Gallup: In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

[PeterMP]

There many things that only exist as concepts in people's brains. They are thoughts. Science can study those thoughts.

Obviously you have the right to say that these things, things that can only be detected in your thoughts, actually exist in reality. Anybody can do that about anything.

I'm not sure at all how this is relevant. However, if you think you can put forward a reasonable logical argument that science will EVER be able to disprove that we are part of computer simulation OR disprove the reasonable alternatives, you should ABSOLUTELY stop arguing w/ a guy on a football message board and write it up. Because it would ABSOLUTELY be publishable.

And I'd be happy for you to post a link here when you it was published because I'd LOVE to see it.

If you want to argue about the defintion of "reality", then have fun.

I see your point about unicorns. My response is that informed consent makes democracy work and ignorance makes everything fail. I would weigh benefits of unicorn beliefs in that light.

And of course you are assuming the ignorance is on there part and not yours (I mean heck what could people that are healthier, happier, and have better long term relationships have to teach anybody else).

IThis probably gets to the point of this thread and my motivation in general. There are tons of evidence-based things that we can do, but we are doing faith-based things instead. Why? I think this is what happens when you combine ignorance and democracy.

Faith encourages people to value their reflexes and intuitions over actual evidence. If faith in the unknowable could be kept securely in the realm of the unknowable, I would not have such a problem with it. Unfortunately the human brain does not work that way.

More assumption about where the ignorance lies.

Essentially, more assertions that science is the only way to learn things. I love my wife. I know you said you have kids. Are you married or with somebody? Do you love that person?

How do you know? What experiment did you do?

If she asks if you lover her, do you tell her you can't answer because that's the unknowable and it has to stay in the relam of the unknowable?

How about your kids?

There is nothing about the vast majority of people's faiths in this country and this world (I actually seriously doubt anybody's, but there might be some sort of odd religion out there that prevents it) against psychological screenings.

In fact, I'll guarantee you that there are organizations out there affiliated with people of faith that are doing such screeings.

In addition, I've already posted a poll in this thread that showed that easily the majority of people in this country want the governments actions to based on science.

I'd suggest to that a better use of your time would be to find evidence based things that you think we should do and advocate for them.

If you do it in a manner that has an open mind and heart, you might actually be surprised at how many times people with an active faith will assist you (you know like donate their time and money because they do that even for secular charties more than non-church goers).

Better uses of your time might be to collect sets of related studies that support a particular action, and then post them all together with a narritive explaining what they show and how the support that we should do X and even how we can contribute doing X (e.g. is there a charity to support that is related is there a bill in front of Congress etc.).

You know, do something to actually make the world a better place instead of complaining about how those people over there are screwing it up.

[alexey]

I'm not sure at all how this is relevant. However, if you think you can put forward a reasonable logical argument that science will EVER be able to disprove that we are part of computer simulation OR disprove the reasonable alternatives, you should ABSOLUTELY stop arguing w/ a guy on a football message board and write it up. Because it would ABSOLUTELY be publishable.

And I'd be happy for you to post a link here when you it was published because I'd LOVE to see it.

If you want to argue about the defintion of "reality", then have fun.

You are onto something here. If people do not have a standardized definition for reality, they will just keep arguing about imaginary things.

And of course you are assuming the ignorance is on there part and not yours (I mean heck what could people that are healthier, happier, and have better long term relationships have to teach anybody else).

They are ignorant indeed. Data shows that beliefs in dragons make people even healthier, happier, and lead to even better long term relationships. Everybody knows a dragon is more powerful than a unicorn!

More assumption about where the ignorance lies.

Essentially, more assertions that science is the only way to learn things. I love my wife. I know you said you have kids. Are you married or with somebody? Do you love that person?

How do you know? What experiment did you do?

There is nothing about the vast majority of people's faiths in this country and this world (I actually seriously doubt anybody's, but there might be some sort of odd religion out there that prevents it) against psychological screenings.

In fact, I'll guarantee you that there are organizations out there affiliated with people of faith that are doing such screeings.

In addition, I've already posted a poll in this thread that showed that easily the majority of people in this country want the governments actions to based on science.

I'd suggest to that a better use of your time would be to find evidence based things that you think we should do and advocate for them.

If you do it in a manner that has an open mind and heart, you might actually be surprised at how many times people with an active faith will assist you (you know like donate their time and money because they do that even for secular charties more than non-church goers).

Better uses of your time might be to collect sets of related studies that support a particular action, and then post them all together with a narritive explaining what they show and how the support that we should do X and even how we can contribute doing X (e.g. is there a charity to support that is related is there a bill in front of Congress etc.).

