The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Evolution finally winning?

Posted 19 November 2015 by Matt Young

Good article in Slate, Evolution Is Finally Winning Out Over Creationism, by Rachel Gross. I have not checked the surveys myself, but Gross reports,

The people responsible for this shift are the young. According to a recent Pew Research Center report, 73 percent of American adults younger than 30 expressed some sort of belief in evolution, a jump from 61 percent in 2009, the first year in which the question was asked. The number who believed in purely secular evolution (that is, not directed by any divine power) jumped from 40 percent to a majority of 51 percent. In other words, if you ask a younger American how humans arose, you're likely to get an answer that has nothing to do with God.

Additionally,

The overall proportion of Americans who believe in secular evolution has doubled since 1999, from 9 percent to 19 percent, according to a 2014 Gallup poll....[M]ost of that increase has been drawn from the pool of Americans who previously reported that they believed in evolution guided by God [theistic evolution], which simultaneously dropped from 40 percent to 31 percent.

Why? In part because evolution is "in the air" (thank the Internet!) and in part because evolution-deniers are older and dying off. Acknowledgment. Thanks to Mike Antolin of the Colorado State University for the link.

75 Comments

phhht · 19 November 2015

That's encouraging news! I sure hope Floyd Lee sees it.

John Harshman · 19 November 2015

What's the quote to the effect that scientific theories don't become accepted by winning over their opponents but because the opponents eventually die?

DS · 19 November 2015

I think the internet is responsible for at least some of the trend in young people. For example, if you google "intermediate forms in evolution" you get over 800 thousand hits in less than a second. The first is from Berkeley and shows intermediates in whale and horse evolution. The fifth hit is the 29+ Evidences of Macro Evolution from the Talk Origins Site. So if some creationist yahoo tells some kind that there are no intermediate forms, the information is right there at their finger tips (since they are already holding their cell phone and probably just waiting for the old geezer to shut up so they can text their BFF anyway).

Henry J · 19 November 2015

Not just young people; if I hadn't run into the "arguments" twenty years ago, I'd probably have never paid much attention to the subject.

Scott F · 19 November 2015

The Internet, certainly. You can find all sorts of information on the internet. Some of it is even true. It's that "critical thinking" piece, having to decide what makes sense and what doesn't, without the "filters" of (say) the editorial staff of an encyclopedia publisher. Okay, I can find all sorts of creationist stuff on the internet that supports the views of my church. But, hey, there's all this other stuff too, and videos of people willing to explain it to me… ideas and people who aren't in my church.

There's also computer games. There are friggin' computer games where you can experience evolution in real time. You can see it, and manipulate it, or even let it grow "organically". All that stuff about, "Well, I never saw a dog give birth to cat" or "croc-o-ducks"? Now you can see it happen, and in the best of them, see why it happens. Despite being a "virtual" reality (or maybe because of it), such games make evolution far more "real" than a bunch of dead bones in the ground.

And don't forget about genetics. We now have the means to understand (and explain) at the most basic levels how evolution could have happened. Sure, in the 60's when I was growing up, evolution was "true", but now it is even more explanatory than it was back in the day. I think that has to be one of the big things affecting acceptance. Evolution can explain stuff. With creationism, you start with a mystery, and end with the same mystery, with no real "understanding" in between. With Evolution, with Science, you start with questions. While you may end with questions too, you end with better questions than you started, and there is some actual understanding acquired along the way.

Finally, evolution is "in the air". "Jurassic Park/World", for example, or even "Lucy". Such popular movies may mangle science and make real scientists cringe, but even such popular "explanations" or plot exigencies, while maybe inaccurate, at least get young people comfortable with the concept of evolution as a "thing", not something that is "evil" or "of the devil", to the point that it is culturally acceptable to accept science. Then, of course, the "CSI" shows and "Mythbusters". "Science" and skepticism can be made cool. At least in science, you occasionally get to blow things up! How cool is that? :-) You don't get to do that in your Sunday school class.

Rolf · 20 November 2015

Encouraging. Exposure is important. With little (or in my case, no) previous indoctrination and only rudimentary "Bible History" as the subject of "Religion" in primary school, I was ready for Evolution when I found out about it at 13. We all found "Religion" boring. But ironically, with rather little interest in school at all, I got top grades in that subject, one reading of the homework and it was done.

Sunday school? Not for me or my buddies.

We didn't even have dinosaurs, kids today are familiar with T.Rex or Diplodocus.

prongs · 20 November 2015

John Harshman said: What's the quote to the effect that scientific theories don't become accepted by winning over their opponents but because the opponents eventually die?
"As the new Darwinian orthodoxy swept through Europe, its most brilliant opponent, the aging embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer, remarked with bitter irony that every triumphant theory passes through three stages: first it is dismissed as untrue; then it is rejected as contrary to religion; finally, it is accepted as dogma and each scientist claims that he had long appreciated its truth." - Stephen Jay Gould, The Validation of Continental Drift, Chapter 20 in Ever Since Darwin, WW Norton and Co, 1977

eric · 20 November 2015

John H.,

While prongs' Gould quote is on topic, I think what you were thinking of is Max Planck's quote: "Science advances one funeral at a time."

Rumraket · 20 November 2015

How strange. And here we've been told that "more and more scientists are abandoning evolution", yet the public is going in the opposite direction :P

Douglas Theobald · 20 November 2015

The actual Max Planck quote (not a paraphrase) from his autobiography:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

and related:

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth."

Quotes used to great effect by Thomas Kuhn.

