Talk Elections

Britons and Canadians More Likely to Endorse Evolution than Americans

A majority of respondents in the United States believe God created human beings in their present form.

CANADA

61% Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years
22% God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years

UK

69% Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years
17% God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years

USA

30% Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years
51% God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years

...

Regional Breakdowns

In the United States, respondents in the Northeast are more likely to think human beings evolved (37%) than residents of the South (24%). The proportion of Americans who endorse evolution shifts with age, from a high of 35 per cent for respondents aged 18-to-34 to a low of 23 per cent for those over the age of 55.

In Canada, Quebecers are the most likely to endorse evolution (71%), while Albertans (48%) are the least likely.

In Britain, respondents in the South of England (15%) are the least likely to believe in creationism, compared to 23 per cent for Londoners.

...

Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among:

- 1,002 American adults who are Springboard America panelists, from September 4 to September 5, 2012.

- 2,010 British adults who are Springboard UK panelists, from August 30 to August 31, 2012.

- 1,510 Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panelists, from August 30 to August 31, 2012.

http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012.09.05_CreEvo.pdf

*sigh*

There is something horribly wrong with an education system which leds people to think this, its the equivalent of 50% of americans coming out of maths thinking 2+2=5.

Interesting.

Not really. Failing to understand evolution is far less likely to inconvenience you personally or professionally. From a purely utilitarian perspective understanding evolution is of little significance outside of a few professions.

But the point is, it's a scientific fact and the fact that a majority of Americans don't believe it is troubling.

It's not uncommon for surveys on this subject to show alarmingly low numbers for Britain; I suppose the issue is always how the question is phrased.

"Fact" is a bit strong.

Evolution is a total scam. Everyone knows that a Pikachu with a held light ball is far more effective than a equally-leveled Raichu with equal EV and IVs. It's just another cheap marketing ploy from the sagging evolution stone industry.

Easy to explain:

London has many immigrants from a lot of "backwards" countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh etc., which still tend to be rather poor, uneducated, religious and socially conservative relative to the home-born British population.

Raichu's base stats are higher though...

I've been working on something the past week. I was looking at trends in support for gay rights in the British Social Attitudes Survey. The most positive/progressive part of the UK from the 80's through to the early 2000's was London. Now London has flat lined over the surveys from 2005-2010 and now trails most parts of the country. Sub-sample stuff of course but interesting.

For some form of creationism, fine, but I refuse to believe that half my countrymen are some flavor of young-earther. Admittedly mainly because I don't want to believe it.

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

Americans tend to believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts, and then the people who ignore the facts try to meddle with education and make it so people are taught falsehoods. Not really news.

Duh. America is the most religious country in the First World. The regional split is no suprise, New England is known for being the most secular part of the nation, and the South oppositly. (Is that a word?).

What exactly are they concidering "South" though? Again,how the question was raised is a big part of it.

 Now what do my fellow atlasians think? (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=158825.0)

It is not. Evolution is an observable fact.

Hate to agree with Vosem, but.. yeah.

Sigged. Also, because I don't discuss it as often as economic issues or the horse-race itself, forum members forget I am quite 'socially liberal' on some issues...though this one shouldn't be an issue at all.

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.

Alright, whatever Lt. Surge. Yeah, maybe without held items, but with max EVs, Pikachu becomes the dominant electric type in the UU tier of the competitive Pokemon battling scene. A Pikachu with a held light ball even hits harder than a Raichu holding a zap plate. Stop shilling for the big evolution stone corporations. It's all a scam, man.

Exactly.  There was an experiment that lasted decades with hundreds of thousands of generations of bacteria in which macroevolution was observed.  Creationists have no choice but to pretend it didn't happen.

There is no macroevolution - there is only evolution. The micro/macro distinction is something creationists made up because the evidence for evolution was too strong to deny completely.

What?

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

lolusa

These numbers aren't very accurate.  cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution)

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.

I see no problem with this.

The issue is that people are stupid.

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 (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2)

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.)

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.

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.

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".

Again

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.

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.

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?

     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.

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.

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.

()

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.

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

We're growing stupider. I blame Snooki.

Snooki is a symptom, not a cause.

