Evolution is now accepted by a majority of Americans(phys.org)
phys.org
Evolution is now accepted by a majority of Americans
https://phys.org/news/2021-08-evolution-majority-americans.html
33 comments
> "The good thing about Science is that it’s true, whether or not you believe in it."
Just playing the devil’s advocate here - but isn't science also what we call the only study that's consistently and routinely wrong?
Just playing the devil’s advocate here - but isn't science also what we call the only study that's consistently and routinely wrong?
Because religion cannot be proven wrong in most cases does not mean science is less correct because it can.
Every time something is proven wrong in the Bible, someone always pipes up with "THAT was metaphorical!"
When science is proven wrong, the theory is updated and we move on.
To be fair, some religions update their info and move on. But the majority staunchly stick to their guns regardless of the evidence.
When science is proven wrong, the theory is updated and we move on.
To be fair, some religions update their info and move on. But the majority staunchly stick to their guns regardless of the evidence.
> Every time something is proven wrong in the Bible, someone always pipes up with "THAT was metaphorical!"
The one I always hear is "but you just have to have faith!"
The one I always hear is "but you just have to have faith!"
> As of 2019, 34% of conservative Republicans accepted evolution compared to 83% of liberal Democrats.
I wish this surprised me. If something as straightforward as evolution has this kind of political split, I can’t help but feel that we’re screwed politically.
I wish this surprised me. If something as straightforward as evolution has this kind of political split, I can’t help but feel that we’re screwed politically.
That is, to me, the crux of this issue.
In a lot of ways I don't care whether somebody accepts evolution or not. People get away with disbelieving because it largely doesn't matter. It would make you a crummy biologist, and not a great doctor, but most people don't actually need to accept evolution in their daily lives. It gets aggravating when such people try to mis-educate people in schools, but that's the worst of it.
Except that creationism seems to have been a kind of test-bed for anti-intellectualism. They learned tactics for getting people to place their ill-informed opinions over expertise any time it suited them. Failing to understand evolution doesn't kill people, but failing to understand epidemiology and virology does.
They don't need to understand it, but they do need to believe medical experts who say things like "get vaccinated" and "wear masks". Instead, people are handed a litany of tools telling them that the experts are wrong and they're right, and it's literally killing people.
The same toolkit is being used on climate change, and lots of other issues. This is far past serious differences of opinion or values. It's cases where they're Just Plain Wrong, and not just a fringe but a large majority supported by the leadership.
I'd really like to get back to arguing about legitimate differences of opinion, but it feels like that hasn't been an option for decades. Instead we're fighting about basic facts, no matter how obvious or overwhelming the evidence.
In a lot of ways I don't care whether somebody accepts evolution or not. People get away with disbelieving because it largely doesn't matter. It would make you a crummy biologist, and not a great doctor, but most people don't actually need to accept evolution in their daily lives. It gets aggravating when such people try to mis-educate people in schools, but that's the worst of it.
Except that creationism seems to have been a kind of test-bed for anti-intellectualism. They learned tactics for getting people to place their ill-informed opinions over expertise any time it suited them. Failing to understand evolution doesn't kill people, but failing to understand epidemiology and virology does.
They don't need to understand it, but they do need to believe medical experts who say things like "get vaccinated" and "wear masks". Instead, people are handed a litany of tools telling them that the experts are wrong and they're right, and it's literally killing people.
The same toolkit is being used on climate change, and lots of other issues. This is far past serious differences of opinion or values. It's cases where they're Just Plain Wrong, and not just a fringe but a large majority supported by the leadership.
I'd really like to get back to arguing about legitimate differences of opinion, but it feels like that hasn't been an option for decades. Instead we're fighting about basic facts, no matter how obvious or overwhelming the evidence.
I never realized evolution was this controversial.
I always thought it was only rejected by the most extreme ~5% or so of fundamentalist Christians. Seeing that it's half the population is rather astounding.
I always thought it was only rejected by the most extreme ~5% or so of fundamentalist Christians. Seeing that it's half the population is rather astounding.
The USA is a pretty extreme place!
