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.

Comments

Still bad

[slashping]

The 75% number about elephants is still shockingly bad.

Re:Still bad

[amicusNYCL]

Elephants might be too "exotic", I think that number would probably be higher if they used dogs instead.

Re:Still bad

[physicsphairy]

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.

Re:Still bad

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:Still bad

[tburkhol]

The proper percentage should be at least 99%, but I'll settle for 99% among members of the government, and 90% for the public.

Imagine sitting at dinner, and some person from Pew Research calls up to ask, "What color is the sky?" Do you really believe than 99% of people will give the right answer? I'd be surprised if fewer than 25% of people said "Red. Goodnight."

Re:Still bad

[CreatureComfort]

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

Re:Still bad

[kbg]

And that shows that by the very simple process of letting those with a favorible trait live and terminating those with unfavorible traits you can create a radically different animal in a very small time span. Now Imagine what you could do if you had a 4 billions years.

Re:Still bad

[youngone]

Those questions are not 'science" questions at all, they're just the basic knowledge everyone should have about the world around them.

The reason there's a huge change in numbers between the elephant evolution question and the human evolution question is because weirdo Protestant Christians (in the US anyway) are told that humans are not animals, but are somehow special, so when they're asked about evolution, of course they answer that humans have not evolved.

Elephants are animals however, so the mental gymnastics they have to do to fit the Bible into science gets them all confused.

Re:Still bad

[dbIII]

That's kind of funny since the refusal to accept that humans evolved is about sticking to Dogma designed to keep evangelicals in The Party.
Other branches of Christianity that do not rely on a God that does what he is told to do are not threatened by talk of evolution.

If talk of reality is a danger to your God then it is indeed a puny God.

Re:Still bad

[Cro Magnon]

Around here, the correct answer is usually "Grey".

Religion is poison

[roman_mir]

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.

Re:Religion is poison

[OzPeter]

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.

Re:Religion is poison

[ranton]

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.

Re:Religion is poison

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

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

Re:Religion is poison

[roman_mir]

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.

Re:Religion is poison

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling? That guy is just saying what many think, especially in the scientific community or with higher education levels.

Re:Religion is poison

[ranton]

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.

Re:Religion is poison

[ceoyoyo]

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.

Re:Religion is poison

[Billly Gates]

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 :-)

Re:Religion is poison

[OzPeter]

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?

Re:Religion is poison

[ranton]

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)

Re:Religion is poison

[slashping]

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.

Re:Religion is poison

[ranton]

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.

The counter-example I am referring to was made by OzPeter (you), not the original post. The original post did not use any examples to prove his point, he just rambled. He also wasn't countering anything, since he wasn't really arguing with the article. You were the one that brought up specific examples of religions groups that believe in evolution in an attempt to counter roman_mir's ramblings, so I thought it was pretty obvious who I was talking about.

While I agree with you that the original post was overly negative towards religion, I still believe your original comment was nothing but a strawman that does not refute the original post's argument. Your most recent comment does attack roman_mir's original post in a much fairer way (which is not difficult since his whole post was just incisive rambling).

Re:Religion is poison

[Bartles]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the most brilliant scientists the world has ever seen would disagree with you.

Re:Religion is poison

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Re:Religion is poison

[mythosaz]

I'm an atheist, complete with my COFSM and ULC ordinations.

There are things in this world that I don't understand, and while most certainly any "vibe" I get on something is probably the result of chemicals in my brain responding to some brain-stem trigger I'm not consciously aware of, I think a monosyllabic word that says, "I feel something I can't explain, and I'm going to act on it" isn't a problem.

I don't have answers for why we smile and laugh either. It doesn't make me believe in God (yours, his, or anyone else's), but I'm free to ponder if there's meaning to all this, and I'm free to believe in the ULC's "do good" despite it not always being in my direct best interests.

Re:Religion is poison

[Grunschev]

Don't be an idiot. Can you name a single element of "atheist philosophy" (whatever that is) that supports anybody's murder?

