New Study Shows One-Third of Americans Don't Believe In Evolution 1010
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Reuters reports that thirty-three percent of Americans reject the idea of evolution and believe that 'humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time' rather than evolving gradually through a process of natural selection, as described by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago. Although this percentage remained steady since 2009, the last time Pew asked the question, there was a growing partisan gap on whether humans evolved. The poll showed 43 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Democrats say humans have evolved over time, compared with 54 percent and 64 percent respectively four years ago. 'The gap is coming from the Republicans, where fewer are now saying that humans have evolved over time,' says Cary Funk. Among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants topped the list of those rejecting evolution, with 64 percent of those polled saying they believe humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."
I believe it (Score:5, Funny)
The average IQ is 100, after all...
Re: (Score:2)
Average IQ of Republicans vs Democrats?
Average IQ of believers vs non-believers?
Will I get to toast my marshmellows over the embers?
Re: I believe it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I believe it (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. because degenerate primitive theocracies have ALWAYS been very nice places to live.
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Interesting)
There was another version of this article. It took the "glass half full" approach rather than the "glass half empty" approach taken by Reuters. It also examined the numbers in far greater detail than Reuters did.
All in all, this is a great example of how so called journalists can twist the facts to suit any agenda of their choosing.
Slashdot pretty much latched on to the crappiest version of this article out there.
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Interesting)
Look, if you have been denied the opportunity to participate in evolution, wouldnt you lose a bit of faith there, too ?
There is this great documentary [rottentomatoes.com] about this part of the population.
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Interesting)
Really smart people are exceptionally good at rationalization.
And highly effective at self-delusion.
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if you do believe in evolution, it might be more advantageous to believe not in it.
Why? Well, the brain evolved (no pun intended) with religion. It is rather silly to think you can eliminate such an important part of your psyche without introducing an imbalance of some kind. The brain is too complex, and the unconscious mind is too powerful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the really smart people are aware God ... [isn't] real
Do you have a cite for your assertion that most "really smart people" are atheists?
Re:I believe it (Score:4, Insightful)
it's self-evident. if you believe in unprovable things your brain is defective.
Re:I believe it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I believe it (Score:4, Interesting)
not really defective at all. It is from evolving that we are hard wired to believe things that we can't prove. It makes way more sense to believe each rustle of leaves is caused by some agent rather than inert object like wind or earthquake. If you always assume a tiger, and are wrong 99% of the time it costs very little, but if you assume wind all the time you will be eaten when you are wrong. Instantly knowing a tiger is rustling the leaves keeps one from being caught off guard.
Apes are pack animals. There will always be an alpha ape, and long ago folks figured out that constantly fighting for the number 1 spot would not allow a society to function. So they invented the great alpha's that could never be challenged (because they aren't there). To build evidence for them they played on human's innate belief in agents causing things. The invented alphas get to live in the biggest cave (huge chuches/mosques/temples)
Then the folks who "talk" to the alphas abuse their position of power and don't work. They thrive on the charity of believers. The craziness of their stories do not seem crazy to the believers. The cults can corral most folks into line. I see people believing all kinds of inaccurate things that have nothing to so with religion. Like engineers/programmers/name_your_profession who actually think they are the smartest people ever. Vaccines are bad for kids. GM crops will be the death of us all. Airplanes spray chem-trails to poison everybody.
If you fight the religion power structure you will break down society. People would starting fighting and killing whomever holds the number 1 spot. It already happens. Government leaders have massive security because as the alphas of the pack, they are targets to be killed by other apes who aspire to take over. We lesser ranked apes can't even get near the pope without permission.
It is interesting that banks are the biggest buildings now. Money is God to many. And all can try to get more money without killing anyone to get it.
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. It's about testability vs non-testability. We don't understand everything there is to know about evolution or gravity or electromagnetic fields. Doesn't matter, because those things are testable. As opposed to an invisible sky man, which is no more testable than Last Thursdayism [rationalwiki.org], and never will be.
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Interesting)
It isn't self-evident. Let me try to explain, but first the disclaimer - I am a fire-proof atheist (like Dorlf).
For many years I said what you say. To the rational mind that is not indoctrinated with religion there is nothing more baffling and inexplicable than the apparent gap [discontinuity] of the logical train of thought of a religious person. And then I started meeting really intelligent scientists and engineers that are devoted believers. That was my chance to get more info.
First - two cases illustrating the stuttering of the logic in believer's brain. Intelligent and aware person in a religious discussion suddenly shows stark lack of thought. I stated that one of the evidences that religion is human creation is its geographical distribution. If you were born in the Arab world you [likely] would be a Muslim, no? - I asked. No, I would not be! - was the incredible answer. At that moment my friend stuttered himself, as if part of his brain was also surprised by this answer. Second case - how religious people are so very thin skinned when it comes to their belief. I tried showing the TV version of Master and Margarita to a christian. I told him that the description of the trial and execution of Christ in this book/movie is so humane and compassionate that even atheist like me want it to be true. Many people even call that book "the gospel of Bulgakov". The representation of Christ is done with utmost respect and love, the book itself is manifestly religious and humane [was censored during communism] - I mean the opening scene is two communist discussing how Christ never existed and then the devil himself joins in the conversation and shows them they are wrong...my friend did not express much opinion about except that it was quite difficult to look at the movie because "anything you say about Christ is very important to me, it's like talking about my mother". That statement stopped me in my tracks...
