the most shocking thing I've read in a while
"After 20 years of public debate, the percentage of U.S. adults accepting the idea of evolution has declined from 45% to 40% and the percentage of adults overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%. The percentage of adults who were not sure about evolution increased from 7% in 1985 to 21% in 2005."
They also compare the levels of acceptance of evolution in the United States with those in thirty-two European countries and Japan, noting that "Only Turkish adults were less likely to accept the concept of evolution than American adults."
Using a two-group structural equation model, they identify three relevant factors: the acceptance of fundamentalist religious beliefs, the politicization of science, and the widespread ignorance of biology.
It's the rise to 21% "not sure about" that shocks me particularly. The study used the same question over 20 years, so it's not new phrasing the caused the changes.
story
They also compare the levels of acceptance of evolution in the United States with those in thirty-two European countries and Japan, noting that "Only Turkish adults were less likely to accept the concept of evolution than American adults."
Using a two-group structural equation model, they identify three relevant factors: the acceptance of fundamentalist religious beliefs, the politicization of science, and the widespread ignorance of biology.
It's the rise to 21% "not sure about" that shocks me particularly. The study used the same question over 20 years, so it's not new phrasing the caused the changes.
story
posted by Laura-Marie @ 6:51 PM
4 Comments:
At August 19, 2006 7:04 AM,
Alan Phipps said…
Hi laura-marie,
As a "scientist" of sorts myself, I'm not 100% anti-evolution like some fundamentalists, but there are holes in the theory that serious scientists shouldn't be afraid to investigate. It used to be that it was taken for granted, even by and large by the scientific community. Intra-species evolution (species adaptation) is well documented, since it is easily observed; however, inter-species evolution cannot be observed (as it would take millions of years), and the fossil record is actually showing a statis in development, which actually does not support inter-species evolution very well.
Biochemists have also found things such as irreducibly complex cells which makes inter-species evolution difficult to prove. For the scientist, of course, this just means we need to ask more questions.
Personally, I don't have a problem reconciling evolutionary theory with religious beliefs, and the Catholic Church supports honest science. I just happen to believe that God is involved in every detail of whatever it was that brought living creatures about. But I do wish scientists were more open to discovering all possibilites rather than accepting some things wholesale.
At August 19, 2006 11:03 AM,
Erik said…
Hi Alan,
I'm glad to hear that you feel evolutionary theory can be reconciled with religious beliefs. That's what I think, too. And I also agree that scientists should always be open to questions and new discoveries. A scientific theory should only be considered true insofar as it has not been contradicted by an experimental observation (with no error in the experiment itself), so there is always that possibility as new experiments are conducted and new observations made.
It hasn't been my experience that scientists are afraid to investigate or ask questions, but I do think, however, that there is a certain frustation from the scientific community if they feel that an objection has been raised only as an effort to find a problem, for personal motives, with evolution. I'm contrasting that with the kind of objections and questioning that are a routine part of the scientific process. For example, I heard on a nature.com podcast that scientists were troubled by the fact that the Big Bang theory predicts a certain abundance of lithium in the universe, but that abundance of lithium had not been observed. So in this case, the objection or question came from a discrepancy between the predictions of the theory and what had actually been observed. I think scientists become frustrated because they think that the objections to evolution don't come from these scientific observations. Unfortunately, scientists often allow this frustration to color their response to the objections. They take on a mocking or scoffing tone. It could make these scientists appear hidebound or dogmatic, where really if you look at the work being done by biologists, I think that you will find generally that the community is not afraid to ask questions and investigate.
Where did you learn about inter verus intra-species evolution and irreducible complexity? I've run across these ideas too, but I've only heard these objections raised as creationist or intelligent design arguments, so I'm not familar with any experimental observations or research articles that support these ideas. It is more of a logical or philosophical objection, right? Maybe I can offer some ideas that will convince you that these aren't really problems with evolution theory.
I encountered intra versus interspecies evolution about a week ago, only it was referred to as macro verus microevolution. I looked at a scientist's discussion of it, and I find the resolution of the problem convincing: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
One point it makes is that there is actually no difference between interspecies and intraspecies evolution. It is the same process.
Hmmm, I agree that the fossil record is showing points in time. You don't see every moment in time unless you live for millions or billions of years. However, we are understanding things in our everyday world like that all of the time, don't you think? Let's say you see your friend walking toward you, then you turn away. That's one moment in time. Then, when you look again, you see that they are still walking toward you, only they are closer now. That's another moment. Then you turn away again. When you look back again, you see that your friend has arrived. Isn't it reasonable to assume that there are certain contraints on what happened and what could not have happened? Like, you know your friend wasn't in another city during that time that you weren't looking? And you know they had to do something to get closer to you, to get from point A where you saw them to point B where you see them now. Now, they could have bent down to get something, or jumped in the air, but you still do know a lot about what your friend was doing. You know only certain things are possible. And the fossil record creates contraints on what happened that show that evolution was occuring, even if some of the details of that picture are open to question within the contraints. As scientists look at the fossil record in ever-greater detail, they get a clearer and clearer picture in which evolution is and was occuring. Also, you agree that evolution is occuring now, which you called species adaption. So, scientists are just saying that what is happening now, was happening in the past, which is reasonble to say, don't you think? It makes sense because, for example, E=mc^2 isn't true on Mondays but not true on Tuesdays, or something like that.