John Harshman · 20 November 2015

So, in effect, if we finally start teaching kids about evolution, they end up paying attention. Who knew?

rew · 20 November 2015

I think what you were thinking of is Max Planck’s quote: “Science advances one funeral at a time.
Its a bit of an irony that I first learned of this quote from Philip Johnson's Darwin on Trial. Of course he believed this was how the theory of evolution would die out. I think its a bit premature to get excited about this poll. Lets wait to see a few more polls from different organizations before we declare that science is winning.

TomS · 20 November 2015

I'm having trouble finding the original Pew report on this.

DavidK · 20 November 2015

Texas: We don't need academics to fact-check our textbooks

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-dont-academics-fact-check-textbooks-135530956.html;_ylt=A0LEV7jLSE9WFkQApAUPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--

Still have a little ways to go in Texas.

CJColucci · 20 November 2015

It surely doesn't help advance their cause that the public faces of Creationism are so preposterous and uncool. They may portray themselves as daring rebels against an oppressive establishment, but the young are attracted not so much to rebellion itself as to coolness, and these people are the opposite of cool.

Matt Young · 20 November 2015

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

David Hull called it Planck's Principle and showed, at least for the acceptance of evolution in England, that Planck was mistaken. I discussed Hull's paper briefly here but never thought to write it up for PT. Planck's assertion, however, seems wrong on its face: If no one in the older generation accepted "a new scientific truth," then who taught it to the newer generation? Reference. David L. Hull, Peter D. Tessner, and Arthur M. Diamond, "Planck’s Principle, Do younger scientists accept new scientific ideas with greater alacrity than older scientists?" Science 202, 717-723 (1978).

FL · 20 November 2015

There's all kinds of poll numbers on the table regarding "younger Americans", these days. Here's my own favorite numbers for 2015:

*46* Percent of "The Nones" agree with the statement "Since the universe has organization, I think there is a creator who designed it." *43* Percent of "The Nones" agree with the statement "The fact that we exist means someone created us." *33* Percent of "The Nones" agree with the statement "Since people have morality, I think there is a creator who defines morality." http://www.religionnews.com/2015/10/07/religious-not-many-americans-see-creators-hand/

**** So for me, I think the game is still wide-open, even with the rise of younger Americans who don't identify with any religion. Who's really winning the game? Hard to tell. (One might as well try to predict the exact winner of the 2016 Final Four by 5:00 pm today. I for one cannot do that; can you?) All we really know for sure is that the Gallup Poll has posted a consistent 42-47 percent range since 1982 for Americans believing in God as the creator of humans, despite decades of courthouse and schoolhouse victories. Up some years, down some years. I think the range is still holding, mas o menos. Now with our nation currently in a dangerous spiritual tailspin (let's just hope it's not a death spiral), it's only to be expected that the younger folks might be inclined to go in the direction Rachel Gross indicates. But so far, there are some seriously good poll-number reasons for Non-Darwinists NOT to write off the younger folks, especially "The Nones", as lost causes. **** At the end of the day, only the Bible has the correct photograph of the current American situation. Everybody on all sides of the origins controversy, has to deal with that snapshot realistically and seriously. Here's what the Bible's photograhh looks like:

"Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision! For the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision." (Joel 3:14)

What to do? Well, on my side of the fence, gotta reach out to people "one mind, one heart, one life at a time", no matter what today's or tomorrow's poll numbers say. FL

eric · 20 November 2015

FL said: All we really know for sure is that the Gallup Poll has posted a consistent 42-47 percent range since 1982 for Americans believing in God as the creator of humans, despite decades of courthouse and schoolhouse victories. Up some years, down some years. I think the range is still holding, mas o menos. Now with our nation currently in a dangerous spiritual tailspin...
How can you simultaneously claim we're in a tailspin and yet attitudes haven't changed since 1982?

"Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision! For the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision." (Joel 3:14)

But you just quoted numbers about nones in order to support the notion that many of them accept some form of ID creationism. So it isn't multitudes. When we cite a decline in creationism, you argue against that saying, basically, 'aint' broke.' But then you shift into hell and damnation mode and argue 'needs fixing.' Your rhetoric is in conflict with your demagoguery.

DS · 20 November 2015

So Floyd admits that most young Americans don't believe in god anymore. Good to know.

And of course, if your favorite ideas can't survive in a world where information s freely available, they probably shouldn't have survived in the first place. Belief in creationism can only be maintained if information is censored and suppressed, that's why it's on the decline now. Belief in evolution is strengthened by free availability of information, that's why more young people are seeing the light.

At the end of the day, the bible is just an antiquated moral code that never was and never will be science. One mind, one heart, one life at a time, indeed.

phhht · 20 November 2015

FL said: Here's what the Bible's photograhh [sic] looks like...
Why should anyone care what your book of myths says, Flawd? After all, it's nothing but fantasy fiction, until and unless you can establish the reality of your gods.

Michael Fugate · 20 November 2015

Face it Floyd, no one under 30 wants to be like you. You are wrong on science, on women, even on religion. I can't think of of anything you are right on, can anyone?

DS · 20 November 2015

Michael Fugate said: Face it Floyd, no one under 30 wants to be like you. You are wrong on science, on women, even on religion. I can't think of of anything you are right on, can anyone?
Well if he ever admitted to being wrong, at least then he would be right for once. But of course he won't.

FL · 20 November 2015

Eric says: How can you simultaneously claim we’re in a tailspin and yet attitudes haven’t changed since 1982?