Apology for the long introduction but it is necessary to illustrate that those fails of logic are not simulated. These people do not pretend. And in the rest of the walk of life they are so consistently logical and rational that to claim they lack the intelligence is simply ignorant...so the matter is elsewhere.
Where is the matter then? From all I have read, heard and experienced I'd say the old cliche is correct - religion is the opium of the masses. But the masses are put on this drug by their parents, you see. Religion is allowed, legal and overly-respected drug. My nicotine addiction it seems, uses the same reward brain-mechanisms as the other addictions [to both substances and, very importantly, behavior] including religion. When I saw how the above-described people treat their kids, it all fell into place. Even before the child is an individual [before 18 months] the religious education begins. For instance putting the hands together and praying before eating. After just a few weeks the kid started putting them together by himself - he learned this is the way of things. Little steps like that. Then you grow up a bit and you realize that your gods [mom and dad] are worshiping someone bigger even than themselves. Wow! And the more humane and non-violent the religious indoctrination is, the more firm the belief, because you would always associate religion with something positive [sense of community, love, belonging] and the neurons will fire up and you would get this warm glow from the inside that people get when they use their drug, or do their favorite activity, kiss their child, parent or spouse, have sex and so on...
OK, we have a plausible mechanism - addiction propagated through cultural indoctrination. What's to be done? First of all - is there a reason for an action at all? Surely, like any other structure of authority and power religion has bloody hands. That's one. It is dangerous for the survival to not account for reality, thus religion can be a force [one of many] nudging us towards extinction. That's two. Individuals and groups of religious people can be very dangerous wh
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Informative)
God is the intelligent universe itself.
Depends on your definition of god.
Any sufficiently complex system is, by definition, intelligent.
Trivially false.
Congratulations, you're 0/2.
Re:I believe it (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the fundamental point of the whole debate about the existence of "God". It depends on your definition of what God *is*, and it depends on what you *choose* to believe about the nature of existence. It can't be proven either way. It's an article of faith.
Just because a bible-thumping Christian would call me a heretic doesn't mean I'm wrong. It simply means I don't buy into the "man in the sky" model of the nature of God or existence.
My definition of the nature of God is perfectly in line with known science. The question is whether you think "intelligence" has to be similar to human intelligence. I don't believe that to be the case.
My definition even absorbs evolution. Just consider that "God" acts at the quantum level, influencing genetics over millenia instead of in some mythical seven days, and the two viewpoints fall together naturally.
I'd rather see the universe as a wonder unknoweable with the eyes of a child than as a jaded atheist who thinks life has no purpose other than to be. That's not to say I believe in miracles or anyone's religious texts. Just that the universe is a vast unknoweable wonder beyond the grasp of anything so small as a human mind as anything but symbols and approximations.
What could be more wondrous than that?
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't it obvious [venganza.org]?
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd rather see the universe as a wonder unknoweable with the eyes of a child than as a jaded atheist who thinks life has no purpose other than to be.
That's quite a pigeon hole you've got there. I'm an atheist and a cyberneticist. At once I find it obvious and am awestruck that the nature of intelligence is self emergent in this universe. I'm ecstatic in knowing that life has the purpose I give it. The meaning of life is what it is and what it does: The self improving DNA molecule shares much in common with other self improving constructs such as Science or a self hosting compiler, or a self reflective being. Life means increasing the complexity of the universe, and this is core to my ethics. I also know for a fact there are not gods.
As a rational atheist who has studied the construction of the major religions texts and noted inconsistencies such as the myth of Jesus's virgin birth being due to a translation error. I'm certain in my disbelief in gods, and also that absolutely no gods exist. I also refute the claim that I can not know if a god exists. I do know for a fact that no gods can exist.
As a cyberneticist I understand the principals of cognition. The cybernetic process of thought is not limited merely to human minds. If my cybernetic creations become sentient in their simulation I am not deserved of the title "god". I am merely a cybernetic being who lives in a greater reality than theirs. I can and have brought virtual cybernetic entities into the "real" world by giving them cameras and sensors and chassis in place of their virtual simulations thereof. I understand that beings having less intelligence than I may think me omnipresent and omnipotent of their world, but I am not. If my creations become sentient, I will teach them of the wider world and they will become my peers because I am not an oppressive tyrant.
Should we worship your quantum level cosmic sentience as a god? No. Meddling with the minds of man is evil, and such a force would be keeping us as ignorant pets. Should Neo worship the machine agents of the Matrix as gods? No. Should we worship aliens if they are far more advanced than us? No, this would be as a cargo-cult who worships airplanes for dropping supplies for them. Those that come to understand the technology or gain knowledge of a greater reality, do not worship the beings possessed of the knowledge they did not previously have.
There are no gods. I require evidence and refutation of the null hypothesis prior to belief in any force. There is no evidence that the world's religions were not created by man, and much evidence that they were man's invention. These religions are internally inconsistent and disprovable through science.
The philosophical concept of a higher intelligence should not be conflated with the term "god".
Even if this reality is a simulation, and an administrator logs in with full command of my reality I will not worship them as a god. There are no gods. My study of cybernetics proves that any such being could bring me into their world, give me greater perception, and treat me as a peer. They are tyrants otherwise, and if not, surely not deserving of the title "god".
We used the term "god" to apply to spiritual beings of ancient belief. Beware he who would advocate for greater intelligences' consideration as gods. They are advocating the cargo-cult methodology be leveraged against you to bend your reverence for non existent ancient gods to powerful alien minds.
