Angus Reid: Canadians and Britons strongly believe in evolution, Americans not

[MaxQue]

It is a pity there isn't a breakdown by faith. Would I be correct in asserting that Catholics believe in the theory of evolution, but Protestants (particularly of the evangelical variety) emphatically do not? 

It's probably the other way around in the UK.

Would be surprised, since the Pope acknowledged evolution as true.

[Hatman 🍁]

lolusa

[dead0man]

These numbers aren't very accurate.  cite

Still pretty ugly, but not as ugly as the "study" in the OP showed.

You guys are funny though, you'll bitch and moan about an otherwise factual article from a news org you don't like, but an online poll that shows Americans are idiots?  That's just fine.

[Emperor Dubya]

I see no problem with this.

[Donerail]

I see no problem with this.

The issue is that people are stupid.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

"Fact" is a bit strong.

No, it isn't. Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence and is one of the strongest ideas science has ever produced.

Regardless, it's not a scientific fact.  Anyone with a background in the sciences would agree.

[dead0man]

"Fact" is a bit strong.

No, it isn't. Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence and is one of the strongest ideas science has ever produced.

Regardless, it's not a scientific fact.  Anyone with a background in the sciences would agree.

No, it is a scientific fact.  A Theory in science isn't like a theory outside of science.  From The National Academies Press

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[minionofmidas]

Just goes to show the influence of politics and media on people's more superficial opinions.

(Reading through the topic summary, I see there's apparently an issue with the source in question. Still, the fact that there are actually defenders of the "American" position here in this thread sufficiently proves my point.)

[John Dibble]

"Fact" is a bit strong.

No, it isn't. Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence and is one of the strongest ideas science has ever produced.

Regardless, it's not a scientific fact.  Anyone with a background in the sciences would agree.

People with a background in the sciences don't agree with your statement:

H. J. Muller, geneticist and Nobel laureate - "So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words."

Kenneth R. Miller, cell biologist and molecular biologist - "evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science."

Ernst Mayr, evolutionary biologist - "The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact. How else except by the word evolution can we designate the sequence of faunas and floras in precisely dated geological strata? And evolutionary change is also simply a fact owing to the changes in the content of gene pools from generation to generation."

Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist and evolutionary biologist - "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

Richard Lenski, evolutionary biologist - "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change."


The rallying cry of "just a theory" is supported primarily by creationists, few of which have backgrounds in science and fewer of which have backgrounds in biology in particular.

[afleitch]

It is a pity there isn't a breakdown by faith. Would I be correct in asserting that Catholics believe in the theory of evolution, but Protestants (particularly of the evangelical variety) emphatically do not? 

It's probably the other way around in the UK.

Given that the position of the Catholic Church is in support of the general principles behind evolution and against young earth creationism I don't think that is the case.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Dibble, the people you cited calling evolution a "fact" are almost as guilty as the creationists with the "it's just a theory" argument.  The true scientific fact is a very rare, thing, and evolution has not been verified to the extent that it can truly be called a "fact".

[dead0man]

Again

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[John Dibble]

Dibble, the people you cited calling evolution a "fact" are almost as guilty as the creationists with the "it's just a theory" argument.  The true scientific fact is a very rare, thing, and evolution has not been verified to the extent that it can truly be called a "fact".

So first you say that "anyone with a background in science" would agree that evolution is not fact, then I show you a list of people whose scientific backgrounds are well recognized that don't agree with you, and then you move the goalpost? These people have this thing called evidence to back up their claims, the creationists don't.

Tell me Inks, do you actually have any non-creationists with a background in science to back up your argument? Preferably in some biology related field.

[LiberalJunkie]

This is when I'm proud to be a Canadian lol. I like how evolution is called a scam when there is more evidence for that then god.

[Person Man]

What I just find retarded is how people somehow think that its either God or Evolution when they are apples and oranges. When was faith ever about being ignorant or knowledge about having no faith?

[dead0man]

What I just find retarded is how people somehow think that its either God or Evolution when they are apples and oranges. When was faith ever about being ignorant or knowledge about having no faith?

Indeed.  And screw the clergy that teach their flock that god and evolution are things that can't exist together.  Why is it plausible that god can create the entire universe instantly (or over a 6 day work week) but creating it in the way science thinks it was created is right out?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Dibble, the people you cited calling evolution a "fact" are almost as guilty as the creationists with the "it's just a theory" argument.  The true scientific fact is a very rare, thing, and evolution has not been verified to the extent that it can truly be called a "fact".

