Of Evolution and Idiots
Image via Wikipedia
The results are in for the Pew science survey mentioned earlier this week. The headline: Just 32% of Americans believe “that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection.” The number among scientists, meanwhile, is 87% (why so low, actually?). There’s a similar gap on climate change, where 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer due to human activity, while only 49% of the public believes that.
Though, I guess the climate change folks can feel some pride that more people believe in global warming than in evolution — which seems pretty backward to me.
Some other highlights from the report:
Science Slips as Nation’s Greatest Achievement. Significantly fewer Americans volunteer scientific advances as one of the country’s most important achievements than did so a decade ago (27% today, 47% in May 1999). Then, 18% cited space exploration and the moon landing as the country’s top achievement in the 20th century; now, 12% see it as the greatest achievement in the past 50 years.
Public, Scientists Agree on Government Role in Funding Research. Fully 84% of scientists name government as a top source of research funding in their specialty. Large majorities of the public think that government investments in basic scientific research (73%) and engineering and technology (74%) pay off in the long run, and 60% says that government investment in research is essential for scientific progress.
Politics and Science. Majorities of both the public and the scientists say that it is appropriate for scientists to take part in political debates about issues such as nuclear power and stem cell research. But they differ in their views on many of these issues. Scientists are much more likely than the public to support the expansion of nuclear power, federal funding of stem cell research and the use of animals in research. One recent political controversy – charges that the Bush administration censored government scientists – was largely invisible to the public, as 54% said they heard nothing about it. On the other hand, most scientists (55%) say they had heard a lot about it, and 77% believe that the charges are true.
Scientists Fault Public, Media. Fully 85% of scientists see the public’s lack of scientific knowledge as a major problem for science, and about three-quarters (76%) say a major problem for science is that news reports fail to distinguish between findings that are well-founded and those that are not.
But Overall, Scientists Are Upbeat about the State of Their Profession. About three-quarters (76%) say this is generally a good time for science and nearly as many (73%) say it is good time for their scientific specialty. Despite the country’s economic problems, 67% say it is a good time to begin a career in their scientific field.
On that top item — nation’s greatest achievements — scientific discoveries lost their top place to “Nothing/Don’t Know.” A pretty grim indicator of the national mood, no? Full report here (PDF).
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
“Just 32% of Americans believe “that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection.”
Another shining example of the harm done to society by religion.
Amen! And evidence that these people have such disbelief in science, they’re willing to prove their case by not evolving from the Bronze Age beliefs of their ancestors!
In response to another comment. See in context »The real lesson to be learned here is that PR – oh, let’ just call them propaganda – techniques based on non-factual doubt and propagated out of the mouths of false authorities … *work*. And that is because there is no “fact” filter within our media system any longer. Instead of editors and journalists fact-checking claims by their sources, the publications and media outlets have given up on their role as truth seekers and instead just repeat whatever their vacant claims sources utter. Even when the journalist knows those claims to be false, these claims make it to print or on television.
And when a serious news outlet with longstanding credibility prints false claims by non-scientists about matters of science, readers – citizens – are understandably confused as to what is truthful. These people are not “stupid”. They are grossly misinformed by the very authorities they have been taught since childhood to trust.
The long term consequences of this is the widespread distrust in journalism and all other forms of authority we see throughout society today. And when one cannot untangle lies from truth, the only option left is to turn to those closest personally and culturally – even if those closest to you are known liars. Hence, the popularity of Fox News.
The problem is that creationists and proponents of “intelligent design” (a misnomer, really) have pushed their product so hard in every conceivable crevice of society that even if they don’t win solid converts, they plant the tiniest seed of doubt. It’s a shame that the overwhelming evidence for evolution isn’t enough.
[...] agoEat, blog, repeat: Meet the woman who started it all Katie Drummond The Extreme Self5 hours ago2/3 of Americans still doubt the theory of evolution Ryan Sager NeuroworldUpdated 1 hour agoActive Topic:Sports1 hour agoDuke's 'Coach K' [...]
