Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

48% of Americans Reject Evolution

Posted by Zonk on Sat Mar 31, 2007 04:32 PM
from the we-need-just-a-touch-stronger-educational-standards- dept.
Education United States Science
MSNBC has up an article discussing the results of a Newsweek poll on faith and religion among members of the US populace. Given the straightforward question, 'Is evolution well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community?', some 48% of Americans said 'No'. Furthermore, 34% of college graduates said they accept the Biblical story of creation as fact. An alarmingly high number of individuals responded that they believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, and that a deity created our species in its present form at the start of that period.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

48% of Americans Reject Evolution 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • In unrelated news... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kelson (129150) * on Saturday March 31 2007, @04:33PM (#18558441) Homepage Journal
    America continues to worry about losing its edge in the high-tech industry.

    But that couldn't possibly be related to poor science education, could it?

    Note: I'm referring specifically to the 48% who believe that evolution is not well-supported by scientific evidence and that it is not widely accepted within the scientific community. Well, and the people who think the universe is less than 10,000 years old, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You can believe in God and have an understanding of science, just like you can have morals without being religious. But thinking that evolution isn't supported by evidence, or isn't widely accepted by scientists, is just plain ignorance.

    • Re:In unrelated news... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 808140 (808140) on Saturday March 31 2007, @04:39PM (#18558531)
      Frankly, even the rabidly fundamentalist anti-evolution junkies are aware that evolution is widely accepted in the scientific community. This doesn't stop them from trying their best to discredit the theory and convert people over to their way of thinking, but they'd have to be utterly daft to not realize that most scientists do not in fact agree with their point of view.

      I agree; this has to be ignorance, not religious zealotry. It's one thing to say "Evolution is bunk, and there's a pervasive anti-religious conspiracy in academia promoting it" and quite another to say "No scientists really believe in evolution." As far as I know, none of the fundies are actually saying the latter and expecting to be believed. The former, however, is one of their standard talking points.

        • Re:In unrelated news... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by A beautiful mind (821714) on Saturday March 31 2007, @05:12PM (#18558977)
          Evolution is not intuitive. Richard Dawkins was showing a possible explanation why in his book, The God Delusion.

          Basically according to the research he quotes, there are stances the brain takes of thinking. Like the "physical" stance, how an object will react to gravity, etc. But that is slow and not really useful in judging complex machines (like animals for example). So there is a "design" stance, where you judge the function of an object and determine it's expected behaviour. That is sometimes too slow, so there is the "intention" stance, which assigns intentions to things. That tiger over there is going to attack me not because it has sharp claws capable of killing, but because he intends to kill me so I better run. Get the point. Anyway, according to research, infants and young children are especially prone to think in an intent stance. Thus it is conceivable that the thinking that something must have a reason or intent, is something to be discarded through a conscious effort.

        • Re:In unrelated news... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Clock Nova (549733) on Saturday March 31 2007, @05:22PM (#18559099)
          I don't understand this line of thinking. Evolution is extraordinarily intuitive. In fact, it makes perfect sense. Two animals are born. One is unable to adapt to its environment, and dies. The other one is able to adapt to survive in its environment and lives long enough to reproduce, thus passing on its genetic material to the next generation. Repeat. Profit. What's not to understand?

          This is, of course, a bit oversimplified, but I find nothing about evolution difficult to understand.

        • Re:In unrelated news... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by VJ42 (860241) * on Saturday March 31 2007, @05:22PM (#18559109)

          Actually, I've run into a lot of people who have problems with evolution even though they aren't Christian or religious.
          Conversely, at least here in the UK, I know of many religious Christians, including IIRC the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I believe the Pope (obviously he's not in the UK); who accept the theory of evolution with no problems.

          Personally I'm a lax hindu*, and evolution fits right in with my world view, and that of others I know. Infact AFAIK I don't know a single creationist.


          *by which I mean I'm religious on Tuesdays and during holy festivals and other holy days.

  • This is Exciting News (Score:5, Funny)

    by ReidMaynard (161608) * on Saturday March 31 2007, @04:35PM (#18558469) Homepage
    I'm keeping a close eye on my neighbor's 911 Turbo with the I Love Jesus bumber sticker. The minute The Rapture hits, that baby is mine!
  • This is interesting, but not for the obvious reasons.

    The poll looks fairly well-constructed, but the problem is that evolution has become extremely politicized. For many, this question wasn't asking about science-- it was a political question (are you with the conservative-christians or the liberal-atheist-scientists?).

