American beliefs in Evolution

[SLD]

There seems to be conflict in the data of how many Americans believe in evolution (whether god directed or not)

This article from 2019 says only 18% are strict creationists, but it depends on the way the question is worded:

How Many Creationists Are There in America?

A new survey shows the number can vary considerably depending how you ask questions about evolution

blogs.scientificamerican.com

But gallup polls over time still show a plurality of Americans are strict creationist:

40% of Americans Believe in Creationism

Four in 10 Americans have a creationist view of human origins, while 33% believe humans evolved with God's guidance and 22% without it.

news.gallup.com

Both are from 2019. It should be noted from the first article that if given only two choices initially, the number jumps from 18% to 31%. But still there seems a huge difference in the two polls. Which is right?

Im sure it likely has to do with the way the questions are worded. But I also wonder about the utility of polls today given the ubiquity of cell phones. How can you do polls these days? Maybe go outside in a lot of different places and ask?

 

[Politesse]

Weird damn wording anyway, I would not agree with any of the sentences in the Gallup poll, nor am I entirely sure which option I would deem "closest" to my views. Closest in what way?

As for Gallup's methodology, it has changed very little in the last 40 years, but they do call cell numbers, not just land lines. Their methodology is described in more detail on their website.

 

[Elixir]

No matter how you word it, the fact is 'Murica has lots of dumfux.

 

[steve_bank]

There are many non felgious eroneous beliefs aboute evolution.

In the 90s I saw Stephen J Gould speak here in Seattle. One of his pet peeves was the popular image of a knuckle dragging ape morphing into an upright walking human. He displayed it in the background.

If you ask the average person they will probably say evolution says humans came from monkeys or apes.

I was talking about evolution with a secular PHD in literature who had taught at a major school.

She thought things just evolve, she had no idea of mutation and natural section.

 

[Politesse]

Well, that's one my big problems with the poll wording, if you know anything about evolutionary theory you know that "always from simple to advanced" is a very outdated and inaccurate paradigm for thinking about it.

 

[DBT]

Belief is needed?

 

[Learner]

Technically or is it precisely? It is 'believing without seeing'.

 

[Elixir]

Well, that's one my big problems with the poll wording, if you know anything about evolutionary theory you know that "always from simple to advanced" is a very outdated and inaccurate paradigm for thinking about it.

It would be more accurate to say evolution always wins the lottery no matter how long the odds, because it buys all the tickets.

 

[TomC]

Technically or is it precisely? It is 'believing without seeing'.

There's lots of believing without seeing.

I believe that a clear daytime sky on earth is always blue. Although I can't see it everywhere.
Tom

 

[Learner]

Technically or is it precisely? It is 'believing without seeing'.

There's lots of believing without seeing.

I believe that a clear daytime sky on earth is always blue. Although I can't see it everywhere.
Tom

Indeed, what you highlight here particularly, is something we 'both' can mutually believe in, and expect this to be, by having witnessed a clear blue sky day with our own eyes.

 

[Elixir]

Technically or is it precisely? It is 'believing without seeing'.

There's lots of believing without seeing.

I believe that a clear daytime sky on earth is always blue. Although I can't see it everywhere.
Tom

Indeed, what you highlight here particularly, is something we 'both' can mutually believe in, and expect this to be, by having witnessed a clear blue sky day with our own eyes.

It is almost always a mistake to extrapolate one’s own perceptions to “always”. I believe that Tom’s “always” statement as he intended it* is true, but not because it is consilient with my experience. Rather because it comports with my understanding of the genesis of the perception of blue. So I’m more comfortable extending that to broad terms than I am assuming any universality of my own experiences.

* “Always” statements would encompass all time if taken literally; I doubt that the sky on a clear day on earth a few billion years ago would be the same “color” as today’s.

 

[Shadowy Man]

* “Always” statements would encompass all time if taken literally; I doubt that the sky on a clear day on earth a few billion years ago would be the same “color” as today’s.

Unless you’re changing the definition of “clear” I have no doubt the sky would have been blue a few billion years ago.

 

[steve_bank]

I don't 'believe' in TOE as a matter of faith. One of the Christian augments
that have appeared on the forum is religion and science are the same, both are faith based.

I consider it the best fit to all the accumulated scientific and physical history and evidence of life on the planet. It can not be tested in the sense of testing Newton's Laws, but parts of it can be. Mutation and natural selection can be seen on a small scale.

The accumulated evidence does not support alternative explanations, like Christian creationism and a 4,000 year old Earth.

Polls are probematic, how the quetions are framed affects the results and interteions. Like asking 'do you beliive in god?".

 

[DBT]

The senses have no beliefs, they transmit information to the brain. The brain processes information and functions not according to belief, but neural architecture.

 

[bilby]

* “Always” statements would encompass all time if taken literally; I doubt that the sky on a clear day on earth a few billion years ago would be the same “color” as today’s.

Unless you’re changing the definition of “clear” I have no doubt the sky would have been blue a few billion years ago.