I'm guessing you include Hitler and Stalin as murderers of record numbers of people. And murderers they are. However, they were not atheists.

Hitler said this: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Although Hitler did not practice religion in a churchly sense, he certainly believed in the Bible's God. Raised as Catholic he went to a monastery school. He also had all his soldiers wear belt buckles that said "Gott mit uns". That means "God is with US".

To claim that Stalin was an atheist is overly simplistic. As the de facto ruler of the USSR, he initiated many purges. Many clergy were killed and this is often cited as Stalin's anti-christian mark. However, he did not simply remove clergy, he replaced them. He established a new national church of Russia, which of course answered to him. He considered the church very important to extending control from Moscow to the satellite nations. Stalin's church was called the Russian Orthodox Church or The Moscow Patriarchate; and the suppressed church was called the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. They have a bitter history. Also, look to the resurgence of the church in the USSR during WWII.

You would be more correct by saying "Men with mustaches pretty much hold the record for murdering the most people."

Re:Religion is poison

[Falconhell]

Given religion requires belief without evidence, which they call a virtue, idiot seems a most appropriate term.
As Duck Dunn said, If the shit fits, wear it.

Re:Religion is poison

[labnet]

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...

Re: Religion is poison

[Billly Gates]

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.

Re:Religion is poison

[wisesifu]

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.

Re:Religion is poison

[shawn2772]

evolution science makes up a minuscule part of the sciences but seems to cause a reaction way out of proportion to its practical significance

Not disagreeing with the rest of your post, but evolution is definitely *not* a miniscule part of the sciences. David Deutsch makes a compelling argument that the same processes that underlie evolution are responsible for all observable knowledge creation -- including science itself. You should really read a more comprehensive treatment, because my attempt to summarize will certainly butcher it, but in a nutshell the idea is that all knowledge is created via processes of variation and selection. In the case of scientific thought, the process begins in the human mind, which comes up with various ideas for potential explanations and then subjects them to critical analysis, selecting against ideas that either don't fit observed facts or don't have elegance, explanatory reach or other useful qualities. After a hypothesis survives this internal gauntlet of selection pressure, it's exposed to criticism from other people, and from experimental testing. Scientific theories that are fit enough to survive go on to spread. Similar analysis shows that all memes behave similarly... as do all other forms of self-organizing knowledge which achieve "universality" (I won't even attempt to summarize the idea of universality).

Further, within the life sciences, evolution isn't a minor sub-topic, it pretty much drives everything. Effectively all our understanding of the physical structure and behavior of living creatures is understood within a framework of evolutionary ideas. Evolution is pervasive and incredibly powerful. It's arguably the single most powerful explanatory idea in all of science, and the most thoroughly validated.

Evolutionary ideas are also applied all over every other branch of science: psychology, behavioral science, computer science, economics... and even in physics and astrophysics. For an example of the application of evolutionary theory to astrophysics, consider cosmological descriptions of the formation of the universe, which postulate formation of many different constructs of energy/matter and analyze which we expect to survive and which will be annihilated, then compare the projected results of this variation-and-selection process against the observable universe.

Evolution isn't "miniscule". To a first approximation, evolution is science.

Perhaps what you meant to say is that the application of evolution to the creation of humans is a miniscule part of science, since that's the part that many religious people have a hard time with (personally, I don't see the problem. Why couldn't God use evolutionary processes? The great thing about variation-and-selection from a creator's perspective is it provides lots of ways to tweak outcomes). I suppose that is a miniscule part of science because the origin of humanity is a miniscule part of science.

I actually find it somewhat odd that so many people get hung up on the conflict between evolutionary speciation and religion, and not on cosmology and religion. The big bang seems much tougher to reconcile with Biblical creation.

Re:Religion is poison

[Pluvius]

(for what it's worth, I would personally call religion a helpful drug with very bad side effects, not a poison)

"All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison." --Paracelsus

Rob

Re:Religion is poison

[alexhs]

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.