    I think the real story here is the process by which scientific issues get politicized. It's a process that we really need to understand. John Timmer over at Ars Technica often writes about this.

    • Re:This is interesting, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2007, @04:40PM (#18558557)
      Actually that's not a well constructed poll. It's asking 2 things at once in a single yes/no question (Is evolution well supported, is evolution well accepted). So of the people who said no are they saying no to one of the questions or both?

      • Re:This is interesting, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by swillden (191260) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Saturday March 31 2007, @05:15PM (#18559013) Homepage Journal

        Actually that's not a well constructed poll. It's asking 2 things at once in a single yes/no question (Is evolution well supported, is evolution well accepted). So of the people who said no are they saying no to one of the questions or both?

        My thought exactly, except that I'd point out another aspect of the question that's overly broad. "Evolution" isn't a single theory, it's a whole complex set of theories, some of which have very solid observational evidence supporting them and others of which are almost pure hypotheses. For example, on the one hand, it's scientifically indisputable that species do evolve. We have seen it happen under controlled conditions in the laboratory, as well as having a deep fossil record. On the other hand the theory of punctuated equilibrium is just a fairly random stab at trying to explain why the fossil record seems to show long periods of little change separated by short periods of massive change. There are lots of other examples all across the spectrum.

        Personally, I'd have had a hard time answering yes to the question "Is evolution well supported", not because I don't believe it is, but because I *know* it's a political question, not a scientific question, and I know that if I say "yes" I'll be indicating assent to a much broader range of ideas than those I actually believe are supported.

        A better poll would have asked several, more precisely-focused questions, such as: "Do you believe evolution occurs?"; "Do you believe that the large number of species that exist today evolved from a small number of ancient species?"; "Do you believe that humans evolved from earlier species?"; "Do you believe that evolution is a result of purely random chance?"; plus similar questions oriented towards getting the individual's opinion about the scientific support and opinions of scientists, such as "Is there solid scientific evidence that evolution occurs?" and "Do most scientists believe that evolution occurs?".

        The result would have been a much better view into the understanding and beliefs of Americans, rather than just their religio-political views.

  • I know why (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geek (5680) on Saturday March 31 2007, @04:46PM (#18558623)
    Most Americans (people over the age of 35ish) were never taught evolution in school and those who were have been taught poorly. I didn't realize the piss poor job my teachers did in junior high and high school until I took an anthropology class in college. People still like to quip that we evolved from monkeys but don't realize we evolved seperate from monkeys and share a common ancestor.

    The ignorance to evolution is amazing in this country. It's no surprise at all people haven't embraced it here like they have overseas in Europe.

  • The Thirty-Percenters (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ewhac (5844) on Saturday March 31 2007, @04:46PM (#18558627) Homepage Journal
    ...And 33% of people polled still think Bush is doing a good job in Iraq.

    People wonder why this country lost its lead in manufacturing and, most recently, technological development. Why is a fairy tale -- and an expurgated, badly translated fairy tale at that -- so much more compelling than the tools and concepts that allow you to take control of your own life and environment?

    Schwab

  • Fortunately, It Doesn't Matter What You "Believe" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ewhac (5844) on Saturday March 31 2007, @04:55PM (#18558749) Homepage Journal
    Facts -- like gravity, and the sphereoid shape of the planet -- exist whether or not people "believe" in them. A leaf doesn't have to believe in photosynthesis to turn green.

    Schwab

  • A challenge for science and tech in our society (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PrvtBurrito (557287) on Saturday March 31 2007, @04:56PM (#18558757)
    My take on this issue is that people who do not have extensive scientific educations are being asked to 'believe' in science in a manner similar to how they 'believe' in religion. Science is fundamentally based on observations and the progression of the scientific method. That said, for most of us, we never see the evidence, nor do we see the details of each hypothesis test. This is further complicated because the body of scientific literature is massive and for every scientific field you can find crap science. Peer review is fallible.

    I think we are requiring people to 'believe' in science, simply because science has become too complicated to cover adequately with a standard, non technical education. This creates a conundrum. These people are being required to choose religion -- remember they have been in church since birth -- or science. For them, this must be very difficult. When we listen to a scientist, we hope we are hearing testimony based on evidence, when we hear a preacher we hope we are hearing testimony based on belief.

    That said, as a scientist familiar with evolutionary theory, I am troubled by the level with which we understand the mechanisms of evolution and that 48% of people don't even understand the most basic of concepts within it. Should we require people to swallow science without evidence? Should we follow *anything* without evidence? I know I don't, ironically, science doesn't allow me to.

