From January’s National Geographic we have an article and a figure showing the disagreement between scientists and laypeople (U.S. adults) on a number of contentious topics related to science. The data come from two polls that surveyed 2,002 U.S. adults and 3,748 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), asking them, as the article notes, “identical questions about their views on scientific achievement, education, and controversial issues.”
This isn’t much of a surprise, though the 51% gap about the safety of GMOs was larger than I expected. The good news is that half of the American public now accepts the scientifically uncontested fact that our species is warming up the planet. The bad news is that this is only half, and a substantial number of laypeople (and fewer scientists, though still to many) continue to favor more offshore drilling and more fracking. That, of course, just leads to more global warming.
Regarding evolution, the 65% figure that “humans have evolved over time” at first seems to contradict the most recent Gallup poll, shown below, which shows that only 19% of Americans think that humans evolved naturalistically. However, an additional 31% think that humans evolved, but that our evolution was guided by God—a stand that I see as a form of creationism, since it posits that human evolution involved divine intervention. The 31% and 19% add up to 50% who accept human evolution (be it God-guided or naturalistice), but that’s still 15% lower than the poll above. The disparity may reflect a difference in the way the question was asked.
As usual with these articles, the National Geographic piece blames this opinion gap on—scientists, of course (my emphasis in the following):
On most other scientific matters, a widespread “opinion gap” splits the experts from everyday folks, pollsters at the Pew Research Center reported Thursday [Jan.]. The rift persists in long-running issues such as the causes of climate change and the safety of nuclear power. And it crops up in the news today in battles over outbreaks of measles tied to children who haven’t been vaccinated.
Scientists say this opinion gap points to shortcomings in their own skills at reaching out to the public and to deficits in science education. On the last point, at least, the public agrees, with majorities on both sides rating U.S. education as average at best.
[Alan Leshner, AAAS head] argues that scientists can better sway public opinion by making the case for science in smaller venues, such as retirement communities or library groups, instead of the traditional lecture hall. “It is important that the public understands that scientists are people too.”
While I appreciate the need for more and better science education—after all, I’ve spent my career teaching and writing popular science—it’s all too easy to pin the “acceptance gap” on scientists and teachers. Yet the poll described above was taken not of students, but of adults: adults who live in a culture where it’s dead easy to find information about evolution, vaccination, global warming, and GMOs. And if your response is that if one goes online, you find plenty of websites that tout creationism and global-warming denialism, so who’s to judge, well, is the public really so clueless that it doesn’t know to trust in reputable scientists rather than questionable websites?
We’re living in the age of Neil deGrasse Tyson, David Attenborough, Stephen Jay Gould, Genie Scott, Richard Dawkins, and hundreds of other people dedicated to informing the public about science. Can we really argue that we need to go to retirement communities and library groups to effect a sea change? I’ve done such things to promote evolution, and the results have been meager (this is why I prefer to write books, which people can digest and ponder).
It’s time to consider that political, ideological, and religious worldviews actually immunize people against science, and that trying to push science through cracks in those walls won’t work. I’m fully convinced, for instance, that you can’t get Americans to accept evolution by simply teaching evolution. By the time that kids are old enough to learn about it, many of them have already been brainwashed to reject it by religious parents. If we want most Americans to accept evolution, as do most Europeans, we must loosen the grip of religion on society. (That, of course, may require, as Marx noted, eliminating the social conditions that promote religiosity.) After all, as I’ve shown before, there’s a strong negative correlation between the religiosity of a society. Here’s a figure and its caption from a paper I wrote three years ago in Evolution:
The same holds for U.S. states: the top ten states whose residents most readily accept evolution are all among the least religious, while the bottom ten are the most religious. Here’s a figure I made from several sources. States are ranked from highest to lowest in the proportion of people accepting human evolution. Arrows show the ten least religious states (blue) and most religious states (red). (Date for the other 30 states weren’t available.) Note the lack of overlap:
Anti-vaxers and anti-GMOs, too, are often motivated not by ignorance of the facts (which, after all, are readily available), but by what they want to believe. Sociological studies, particularly one done by Dan Kahan, have shown that ideology and “groupthink” are powerful immunizers against facts, and that those conservatives who are more aware of the scientific consensus on issues like evolution and global warming are in fact more resistant to accepting the consensus view! That itself implies that the problem isn’t ignorance of science, but ideological and religious immunization against science.