You know, do something to actually make the world a better place instead of complaining about how those people over there are screwing it up.

I have not seen reasoned, science-based arguments to be particularly successful against faith-based positions.

I am not saying that faith should go away. I am saying that faith opens doors which can be easily exploited by politicians, corporations, false prophets, and so on.

(knowledge of human brain + money + agenda) = ability to influence vast majority of the population. This is happening right now, and this is a huge problem. Education is a way to fight back. Human brain needs a manual.

[PeterMP]

You are onto something here. If people do not have a standardized definition for reality, they will just keep arguing about imaginary things.

Given that we percieve reality differently because of differences in senses and potentially quantum mechanical affects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics "Relational quantum mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics which treats the state of a quantum system as being observer-dependent, that is, the state is the relation between the observer and the system. This interpretation was first delineated by Carlo Rovelli in a 1994 preprint, and has since been expanded upon by a number of theorists. It is inspired by the key idea behind Special Relativity, that the details of an observation depend on the reference frame of the observer, and uses some ideas from Wheeler on quantum information.") would it really be shocking that we have different "realities"?

Clearly, if I allow you to define the possiblity that we are part of a computer simulation as imaginary and not part of reality, then you will win the argument.

I don't see any reason to let you define reality for me w/o any evidence.

They are ignorant indeed. Data shows that beliefs in dragons make people even healthier, happier, and lead to even better long term relationships. Everybody knows a dragon is more powerful than a unicorn!

Just in case you missed it, all of the things I said have been shown to be true by various psycological studies for regular church goers.

I have not seen reasoned, science-based arguments to be particularly successful against faith-based positions.

I am not saying that faith should go away. I am saying that faith opens doors which can be easily exploited by politicians, corporations, false prophets, and so on.

1. As I said, I don't really see how this is relevant for the issue in the other post. I don't know anybody's faith that includes a prohibition on psycological screens.

2. Honest question, have you ever had a REAL converation about an issue where in the first 15 minutes you didn't call relgion bad, them ignorant, or their believes undesireable. I've had many talks over the years with people that "believed" something because of "faith" that they really hadn't thought that much about and when you give them some information, they change their mind.

(knowledge of human brain + money + agenda) = ability to influence vast majority of the population. This is happening right now, and this is a huge problem. Education is a way to fight back. Human brain needs a manual.

ALL RIGHT!

We are now on page 39 and alexy has now given this thread a different a new purpose. He's going to educate us all on how to not be influenced by outside forces.

**EDIT**

Is there any evidence there is a difference on such influences based on religious beliefs?

***EDIT2**

I'm sorry, but I can't help but point out the ridiculousness of the concept that what I suggested won't work because of issues with reasoning on people over issues with faith. BUT you expect this thread, where you are essentially attacking the very root of their faith to have any effect.

Go back and look at the point that techboy made about reaching people that are extremists through moderates.

[alexey]

Given that we percieve reality differently because of differences in senses and potentially quantum mechanical affects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics "Relational quantum mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics which treats the state of a quantum system as being observer-dependent, that is, the state is the relation between the observer and the system. This interpretation was first delineated by Carlo Rovelli in a 1994 preprint, and has since been expanded upon by a number of theorists. It is inspired by the key idea behind Special Relativity, that the details of an observation depend on the reference frame of the observer, and uses some ideas from Wheeler on quantum information.") would it really be shocking that we have different "realities"?

Clearly, if I allow you to define the possiblity that we are part of a computer simulation as imaginary and not part of reality, then you will win the argument.

I don't see any reason to let you define reality for me w/o any evidence.

I allow the reality of the possibility that we are a part of a computer simulation.

I also don't see any reason to define reality w/o any evidence.

Just in case you missed it, all of the things I said have been shown to be true by various psycological studies for regular church goers.

What about mosque and synagogue goers? What about goers to regular community meetings or poetry readings?

1. As I said, I don't really see how this is relevant for the issue in the other post. I don't know anybody's faith that includes a prohibition on psycological screens.

2. Honest question, have you ever had a REAL converation about an issue where in the first 15 minutes you didn't call relgion bad, them ignorant, or their believes undesireable. I've had many talks over the years with people that "believed" something because of "faith" that they really hadn't thought that much about and when you give them some information, they change their mind.

My personal experiences with this are not statistically significant... but I did have something resembling a conversation recently where a person of faith was emphatically telling me recent news about a famous healer's recommendation to drink 3 glasses of hot water (has to be hot for it to work!) for liver problems, and that swearing at seeds has been scientifically shown to effect their growth. Talking go seeds nicely, on the other hand, has been shown to produce much stronger plants with better offspring. Power of the word. I decided not to engage.

