propagating science if it didn't have so much braindead competition.

So would you say science is the pursuit of empirical truth?

Empirical would be better wording sure. I'm aware of the nuances of evolution, the scientific definition of theory, the basics of the scientific method. I just like making my statements as unequivocal as possible. If someone wants to challenge the nitty gritty details or needs clarification of the statement, I'll happily get into them.

There's a very clear link between the level of schooling you've received and how much you know about evolution, and it's hard to make an opinion on something you know nothing about.

You don't have to know much about evolution. Most don't. Nor do you have to know much about gravity, relativity, radio waves, tectonic plates, Newton's laws, or just about any other major scientific theory out there. When its been proven to the level of many of those theories however with near unanimous support amongst everyone with serious expertise in the field, your (used generally) opinion to the contrary simply has little merit if its not coming from an informed and educated standpoint and supported by sound argument + persuasive evidence. The problem isn't necessarily the education. People readily accept or shrug at a million things they barely understand because it seems to work and every significant expert in the field agrees with it. We wouldn't need polls on the matter and in fact we wouldn't have any if not for the counter-intellectual influence of religion. But its not about accepting without thinking, its about deferring to the highly intelligent people who spend their lives studying this shit and only entering the conversation once you have an adequate background and understanding of the field.

[HT Reddy]

You don't have to know much about evolution. Most don't. Nor do you have to know much about gravity, relativity, radio waves, tectonic plates, Newton's laws, or just about any other major scientific theory out there. When its been proven to the level of many of those theories however with near unanimous support amongst everyone with serious expertise in the field, your (used generally) opinion to the contrary simply has little merit if its not coming from an informed and educated standpoint and supported by sound argument + persuasive evidence. The problem isn't necessarily the education. People readily accept or shrug at a million things they barely understand because it seems to work and every significant expert in the field agrees with it. We wouldn't need polls on the matter and in fact we wouldn't have any if not for the counter-intellectual influence of religion. But its not about accepting without thinking, its about deferring to the highly intelligent people who spend their lives studying this shit and only entering the conversation once you have an adequate background and understanding of the field.

Actually I would be interested to see the results of a poll like this where evolution were replaced by relativity. Not that I disagree with you EHK; there can be little doubt that religion has unpopularised evolution in the states, but it would be interesting to see by how much.

[Shryke]

I'm guessing you'd get the same breakdown, except most of the "Evolution isn't real" type would just shift into the "Not Sure" category.

[CiaranAnnrach]

You don't have to know much about evolution. Most don't. Nor do you have to know much about gravity, relativity, radio waves, tectonic plates, Newton's laws, or just about any other major scientific theory out there. When its been proven to the level of many of those theories however with near unanimous support amongst everyone with serious expertise in the field, your (used generally) opinion to the contrary simply has little merit if its not coming from an informed and educated standpoint and supported by sound argument + persuasive evidence. The problem isn't necessarily the education. People readily accept or shrug at a million things they barely understand because it seems to work and every significant expert in the field agrees with it. We wouldn't need polls on the matter and in fact we wouldn't have any if not for the counter-intellectual influence of religion. But its not about accepting without thinking, its about deferring to the highly intelligent people who spend their lives studying this shit and only entering the conversation once you have an adequate background and understanding of the field.

Aaaaaand all of this is exactly why I said what I first did, about no matter what we say, you won't change your mind. It's quite obvious any further argument we bring to you will be futile, because at this point you're really only seeing what you want to see. I'm sorry, EHK, but you are so overwhelmingly anti-religion that, when it comes to religion, reason simply does not reach you, because you don't actually want to be reached. And I have absolutely little doubts you will go on to call my reasoning flawed, in an attempt to justify your own reasoning.

This is precisely why I will now keep my arguments and opinions to myself, and save myself my breath. Arguing this point further is about as effective as punching a mountain in the hopes it'll move for you. Good luck to anyone else who wants to pick up the torch.

[HT Reddy]

I'm guessing...

this is the problem. None of us really knows :) so we are all arguing from what we suppose would be the result given our existing prejudices (now there's truly the most anti-science cultural phenomenon)

[Ken Stone]

It burns when I pee sometimes.