Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

48% of Americans Reject Evolution

Posted by Zonk on from the we-need-just-a-touch-stronger-educational-standards- dept.

MSNBC has up an article discussing the results of a Newsweek poll on faith and religion among members of the US populace. Given the straightforward question, 'Is evolution well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community?', some 48% of Americans said 'No'. Furthermore, 34% of college graduates said they accept the Biblical story of creation as fact. An alarmingly high number of individuals responded that they believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, and that a deity created our species in its present form at the start of that period.

30 of 1,856 comments (clear)

  1. In unrelated news... by Kelson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    America continues to worry about losing its edge in the high-tech industry.

    But that couldn't possibly be related to poor science education, could it?

    Note: I'm referring specifically to the 48% who believe that evolution is not well-supported by scientific evidence and that it is not widely accepted within the scientific community. Well, and the people who think the universe is less than 10,000 years old, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You can believe in God and have an understanding of science, just like you can have morals without being religious. But thinking that evolution isn't supported by evidence, or isn't widely accepted by scientists, is just plain ignorance.

    1. Re:In unrelated news... by Gerzel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most of them just use the tactic of saying things longer and louder than everyone else in the room and eventually people will believe you.

      In America this has worked.

    2. Re:In unrelated news... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Evolution is not intuitive. Richard Dawkins was showing a possible explanation why in his book, The God Delusion.

      Basically according to the research he quotes, there are stances the brain takes of thinking. Like the "physical" stance, how an object will react to gravity, etc. But that is slow and not really useful in judging complex machines (like animals for example). So there is a "design" stance, where you judge the function of an object and determine it's expected behaviour. That is sometimes too slow, so there is the "intention" stance, which assigns intentions to things. That tiger over there is going to attack me not because it has sharp claws capable of killing, but because he intends to kill me so I better run. Get the point. Anyway, according to research, infants and young children are especially prone to think in an intent stance. Thus it is conceivable that the thinking that something must have a reason or intent, is something to be discarded through a conscious effort.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    3. Re:In unrelated news... by Clock+Nova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't understand this line of thinking. Evolution is extraordinarily intuitive. In fact, it makes perfect sense. Two animals are born. One is unable to adapt to its environment, and dies. The other one is able to adapt to survive in its environment and lives long enough to reproduce, thus passing on its genetic material to the next generation. Repeat. Profit. What's not to understand?

      This is, of course, a bit oversimplified, but I find nothing about evolution difficult to understand.

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
    4. Re:In unrelated news... by Iron+Condor · · Score: 5, Informative

      Only 51% of physical scientists believe in any form of Darwinian evolution.

      This is a lie.

      You are a liar.

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    5. Re:In unrelated news... by coopex · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uh, too bad evolution is about how life is changing, and completely unrelated to how life started, but keep on with your small minded worldview and ignorance, you're sure to make the history books (as a laughingstock).

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    6. Re:In unrelated news... by casper75 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In America this has worked. should read "This has worked."
      No single group of humans has a monopoly on ignorance.
    7. Re:In unrelated news... by j35ter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My dear friend,
      Your faith and the fact that you believe in God shouldn't make you a creationist per se.
      Remember that many of the most inquisitive, rational and critical minds were members of the Church. Even though they had to follow an official Canon, they never took the Bible for granted. Aware that this book was written down by stone and bronze age nomads, they just refused to take for granted that God created the world in 6 (earthen) days. Look at people like Thomas Aquinas ans William of Occam. Would they have shared the creationists views? I think not!
      They rather marveled at the way God led the creation of nature and the universe.
      After all, how could you have explained a bunch of stone age shepherds what the big bang was and how DNA works. Once you start looking at the Genesis from this viewpoint, you might see the true revelation behind these words.

      I consider myself agnostic, although I had the opportunity to let myself be warmly embraced by faith.

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    8. Re:In unrelated news... by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      (On a personal note, I fear you're going to be modded down inappropriately... You're articulate in your point and state it very clearly. While I'll admit to not being fully aware of your past history, at least in this case it doesn't seem bad. It's the people who kneejerk a -1 that are just as bad as the raving nutters that trumpet this from on high...)

      I have no problem with people believing in one or more deities. Some feel the need to have a higher power looking over them. I, personally, am confused by this necessity yet I see some reasoning behind Voltaire's statement that if there was no god, we would invent him.