Pretty easily, in fact. The only thing that I said hadn't changed since 1982, was the 42-47% range of Gallup poll responses on their one single poll question about human origins. But obviously, the nation's gone into a spiritual tailspin. "Attitudes", as you put it, have changed greatly. I think everyone would agree on that to some degree. Otherwise, whence the totally historically unprecedented evil of legalized gay marriage in America? FL

FL · 20 November 2015

Michael Fugate said: Face it Floyd, no one under 30 wants to be like you. You are wrong on science, on women, even on religion. I can't think of of anything you are right on, can anyone?
Sorry Michael, but I gotta ask: Why are you apparently seeking for the rest of the Pandas to validate your opinion there? It looks a little suspicious. Try to display more confidence about things! FL

phhht · 20 November 2015

FL said:
Michael Fugate said: Face it Floyd, no one under 30 wants to be like you. You are wrong on science, on women, even on religion. I can't think of of anything you are right on, can anyone?
Sorry Michael, but I gotta ask: Why are you apparently seeking for the rest of the Pandas to validate your opinion there? It looks a little suspicious. Try to display more confidence about things!
What a fool. Flawd cannot defend his baseless assertions. He cannot justify his goddy delusions. He cannot say why he believes in gods but not in vampires, in vegesaurs but not in superheroes, in the reality of his bible when he cannot demonstrate the reality of his gods. He cannot defend his claim to be infallible. He's an incompetent debater, crippled by his fanatical religious madness. He's deranged. He's a helpless, drooling, bull goose loony.

Matt Young · 20 November 2015

Please no more mindless insults. If you can't say something witty, do not say anything.

DS · 20 November 2015

FL said:
Michael Fugate said: Face it Floyd, no one under 30 wants to be like you. You are wrong on science, on women, even on religion. I can't think of of anything you are right on, can anyone?
Sorry Michael, but I gotta ask: Why are you apparently seeking for the rest of the Pandas to validate your opinion there? It looks a little suspicious. Try to display more confidence about things! FL
Yea Michael, why do you need anyone else to confirm that Floyd has never been right about a single thing. You already know he hasn't been, ever. But notice that he didn't even try to deny it. He just launched into a personal attack against someone he doesn't even know, trying desperately to deflect attention away from his own shortcomings. Oh well, he 's just trying to derail the thread anyway. He can't stand it when rational people celebrate victories. He is losing the culture war and he knows it. His attempt to derail the thread won't work though. I'm going to respond to his snarky comments on the bathroom wall from now on, if at all. I suggest others do the same.

phhht · 20 November 2015

FL said: Otherwise, whence the totally historically unprecedented evil of legalized gay marriage in America?
Gay marriage is NOT an evil, Flawd. It is a profound, long-over-due, unmitigated social good. You cannot muster any rational argument at all in opposition to gay marriage. All you've got is your hateful bigotry.

eric · 20 November 2015

FL said: Otherwise, whence the totally historically unprecedented evil of legalized gay marriage in America?
Historically unprecedented evil? So, in your opinion, this is worse than US slavery?

Michael Fugate · 20 November 2015

DS said:
FL said:
Michael Fugate said: Face it Floyd, no one under 30 wants to be like you. You are wrong on science, on women, even on religion. I can't think of of anything you are right on, can anyone?
Sorry Michael, but I gotta ask: Why are you apparently seeking for the rest of the Pandas to validate your opinion there? It looks a little suspicious. Try to display more confidence about things! FL
Yea Michael, why do you need anyone else to confirm that Floyd has never been right about a single thing. You already know he hasn't been, ever. But notice that he didn't even try to deny it. He just launched into a personal attack against someone he doesn't even know, trying desperately to deflect attention away from his own shortcomings. Oh well, he 's just trying to derail the thread anyway. He can't stand it when rational people celebrate victories. He is losing the culture war and he knows it. His attempt to derail the thread won't work though. I'm going to respond to his snarky comments on the bathroom wall from now on, if at all. I suggest others do the same.
I could have missed something, I am not here 24/7. Did you notice how Floyd didn't deny that he is always wrong - I guess that is validation in itself.

DS · 20 November 2015

eric said:
FL said: Otherwise, whence the totally historically unprecedented evil of legalized gay marriage in America?
Historically unprecedented evil? So, in your opinion, this is worse than US slavery?
Well according to the bible it is, so my guess is that that is what Floyd is going with.

DS · 20 November 2015

Michael Fugate said: I could have missed something, I am not here 24/7. Did you notice how Floyd didn't deny that he is always wrong - I guess that is validation in itself.
No you didn't miss anything. One time he was 98.5% wrong and he still refused to admit it. Now that is a powerful amount of stubborn there.

Scott F · 20 November 2015

eric said:
FL said: Otherwise, whence the totally historically unprecedented evil of legalized gay marriage in America?
Historically unprecedented evil? So, in your opinion, this is worse than US slavery?
FL has answered that one before. Slavery is sanctioned in the Bible, so FL is perfectly fine with slavery.

Pierce R. Butler · 20 November 2015

Michael Fugate said:
I can’t think of of anything you are right on, can anyone?
FL usually spells fairly well.

W. H. Heydt · 20 November 2015

Matt Young said: Please no more mindless insults. If you can't say something witty, do not say anything.
Does that mean that mindful insults are okay?

W. H. Heydt · 20 November 2015

FL said: Otherwise, whence the totally historically unprecedented evil of legalized gay marriage in America?
There were Bible based objections to... ...the abolition of slavery. ...women's sufferage ...inter-racial marriage. In short, every significant advance in human rights, equality, and liberty has been opposed on Biblical grounds. It's at the point that, if you want to know how to make social advances, look to see what the religious conservatives are opposed to and go for that.