That's because atheism is not a religion. If you cared, I'm sure you would find no lack of secular associations doing that.
As an example, in France, we have Les Restaurants du Coeur.

Re:Religion is poison

[ArmoredDragon]

There's a difference between 'religious' and 'spiritual'. ....

Likewise, there's a huge difference between 'a belief' and 'a religious belief'.

However everything you mention ultimately requires having nothing more than "faith" in that particular belief, making it ultimately religious in nature. Just because it isn't written in a book (i.e. a bible) or you don't go to church doesn't make it any less so.

Re:Religion is poison

[cbhacking]

Now that many of the Christian faiths have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into something vaguely resembling modern understandings of the natural (i.e. real) world... we are now supposed to treat Christianity as though it is not an impairment on the rationality of the world? It will not take long until the next example of a scientific truth that offends religious sensibilities starts the whole thing over again. In the meantime, there are plenty of other things which are not technically evolution but are certainly science, which substantial parts of Christianity still reject. Geology, paleontology, anthropology, and astronomy all conflict with young-Earth creationism, for example, which is certainly still a (troublingly-widespread) part of many peoples' Christianity.

Also, the fact that you think evolution is such a "miniscule" thing speaks volumes about your ignorance of the wider fields of science. Evolution influences everything from epidemiology to sociology. If you reject evolution you will have a much harder time coming to the correct conclusions in a huge range of both theoretical and practical sciences. It's not of much use in software development or semiconductor design, but there is far more to the world than that.

Large swathes of modern Christianity still teaches that gays are evil, than atheists are evil (if you think that your belief in a divine moral code is the only thing that makes you moral - an argument I've heard from quite a few Christians - then that says far worse things about your morality than about mine), that Wiccans are evil, that contraception is evil, that sexual promiscuity is evil, that divorce is always wrong, that men have divinely-granted authority over women, and many other ills of society.

Just because evolution is the current major battleground in the centuries-long war of Christianity vs. scientific truth does not mean that Christianity is not still responsible for many other harmful lies in society today. You may personally disagree with many of them, but they are an undeniable part of Christianity. There is much to hate in Christianity.

There is no need for a "society of atheists" to run anything; atheism isn't even a religion, much less an organized religion. Nonetheless, many charities are fun by non-religious people. The most effective charities, in terms of lives saved or improved per dollar donated, are largely run by non-religious people; I would go so far as to say that a refusal to let their beliefs and emotional desires interfere with the evidence of what actually works is part of why they are so effective. Some of the largest organizations that could arguably be called charitable - the democratic socialist governments of much of western Europe, which provide a far better standard of food and medical care than all of your soup kitchens and free surgery ships - are largely controlled by the non-religious.

Re:Religion is poison

[Thanshin]

I find your argument that religion and all spirituality etc is a poison of the mind to be factually inaccurate, given the scientific although circumstantial evidence that people with religion tend to be healthier, happier, live longer, etc than people without religion.

What if imbeciles "tend to be healthier, happier, live longer, etc"?

Would you still rather live a long stupid life?

Re:Religion is poison

[Megol]

Don't be an idiot. Can you name a single element of "atheist philosophy" (whatever that is) that supports anybody's murder?

I'm guessing you include Hitler and Stalin as murderers of record numbers of people. And murderers they are. However, they were not atheists.

Hitler said this: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Although Hitler did not practice religion in a churchly sense, he certainly believed in the Bible's God.

There are many proofs that he didn't believe in the Bible, that he didn't like Christianity etc. When he talked in spiritual and religious terms it wasn't the Christian nor the Abrahamic God that was referred to - it was a more basic representation of nature and (even though he was not a believer) the idea of Germany, nature and blood from esoteric sects that had been influential in the creation of National socialism. He didn't believe in following any rules nor in a judgement of ones actions - something integral to Abrahamic religions.

Hint: don't read popular literature that tries to prove something specific if you want to learn - go to the source.

Raised as Catholic he went to a monastery school. He also had all his soldiers wear belt buckles that said "Gott mit uns". That means "God is with US".

