38
   

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

 
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 12:27 pm
@hamburger,
That's what I get for not reading it all the way through.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 12:29 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Iceland, then! Thanks. No wonder I was surprised.
Hmm, Ireland still beats the US by a quite a lot.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  3  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 12:41 pm
@Robert Gentel,
READ?!

Good lord, am I expected to do everything around here? Drunk
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 01:00 pm
I would like to see how the question was posed in the survey. I don't know a lot of people who don't leave the door at least cracked for some form of intelligent design. And I know only one or two people who reject evolution. If the question was posed in such a way as to suggest that evolution is the ONLY explanation for all species, most people I know would almost certainly say no. Would that then be recorded as rejecting evolution?

I cannot believe that the number of people who reject evolution in the United States is as high as reflected in the graph.
old europe
 
  3  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 01:09 pm
This is from a Gallup poll on the topic from May 2008:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/evolution.gif

More interesting statistics in the complete poll.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 01:14 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxy, did you follow the link that followed the graph in the OP?

The question is there.

Quote:
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.


I do think it's encouraging that more people in the U.S. are unsure about the answer than was the case 20 years ago. Also
Quote:
The percentage overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48 to 39 percent
.

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 01:25 pm
@Foxfyre,
The questions in German were (2005 survey, for Germany, Switzerland and Austria):

1. God has created all types of life directly, as written in the bible,

2. life on earth was created either by God or by a higher creature, underwent a lengthy development process, controlled by God or a higher creature

3. life on earth is without influence of a higher power and has emerged in a naturally.

"Alte Bundesländer" are the states in the old Federal Republic, "Neue Bundesländer" those in the former GDR.

'Römisch-katholisch' is Roman Catholic, Evangelisch is Evangelical, 'Konfessionslos mean 'without religion'.
'Kirchenmitglieder-Regelmäßige Kirchgänger' are those who go regularily to church on Sundays.

My note:
[Roman Catholic: 31%; Evangelicals: 30.8%; without religion: 32.5% (data 2005)]
About 3.5% of Evangelicals go on a 'normal' Sunday to church service as do 12.4% of Catholics ( (data 2004/5)

http://i36.tinypic.com/2l0wme.jpg
http://i36.tinypic.com/id8xlk.jpg


I must admit that I'd never thought such result to be possible.


Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 01:34 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
That is really interesting Walter. But again, I think if you sit down with people to get their full range of feelings/beliefs/knowledge on the issue, you will find a large percentage of those who believe in some form of Higher Power will usually accept that such Higher Power had at least something to do with evolution as we understand it now. In other words, I think most people's beliefs are a composite of both and a rejection of neither.

I think if you asked most people in the United States whether they considered Evolution to be part of God's (by whatever name they choose to call that Higher Power) process of Creation, I think the large majority would say yes.

I won't even guess what percentage would say yes, but I bet it would be larger than what is reflected in Robert's graph. The subject doesn't lend itself well to simple yes and no answers, however, to get the full range of nuanced views on that subject.
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 01:35 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre, have you read the entire article that was linked to in the original post?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 01:39 pm
@ehBeth,
Yes ehBeth I did read the entire article though I didn't follow the attached links. And it does not address the points I'm making here. I have spent hours and hours and hours studying, debating, making posts on message boards, and teaching this stuff, and the positions you see in all such settings are just as fixed and polarized as what you see in this thread.

What I am saying, if you put it in a non accusatory, non threatening, non ridiculing setting and actually draw people out on what they actually do thnk and believe, it will come out much differently than what is reflected in the graph. I believe with the ability to put one's conceptions into the proper nuanced context, you'll find that the majority of people embrace at least in some way both, and reject neither in entirety.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 01:42 pm
@Foxfyre,
Just other words for the same daftitude.

Who cares what the "the proper nuanced context" for stupidity is. It should be ridiculed because it's stupid.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 01:56 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Just other words for the same daftitude.

Who cares what the "the proper nuanced context" for stupidity is. It should be ridiculed because it's stupid.


Why? Do you have special insight or expertise to explain to such folks precisely why they are wrong?

Or do you call them (or me) (or what they say) stupid just because you don't see it the way they see it?

Which point of view leaves more room for objectivity, new information, open-mindedness, possibilities, ability to learn?
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 01:59 pm
@Foxfyre,
This is a study from a science publication and isn't about making people feel good about their stupidity or trying to argue it with them. It's about measuring how many of the stupid people there are.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 02:07 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Oh okay. I misunderstood. I thought it was to invite a discussion of the study itself. Had I realized it was simply to pretend to measure stupid people, I probably wouldn't have posted at all.

But oh well. You guys are doing a good job here. Carry on.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 02:18 pm
@Foxfyre,
No worries, nobody's perfect and a lot of people believe the same stupidity. Don't beat yourself up too much over it.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 02:19 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Oh well thank you. How nice of you to be concerned. Smile

I hope you aren't too distressed that I know those 'stupid people' are far more open minded than those who call them stupid too. But don't worry about that really. You have quite a bit of company in your point of view here on A2K.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 02:29 pm
@Foxfyre,
Of course I'm not distressed about having my mind as wide open as theirs. I want to keep the stupid stuff out.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 02:31 pm
@Robert Gentel,
That's odd. That's the precise argument that the handful of true Creationists in the USA use to try to keep evolution out of the science curriculum.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 02:50 pm
@Foxfyre,
So? Defending stupidity with an argument isn't the same as defending the rejection of stupidity with the argument. The problem isn't the argument but the stupidity.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 02:55 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Indeed. Almost as stupid as those who think being open minded is more likely to further better education than being close minded. You see the arguments you have labeled 'stupid' express as much opposition to those Creationists as you do because the folks making them see those Creationists as close minded as you say that you are.

But oh well. Again, I wish you well with the thread.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/30/2023 at 09:18:06