Interesting evolution survey

[Ace Pace]

Ars

The latest issue of Science has a statistical analysis that gets into some of the whys and hows of the strange relationship the US public has with the science of evolution. The results are really best analyzed in two parts. The first compares the US's acceptance of evolution with that in 32 European countries plus Japan. The results produce the graph at right (it's part of the original article, but has been reproduced in several locations on the web already, so I'll join in). The US places next-to-last both in terms of accepting the accuracy of the theory of evolution, and in terms of considering it absolutely false. The country we're racing to the bottom is Turkey, which news reports suggest has some obvious issues with both the quality of the national education system and religious fundamentalism. Edging us out is Cyprus, which is currently partitioned as the result of a centuries-old conflict.

But within the grim figures generated by the "Yes/No/Unsure" question are some interesting subtleties. When asked whether species adapt and go extinct over millions of years in a question that did not use the term "evolution," nearly 80 percent of US respondents felt it was true; only six percent called the statement false. Which is good, until you consider that this indicates that the majority of the public must have no grasp of the concept underlying all of biology. The lack of scientific literacy also came screaming through in indications that nearly half the respondents had no idea about the degree to which humans share DNA sequences with other mammals, and half were either unsure or wrong about whether early humans shared the planet with dinosaurs. The high degree of uncertainty probably explains why at least two percent of respondents could apparently agree that humans both did and did not evolve from earlier species. The authors also note that the amount of uncertainty over evolution has actually increased in the last 10 years.



How much of the confusion is due to lack of education? For that, we can move on to the other part of the report, where the authors perform a statistical meta-analysis of several surveys that were performed in the US and 9 European countries. This analysis (detailed in the supplemental data) used something called a structural equation model to determine how nine different factors (age, gender, education, genetic literacy, religious belief, pro-life attitude, pro-science attitude, and political self-identity) contributed to attitudes towards evolution. Age and gender contributed only slightly towards attitudes, but the level of education attained produced an interesting result: higher education produced increased acceptance of evolution, but only in Europe. It had no effect within the US. In contrast, an increased genetic literacy had an equal positive effect both in the US and Europe. One possible explanation for this is that in the US, increased education does not correlate with an increased literacy in the biological sciences. In Europe, as optimism about the future contributions of science and technology increased, so did the acceptance of the evidence for evolution; in the US, the two had no correlation.



The single largest factor affecting attitudes towards evolution in both regions was religion. The magnitude of the impact of religion, however, was nearly doubled in the US. Within the US, that impact correlated with a strong pro-life attitude (as defined exclusively by reproductive issues) and political identity. In Europe, these correlations were weak and nonexistent, respectively. The authors used this statistical analysis to build a predictive pathway of influences (also in the supplemental data) which suggests that in Europe, religious and pro-life attitudes affect political perspectives weakly and independently from their influence on people's perspectives on evolutionary science. Within the US, however, the influence of these attitudes on political affiliation is strong, and the resulting political outlook reinforces people's lack of acceptance of evolution. I'm not certain the cause and effect are quite so clear as the authors suggest; as the pathways are constructed, religious perspective is analyzed independently from attitudes towards reproduction, which seems to limit the scope of the analysis.



Nevertheless, it's hard to argue with their contention that, "the evolution issue has been politicized and incorporated into the current partisan division in the United States in a manner never seen in Europe or Japan...In the 1990s, the state Republican platforms in seven states included explicit demands for the teaching of "creation science." There is no major political party in Europe or Japan that uses opposition to evolution as a part of its political platform." The authors also note that religion in Europe is centered around state churches, both Catholic and Protestant, which have generally accepted or embraced the teaching of evolution. They suggest that the higher profile of fundamentalist Christianity in the US accounts for the higher impact of religion on attitudes towards evolution within the US. They also contend that a significant fundamentalist population may be something we share with our fellow at the bottom, Turkey.

Again, however, there is some cause for optimism. The increased confusion over evolution within the US has come largely at the expense of its deniers, who have moved into the "uncertain" camp at twice the rate of those who recognize the science. How can we reach the increasing ranks of the confused? With genetic literacy being the strongest positive influence on a the acceptance of evolution, the answer seems obvious. It seems to me that the newly available genome sequences, with the detailed story they tell about mammalian evolution, provide a fantastic opportunity to revamp education programs at high school and college level in a general attempt to increase biological literacy. An increased recognition of the science of evolution would simply be a positive side effect of what's generally a good idea.