So, like Rod Serling, I’ll offer, for you consideration, this proposal: scientist are doing a damn good job promoting their findings and raising public awareness. Yes, many scientists don’t do “outreach,” and even those who do are sometimes bad at it. But America is awash in science: it’s not hard to find authorities like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention telling you about the safety of vaccines, or NASA giving the scientific consensus on global warming. Seek, and ye shall find.
It’s time to stop bashing scientists and teachers as the major cause of Americans’ resistance to the finding of science. That kind of masochism comes from the reluctance of scientists to call out people for their faith and politics. After all, it’s a hell of a lot easier to just beat our breasts and blame ourselves. But the fault, dear Americans, is not in our dearth of scientific stars, like Tyson and Dawkins, but in our faiths and ideologies.
Actually, some of it is in our “stars”. Tyson has been caught confabulating, and this undercuts his credibility and the crdibility of others. Dawkins harps on the evils of religion, and denies it can have any virutes, rather than the arguments against it. That is not effective persuasion.
I, Richard, and our host fail to see any virtues in religion — or, at least, any virtues exclusive and fundamental to religion. Yes, there are churches that run soup kitchens and so forth, but you don’t need religion to serve up hot meals to those down on their luck.
When you consider the defining and differentiating characteristics of religion…it really is all bad, and we do ourselves no favors by pretending otherwise.
b&
And if you eed the hungry BECAUSE your religion tells you that you should, is that really a noble reason?
And statistically it is worse, according to US statistics their seculars give away as much money to soup – but it goes to *soup*. (And with “soup” I mean the total.)
What happens is that the religious pays themselves to raise churches, hold services and do pretty much everything – except help those in need. It is a fabulous token show, and they like their charade.
Oh please: do you deny that both Tyson and Dawkins (and the others) have not been “effective” in persuading people about evolution or cosmology? Give me a break! Look at all the testimonies on Richard’s “Converts Corner” (you are aware, aren’t you, that he’s changed lots of people’s minds about not just evolution, but religion), or at the sales of The Selfish Gene and his other books.
And what, exactly, has Tyson been caught “confabulating”?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/opinion/why-our-memory-fails-us.html
It seems to be an error rather than making something up from cloth – and Tyson has owned up to it.
But I see from the dictionary that it is confabulation:
“2. Psychology To fill in gaps in one’s memory with fabrications that one believes to be facts.”
[ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/confabulation ]
Well THAT certainly renders him completely ineffective at promoting science!
Delphin: even on the facts you are wrong. You can see many YouTube videoas of Dawkins speaking where he concedes that religion has concilliatory value to some. I feel that you really haven’t listened to him. His position is that concilation based on something that is false is empty.
“Dawkins …. denies it can have any virutes”
That’s not true, he has said exactly the opposite.
By definition, there is no effective persuasion against someone who is convinced of their religious beliefs. They are wholly confident they know the word of their God.
In any event, evidence strongly supports the fact that the efforts of atheists are making a difference changing minds.
Generations of missionaries would disagree with you. Experience has long shown that stringing up a series of people who refuse to convert from their deeply-held religion to your (the missionary) deeply-held religion has been an effective technique. The instruction “Believe this!” increases it’s effectiveness when punctuated by people dancing on the end of a rope, or being peeled by inch by inch.
There is nothing new about Isis. They’re just using missionary techniques which have been left on the shelf for … maybe a century or so. (I have a feeling closer to half a century, but my braincell isn’t bringing exact cases to mind, just a nagging at the back of the memory.)
“But the fault, dear Americans, is not in our dearth of scientific stars, like Tyson and Dawkins, but in our faiths and ideologies.”
Well, Mr. Tyson has gone out of his way to give public school teachers (approx. 80% female, IIRC) grief, specifically in a 2009 issue of The Humanist. (I can dig it out of the magazine pile to more specifically document it.) He ought to go teach science to the fifth grade class I attempted to teach today. Though I had a good, solid core of on-task, self-disciplined students, I had to stop every 2-3 minutes to redirect/refocus certain students who were making it rough on their classmates with their misbehavior,getting hit in the back of the head with a pencil eraser for my trouble. As a “classroom management” technique – which can be observed in not a few online videos – would Mr. Tyson yell them into submission? He certainly couldn’t employ Trump’s and Romney’s favorite “management technique” – “You’re fired!”
