Views of Evolution Depend on Knowledge

[essentialsaltes]

Bioscience published the results of a survey of 1100 Americans, asking them 25 content knowledge questions about evolution. Not surprisingly, people with more knowledge about evolution (answering questions accurately) were more likely to accept evolution.

The study also asked about religious intensity and political affiliation. The same positive correlation between knowledge and acceptance existed, but the curves follow different trajectories based on these other criteria.

Summary of results available from SciAm.

Also covered in Science Daily.

"We find the traditional relationship between your religious beliefs and evolution, and between your political beliefs and evolution, but we also find that those are not the only factors that matter," said Deena Weisberg, a senior fellow in Penn's psychology department in the School of Arts and Sciences. "They do matter, but if you know more about evolutionary theory, if you understand it better, you're more likely to accept it."

 

[cloudyday2]

Of course a correlation doesn't necessarily indicate that forcing evolution knowledge on a denier would create an accepter. Maybe people who accept evolution are more likely to learn the details, but the learning did not drive the acceptance.

 

[SkyWriting]

Bioscience published the results of a survey of 1100 Americans, asking them 25 content knowledge questions about evolution. Not surprisingly, people with more knowledge about evolution (answering questions accurately) were more likely to accept evolution.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Also stated that those who accept evolution were likely to have more knowledge about it.
Well....Hello? Did anybody swallow their gum?

 

[Snappy1]

Correlation does not imply causation.

Also stated that those who accept evolution were likely to have more knowledge about it.
Well....Hello? Did anybody swallow their gum?

Lol you can't have it both ways man.

 

[pitabread]

Bioscience published the results of a survey of 1100 Americans, asking them 25 content knowledge questions about evolution. Not surprisingly, people with more knowledge about evolution (answering questions accurately) were more likely to accept evolution.

Which also speaks to these discussions and fact that on average creationists seem less knowledgeable about the subject (and science in general for that matter), and actively resist learning about it.

 

[Tayla]

but if you know more about evolutionary theory, if you understand it better, you're more likely to accept it."

Probably because the level of indoctrination increases the more people are exposed to it. People are psychologically weak and will believe anything if exposed to it long enough. This is why Christians need to oppose evolution being presented as if it's a fact. Science can't prove anything about the past; rather, science is only valid when experiments can be performed to confirm, or when you can build something like a bridge and it doesn't collapse.

 

[Speedwell]

Probably because the level of indoctrination increases the more people are exposed to it. People are psychologically weak and will believe anything if exposed to it long enough. This is why Christians need to oppose evolution being presented as if it's a fact. Science can't prove anything about the past; rather, science is only valid when experiments can be performed to confirm, or when you can build something like a bridge and it doesn't collapse.

And if you knew more about the theory of evolution, you would know it was not being presented as "a fact" but as a scientific theory.

 

[Brightmoon]

Probably because the level of indoctrination increases the more people are exposed to it. People are psychologically weak and will believe anything if exposed to it long enough. This is why Christians need to oppose evolution being presented as if it's a fact. Science can't prove anything about the past; rather, science is only valid when experiments can be performed to confirm, or when you can build something like a bridge and it doesn't collapse.

That’s nonsense! If you look at folded rock strata you can tell that it was originally flat . If you look at a U shaped valley you can tell that it was made by a glacier and not cut by water erosion. If you see a protohuman like Lucy, you can tell that she’s a very close relative and her species might be a direct ancestor . The only people who have been indoctrinated are creationists who handwave away anything that doesn’t agree with their fantasy view of the universe

 

[Brightmoon]

Evolution is a fact . You can watch short lived organisms evolve. And trace it genetically . You can also trace those genetic changes in more distantly related organism and there is developmental biology . The above poster shows how the animals are related

 

[Go Braves]

Makes sense.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Correlation does not imply causation.

Also stated that those who accept evolution were likely to have more knowledge about it.
Well....Hello? Did anybody swallow their gum?

It would be interesting to do something similar for creationism. Many of us on the evolution side of the evolution-creation debate know a depressingly large amount about what YE creationists think, but this does not correlate with acceptance.

 

[tas8831]

Probably because the level of indoctrination increases the more people are exposed to it. People are psychologically weak and will believe anything if exposed to it long enough.

So this explains the authoritative 'teaching' tactics of evangelical Christianity. Pat Robertson once declared that Christians must get their kids into bible school/church as early as possible, even as young as 3 years old.

Of course, nearly all of us are exposed to Christianity every day - on our money, in our altered Pledge of Allegiance, etc.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Probably because the level of indoctrination increases the more people are exposed to it. People are psychologically weak and will believe anything if exposed to it long enough.

 

[Ophiolite]

Science can't prove anything about the past; rather, science is only valid when experiments can be performed to confirm, or when you can build something like a bridge and it doesn't collapse.

Speedwell has addressed your misunderstanding (deliberate missuse?) of the word "prove" in the context of science. However, there is a deeper misunderstanding present in your post. In the case of historical sciences such as palaeontology, stratigraphy, sedimentology, etc. the experiments have been conducted by nature. All that is required is for us to observe and interpret those experiments. History is written in the rocks. If the Christian god exists, he gave man the intellect and the passion to conduct those observations and make the interpretations. (Although he does seem to have shortchanged some individuals in this regard. )

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which also speaks to these discussions and fact that on average creationists seem less knowledgeable about the subject (and science in general for that matter), and actively resist learning about it.

As a hunter I use the time I would have devoted to the study of evolution to studying the habits of the deer I hunt, and other fun stuff; like cutting firewood, gardening, woodworking, fishing, playing with my grandchildren, taking day trips, watching tv, photography (you get the picture). Oh, and the money I would spend on post graduate science courses, I save for my retirement.

I do peruse medical information however as I am very interested in health matters, especially my own.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As a hunter I use the time I would have devoted to the study of evolution

That's fine. We can't all study everything. The thing that puzzles us is that some creationists feel competent to comment on a topic that they have not honestly studied.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's fine. We can't all study everything. The thing that puzzles us is that some creationists feel competent to comment on a topic that they have not honestly studied.

We try to immerse every little problem in vast, never ending studies that in the end do little to solve the problems, but serve mainly to enrich those who do the studies.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which also speaks to these discussions and fact that on average creationists seem less knowledgeable about the subject (and science in general for that matter), and actively resist learning about it.

It is true that resisting knowledge of evolution is more an affirmation of one's faith in creation than an argument against evolution.

 

[pitabread]

It is true that resisting knowledge of evolution is more an affirmation of one's faith in creation than an argument against evolution.

That makes no sense whatsoever.