Posted on 08/11/2006 11:54:04 AM PDT by presidio9
A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.
Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.
“American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.
The researchers combined data from public surveys on evolution collected from 32 European countries, the United States and Japan between 1985 and 2005. Adults in each country were asked whether they thought the statement “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,” was true, false, or if they were unsure.
The study found that over the past 20 years:
The percentage of U.S. adults who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40 percent. The percentage overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48 to 39 percent, however. And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent.
Of the other countries surveyed, only Turkey ranked lower, with about 25 percent of the population accepting evolution and 75 percent rejecting it. In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and France, 80 percent or more of adults accepted evolution; in Japan, 78 percent of adults did.
The findings are detailed in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Science.
Religion belief and evolution
The researchers also compared 10 independent variables—including religious belief, political ideology and understanding of concepts from genetics, or “genetic literacy”—between adults in America and nine European countries to determine whether these factors could predict attitudes toward evolution.
The analysis found that Americans with fundamentalist religious beliefs—defined as belief in substantial divine control and frequent prayer—were more likely to reject evolution than Europeans with similar beliefs. The researchers attribute the discrepancy to differences in how American Christian fundamentalist and other forms of Christianity interpret the Bible.
While American fundamentalists tend to interpret the Bible literally and to view Genesis as a true and accurate account of creation, mainstream Protestants in both the United States and Europe instead treat Genesis as metaphorical, the researchers say.
“Whether it’s the Bible or the Koran, there are some people who think it’s everything you need to know,” Miller said. “Other people say these are very interesting metaphorical stories in that they give us guidance, but they’re not science books.”
This latter view is also shared by the Catholic Church.
Politics and the Flat Earth
Politics is also contributing to America's widespread confusion about evolution, the researchers say. Major political parties in the United States are more willing to make opposition to evolution a prominent part of their campaigns to garner conservative votes—something that does not happen in Europe or Japan.
Miller says that it makes about as much sense for politicians to oppose evolution in their campaigns as it is for them to advocate that the Earth is flat and promise to pass legislation saying so if elected to office.
"You can pass any law you want but it won't change the shape of the Earth," Miller told LiveScience.
Paul Meyers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the study, says that what politicians should be doing is saying, 'We ought to defer these questions to qualified authorities and we should have committees of scientists and engineers who we will approach for the right answers."
The researchers also single out the poor grasp of biological concepts, especially genetics, by American adults as an important contributor to the country's low confidence in evolution.
“The more you understand about genetics, the more you understand about the unity of life and the relationship humans have to other forms of life,” Miller said.
The current study also analyzed the results from a 10-country survey in which adults were tested with 10 true or false statements about basic concepts from genetics. One of the statements was "All plants and animals have DNA." Americans had a median score of 4. (The correct answer is "yes.")
Science alone is not enough
But the problem is more than one of education—it goes deeper, and is a function of our country's culture and history, said study co-author Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in California.
“The rejection of evolution is not something that will be solved by throwing science at it,” Scott said in a telephone interview.
Myers expressed a similar sentiment. About the recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania which ruled against intelligent design, Myers said "it was a great victory for our side and it’s done a lot to help ensure that we keep religion out of the classroom for a while longer, but it doesn’t address the root causes. The creationists are still creationists—they're not going to change because of a court decision."
Scott says one thing that will help is to have Catholics and mainstream Protestants speak up about their theologies' acceptance of evolution.
"There needs to be more addressing of creationism from these more moderate theological perspectives," Scott said. “The professional clergy and theologians whom I know tend to be very reluctant to engage in that type of ‘my theology versus your theology’ discussion, but it matters because it’s having a negative effect on American scientific literacy."
The latest packaging of creationism is intelligent design, or ID, a conjecture which claims that certain features of the natural world are so complex that they could only be the work of a Supreme Being. ID proponents say they do not deny that evolution is true, only that scientists should not rule out the possibility of supernatural intervention.
But scientists do not share doubts over evolution. They argue it is one of the most well tested theories around, supported by countless tests done in many different scientific fields. Scott says promoting uncertainty about evolution is just as bad as denying it outright and that ID and traditional creationism both spread the same message.
“Both are saying that evolution is bad science, that evolution is weak and inadequate science, and that it can’t do the job so therefore God did it,” she said.
Another view
Bruce Chapman, the president of the Discovery Institute, the primary backer of ID, has a different view of the study.
"A better explanation for the high percentage of doubters of Darwinism in America may be that this country's citizens are famously independent and are not given to being rolled by an ideological elite in any field," Chapman said. "In particular, the growing doubts about Darwinism undoubtedly reflect growing doubts among scientists about Darwinian theory. Over 640 have now signed a public dissent and the number keeps growing."
Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education in California points out, however, that most of the scientists Chapman refers to do not do research in the field of evolution.
"If you look at the list, you can't find anybody who's really a significant contributor to the field or anyone who's done recognizable work on evolution," Matzke said.
Scott says the news is not all bad. The number of American adults unsure about the validity of evolution has increased in recent years, from 7 to 21 percent, but growth in this demographic comes at the expense of the other two groups. The percentage of Americans accepting evolution has declined, but so has the percentage of those who overtly reject it.
"I was very surprised to see that. To me that means the glass is half full,” Scott said. “That 21 percent we can educate."
US leads the world in skepticism of authority.
