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.
If we don't want to be preachy religious types, and we don't want to be preachy Science! types, why would we talk about it at all? Besides being the newest, hipest way to try to divide otherwise happy people into warring tribes, what's the goal of polling people about evolution?
Also, is it good or evil to try to divide otherwise happy, peacefully coexisting people into warring tribes?
I see that your thinking abilities have been compromised already. I said religion is poison of the mind, it is a toxin, like botulism.
I didn't say that all religious people will under all circumstances deny evolution specifically.
You can't handle the truth.
So, in a story about a particular topic, pointing out that a respondents generalization is false by supplying a specific counter example on that same topic is now considered a "gross mis-characterization"?
Sorry. I am not interested in your news letter and don't want to subscribe to it
His counter-example does nothing to show that religion was not responsible for people rejecting evolution. All he does is show that the "religious poison" affects different people differently.
If you need an analogy to see the difference, lets say the article was about how diabetes can cause glaucoma. If the original post was claiming diabetes poisons the body, responding with statistics that not all diabetics suffer from glaucoma does nothing to counter his point.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
If you want to say it's shockingly bad, first establish what a proper percentage should be. It is apparently a similar result to other basic science questions in which Americans may out-perform other countries:
To the question "Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth," 26 percent of those surveyed [Americans] answered incorrectly. . . . Only 66 percent of people in a 2005 European Union poll answered the basic astronomy question correctly. However, both China and the EU fared significantly better (66 percent and 70 percent, respectively) on the question about human evolution.
-- NPR
What result should we expect when surveying a large population of non-STEM individuals who, received their science education (if any) 40 years ago under different standards and haven't looked back since, may not ever have achieved high school diploma, may not have the reasoning skills to understand abstract scientific theories, or may just be joshing with the pollster? What result are we striving for? And, most importantly, how will achieving that result affect our scientific output?
I am open to the idea that this represents a significant problem, but I have a suspicion that it is really not as big of an issue as people who live-and-breath science like to perceive. Some hard data on the externalities would be nice.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
bigotry, be it based on race, creed or color is the true poison. the most closed minded people I've ever met are atheists. the vile hate they spew is just as bad as anything spouted by anyone thumping a bible.
Thinking that religion poisons the mind of people is not bigotry Neither is saying Multiple Sclerosis poisons the mind. Saying that religious people are idiots is bigotry, but saying that religion is responsible for making people appear less intelligence is an attempt to not degrade the actual people suffering from religious belief. It is similar to how the NAACP would blame institutional poverty for problems plaguing minority groups, instead of blaming minorities. That is not bigotry, and neither is calling religion a disease of the mind.
(for what it's worth, I would personally call religion a helpful drug with very bad side effects, not a poison)
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Asking an Atheist to define Religion is about as fucking stupid as like asking a Blind Man to define Color.
It's more like asking a neuroscientist to define Alzheimer's.
> 4. I think it is fair to treat all Atheists as having ZERO knowledge about religions and supernatural belief systems
Atheists may actually have a _wider_ knowledge about religions (plural) and supernatural belief systems because they are not constrained by the single religion that they are involved with. The religious followers may also only know what the leaders of the religion want them to know rather than the history those leaders want to hide.
For example: how much do you know about Rastafarianism ? My grandfather was presented with a lion skin cape by Ras Tafari so I became interested enough to study how the religion developed from its Black Power origins created by the freeing of the slaves in British colonies. It seems to me that the creation of this religion follows a template that may have been used for many others in the long distant, or even recent, past.
As a Christian I have zero hate for Gay People, but I don't morally agree with their lifestyle. As a business person, I've employed gay people and it hasn't factored into whether they would be hired or not.
In regards to dangerous ideologies, can you give an example. Jesus' opinion was 'render under ceaser what is ceasars' and 'Pray for kings and all who are in authority so that we can live peaceful and quiet lives marked by godliness and dignity.' Not sure what is dangerous about that.
Healthcare? Jesus asked us to support widows and orphans.
Sex Ed. I have no problem with that as long as abstinence outside of marriage is taught as a valid and preferred lifestyle.
46137