James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
While online polls are generally worthless when it comes to generating representative statistics - see this post and ensuing dicussion (sorry for being cranky, girlscientist) -- they can at time produce quite curious results. This self-described unscientific poll from the Australian science magazine COSMOS really has me wondering about the publication's readership.
"Are humans still subject to natural selection?" asks COSMOS. Fair question. And more than three quarters of the respondents selected one of two quite similar variations on a theme of "yes." But then there were the other responses...
Here's the breakdown, as of early Monday afternoon,EDT:
No. Medical advances mean humans almost always survive to reproduce, eliminating natural selection: 14%You see the source of my confusion. COSMOS calls itself "A magazine of ideas, science, society and the future." You might think that just about anyone who spends time reading such a publication would embrance a rational world view, one based on application of the scientific method and whatnot. It runs essays on things like "why intelligent design is not just bad science but it is also bad religion." In a previous poll that asked "Would you drink recycled water?" more than half (52 %) said "Yes, I'd drink it directly from the treatment plant."
Yes. It may be imperceptible, but evolution is still at work: 55%
Yes. But at a greatly reduced rate than at other times in our history: 24%
I don't believe in evolution at all: 8%
And yet, a full eight per cent of voluntary respondents to the polls don't believe in evolution at all. What's that all about? What are they doing on the COSMOS site in the first place? Are there some nefarious creationist trolls who have nothing better to do than wreak havoc on science-oriented sites? Does that mean scienceblogs.com is also attracting a small contingent of anti-intellectual readers? Or is it just another example of how Australians are different from the rest of us?
Curious, very curious indeed.
UPDATE, 1 Aug: Non-believers now up to 9 %
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
I don't believe in Evolution. However, it's clear that the evidence is pretty convincing, and there aren't any competing ideas. Evolution is not, for me, a matter of faith.
Maybe 8% or 9% of the readership recognizes that they have not studied the question in enough detail to be able to definitively affirm any of the other given possible answers.
For example, the odd stillborn, crib death, child with cancer story is in the news frequently. If it's in the news, that probably means it's fairly rare. Car crashes don't make the news, for example. They could be selecting for better drivers, either when blood relatives take them out, or when they take themselves out in their late teens. But how many really don't make it to adult age?
So, the non-believers might represent fairly smart, well informed people in the top 10 percentile, that if you interviewed, wouldn't be total whack jobs.
Or you might have been right the first time.
Posted by: Stephen Uitti | August 4, 2006 11:53 AM