…and this is a 
The British Council has carried out an international survey on people's opinions about evolution. I cringe at these sorts of things; they so rarely give me an opportunity to put on a big foam rubber hand and chant "WE'RE #1!". There aren't really any surprises here.
The results show that the majority of people polled have heard of Charles Darwin with the highest levels of awareness in Russia (93%), Mexico (91%), Great Britain (91%), and China (90%) whilst less than half of people polled in Egypt (38%) and South Africa (27%) saying they had not heard of him. Overall, the majority (70%) of people surveyed have heard of the British naturalist.
Adults in the United States (84%) showed the highest levels of awareness and understanding of evolution and Darwin's theories followed by Great Britain (80%) saying they had a 'good or some knowledge' of the theory of evolution.
Not so fast there — the Dunning-Kruger effect comes into play here. People in the United States do not have a high level of understanding of evolution, and this survey did not measure actual competence. I've found that the people most likely to declare that they have a thorough knowledge of evolution are the creationists…but that a brief conversation is always sufficient to discover that all they've really got is a confused welter of misinformation.
That's pretty easy to see in this next sad result.
Only Russia (48%), USA (42%), South Africa (41%) and Egypt (25%) remained sceptical about the scientific evidence that exists to support Darwin's theory.
So more than half disbelieve evolution, but more than 80% think they're knowledgeable about it. There's a problem.
We also have a number for the accommodationists: 53% of Americans are.
In all countries polled more people agreed than disagreed that it is possible to believe in a God and hold the view that life evolved on Earth by means of natural selection at the same time, with those in India most likely (85%) to be of this opinion, followed by Mexico (65%), Argentina (63%), South Africa, Great Britain (54%), USA, Russia (53%), Egypt, Spain (45%), and China (39%).
Politics
Comments
Posted by: DGKnipfer | July 2, 2009 9:22 AM
We need a poll on how well people understand the Dunning-Kruger effect and iff it affects them.
Posted by: cervantes
|
July 2, 2009 9:25 AM
Indeed, it is a commonplace that the question, "Do you understand [a proposition]?" is completely worthless. Unfortunately physicians, for example, do this all the time with their patients. "Do you understand what I just told you?" Of course the answer is "yes" almost 100% of the time, but that is evidence only for the human reluctance to admit ignorance, and the human proclivity to overestimate our own competence. When we don't really understand something, we fill in the blanks with whatever is handy and assume we do understand.
The only way to assess whether people understand evolution is to ask them to explain it. That would be an interesting study.
Posted by: cervantes
|
July 2, 2009 9:27 AM
Indeed, it is a commonplace that the question, "Do you understand [a proposition]?" is completely worthless. Unfortunately physicians, for example, do this all the time with their patients. "Do you understand what I just told you?" Of course the answer is "yes" almost 100% of the time, but that is evidence only for the human reluctance to admit ignorance, and the human proclivity to overestimate our own competence. When we don't really understand something, we fill in the blanks with whatever is handy and assume we do understand.
The only way to assess whether people understand evolution is to ask them to explain it. That would be an interesting study.
Posted by: Felix | July 2, 2009 9:29 AM
Have you notified the British Council about the D-K effect and why it's important to take into account?
Posted by: annas | July 2, 2009 9:30 AM
I'm trying to remember, but I don't think this Jesus and Mo was linked to when first published.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | July 2, 2009 9:34 AM
What a poorly written test. Next time they should be wise enough to put basic evolutionary questions in and see how many people get them right. I guarantee it won't be no 84%.
Posted by: CTD | July 2, 2009 9:34 AM
Anyone else sense something missing here?Posted by: protocol | July 2, 2009 9:34 AM
the high numbers in India signify that most people there are not protestants (and many Indian religious texts are quite consistent with a naturalistic worldview). Similarly the high numbers in Mexico signify that the Catholic church--and other Catholics--do accept evolution. So it is difficult to compare the surveys without taking into account the cultural context (i.e. all other things are not equal).
Posted by: Tom | July 2, 2009 9:35 AM
I can't say I'm surprised; ask anyone if they know about something, and it's likely they'll say "yes" regardless of what the topic even is. Only through conversation do you realize that they're all full of crap.
Posted by: Porco Dio | July 2, 2009 9:37 AM
a fantastic video of the D-K effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y
Posted by: CTD | July 2, 2009 9:37 AM
Anyone else sense something missing here?
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 2, 2009 9:42 AM
Sending them an email to ask about it.
Posted by: Felix | July 2, 2009 9:42 AM
CTD,
well spotted. Were they afraid of being accused of endorsing blasphemy?
Posted by: co | July 2, 2009 9:44 AM
CTD: Yep. We sense the absense of a sensical answer. There is also the problem that that particular question will tend to shove people into one or another of the bins of a bimodal distribution, but we don't know which bin they're shoved into.
Posted by: Iter | July 2, 2009 9:45 AM
I'm an Indian, and I agree with #8. Religion here is pretty nebulous. There's no contradiction between evolution and the Hindu religion, because people do not consider the scriptures to be interpreted literally. Also, teaching anything other than evolution seems like an utterly ridiculous proposition, yet I read constantly in this blog about how people like P.Z are fighting to keep religion out of schools. Perhaps in a pan-theistic interpretation of the world, which several people, including myself subscribe to, there's plenty of room (so to speak) for accommodationists. Here the word God means a multitude of things, quite unlike the rigid interpretation of God by the bible. In fact, several gods in Indian culture are supposed to have male and female forms which seems remarkable advanced than the sexist view of a male God held by Christians, but I digress (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_God_and_gender for more)
Posted by: MikeS29
|
July 2, 2009 9:47 AM
@ 5
So where is "Strongly Disagree"?