Hofstadter (“Anti-Intellectualism in American Life”) and Jacoby (“The Age of American Unreason”) document the willfully-ignorant Philistine mindset predominating in U.S. pop culture.
That’s the true heart of the faith v fact struggle, and the real is / ought dichotomy.
When people acknowledge that the world is what it actually is instead of insisting that it must really be what it should be, then we can start to make progress.
Yes, sure. Your life would be without meaning if Jesus didn’t love you, and Jesus would never want you to contaminate your precious bodily fluids with the DNA chemical. And that really is the world as you think it is right and proper for the world to be.
But tough shit. It’s not the way the world actually is, and no amount of insisting that the world has no right being different from your idealized conception of it is going to change it.
b&
Selling reality is a P.R. disaster. It’s too non-intuitive for most folks. See f.i. how most people confuse weather and climate change. A new Katrina flooding disaster does more for the “climate change gap” then any fact a scientist can come up with.
Yes, as Bill Maher is always saying, voters are stupid. It’s the same reason people aren’t clued-in to scientific explanations – not that scientists haven’t put their findings out there but that folks are stupid.
We are clever fools.
Yep. Dogmatic lefty crap. My aunt is part of it. She is the one who told me that mushrooms cure cancer. She also told me scientists are paid to keep quiet by big pharma. Jesus! I actually took the time to explain the peer review process to her and the scientific method (to show why cancer treatments work and mushroom cures is BS) and I also asked her how could scientists the world over and from multiple generations actually participate in such a conspiracy when Watergate couldn’t even work out and the whole Wakefield study was exposed.
Now she just says those stupid things behind my back. I know she didn’t want to believe what I was proving to her was true.
That’s actually a minor improvement. When Wooists become discouraged and / or embarrassed enough to stop repeating as much Woo, then there’s that much less Woo out there to deal with.
May be a very, very minor improvement in this particular case, but a lot of such over a bing enough sample of the population can build momentum with time.
b&
Have you been been practising putting rocks into socks?
Alas, the nice men with guns take a dim view of such practical introductions to the theory of applied reality, and I’m afraid I’m not much of a runner.
I do try, however, to effect similar reactions through rhetoric…and not entirely without success, I’d like to think….
b&
“…continue to favor more offshore drilling and more fracking. That, of course, just leads to more global warming.”
It is my understanding the the increase in natural gas production, which is the result of fracking, has led to the closure or schedule closure of numerous coal-fired plants in favor of gas-powered facilities. While I recognize that fracking has its issues, but this would appear to be one tangible, environmental benefit of the practice.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15491
I think you have a point. Gas is better than coal and oil in terms of CO2 output. It has become a good “bridge” energy source while we shift to renewables. I think, however, the idea that we “more” is to suggest that it can serve for an indefinite period. What we want to emphasize at this point is the need to leave most of the carbon reserves in the ground and quickly move on to other sources.
The good news is that new utility-scale solar photovoltaic installations are already more profitable than anything else you can get past regulators these days, and Tesla’s recently-announced utility-scale battery installations make solar-powered battery-backed peaking power production at least competitive. The bad news, of course, is that any existing generating facility is going to be far cheaper than a new facility of whatever type — at least, until it’s well past its nominal end of service life.
b&
While producing a certain amount of energy by burning gas produced a lower tonnage of CO2, that isn’t reducing coal production and burning. Coal mines in America which used to ship their coal a hundred miles up the (rail) road to a power plant are now shipping the same tonnages in the opposite direction to a port, where the coal is then exported to be burned abroad.
Global warming and anthropological climate change are global problems. Political borders are really, really unimportant.
Thanks. The folks I know who have trouble accepting science, especially evolution, do so out of ignorance. They stopped reading and thinking about science in high school, if then.
“If we want most Americans to accept evolution, as do most Europeans, we must loosen the grip of religion on society. (That, of course, may require, as Marx noted, eliminating the social conditions that promote religiosity.)”
“God damn it, Jerry! Carry on like this, and you gonna end up as one of ’em high-falutin’, goddamn socialists!”