Scott F · 20 November 2015

W. H. Heydt said:
FL said: Otherwise, whence the totally historically unprecedented evil of legalized gay marriage in America?
There were Bible based objections to... ...the abolition of slavery. ...women's sufferage ...inter-racial marriage. In short, every significant advance in human rights, equality, and liberty has been opposed on Biblical grounds. It's at the point that, if you want to know how to make social advances, look to see what the religious conservatives are opposed to and go for that.
Heck, there were biblical arguments used in opposition to the ratification of the Constitution. There have been biblical arguments made against almost every major advancement of science. People make biblical arguments against the use of any kind of medicine or medical science, while others make equally passionate biblical arguments against removing people from the most advanced life support equipment. There are biblical arguments made today against public education, the very foundation of democracy. So, yeah, people make biblical arguments both for and against almost anything at the same time, all the time. It's not too surprising to find one making an argument against something he personally finds "icky".

phhht · 20 November 2015

Scott F said:
W. H. Heydt said:
FL said: Otherwise, whence the totally historically unprecedented evil of legalized gay marriage in America?
There were Bible based objections to... ...the abolition of slavery. ...women's sufferage ...inter-racial marriage. In short, every significant advance in human rights, equality, and liberty has been opposed on Biblical grounds. It's at the point that, if you want to know how to make social advances, look to see what the religious conservatives are opposed to and go for that.
Heck, there were biblical arguments used in opposition to the ratification of the Constitution. There have been biblical arguments made against almost every major advancement of science. People make biblical arguments against the use of any kind of medicine or medical science, while others make equally passionate biblical arguments against removing people from the most advanced life support equipment. There are biblical arguments made today against public education, the very foundation of democracy. So, yeah, people make biblical arguments both for and against almost anything at the same time, all the time. It's not too surprising to find one making an argument against something he personally finds "icky".
That's why it's important to insist that the bible is worthless, unless and until gods are shown to be real. Nobody can show that, so they're screwed.

Just Bob · 20 November 2015

phhht said: That's why it's important to insist that the bible is worthless, unless and until gods are shown to be real. Nobody can show that, so they're screwed.
Nobody has so far. But any day now... just wait...

Matt Young · 20 November 2015

Does that mean that mindful insults are okay?

Absolutely!

Rolf · 21 November 2015

If anything should be understood as evidence of evolution, i.e. nature itself responsible for the origins of species, the fact of ambiguous sexual identity ought to be taken seriously.

Isn't the phase of fetal embryonal development also the place where most of the things that may "go wrong" take place?

The embryo starts out as a female, but at some point in the development, genetics kick in and determine, if all goes the way it should, that this body is supposed to be born as either a female - or male.

Now the chemistry of biology is not in any way comparable to the processes at play in, say, bicycle manufacture. There was a time when bicycles were made strictly male or female. I remember a s/f/fantasy short story built around that. I remember the story using the word stud in that context.

The degree of reliability in embryonal development alone is a good example of what nature left to itself may accomplish without divine intervention. Not faultless, but the best that can be done given the premises.

Frank J · 21 November 2015

The fifth hit is the 29+ Evidences of Macro Evolution from the Talk Origins Site.

— DS
Great article by Douglas Theobald that I have been raving about for ~14 years. Though probably too long and technical for most who don't already have an intense interest in evolution or at least science in general. While it's good that people increasingly accept evolution, they also need to know the games that anti-evolution activists play. The article notes not just evidence for "macroevolution," but many potential falsifiers. Curiously, most anti-evolution activists are clued in enough to avoid them, and instead recycle other long-refuted arguments that still fool many people. It won't really be good news if the increase in those who accept evolution mostly say "I guess something like evolution is true, but I hear that it has gaps." Also, it won't really be good news if most people think that the fault of "creationism" is the belief that "Goddidit," rather than the fact that it is a massive scheme to misrepresent evolution and the nature of science. One that can't get it's own "theory" straight on such basics as the age of life and "who's related to what?"

harold · 21 November 2015

Douglas Theobald said:
The actual Max Planck quote (not a paraphrase) from his autobiography: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." and related: "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth." Quotes used to great effect by Thomas Kuhn.
Well, in my applied science field of expertise, pathology (the medical specialty), this is completely the opposite of the case. New advances are quickly accepted as soon as they are shown valid. If anything there is a bias toward over-acceptance of the new. Elderly experts who rant against the fact that a system they initiated has been updated are known, but very rare. Far more often, leading experts continually revise their own work and opinions. Cutting edge ideas are put in practice first in big centers but it they make an important difference they are widely adopted. I'll grant that tenured pure academics may have greater freedom to petulantly champion once valid but now outdated ideas. Behe isn't an example of that, but is an example of how an academic position can be abused. Having said that, every research scientist I was taught by in university or medical school was similar to pathologists. New ideas were eagerly embraced and discussed.