These kinds of surveys are shit.
Posted by: MikeS29
|
July 2, 2009 9:49 AM
Of course I meant @11...!
Posted by: John Harshman
|
July 2, 2009 9:50 AM
Sorry, but this question doesn't address compatibility:
"To what extent do you agree or disagree that it is possible to believe in a God and still hold the view that life on Earth, including human life, evolved over time as a result of natural selection?"
Note that it doesn't ask whether religion and evolution are compatible. It asks whether it's possible to believe in both at once. I think we're all agreed that doublethink is possible. And I think we all know of evolutionary biologists who are religious. Creationists get out of this by claiming that religious scientists are not real Christians. And I suspect that's what is driving the result: "no true Scotsman". But what justification would a rational person have for answering "disagree"?
Posted by: Ted Dahlberg
|
July 2, 2009 9:51 AM
Of course you'd have to agree that it's possible to believe that. It's another matter entirely to ask if it's sensible to believe it. That I could easily disagree with. Ask stupid questions...
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 2, 2009 9:56 AM
Education in South Africa really is in a sorry state.
Posted by: Carl Troein | July 2, 2009 9:59 AM
The biggest problem with question 5 is surely not the missing option (though WTF is up with that?) but that it doesn't mean what the people asking it seem to think. Surely we all recognize that it's perfectly possible to hold conflicting and nonsensical beliefs, no? They might as well have asked "Do you think there are children who believe in Santa?" - some people would inevitably take this to mean "Do you believe in Santa?", and in the end the results wouldn't tell us a thing.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 2, 2009 10:10 AM
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 2, 2009 9:56 AM
Pretty much.
Posted by: Justin | July 2, 2009 10:35 AM
As a South Africa I'm very embarrassed!
No wonder we are sceptical about evolution, only 1 in 4 of us have heard of Darwin! Nuts!
But I think the American situation is maybe worse... I would like to think that once people here have been educated things will be put right. The US claim to have the facts, but ignore them!
Posted by: Brian Smith | July 2, 2009 10:45 AM
I don't think it's fair to label someone who agrees "that it is possible to believe in a God and hold the view that life evolved on Earth by means of natural selection at the same time" as an "accomodationist". There are plenty of religious people fighting strongly to keep creationism out of school science curricula, and (as #18 points out), agreeing that it's possible to believe something is not the same as believing it yourself.
I'm more worried about the 47% who don't agree with that statement. Those are mostly going to be hard-core creationists.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 2, 2009 10:51 AM
They have responded with, and an attached table which I don't know how to upload here, so cutting that bit out...
Which all seems reasonable and straightforward enough.
Posted by: Russell | July 2, 2009 10:51 AM
I'm a bit surprised to see Russia with Turkey and the US in that regard.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 2, 2009 11:05 AM
Now, onto the more problematic aspect for me: South Africa's sorry record on creationism.
My fellow atheists and opposers of bullshit, my country is in deep doo-doo. We need a solution to this, because we do not need more batshit stupidity - we have plenty as it is.
And frankly, it is reaching toxic levels.
We need some means of upgrading our education, particularly in the sciences - and I have no clue as to how to go about doing it.
Posted by: Rob Jase | July 2, 2009 11:14 AM
Ted #19 "Of course you'd have to agree that it's possible to believe that. It's another matter entirely to ask if it's sensible to believe it. That I could easily disagree with. Ask stupid questions... "
Absolootilly!
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 2, 2009 11:22 AM
@Russell #26
The thing about Russia will be a combination of the legacy of Lysenkoism and the resurgence of the Orthodox Church after the fall of Communism.
Posted by: Mobius | July 2, 2009 12:00 PM
Anyone that has debated creationist for very long will not be surprised at all by the notion that creationist THINK they understand evolution. Or all of science, for that matter. They have great confidence in what they think they know, and will almost never admit to either ignorance or to being wrong.
I even had one creationist from Australia inform me that scientists did not know how to do science. HE, on the other hand, knew exactly how science should be done. He insisted that science consisted only of those things which were known absolutely to be true.
Posted by: miller | July 2, 2009 12:13 PM
That's not really much of an accomodationist stance. Of course it's possible to believe the two things simultaneously. People do it. What's more interesting is that 47% say it's not possible. I think they must have had a different interpretation of the question than I did. Which would render the statistic useless.Posted by: waldteufel | July 2, 2009 12:35 PM
I don't think anyone ever went broke betting on the ignorance and gullibility of the average American.
Posted by: ivo
|
July 2, 2009 12:56 PM
I thought that "accomodationist" stands for:
someone who doesn't really believe that evolution and religious dogma are compatible, but says so for strategic purposes
rather than:
someone who thinks that evolution and religious dogma are compatible.
Now I'm all confused about this confused debate.
Posted by: NYC | July 2, 2009 12:56 PM
PZ - Do you have a list of questions that someone should be able to answer in order to say that they (as a layman, not a scientist) have a reasonable understanding of evolution?
