U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

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 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 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.”

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.")

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.

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."

Most of the people that I have personally known from working in biology and geosciences fields are not atheists. Contrary to popular notions many of them are church (or synagogue) going people, and most of them have some measure of religious faith. None of them believes that evolutionary theory, or other scientific theories such as big bang cosmology or plate tectonic theory, is in conflict with their religion.

What we are seeing in these threads, then, is not a conflict between science and religion. For most people, including most religious people, science and faith are not opposed to one another. What we are experiencing is a sectarian conflict. This conflict exists between those with highly literal interpretation of the Genesis chapter and people who hold more mainstream theological viewpoints. The theological position of mainstream Judaism and Christianity (including conservative denominations such as the Southern Baptists) is that Lord exists beyond scientific scrutiny. The creationism/intelligent design movement, on the other hand, seeks to demonstrate the existence of the Creator through forensic evidence. When the physical evidence does not square with their theological position, it is the evidence and scientific method that become suspect. The result is the hostility demonstrated on these threads towards modern biology and science in general.

How many times in these threads have I heard people say "Liberal Christians are worse than atheists" or "You can't be a true Christian if you believe insects came before birds" and the like? This is a sectarian conflict. It is not "atheist science" versus Christianity at all. In actuality, this conflict is about the creationist/intelligent design movement seeking to elevate their theological position above the theological position of others.

Those nations which originated agriculturalism later fell far behind western nations because they did not embrace Christianity. (the correlation is prfound if you would care to scratch below the surface, should your preconceived bias allow such)

As the world came out of the Dark Ages there were three powerhouses in the world.

The Middle East had repelled several Christian invasions, but their environment was so depleted that never again would the term "Fertile Crescent" apply. Not until the discovery of oil would they acheive any importance on the world stage.

China had better technology and almost a hundred year head start on "treasure fleets" - ie colonizing and looting - but one bad decision on the part of the ruling class completely ruined their worldwide prospects. They chose to forgo sending out more fleets and lost out on the greatest period of exploration and expansion in history.

This left Europe to dominate the globe by default, as no other area of the world could compete at all. Saying this domination has happened for the past 2000 years is obviously wrong, though.

"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"

That's kind of funny.

Any stats on what these 34 countries of superior "understanding" rank in scientific discovery? How about in medical discoveries since that is closely aligned with biology.

Rubbish.

Evolution contributes little to the progress of science.

I agree. Most scientists aren't atheists like myself and probably never will be. Religion (seems to me, anway) is intrinsic to humanity itself, so scientists of all stripes are probably going to be reconciling their findings with their faith for thousands of years to come.

Personally, I think it's great that an atheist "amature-junior-scientist" like myself can come together with Christian, Hindu, Agnostic, Whatever professionals to see the evidence support such a beautiful and parsimonious theory like Evolution.

Rubbish. Evolution contributes little to the progress of science.

Thats a bit like saying "Astronomy contributes little to the progress of science". Astronomy, like evolutionary biology, is science, so any progress in these fields is -- by definition -- scientific progress.

I get the feeling that when you say "scientific progress" you really mean "engineering applications" -- neato gadgets to make life easier and perhaps to blow things up. Those are wonderful benefits of scients, of course, but the neat thing about human beings is that we thirst for Knowledge, even if said Knowledge doesn't help us to build a better widget or increase our profit margin.

Knowledge is a reward unto itself.

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.