      Yet to be willfully ignorant of the scientific process and instead believe solely in a god is to inadvertantly question him. If you believe that the world is only 10,000 years (or 6,000, or whatever the going age is), then how do you explain the dating processes scientists use that result in objects older than that? The most common argument I hear about this is that "It's the way He wants it to be," yet that throws into question the believability of a benevolent deity since why would a benevolent deity purposefully mislead his creation?

      I shudder what would happen if fundamentalists in Europe back in the 1500s and 1600s had been able to fully supress what was discovered. Would we still believe that Earth is flat and the solar system was geocentric?

      If you do not believe in evolution, how can you understand how penicillin has become ineffective and how superbugs are being uncovered; strains of bacteria and virii that, while exhibiting all the characteristics of previous ones, are immune to the same attack styles?

      Truth and fact are two seperate ideas. They can very well be mutually exclusive.

    9. Re:In unrelated news... by linvir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is true that I grew up in a Christian home
      This is the only reason you believe in the things you do. It's got fuck-all to do with "seeing beauty and power surrounding things". Your parents were brought up as Christians, so they brought you up a Christian. If they'd decided instead to bring you up to believe in Power Rangers, you'd believe in a superhuman team of ninja warriors defending the earth from an evil witch living on the moon, and you'd be posting Slashdot comments telling us all about the "beauty and power" you see in things, which convinces you of the existence of Power Rangers no matter what those oppressive science types might say about there being no recorded sightings of huge robots or aliens doing battle in remote wastelands. And of course, you'd say it was "because of the effect it had had on your life" as well.

      You're a slave to the meme forced upon you by your parents, a believer in an idea considered idiotic by the vast majority of scientists and Christians, and an embarrassment to the 21st century.

      GO GO POWER RANGERS! YOU MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS!

    10. Re:In unrelated news... by adrianmonk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't understand this line of thinking. Evolution is extraordinarily intuitive. In fact, it makes perfect sense. Two animals are born. One is unable to adapt to its environment, and dies.

      The fact that you have just explained it in a way which is subtly wrong supports the idea that it is counterintuitive. An animal does not adapt. It is born with a certain set of DNA, which it cannot change or control, and it lives or dies as a result what DNA it has (along with other factors like chance).

      In fact, this makes for a bit of a paradox. A single organism cannot ever adapt. Its DNA is essentially immutable, or at least it certainly cannot do anything to change its own DNA in any useful way. So you have an organism, and that organism has offspring, and so on. You have a whole chain (lineage) of organisms, and none of them can adapt, so how does the adaptation occur?

      The answer, of course, is that adaptation in that sense doesn't really occur at all. What occurs is that new, different organisms are created when organisms reproduce, and the different ones either are already adapted or are not already adapted at the moment they're born, and the well-adapted ones end up reproducing.

      This is a bit counter-intuitive because it's not how people solve problems. Humans generally apply intelligence to a problem. If you're a car company and you want to sell a new model of car, you don't make a bunch of new types of car at random without any direction, then ask potential customers if they suck or not, then throw out the ones that suck. That would be enormously wasteful and slow given limited resources, so humans rarely ever do that. Instead, you figure out what you want, you apply theory, and you make a plan to go directly where you want to go (or as directly as possible).

      As it turns out, my sister is a Ph.D. student in genetics, and I am a computer programmer. We've had conversations about the similarities and differences of computer code and genetic code, and it took me a while to grasp, but there are really more differences than there are similarities. If a programmer wants to create a construct, he sits down with a piece of paper (or whiteboard), charts out what he wants it to do, and writes some code, hopefully (if he has any training) in a nice, orderly manner. If he's any good, he makes it modular and separates concerns so that (say) code for the GUI is not mixed in with code for the filesystem.

      DNA does not work like this AT ALL. There are huge, gigantic sections of DNA code that are never used. Then there are sections in certain places which are used for two TOTALLY UNRELATED purposes just because the particular sequence of base pairs happens to fit both purposes. It is the equivalent of compiling a header file full of constants (say, error codes or strings) and then after you're done compiling, going, "Oh hey, since we are using a Pentium processor, that sequence of bytes for the error codes happens to also be a valid sequence of opcodes. So now I don't need to bother writing the first half of memmove(), because it already exists right there! Whoopee!" Except that it's worse than that because the DNA will have 100 other copies of memmove() in other places, all different, all incompatible, and most with bugs. Except that you can't call them bugs, because there is no spec. You expect them to do "wrong" things every now and then, indeed often, and the only real crime is to do something so wrong that the organism doesn't survive. And the only reason it does survive is that the system is pretty redundant and tolerates chaos pretty well, except when someone gets heart disease, cancer, dementia, a sore lower back, etc.