30 years, and still the same amount of creationists. wtf

Agreed.  Looks like some people are going to have to go back to Junior high school and relearn the difference between a theory and a fact.  In science it has a specific meaning.  I don't know about in church.

Anyway even if it is a theory not all theories are equal.  Some are stronger than others.  Evolution is the strongest theory we have.

No.... that's not what I said either.

Why do people repeat the lie that only micro-evolution has been observed?

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/


Also, why do they repeat the lie that there are somehow no transitional fossils?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

And what exactly is the difference? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Except that, yes, evolution is most definitely a "fact." It's readily observable in a number of different places, and supported by the vast majority of the scientific community. Just because a few high school drop outs from Alabama think God created drug-resistant bacteria 6,000 years ago doesn't mean the rest of us who graduated college should have to pretend that an obvious means of biological advancement doesn't exist.

You know how this kind of thing is treated in the civilized world north of the Mason Dixon? A science teacher is compelled by law to say "and you know, this evolution thing that's clearly laid out here in the book -- this is just a theory, because religious zealots unable to see what's right in front of them never got over losing a court case in Tennessee 90 years ago." And then all us 9-year-olds have a good laugh, cause even we're smart enough to know that the world is older than that, and that humans didn't walk with dinosaurs. And we go back to learning evolution, as if that religious disclaimer never happened. Because it's damn stupid.

uhhhh...what?  You seem to think that it's called a Theory because of religious fundies and that there is a law requiring it...and that's simply not true.

     It's called a theory because that's what it is. The problem is that fundies take advantage of this to create doubt about evolution out of thin air, since most people don't realize that a scientific theory is actually a coherent framework of interrelated concepts held to be true by consensus of the scientific community.

Indeed.  I'm not sure what Mr. M was going on about.

     Well, the "evolution is a theory" deal is a pet project of the fundamentalists, because they want to play on the colloquial definition of theory (which is essentially just a hypothesis) to make people doubt the validity of evolution. It's not like they want physics textbooks to bear labels saying "gravity is a theory", even though it would be just as correct.

Sure, but that's not why science teachers call it a theory.  They call it a Theory because it is a Theory.  A Scientific Theory, which is, as you say, totally different than what theory means in everyday speak.  As I said in my second post in this thread.We're clearly on the same page.  Mr. M is wrong when he says.They call it a Theory because it is a Theory, not because Fundies got a law past saying they had to call it a theory so they could use "see, it's all just theory!" as a gotcha.

     My point is, they shouldn't have to emphasize its state of being a theory, which is a nuance that may be misunderstood by young minds who are not accustomed to the scientific definition of the word. When I took biology, evolution was explained as what it was. The word "theory" wasn't mentioned once.

They should also be teaching what the word Theory means in a scientific setting (and I'm pretty sure they did for me....I don't recall if they placed the word before evolution though).  But my point is that Mr.M said that the Fundies got a law past forcing teachers to call it theory, and that's just not true.

If anything, I understated the stupidity of the 46%. They choose the young earth creationist answer. Enough said.

     They should, but they should also emphasize the meaning of the word in relation to a subject where we don't have a large segment of the population living in total denial, like gravity. Really drive home the point that no, an idea being a theory does not mean that there is legitimate doubt of its veracity.

     I've heard of attempts to do that, but not of any successes. I live in one of the last states where such a thing could succeed though, so I don't pay very close attention to what's happening elsewhere, nor do I claim that my experience is at all representative.

As far as I know, nobody has ever tried what Mr.M describes.  They've tried to force Intelligent Design in one case, but that failed in the courts.  cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District)

Kansas taught ID as an "alternative" to evolution (but they still taught evolution) between 2005 and 2007 when the members of the Board of Education that voted for it where tossed out of office by the voters of the state and replaced with more sane office holders.  cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings#Result)

The cite also says that Oklahoma and Ohio also have some ID in their classrooms, but I'm not sure of the current status.  Nobody, as far as I can tell, has ever looked to pass a law requiring science teachers to say evolution is just a theory.  They say it's a Theory because it is a Theory.

     I vaguely remember them trying to put labels on biology textbooks in the South that would say roughly what Mr. Moderate described. I could look for it, but it would make me angry and I don't want to go to sleep angry. Maybe I'll try it tomorrow.