harold · 21 November 2015

All we really know for sure is that the Gallup Poll has posted a consistent 42-47 percent range since 1982 for Americans believing in God as the creator of humans, despite decades of courthouse and schoolhouse victories. Up some years, down some years. I think the range is still holding, mas o menos.
Ay caramba! Let's see if we can explain where this disappearing 42-47% "mas o menos" came from in the first place. 1) The number of Americans who actually overtly claim to believe in a literal Noah's Ark and whatnot is probably around 30% at most, and I would estimate substantially less. Even that number includes a fair number of people who are not really part of "the movement", but are actually members of traditional sects like Jehovah's Witness or Seventh Day Adventist. Ben Carson aside these sects are by no means made up of monolithic supporters of the Republican Party (and if you don't support the Republican party, you don't support evolution denial in public schools, because in the last 15 years 100% of politicians who have pushed that policy, at any level from local school board to the senate, have been Republican). And Ben Carson is an example of the fact that they tend to compartmentalize their science denial. The number of outright Ken Ham style post-modern fundamentalists who actively push for science denial in public schools is much lower than their volume may suggest. 2) As we've discussed recently here, people make common mistakes in their understanding of evolution eve when they don't mean to deny it. A common one is seeing the current biosphere as the "goal" of evolution. Creationists exploit that, but it's also just a common human cognitive bias. In the past, when religion was more "nice", people were much more hesitant to "contradict" religion". I've mentioned many times that if you structure a question in a way that makes the scientific choice look like a denial of religion, you will get an exaggerated "denial of science" response, because there will be people who actually agree with the scientific answer but are uncomfortable "contradicting religion". This may be less prevalent among younger people. 3) FL brings up gay marriage. Technically, from a standpoint of pure logic, it's irrelevant. The social status of gay couples and the theory of evolution are two completely separate thing. Yet in reality, it is highly relevant. Although FL is sincere, he chooses his beliefs to fit his social biases. He doesn't dislike gay marriage because he is a creationist, he has, unconsciously, adopted creationism because it is a recently coined interpretation of Christianity that justifies opposition to gay marriage and other things. Logically, the secular government recognizing some rights for gay couples cannot harm FL. No-one is forcing him to become part of a gay couple, and he has a strong constitutional right to criticize gay couples, as he has, for example, right here, without any risk of government action. (He is barred, in some jurisdictions, should he choose to operate a certain type of business or accept certain government jobs, from denying services or rights to gay people, but that's different.) Young people are no stupider than anyone else. They can see perfectly well that the source of FL's creationism is not any sort of evidence that the Earth is 6000 years old (a claim not even directly made in the Bible) and experienced a global flood 4000 years ago (the Bible does contain a story of global flood, although it does not precisely date the story). Those parts of the Bible have been accepted as metaphorical by many Jewish and Christian theologians literally since the emergence of widespread Christianity in late antiquity. Young people can see that political creationism is not an independent belief, but rather, a post hoc concocted rationalization of the social and political movement associated with Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Liberty University, the Koch brothers, and the contemporary Republican party. Essentially one hundred percent of legal/political efforts to deny evolution in public school science class are initiated by Republicans. One hundred percent of creationists oppose gay marriage. Virtually all creationists deny climate science. Etc. If a scientific idea is valid, it's validity can be demonstrated independent of the ethical and political preferences of the observer. Whatever one may think of the Dali Lama, he has publicly stated that if Tibetan Buddhism is in direct conflict with science, Tibetan Buddhism, not science, has to change. There is a lot of science that I "wish" was not true. I "wish" there was no evidence that mass fossil fuel oxidization may be having a climate effect. I "wish" that nuclear explosions weren't so powerful. I "wish" that it was easy to exceed the velocity of light, so that we could explore vast reaches of space with ease and communicate back to one another. I "wish" that microbial pathogens could not evolve resistance to antibiotics. (On the other hand, I am extremely "glad" that we identified them as the cause of many illnesses, so that we can take a rational approach to treatment.) Anyone can see that creationists are people who have the ability of disability, however one sees it, of being able to deny reality in service of their biases.

DS · 21 November 2015

harold said: Douglas Theobald said:
The actual Max Planck quote (not a paraphrase) from his autobiography: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." and related: "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth." Quotes used to great effect by Thomas Kuhn.
Well, in my applied science field of expertise, pathology (the medical specialty), this is completely the opposite of the case. New advances are quickly accepted as soon as they are shown valid. If anything there is a bias toward over-acceptance of the new. Elderly experts who rant against the fact that a system they initiated has been updated are known, but very rare. Far more often, leading experts continually revise their own work and opinions. Cutting edge ideas are put in practice first in big centers but it they make an important difference they are widely adopted. I'll grant that tenured pure academics may have greater freedom to petulantly champion once valid but now outdated ideas. Behe isn't an example of that, but is an example of how an academic position can be abused. Having said that, every research scientist I was taught by in university or medical school was similar to pathologists. New ideas were eagerly embraced and discussed.
That can certainly be true. But it is also true that we still use the terms invertebrate, Protista and Reptilia.

Robert Byers · 21 November 2015

Lets think about this.
First this is kids and young folk. As they get older they get smarter and question the exclusive diet of info they get.
Second. if it matters what people think then it matters before the present rise.And it matters about the healthy common rejection.
So you guys are confirming the legitimacy of evolution denial because who give legitimacy to the support.
YES it matters what the people think. yet only after both sides have made their best case. creationism is rising because it makes a better case but has trouble reaching the great numbers of people.
Evolutionism is not winning on the merits or anything. its shifting the mussy middle.
creationists never embrace the mussy middle. iTs useful to demand more right to be heard.
If you believe in the peoples intelligence to judge these matters then you should be the great pushers for the people to hear, well, both sides.
By the way. If the numbers reversed in these points would your side say evolutions losing??
Or would you dismiss it as the unwashed masses who know nothing.?!
Creationism is doing better then ever.
I do agree numbers on all sides represent for many people what they were brought up in. Not scholarly examinination on all sides. Few people really put their minds too it.