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 2, 2009 1:06 PM
Brian Smith wrote:
I agree. That's not an accomodationist position. That's just reporting facts.
An accomodationist goes beyond saying that it is "possible" to believe in both God and evolution. They say that believing both is not just possible, but reasonable, sensible, unproblematic, and philosophically sound. In fact, it needs to be encouraged among the religious, for they are feeble, fragile beings who can't be trusted to ever accept any science theory if it appears to threaten their religion.
Posted by: mds | July 2, 2009 1:32 PM
"Why did monkeys mysteriously die out around the time that we evolved?"
"Why does one of my dog's pups have retractable claws and a surprisingly rough tongue?"
"Explain the absence of pygmies and dwarfs."
"What is this strange creature that so resembles both a crocodile and a duck?"
"On average, how many days pass between spontaneous creations of new life forms in a jar of Skippy peanut butter? (Assume the jar is sealed, but being stored at a temperature of 20 C)"
"Explain why the banana has a near impenetrable, spike covered skin, and a size such that can barely be held by both hands?"
Posted by: daveau | July 2, 2009 2:18 PM
Regular or Crunchy?
Posted by: Kausik Datta | July 2, 2009 2:24 PM
Perhaps OT, but perhaps not.
If you really want to see a demonstration of the sorry state of Public Mind, consider this news item:
DAILY WOMEN'S HEALTH POLICY REPORT
NATIONAL POLITICS & POLICY | Nineteen House Dems Plan To Vote Against Health Reform if Abortion Funding Is Included
[July 1, 2009]
Nineteen House Democrats recently sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stating that they will not vote for health care reform legislation "unless it explicitly excludes abortion funding from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan," CongressDaily reports. In the letter, the lawmakers wrote that they want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend that abortion services be included as part of benefits packages. They wrote, "Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government-subsidized health care plan under general health care."
The letter was signed by Reps. Dan Boren (Okla.), Bobby Bright (Ala.), Travis Childers (Miss.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.), Kathleen Dahlkemper (Pa.), Steve Driehaus (Ohio), Tim Holden (Pa.), Paul Kanjorski (Pa.), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Charlie Melancon (La.), John Murtha (Pa.), James Oberstar (Minn.), Solomon Ortiz (Texas), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Heath Shuler (N.C.), Bart Stupak (Mich.) and Gene Taylor (Miss.) (CongressDaily, 6/30).
As a worker and taxpayer in this country, this kind of attitude directly impacts my life and that of countless others, but alas! I am not a citizen, and hence I have no say.
As concerned US citizens, if you guys want to take action, please go to the website of National Partnership for Women and Families
Posted by: Brg | July 2, 2009 3:21 PM
I'm originally from Mexico. Although it is true, as #8 says, that Catholicism is a main factor regarding the acceptance of evolution there, the greatest factor is that, since the XIX century, and until very recently, there has been a very real and strong separation between church and state.
So, despite the fact that the current president has begun to talk openly about his beliefs (which until 10 years ago was something unheard of), today, the same as in India, it is ridiculous, not to say impossible, to think about someone teaching anything but evolution in schools - or even proposing it.
Posted by: James F | July 2, 2009 3:34 PM
When did the definition of "accommodationist" become theistic evolutionist?
Definitions suggested by Russell Blackford, which Jerry Coyne finds reasonable, are:
Anti-accommodationists hold, for various reasons, that when defending science, such as evolution (but not always), defenders should not assert that science is compatible with religion. Instead, they should merely defend science.
Accommodationists, on the other hand, hold that even if science and religion are incompatible, it is politically expedient to deny this incompatibility when defending science. Moreover, for reasons of political expediency, no one should bring up the incompatibility even while doing things other than defending science.
Posted by: abb3w | July 2, 2009 4:22 PM
Sorry, PZ, it is manifestly possible to believe in a God and hold the view that life evolved on Earth by means of natural selection at the same time. You're confusing this with whether such beliefs can be held self-consistently and/or can make any sense.
Posted by: tsg | July 2, 2009 4:34 PM
#41 et al
If you assume that everyone who answered the question took it literally and didn't interpret it to mean "is it reasonable/consistent", then you have a point. Given that only 53% answered "yes", though, I don't think you can make that assumption.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | July 2, 2009 4:37 PM
Brg @39:
Thank you for bringing that up. I am curious to know - you sound as if you have personal experience of education in India, do you (if you don't mind)?
What you said is absolutely right of course. Evolution is/was taught as a scientific fact in the Indian schools. Period. That was true for even my own high schools, one run by Catholic missionaries, the other run by Hindu monks. Our science classes were always unburdened by mythological considerations of any kind. In fact, I remember - except for one single non-credit class that we were forced to take, called Indian Culture, that studied a mishmash of religious philosophies - religion never really figured in any of our classrooms. Ever.
(Of course, on the downside, this is also the reason why it took me such a long time to understand in depth the ill effects of religion, and become an atheist)
Posted by: Spherical Time | July 2, 2009 4:41 PM
You've been linked on Fark, on the main page, for this entry. Just be aware and have a good day!
Posted by: David D.G. | July 2, 2009 4:43 PM
WTF? A higher percentage of people have heard of Darwin in Russia than in GREAT BRITAIN, which even has his visage on the 10-pound note?!? Something's not right about that!
