Slashdot Mirror
Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy
cold fjord writes: "Dan Kahan at the Yale Law School Cultural Cognition Project says, 'Because imparting basic comprehension of science in citizens is so critical to enlightened democracy, it is essential that we develop valid measures of it, so that we can assess and improve the profession of teaching science to people. ... The National Science Foundation has been engaged in the project of trying to formulate and promote such a measure for quite some time. A few years ago it came to the conclusion that the item "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," shouldn't be included when computing "science literacy." The reason was simple: the answer people give to this question doesn't measure their comprehension of science. People who score at or near the top on the remaining portions of the test aren't any more likely to get this item "correct" than those who do poorly on the remaining portions. What the NSF's evolution item does measure, researchers have concluded, is test takers' cultural identities, and in particular the centrality of religion in their lives.' Kahan also had a previous, related post on the interaction between religiosity and scientific literacy."
There is no "belief" for evolutionary principles. It is not a system of religious thought.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
But it sure measures the amount of faith people want to put into "a wizard did it" as a valid explanation of something.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
While Dan has certainly taken pains to show the many correlations between one subset and another, I think the most important one to consider is this:
Those who firmly believe that a "God" was involved in the universe/mankind, were less likely to score at the upper tier of scientific knowledge. Everyone else drew mixed results.
I also like this quote here:
Nevertheless, the subgroup of such students who did back away from two particular beliefs hostile to naturalistic evolution (that the “living world is controlled by a force greater than humans” and that “all events in nature occur as part of a predetermined master plan”) consisted of the students who scored the lowest in critical reasoning skills.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
What is embarrassing, though, is for those who don't understand something to claim that their "belief" in it demonstrates that they have a greater comprehension of science than someone who says he or she "doesn't" believe it.
I've witnessed and do witness over and over. Whether it's about evolution, dark matter, global warming, etc. It's just a basic fallacy of human nature. I know something you don't (even though I'm not privy to a complete understanding of how it works) therefore I must be smarter than you and you must be dumb... but don't you dare challenge me any questions on it because I will get super pissed. Kind of the applied definition of "ignorance" in action.
Or in other words, believing in science others have painstakingly proven for you is not an automatic cure for ignorance. When you put it that way, it's common sense isn't it?
Literally or figuratively. The only way they can't work together is if you believe the Bible is a literal document. If you have any basic ability to read literature as symbolism you can easily see the creationist story as a story of evolution. If you believe everything happened in six literal 24 hour days not so much so.
Again society is pitted against literalists with no imagination and those that can think beyond the rigid parallel lines. It's always the same thing.
A scientific theory ties together a broad range of observations into a coherent model and makes testable predictions, that have since been tested and found to be accurate. It's still called the germ theory of disease, after all. Or the theory of Relativity, which you use every time you use a GPS. Without Relativistic corrections, the whole system would drift to the point of uselessness within six hours.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Indeed
Science doesn't disprove "Creation" although scientific evidence does suggest that the event of Creation was 13 and a bit billion years ago.
And the fossil evidence suggests that life on this planet has evolved over the last couple of billion years or so.
But both of those facts are contrary to the words of Genesis. So many Bible literalists refuse to acknowledge the facts.
Its easy enough to prove that the universe was around for way longer than 6,000 to 10,000 years, just look at other galaxies that are millions of light years away.
Short of actually being able to understand and verify every single piece of data that has gone into proving it - like it or not you take it on faith. Faith is a measure of trust in your sources in the same way that people respond differently to news from different outlets. I can walk outside and prove gravity. I cannot do the same with evolution.
The basic fact of most information we receive on a daily basis is that we trust it until we have a reason to question it. Evolution has zero effect on the daily lives of anybody outside of investigative curiosity. If somebody has their life changed by God (and it happens all the time) they'll spend a huge part of the rest of their lives searching for answers and understanding...and that will give them cause to question evolution because the Bible makes a tremendous amount more sense when reading it AFTER something like that happens to you. If you're not the slightest bit religious, you have no reason not to simply accept it because it doesn't affect you at all. Plus you can use it as a cognitive tool to reinforce your belief that religious people are all simply dumber than you because they don't fully agree with something that you claim to know as a fact, even though you're simply trusting your sources.
I generally don't bother arguing the point because people don't accept information that contradicts their world view and being able to verifiably prove something from that perspective from one side or the other won't have any affect on the lives of...anyone. It's just something useless to argue about. Getting into "arguments" where nobody is going to change anyones mind and you believe you are correct serves no other purpose than to boost your own ego.