We are now on page 39 and alexy has now given this thread a different a new purpose. He's going to educate us all on how to not be influenced by outside forces.

alexey on page 1:

Religion appears to be the main driver behind these shocking levels of scientific ignorance.

People like to defend religion by saying that "bad" religion is the problem. That argument does not seem convincing in light of data showing "bad" religion being so dominant. It seems that religion itself is the problem.

It seems that once you train your brain to take things on "faith", you automatically create yourself some wiggle room against reason and evidence.

alexey on page 39:

I am not saying that faith should go away. I am saying that faith opens doors which can be easily exploited by politicians, corporations, false prophets, and so on.

[zoony]

Well its a damn good thing science hasn't opened doors easily manipulated by politicians, corporations, false prophets, and so on.

[Jumbo]

PeterMP--I get paid to explain science and what it is to people. I don't like doing it for free.

But you (and some other really skilled professional in this forum) suffer, as do I, from doing such a lot here (a choice) anyway.

While it's a pain, imagine the loss of potentially beneficial gains in the forum without such sometimes frustrating activity.

OT---Though I do admit to staying out of most conversations here related to my first career---high-end (and down) audio/video electronics with everything to design of almost the entire recording/playback chain to running specialty high-end retail outlets---because I had so many frustrations "for free" in so many settings for so many years that it's that hard for me to engage anymore unless I know the conversation can be expected to "go well." It's still a beloved hobby and I still have industry contacts (big names ) and miss the perks and big discounts.

We have different beliefs/views on a couple important matters, and align on many others, but I thank you as an ES member for what you bring to the forum. And in singling you out in that comment, I am not dismissing others in the thread.

[alexey]

Well its a damn good thing science hasn't opened doors easily manipulated by politicians, corporations, false prophets, and so on.

Are you serious? Of course it has. Not only that, it also empowered them by giving them reliable information on how to influence people... thus placing even more importance on scientific literacy of the population... Wait a sec, was that sarcasm?

[PeterMP]

What about mosque and synagogue goers? What about goers to regular community meetings or poetry readings?

I don't know.

My personal experiences with this are not statistically significant... but I did have something resembling a conversation recently where a person of faith was emphatically telling me recent news about a famous healer's recommendation to drink 3 glasses of hot water (has to be hot for it to work!) for liver problems, and that swearing at seeds has been scientifically shown to effect their growth. Talking go seeds nicely, on the other hand, has been shown to produce much stronger plants with better offspring. Power of the word. I decided not to engage.

So your experience of REALLY discussing evidenced based issues where you disagree with people of faith consists of a situation where decided not to engage them.

Yes, I would suggest that your interactions don't rise to the level of statistically significant. I'd suggest they don't rise to the level of ANY significance.

alexey on page 1:

alexey on page 39:

So that's what you consider education?

I'll make two points I already made in this thread:

1. Your poll doesn't actually give evidence that anybody is ignorant of anything.

2. Is there any evidence that people of faith are more suscpetible to manipulation by politicians, corporation, etc than anybody else?

[alexey]

So your experience of REALLY discussing evidenced based issues where you disagree with people of faith consists of a situation where decided not to engage them.

Yes, I would suggest that your interactions don't rise to the level of statistically significant. I'd suggest they don't rise to the level of ANY significance.

You asked me if I ever had a REAL conversation about an issue where I respectfully and clearly presented the scientific evidence for my position. I described the kind of conversation I had. You can draw meaning/significance from it as you like.

I think this is another obvious and useless point. Clearly some people will be more comfortable discussing scientific evidence that they think goes against their beliefs, while others will get extremely uncomfortable or even violent at a mere mention of such a possibility. This is true for scientists as well as non-scientists.

So that's what you consider education?

I'll make two points I already made in this thread:

1. Your poll doesn't actually give evidence that anybody is ignorant of anything.

2. Is there any evidence that people of faith are more suscpetible to manipulation by politicians, corporation, etc than anybody else?

You have the right to interpret the data as you wish.

I interpret the poll this way: answering YES to a question "humans have appeared in pretty much their present form in the last 10,000 years" is evidence of scientific ignorance or dishonesty.

[PeterMP]

You have the right to interpret the data as you wish.

I interpret the poll this way: answering YES to a question "humans have appeared in pretty much their present form in the last 10,000 years" is evidence of scientific ignorance or dishonesty.