Seriously, though, if the key to decreasing religious influence on education requires nothing less than reforming the US’s social problems, then I wouldn’t expect to see the necessary change for decades, especially with so many forces (mostly from Republicans) pushing the other way. 🙁
There is a strong positive correlation between income inequality and religiosity in a country.
Indeed; I think it will be slow. But secularism IS growing, albeit slowly. Just look at the rise of both the “nones” and the explicitly nonreligious. It’s taken decades to get us to where we are now.
Face it: religion ain’t gonna disappear overnight–and will never go away completely. But I have hopes that our grandchildren will see a land as free of religion as is Denmark.
Blaming scientists for the opinion gap, for not explaining things well enough, is somewhat akin to blaming a rape victim for not dressing conservatively enough.
In the same way the message should be turned back on men to “not rape”, the message should be turned back on the (mostly) willfully uneducated to educate themselves.
I’m just wondering what the actual (as opposed to “reported”) rape and sexual assault rates are in burka-requiring versus non-burka-requiring countries.
Of course, there are likely to be a lot of confounding factors to be corrected for, making valid comparisons difficult.
The guts of this posting I agree with 100%. Anyone can get information with almost no effort on any of these issues. If they are interest, if they are educated to at least high school graduation and if they are free from overbearing control from other sources like religion and politics.
Many of the readers here are better educated than average but many also live in the big cities. They may see things from a different angle than the few of us who live out in rural areas of this country.
What I see out in rural Midwest are people who mostly walk and talk in lock step with the other people they know. If they have an opinion, they keep it to themselves and they sure as hell don’t put it down in writing. I recently sent PCC a typical article from the local rag that has weekly postings by a pastor and other religious types. This is what these people read and follow. They get their opinions and understanding of many science based subjects, such as determinism and free will from the local religious leaders. We could hold science talks and bring in dozens of experts and it would make very little difference.
The suggestion that science go into the retirement communities is really a waste of time. Changing the minds of people over 50 years of age is unlikely. Take the science to the young, in the schools and on the internet. That is where it might do good.
Yes, but not many are interested. They prefer other types of entertainment and have hardly any interest in learning. The scientists that Jerry mentioned I doubt many people could tell you who these people are nor do they care.
I think you either miss the point or just think there is no good in doing anything. If you can’t influence the young and you say these people do not care, I don’t understand that.
People have to get exposed to the issues and science at an early age or generally it is too late and they won’t care.
This is how religion has so much success – it gets them early and locks them in.
Not sure if you are referring to “the young” or not. If you are, I just don’t see it. In general I see that young kids are very interested. Unfortunately parents and schools suck at feeding and nurturing that interest. Too much religious tradition at home, and too much respect for the wishes / demands of believers at school.
That is a very fine defeatist attitude but even a pessimist like me has some hope but it is surely with the kids. People like the professor have some as well or he wouldn’t do the things he does and put the articles out there. If you don’t try, well that’s your choice.
I think you might want to try reading my comment, which was not addressed to you, again. Whatever it is you think I meant, that isn’t what I meant.
I think it’s good to remember in this context that the young have been influenced to some degree in sciencethink by TV’s Mr. Wizard, Sesame Street, Bill Nye the Science Guy, as well as Disney, and PBS. Also, a hat tip to programs like Dr. Who, Star Wars, Star Trek, and many others.
As much as I love Star Wars – and I have the tattoo to prove my love – it really should not be counted as pro-secularism, or even pro-science. It may not be pro-theism, but it is absolutely pro-spirituality and pro-faith. Placing it next to Star Trek, which is explicitly and emphatically secular (Picard’s labeling of religious times as “the dark ages of ignorance, superstition and fear” remains one of my favorite TV moments ever), is quite wrong in my view.
I agree. Many of these fictional entertainments are highly misleading, and often quasi-religious. But, the aura of adventure in space is captivating, and I’m sure many scientists and engineers of today were initially encouraged by the romance to find out about the real science beyond the fiction.
I too grew up in a small Midwestern town. You are exactly right about the influences there. My hope would be that many of these young people will attend Community Colleges locally if they don’t attend 4 year institutions (Many, of course, spend no time above the high school level). There they are confronted person-to-person – probably for the first time – with people outside their community. The internet is, of course, the fallback, but that is impersonal. I think a stint in College or Community College loosens the barnacles somewhat.