~David D.G.
Posted by: Spherical Time | July 2, 2009 4:47 PM
You've been linked on Fark, on the main page, for this entry. Just be aware and have a good day!
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 2, 2009 4:52 PM
Sorry, PZ, it is manifestly possible to believe in a God and hold the view that life evolved on Earth by means of natural selection at the same time.
since he hasn't actually specified this in this post, what are you arguing about?
In fact, PZ has never said anything but this.
Compartmentalization is a fact, the point being why bother?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 2, 2009 5:01 PM
@JamesF:
I don't think labeling the issue around the word "accomodationist" moves the discussion forward to begin with.
I rather think the words themselves should be left out entirely, and just say that some scientists think we should just talk about science, not philosophy, when presenting the case for science itself, and some think we have to go out of our way and depth to put false frames up in order to spoonfeed the ignorant and fearful.
the label "anti-accomodationist" will immediately engender negative connotations among any hearing it on first go in the states, much like "anti-theist" would, and then science is shoved out of further discussion.
The debate over the value of it should always fall back to the success/failure of Gould's NOMA concept.
Posted by: Justin | July 2, 2009 5:08 PM
"So more than half disbelieve evolution, but more than 80% think they're knowledgeable about it. There's a problem."
I don't see a problem. Once people are educated on a theory they can make a more informed decision on whether they believe it or not.
Posted by: Watchman | July 2, 2009 5:17 PM
Justin: Perhaps you've missed the implication of what the numbers are telling us. The 80% may think they are knowledgeable about it, but if so many reject the validity of the theory based on what they do know of it, then they are overestimating their level of education. Very few people who are truly knowledgeable about the theory reject it on any but dogmatic theological grounds.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 2, 2009 5:21 PM
Justin:
Look up -
Dunning Kruger effect.
Posted by: qball | July 2, 2009 5:21 PM
@Ichthyic, 47
PZ refers to those who agreed with the statement as accommodationists. In fact, those who agreed with the statement are simply the ones who read it correctly.
Posted by: jeb | July 2, 2009 5:27 PM
Its not simply a Dunning Kruger effect. People do certainly big up there position but often in these cases they want to give the interviewer the answer they think he wants.
It's a well established problem with this type of investigation. Even with a more indepth survey or observation it's still an issue.
If the survey had been conducted by a religious group you would suspect reponses may be utterly diffrent even if the questions asked were identical. As the answers will be framed for that particular context.
Posted by: Watchman | July 2, 2009 5:49 PM
qball: Welcome back. :-)
Well, yes. Sort of. I'd put it this way: Those who read the statement correctly are among those who agreed with the statement. Many others may have read the statement as (I imagine) the writers intended it to be read: That is, as a question of whether or not the two views are compatible and/or reconcilable. We can't know, from the results, the ratio between the two types of readers/responsers.
Whether those who read the question incorrectly and still agreed are "accomodationists" or "theistic evolutionists" is another question, and open to debate.
But clearly, yes - The only reasonable response to the question as posed is to agree. As Abb3w put so succinctly above, "It is manifestly possible to believe in a God and hold the view that life evolved on Earth by means of natural selection at the same time." People do it all the time; the number of evolution-acceptors still far strips the number of atheists (here in the USA, anyway).
Posted by: qball | July 2, 2009 6:20 PM
@ Watchman
To read the question correctly is to interpret it as posed. The question is clearly stated, unambiguous, and has one correct answer. What the writers intended to ask is open to speculation; what they did ask is not.
Posted by: qball | July 2, 2009 6:38 PM
@ Watchman,
I do see your point that agreeing with the statement doesn't necessarily imply that one has read it correctly. My point was that those who agreed cannot be labelled accommodationists, since anyone who read it correctly would have agreed.
Posted by: Watchman | July 2, 2009 6:44 PM
That is certainly true.
Posted by: Watchman | July 2, 2009 6:56 PM
qball:
[#57 addressed #55]
Re: #56
Yes, I agree, though I must assume that some (if not many) of the affirmative responses were given for the "wrong" reason. However, like you and James, I wouldn't rush to label them accommodationists. It's likely that some or many members of that subset of responders are simply theists who accept the ToE. In that case, what are they "accommodating", other than their own personal beliefs?
Posted by: Brg | July 2, 2009 7:17 PM
For Kausik Data:
Sorry, no direct knowledge about education in India. However, Iter @ #15 has, and I was merely comparing my experience in Mexico to his, and now to yours, in India.
For my primary and secondary education I went to public schools. No religion whatsoever was allowed there. I then went to a private preparatory school. Again, no religion there. The funny thing is that most of the students were very Catholic, but this was never apparent at school. Later I went to a Jesuit university, but once again religion was not evident nor imposed there. I did attend one optional course about Jesus' cultural impact on society, but only because of the credits and the schedule. I found myself sharing this class not only with Catholics, but with Protestants as well. And discussions amongst ourselves and with the Jesuit teacher were very open and civic.
To tell you the truth, sometimes I find myself at odds hearing the struggle people are having with religion and fundamentalism; luckily for me, Mexico had solved some of those issues a long time ago (at a great price) by separating state from church very effectively. But one shouldn't lower the guard ever, because, as I have mentioned earlier, the social and law barriers that had been put in Mexico to limit the power of religion have been weakened in the past few years.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 2, 2009 7:44 PM
Re. the accommodationists, those numbers are not of any value. For example, in Egypt only 45% of those polled are accommodationists - but the other 55% might cut your nuts off if you said you believed in evilution and there was no god.