     Given that evolution has been observed in populations of bacteria and the theory has provided satisfactory explanations for just about every imaginable special variation, I'd love to know what you consider to be a scientific "fact".

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Dibble, the people you cited calling evolution a "fact" are almost as guilty as the creationists with the "it's just a theory" argument.  The true scientific fact is a very rare, thing, and evolution has not been verified to the extent that it can truly be called a "fact".

     Given that evolution has been observed in populations of bacteria and the theory has provided satisfactory explanations for just about every imaginable special variation, I'd love to know what you consider to be a scientific "fact".

Microevolution has been observed, which yes, I would agree (and always have agreed) is a fact... an observable, verifiable fact.  And it's a fact that many people are ignorant of, but I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong), the premise of the study is mainly that of people's views on macroevolution, which I still contend has not undergone the extremely high scrutiny to be labelled a scientific fact.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Dibble, the people you cited calling evolution a "fact" are almost as guilty as the creationists with the "it's just a theory" argument.  The true scientific fact is a very rare, thing, and evolution has not been verified to the extent that it can truly be called a "fact".

     Given that evolution has been observed in populations of bacteria and the theory has provided satisfactory explanations for just about every imaginable special variation, I'd love to know what you consider to be a scientific "fact".

Microevolution has been observed, which yes, I would agree (and always have agreed) is a fact... an observable, verifiable fact.  And it's a fact that many people are ignorant of, but I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong), the premise of the study is mainly that of people's views on macroevolution, which I still contend has not undergone the extremely high scrutiny to be labelled a scientific fact.

     Your distinction is phenomenological in nature, so it could never apply to a theoretical framework in any rigorous sense. I mean, we see objects fall with an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2, but does that make Newton's Theory of Gravity a "fact"? Not really, since it only attests to success in a certain limit of the theory. On an astronomical level, the Law of Universal Gravitation (part and parcel with the Theory of Gravity) was pitted against Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and the latter produced more accurate predictions. Some fact if it got beaten out by a rival theory.

     My point being, you have a theory that describes an observation. Your theory may do a good job of predicting it, but that doesn't mean it does the best possible job of describing observables that it is intended to describe. Physical theories are generally just approximations of what goes on in the world. They're very good approximations, mind you, but it does us no good to put some of them on pedestals vis-a-vis others.

     Darwinian evolution follows from a logical combination of genetics and observations of gene mutation, has had an excellent track record in accounting for the biological diversity of our planet, and has clearly beaten out all alternative theories. It's been successful enough that most scientists roll their eyes at the "theory not a fact" clap trap, because it misses the point and appeals to a popular misconception of what the word "theory" means.

[Torie]

Cross national polls on the evolution issue always cause me to be embarrassed, and sometimes even a bit discouraged,  about my nation.  Beyond the religion thing, I think it reflects poorly on the relative quality of our schools. Clear thinking is just not job one.

[memphis]

Cross national polls on the evolution issue always cause me to be embarrassed, and sometimes even a bit discouraged,  about my nation.  Beyond the religion thing, I think it reflects poorly on the relative quality of our schools. Clear thinking is just not job one.

By far, it's the families and churches. The schools, except for the religious ones, are more than doing their part. It's not the fault of teachers that parents and witch doctors have told children to close their eyes and not look at the man behind the curtain.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In this poll, they give a cop out answer, and still 46% chose the completely batsh**t crazy creationist answer. Only 15% chose the correct answer.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Cross national polls on the evolution issue always cause me to be embarrassed, and sometimes even a bit discouraged,  about my nation.  Beyond the religion thing, I think it reflects poorly on the relative quality of our schools. Clear thinking is just not job one.

By far, it's the families and churches. The schools, except for the religious ones, are more than doing their part. It's not the fault of teachers that parents and witch doctors have told children to close their eyes and not look at the man behind the curtain.

There aren't any witch doctors involved, just priests and other ministers of religion who should either know better or not hold their pastoral offices.

[LastVoter]

In this poll, they give a cop out answer, and still 46% chose the completely batsh**t crazy creationist answer. Only 15% chose the correct answer.

That is quite sad, especially disturbing are the last two points on the graph.

[Donerail]

In this poll, they give a cop out answer, and still 46% chose the completely batsh**t crazy creationist answer. Only 15% chose the correct answer.

That is quite sad, especially disturbing are the last two points on the graph.

We're growing stupider. I blame Snooki.