Trouble is, college today is what high school was a generation or two ago: obligatory in order to get the credential that shoots one into the American middle class. [never mind that the promise isn’t so often kept these days.] College now is, by and large, putting in time, just as high school was for me and most of the young people I knew, ca. 1962. ‘Where were you. in ’62 . . ?’
In the middling Kansas town where I ‘grew up,’ values were hardening into one’s concrete tomb by, say, 6th grade. [you could see what yours would look like as you passed the ‘Individual Mausoleum Company on the way to school.] Of course they were: the same as any other such community. But religion wasn’t the fixant in the mix: social class was, along with its evil first cousin, race. Those who had, sent their kids off to the primo state university. Those who hadn’t settled for a high school diploma or toddled off to a nearby state college of dubious distinction (as I did).
The former became doctors, lawyers, ‘Indian Chiefs’ (businessmen: yes, men). And I became. . . alienated from them all. Forever. Social class fixed the middles in place as surely as Gorilla Glues glues a chair leg back into its peg hole.
In other words, I lucked out. An only child raised by a poorish but hsrd-working single parent, my mom, who loved to read and encouraged my early reading, I was ‘free’ to follow any path, however eccentric. I learned my science, became a philosophical naturalist and went on to become a professor.
No, science teachers are not at all to blame for the abysmal ignorance of Americans. Social class is, driven by politico-economic institutions. We’ve built a force field around you, they say, a ‘stately pleasure-dome;’ stay within it and you’ll be protected from want and doubt. Passive voice/ voiceless passivity.
Sorry about the overlong autobiography: at the outset I expected it to be a vindication of science teaching. I hope that’s embedded in here somewhere.
Don’t apologize. It’s great to hear about success where we don’t necessarily expect it.
My thought was, given what you’ve said, there is a need for a way out for youth trapped in conservative enclaves. For many that may mean a well stocked local library, or some free tickets to watch a new atheist speak, or the influence of a philosophy teacher at Community College. There are avenues. Of course not all who could succeed will find them.
It is immensely frustrating that people who are deeply attached to an ideological position become even more committed in the face of increasing evidence to the contrary. Has a name been given to this phenomenon? It isn’t the same as confirmation bias, Morton’s demon, cherry-picking, etc.
Cognitive dissonance.
b&
It’s different from holding contradictory positions. I’m talking about clinging to one’s position more tightly as you are presented with more and more evidence to the contrary. There is something petty and childish about it.
Yes, and it’s the way they’re attempting to resolve their cognitive dissonance.
You can go in two basic directions: admit error, or suppress knowledge of the error. In either case, the contradiction is at least temporarily resolved, or at least lessened. Of course, only one of those is an effective long-term strategy…but humans aren’t necessarily renown for foresight….
b&
The label describing holding on to an uninformed opinion in the face of obvious and even massive evidence to the contrary is “FAITH”. Religionists invented it and literally own it.
The Backfire Effect.
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
“The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.
“The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.”
Not particularly catchy, but descriptive. Thanks. Do you know who coined the term?
According to my second link below, Brendan Nyhan the RWJ Scholar in Health Policy Research, and Jason Reifler the Assistant Professor in the Georgia State University Department of Political Science.
Actually, this is a more substantial link as it makes an attempt to explain the phenomenon speculatively:
http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html
I won’t quote the paragraph, since it’ll look like a wall of text when my comment is already so slanted to the right – and in any case I need to cut back on my verbosity – but the relevant paragraph begins with “Some think the backfire effect is”. It’s a vivisection of how the concept could be explained psychologically.
As I noted a few comments earlier, it’s long been thoroughly explained by Cognitive Dissonance Theory, with practically indistinguishable examples commonly used in introductory undergraduate psychology courses for non-majors.
b&
“and in any case I need to cut back on my verbosity”. That line, like, could have been left out to improve succinctity and being spot on or being absofuckinglutely full of win with as few words as possible.
Sub
I have seen this “sub” a number of times on this site. What does it mean? 🙁
For some reason, people think they can order food at this website.
No, that’s not it. Sub means submit with an opportunity to check the box for “Notify me of new comments via email”.
But, ordering food is not a bad idea. Especially now that delivery drones are just over the horizon.