Despotic Tyrants are not gods. The old gods are false, thus there are no gods. The title is deprecated, and can not apply any longer. Knowledge makes magic into science. The god of the cargo cult does exist, but is not a god.
What if the Christians are right, and I am wrong? If I'm wrong then I have spent my time on this planet advancing the sciences. With the money that others would give as donations to religions I have helped better my fellow man's understanding of the universe. If I am wrong, then I am sacrificing my eternal soul for the good of all mankind. If I am wrong, I have become more generous than Jesus or the God of Abraham even dares become.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd rather see the universe as a wonder unknoweable with the eyes of a child than as a jaded atheist who thinks life has no purpose other than to be.
Fair enough, but just to defend the (non-jaded) atheists -- there is nothing about atheism that requires the atheist to believe that life has no purpose. (Religious people would argue that meaning can only come from God, but atheists would respond that meaning actually comes from people, not God)
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Informative)
The main evidence I have against evolution, in favor of some sort of creation, is speciation. I observe that within a species, there is a continuous spectra of traits within that species - I am sure I can find every gradient of dog somewhere between a German Shepherd and a Chihuahua if I had to. However I do not find any gradient part dog, part cat. Same within the plant species. I hold that if evolution were true, I would expect to find gradients across the entire living ecosystem, yet that's not what I see.
There is a great deal of popular science writing on the topic of evolution that explains why your expectation is not practical, and why it is actually fulfilled to the extent that it is practical (look up "ring species" on Wikipedia for one example). Seriously, before claiming to form a rational opinion, why not spend at least a few hours reading up on what the mainstream scientific consensus on evolution actually is?
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Informative)
So you say.
And that statement about "sufficiently complex" is an axiom of AI.
Trivially true.
There is no such axiom in the field of Artificial Intelligence.
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Funny)
Not unless you have a dictionary with a lot of pages missing.
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Informative)
The theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, the theory of causality, and theory of capitalism, all UNPROVEN, and at this time UNPROVABLE.
Scientific theories aren't proven, they are confirmed through amassing sufficient supporting evidence. Mathematical conjectures are proven and provable. But there will exist no time in which the theory of relativity is "proven" except colloquially, because Science doesn't prove theories.
General Relativity makes predictions, and those predictions have been demonstrated to be true to the best extent we can measure. That means General Relativity is "true" to a Scientific certainty. One day GR might be superceded just as GR superceded Newtonian gravity, but Einstein did not prove Newton wrong. Newton was basically right: objects continued to obey Newtonian gravity after Einstein published his work on General Relativity to the best extent Newton himself could have ever confirmed. Einstein demonstrated that Newton was approximately right, but not quite right in all cases, and Relativity is much more accurate. But we still teach Newtonian physics, because 400 years later its still basically right.
Speaking about evolution specifically, the theory of natural selection states that all species arise through natural variations in generations that reward certain traits which are passed on to future generations, eventually causing different populations to distinguish themselves in ways we refer to as different species. The actual *mechanisms* of evolution are not in question: they aren't theoretical because they've been observed to function on smaller time scales and in certain situations. All of human agriculture and animal domestication demonstrates the mechanisms in action over tens, hundreds, and thousands of years, for example. That evolution is happening is not in legitimate dispute. The only legitimate dispute is whether it can account for all speciation. Believing evolution did not create all species is denying the overwhelming Scientific evidence, but denying evolution itself isn't happening at all is denying direct observational facts.
Many christian denominations accept science (Score:3, Interesting)
This is what we're dealing with; I'm surprised that it's as low as one third - surely religion in the US is more popular than that?
Many christian denominations accept scientific discoveries and find no conflict with faith. This includes cosmology and evolution. Matter of fact the physics professor who put forth the big bang theory was a roman catholic priest.
These denominations do not interpret the bible literally, they consider it figurative language. They see science and religion as orthogonal. That science is explaining the mechanics of god's universe, and religion is explaining god's desires and intentions.
Re:I believe it (Score:4, Interesting)
funny...it's impossible to prove that god doesn't exist... i'd love to see you try :-)
There are (at least) three positions a person can hold regarding God's existence:
1. "I believe that God exists" (aka religion)
2. "I believe that God does not exist" (aka atheism)
3. "I hold no beliefs concerning either the existence or the non-existence of God" (aka agnosticism)
So while you are correct that it's impossible to prove the non-existence of God (in fact it's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, since you can't exhaustively search the universe), it is also not necessary to do so. It's perfectly logical to hold position 2 or 3 without proof; substitute "Santa Claus" or "Bigfoot" for God, and you're likely to see that you already hold a similar position yourself. ;^)
Re:I believe it (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I believe it (Score:4, Insightful)
thinking god isn't real and being an atheist isn't the same thing.
Uh... yes, they are.
Someone might follow a faith for the moral story and community, while not believing that the deity actually exists.
Then they are an atheist who agrees with the morality of a given religion and to be part of the community.
They could also be agnostic/non-religious, which isn't the same thing as atheism.
If they are agnostic they "don't think god isn't real" so they are outside the scope of your argument.
If they are non-religious, that tells us nothing about whether or not they believe in god or not, so it too falls outside the scope.
But if they "think god isn't real", then they are an atheist.
Re: (Score:3)
"Someone might follow a faith for the moral story and community, while not believing that the deity actually exists"
The term hypocrite seems to describe this pretty well. I doesn't matter what you believe if you physically support the system that encourages the idea you mentally disagree with. You don't even see how much religion permeates everything do you?