Dave Luckett · 22 November 2015

"creationists never embrace the mussy middle", says Byers. He's right, you know. Creationists are extremists.
73 percent of American adults younger than 30 expressed some sort of belief in evolution, a jump from 61 percent in 2009
and
The overall proportion of Americans who believe in secular evolution has doubled since 1999
But "Creationism is rising", says Byers, thus demonstrating that he hasn't read the figures, and anyway couldn't care less about facts. Because the facts show the contrary: the young increasingly reject creationism, and overall, more and more people are denying, not only creationism itself, but even that evolution is directed by God. Creationism is sinking, Byers, not rising.

TomS · 22 November 2015

I find the interpretation of the numbers an interesting example of the fallacies of composition and division.

(1) Acceptance of creationism increases in populations according to the average age of the population.

is not the same as:

(2) Acceptance of creationism increases for an individual as the individual ages.

MichaelJ · 22 November 2015

harold said: 1) The number of Americans who actually overtly claim to believe in a literal Noah's Ark and whatnot is probably around 30% at most, and I would estimate substantially less. Even that number includes a fair number of people who are not really part of "the movement", but are actually members of traditional sects like Jehovah's Witness or Seventh Day Adventist. Ben Carson aside these sects are by no means made up of monolithic supporters of the Republican Party (and if you don't support the Republican party, you don't support evolution denial in public schools, because in the last 15 years 100% of politicians who have pushed that policy, at any level from local school board to the senate, have been Republican). And Ben Carson is an example of the fact that they tend to compartmentalize their science denial. The number of outright Ken Ham style post-modern fundamentalists who actively push for science denial in public schools is much lower than their volume may suggest.
Do the 30% all believe in the world-wide flood or some just believe in a local flood?

MichaelJ · 22 November 2015

As we all know the acceptance of same sex marriage is growing even among GOP voters. A lot of this is probably due to people finding friends or relatives coming out gay. I wonder how many started to question their religious/political leaders on creationism once they found they can question them on their SSM stance.

Statements like "totally historically unprecedented evil of legalized gay marriage in America" will backfire on FL and others who take the all or nothing approach.

DS · 22 November 2015

We are so not losing, we ain't, is not, not sos. we aint we aint we aint

booby

harold · 22 November 2015

MichaelJ said:
harold said: 1) The number of Americans who actually overtly claim to believe in a literal Noah's Ark and whatnot is probably around 30% at most, and I would estimate substantially less. Even that number includes a fair number of people who are not really part of "the movement", but are actually members of traditional sects like Jehovah's Witness or Seventh Day Adventist. Ben Carson aside these sects are by no means made up of monolithic supporters of the Republican Party (and if you don't support the Republican party, you don't support evolution denial in public schools, because in the last 15 years 100% of politicians who have pushed that policy, at any level from local school board to the senate, have been Republican). And Ben Carson is an example of the fact that they tend to compartmentalize their science denial. The number of outright Ken Ham style post-modern fundamentalists who actively push for science denial in public schools is much lower than their volume may suggest.
Do the 30% all believe in the world-wide flood or some just believe in a local flood?
Obviously 30% is an educated approximation, but let me clarify. I comment here because of my opposition to political ID/creationism. That is a social/political movement which advocates denial of evolution in public school school science class, and its replacement with latter day religious claims, usually, since Edwards v. Aguillard, the thinly disguised religious claims of "ID", which take the form mainly of "disproving" evolution, rather than the overt religious claims of "creation science", from which ID evolved. See the Wikipedia articles on Edwards vs. Aguillard, "Of Pandas and People", and the Dover trial if you are unfamiliar with any of this. These are religious ideas that were chosen or concocted to rationalize and justify a right wing political agenda, as I mentioned above, so it's very difficult to say where the sincere religious beliefs end and where the politics begin. The majority of Republican politicians don't publicly bring up evolution denial; however, almost all pander to science denial and the idea that fundamentalist Christians are "persecuted" unless they receive special privileges and others are discriminated against. Some, like Ben Carson, seem to embrace science denial at the conscious level, while others, like George W. Bush, pander to evolution denial when convenient but clearly don't likely hold it as a personal belief, and in some cases, it's impossible to tell. There are also members of denominations that are officially creationist, who are not Republican voters, especially in minority communities. However, the further one goes from the politics, the less rigid the creationism becomes. A church that is no obsessed with right wing politics often allows members to have varying levels of literalist belief. This is not always the case, but often so. Thus, rigid purity testing via required belief in a global flood is usually, if not always, a sign that social and political motivations are a factor. The 30% essentially represents my estimate of those "core" members of the "conservative movement" who are fully committed for life (many if not most of whom have sincerely or symbolically joined a fundamentalist church), coupled with a small addition for few people who adhere to a rigid creationist religious ideology but are not part of the political movement. The latter have always and will always exist but are fairly small in number.

harold · 22 November 2015

That’s why it’s important to insist that the bible is worthless, unless and until gods are shown to be real.
The Bible in its many translations and versions has substantial value for archaelologists, linguists, historians, sociologists, etc.

harold · 22 November 2015

harold said:
That’s why it’s important to insist that the bible is worthless, unless and until gods are shown to be real.
The Bible in its many translations and versions has substantial value for archaelologists, linguists, historians, sociologists, etc.
The claim that the Bible is worthless unless gods can be shown to exist would extend logically to the study of Greek mythology, etc. Virtually no-one studies Greek mythology because they believe in Greek gods or think the myths are literally true, yet that does not render its study worthless.