      The point is this: imagine how you would design a human. Now look at a real human -- it's almost nothing like what you'd make. It's simultaneously way more "clever" and way sloppier. It's totally whacked, totally effective, and the way it works is pretty alien to how we think. Biology, in general, is very complex and is not very intuitive.

    11. Re:In unrelated news... by miro+f · · Score: 5, Insightful

      another example of something that can be disproven but not proven is every scientific theory, such es (for example) the Theory of Evolution.

      It is essentially the act of being falsifiable that actually makes Evolution a real scientific theory, and the fact that it has stood for so long (with modifications) that makes it so widely accepted.

      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    12. Re:In unrelated news... by ArtDent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hobo sapiens, meet science. Science, hobo sabiens.

      One of the many neat things about the way science is practiced, with numerous independent scientists continuously challenging each other's theories and discoveries, is that it doesn't tend to produce Big Lies.

      It's conceivable, though highly unlikely, that one day evolution will be disproven completely. If that happens, it will be entirely to science's credit.

    13. Re:In unrelated news... by NMerriam · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't understand how evolution can be either proven OR disproven, as it deals with things that happened in the past and that therefore aren't now observable or falsifiable.


      Evolution, like all scientific theories, makes statements that can be used as predictors for future discoveries, even though the process in question happened in the past.

      If evolution says that some specific sequence of events is impossible, then finding any evidence that those events occurred would instantly disprove the theory. There are numerous things that could be discovered at any moment that would call into question the most fundamental aspects of evolution, yet in nearly two centuries no evidence of the sort has been found.

      Conversely, evolution says that many things pretty much must have happened a certain way to get from point A to point B, and that is prediction. It has in fact happened that scientists have had fossil A and fossil C, but no luck in finding the presumed to exist fossil B. By using the principles of evolution they've determined where the most likely place to find fossil B was -- and found it!

      It should also be noted that evolution predicted (in fact REQUIRED) the existence of DNA (or something similar) a century before it was actually found -- indeed, when evolution was first discussed the very lack of something like DNA was one of the biggest criticisms against it. The notion that ALL life on Earth including plants and animals shared some fundamental building block that was completely unknown, eons old yet randomly changeable for no discernible reason, was considered absurd by many. Watson and Crick did more to confirm the accuracy of evolution than almost any other group in the 20th century.
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    14. Re:In unrelated news... by Alsee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hope people don't blindly push evolution like some people blindly push religion.

      I'm sure that there exist people blindly pushing evolution, just as there are people blindly opposing evolution. The important question is, what do the non-blind people see and say about it? You don't need to understand quantum mechanics to be able to make a reasonable first pass at sorting out who does and does not have a PhD in quantum mechanics and is or is not professionally working in the field at prestigious international physics lab. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to be able to figure out who has a PhD engineering degree and is professionally employed at NASA or one of the other national space agencies as a rocket scientist.

      Newsweek magazine 29 June 1987, Page 23: "there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'". That works out to 685-to-1. And what would be the common slang term for a minuscule fraction of one percent scientist who is considered "non-credible" by the other 99.85% of the professional credentialed scientific community? That term would be "crackpot". Approximately one in 685 earth and life scientists fundamentally rejects evolution, approximately one in 685 credentialed earth and life scientists is a crackpot. There seriously does not exist any genuine controversy over the basics of evolution in the scientific community, no genuine controversy amongst the "non-blind", amongst the people who have actually dedicated their lives to studying the subject in school getting a degree and actually analyzing and challenging the evidence.

      I'm just a regular programmer type guy.

      Excellent! Seriously, excellent! I too am "just a regular programmer type guy", and there are few people as well equipped as us to cure "blindness" on evolution directly see just how powerful it is, to witness first hand that it in fact does work. While people generally look at evolution as a physical biological process, it is more fundamentally a mathematical process and an information processing process. Essentially any system possessing the four properties of (1) replication (2) inheritance of traits (3) mutation of those traits and (4) selection, essentially any such system will exhibit the evolution process. Those four traits pretty well define the necessary and sufficient conditions to enable and ensure evolution to occur. There is an entire sub-field of computer science dedicated to evolutionary algorithms and genetic algorithms. Algorithms to harness the information processing power of evolution, to harness the information creating power of the evolution process.