Well, this certainly explains how so many people could like Sarah Palin. I am a bit surprised that 84% of scientists say they believe the globe is warming as a result of human activity. I wonder if it is an accident that the number identically matches the number of scientists who look to the government to fund their research?
[...] On: Of Evolution and Idiots [...]
Ryan Sager’s comparison of belief in the Theory of Evolution and the anthropocentric view of global warming is unfortunately quite deceptive. He first states that 87% of scientists support that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection and 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer due to human activity. He then moves the goal post in the next paragraph concluding that the climate change folks can feel some pride that more people believe in global warming than in evolution. I note that, like most advocates of “man made” global warming, he conveniently leaves out the term “man made” in the final analysis. So, it reads something like this: Most scientists believe in the Theory of Evolution, most scientists believe in “man made” global warming, scientists are smart people, therefore, those who do not believe in global warming are dumb (oops! I forgot to include the words “man made” in my final argument, but you know what I mean)
I believe that Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution ranks as one of the most important and courageous scientific discoveries of all time. I believe that the majority of scientists agree with this theory. I do not believe that the majority of scientists believe that the cause of global warming is necessarily “man made”. I know that there are over 31,000 scientists, including the late theoretical physicist Edward Teller, who have signed the Global Warming Petition which states that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide … is causing global warming.
Now, do I think that we should all be good custodians of the planet and not pollute? Yes! Do I believe that we should conserve energy and recycle? Yes! Do I believe that the planet Earth, which science proves has gone through significantly warmer periods than we are experiencing now, is suddenly getting warmer because man has a greater influence on the climate than volcanic activity, bacteria, plants, animals, and the activity in the oceans which are largely unexplored and occupy 3/4 of the planet? No! And there are a lot of incredibly intelligent people who agree with this including over 31,000 scientists who have put there reputations on the line by signing a petition stating that very fact. So, please don’t lump all the people who disagree with the politically expedient theory that global warming is “man made” together with “religious nutters” who believe that the Universe came into being through “intelligent design”.
Interesting that the naysayers of evolution are the strongest advocates for Social Darwinism.
@ dennisnovak, Teller died in 03, there is much data since then. Secondly, I don’t think the validity of your position is strengthened by what the local kinesiologist thinks (unless his curriculum vitae demonstrates other disciplines of expertise). It would appear that the environment is in free fall. While a second vote of “experts” might have a different outcome, if we wait to hit bottom in order to disprove gravity, it will be a little late.
I have a one-word theory to explain why such a low percentage of people say they believe evolution is true: Fear. The main rhetorical weapon used by organized religions against evolution is that believing it to be true is the immediate precursor to meaninglessness. If evolution implies a life ultimately without meaning, then it’s to be shunned, evidence be damned.
And since evolution is the principal belief option relative to creationism, creationists have been able to paint it as the “Lie” used by Satan to lure the sinful away from the church. Ken Ham, the long-time creationist mouthpiece, titled his most well known book, “The Lie” for that reason.
So I think there’s a potent fear-based strategy underlying that 32%, and given what a powerful motivator fear is, I doubt we’ll see that percentage increase very much anytime soon.
-D
It should be taught early in k12 education the definition of science and the history of science came about so that people know what science is. Prior to higher education, the last required science class I took was as a high school freshman. That as well as previous science courses were all about process and procedure and rote facts. I remember science as it was taught in junior high and high school as being very dry and painfully meaningless. No wonder only a tiny fraction went on to take physics and chemistry. Religion has it easy when taking over where education has failed.