As the colour is determined by Raleigh scattering by atmospheric gases, it will certainly vary depending on the relative concentrations of gases whose molecules are of an appropriate wavelength, and on the presence of smokes and dusts that are made from much larger particles.

Oxygen also alters the colour of the sky by absorbing violet and near ultraviolet wavelengths. The sky's colour would likely have been fairly different from today's, prior to the Paleoproterozoic oxygen catastrophe of around 2.5billion years ago, though we would likely still characterise it as blueish or purplish.

Even today, the colour of a "clear" sky varies according to the amount of sulphur and nitrogen oxides that are present, either due to vulcanism or anthropogenic pollution.

 

[Politesse]

The senses have no beliefs, they transmit information to the brain.

That's not a very accurate statement, actually. Prior beliefs heavily influence perception, right down to the neurochemical reactions that make up your neural architecture - attention, perception and memory are all cognitive processes in their own right, prone to influence from the ordering mechanisms of your nervous system. And even if perception itself were somehow flawless, it would do you little good, as the signals from your nerves mean nothing until your brain has processed them all, and cognition is a process even more clearly compromised. We are our only observers of our universe, but alas, we are not reliable observers of our universe. This part of the reason the sciences, by seeking out coherence within multiple observer's perceptions rather than blindly trusting one source of authority, are so incomparably valuable to all of us.

 

[DBT]

The senses have no beliefs, they transmit information to the brain.

That's not a very accurate statement, actually. Prior beliefs heavily influence perception, right down to the neurochemical reactions that make up your neural architecture - attention, perception and memory are all cognitive processes in their own right, prone to influence from the ordering mechanisms of your nervous system. And even if perception itself were somehow flawless, it would do you little good, as the signals from your nerves mean nothing until your brain has processed them all, and cognition is a process even more clearly compromised. We are our only observers of our universe, but alas, we are not reliable observers of our universe. This part of the reason the sciences, by seeking out coherence within multiple observer's perceptions rather than blindly trusting one source of authority, are so incomparably valuable to all of us.

The brain and senses evolved according to physical conditions in the world, not belief. Unconscious physical processes have no beliefs. Beliefs emerge much later in the process.

 

[Shadowy Man]

* “Always” statements would encompass all time if taken literally; I doubt that the sky on a clear day on earth a few billion years ago would be the same “color” as today’s.

Unless you’re changing the definition of “clear” I have no doubt the sky would have been blue a few billion years ago.

As the colour is determined by Raleigh scattering by atmospheric gases, it will certainly vary depending on the relative concentrations of gases whose molecules are of an appropriate wavelength, and on the presence of smokes and dusts that are made from much larger particles.

Oxygen also alters the colour of the sky by absorbing violet and near ultraviolet wavelengths. The sky's colour would likely have been fairly different from today's, prior to the Paleoproterozoic oxygen catastrophe of around 2.5billion years ago, though we would likely still characterise it as blueish or purplish.

Even today, the colour of a "clear" sky varies according to the amount of sulphur and nitrogen oxides that are present, either due to vulcanism or anthropogenic pollution.

I’m not thinking about smoke and dust or other aerosols because of the word “clear.” Rayleigh scattering shouldn’t really depend on exactly what molecules are scattering (though I’d be willing to peruse any citation you can point to that supports the opposite). Oxygen absorption is mostly beyond human color perception. And the eye doesn’t have high resolution spectral detection so I would contend that the overall spectrum of the sky would be imperceptibly different. But I agree that, otherwise, the content of aerosols, dust, soot, etc would change the color of the sky. If “clear” just meant no clouds then ignore my comments.

 

[Politesse]

The brain and senses evolved according to physical conditions in the world, not belief.

The brain is an organ just like any other, and is only one component of the broader nervous system. Beliefs, reasoning, assumptions, reactions, memory and so forth are components of that system, and to a very large extent they all work in concert. Unless you are trying to invoke magical concepts like a supernatural "higher self", beliefs are no more and no less "physical" than any physiological response, both responding to and directing other neurological activities and hormonal releases. You are not describing the functioning of that system accurately.

 

[Learner]

I don't 'believe' in TOE as a matter of faith. One of the Christian augments
that have appeared on the forum is religion and science are the same, both are faith based.

Oddly enough to your statement I quoted above, a lot of atheist arguments have then been comparably sneaky, when their arguments portray the false illusion of being opposites. Apparently it's "science versus creationism".

I mean to state the obvious. Many scientists who were theists or deists have contributed to science through their pioneering discoveries.

I consider it the best fit to all the accumulated scientific and physical history and evidence of life on the planet. It can not be tested in the sense of testing Newton's Laws, but parts of it can be. Mutation and natural selection can be seen on a small scale.

On a small scale, yes indeed.
On a small scale, we as intelligent, conscious and creative entities can 'create' small scale things like small scale god's.

The accumulated evidence does not support alternative explanations, like Christian creationism and a 4,000 year old Earth.

I've often pondered on the 'not so young' earth, and 'not so old' earth.
Perhaps applying the 'Goldilocks principal' of 'just about right' is a compromise between the young and old earth proponents .