Acceptance or rejection of belief in evolution: A quick pulse check

Over at Neurologica blog, Steve Novella writes on recent survey data:
Acceptance of the basic tenets of evolutionary theory, therefore, is a good litmus test for any modern society. Of what, exactly, is another question, but certainly something is going wrong if the population does not accept this overwhelming scientific consensus. The US ranks second from the bottom (only Turkey is worse) in terms of accepting evolutionary theory. Researchers have been tracking the statistics for decades, and now some of the lead researchers in this field have published data from 1985 to 2020. There are some interesting details to pull from the numbers.

The big news is that between 1985 and 2007 US public acceptance and rejection of evolutionary theory were in a statistical dead heat, each hovering between 40-45%, with “don’t know” varying between 10-20%. Then since 2007 the lines have started diverging, by 2019 with more people accepting evolution. (54%) than rejecting (36%). It’s too early to say how long this trend will hold or where it will stabilize, if it does, but this is a significant difference from the prior several decades. What is going on?

If we delve into the data we can see some predictors of accepting vs rejecting belief in evolution. The overwhelmingly most predictive factor is the degree to which one holds fundamentalist religious views. When it comes down to it, that is most of the phenomenon of evolution denial. All other factors are either minor or derive from fundamentalism. For example, political affiliation also correlates with belief, but this can be entirely explained by the fact that fundamentalists are mostly Republicans.

If we look at the age data this might provide a partial explanation for the increased acceptance among fundamentalists. The 18-24 age group accept evolution at 68%, 25-34 at 64%, while the 55 and over are only at 45%. So there is a generational phenomenon happening here, and perhaps fundamentalist denominations, in order to appeal to younger age groups and slow their demographic decline, are moderating their views. I know it doesn’t feel like that in the current political climate, but these are the numbers.

So there you have it, modernity fans. The US isn't very modern by the belief in evolution test. Neither is the GOP.

Our future ðŸ˜Š

By Germaine

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

Image
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By   DARREN LINVILL   &   PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t  “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,”  as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
Read more

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Image
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term   (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President  Donald Trump  could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent  Joe Biden  when more votes are tallied.  This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President  Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Read more

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices

Image
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over,  3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money?   Is that part of
Read more