The problem is that we have been cautioned to not mess with the Tree of Life. So long as we stick to classification there would be no problem, but genetic engineering of ourselves, which where all this appears to be headed, could be Big Trouble. Genetic engineering of plants and animals could also be dangerous but isn't quite the Big Trouble.
It could very well also be the result of a poll: "Public acceptance of same sex marriage" "Public acceptance to abortion on demand" "Public acceptance to gun control" "Public acceptance to social welfare programs"
Personally, I believe in Darwin which is not to say the "Godless" evolution being pushed as dogma today. Darwin himself was a Christian and believed in God. I believe that God could have chosen evolution as the manner to enact His creation if he so wished. What is interesting to this list is that it corresponds to the political correctness of this issue. The article seems to make it a point that somehow this issue has transcended science to realm of religion and politics because of conservatives when in fact it seems more of an issue with the left.
More importantly, one can believe every word of mainstream evolution theory, and still realize that it offers no explanation whatsoever for how all the raw materials and energy needed for evolution arose in the first place -- which frankly is MUCH more difficult to explain. I recently read a summary of new research by top-notch physicists, who have concluded that all the matter and energy in the universe we know arose in one trillion trillionth of a second when some object the size of a marble underwent a huge explosion. Nice work, but where did that nifty marble come from?
>>What is at issue is not biological kinship but the uniqueness of the human being, with his relationship with God.
Studies of animals increasingly are showing that many behaviors and abilities previously thought uniquely human are not. It doesn't bother me being on the far end of a not-unique continuum, but some people must have their mythology.
their not called by the scientific community they're called for by the liberals and their state established religion which hinges on evolution.
I have two problems with Evolution, and I am a Biology major in college, first is what you just mentioned, how it all began, secondly is the mathematics behind what is needed to go from a simple single cell prokaryote with only a few genes to todays multicellular eukaryotes with trillions of cells with each having millions of lines of code, there has to be numerous times through out history where there were massive jumps in evolution for it to happen. Where is the evidence for it? Micro-evolution however is very easy to prove and I have absolutely no problem with it, its really what is driving modern bio-science anyways.
You underestimate yourself. As a former math and physics teacher with 40 years in education however, I found most of your colleagues would not have been able to refute
Coulter's 'canards." Much of what she has to say,really, is really against the uncritical acceptance of not Darwin's biology but his anthropology, his theory of man.
Failing to genetically engineer ourselves is even more likely to yield Big Trouble. For one thing, our environment isn't going to stay the same forever, and may change very quickly at some point. If we don't to go the way of the dinosaurs, we'll need to be proactive about it. And our ability to populate other planets could well depend on genetically engineering ourselves. None of this bothers me, since I don't perceive God as an entity that doesn't want its creations to grow up and outdo their Creator. It's odd how Judaism and Christianity think of God as the "Father" of humans, but also as the sort of parent who desperately wants his offspring to remain perpetual toddlers.
Dissent in general is frowned on in the scientific community and its idiotic. It's intellectual communism.
Atkins is a perfect example. The establishment called it junk for decades, even when Atkins had studyings proving it, and only decades latter are other outlets studying it and discovering that much of what atkins put forth is in fact correct.
I wonder if the surveys are really finding huge percentages of Americans who are annoyed with surveys and are willing to give bad answers just to mess them up.
The notion of natural selection being at work is the perfect justification for a massive communist regime keeping it in check, and making things fair for everyone. This is why at their heart every liberal beleives deeply in evolution.
Ann is not a scientist, is she? If not, why would I read anything she had to say about evolution. As it happens, I did read "Godless." She does nothing but repeat the same non-scientific stuff we read here every time the subject comes up.
I have not got around to reading Ann's book and likely won't. I', not interested.
But I did get around to reading your position on Atheism.
Atheism is not a religion. It does not involve belief in any particular ideas or concepts. It is merely a disbelief in any sort of deity or other supernatural entities. For the atheist, such things simply are not believable. Atheism, in itself, is nothing more than that. There are no churches of atheism. There is no central doctrine of atheism. There are no principles of atheism. It is, simply, a disbelief in deities and other supernatural entities.
I have to disagree your your definition. Atheism is a belief system. It takes an absolute position on religion. It holds as a fundamental truth that God or Deities do not exist. Yet, it is given preference in the American judicial system on matters of religion. Your notion that your disbelief in God (a belief in no God) is different than one who believes in God makes you different is pompous. Both views hold a fundamental truth that cannot be proven by sensible experience. Both must adopt some unprovable a priori to duduce their respective view. The difference between an atheist and a religionist is the difference between a Jew or a Christian and that of a Muslim. The first two have subordinate rights to the latter. The Muslim claims his Allah is the True God. Even though Christians and Jews worship God, it must not be Allah as the Muslim keeps twisting his view to believe so. In the same way Atheists are twisting the law in America. The ACLU atheists are running with Muslims in their efforts to harass Christians in the court rooms.
Outdoing the Creator is the ambition that got Satan in trouble. Going out and populating the planets of all the stars in the universe wouldn't be a problem, but outdoing the Creator is not in the cards. However, the hubris that would accompany eating the fruit of that Tree would very likely lead some to think it possible and that could lead to yet another angelic lecture.
"A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower."
I guess we are better off than I thought we were.
No thank you. I don't need to be taught religion and/or biology by a lawyer that has a command of neither.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.