I thought those were birds….
…roosting on trees that so totally aren’t cell towers….
b&
A robot roosting in a metal tree. Now there’s a thought. Perhaps it’s recharging it’s batteries before dropping off it’s last package of the day.
Anyone remember the Dr. Who episode Pirate Planet? The Captain had a mechanical parrot which perched on his shoulder.
That’s a common theme. For example:
http://clash-of-the-titans.wikia.com/wiki/Bubo
…not to mention the original robot, or the golem, or Frankenstein’s monster, or even the Biblical creation story, for that matter….
b&
African or European?
b&
You didn’t have the benefits of watching the Clangers as a child, did you? Complete with the Iron Chicken.
More soup?
I’m afraid that’s entirely new to me, but I’m intrigued enough to watch at least an episode or three. Thanks!
b&
It was great as a child. Great practice for a mis-spent young adulthood of recreational pharmaceuticals.
You won’t be surprised to learn that there were a number of “Clanger’s Appreciation Societies” in the student bodies of my youth. The “soup” was consumed with gusto. And was high-proof in most cases.
I bet the dragons were very popular, and their caves everybody’s favorite hangout….
b&
Sorry to be a one-trick-pony, but I feel compelled to mention again that many religious liberals are also science deniers. I speak from experience as a (former) member of a Unitarian congregation, whose membership was loaded with non-vaccinators, evolution deniers, etc., ad nauseum. Is liberal woo better than conservative?
I think the balance is tilted to the religious conservatives (seeing for example the weight of evolution denial in the South), but you are still right enough to point out that the common denominator that dumbs down everyone across party lines is religion/spirituality.
When I attended UU, I don’t remember much New Age infections, but I am not too surprised. The UU philosophy is, to some degree, ‘let a thousand voices sing…etc.” The strong majority, when I was with them, were very science friendly and nerdy.
I think you’re right rickflick that there can indeed be wide variation between various UU congregations, so I wouldn’t argue with you on the point you make. However, I found that yes, on the surface, UU members may say they are science friendly, but if you scratch the surface a bit (ask them more questions) you find individuals who, for example want the Canadian government to act on climate change, but won’t have their children vaccinated. I could give you numerous other real examples like this. My conclusion is that saying you are ‘science friendly’ and in fact being so are two different things. (I’m reminded of an extended family member of mine, who proudly proclaims that her Christian Reform congregation ‘believes in’ evolution, but knows that ‘God made’ humans. She thinks of herself as science friendly.)
UU communities out here have some New Agers, but what frustrates me is the way they are immunized from criticism!! UUs want to stereotype all Christians as evangelicals (something neither humanists nor Jews do) but treat any criticism of even scary religions like the militant wings of Islam or Scientology as an expression of intolerant Western supremacy.
It’s interesting that in the United States a large number of Roman Catholics are anti-evolution in spite of the Vatican’s acceptance of same.
How do Israel, India, and Japan stack up on acceptance of evolution?
The Vatican no more accepts Evolution than does the Disco’ ‘Tute. Both fully embrace old-Earth Creationism, no more and no less. The only difference is that the Vatican starts with, “We accept Evolution, except for all the bits we don’t,” and the other IDiots instead go with, “Here’s all the stuff that can only be attributed to Cheeses (which is identical to the Catholic list of exceptions), but we of course readily admit to these superficialities (perfectly congruent with Catholics, again).”
b&
Excuse me, not all members of the Dishonesty Institute are old earth creationists. It is my information that, for instance, Jonathan Wells is a YEC.
To be fair, so are a great many Catholics.
b&
I realize the Vatican does not recognize modern science re evolutionary psychology and neuroscience and so forth. But they’ve.never gone into crap around micro vs macro evolution nor special pleading around flagellum etc. I’m trying to observe that Catholics like Andrew Schlafly and Nike Behe seem to be “more Catholic than the Pope” as the saying voes. I should be more precise in my language. The RCC is committed to a dualistic concept of “soul” which means they at the very least evading a major !*conseauence*! of Darwinism even if they claim to accept it on the level of physical biology.
I’m accepting this once but don’t post as “Anonymous,” please.
This is a post I made from my mobile phone (first time I tried to do it) referenced in my signed reply below (a paraphrase of this one), and I just forgot to fill in the name and email fields.
