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

[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.

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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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:"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.