      As a programmer, you really should explore evolutionary algorithms and genetic algorithms. They are critical algorithms that seriously should be in the "toolbox" of any sophisticated programmer. They enable a programmer to tackle and solve certain classes of programming tasks and problems that are virtually impossible to solve in any other way. You wouldn't want to use evolutionary algorithms / genetic algorithms on most kinds of routine programming tasks, they are entirely inappropriate for the vast majority of programming tasks, but where they are appropriate knowing these algorithms expand your range and can give you the ability to program for otherwise "impossibly hard" problems. In fact more than half of all Fortune 500 companies apply these sorts of algorithms somewhere or another in their business.

      You can use DNA analysis in a court of law to map out a family tree way beyond any reasonable doubt. You can use DNA analysis in a science lab to absolutely establish and map out evolutionary family tree of species in the exact same way and with the same "beyond any reasonable doubt" absolute certainty. You and I are not laboratory DNA analysis experts, but if you take the time to look at the qualified experts in the field they will 9

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  2. This is Exciting News by ReidMaynard · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm keeping a close eye on my neighbor's 911 Turbo with the I Love Jesus bumber sticker. The minute The Rapture hits, that baby is mine!

    --
    -- www.globaltics.net

    Political discussion for a new world

  3. This is interesting, but... by Raindance · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is interesting, but not for the obvious reasons.

    The poll looks fairly well-constructed, but the problem is that evolution has become extremely politicized. For many, this question wasn't asking about science-- it was a political question (are you with the conservative-christians or the liberal-atheist-scientists?).

    I think the real story here is the process by which scientific issues get politicized. It's a process that we really need to understand. John Timmer over at Ars Technica often writes about this.

    1. Re:This is interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually that's not a well constructed poll. It's asking 2 things at once in a single yes/no question (Is evolution well supported, is evolution well accepted). So of the people who said no are they saying no to one of the questions or both?

    2. Re:This is interesting, but... by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually that's not a well constructed poll. It's asking 2 things at once in a single yes/no question (Is evolution well supported, is evolution well accepted). So of the people who said no are they saying no to one of the questions or both?

      My thought exactly, except that I'd point out another aspect of the question that's overly broad. "Evolution" isn't a single theory, it's a whole complex set of theories, some of which have very solid observational evidence supporting them and others of which are almost pure hypotheses. For example, on the one hand, it's scientifically indisputable that species do evolve. We have seen it happen under controlled conditions in the laboratory, as well as having a deep fossil record. On the other hand the theory of punctuated equilibrium is just a fairly random stab at trying to explain why the fossil record seems to show long periods of little change separated by short periods of massive change. There are lots of other examples all across the spectrum.

      Personally, I'd have had a hard time answering yes to the question "Is evolution well supported", not because I don't believe it is, but because I *know* it's a political question, not a scientific question, and I know that if I say "yes" I'll be indicating assent to a much broader range of ideas than those I actually believe are supported.

      A better poll would have asked several, more precisely-focused questions, such as: "Do you believe evolution occurs?"; "Do you believe that the large number of species that exist today evolved from a small number of ancient species?"; "Do you believe that humans evolved from earlier species?"; "Do you believe that evolution is a result of purely random chance?"; plus similar questions oriented towards getting the individual's opinion about the scientific support and opinions of scientists, such as "Is there solid scientific evidence that evolution occurs?" and "Do most scientists believe that evolution occurs?".

      The result would have been a much better view into the understanding and beliefs of Americans, rather than just their religio-political views.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  4. I know why by geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most Americans (people over the age of 35ish) were never taught evolution in school and those who were have been taught poorly. I didn't realize the piss poor job my teachers did in junior high and high school until I took an anthropology class in college. People still like to quip that we evolved from monkeys but don't realize we evolved seperate from monkeys and share a common ancestor.

    The ignorance to evolution is amazing in this country. It's no surprise at all people haven't embraced it here like they have overseas in Europe.

  5. Re:Quick, call in the Hippie Power Squad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, to paraphrase, you're saying:

    Let ignorant people remain ignorant, because what harm could they possibly do to our society? ...incidentally, have you been off-planet for about six years?

  6. Re:Quick, call in the Hippie Power Squad by zymurgy_cat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come on, who cares? Let people be ignorant. It's not like bringing people of below average intelligence or fundamentalist mindset into the scientific fold is going to make them valuable contributors. It'll just be a new type of ignorance to deal with. Let them be.

    That would be all fine and well except for one thing: they're reproducing....and at a higher rate than those of us who value science. And those people and their progeny will vote.