Rolf · 22 November 2015

I wish to point out that according the the first Christians, the Gnostics, God is not a homeless spirit in the universe. It is in all of us whether we acknowledge that or not.

That's the source of the voices people hear in their head. And the source ov everything else. Without it, you are dead. Christ is a symbol secondary to God. That's why they are father and son. God is insulated from all our consciousness, Christ is the realization of the symbol "Christ". Ref. references to "Christ in me" by St. Paul.

The Gnostics claimed ST. Paul was (one of?) their teacher(s).

BTW, many years ago the Jewish/Isreali theologian visited Norway and in an interview said that to Jews, the expression "Son of God" applies to all men, and I would presume that also include women.

What can be said with emphasis is that the Bible would be much without the OT.

phhht · 22 November 2015

harold said:
harold said:
That’s why it’s important to insist that the bible is worthless, unless and until gods are shown to be real.
The Bible in its many translations and versions has substantial value for archaelologists, linguists, historians, sociologists, etc.
The claim that the Bible is worthless unless gods can be shown to exist would extend logically to the study of Greek mythology, etc. Virtually no-one studies Greek mythology because they believe in Greek gods or think the myths are literally true, yet that does not render its study worthless.
It's important to insist that the bible is worthless as a source of divine authority until and unless gods are shown to be real. I thought that was clear from context.

Henry J · 22 November 2015

Evolution winning? How can it win if it doesn't have a goal? ;)

(Don't mind me; I'm short on sleep)

Daniel · 22 November 2015

Robert Byers said: As they get older they get smarter and question the exclusive diet of info they get. ...creationism is rising because it makes a better case... ...I do agree numbers on all sides represent for many people what they were brought up in. Not scholarly examinination on all sides. Few people really put their minds too it.
Of course, this once again flies in the face of reality, as it is a fact that the more educated part of the public is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution

Rolf · 22 November 2015

What Rolf (me) meant to say: What can be said with emphasis is that the Bible would be much better without the OT.
Added the missing 'better' to the quote.

Henry J · 22 November 2015

Re "as it is a fact that the more educated part of the public is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution"

In favor of acknowledging and understanding it, yes. But the "in favor of" phrase makes it sound like it involves liking the conclusions of the theory, and accuracy of a conclusion has nothing to do with whether one likes that conclusion. (Course, that would apply even more to climate change than to evolution, since nobody with sense, education and empathy will like the conclusions of that theory.)

hdh · 22 November 2015

Dali Lama ... has publicly stated that if Tibetan Buddhism is in direct conflict with science, Tibetan Buddhism, not science, has to change.
He was also asked what he would say if science contradicted one of his core beliefs, for example reincarnation. His reply was that, even in that case, he would have to accept science. But he added that he would like to see how science can prove that reincarnation does not exist. Smart guy.

Just Bob · 22 November 2015

Henry J said: (Course, that would apply even more to climate change than to evolution, since nobody with sense, education and empathy will like the conclusions of that theory.)
Well, somebody like the Westboro Baptists, or even FL, might like it (if they decided to admit it's real) as yet more godly punishment for allowing gays to live. Oh, but you did say "nobody with sense, education and empathy," so that eliminates them.

Robert Byers · 22 November 2015

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Scott F · 22 November 2015

Robert Byers said: If you believe in the peoples intelligence to judge these matters then you should be the great pushers for the people to hear, well, both sides.
But Robert, which "both sides" are you talking about? You don't seem to be able to count beyond "2". "Both" suggests that there are only "two" sides to creation argument. There are hundreds of "sides". 1. There is the scientific side. 2. There is the Christian side. 3. There is the Hindu side. 4. There is the Egyptian side. 5. There is the Norse side. 30. There are dozens of Native American sides. 300. Etc, etc, etc… All except the first one, the scientific one, have the exact same amount of evidence backing them up. Meaning, none.

Scott F · 22 November 2015

Robert Byers said: In fact one poster here said videos and movies were the influence. Thats not serious thought.
Ah, Robert. You again confuse "cause" and "effect", getting it completely backwards. I did not propose that watching popular movies and videos "causes" people to accept evolution. The "cause" is that people accept scientific facts. That comes first. The scientific facts, having been accepted by the people who make movies, and by the people who go see movies, the "effect" is that people, particularly the young people who pay to go see movies, already understand the scientific concepts portrayed in the movies. The people who make movies don't have to explain evolution to their audience. Their audience already understands it, and accepted it before they walked into the theater. My point was that, we see science and evolution in movies and popular culture because more and more people already accept the premise that things evolve over time. It is not controversial to them. It is more acceptable ("cause"), therefore we see evolution more in popular culture ("effect"). If evolution wasn't already an accepted concept, then those who create movies wouldn't be using it, because they would not have a ready audience for such movies. (Yes, there are holes in that argument. Do you think Byers will find them? I don't. It's just a "line of reasoning", after all. :-) This (movies in popular culture) is in contrast to some of the video games out there that let people actually play with Evolution, that show them interactively in real time, what the concept of Evolution is, and how it works. Unlike popular culture, these video "games" are actually educational tools, learning tools, disguised as fun. It's like the better army-building, nation-building, and world-building video games. The players learn the basics about war, economics, supply and demand, logistics, the power of information, all sorts of concepts. Many of the things that go into creating something greater than themselves.

Scott F · 22 November 2015

Robert Byers said: Then americans are generally sharper...
Really, Robert? "Keep your government hands off my Medicare"? You mean, those Americans?