My apologies.
I thought I posted a reply to this from my mobile phone (my first effort to do so) but I forgot to identify myself in the name and Email field!!!
I should have said the Catholic church “nominally” accepts evolution. I am aware the the RCC is not really in synch with modern science re evolutionary psychology and neuroscience, since the Vatican’s commitment to a dualistic concept of “soul” precludes this.
However, they have never gone in for any crap about micro vs. macro evolution, or special pleading re special design of the bacterial flagellum, or “Irreducible complexity” etc. My point is that Catholics like Andrew Schlafly and Michael Behe are decidedly “more Catholic than the Pope”, and I think your bit about
“(which is identical to the Catholic list of exceptions)” is not really true.
And I suspect this kind of thinking is more prevalent among !*American*! Roman Catholics.
Those are all distinctions without differences, degrees of kind. Especially since Catholic dogma, in explicit and certain terms, declares that all humans are descended from exactly two original progenitors, no more and no less, and that those progenitors were intelligently designed.
Kinda makes the bacterial flagellum look like child’s play.
b&
National Geographic is missing the point. Religious authority, organizational or personal, can sequester any scientific knowledge it likes.
Remove religion and science will be able to maintain a fair chance to educate those who once thought that faith was unquestionable.
In the original Pew Report the second biggest gap between the public and scientists was opinion on animal research.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/pi_2015-01-29_science-and-society-03-05/
Beyond pure science the most direct impact of animal research relates to potential medical treatments which are tested on animals before people. New treatments would be a whole lot more dangerous to people if they were not first tested on animals. There exists a dedicated and vociferous group of people who deny this and a veritable mine of misinformation put about by anti-vivisectionists to match any other mode of science denialism.
Just wanted to make sure this form of madness didn’t slip by unnoticed.
The second one (climate change ) is quite wrong as stated.
Relative to number 5, there are a number of reputable scientists who think that the ISS in particular and human space flight in general are a poor use of resources. For instance, Bob Park and Steven Weinberg to name a couple.
I think much more to the point are individuals who favor space exploration and those who oppose it as a waste of money, where by space exploration it is meant by unmanned vehicles.
Given the evidence, I’m surprised that only 87% of scientists believe climate change is mostly due to human activity and that so many of them favor more offshore drilling and increased fracking (32% and 31% respectively) If 87% agree on the anthropogenic cause of global change, then no more than 13% could logically be expected to favor offshore drilling and increased fracking.
It think it’s difficult to evaluate without knowing what kind of scientists they include. Dentists and engineers, for example, tend to take some rather odd positions compared to physical scientists like biologists and even physicists. I would always prefer to poll climatologists:
“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
You are assuming that all the scientists in your sample consider that humankind can’t manage anthropogenic climate change and/ or care what happens to humankind after their deaths. These assumptions need to be demonstrated to be correct.
That struck me, too. I’m wondering if they’re keying in on the hazards of oil spills as being not quite as bad as some make out as opposed to the global carbon pollution.
b&
I was raised in a Conservative, Christian, rural community in East Tennessee in the dark ages (70s) before the Internet. I think what made the difference for me was being given books and encouraged to read at an early age. I’m grateful to the wonderful people who made sure we had good libraries in the schools I attended as well as our decent small town public library. I was exposed to a world very different than my 98% white, all conservative Christian rural community. I also have to thank Star Trek which ran 5 nights a week as well as PBS for shows like Cosmos that inspired me to think outside the box. The Internet can be an amazing tool for kids isolated in such communities if they learn how to use critical thinking to separate the evidence based science from the BS.
Sub
I think activities like going to nursing homes or such does hit on an issue about how science is communicated versus religion. Religion socializes it’s lay adherents into its belief system much more than science does. Yes, the information of science is certainly readily available, but religious leaders and co-members meet with church/synagogue/mosque/etc members regularly, reinforcing the message socially. Certainly religion can’t win by honest argument based on evidence & reason, but they can win many by socialization. Science education, especially when poorly taught, doesn’t do much on this social front, and as adults we’re often not even exposed to that in person any more.
I’d blame the “balanced” media far more than scientists. Your opinion does not hold equal weight to everyone’s fact regardless of your right to spew nonsense.