13 thoughts on “It takes a generation

  1. And this highlights what I find so annoying about M&K, which is that their claims lack both any actual analysis of data and any nuance. Failure to provide the latter may be a stylistic choice, but failure to discuss the former is intellectual dishonesty.

  2. Finally, there is hope on the horizon. I probably wouldn’t be surprised by how the regionalism of survey shakes out.

  3. I’ve seen this trend empirically in my neck of the woods.

    Along with this, there are church and synagogue closings all over the place due to lack of interest, no money, declining tendency to waste a life on being clergy, etc.

    And yes, I said empirically. I have no scientific evidence.

  4. Greg,

    Is there a link to the original poll, just so we can see how thorough it was?
    This is heartening.

    jac

    1. Jerry–

      See my Update, and Razib’s comment below, for links to the original data.

      GCM

  5. Remember that there could be a completely different effect represented by these polls – that perhaps young people just always answer differently or are less dogmatic about their beliefs and gradually “stabalize” on creationism as they get older. I would guess that conservatives in general become more conservative as they get older.

    A way to test this hypothesis, would be if these results of younger people being more in favor of evolution, are consistent *historically*, but the numbers themselves haven’t changed. Meaning, if FOR EXAMPLE 70% of teenagers accept evolution, and 30% of adults accept evolution, and this statistic is true today AND 50 years ago, with the exact same numbers, then it implies that something else is going on here…

  6. if people want to repeat the basic poll, go here, for ROW enter:
    EVOLVED SCITESTY SCITEST4 CREATION

    for COLUMN enter:
    age(r:18-34;35-49;50-64;65-*)

    (i assume you can see from the above how i clustered ages and can change appropriately)

  7. Sorry to rain on the parade, but… just based upon your very brief synopsis above, my initial suspicion is that the difference doesn’t actually come down to more effective education, but to the stance of religious leadership. Didn’t you say, “78% of young Catholics respond “True”, but only 33% of young Protestants (which is the same as elderly Protestants)”

    IIRC, didn’t the Catholic church embrace evolution, though retaining the doctrine of there being a magical “ensoulment?” In the public schools, and in public outreach, I think it’s a safe assumption that catholic and protestant kiddoes receive the same treatment – it’s the religion that’s different here.

    1. The stance of church leaders may well be a factor. There are many factors whose effects can probably be tested for using the GSS data; see Razib’s latest post (link in Update above) for one such test.

      GCM

  8. This seems to indicate, contrary to M&K’s assertion, that religiosity is more a factor in failure to accept evolution than the “new atheists”.

    People not affiliated with any particular religion stand out for their relative youth compared with other religious traditions. Among the unaffiliated, 31% are under age 30 and 71% are under age 50. Comparable numbers for the overall adult population are 20% and 59%, respectively.

    http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

    It seems that younger people are losing religion and gaining scientific literacy at the same time. Coincidence? I think not. Those who think faith is a means of knowledge have trouble learning facts.

    “Science: it works, bitches!”

  9. Oh no, so “Unscientific America” is inventing a problem? How curious.

    I agree with Oded – it would be interesting to see religion vs. age group in the past. Are the Rebel Teens included in the survey?

    1. If accommodationism had not worked for the last 100 years, why would it work now?

      It is more likely one or more of the dozen or so other hypotheses ventured here.

Comments are closed.