Half the population cares nothing about any science and does not know (or care) whether the earth goes around the sun or vice versa.
It would be interesting to develop a metric of how long it takes for a new fact to propagate through a population, and then see what other attributes that correlates with. You'd need to adjust it for falsehoods propagating, of course, to account for populations that tend to believe whatever you tell them.
Santa Fe Institute actually does make models of exactly this sort of thing. They probably have a visualization using NetLogo to demonstrate it, too.
> You'd need to adjust it for falsehoods propagating, of course, to account for populations that tend to believe whatever you tell them.
I think you'd need to adjust for a lot of (too many) other things, as well.
For example, there are new facts that spread quickly and easily because it's painless to change your mind. They don't make you feel retrospective guilt, debunk your religious beliefs, threaten your livelihood, or force you to change your lifestyle. One example would be that BPA is harmful for humans to ingest -- a relatively recent concern that is fairly widely accepted now.
Compare that with the fact that fossil fuels cause climate change, and you don't just get well-funded corporate disinformation efforts. You also have individual workers who just don't want to feel like they've been destroying the planet for 30 years and should find a new industry to work in.
I think you'd need to adjust for a lot of (too many) other things, as well.
For example, there are new facts that spread quickly and easily because it's painless to change your mind. They don't make you feel retrospective guilt, debunk your religious beliefs, threaten your livelihood, or force you to change your lifestyle. One example would be that BPA is harmful for humans to ingest -- a relatively recent concern that is fairly widely accepted now.
Compare that with the fact that fossil fuels cause climate change, and you don't just get well-funded corporate disinformation efforts. You also have individual workers who just don't want to feel like they've been destroying the planet for 30 years and should find a new industry to work in.
it sounds like you would appreciate the opportunity to speak to an FB dev
Ha, good point!
And how much of it is just old people dying versus people legitimately changing their minds
The structure of scientific revolutions in action!
The thing which always gets me about evolution, is that if you think about the dynamics of any population with selection and the ability to mutate it requires a real intellectual effort to not see how it makes sense.
The Atlantic Ocean is a wonderful thing
The Atlantic Ocean is a wonderful thing
This may indeed work as an analogy to an extent, but I think its failing is when it comes to the idea of life from non-life.
Evolution is about groups of already living things. Origin of Life is a completely different study.
What is life? It's just an abstraction.
Ignoring that the mechanism has been demonstrated in laboratory conditions, the argument you suggest stems from the bizarre and witless idea that evolution suggests evolution takes place over a human timescale.
Ignoring that the mechanism has been demonstrated in laboratory conditions, the argument you suggest stems from the bizarre and witless idea that evolution suggests evolution takes place over a human timescale.
Simultaneously questioning whether ’accepts evolution’ is actually meaningful, and wondering what the global figure is.
It seems that there’s a unspoken presupposition of “evolutionists = reasonable person” vs. “creationist = unreasonable extremist”
The issue with this presumption is that it is the exact same cognitive deficiency usually attributed to creationists or religious extremists for that matter, that is lack of critical thinking.
It seems to me that whatever idea/ideology that is religiously accepted without any critical think, let it be a story about origins, political beliefs, or even OOP, is as pernicious.
In the spirit of avoiding an echo chamber a book comes to mind: “Where the conflict really lies” by Alvin Plantinga, award winning American philosopher, where he shows some areas in which religious attachment to evolutionism, that is, the application of the theory without critical thinking can actually stagnate scientific progress by closing paths of the exploration even before they are considered.
Let me be clear that I’m not arguing for evolutionism or creationism or anything, just pointing out a cognitive bias we can fall when something is accepted without critical thinking
The issue with this presumption is that it is the exact same cognitive deficiency usually attributed to creationists or religious extremists for that matter, that is lack of critical thinking.
It seems to me that whatever idea/ideology that is religiously accepted without any critical think, let it be a story about origins, political beliefs, or even OOP, is as pernicious.