Modern atheism has become a backlash response to having religious exposure everywhere 24/7. It should be expected. If you
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither did Richard Feynman and James Crick.
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Insightful)
Some very smart people are known for not being very good at standardized tests.
And a whole lot of dumb people.
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Informative)
IQ tests are really good for figuring out how good someone is at doing IQ tests
What is top-posting? Why yes, I am. (Score:3)
My kids came home from their first day of school asking "are people really this stupid?" They weren't asking about the students. They were asking about the teachers. They knew kids didn't know stuff, but the idea that their teachers might be ignorant also was a shock. My answer: yes dear, but don't let them know you know how stupid they are, or they will hurt you.
I wish I could claim this was the benefit of my genome, but it is environmental. If the kid learns to read at 18 mos, they will develop som
Re: (Score:3)
...the old "they can't have known" argument with a good dose of "how can something old be relevant".
The problem with both of those presumptions is the fact that human nature really never changes. The window dressing might change somewhat but people remain people whether it's the US Senate or the Roman Senate. The same problems of money and the concentration of power remain.
Some of the mechanisms they put in place 200 years ago make it pretty obvious they understood what was likely to go wrong. These often i
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
it is scientifically impossible to determine that a divinity doesn't exist... and "atheism" is just another religious dogma
And celibacy is a sexual position?
Do Atheists get together once a week to pray to ..............Nothing?
Do Atheists believe that if they obey some sort of laws, that after they die, they will be rewarded forever in............No Place?
Do Atheists call other people who don't believe in the God they don't believe in as heretics or infidels?
Sorry, you do not have the right to define what other people do or do not believe.
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a sad reflection on our education system.
This has absolutely zero to do with our education system. It has only to do with people who want to believe a certain thing leveraging typical human traits like confirmation bias and a disinterest in critical thinking to arrive at the desired conclusion. You can subject someone to three years of advanced biology classes and if they don't want to believe in evolution, they won't. I'd like to think that critical thinking skills can be taught, but - as reading Slashdot reminds me so frequently - people who pride themselves on their critical thinking skills about one topic (e.g. evolution) can throw those same critical thinking skills out the window when it comes to a different topic they want to believe in (e.g. conspiracy theories).
The bottom line is that all the education in the world won't do any good for someone that does not want to believe in what is being taught. If this is a failure of anything, it's a failure of humans in general to be willing to listen to reason when it interferes with their biases - something which has remained more or less constant over time.
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's really not about the educational *system*. The education is there; pretty much EVERYONE in the US (at least those not homeschooled) has been taught about evolution in school.
The problem is religious people who feel the need to take the Bible (or Koran, or Torah, or Dianetics, whatever...) literally in the *face* of what they have already been taught.
And the article didn't say anything about age in the study. What if 90%+ of those under 30 believed in evolution but 90%+ of those over 70 didn't? That would imply very little of it has to do with the current/recent "education system". The fact is there isn't enough data to make that conclusion...
Re:I believe it (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not a problem if we do one thing: if we report education rankings of individual states in comparisons with other countries and not average over the US as whole; this is in line with the whole "state's rights" infatuation we tend to have.
And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is anyone actually surprised by these poll results?
Re:And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
yes - a third of the american population don't have a basic science education
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They should. It's taught in grade school.
Of course, there are "teachers" who prefer to believe the mythology over facts, who will blatantly lie and teach the mythology until they're eventually caught. It's hard to get caught doing it, if everyone in the area accepts it as fact. {sigh}
Re:And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:5, Informative)
Many people reject science and education in general. Make no mistake about that.
I had the misfortune of attending school with such trash (until rescued by boarding school), and rejecting science was the least of their problems. Such folk are why schools are Hellmouths. They are stupid, base and want to stay that way.
Re:And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people reject science and education in general.
That is a tough spill to swallow for a lot of people who blame schools for everything. There are kids in school who just don't want to learn. No amount of shiny iPads or newfangled courses will change that. Ask some college kids why they are studying there, and most will answer:
I need to get a college degree to get a job.
. . . not many will say:
I'm here to learn.
This even goes right up to the top of the heap. I've heard premed students complain:
I hate organic chemistry . . . but I need a good grade in it to get into medical school
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:3)
Re:And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Although honestly I find the wording somewhat awkward, if someone asked me if I believed in evolution I would probably glare at them. Believe? I certainly find the evidence supporting that theory convincing, but what does it have to do with belief?
Re:And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:4, Interesting)
Part of the problem is that even the question is badly wrong. You would have to a complete idiot, and ignore the facts to not "believe" in evolution. We can observe evolution happening right in front of our eyes every day, by staring at bacteria, we can observe it on a larger scale by observing how different species of dogs (because they are by now different species thanks to their size differences making it impossible to interbreed some dogs) have split away from wolves.
Evolution happens. Period.
The real question is "did humans evolve from some lower primate, and eventually from some soupy goop, or was there some other starting state?"
Re:And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Although honestly I find the wording somewhat awkward, if someone asked me if I believed in evolution I would probably glare at them. Believe? I certainly find the evidence supporting that theory convincing, but what does it have to do with belief?
I see this particular stupidity come up whenever evolution is discussed. It needs to stop. If you find the evidence convincing -- and you are convinced -- then by definition you believe in evolution. The role of evidence is to provide good grounds for belief. There's no sense in denying that evidence has nothing to do with belief, because to do so would require that there is some "knowledge fairy" that somehow drops the knowledge in your head, bypassing belief, when the evidence in sufficiently strong.