I have to admit, when I see a bunch of non-scientists lamenting the fact that not every scientist believes completely in the theory of evolution or the global warming propaganda machine, it makes me wonder, what do you know exactly? Just because you believe every “fact” that is claimed by the scientific community, does not mean that everyone has to. Science would not be where it is today if it werent for other scientists wondering if the common accepted knowledge and theories were crap. My point being, if your not collecting and observing data yourself, and you dont really know that much about the process, be careful what you profess, and who you call ignorant. Quote from the past “what a moron! That guy thinks the earth ISN’T carried on the back of a giant turtle!”
I needn’t be a mathematician to state unequivocally that 2 + 2 = 4. Skepticism is one thing, but don’t be daft.
I’ve studied all the major religions, read most of the major philosophical theories and over viewed scientific progress for more than 40 years. I was warned repeatedly in sunday school about asking to many questions. Living most of my life in the bible belt I’ve crossed swords dozens of times with the close minded religious attitudes prevalent in this area. With all this in mind – I’ve come to the conclusion that religion is comfortable. Once you’re ’saved’ you give up on questioning the universe for it’s reasons (mostly). Also you take the advances in science for granted and lose respect for the tremendous dedication it takes to advance our knowledge of the universe. We’re at a point in the development of the human race that we can’t afford it any more, the USA and the planet itself along with the lack of value given to human rights are heading for a crescendo. Somehow we have to increase interest in studying the universe or the universe is going to make us pay for it.
Let me preface this by saying I’m not a scientist or a philosopher. Just a regular guy with opinions about both.
I know I’m in the minority here but God and evolution (as a process) aren’t mutually exclusive. The obvious tension is in the answer to “where did everything come from?” Either way, I think there’s a leap of faith taken by both parties. But, beyond that it seems obvious to me (as someone that firmly believes in God) that evolution is an accurate explanation for how the world as we know it has developed. I think it’s foolish to deny it doesn’t exist in some form.
If the creationists honestly think that the world was created in six days and that we all literally came from two human beings, then I have a couple questions they need to answer.
1: If we all come from two humans, that means we have been mating with our direct relatives for thousands of years, is that morally ok with them?
2: If “God” created everything only a few thousand years ago, how do creationists explain the age of the earth?
3: If creationism is the answer to how everything came to be, how come some species have become extinct and others have not? Did “God” not like the species he made extinct?
Finally: How can creationists believe in a system that flies in the face of every thing scientific? I know there are certain religions that do not belive in taking medicine and if they are right[ and they can be as right as any other religion] then we probably would not need to have this discussion because we would all be dead from some bacteria or illness. I think creationists like to have their cake and eat it too. You cannot pick and choose what is comfortable for you and then turn around and deny the very thing[science]in which you are so vehemently taking an active part.
Belief in something is just that, belief. It does not have to make any sense or have any rationale, it is a belief. Science, on the other hand is a system of trial and error. A hypothesis is put forth, experiments are done to test the hypothesis, and the results are documented. It is based on observable truths or untruths. The ancient Greeks believed Athena sprang from the head of another God. It was as valid to them as creationism is to creationists. See the problem. M.
The idea that God might be a passive, dispassionate force, or even that he might have such sort of arrows in His mighty quiver, freaks out the control freaks on the Right. As Neils Bohr might tell them, “Stop telling God what She can do!”
Amended version:
In response to another comment. See in context »The idea that God might be a passive, dispassionate force, or even that It might have such sort of blunt arrows in His mighty quiver, freaks out the control freaks on the Right. As Neils Bohr might tell them, “Stop telling God what She can do!”
There is overwhelming evidence that evolution happens, but there is no reason to believe it’s the ONLY thing that happens. I’ve never come across a good explanation for why we are all not cyanobacteria even today. One-celled critters do just fine; why get complicated? There is a profound mystery at the core of existence that science ignores and religion addresses, albeit poorly. The hallmarks of a good scientist are humility and openness, qualities sorely lacking in most scientists today, who seem to be running standard, off-the-shelf Leftist/reductionist software. This is how belief in anthropogenic greenhouse warming becomes a “consensus’ in spite of proof that the evidence is tainted.