In the spirit of avoiding an echo chamber a book comes to mind: “Where the conflict really lies” by Alvin Plantinga, award winning American philosopher, where he shows some areas in which religious attachment to evolutionism, that is, the application of the theory without critical thinking can actually stagnate scientific progress by closing paths of the exploration even before they are considered.
Let me be clear that I’m not arguing for evolutionism or creationism or anything, just pointing out a cognitive bias we can fall when something is accepted without critical thinking
True, but all other things being equal (in particular, controlling for people's innate level of dogmatism), a world where more people accept the best available theory represents progress over one where they espouse an outdated/discredited one.
edit: Or maybe not? I guess my concrete question to you would be what balance of E/C believers do you think would be ideal?
edit: Or maybe not? I guess my concrete question to you would be what balance of E/C believers do you think would be ideal?
I completely agree with you.
Honestly I don’t about an E/C ideal ratio. My only fear is an ideology becoming so popular to the detriment/exclusion of anything else.
One slightly distressing example is our belief of the inherent value of all humans while our naturalist view points towards natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Say, in a plane accident giving preference to the weakest, i.e. disable, goes against the natural selection scenario that would benefit the species, given that those that are being giving preference are the ones with the least probability of survival, and from a purely naturalistic point of view, it should be the strong and healthy that should exit the plane and survive since that would equate to the greatest net benefit to the survival of the human species.
This is, for example, one of the things that bothers me.
Honestly I don’t about an E/C ideal ratio. My only fear is an ideology becoming so popular to the detriment/exclusion of anything else.
One slightly distressing example is our belief of the inherent value of all humans while our naturalist view points towards natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Say, in a plane accident giving preference to the weakest, i.e. disable, goes against the natural selection scenario that would benefit the species, given that those that are being giving preference are the ones with the least probability of survival, and from a purely naturalistic point of view, it should be the strong and healthy that should exit the plane and survive since that would equate to the greatest net benefit to the survival of the human species.
This is, for example, one of the things that bothers me.
Agreed that it's bad for science and for society when we start ascribing moral orientation to the two sides of a question of scientific truth. These days people seem to do it often on the question of efficacy of preventive measures against COVID, also climate change, and biological correlates of intelligence.
> My only fear is an ideology becoming so popular to the detriment/exclusion of anything else.
Is this concern attributable to any particular real event?
Is this concern attributable to any particular real event?
I keep thinking back to the theories before relativity and quantum mechanics. Practitioners had to grudgingly accept they were fundamentally wrong after decades of useful results. Even Einstein was troubled by QM after proving relativity.
What you say is potentially true, but I feel like this line of inquiry can lead to being so open-minded that your brain falls out i.e. I'm sure there are very fastidious and rigorous creationists out there, but they're still wrong. Not all reasoning is valid
> being so open-minded that your brain falls
Incredibly well put.
Incredibly well put.
I agree that believing in evolution is not a sufficient condition to demonstrating critical thinking skills, but I do think it is a necessary one.
It sure as hell doesn't seem like it sometimes...
I don't think your intuition is the problem:
> Forty percent of U.S. adults ascribe to a strictly creationist view of human origins, believing that God created them in their present form within roughly the past 10,000 years.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creati...
That's over 100 million people.
> Forty percent of U.S. adults ascribe to a strictly creationist view of human origins, believing that God created them in their present form within roughly the past 10,000 years.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creati...
That's over 100 million people.
The sad thing to me is that the low level of "acceptance" of evolution by Americans shows to me fundamental flaws in our education system. When I was in high school and taught evolution, I was basically taught it as "this is how it is", and also with some examples of the evidence for it, but it's not hard for me to see how many people frame evolution as a "some evidence is for it, some evidence is against it" type of question given how it is taught in most high schools. It was only when I got to college that I was really exposed to how evolution is the absolute basis of pretty much all biological understanding, and that if it weren't true, that basically none of our command of biology (e.g. modern medicine) could work.
I'm not necessarily saying high schools have the opportunity to go into that much depth, but it would not be hard, for example, to tie in evolution into lots of different disciplines to see why it's so important, instead of just kind of throwing it out there as one more piece of information students should "believe".