So even before he got power (or was even born) he could magically influence the design of belt buckles? Hint: the phrase have a long history and was e.g. used also in WW I, http://gottmituns.net/about-2/ .

But even IF it was Hitler that had made the decision to use the phrase it wouldn't be relevant.

To claim that Stalin was an atheist is overly simplistic. As the de facto ruler of the USSR, he initiated many purges. Many clergy were killed and this is often cited as Stalin's anti-christian mark. However, he did not simply remove clergy, he replaced them. He established a new national church of Russia, which of course answered to him. He considered the church very important to extending control from Moscow to the satellite nations. Stalin's church was called the Russian Orthodox Church or The Moscow Patriarchate; and the suppressed church was called the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. They have a bitter history. Also, look to the resurgence of the church in the USSR during WWII.

And that means what? If you answer is "nothing" you'd be correct. Religion and its use by rulers that didn't believe it well know throughout history.

You would be more correct by saying "Men with mustaches pretty much hold the record for murdering the most people."

Bullshit.

Re:Religion is poison

[DarkTempes]

Scientific "faith" is generally "I believe this is true until further evidence suggests otherwise." I see this as a rational response.

Religious "faith" is generally "I believe this is true despite evidence suggesting otherwise." I see this as an emotional response.

It really has nothing to do with you, personally, being able to do studies to verify claims and the comparison doesn't hold up with regards to critical thinking.

Critical thinking is the antithesis of most forms of organized religion because they are largely not compatible with change. If you think critically about most religions you'll find holes all over the place and they actively teach you not to do that.

This not really true of science. Even the most well-established theories, laws, have holes that leave doubts that scientists are always trying to figure out better theories for (see: pretty much any Feynman lecture and all of history.)
Sure, some theories might be disparaged due to lack of evidence but they're still considered and even accepted when compelling evidence does appear.

And there are credible authorities and charlatans. Priests are obvious, if well meaning, charlatans -- much the same way that a four year old who believes there is a monster under the bed is honestly afraid but obviously delusional.

To group all authorities into the same untrustworthy group would be a meaningless comparison and madness (or clinical paranoia.)

I really don't see how anyone can, in good faith, compare the authenticity of scientific theories to obvious collections of made up stories and cultural taboos from ancient man.

Re:Religion is poison

[ceoyoyo]

I don't think that's true. The formal religion we have in the west is usually very watered down, yes, but even that can still have an enormous impact on public policy. In the US, policies regarding things like stem cell research and abortion are affected by a strong religious lobby. Then there are the indirect effects of being indoctrinated in magical thinking. You only have to watch Oprah or on of the TV physician shows to see how people will believe anybody who comes along with a white smile and a good story. Or mention the word "socialism" to an American.

Yes, lots of decent scientists will say they believe in a god. It's certainly possible to do good science and be religious. The problem is, as another poster pointed out, it introduces enormous blind spots into your thinking. For individual scientists in the world today that's not so much of a problem, because someone else will come along and do the work they can't or won't because of their religious convictions. The problem is when the public, who are the arbiters of what science gets done and how scientific knowledge is used, has group level blind spots, either directly due to religion or indirectly due to being used to blind belief.

Re:Religion is poison

[ceoyoyo]

You're right, that's an unpopular opinion among people who don't profess faith in a magic being. The reason is that it's nonsense. It's perfectly possible to seek knowledge, appreciate beauty and "search for the exceptional in the mundane" without attributing it all to a magic father figure.

The claim is as ridiculous as religious people's claim that without religious belief there is no morality. Read the bible sometime. Nobody who wouldn't be called a psychopath in today's world would hold up the bible as a moral source unless they a) hadn't read it or b) were blinded by faith.

Re:Religion is poison

[david_thornley]

You don't know much about Catholics and science, do you? Heck, do any Catholic friars believe in the literal truth of the Bible? That's more a fundamentalist Protestant thing.