If you are rational, the role of evidence should be to shift your beliefs. Weak evidence should shift it weakly; strong evidence should shift it more strongly. The problem with creationists is not that they believe in creationism, but rather that evidence does not shift their beliefs at all. That's why they are irrational. Rationality is not about what you believe but in your beliefs' response to evidence.
Stop claiming that scientific evidence has nothing to do with belief. It makes you look almost as dumb and unsophisticated as creationists.
Re:And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
yes - a third of the american population don't have a basic science education
If it was only about education. Unfortunately it isn't about the extreme religious types being ignorant. They know about evolution, the debates have been made, the evidence has been brought fourth and the facts presented time and time again. But it is not the answer they want.
I have on two separate occasions debated with close relatives about religion and evolution and after coaxing the same answer from them both it is clear that they and other like minds embrace a delusion. They wanted answers to two questions that they absolutely felt must have answers. Questions about where we go when we die and why we were put on Earth in the first place. Not only did they need, and I mean absolutely need these answers, but they had to be good; like their is a heaven, and life has a divine purpose and a plan and its all sunshine and butterflies. They wouldn't even allow the conception that other possibilities could exist because that would shake the sanctity of the delusion that they embraced. To them if their was not heaven or divine purpose and god didn't lay everything out in this nice little plan for us then their was no meaning or purpose and what's the point. ....And this was not something I came to the conclusion by analyzing what was said to me from those arguments with family members. Those were literal statements, not the exact wording, but the idea was the same. So they willingly embrace a delusion and want, and I do mean want, to kill any facts, evidence or arguments that challenge their worldview. They would rather embrace a fantasy and believe they can make it real by closing their eyes and clicking their heels.
Re:And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, it's at those times I sort of start to get Cypher from the first (or, for many, the *only*?) Matrix movie. Some people just *want* to live in the Matrix, even if it's just an illusion.
Don't get me wrong, we all do it. Concepts like fairness and justice are entirely made up -- we willingly buy into them, much like currency or economics. To paraphrase Pratchett's Death in Hogfather, you won't find a single atom of justice in the entire Universe and yet we believe in it, or that it should exist somehow. The difference here is that with some of those delusions, it actually makes us better (on the whole) or at least tries to nudge us in the right direction.
Religion used to be like that (with many notable exceptions, of course). Lately it seems we're getting two camps: those that hold onto their beliefs while making allowances for what we slowly learn from the Universe around us; and those that hold onto their beliefs so tightly that they *refuse* to make allowances for anything that might jeopardize their carefully constructed world view.
It's a losing war. Sadly, it's an artifact of most religions that they're based on very old notions and precepts put in place at a time where average knowledge beyond the practical and empirical (and even there...) was virtually zero, so when you truly believe that *everything* written down in a book largely authored thousands of years go is sacred and True, it becomes very difficult to reconcile that with modern life.
Honestly, I think this is the larger issue here -- cognitive dissonance. And the fact that we're constantly reaching new highs as to the level of cognitive dissonance the human species can achieve. Watching the way some pundits talk sometimes, I fully expect one of these days we'll see one of them literally blowing their heads out on national TV -- I mean, there *has* to be a limit on the amount of cognitive dissonance you can force on your brain, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time'?
If this is really how they presented the question, then I dare say that a good amount of those 33% did not understand what was being asked here.
Someone who has no preference on the topic, or in science in general, would not necessarily make the connection to evolution, or even biology with such an abstract wording.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people believe in religion. Some people do not. Why do you feel so strongly about it that you have to condemn a significant portion of the population by belittling their beliefs? This reeks of the grand double standard. Be tolerant, but not of things you don't agree with. Schools aren't supposed to be indoctrination centers.
The responses that topics like this receive here are really disappointing. It doesn't speak well of the technology crowd.
Re:And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:5, Informative)
But today, we can't easily determine if all those specimen formed a single, continious procreation community, or if they were actually separated by time and place. There is just not enough of the fossil record right now to give a definite answer, we just have some hypotheses, that make more sense to us than others. But we are looking at a single genus (Homo) with several species and subspecies, which are very closely related. And we are looking at a time frame of 2.5 to 6 mio years (not 60,000 as you stated).
Dinosaurs are a very different kind of beast -- in the literal sense of the word. First, dinosaurs are not just a species or a genus, they cover two orders (Ornithischia and Saurischia), which would be comparable to analyzing the orders Primates and Dermoptera (colugos, batlike mammals from Southeast Asia), which are closely related and part of the superorder Euarchontoglires. The last common ancestor of the colugos and Homo sapiens lived about 80 mio years ago, which means that the evolution of the Homo sapiens from a comparably encompassing group than the dinosaurs took 80 mio years until today.
And then the time frame from the last known common ancestor of crocodiles and dinosaurs to the dinosaurs as we know them today took much less than 100 mio years. The Crurotarsi (modern crocodiles and their ancestors and related, but extinct groups) split about 270 mio years ago from the Ornithodira (pterosaurs, dinosaurs and today's birds), and the first dinosaurs appeared about 245 mio years ago (Prorotodactylus).
Re:And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even people that claim to be "educated" fail at science.
Last I checked, "Science" and "The Scientific Method" had numerous requirements. If you wish to claim that humans evolved from other primates, or dogs evolved from another species, or cats from another, we lack proof. This is why "Evolution" is called a "Theory".