Posted by: astrobiologiste | July 2, 2009 8:03 PM
Mexico is a catholic country, and catholicism is not fighting with evolution (thnaks in part to pope John Paul II). I studied in a catholic elementary, junior high and high school and was taught the theory of evolution, and i eventually became a biologist.
In Mexico, the educational system has to be secular and scientific, as marked by the 3rd article in the constitution, and all the programs, both for public and private schools have to be approved by the Secretary of Education. There's a very interesting article about the teaching of evolution in Mexico by Dr. Antonio Lazcano in UNAM, that I have translated for my own use without permission of the author. You can look for it on the internets, or i'll send it to PZ as soon as i get back from vacaction.
I must say, though, that i did encounter some quasi-creationists while teaching biology in a catholic highschool, but i don't believe they pose a problem as a demographic.
Posted by: Daniel Davis | July 2, 2009 8:04 PM
The author assumes that "knowledge of evolution" MEANS agreement with the doctrine that live evolved on earth from simpler to more complex organisms. That is author bias. Personally, I know that the doctrine of evolution is hooey and I know it quite well: know thine enemy. Author: dump your bias.
Posted by: The Fankor | July 2, 2009 8:06 PM
I don't see any problem with the "accomodationist" position. In fact, I see God inventing a universe that naturally leads to evolution leading to consciousness as far more powerful than a "god" who says "poof" and invents life, then sticks his fat, stupid finger in the aquarium now and then.
To be frank, the anti-evolutionary forces believe in a stupid, weak god, while believing scientists believe in an amazing, miraculous god.
Assuming, of course, that it means letting science be science and leaving God for the other stuff (and, let's be frank, the "gaps" are pretty enormous).
Accepting evolution is, in a way, far more significant than accepting that the earth revolves around the sun. I also see no difference between denying evolution and denying the solar system. I am sure that in 100 years time, the evolution deniers will be generally seen as loony as the flat-earthers (they already are, but...).
Posted by: Daniel Davis | July 2, 2009 8:07 PM
The author assumes that "knowledge of evolution" MEANS agreement with the doctrine that live evolved on earth from simpler to more complex organisms. That is author bias. Personally, I know that the doctrine of evolution is hooey and I know it quite well: know thine enemy. Author: dump your bias.
Posted by: astrobiologiste | July 2, 2009 8:10 PM
Mexico is a catholic country, and catholicism is not fighting with evolution (thanks in part to pope John Paul II). I studied in a catholic elementary, junior high and high school and was taught the theory of evolution, and i eventually became a biologist.
In Mexico, the educational system has to be secular and scientific, as marked by the 3rd article in the constitution, and all the programs, both for public and private schools have to be approved by the Secretary of Education. There's a very interesting article about the teaching of evolution in Mexico by Dr. Antonio Lazcano in UNAM, that I have translated for my own use without permission of the author. You can look for it on the internets, or i'll send it to PZ as soon as i get back from vacaction.
I must say, though, that i did encounter some quasi-creationists while teaching biology in a catholic highschool, but i don't believe they pose a problem as a demographic.
Found the article, from it's original source
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2832,Teaching-Evolution-in-Mexico-Preaching-to-the-Choir,Antonio-Lazcano---ScienceMag
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 2, 2009 8:14 PM
Daniel Davis #62
Okay, Danny, what's the difference between homoplasy and homology?
Posted by: Allin Cottrell | July 2, 2009 9:04 PM
What's with all the double-postings on pharyngula today?
Click-incontinence or a burp in the software? I'll be
checking to see if this appears twice.
Posted by: mr eccles | July 2, 2009 9:10 PM
Following up on #66's question, where do you stand on the shifting balance argument between Fisher and Wright, Daniel?
Posted by: Kel | July 2, 2009 9:38 PM
I would really love to see those who argue against evolution have the intellectual honesty to study it as it is understood. Why don't these people pick up "evolution" texts written by scientists? It goes beyond the Dunning-Kruger effect, so many of these people I have encountered have read straw-man versions of evolution made by creationists. It's not that they don't know, it's that they are reading the wrong sources.
I would argue that it is intellectually dishonest to not look to a discipline the way it is understood by those in that discipline. That if you want to argue science then you should find out what the scientific knowledge is on the topic at hand. Understand evolution as evolution is understood by the scientific community - this doesn't seem like too much to ask for.
To not do this is to argue a straw-man, and evidentially it seems that creationists are quite happy to persist with this straw man attack. But what baffles me is how much effort they put in not to learn, that they don't want to understand evolution for what it is. It's not like understanding evolution means that you have to believe it, just to understand it.
If I were to argue against theism, surely that would entail me understanding what theism is and what is claimed. Otherwise I'm attacking a straw-man. I can disagree with the conclusions that theists draw, claim that their position is absurd for various reasons, but it would serve no purpose for me to get up and say "God doesn't exist because unicorns don't fornicate with centaurs, so how can God come to be?" That's not what theism claims, yet this is what creationists do with evolution.