Re:"Belief" in Evolution required for Gravity Wave

[slashping]

politically-correct "belief" in evolution

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

Re:"Belief" in Evolution required for Gravity Wave

[Travis Mansbridge]

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

It matters?

[Kohath]

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?

Re:It matters?

[slashping]

It matters for making better informed choices about antibiotics, vaccinations, stem cell research, and various other topics.

Re:It matters?

[slashping]

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.

Re:It matters?

[Kohath]

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

Do they? It's not clear why you think so. Is your preference for other people's choices more important than their preference for your choices?

What's stopping you from just minding your own business and coexisting peacefully with your neighbors who may or may not be as "informed" as you'd prefer? If you'd rather divide people and fight it out with them, you might want to explain why so other people can make an "informed" judgment about your motives.

Re:It matters?

[Passman]

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.

Re:It matters?

[slashping]

people trying to widen tribal divisions were able to gain some power for themselves

I don't care about the tribal division. I care about my tribe.

But evolution has little (if any) relevance to stem cell research.

Not directly, but people who understand evolution are much more likely to support stem cell research, because they can work without the guilt of messing with God's creation.

Re:It matters?

[OzoneLad]

Not directly, but people who understand evolution are much more likely to support stem cell research, because they can work without the guilt of messing with God's creation.

People who don't want us messing with God's Creation (TM) should put their money where their mouth is and destroy all their dogs. After all, we made them by messing with God's Creation (TM), didn't we?

Can you *know* something you don't even believe?

[Dr. Spork]

The blurb - actually a paragraph plagiarized verbatim from Science magazine, tsk - suggests that disbelief does not entail lack of knowledge. Can that be? Among epistemologists the near-consensus is that belief is one of the necessary ingredients of knowledge. I'd be curious how we are supposed to understand knowledge coupled with disbelief of the thing that's allegedly known.

this is meant to be good?

[Cederic]

Willful ignorance is far worse than simple ignorance.

Re:Trick Question?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

There are some humans even that can't breed with each other.

Hey, leave us Slashdotters out of this!

Re:Obvious

[amicusNYCL]

It is obvious to anyone that elephants evolved form wooly mammoths

It might be obvious, but it's wrong. They both have a common ancestor, one did not evolve from the other. The same thing goes for humans and other extant apes.

Re:Can you *know* something you don't even believe

[slashping]

You can have knowledge of something you don't believe.

Re:"Belief" in Evolution required for Gravity Wave

[ranton]

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.

Re:just being honest

[Obfuscant]

And for various reasons, Americans trust government experts less than Europeans.

It's a tough choice to generalize here. I know some government officials I trust, some I don't. I know some Europeans I trust, some I don't. Maybe the percentage of the trustworthy Euros is a bit higher...

But then, what if some of the Europeans I know are government officials? Do I trust them or not?

Parrots

[jklovanc]

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.

Re:Don't care

[Passman]

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...

Re:"Belief" in Evolution required for Gravity Wave

[DoctorNathaniel]

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.

Doublethink

[Noughmad]

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.

Karl Marx

[PinkyGigglebrain]

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".
Karl Marx

Re:Can you *know* something you don't even believe

[smellsofbikes]

Among epistemologists the near-consensus is that belief is one of the necessary ingredients of knowledge.

Cite? I know lots of things I don't believe in. For example, I have quite a lot of knowledge about how magic works in various fictional systems. I find it much more likely that you're mischaracterizing the belief/knowledge of epistemologists than that they're really that stupid.

I feel the same way you do, but:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entr...
"There are three components to the traditional (“tripartite”) analysis of knowledge. According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge.

The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p iff

p is true;
S believes that p;
S is justified in believing that p.
The tripartite analysis of knowledge is often abbreviated as the “JTB” analysis, for “justified true belief”."

certainly reinforces at least a classical view that epidemiology claims belief is necessary for knowledge (with the proviso that there are modern theories of knowledge that disagree.)
The kicker seems to be in the use of the word 'justified', which I think I'd characterize as a weasel word on Wikipedia.