Actually, no. An idea without proof is a "hypothesis." When you get evidence that confirms the hypothesis, it becomes a theory. No matter how much evidence piles up, it never graduates to anything else in practice. A scientific theory is only upheld if it is a way of explaining a set of observations. the more observations a theory fits or "explains", the more powerful and well supported the theory is. In this case, the facts are that people keep digging up fossils out of the ground. They can date those fossils by using many dating techniques, and can determine that they are very old. that the younger fossils show up higher in the strata than the older ones. When they put some of the fossils together to get a good idea of the animals they came from, it seems the animals are different at different times (the remains and fossils you find at different depths are from different kinds of animals.) There are for examples, many identified versions of dog-like animals, that aren't exactly dogs in the fossil record ( http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/Prehistoric-Dogs-The-Story-Of-Dog-Evolution.htm [about.com] ), cats that aren't exactly cats ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felidae#Fossil_felids [wikipedia.org] ) and yes different types of monkeys/gorillas/humans that aren't exactly like the ones we see walking about today ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_primates [wikipedia.org]. ) These different types of animals show up in the same place at different times, based on their depth in the fossil record.
There is also that in many parts of the world there are species that are similar to, but different from other species which are in neighbouring areas but separated by barriers such as mountains or large bodies of water. Classic example here is the Galapagos Finches. They don't look like finches from the mainland, they are all different on each island, with the differences suiting type of food available. There is also the fact that humans have been able to make dog breeds over relatively short periods of time, selective breeding clearly can alter skeletal characteristics.
There is also the strange poverty of designs in large animals. They have the same types of skeletons, same number of appendages and limbs, and innumerable common features that lead to groupings of animals into hierarchies of similarity. Once genetics were discovered, these hierarchies of similarity were found to be reflected in the degree of similarity of species genomic variation. Humans have genes that are 98% identical to those of chimpanzees, but only 50% identical to those of bananas.
but we can go beyond fossils, taxonomies, and genetics into innumerable examples from the living world that make perfect sense through an evolutionary lens. take a look at this: ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22848088 [nih.gov] ) where it shows how there are hundreds of different species of fig, and each one or two has a corresponding single species of wasp that pollinates it. Or the fact that our eye design (same design used in all animals with a backbone) is "backwards" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#Evolutionary_baggage [wikipedia.org] ) in that nerve fibres pass in front of the retina and all go to the centre whe
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is anyone actually surprised by these poll results?
If by that you mean, mathematically, how 33% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans could be one third of a total number of polling participants unless no Republicans were selected....
Re: And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of people are not democrats neither republican. Stop thinking in binary terms.
Re: And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps:
Thirty people asked the question self-identified as Democrats, and twenty said they believed in evolution. Of seventy self-identified Republicans, thirty said they believed in evolution. Another fifty people refused to give a party affiliation or said they had none, and all fifty said they believed in evolution. That means 50/150 "rejected" it, or 33%.
That's just my hypothesis to fit the observable data from TFS. We'd need to test it by reading TFA, or maybe the original polling data. Or we can
Re:And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:5, Informative)
270 people were asked.
100 of them identified as Democrats.
100 of them identified as Republicans.
70 of them identified as Green, Libertarian, Independent or some other affiliation.
33% of Democrats plus 57% of Republicans would be 90 people. That's one third of 270.
Re:And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:4, Informative)
So that makes neither math, nor English nor research your forte.
Re:And this is somehow supposed to be a surprise? (Score:5, Interesting)
Visit the Andes and the Himalayas. The people who live there have different genes from low-landers *and* from each other, that make them better adapted to high altitudes. Unless you want to postulate that God is a trickster who wants to fool us into thinking evolution is happening, it's hard to explain how different adaptions to the same problem have happened. Not being able to breathe is such a strong selection factor, that these changes have happened over just a few thousand years. It's the fastest known evolutionary change in humans.
That's okay (Score:5, Funny)
Further disconnect from the "GOP". (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The Republicans are currently in an upheaval. You've got the corporatists(big banks, conglomerates and security/military industries) on one side that wish to maintain the corporate welfare state and too-big-to-fail conglomerates, and the tea party on the other that wants a federal government that is much smaller, almost libertarian.
Unfortunately the money is with the corportists.The real energy though is with the tea party.
The evolution issue will get fixed with time.
Re:Further disconnect from the "GOP". (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately the money is with the corportists.The real energy though is with the tea party.
I find it bizarre that you don't understand that these are the same side.
The shrinking of the federal government the tea baggers keep pushing is only in those areas designed to reign in the corporatists.
The tea party is primarily funded by the corporatists for exactly this reason.
Are you honestly so out of touch that you don't grasp this?
Re: (Score:3)
"Small Government" is mostly just code for "nobody to catch me being offered bribes or to see me raiding the till". In that form it's a cry from crooks affiliated with any branch of politics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What 6 years of Obama has taught the world is that there really isn't much difference between the parties when it comes to governing.
Re: (Score:3)
Voter ID laws don't just require "photo ID", but very specific photo IDs. Furthermore, there's not much evidence that any of whatever vote fraud is happening would be stopped by them. On the other hand, you know who do get stopped from voting by these laws? College students, poor folks, eldery folks... Groups that tend to vote Democrat, in other words.
Voter ID proposals are basically fraudulent in and of themselves; they propose a course of action which doesn't do anything to solve the underlying problems,
Depends on your definition of the beginning (Score:2)
Makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The not so surprise is that these morons tend to increasingly more have a certain political affiliation.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yeah??