I remember this. It was in suburban Atlanta (Cobb County, GA). The courts rejected it.

Not sure about up north, but in Florida state lawmakers don't exactly know the difference either.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/19/us-science-florida-idUSN1929595320080219 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/19/us-science-florida-idUSN1929595320080219)

Alabama has (or had if it's been overturned) labels in science textbooks noting that evolution was only a theory, not a fact.  There was discussion in the Mississippi legislature about adding them, but I don't think anything ever came of it.

It didn't need to be.  If you understand evolution you understand it is a theory.  We were all taught numerous scientific theories in high shool/college/graduate school.  The professor didn't stop make a slow deliberate pause and state THIS IS A THEORY each time.  We would never get through the lesson.

Scientific schools might be better served by calling it the Law of Evolution.  The decline in it of being believed as a theory is getting out of hand.

Really, the problem here is that dumbs have latched onto the wrong thing.  Darwin's contemporaries never even challenged evolution.  Evolution is obvious indisputable fact.  Humans domesticated dogs and cats from wild beasts.  These are evolved creatures.  The question is whether natural selection could have caused the wild variation itself to exist. 

We can disagree on natural selection, but people who don't believe in evolution just aren't using their heads.

The problem is people don't know what a theory is.  Evolution is a theory.  There is nothing wrong with that.  There is a theory of gravity.  I don't see religious crazies denying gravity and opting to jump out of windows instead of using elevators.  Being a theory puts you in pretty good company.

Though Jargon-tastic, it would perhaps be more accurate to describe Evolution (and gravity for that matter) as a 'paradigm'. A paradigm which best fits all the available evidence.

     Someone has read Thomas Kuhn, I can see. :)

The planet is still irked we Americans continue to use the archaic Imperial system and refuse to implement the metric system outside of the learned class.  I don't think they are going to want to redefine Theory and Hypothesis because some religious crazies in America can't get their heads out of their rear ends.  The problem is numerous journal articles have already been written and we need to stay consistent.  We cannot keep redefining terms just to make uneducated troglodytes happy.

No doubt. But I do think there is some ambiguity in term 'theory' between its scientific use and its popular use (this regardless of any actual theory) which is why I mentioned it.

Yeah well, Evolution is just a Paradigm. I don't believe in Paradigms.

A simpler way to put it, is that some theories are more equal than others. Evolution at the moment has more going for it than the theory of the origin of the universe, and a lot more going for it than the theory of supply side economics or the Phillips Curve for example. At the bottom of the heap is the theory of why people are gay.

I think that about sums it up. Thanks.

What do you mean by 'learned class' here?  Computer repairmen or other technicians?  Because I don't think it comes up that much in law school or the humanities, does it?

Is it not possible to believe in both creationism and evolution?

Not creationism in the traditional sense as DNA and other evidence shows that modern humans evolved from lesser great apes, but one can certainly believe in evolution designed by a deity.  Not very likely, but clearly more plausible than everything being created 10,000 (or whatever) years ago.

As dead0man points out creationism as it is usually defined in the sense of this conversation is mutually exclusive with evolution. There are a few ways you can believe both though:

1. You can believe that a deity created the universe with natural laws that allow life to arise on its own (abiogenesis) and then evolve.
2. You can believe that a deity created the universe and the first single celled organism that was then allowed reproduce and have its offspring evolve independent of its creator. (abiogenesis and evolution are related but still separate theories, something many creationists do not understand)
3. You can believe that a deity created the universe and the first single celled organism, after which the deity intervened in a limited fashion for a few special cases to control the evolutionary outcomes but evolution could still occur without intervention in the majority of cases.

The idea that a deity specially designed everything, either by immediately creating it or by controlling every mutation, is mutually exclusive with evolution as natural evolution is an undirected process.

Sad (and kinda scary) to observe that so many Americans are so ignorant on this (and other) issues.

I don't really fault them though....this kind of religious irrationality is absurdly dominant in certain regions of the country, and among segments of the right-wing Protestant population. And as memphis said earlier in the thread, it's not really the fault of the public schools. It's the families and the churches (and other social influences in the communities).

Honestly, it's not only scary, it's downright embarrassing.

You find it retarded; as a Christian who sees no disagreement with may faith and the Theory of Evolution, I find it depressing.