Re:Can you *know* something you don't even believe

[Sibko]

suggests that disbelief does not entail lack of knowledge. Can that be?

It's pretty easy to see how it works in this case:
Elephants evolved, but humans didn't because humans are special.

These people don't seem to disbelieve evolution, they largely seem to disbelieve that humans evolved.

Re:"Belief" in Evolution required for Gravity Wave

[OzoneLad]

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.

Incompetent Evolutionary Teaching

[billstewart]

40 years? You're trying to blame your parents, or your high school teachers, or what?
First of all, we've had a reasonable amount of wide evolutionary belief since the 1870s, Mendel's work was rediscovered around 1900, the Scopes Monkey Trial was in 1925 (because evolution was sufficiently widely known to be a threat to some people's social position), DNA in the 1950s.

The real problem has been how badly many people were taught about it. Not only was there the whole Social Darwinism thing and the Eugenics movement, using misunderstood and misrepresented "evolutionary" ideas to justify discriminating against and mistreating other people, there was the positively-intended fluffy belief that evolution was somehow about "progress", and evolving meant we were "improving" every day, or every generation, or certainly "scientifically" better than previous species.

How often do you hear people today talk about humans evolving into even more advanced species, or talking about how people they disapprove of needing to evolve? That's why people like Sarah Palin can ask "Why are there still monkeys?" That usual picture of the monkey evolving into the ape, then the Neanderthal, then the Cro-Magnon, then modern humans, each one standing taller and moving ever forward? It should be a picture of a whole bunch of monkeys and apes and hominids running around in various directions from each other.

Re:why learn about a theory with holes in it?

[cbhacking]

Your absurd lack of understanding about biology - and the fact that you obviously haven't put much effort into trying to understand it - is a fine example of the very point you are attempting to argue against. Thank you for demonstrating so clearly the danger of thinking you have the answer, rather than actually studying the topic in question and continuing to research it until your theory lets you make predictions consistent with future findings.

A small sampling of the ways in which you are completely wrong:
1) Mutations can be passed down from either parent; it is not necessary that the other parent have some "compatible" mutation.
2) Mutations do not need to be related to the sex chromosomes in order to be passed along, they merely need to be present in the DNA of the gametes.
3) Speciation (that is, one or more mutations which make a creature reproductively incompatible with its population of origin) does not need to occur in one generation; it's entirely possible for an intermediate species to be compatible with two species that are not compatible with each other, and that intermediate species often die out some time after breeding populations of the divergent (and better-adapted) species have become established.

For somebody who doesn't appear to even understand the most basic concepts of Mandelian inheritance, you sure seem to *think* you know a lot about evolution, though. Perhaps your science teachers and/or classroom materials were selected more for ideological compliance than for accurate scientific knowledge?

Re:Religion was instrumental in Civilization

[houghi]

If God is the only reason to re-enforce the concept of Good and Evil, then there is something seriously wrong with God or with the person or both.

There are plenty of people who are able to see the difference between good and evil, without the need of a God or Gods. There are studies that show why we like babies (in general) or puppies. The result has more to do with DNA and evolution than with religion.

When we see how much evil is done 5while the people doing it thought it was good) by people who are religious over the centuries in all the different religions, you must assume that the concept of Good and Evil trough religion does not work.

Correlation is not causation.

Bigotery

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

"You would be more correct by saying "Men with mustaches pretty much hold the record for murdering the most people."

That would make you "un bigote" (Spanish word for mustache)!

Re:Two kinds of faith

[david_thornley]

Science as perceived by some people may have almost religious faith. Science as practiced by scientists doesn't, although there may well be some spiritual appreciation. It's not more difficult to do climate science than biology, despite the relative political impact. Really, if someone brought in evidence against AGW, a lot of climate scientists would be fascinated. We're not likely to get that any time soon, since the evidence points very, very strongly to the conclusion that the Earth's atmosphere is warming due to human activity. Science isn't perfect, but it is a search for truth (in some sense of the word).