    --
    -- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
  7. Re:Even Jesus talked in parables by geek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are actually two versions of Genesis, the old Hebrew one where God is not a single being but Ilohim (which is plural and I may have spelled it wrong). Then there is the Christian version which has God as singular and omnipotent, all knowing and all seeing. The problem comes from Calvinism and it's strong (to this very day) influence on Christianity. If Genesis isn't literal to these people the foundation of Christianity falls apart. Evolution directly contradicts the Bible. You can not logically combine the two and have the same religion. Hell the Bible contradicts itself enough as it is, bu when you add evolution, all the theology goes right out the window.

    Check out Calvinism and Arminianism on Wikipedia sometime. Use it as background for reading Miltons paradise lost and you'll begin to understand the history of the debate that still rages on today.

  8. Pot, kettle, black by GuyMannDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let people be ignorant. It's not like bringing people of below average intelligence or fundamentalist mindset into the scientific fold is going to make them valuable contributors. It'll just be a new type of ignorance to deal with.

    First you call them ignorant (which is true). Then you call them stupid. Then you call them religious fundamentalists. Then back to ignorant. These are all very separate categories, which you would understand if you had the above-average intelligence that you probably believe you possess. Given the large percentage of the population that is being cited, I think it's unlikely they are all below-average in intelligence. I didn't RTFA so I don't know about their religious beliefs. I submit to you that these are probably people of average intelligence who are ignorant. That means that we as scientists are not getting the word out in a manner that most people find compelling. The problem is not with them, it is with us.

    Perhaps you should check out the film Flock of Dodos before you start pointing fingers at who is to blame. (Hint: the dodos are not the intelligent design folks, it's the scientists who are in danger of becoming extinct because they can't communicate simple facts to the mainstream audience.) Elitist attitudes like yours ("hey, if they can't keep up, fuck 'em!") is partially what drives the mainstream to give ID folks a listen.

    GMD

    --
    watch this
  9. Re:The Prostate by Khaed · · Score: 5, Funny

    You've obviously never been to New Jersey.

  10. Beyond Belief by nih · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This couldn't be more on topic

    --
    I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
  11. Re:which farm animal represents 48% of america? by grammar+fascist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone's a sheep. Modern neuroscience pretty much confirms that most of us run on autopilot most of the time. The real question is, who's your shepherd?

    I think the average Slashdotter mostly agrees with Jesus about this. The difference is, the average Slashdotter believes that he's not a sheep, and sees this as insulting. Well, reality check. You are. But who's your shepherd? If there's a single most important decision you can make in your life, it's this. Is it Jesus? Mohammad? Richard Stallman? Pamela Jones? Jimmy Carter? Al Gore? Brad Pitt? Your parents? A good friend? A friendly and knowledgeable professor at school?

    A little bit back on topic, is anyone else disturbed that unwavering belief in the theory of evolution has become a litmus test for intelligence?

    --
    I got my Linux laptop at System76.
  12. Re:The Prostate by rhakka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    as a devil's advocate, the alternate explanation could be that your idea of what it means to care about something could be wrong, what is "undeserved" sufferring could be wrong, and that sufferring for some is not in fact the best the thing for the creation as a whole.

    Since you don't know the "End state" of the creation, or its purpose, you have no way to judge that. You are using your own arbitrary guidelines for all of these things, and since you are neither omniscient nor omnipotent you have no logical grounds with which to judge such a being... to even presume you have the barest idea of what such a creature would do and why, and whether that means it "cares" about its creation or you or not is totally irrational.

    don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there IS such a massively perfect, caring being out there. But as a flawed, limited being such as you or I cannot possibly construct any logical arguement that addresses the motivations of such a superior being... you have absolutely no qualification to judge. All you know is what "feels bad" to you; and you are not perfect, so you don't really know what IS bad, just what seems bad to you.

  13. there's something wrong with the poll by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not in TFA, but the poll also reported the following statistics:

    27% of Agnostics and Atheists think God guided the process of evolution
    13% of Agnostics and Atheists think God created man in his present form.

    So a better title for the article might have been "40% of Atheists believe in God".

    When you're getting that kind of result, it might be a clue that there's something wrong with your methodology.

  14. America the Great by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Don't you love how Americans can only maintain their delusions of adequacy by comparing their nation to the very shittiest, backwards little hellholes on the entire planet? God forbid Americans ever compare their nation to, you know, other modern industrialized nations?

    Here's the deal: stop saying that America is the greatest nation on Earth, the most advanced nation on Earth, the home of the free, the home of the brave, or any of that other bullshit, and MAYBE people will stop pointing out that every one of those claims is a baldfaced lie.