I'm sorry to be long-winded. I think that is something that makes it hard for everybody to get on the same page regarding evolution, because the ideas are hard to explain briefly, aren't they?
I've actually written something about irreducible complexity before. I've heard one version of that argument before that uses an analogy between living things and a mouse trap. How could a mouse trap evolve, because if you don't have every part of the mouse trap in place, it won't catch any mice. So an animal with only part of a mouse trap would die. You'd never get to the animal with the complete mouse trap. The resolution to this problem is that in the stages before you have a complete mouse trap, the parts serve a different purpose. It actually happened that way in making mouse traps, didn't it? Wood blocks had been used before for other purposes, wires had been invented previously and used for other things, as well as springs. So, for example, all of the parts of the eye had other purposes in the course of evolution before they became the parts making up the eye. And this has been well-documented. There is a discussion of this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
At August 19, 2006 8:37 PM,
Alan Phipps said…
Hi Erik, thanks for your response.
I should also highlight that while I tend to hold to parts of evolutionary theory, I also hold to its limitations and submit that there are many unanswered questions. It doesn't affect what I believe about creation at all. What I do dispute is the common assertion in the scientific community that natural selection, if it is true, or any process whereby elements came about, necessarily excludes any intelligence whatsoever. I don't find that assertion to be very scientific. It does fall within the realm of religion or philosophy. Honest science understands there are questions that it cannot answer and shouldn't pretend to answer.
The main problem seems to be that evolutionary theory was accepted as a scientific dogma before even much of the modern observations had been found. Even now, it is largely theoretical. It has now developed so strongly in many halls of science to almost underlay the foundations of our understanding of modern biology -- to even question its veracity is nothing less than scientific heresy. I studied about species adaptation and irreducible complexity while I was a student at the university. Though, I am not a biologist (when I said I am a "scientist" in quotes, I'm referring to the fact that I am a computer scientist with an engineering background. Most of this is more of my own personal fascination with the subject.
The arguments posed to magnify adaptation (microevolution) into macroevolution don't really convince me; adaptaton involves the differentiation within species primarily due to observable environmental influences (e.g. a moth's wing changing color, certain traits becoming more dominant, being able to process particular chemical compounds in the air or water). There is simply no evidence to suggest that this type of change can also account for the evolution of the brain, or the difference between an "octopus and a bee," to quote microbiologist Dr. Michael Denton. That's where we get to the fossil record issue below.
What you suggest about points of time is possible, the only problem is that the fossil record really doesn't support that. The limitations in the fossil record simply cannot be explained away. Darwin asserted that if evolutionary theory is correct, the fossil record would show gradualism from one form to another. But there is absolutely no gradualism, and fossils appear to be fully developed on their first observation and have no change down to the present time, or until they vanish from the record. This is stasis. Some explain this away by referring to things like the "Cambrian Explosion", but in my opinion, this is no different from the "epicycles on epicycles" used to rationalize away flaws in the old Ptolemaic view of planetary motion. This is why many scientists, whom I consider to be more honest about flaws in the theory, are calling for a new theory of evolution and natural selection rather than holding to an aging theory that lacks support.
I should note that the wikipedia article on irreducible complexity is terribly one-sided, particularly in treating the issue with Dr. Michael Behe (I had the opportunity to hear him speak at UCSB several years back)... nevertheless, I do accept that there are legitimate
criticisms, and this is good for the debate. The main issue posed by irreducible complexity, which is not sufficiently answered by the scientific community in my opinion, is that the more irreducibly complex a system seems to be, the less probability that it could be the result of mere evolutionary processes or random mutation -- even if the materials are taken from elsewhere. Notable irreducibly complex systems involve much more than the 3 elements of a mouse trap. What the wikipedia article does not explain, with regard to the development of the eye, is what Dr. Michael Behe asserted in his controversial book, Darwin's Black Box. Basically, Behe observed that photoreceptive, or, light-sensitive cells require a certain minimum set of unique chemicals, which have not been observed to have any other known function. Even if they had, in order to produce any sort of reproductive advantage, these elements must form simultaneously along with the function of being on the surface of an organism (to work), be connected to some sort of nervous system, and have some way of processing that information. Anything less could not survive. Yet, the probability of getting such a mutation is so low to be almost impossible, and even if it were possible, we should see evidence of less than perfect forms of the mutation that did not survive, and we do not.
In this debate, there are always objections and replies to objections and so forth, so all I can do is leave it for now. But the debate is alive, and I am glad to follow it :)
At August 19, 2006 8:44 PM,
Alan Phipps said…
BTW, Erik, I absolutely love your nature pics. Thanks for the subtle glimpses of things that I often take for granted!
Post a Comment
<< Home