"Have you seen a cat turn into a dog?" "Where are the half-human/half-monkeys?" "The theory of evolution is that God doesn't exist", etc. There's nothing to be gained in being ignorant, and to persist in ignorance is being intellectually dishonest - especially when arguing that position. Why can't a creationist even attempt to understand science as scientists understand it? What is the harm in actually learning what it is you are arguing against?
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
July 2, 2009 10:30 PM
The Fankor says, "To be frank, the anti-evolutionary forces believe in a stupid, weak god, while believing scientists believe in an amazing, miraculous god.
Assuming, of course, that it means letting science be science and leaving God for the other stuff..."
Uh, like what? You know the thing about a "god of the gaps" is that the gaps keep shrinking, and I'd think your god would be feeling cramped--or does he shrink along with them? And while the Universe may have up to 26 dimensions, most are curled up to dimensions of order the Planck length--kind of tiny for an infinite being.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 2, 2009 10:44 PM
Kel #69
Most creationists/IDers have skimmed AIG. Some of the more conscientious ones have read Darwin's Black Box or Dembski's Intelligent Design. Almost none of them have read anything by a biologist.
Posted by: zaatheist | July 2, 2009 10:58 PM
I live in South Africa and wish to point out that the illiteracy rate in the country is probably as high as 30% and unemployment 40%. People have greater concerns than worrying about the origins of life.
Posted by: qball | July 2, 2009 11:12 PM
@ Watchman (58)
I'd like to think that most of the affirmative responses were from people who read the question correctly; otherwise it would seem that a fairly small minority of responders actually understood the question. But you may be right. In any case, I think the results make a stronger (and rather bleak) statement about reading comprehension.
Thanks to James F @40 for Russell Blackford’s definition of “accommodationist”. I think the part about "political expediency" is important. One needn’t believe that science and religion are compatible, to believe there’s strategic value in promoting the belief that they are.
Posted by: mr eccles | July 2, 2009 11:14 PM
I live in South Africa and wish to point out that the illiteracy rate in the country is probably as high as 30% and unemployment 40%.
Yes, and yet the proportions of evolution skeptics in SA and the USA are roughly the same. After taking the shoddy state of the education system and all of SA's other problems into account, they almost come out looking good!
Posted by: Kel | July 2, 2009 11:27 PM
Exactly. To paraphrase Edward Current "Atheists say that the earth is radiometrically dated to be billions of years old. But two-thirds of the bible websites I visit say that radiometric dating is unreliable. 2/3rds? That's a landslide. Checkmate!"Of course, this is symptomatic of the incompatibility between science and faith. The scientific endeavour should be following the evidence to (tentative) conclusions whatever those may be, but faith is the opposite - confirming the conclusion that has been handed down through the centuries.
But even with that, you'd think that at least some of these people would have the intellectual honesty to at least try to understand evolution as biologists do. Why aren't the creationists trying to educate people on what evolution is and then blow it away as opposed to teaching a straw-man characterture of the theory to their credulous followers?
This goes beyond ignorance, it's rampant dishonesty, and beyond that a testament to the power of evolutionary theory as an explanation for the diversity of life. If it was in crisis, then surely they could attack the theory on its own merits. But they don't, so by their own actions they are in essence admitting they cannot attack evolution intellectually. They don't have a case and it is as obvious as day.
Posted by: Jacqueline | July 3, 2009 1:56 AM
Seeing Russia topping the list of countries where people are most skeptical of the evidence for evolution reminded me that godless communists didn't like Darwin's ideas. Are the creationists aware how much they have in common with them?
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 3, 2009 2:35 AM
zaatheist
Our (South Africa's) official unemployment rate has been hovering around 20% for years now.
Also, our teachers aren't all qualified as teachers, our science and mathematics education in particular have been long standing problems, particularly with our reliance for so many years on missionary schools, and our culture tends towards echoing American trends, such that we have Rhema.
On the upside we have some rather sneaky people with great senses of humour. A few weeks ago I noticed just outside the Rhema Church in Roodepoort - Pastel being advertised with the line "Evolve!"
Hyde Park, we have an Exclusive Books where the religion section is right next to the fantasy section - highlighting how similar the covers to that sort of thing tend to be.
We are a country where it is difficult to find a peace sign because the Born Agains think they are Satanic, but we have a charity dedicated to the Morning Star (AKA: Lucifer).
There is a lot of potential awesome for an atheist in South Africa, we just need a way to unlock that and get our people thinking.
Posted by: Uh | July 3, 2009 2:58 AM
The "accommodationists" are theistic evolutionists.
Evolution doesn't require a disbelief in God, just a knowledge of science. You can take God out of the equation altogether as far as mechanics are concerned. Evolution isn't a theory of origin, it's a theory of progression.
Posted by: Uh | July 3, 2009 3:00 AM
The "accommodationists" are theistic evolutionists.
Evolution doesn't require a disbelief in God, just a knowledge of science. You can take God out of the equation altogether as far as mechanics are concerned. Evolution isn't a theory of origin, it's a theory of progression.
Posted by: Paula Kirby | July 3, 2009 3:04 AM
Well, of COURSE it's possible to believe in a god and hold the view that life evolved on Earth by means of natural selection at the same time - the real question is, is such a combination rational? And what would it say about the god they have chosen to believe in, if it really had chosen such a harsh means of creating life on Earth?