Try to wrap your mind around this and see it from another perspective. If you KNOW God is very real (not believe; God has directly impacted your life in a tangible way...you KNOW) then come at the question from that side. If you know God is real your entire perspective on the Bible and everything in it changes specifically because any questions you may be able to have about it to try to cast doubt on its text go out the window...because ultimately you know the most important part of it is very real and that changes your entire perspective on it.
One of my favorite quotes:
"The test of first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Many people like to assume that people just go sit in a service or read a book and are magically convinced to believe. That's naive. There is also this idea that people lack the critical thinking to question it. That's also naive since those questions are the first thing that everybody asks. It takes a lot of ego to assume every single person in those pews hasn't questioned it, strongly. Especially the ones who donate huge sums of money to it.
The reality is that life change happens much more often than most people would like to admit and hearing enough people you know give testimony about that life change creates trust in the information, even if it has not happened to you personally yet. This is buoyed by the fact that those people are telling you this because they want you to be able to receive the same help that they did. There is no financial motive. There is no other incentive than sharing their experience of something they didn't previously believe which they now feel obligated to express for the betterment of those around them.
Writing those people off, however, takes a tremendous amount of hubris. I never take any issue with a person who has questions. I only take issue with people who think they have all the answers.
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
I don’t think you’ve got your definition of “believing” quite right - there’s no reason to require “belief” to be unsubstantiated. In fact we very often hear scientists say things like “I believe that [x], and here’s why”. To “believe” just means to hold something to be true.
In fact, philosophers have long defined “knowledge” as “justified true belief”. There’s lots of variations on that theme, and arguing about whether that’s a right definition - but the argument is not about the “belief” part as much as the “justified” and “true" parts.
So, it is in fact incorrect to say that science eliminates the need for believing - what it does, however, is provide reasons or justification for our beliefs.
What this says is people will accept science except where they feel it contradicts with their beliefs.
Gravity - ok
Electricity - ok
Evolution - nope
I think this says it all. Even with the one nope they have proven themselves not to be scientifically literate. They have proven that they have a rational space that cannot be challenged by science. No matter how rational you might otherwise be if there is a think-space where you refuse to be rational you are at root irrational.
BTW, I couldn't let this one go. It's not just 'a large number'. It's the same DNA code across all organisms we know of. There are a couple of exceptions - but they edit the code back to the 'standard' one before the proteins are transcribed.
And the pattern of 'common DNA' confirms common descent to a ridonkulous degree.
Books used to be copied by scribes, and (despite a lot of care) sometimes typos would be introduced. Later scribes, making copies of copies, would introduce other typos. It's possible to look at the existing copies and put them into a 'family tree'. "These copies have this typo, but not that one; this other group has yet another typo, though three of them have a newer typo as well, not seen elsewhere..." This is not controversial at all when dealing with books, including the Bible.
Now, this process of copy-with-modification naturally produces 'family trees', nested groups. When we look at life, we find such nested groups. No lizards with fur or nipples, no mammals with feathers, etc. Living things (at least, multicellular ones, see below) fit into a grouped hierarchy. This has been solidly recognized for over a thousand years, and systematized for centuries. It was one of the clues that led Darwin to propose evolution. (Little-known fact: Linnaeus, who invented the "kingdom, phyla, genus, species, etc." classification scheme for living things, tried to do the same thing for minerals. But minerals don't form from copy-with-modification, and a 'nested hierarchy' just didn't work and never caught on.)
Today, more than a century later, we find another tree, one Darwin never suspected - that of DNA. This really is a 'text' being copied with rare typos. And, as expected, it also forms a family tree, a nested hierarchy. And, with very very few surprises, it's the same tree that was derived from looking at physical traits.
It didn't have to be that way. Even very critical genes for life - like that of cytochrome C - have a few neutral variations, minor mutations that don't affect its function. (Genetic sequences for cytochrome C differ by up to 60% across species.) Wheat engineered to use the mouse form of cytochrome C grows just fine. But we find a tree of mutations that fits evolution precisely, instead of some other tree. (Imagine if a tree derived from bookbinding technology - "this guy used this kind of glue, but this other bookbinder used a different glue..." - conflicted with a tree that was derived from typos in the text of the books. We'd know at least one tree and maybe both were wrong.)
The details of these trees are very specific and very, very numerous. There are billions of quadrillions of possible trees... and yet the two that we see (DNA and morphology) happen to very precisely match. This is either a staggering coincidence, or a Creator deliberately arranged it in a misleading manner, or... universal common ancestry is actually true.
