Slashdot Mirror


Americans' Evolution Knowledge Isn't That Bad, If You Ask About Elephants (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit writes: In 2014, a poll showed that just 49% of Americans agreed with the statement: "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." But it's difficult to tell whether those numbers measure ignorance about science, because belief in human evolution is closely tied to religious belief, especially in the United States. Yesterday, researchers at the annual meeting of AAAS, previewed data from a recent poll showing that when the word "human" is replaced with "elephant" in the evolution question, 75% of Americans agree — about 25 percentage points higher than before. Plus, the new elephant question does a better job of predicting general science knowledge than the human question, especially among those who say they don't believe in evolution. So it seems that America's dismal performance on past evolution polls can be blamed at least partially on this disbelief, rather than a lack of knowledge.

25 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. Still bad by slashping · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 75% number about elephants is still shockingly bad.

    1. Re: Still bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      "a large population of non-STEM individuals who, received their science education (if any) 40 years ago"

      Copernicus gave them 450 years to get used to the earth going round the sun thing but I guess some people are slow learners.

    2. Re:Still bad by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What result are we striving for? And, most importantly, how will achieving that result affect our scientific output?

      It's not just about scientific output; it's also about the ability to act usefully based on the science.

      As an obvious example, far too many decisions in government get their public support from rhetoric, short term greed, or fear. Far too few get supported by the public based on evidence and critical thinking. This can and does lead to objectively harmful actions becoming official policy.

      The chilling part of the problem is that it's also a vicious circle. When few in power even understand basic STEM issues themselves, and government is responsible for areas like education and a lot of large-scale funding, you risk a creeping decline in education and awareness that in turn makes other problems worse.

      This seems to be a particularly unfortunate situation in the US today, because its sheer scale and willingness to deploy its military power mean it's unrealistic for the rest of the world to challenge it effectively on issues like, say, wasteful use of natural resources or excessive use of antibiotics, where the consequences can go far beyond the national borders even if the accountability does not.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:Still bad by CreatureComfort · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With the popularity of the Jurassic Park franchise, you could probably substitute 'birds' and get a response in the high 90's.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
  2. Religion is poison by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Religion is poison for the mind, it is arsenic, meth, cocaine and cyanide of the mind, it is the murderer of intelligence, destroyer of sound logic and of critical thought.

    Of-course people are free to believe whatever they want to believe, but I think it is fair to treat all religions and supernatural belief systems, so called 'spirituality' as toxins that destroy thinking abilities in ways that may be even worse than simple narcotics.

    1. Re:Religion is poison by OzPeter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but I think it is fair to treat all religions and supernatural belief systems, so called 'spirituality' as toxins that destroy thinking abilities in ways that may be even worse than simple narcotics.

      You do know that many proponents of different religions actually accept evolution don't you? Acceptance of evolution by religious groups.

      Your gross generalization is more indicative of the poisoning of your own mind than of anything else.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Religion is poison by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but I think it is fair to treat all religions and supernatural belief systems, so called 'spirituality' as toxins that destroy thinking abilities in ways that may be even worse than simple narcotics.

      You do know that many proponents of different religions actually accept evolution don't you? Acceptance of evolution by religious groups.

      Your gross generalization is more indicative of the poisoning of your own mind than of anything else.

      While I don't agree with the original post, you do realize he never said religion is poison solely because of the rejection of evolution by many religious people, don't you? Your gross mis-characterization of his statements put you in a poor position to criticize his argument. He was referring to just one instance of what he feels is religion poisoning minds, not the only instance.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    3. Re:Religion is poison by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You think that's trolling but a lot of us share that point of view.

    4. Re:Religion is poison by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The working of your mind isn't gauged by acceptance or rejection of a single thing. There are plenty of people who "accept evolution" who don't think very well.

      Abrahamic religions generally preach faith, which is the opposite of skepticism and pretty much anathema to any kind of serious scientific thinking. Most religions seem to share a penchant for elaborate stories used as explanation. Stories are nice, but a tendency to believe them without testing is intellectually lazy.

      The OP wasn't very tactful, but some features of religion really do seem to be poison for rational thinking and scientific progress.

    5. Re:Religion is poison by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is very very very hard to change your gut feelings and morals and values you learned as a child. Yes, as you become an adult you question more and develop individuality but cultural norms are still prevalent.

      To be taught science is opinion and opinion is fact and evolution is so incredible silly to believe in with so much overwhelming evidence of creation over and over and over, where fellow kids taunted those silly atheists who do believe messes with your minds even as an adult.

      Yes it is part of the southern US cultural to be in fear of science. Scientists are liberals after all which support civil rights and evolution and since it disagrees with some pastor then it must be from the heavons to oppose it etc.

      You can bring evidence and even the top biblical scholar Bart Ehrman (go youtube him) talks about it took 15 years leaving fundalemtalism even after seeing the bible contradict itself over and over and over with 400,000 variations from copying mistakes and doctrine. Tell an evangelical the book of John was not written by John but close to the 2nd century and the books of Titus and Timothy were forgories not written by Paul and their brains melt :-)

      You can't reason with these people. They have their own so called scientists who have proof carbon dating is a conspiracy. Mainly so there is not proof evolution can exist and also how the real biblical scholars are really wrong :-)

    6. Re:Religion is poison by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      His counter-example does nothing to show that religion was not responsible for people rejecting evolution.