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 3, 2009 5:50 AM
Posted by: Uh | July 3, 2009 2:58 AM
That is not quite true, theistic scientists can hold the opinion that the two sets of ideas don't contradict each other, but they aren't automatically accomodationist.
The accomodationist is the scientist who holds that a popular idea and an idea which is right may very well conflict and contradict each other, but such conflicts and contradictions should be treated as a matter of political expediency, and that any debate on the subject of such contradictions as occur should be silenced in the name of not riling up popular opinion.
The anti-accomodationist stance however holds that science should be apolitical as a whole, and should concern itself purely with reporting the facts - whether those facts are popular or not.
Note: Accomadationalism is not simply a religious issue.
My personal take on it is, of course, that accomodationalists of all scientific walks, are whores. Judgemental I know, but I prefer uncomfortable truths to comfortable lies.
Posted by: Kenneth Oberlander | July 3, 2009 5:53 AM
@Bruce Gorton
And Shofar. And Creation Ministries International...
I wonder what percentage of the ZA population is non-religious. I just took a look at the wiki page on religion in ZA, and the 2001 census gives a figure of 15.1% irreligious. However, there is a 2008 estimate of 8.1%. Rather a large discrepancy!
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | July 3, 2009 5:59 AM
#80, it could mean God is an experimenter, and has set the parameters in order to see what the results will be, without a compelling concern for the well being of the organisms involved in its experiment.
It could mean God is a storyteller, and likes the drama of conflict, lingering illnesses, chases, catastrophes, etc.
God could be obsessive-compulsive about monitoring subatomic particles, and have paid no attention to the fact that on a larger level of action, animals and plants are struggling to survive.
Being an atheist may be logical, but being a heretic is fun!
Posted by: jellee | July 3, 2009 9:45 AM
But here's a thing, not even Evolutionists understand evolution, if you take any one of them back far enough the answers are just not there, the evidence is just not available, so the entire thing is built on guesswork.
Mostly they say it's observable in the way virus's adapt, but this is adaptation and a virus will always remain a virus.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 3, 2009 10:02 AM
But here's a thing, not even Evolutionists understand evolution, if you take any one of them back far enough the answers are just not there, the evidence is just not available, so the entire thing is built on guesswork. - jellee
What is an "Evolutionist" and why does the word require an initial upper-case letter? Evolution is observable, and has been observed, not only in viruses, but in bacteria, plants, animals - every form of life. So you're either an ignoramus or a liar. Which is it?
Posted by: Kel | July 3, 2009 10:03 AM
That's wrong on so many levels.1. evolution is a theory, a theory explains the evidence. Evolution is understood quite well as the mechanisms by which life changes has been observed. We've observed mutation, selection, even speciation. The pattern of evolution fits.
2. Multiple evidences all point to the same conclusion, the fossil record, the genetic code, morphology, biogeographic distribution - these all form the same pattern. And there are precise genetic markers that show conclusively that common ancestry is established - such as the fused chromosome pair and ERV markers.
3. The evidence is well and truly available, just look at the fossil record. Just look at the biogeographic distribution of life, look at the morphology, the genetic code, pseudogenes and vestigial organs. And if that fails to convince you, then look at all the observations of evolution in action. Mutation, natural selection, speciation - these have all been observed. Novel traits, gene duplication. Again, observed.
4. It's not all guesswork, only someone completely ignorant of science would say such a thing. Evolution is based on evidence, and in 150 years not a single experiment has ever shown evolution to be false and countless pieces of evidence have shown the validity of evolution.
Why do creationists take such pride in being openly ignorant on matters of science?!?
Posted by: Kel | July 3, 2009 10:11 AM
jellee, have you read Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne? It discusses the evidence for evolution. Perhaps it would be a good starting point for you to see what evidence there really is.
Posted by: raven | July 3, 2009 10:14 AM
This is the latest creationist lie. The emergence and continuing evolution of the novel swine flu is evolution, pure and simple. Since it is all but undeniable to any but the most ignorant Death Cult xians, they just use slightly different language and keep claiming that evolution doesn't exist.
We are in the early stages of a pandemic caused by a predicted, newly evolved, and rapidly evolving flu virus. The creationists have got to do some heavy lying about this one. But don't worry, the Liars for jesus are up to any lies, any time.
"It is adaptation, not evolution".
"No one has ever seen a crocoflu."
No one has ever seen a flu virus turn into a dog."
PS Jellee might just be a kiddie trolling for fun. It can be hard to distinguish between malicious and bored 7 year olds and creationist xians.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 3, 2009 10:16 AM
No--here's a thing: Virtually nothing you wrote in comment #84 is true. It's painfully obvious that you haven't got the faintest clue of what the hell you're talking about. You should really go spend some time learning the basics of that theory you're railing against. I mean, doesn't it embarrass you to write such complete bullshit?
Posted by: raven | July 3, 2009 10:24 AM
More lies from the xian cultist troll. Or bored 7 year old kid, it is hard to tell the difference.
Evolution is not built on guess work. We know a huge amount. We don't know everything but then again, we always know more and never will find out everything.
Religion just gets it wrong in the beginning, never changes anything, and ends up killing people who point out those facts. Believing lies produces hate filled, warped morons by the millions and holds societies back.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 3, 2009 11:20 AM
You're proposing a hypothesis here: that it's possible to understand the theory of evolution ("doctrine" my ass!) and (honestly) disagree with it.