The fact of the matter is that your poll doesn't ask anything about scientific evidence. It ask people what they believe.

You can conclude whatever you want from it, but it doesn't make your conclusion good science, logical, or right.

The scientific conclusion with respect to your poll and the hypothesis you want to test is that there isn't enough information to draw a conclusion.

If you want to draw an unscientific conclusion, that's fine with me.

But then I wouldn't go about spouting how great science is and everything else is bad.

**EDIT**

And I wouldn't go about claiming that faith is bad because it allows people to unduly influence them, unless I was also prepared to post evidence that people of faith are actually more suscpetible to such influences.

That also seems rather unscientific.

**EDIT2**

They both actually seem like faith based arguments to me based on what you've presented in this thread.

(and just to be clear, any good pollster knows that people are going to lie to them. That's always an issue and a possiblity.)

[alexey]

The fact of the matter is that your poll doesn't ask anything about scientific evidence. It ask people what they believe.

You can conclude whatever you want from it, but it doesn't make your conclusion good science, logical, or right.

The scientific conclusion with respect to your poll and the hypothesis you want to test is that there isn't enough information to draw a conclusion.

If you want to draw an unscientific conclusion, that's fine with me.

But then I wouldn't go about spouting how great science is and everything else is bad.

**EDIT**

And I wouldn't go about claiming that faith is bad because it allows people to unduly influence them, unless I was also prepared to post evidence that people of faith are actually more suscpetible to such influences.

That also seems rather unscientific.

**EDIT2**

They both actually seem like faith based arguments to me based on what you've presented in this thread.

(and just to be clear, any good pollster knows that people are going to lie to them. That's always an issue and a possiblity.)

Here is the conclusion from Gallup.

Most Americans are not scientists, of course, and cannot be expected to understand all of the latest evidence and competing viewpoints on the development of the human species. Still, it would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution. Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief, at least as measured by this question wording, that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature.

What are your thoughts on the situation where almost half of Americans today hold a belief, at least as measured by this question wording, that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature?

[PeterMP]

Here is the conclusion from Gallup.

What are your thoughts on the situation where almost half of Americans today hold a belief, at least as measured by this question wording, that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature?

1. Gallup didn't state they were ignorant of the scientific evidence. They stated they disagreed with it. I have no issue with Gallup conculsion

2. That in of to itself is a pretty useless piece of information. It isn't my job or right to tell other people what to believe.

At this point in time, I'm less worried about people accepting scientific facts/information.

I'm more worried about people understanding what science is, how it practically works (even in terms of funding), and what it isn't (and that includes people that would self-report to be scientists).

To me things related to those issues are the greatest threats to science and its interaction with society right now rather than the beliefs of the public with respect to any particular set of scientific facts.

**EDIT**

In fact, look at your own poll. The level of belief hasn't really changed over 30 years. Despite that, in those 30 years, we've had robust science funding (as of 2006 the highest in absolute terms and 4th in world by GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science#Government-funded_research (and I'll bet that's an under-estimate for us because I'll bet some is "hidden" in covert military projects that is really science funding and since we have more military spending than other countries that isn't matched by other countries).

And a rapid scientific advancements in society.

If we keep up what we have been doing over the last 30 years, who really cares if that number changes or not?

**EDIT 2**

Somewhat related on the topic of "ignorance" vs. simply non-belief about scienctific principals:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/08/04/engineers-terrorism-and-creationism.htm

"According to polling data, engineering professors in the US are seven times as likely to be right-wing and religious as other academics, and similar biases apply to students. In 16 other countries we investigated, engineers seem to be no more right-wing or religious than the rest of the population, but the number of engineers combining both traits is unusually high. A lot of piecemeal evidence suggests that characteristics such as greater intolerance of ambiguity, a belief that society can be made to work like clockwork, and dislike of democratic politics which involves compromise, are more common among engineers."

I wouldn't say that engineers in general are ignorant of scientific information. I wouldn't say that they are "bad" or more easily manipulated than the general population.

They clearly look at the world differently.

[alexey]

1. Gallup didn't state they were ignorant of the scientific evidence. They stated they disagreed with it. I have no issue with Gallup conculsion

2. That in of to itself is a pretty useless piece of information. It isn't my job or right to tell other people what to believe.

At this point in time, I'm less worried about people accepting scientific facts/information.

I'm more worried about people understanding what science is, how it practically works (even in terms of funding), and what it isn't (and that includes people that would self-report to be scientists).

To me things related to those issues are the greatest threats to science and its interaction with society right now rather than the beliefs of the public with respect to any particular set of scientific facts.