TomS · 22 November 2015

Scott F said:
Robert Byers said: If you believe in the peoples intelligence to judge these matters then you should be the great pushers for the people to hear, well, both sides.
But Robert, which "both sides" are you talking about? You don't seem to be able to count beyond "2". "Both" suggests that there are only "two" sides to creation argument. There are hundreds of "sides". 1. There is the scientific side. 2. There is the Christian side. 3. There is the Hindu side. 4. There is the Egyptian side. 5. There is the Norse side. 30. There are dozens of Native American sides. 300. Etc, etc, etc… All except the first one, the scientific one, have the exact same amount of evidence backing them up. Meaning, none.
This is a quibble, for it goes to make the point which you were making. Your #2 is not just one side. Indeed, there is more than one Christian, KJV-Bible-is-inerant-source-of-all-truth creationist side. There are those which accept the Omphalos theory. There are those which are Old-Earth Creationist (day-age, gap, or progressive). There are those which are Geocentric. And there are those who are uncommitted beyond "something, somehow, is wrong with evolutionary biology". I suppose that there may even be some who would say that where the Bible is silent, they are silent, and observe that the Bible is silent about species.

Malcolm · 22 November 2015

Henry J said: Re "as it is a fact that the more educated part of the public is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution" In favor of acknowledging and understanding it, yes. But the "in favor of" phrase makes it sound like it involves liking the conclusions of the theory, and accuracy of a conclusion has nothing to do with whether one likes that conclusion. (Course, that would apply even more to climate change than to evolution, since nobody with sense, education and empathy will like the conclusions of that theory.)
When creationist say that they aren't related to monkeys, it's because they find the idea repulsive, not because they have a logical reason to refute it.

TomS · 23 November 2015

Malcolm said:
Henry J said: Re "as it is a fact that the more educated part of the public is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution" In favor of acknowledging and understanding it, yes. But the "in favor of" phrase makes it sound like it involves liking the conclusions of the theory, and accuracy of a conclusion has nothing to do with whether one likes that conclusion. (Course, that would apply even more to climate change than to evolution, since nobody with sense, education and empathy will like the conclusions of that theory.)
When creationist say that they aren't related to monkeys, it's because they find the idea repulsive, not because they have a logical reason to refute it.
And dare I suggest, the rejection is not even because there is anything in the Bible denying it, or because anybody has offered an alternative. And they find it so repulsive because it is so obvious. And they reject evolution because it is taken to mean that they are related to monkeys. Not because they are concerned about the variation in hereditable traits of populations.

Yardbird · 23 November 2015

TomS said:
Malcolm said:
Henry J said: Re "as it is a fact that the more educated part of the public is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution" In favor of acknowledging and understanding it, yes. But the "in favor of" phrase makes it sound like it involves liking the conclusions of the theory, and accuracy of a conclusion has nothing to do with whether one likes that conclusion. (Course, that would apply even more to climate change than to evolution, since nobody with sense, education and empathy will like the conclusions of that theory.)
When creationist say that they aren't related to monkeys, it's because they find the idea repulsive, not because they have a logical reason to refute it.
And dare I suggest, the rejection is not even because there is anything in the Bible denying it, or because anybody has offered an alternative. And they find it so repulsive because it is so obvious. And they reject evolution because it is taken to mean that they are related to monkeys. Not because they are concerned about the variation in hereditable traits of populations.
And because we are so similar to monkeys, monkey behavior shows that the human characteristics that most discomfit them, sex, birth, death, defecation, urination, all the sweaty, gross matters that come from being embodied in the physical world, aren't temporary conditions caused by disobeying Almighty God, but are the essence of human existence.

Ravi · 6 December 2015

Well, it just goes to show that indoctrination in the classroom, and the refusal to even countenance any critical thinking on the theory of evolution in education, leads to students blindly accepting what they are taught. America is not the land of free thought any more.

Bobsie · 6 December 2015

Ravi said: Well, it just goes to show that indoctrination in the classroom, and the refusal to even countenance any critical thinking on the theory of evolution in education, leads to students blindly accepting what they are taught. America is not the land of free thought any more.
Are you saying that assertions without evidence is the basis for critical thinking? If you were truthful to your own intellect, you would know it's the opposite. Seems to me you are jealous your unsubstantiated beliefs cannot get into secondary education without first getting vetted by discipline professionals. Is that your definition of getting blinded?

Bobsie · 7 December 2015

Ravi, you're confused. Mere incredulity is not a hallmark of critical thinking. You need actual facts and credible evidence to drive any critical thinking. Got any?

DS · 7 December 2015

Ravi said: Well, it just goes to show that indoctrination in the classroom, and the refusal to even countenance any critical thinking on the theory of evolution in education, leads to students blindly accepting what they are taught. America is not the land of free thought any more.
Well, it just goes to show that indoctrination in the church, and the refusal to even countenance any critical thinking on the theory of evolution, leads to christians blindly accepting what they are taught. America is not the land of free thought any more. Religious indoctrination is destroying that freedom. But when students finally get exposed to the truth, they often abandon their religious indoctrination. This is because they realize that it was just a smoke screen that didn't stand up to the evidence or to critical thinking. Thought is free, but reality doesn't care what you think. There, fixed that for you.

Rolf · 6 January 2016

I think it depends on how successful the indoctrination has been. Just consider people like Kurt Wise, no amount of evidence have had or could have any impact on him. He made that decision before he knew better and decided to stay with it no matter what.

I don't remember where I read it but the subject was about what early indoctrination does to people: If subjected to that before the age of 10 you are apt to live with the results for the rest of your life.

What a scary thought!