Being scientists, we are obsessive-compulsive about testing hypothesis. Could you please show us you understand the theory of evolution? Can you explain what it says?
(…While you're at it, could you also show us that you're able to read an error message, even if it's in a small font?)
Posted by: Happy Monkey | July 4, 2009 8:09 AM
I've just had a quick, and unsuccessful, scour of the net to find any writings/videos by him on the subject, but I saw Babu Gogineni speak on Hindu interpretation of evolution at a British Humanist Association conference in London last month, and it scared the shit out of me.
Hindu fundamentalism, he said, is on the rise. Increasing numbers of Hindu scholars read the most basic idea of natural selection, that sea creatures evolved to ambhibians, to mammals, then to humans, and say that it equates exactly with the Hindu creation myth of the four avatars of Vishnu.
Thus, they say, Darwin's theory shows their religion to be true, and all else in the Vedas must also follow to be true. Drawing on the ancient Eastern tradition of scientific discovery to support their claims, they say Hindu Science, a separate subjsect, must be upheld and promoted in India, to provide the true answers which Evil Western Science will never find.
The result is that Indian Universities are beginning to cut chemistry and physics funding to set up astrology departments, local governmental officials are giving schoolchildren (sacred) cows' piss at break time to improve their health, and millions of people are left, literally, on the scrapheap, with no chance of education, money, or dignity, simply for having the misfortune to be born untouchable.
These people leave their office plasma screens in their droves to witness a blinking statue of an obscure demigod.
They have their fingers on The Button, and that they claim to accept evolution is,in itself, a terrifying thought.
I've never been to India, and can't account for this first hand. But like I said, what he had to say was bloody scary.
Posted by: Lola Getz | July 5, 2009 12:20 PM
I should bloody well hope that upwards of 90% of the people in Britain know who Darwin is; his picture is on our freakin' MONEY. Pity that the percentage wasn't equally high for people knowing why they know who Darwin is.
Mr. Darwin lived in my little Yorkshire town for a while, taking the waters" at White Wells, a mineral spring famous in the era for its healing properties. We have a park dedicated to him. You'd be hard-pressed to find people who don't know a fair bit about Darwin around here (other than the local chav element, who know nothing about anything if it doesn't involve consuming copious amounts of alcohol and starting fights with each other).
Posted by: Lola Getz | July 5, 2009 12:24 PM
I should bloody well hope that upwards of 90% of the people in Britain know who Darwin is; his picture is on our freakin' MONEY. Pity that the percentage wasn't equally high for people knowing why they know who Darwin is.
Mr. Darwin lived in my little Yorkshire town for a while, taking the waters" at White Wells, a mineral spring famous in the era for its healing properties. We have a park dedicated to him. You'd be hard-pressed to find people who don't know a fair bit about Darwin around here (other than the local chav element, who know nothing about anything if it doesn't involve consuming copious amounts of alcohol and starting fights with each other).
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 5, 2009 12:50 PM
<headdesk>
TSIB. The numerological proofs I've seen of Captain Unelected being the Antichrist are much more convincing than this painful, painful cherry-picking.
As an armchair linguist, let me tell you you have no idea how appropriate this typo is linguistically :o)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 5, 2009 12:57 PM
IT GOT THROUGH!!! The error is gone! :-) :-) :-) All praise to the Seed Overlords!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 5, 2009 1:13 PM
Unsurprisingly, the error is back. :-(
Posted by: Happy Monkey | July 5, 2009 2:22 PM
No need to be rude, David. I was just passing on what I heard, not claiming any personal knowledge, as I think I made pretty clear. If what I heard was wrong, then tell me what's right rather than having a go at me.
I'd be interested to hear a different point of view. That's why I posted.
Posted by: irritable | July 7, 2009 10:50 AM
It must be oppressive for biologists living in a remarkably superstitious country like the US to deal with the persistent attempts of wealthy creationist organisations (occasionally including the GOP) to subvert the teaching of evolution in schools.
But it's hard - coming from a relatively secular country - to understand the vitriol directed at "accomodationist" scientists.
If these individuals (a) sedulously pretend, for tactical purposes, to believe that science and superstition are not incompatible, or (b) sincerely hold superstitious beliefs while firmly holding to evolutionary beliefs (despite the logical inconsistency) - then so long as they resist the teaching of creationism as science, they are allies to a heavily outnumbered group.
After all, the private thoughts, however wrong or obnoxious, of other people are nobody's business. Even if the other person is a biologist who can't see the logical inconsistency of believing simultaneously in science and the supernatural.
If stupid private ideas are inappropriately ventilated, they can be demolished by reason.
If stupid private ideas are translated into actions harmful to others, they normally come into collision with legislation - as in the Dover case.
But by and large, the abuse of others solely on the basis of "wrong thinking" is puerile.
It appears many "accomodationists" take the view that diplomacy, lobbying and tact are legitimate means of preserving uncontaminated science education in the US. These are the traditional tactics of sucessful, even sophisticated individuals in the arena of legislative action.
"Purists" may choose to despise "accomodationists" - but science education in the US may be better served by withholding self-righteous scorn and accepting the support of such people rather than alienating them with invective.
It's not necessary to endorse any of the superstitious (or feigned) beliefs of "accomodationists" in order to co-operate in the worthwhile project of preserving uncontaminated science teaching.