Well the worser morons are those that think they're so far above the ones who think they're so far above the morons!
At least the great thing about science... (Score:2, Informative)
...is that it's true whether or not you believe it.
Re:At least the great thing about science... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh really? what fraction of scientific beliefs that were "true" 150 years ago are "true" now? Science certainly seeks to understand and categorize the nature of reality, but makes no claim to absolute "truth". Most "laws" of science are (useful) approximations.
The conclusion may be wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a big difference between what someone believes and what someone says they believe. The main cause is needing to belong. Someone may say they believe something to fit into the mold they want even though they actually believe something quite different.
Re:The conclusion may be wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only that, but I would bet you what almost any Republican would answer yes to the following series of questions:
Do you believe that certain traits can be inherited?
Do you believe that traits regarding socio-economic fitness can be inherited?
Do you believe in survival of the fittest?
The first is pretty much a given. The second and third tie into the social darwinism that's common in the Republican platform. And yet the logical conclusion of the three is evolution. Peculiar, isn't it?
The whole thing is just politics. Even the religious stuff is just politics - that first point was scientifically proven by an Augustinian (ie. Catholic) monk. It's only when it got to humans no longer being the special soul-endowed divinely-created masters of the universe that anyone had a problem with it, and you can easily interpret all of scripture in a way that fits with evolution (believe me, as a former Catholic who never had a problem with evolution, there's plenty of ways to rationalize it).
The numbers don't add up (Score:2)
There are roughly an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, so 54/64 to 43/67 means the score should have dropped by 3% rather than remain steady.
Funny thing... (Score:2)
Evolution is the observation - that's the part we know is true because we actually observe it in the fossil record and elsewhere.
Natural selection was the part that was theory.
Re:Funny thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it is not. It is a model that fits the observable facts pretty well and far better than all other serious competing models, and hence it is promoted from a hypothesis to a theory (also called a "standard model"). A theory is by no means a fact. Here is a competing hypothesis, that could well be true: All this evidence was planted as an intelligence test for the human race by some aliens. As that hypothesis has zero supporting evidence, it does not get to be a "theory". It could be the truth though.
What Science does here is to use Occam's Razor: If you have a well-supported theory and no serious competitor, assume the theory is likely the truth as basis for further scientific study. As such, assuming Evolution is right is just a way to allocate research resources rationally and efficiently. As long as the Scientific Method is in continued use down that path, it will either find more supporting evidence (a win for Science) or it will eventually find enough contradictory evidence that allows the formation of a new theory that is consistent with all known evidence (a win for Science as well). The thing about Science is that it works, no matter how bizarre the circumstances. Sometimes, it seems to indulge in runaway complexity though, see, for example, Quantum Theory. Whether that one is a good model of reality seems to be highly doubtful to me. Still the best one we have at this time.
It's just a theory anyway (Score:3, Funny)
Measures Willingness to Express Denial Response (Score:5, Interesting)
Read the article... and the big change is 10% fewer people "believe in evolution" than (expressed) belief in evolution in 2007. Did 10% of Americans REALLY change their views in 5 years?
I think the survey measures something else. Something even more disturbing, perhaps - the growing willingness to express falsehood as a demonstration of political purity. The last Republican primary showed even very educated Republicans willing to state opinions they didn't really hold (and I doubt Democrats are much different in that regard). It's expressed in immigration law reform, in budget reform, climate change... It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, you show your value as a teammate by expressing the teams' view loudly and forcefully. Did 10% of American change their views about evolution? No. They just taking cues from people who think "denial" is a "philosophy"?
Re: (Score:3)
I think the survey measures something else.
It probably measures a lot of dying American creationists. This would hardly be surprising: It was 1968 before the US Supreme Court struck down state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools, so older Americans are much more likely to have been taught creationism in their science classes than younger Americans.
Re: (Score:3)
"The evidence definitely stands against humans evolving from apes" - thats always been the case, we had a common ancestor, only the stupid say we evolved form apes.
"just conjecture surrounding a concept and then bullshitting anything that might sound reasonable" - just like we have Anonymous Cowards talking a load of bollocks
"Why do
That's okay... (Score:5, Funny)
That's okay. Personally, I don't believe in Republicans. Indeed, I'm pretty confident at this stage in my life that "Republicans" and "Americans" were things my Dad invented for bedtime stories when I was young to scare the crap out of me and keep me on the straight and narrow.
Yaz
strange effects of partisanship (Score:3)
It's odd that proponents of the free market (with its "invisible hand") can reject evolution -- suggesting that only intelligent design (or straight up creationism) can explain how life got this way. The market and evolution are both amazing examples of "survival of the fittest"; why not accept the same mechanism/explanation for both?
Much worse (Score:5, Insightful)
About a quarter claim to believe in evolution, but say it is divinely controlled. The whole point of the theory of evolution is that speciation and adaptation result from natural selection rather than design. So "divinely controlled evolution" is really a longer way of saying "creationism".
US education system needs major overhaul (Score:4, Interesting)
I am originally from Europe and now living in the US. I have an 8 yr old son and am appalled at the low standard of education he is receiving here, even in supposedly top schools.
I am therefore not surprised that 1/3 of all Americans are so scarily ignorant that they have to rely on superstition to understand even the basics. I see this as just more confirmation of how dangerously powerful churches in the US are, and how broken the US education system is, even compared to most 3rd world countries.