Well I do think that ignorance or misunderstanding of science is at the root of belief in creationism.

I also think that it is the job of educators to remove ignorance of science and misunderstandings of science.

If you are an educator, and you are not trying to remove ignorance of science and misunderstandings of science, you are not doing your job.

And if faith is the reason why you are not doing your job as an educator, then I see that as a problem also.

[PeterMP]

Well I do think that ignorance or misunderstanding of science is at the root of belief in creationism.

I also think that it is the job of educators to remove ignorance of science and misunderstandings of science.

If you are an educator, and you are not trying to remove ignorance of science and misunderstandings of science, you are not doing your job.

And if faith is the reason why you are not doing your job as an educator, then I see that as a problem also.

Education doesn't mean forced acceptance.

If you can't see that or understand that, I don't know what to tell you.

**EDIT 2**

The fact of the matter is that you can go back and look and look at ANY thread on creationism and evolution, and ANY of them I've done more EDUCATING on the topic than you have. In fact, in this thread when JMS came in and started spewing his garbage about how we didn't understand why evolution happens at different rates, who told him he was wrong and supported the arguemnt,

I DID!. NOT YOU!

And it just isn't this thread, it is threads realted to climate change. You come in and start threads with YouTube videos and say hey watche these. When the anti-climate change people come and start spewing their garbage, you ask things, like, well did you watch the video.

I'M THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY GOES THROUGH THEIR POSTS ON A POINT-BY-POINT BASIS AND FIGURES OUT HOW TO RESPOND AND BACKS IT UP WITH DATA/SCIENCE AND LINKS TO THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE OR AN EXPLANATION OF MY OWN ANALYSIS OF THE DATA WHEN NECESSARY.

The fact of the matter is that there are weeks where I've done MORE real educating on scientific topics here (including evolution), then you've done in your whole time here.

The fact to the matter is WHEN YOU START a thread on science (including climate change), I groan because I know I'm going to end up investing a whole bunch of time in it because you won't/can't actually handle the arugments and actually educate people.

And I have to make a choice of either ignore it or to become involved.

You don't like my faith, go jump in a lake.

In terms of educating people on scientific issues (including you), my record here speaks for itself.

[alexey]

Education doesn't mean forced acceptance.

If you can't see that or understand that, I don't know what to tell you.

**EDIT 2**

The fact of the matter is that you can go back and look and look at ANY thread on creationism and evolution, and ANY of them I've done more EDUCATING on the topic than you have. In fact, in this thread when JMS came in and started spewing his garbage about how we didn't understand why evolution happens at different rates, who told him he was wrong and supported the arguemnt,

I DID!. NOT YOU!

And it just isn't this thread, it is threads realted to climate change. You come in and start threads with YouTube videos and say hey watche these. When the anti-climate change people come and start spewing their garbage, you ask things, like, well did you watch the video.

I'M THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY GOES THROUGH THEIR POSTS ON A POINT-BY-POINT BASIS AND FIGURES OUT HOW TO RESPOND AND BACKS IT UP WITH DATA/SCIENCE AND LINKS TO THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE OR AN EXPLANATION OF MY OWN ANALYSIS OF THE DATA WHEN NECESSARY.

The fact of the matter is that there are weeks where I've done MORE real educating on scientific topics here (including evolution), then you've done in your whole time here.

The fact to the matter is WHEN YOU START a thread on science (including climate change), I groan because I know I'm going to end up investing a whole bunch of time in it because you won't/can't actually handle the arugments and actually educate people.

And I have to make a choice of either ignore it or to become involved.

You don't like my faith, go jump in a lake.

In terms of educating people on scientific issues (including you), my record here speaks for itself.

I have always been amazed at your patience, your attention to detail, and your ability to explain things. Thank you for taking the time and effort to do it over and over again on this forum. You are, without question, the resident scientist here and I am just a guy sharing my thoughts and trying to cause trouble. I do not think that I can compete with you in terms of delivering value to this forum.

To conclude - If you handle mistaken beliefs about climate change the same way you handle mistaken beliefs about human origins, then you are right and I have nothing to complain about.

Earlier in our discussion you described people who are well aware of the evolutionary science, yet hold beliefs which are contradictory to it. You seemed to have suggested that it is not your job as an educator work against such beliefs. This is why I got concerned about you turning a blind eye to beliefs which go against science while reinforcing faith.

[Jumbo]

I think we're done here, and I recommend participants in this thread consider their involvement in critically analytical fashion, and regarding more than one aspect of involvement.