(Single-celled organisms are much more 'promiscuous' in their reproduction and spread genes willy-nilly without respect for straightforward inheritance. With single-celled creatures, it looks more like a 'web' of life than a 'tree'. But even if the tree of life has tangled roots, it's still very definitely a tree when it comes to multicellular life. Which is the area that people opposed to evolution most worry about anyway.)
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Let's call it "Big B Belief" for taking things on faith, and "little b belief" for positing that something is true.
Dark Reflection
The theory of evolution interprets this observed phenomenon and posits the completely unobserved transition between kinds of animal.
"posits the completely unobserved transition between kinds of animal"
Well, no, there's no transition between "kinds of animal" really. I suppose you could say such transitions happened when different "kingdoms of life" appeared (we really have no clue how exactly that went down, just wild speculation), but not between animals. Or to put it another way, cat will not have evolutionary transition to a dog, just to a different cat. From this follows, humans, cats and dogs are just different tetrapods. Earlier tetrapods had "transitions" to cats (still tetrapod), dogs (still tetrapod) and humans (also still tetrapods).
To repeat, there is no transition between "kinds of animal" in the theory of evolution. And rest of your post kinda falls apart from this simple misunderstanding.
easy there...you're cutting off your nose to spite your face
we don't need to exaggerate scientific claims to counter arguments, ever...
"belief" is too complex of a human action to describe with scientific level certainty, so the notion is useless to this discussion...people "believe" things strongly yet directly contradict their beliefs with action depending on the situation...the word is not fit for comparison
no one has "observed" evolution in the same way we observe a snake molting or a comet
it's just a fact...that doesn't mean, at all, that evolution isn't scientific
just because people who don't understand science misuse it, doesn't mean that you have to abuse science equally to counter them!
science is not inherently anti- anything...it's pro-active...its a formal method for observing the world...that's plenty
Thank you Dave Raggett
yeah...see your comment is the problem
by your definition, watching a lab tech fertilizes a human egg with sperm in a dish is the same as watching two people fsk
in another context (not evolution) your description of what constitutes "direct observation" is not proper for comparison
you're exaggerating and you ***DONT NEED TO***
it's like you're padding your resume for a job where you're the only applicant
also, the condescending tone is alienating..."just go to your local university...fruit flies!...direct observation....**smiles**..."
give me a fsking break kellymcdonald
this is why creationists exist...you exaggerate and over-explain which gives the creationist book authors grist for their mill
for the record, a laboratory experiment where fruit flies DNA is mutated causing different traits does not "prove" something as complex and time-spanning as evolution, and what you described *is not* direct observation of "evolution"...
Thank you Dave Raggett
For the record, my ancestors killed him a couple millennia ago. Trust me, when we kill 'em they stay dead.
Now, back to the main point - evolution is a theory, like Einstein's theory of general relativity. It's not a fact like "two plus two equals four", it's a theory. It has been tested in laboratory experiments with lower life forms and appears to have produced accurate predictions. It explains observed phenomena well and has not been contradicted by any documented observations to date. It is not accepted as scientific fact. It remains a theory.
And . . . I do believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. That theory most certainly exists. I happen to believe that it is a correct theory which explains the state of life on our planet.
Why does your faith in G*d preclude accepting Darwin's theory of evolution as valid? Genesis tells us what G*d did, not how she did it.
Various Christian denominations and churches accept evolution, accept cosmology, accept genetics, ...
Hell the Big Bang Theory was introduced by a Catholic Priest while teaching at a Catholic University.
I do realise this is incredibly unlikely but was trying to make the point that there's no reason a species can not become a different species.
Species evolving into new species is not incredibly unlikely, it's basically inevitable. A species evolving into another *existing* species, like some population of cats evolving to become dogs (able to breed with other dogs) genetically, that's much less likely than "incredibly unlikely", it's so unlikely it's indistinguishable from impossible.
No. As you so eloquently explain with your gravity example, a law is not an observation. It is a conclusion based on a fact.
The fact of gravity is that two objects will exert an attractive force on one another. This is the observation. From this is generalized the law of gravity, which is a generalization based on the observation. Thus, the law is not the fact. It is the generalization from the fact.
Evolution is observed. It happens, whether we believe in it or not. That is the underlying fact. The fact of evolution. From that we create models and explanations, which are the theories.
I sincerely recommend a few basic courses in biology. None of this will appear as mysterious to you then.
That's not "my agenda", your 2) meaning is called "faith".
Ezekiel 23:20