      No, he just heavily implies it by stating that religion kills off critical thinking. With the assumption that critical thinking is the hallmark required of people in order to understand and accept things like evolution. In turn I pointed out that many religious people accept evolution, so his premise that religion kills critical thinking is wrong, Or are you going to argue that religious people accepting evolution are doing so by taking it on faith alone and screw the science?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    7. Re:Religion is poison by labnet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've never really understood the hate for Christianity.
      I'm a practicing christian who also runs a company that develops hi-tech products employing over 50 people. To say that my faith is a 'murderer of intelligence' is non sequitur. About the only area where faith and science clash is evolution, and evolution science makes up a minuscule part of the sciences but seems to cause a reaction way out of proportion to its practical significance.

      The modern christian church does a lot of good in society. I haven't seen many 'society of atheists' running soup kitchens, or micro finance banks, or free surgery ships, or child sponsorship programs, or crisis counseling centers, or refugee support programs.

      If you want a great summary of Christianity, read this.
      https://www.biblegateway.com/p...

      --
      46137
    8. Re: Religion is poison by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What about gay people? What about dangerous ideologies of a political party and people being brainwashed to vote against things like healthcare or deaths in wars?

      How is that good?

      Denying science is dangerous too. Preventing sex education is harmful.

    9. Re:Religion is poison by wisesifu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How can faith be tested by skepticism? Isn't faith the belief in something without proof?

      faith
      noun
      1.
      complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

      2.
      strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

      Even its definition counters your statement. It seems perhaps that you may be confused as to what faith is.

  3. Re:"Belief" in Evolution required for Gravity Wave by slashping · · Score: 4, Insightful

    politically-correct "belief" in evolution

    There's nothing political about it. Just cold hard science. And the same applies to global warming.

  4. Re:"Belief" in Evolution required for Gravity Wave by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because if you can't draw conclusions from evidence you're not going to be able to use science.

  5. this is meant to be good? by Cederic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Willful ignorance is far worse than simple ignorance.

  6. Re:It matters? by slashping · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Other people's choices are not your choices.

    Other people's choices affect my life and health, so I prefer that these are well informed.

  7. Re:"Belief" in Evolution required for Gravity Wave by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Second, of all, a vague profession of "belief" in Evolution* is being made into a nonsensical substitute for OMG IF YOU FAIL THIS TEST THEN YOU HAVE REJECTED ALL SCIENCE FOREVER.

    Riddle me this, please tell me how failure to profess the politically-correct "belief" in evolution means you can't do any of the following: 1. Design nanoscale materials. 2. Detect gravitational waves. 3. Successfully perform brain surgery. 4. Sucessfully launch a spacecraft.

    None one credible would claim religious belief prevents successful scientific research. Most significant scientific research up until perhaps 50-100 years ago was performed by religious people. The questions is whether this religious belief slows or prevents some scientific research that would have been successful if not for religion.

    Neil Degrasse Tyson gave an arguably perfect lecture describing the dangers of religious convictions affecting the scientific research. One of his best examples was of the scientist he respects the most: Isaac Newton. Even one of the greatest scientists of all time limited the scope of his research once he decided only God could describe the movement of celestial bodies.

    If celestial mechanics can be affected by the same religious belief that encourages the rejection of evolution, there are probably no fields of science that cannot be affected.

    Successfully perform brain surgery.

    I hope the success of a weak minded man like Ben Carson in the field of neurosurgery is enough to show that field has far more to do with hard work than it does with the kind of rational thought necessary for scientific research. Just because neurosurgeons are highly paid does not mean they should be confused with neuroscientists.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  8. Parrots by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The difference between the "humans" and the "elephants" answers shows that 50% of the "creationists" are just parroting the church's views when talking about humans but when they put their mind in gear, as in the "elephant" question, that actually believe in evolution.

  9. Re:It matters? by Passman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Polling data matters? How so? And why is it your business whether someone else makes "informed" choices or "uninformed" choices? Other people's choices are not your choices.

    If the people making "uninformed" choices are in power or can influence those in power, then they can prevent me from making my "informed" choice and leave my with no choice.

    That matters.

    --
    Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
  10. Re:Don't care by Passman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My belief is humans, were conceived in "God's image". That is my belief, you can believe it, not believe something else.

    And you can believe it, there's nothing wrong with that. Where it becomes dangerous is when you try to force that belief on others, when you add the word therefore

    We're conceived in God's image, therefore

    • * we don't need medicine, we can pray the cancer away...
    • * disposing of that fertilized egg, that will never become a person, is murder...
    --
    Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
  11. Re:"Belief" in Evolution required for Gravity Wave by DoctorNathaniel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right. You either accept evidence and rational thought as your foundation for how the universe really operates, or you are fundamentally in an inconsistent position.

    If you decide that evolution 'just doesn't make sense to you', and is therefore false, then you should probably say the same about quantum mechanics... and by extension, you should not believe in the operation of a transistor, and by extension not believe in your own cell phone

    Hypocrisy of this kind is very common, largely because people don't connect the dots.. but the dots are connected. To do otherwise is to be like a person who uses Galileo and Newton's theories about motion to predict where a cannonball will land, but denies heliocentrism.

  12. Doublethink by Noughmad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a textbook example of doublethink. Nobody actually believes that elephants have evolved over millions of years, but Adam was just put there. So apparently a quarter of people have an inconsistent belief system, or just two conflicting ones - let's say one from school and one from church - without realizing it. I'm sure if they were confronted with this, they would make some sort of excuses or explanations.

    --
    PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
  13. Re:"Belief" in Evolution required for Gravity Wave by OzoneLad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know, I would really like to believe this. However, many religious people just use religion to justify their bigotry and small-mindedness. See also: the entire Christian Right.