  • Beyond Belief (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nih (411096) on Saturday March 31 2007, @05:11PM (#18558961)
    This couldn't be more on topic [google.com]

  • Religion and evolution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fireweaver (182346) on Saturday March 31 2007, @05:22PM (#18559105)
    The next time a jesus chrispie gets in your face about this, ask him this: "OK, so the bible says god this, that, and the next thing. Does it say anywhere HOW he did it? And if it doesn't, did you ever wonder why? Did it ever occur to you that if god is POWERFUL enough to make a universe and populate it with life, then he might also be SMART enough to make it run AUTOMATICALLY according to certain laws, such as gravitation and evolution, that don't require constant meddling and micromanagement? And that these laws are simple enough that us mere humans can actually learn and understand them?"

    I.e. "In the beginning, god created heaven and earth. For further details, consult a science book".

    • Re:Quick, call in the Hippie Power Squad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2007, @04:50PM (#18558669)
      So, to paraphrase, you're saying:

      Let ignorant people remain ignorant, because what harm could they possibly do to our society? ...incidentally, have you been off-planet for about six years?

    • Re:Quick, call in the Hippie Power Squad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zymurgy_cat (627260) on Saturday March 31 2007, @04:54PM (#18558733) Homepage
      Come on, who cares? Let people be ignorant. It's not like bringing people of below average intelligence or fundamentalist mindset into the scientific fold is going to make them valuable contributors. It'll just be a new type of ignorance to deal with. Let them be.

      That would be all fine and well except for one thing: they're reproducing....and at a higher rate than those of us who value science. And those people and their progeny will vote.

    • Pot, kettle, black (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GuyMannDude (574364) on Saturday March 31 2007, @05:03PM (#18558869) Journal

      Let people be ignorant. It's not like bringing people of below average intelligence or fundamentalist mindset into the scientific fold is going to make them valuable contributors. It'll just be a new type of ignorance to deal with.

      First you call them ignorant (which is true). Then you call them stupid. Then you call them religious fundamentalists. Then back to ignorant. These are all very separate categories, which you would understand if you had the above-average intelligence that you probably believe you possess. Given the large percentage of the population that is being cited, I think it's unlikely they are all below-average in intelligence. I didn't RTFA so I don't know about their religious beliefs. I submit to you that these are probably people of average intelligence who are ignorant. That means that we as scientists are not getting the word out in a manner that most people find compelling. The problem is not with them, it is with us.

      Perhaps you should check out the film Flock of Dodos [flockofdodos.com] before you start pointing fingers at who is to blame. (Hint: the dodos are not the intelligent design folks, it's the scientists who are in danger of becoming extinct because they can't communicate simple facts to the mainstream audience.) Elitist attitudes like yours ("hey, if they can't keep up, fuck 'em!") is partially what drives the mainstream to give ID folks a listen.

      GMD

    • Re:Even Jesus talked in parables (Score:5, Interesting)

      by geek (5680) on Saturday March 31 2007, @04:54PM (#18558739)
      There are actually two versions of Genesis, the old Hebrew one where God is not a single being but Ilohim (which is plural and I may have spelled it wrong). Then there is the Christian version which has God as singular and omnipotent, all knowing and all seeing. The problem comes from Calvinism and it's strong (to this very day) influence on Christianity. If Genesis isn't literal to these people the foundation of Christianity falls apart. Evolution directly contradicts the Bible. You can not logically combine the two and have the same religion. Hell the Bible contradicts itself enough as it is, bu when you add evolution, all the theology goes right out the window.

      Check out Calvinism and Arminianism on Wikipedia sometime. Use it as background for reading Miltons paradise lost and you'll begin to understand the history of the debate that still rages on today.
      • Everyone's a sheep. Modern neuroscience pretty much confirms that most of us run on autopilot most of the time. The real question is, who's your shepherd?

        I think the average Slashdotter mostly agrees with Jesus about this. The difference is, the average Slashdotter believes that he's not a sheep, and sees this as insulting. Well, reality check. You are. But who's your shepherd? If there's a single most important decision you can make in your life, it's this. Is it Jesus? Mohammad? Richard Stallman? Pamela Jones? Jimmy Carter? Al Gore? Brad Pitt? Your parents? A good friend? A friendly and knowledgeable professor at school?

        A little bit back on topic, is anyone else disturbed that unwavering belief in the theory of evolution has become a litmus test for intelligence?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.