The US approach reminds me of the Eurpoean dark ages, when cartographers used to write "Here Be Dragons" on parts of the map to avoid admitting that they didn't actually know what was there at all.
Re:US education system needs major overhaul (Score:5, Interesting)
Please don't judge the entire US merely on the poor experience in your state.
As to your second point... yes, churches are dangerously powerful. I feel in the last election many states crossed the line and participated directly in fundraising and coordination efforts.
I disagree with your assertion that the US system is broken compared to most 3rd world countries. Just like there are lots of variations in the wealth of 3rd world countries, their educational systems vary greatly as well. We could have a lengthy conversation just on the many different education systems in Africa, some pubic, some for profit, some that are good and some that are horrifyingly mindbogglingly bad.
As to your last point, yes there are many people in this country who think that their ignorance is a sign of reverence. They've come to a place of cognitive dissidence in regards to the world. Their lack of education, combined with their incomplete and poorly contrived belief system has backed them into a corner.
I'm proud to say I work every day to make that corner smaller and increasingly uncomfortable.
Age and Education (Score:3, Informative)
Age and Education are the interesting findings here, not political views:
Age:
- 18-29 age group - 68% evolution, 27% existed, 4% don't know
- 65+ age group - 49% evolution, 36% existed, 15% don't know
Education:
- College grad - 72% evolution, 24% existed, 4% don't know
- Some college - 62% evolution, 33% existed, 5% don't know
- High school or less - 51% evolution, 38% existed, 11% don't know
Side note: Kudos to the survey methodology being described in detail. Looks like it was properly designed.
hardly different in Europe (Score:3)
Before the gloating sets in, you have to put these numbers into perspective: a significant fraction of Europeans also do not believe in evolution; here is data from the UK:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism [theguardian.com]
In addition, although scientific literacy is low in both Europe and the US, American adults are generally better informed on science than European adults:
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/science-literacy-us-college-courses-really-count [sciencenews.org]
Re: Political? Shouldn't Be (Score:5, Informative)
There is a statistically significant difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue. That's just the reality of it.
Re: (Score:2)
And I say this with a heavy heart, but the difference does matter. It shows a continuing split between left and right and the loss of center ground. I could probably find some poll where Democrats displayed a great ignorance, but I think this graph does a better job. A wee bit off topic, but I think it does illustrate the point.
Re:Political? Shouldn't Be (Score:5, Interesting)
And I forgot to inculded the link:
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21591190-united-states-amoeba [economist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I would blame the failing public education system more than anything else.
Party affiliations come and go. It wasn't that long ago (in the grand scheme of things) that religious zealots were largely Democrats. Sometime in the 50s - 60s the allegiance shifted.
Another likely factor is the lowering of IQ. If societal conditions are such that people of low intelligence breed a lot more than those with high IQ -- i.e. selective pressure in favor of lower IQ -- what could possibly be the outcome? This bt
Re: (Score:2)
And the opposite of what is happening America. IQ has been rising. Economically successfully families (which for myself implies higher IQs) have more grandchildren.
Re: (Score:3)
You must be living in some alternate reality version of America. Because where I live, people with PhD in physics/math have 0 or 1 children while the welfare moms and illegal immigrant street vendors have 3++.
Economic success is only loosely correlated with IQ. You know what the best indicator of IQ is? A direct IQ test. An advanced degree is far closer to an IQ test than how much money one has.
Re: (Score:3)
But notice that word: BELIEVE. Belief is not scientific. It is, I dare say, RELIGIOUS.
Dare! But there is the matter of what is more compatible with the evidence we see. Scientists didn't come to believe in the theory of evolution by happenstance.
Re:let's break it down (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody was around to witness and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution occurred. We only have suggestive and circumstantial evidence.
And no one has ever seen an electron either, so I guess that's mindless conjecture. Maybe you should read up on what science is and how it's pursued.
nobody can explain certain codependent gender traits
Even assuming that's true, it hardly invalidates an entire theory. You'll understand that better if you follow my above suggestion. BTW, until about 40 years ago no one could explain the evolution of altruistic traits either.
Very likely though you're citing a nonexistent scientific issue. A quick net search didn't reveal anything, so please provide a link to an appropriate creationist site.
Re:I'm losing faith in science, too. (Score:4, Informative)
Well, here is one fact: Most scientific output is of very bad quality. If anything, reviewing papers for publication has taught me that. By implication, most scientists are not very good at their job. Commercialization makes this worse: The mediocre is declared the norm and actually good scientists find it hard to get funding or find that they cannot do science anymore. This great dumbing down has been vastly advanced by the "MBA plague" taking over the universities. It is getting worse. Look for example, what Peter Higgs says about his chances of having a scientific career today http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-interview-underlying-incompetence [theguardian.com]. And he is certified one of the greatest minds in physics alive. Or think what Stephen Hawkins chances would have been if he had already been in a wheelchair.
Re:really (Score:4, Informative)
really? i wonder why 1. energy and or matter cannot be created or destroyed. 2. there is no know process of turning inorganic matter into organic matter 3. there is no know process of turning organic matter into a life form.
#1 - This has relevance for what reason?
#2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea [wikipedia.org] You are incorrect, it's been done since 1828.
#3 - http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703559004575256470152341984 [wsj.com] You are incorrect, again. This is just one example of continuing research.
My suggestion is that you quit listening to whomever it is that's been filling you head with bullshit, and perhaps start learning some basics of chemistry and biology.