Quite interesting, I find the matchup with turkey to be rather amusing.

[Lord Zentei]

Iceland is at the top of the list! Woo hoo!

Though the fact that there is great scientific illiteracy in the US, the fact that 80% of people apparently accept that species adapt and go extinct over millions of years may also be some cause for optimism; it may be the fundie strawmanning of evolution that is the crux.

Though the 80% figure is a mite hard to reconcile with the prevelance of "Young Earth" beleivers.

[Darth Wong]

It would be nice to see the exact wording of the questions.

[Ace Pace]

Though the 80% figure is a mite hard to reconcile with the prevelance of "Young Earth" beleivers.

Maybe they're thinking about the future?

It would be nice to see the exact wording of the questions.

Following the link leads me here, which requires a login to see the full article.

[Zac Naloen]

Its ironic that the united states is down with the only muslim country on the list, as progressive at that muslim country may be.

[Keevan_Colton]

Hm, interesting that level of education doesnt help in the US. Then again, if G.W. Bush can get a degree under the system, it probably is beyond helping anyone.

[Darth Wong]

Though the 80% figure is a mite hard to reconcile with the prevelance of "Young Earth" beleivers.

Maybe they're thinking about the future?

Or the question only asks if it's possible, given billions of years. I've talked to quite a few creationists who admit that evolution would be possible if it was given billions of years to work, "which is why evolutionists spread the lie that the Earth is billions of years old".

[Exonerate]

When asked whether species adapt and go extinct over millions of years in a question that did not use the term "evolution," nearly 80 percent of US respondents felt it was true; only six percent called the statement false.

Obviously referring to microevolution, not macroevolution. It's a well known fact that while small changes may take place over time, they don't accumulate into larger changes. A wolf might adapt over time, but it'll never become another species, like, say, a dog!

[Rye]

To quote some cuntationist I've made ignore me on myspazz, they believe that mutation and natural selection do happen, just that mutation always constitutes a"loss of information," like, a penguin could lose wings by gaining flippers and blubber, and then they'd lose flippers and blubber while they gained wings.

[mr friendly guy]

To quote some cuntationist I've made ignore me on myspazz, they believe that mutation and natural selection do happen, just that mutation always constitutes a"loss of information," like, a penguin could lose wings by gaining flippers and blubber, and then they'd lose flippers and blubber while they gained wings.

Even if that was true, wouldn't it still be evolution since the prevalence of alleles in the species would have changed?

[Dooey Jo]

Wait, so if they removed the word "evolution" from the question, 80% had no problem believing it made sense? Fucking hell, that means if you do what the cretinists did and rename it "Adaptation Science" or "Smart Nature" or something, most people wouldn't have any problem with it. Because it's evolution they hate, but they don't know what that actually means. Fucking morons

[mr friendly guy]

Wait, so if they removed the word "evolution" from the question, 80% had no problem believing it made sense? Fucking hell, that means if you do what the cretinists did and rename it "Adaptation Science" or "Smart Nature" or something, most people wouldn't have any problem with it. Because it's evolution they hate, but they don't know what that actually means. Fucking morons

You will be surprised how many people write to the letters saying is not evolution, its adaptation. Or worse, its not evolution, its natural selection.

The fucking morons.

[The Silence and I]

I have met two conservative fundamentalists here in Arizona who had a shakey idea of evolution and no idea of the concept, respectively.

The first has decided (finally, after much debate) that ID is not science, although he still thinks it is correct. The second is diametrically opposed to evolution, throws out all supporting science and evidence, and I recently learned he doesn't even know what evolution is. He is not familiar with the idea of natural selection, has never read anything on the subject, and seems to think of it as something akin to Larmark's theory.

Sad thing is, he's a nice guy and intelligent enough to get a mechanical engineering degree and fly commercial airliners for a living.

[Darth Wong]

Religious people can demonstrate a remarkable ability to compartmentalize their thinking. Police officers who would never accept such an idiotic alibi as "how do you know there's no exonerating evidence out there" will say "how do you know there's no evidence out there for God", and never once think about the contrast in their professional conduct and their religious arguments. The same goes for lawyers, engineers, and even some scientists.

Of course, it's more difficult with too much education, which is why the Religious Right has such a negative attitude toward the evil "intellectuals", but it still happens.