Darwins 200th & US Politics

[sauronsfinger]

Today is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, a man who changed what we know about the natural history of the world and the creatures who live in it.

The Gallup Poll took a survey back in 2007 to determine how many people believed in evolution. The results demonstrated a rather pronounced divide between Independents and Democrats on one side of the issue and Republicans on the opposite side.

On this day, it seems looking at:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majori ... ution.aspx

[vison]

That is so inexpressibly sad and worrying.

There isn't much anyone can say. There is nothing worse, nothing more dangerous to a person or a society than to refuse to recognize reality.

Darwin was a Giant. He was one of those unique and precious persons the human race occasionally produces and we are never, ever, appreciative enough.

[Primula Baggins]

I would guess that opinions about evolution correlate much more strongly with the various branches of religious belief than with politics. Members of more conservative Christin churches are more likely to disbelieve evolution and more likely to be Republicans. Members of liberal churches or no church are more likely to accept evolution and more likely to be Democrats.

Edit: Cross-posted with vison. I have hopes that improvements in American science education are coming. It's important for the economy, after all.

[River]

I have hopes that improvements in American science education are coming.

Me too. Science and the people who do it are poorly understood in the public imagination.

To me, evolution isn't up for belief or non-belief. For one thing, the word belief has no place in a discussion of scientific theories. Belief implies you're taking (or not taking) a leap of faith and science doesn't do that. You either accept a theory or you don't. And the thing about evolutionary theory is it's so fundamental to biology you can't do modern biology without accepting it. Trying to understand biology without the theory of evolution is like trying to understand chemistry without the periodic table. You could sort of do it, but you'd make a total hash of it and by denying evolution you've basically cut yourself off from some very important ideas and data. You'd be both deaf and blind.

[Hachimitsu]

Thanks for saying that River. It's integral to modern Bio now.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The Gallup Poll took a survey back in 2007 to determine how many people believed in evolution. The results demonstrated a rather pronounced divide between Independents and Democrats on one side of the issue and Republicans on the opposite side.

On this day, it seems looking at:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majori ... ution.aspx

What's the point of posting this, other than saying "look at stupid Republicans are; most of them don't even believe in evolution? Isn't it possible to have a conversation about the importance of Darwin without turning it into a "let's bash the Republicans" thing?

[Primula Baggins]

That's sort of what I was trying to point out.

[River]

I think another contributing factor to this issue (and when you're talking about ~2/3 of the population you're looking at something that transcends party lines) is that for some reason people have drawn a false dichotomy between religion and science. Ie, you can't accept evolution and believe in God. This is fundamentally untrue. I'm not sure where this idea came from. I wish it would go away.

[Inanna]

Especially since genealogy now proves that we all have a common female ancestor. ONE woman.

Can you believe that? That just rocks my mind.

Oh, connection to River's post is that Christians can argue that that one woman is Eve via evolution.

[River]

Actually, the scientists call her Eve too. The mitochondrial Eve, to be exact. And she has a counterpart, the Y-chromosome Adam.

ETA: I can't help but wonder if the Adam and Eve story is a remnant of an oral history about leaving Africa. That would be a truly ancient memory, but it's a cute idea and I like it.

[Inanna]

Mitochondrial Eve? Y-chromosome Adam?

What cool names!!

[River]

Sometimes it's wise to stick with the classics.

ETA: Here's some background. It's quite interesting, really. For one thing, Adam is more recent than Eve (60,000 years ago as opposed to 140,000 years ago). For another, Eve wasn't exactly the mother of all humanity. She was just the one whose mitochondrial lineage survived. Same for Adam.
Mitochondrial Eve
Y-chromosomal Adam

[Primula Baggins]

I would be surprised if 2/3 of Americans fervently reject evolution. I think this is probably the product of decades of successful sowing of doubt by evolution opponents. Americans believe in giving the benefit of the doubt to the underdog, and that's exactly the ground the creationists have seized.

One of their many successful wedges, of course, is the idea that it's God OR science. Which is absurd.

[River]

The other part of the problem is scientists have done a poor job of representing ourselves. We let pop culture speak for us and they've been doing it wrong. The NSF has actually started a program to get more accurate representations of science and scientists into the media. If it takes off expect to see messier and more cluttered labs on screen in the near future and more heads banging against the wall and hints of a greater time lag between starting an experiment and getting results. Actually, that documentary about Antarctica that came out last year (blanking on the name, was directed by the same guy who did Grizzly Man) was funded by that program. The director set out to show what kinds of people end up working in Antarctica and he did a pretty good job of showing scientists at work and play. One of my favorite bits was when a couple collaborators got cool results and accepted them with cautious reserve. From my insider's perspective, this was a completely normal response to cool results, especially for old and tenured professors like the guys in the film, but the director, who as narrarating, seemed stunned that they weren't leaping about shouting "Eureka!"

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

Actually, the scientists call her Eve too. The mitochondrial Eve, to be exact. And she has a counterpart, the Y-chromosome Adam.

ETA: I can't help but wonder if the Adam and Eve story is a remnant of an oral history about leaving Africa. That would be a truly ancient memory, but it's a cute idea and I like it.

The Adam and Eve story is generally believed to go back to the Iraq marshes at the convergence of the Tigris and Euphrates. The life there was once a simple one. The emergence (and desire) of technology would likely be seen as incompatible with such a simple life, thus knowledge would be perceived as disruptive to the idyllic nature of such an existence.

This is consistent with many of the other early references in Genesis, such as Abraham coming from Ur, the probable location of the Tower of Babel etc.

Older speculation placed it in Abyssinia (modern Ethiopia), but my understanding is that this interpretation is generally discounted except by biblically oriented Ethiopians.

BrianIs AtYou

[vison]

The Gallup Poll took a survey back in 2007 to determine how many people believed in evolution. The results demonstrated a rather pronounced divide between Independents and Democrats on one side of the issue and Republicans on the opposite side.

On this day, it seems looking at:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majori ... ution.aspx

What's the point of posting this, other than saying "look at stupid Republicans are; most of them don't even believe in evolution? Isn't it possible to have a conversation about the importance of Darwin without turning it into a "let's bash the Republicans" thing?

The name of the thread is "Darwins 200th and US Politics".

[vison]

Time magazine had a picture of that Eve on their cover some years ago. It was one of the coolest things I ever saw - and I recall the tone of many of the letters to the editor in the next edition from readers who didn't quite think it was "cool".

I do think one of the biggest problems, aside from the "you can't believe in God if you believe in Evolution", is that Darwin's theory is so dreadfully badly taught. I have adult friends who wriggle with discomfort, and deny they could be descended "from the monkeys".

[yovargas]

I do think one of the biggest problems, aside from the "you can't believe in God if you believe in Evolution"...

More accurately, it's "you can't believe in the Bible as literal truth if you believe in Evolution". Which is pretty much true.

[Dave_LF]

There isn't much anyone can say. There is nothing worse, nothing more dangerous to a person or a society than to refuse to recognize reality.

And evolution denial isn't the only or the least offense in that arena. Funny how that works. In my opinion, it is a direct result of the cart-before-the-horse approach to knowledge that starts with belief and works it's way down to facts. Get in the habit of doing this and you lose the ability to work in the other direction. Before you know it, half the people in your country live in an alternate reality.

[Frelga]

What's the point of posting this, other than saying "look at stupid Republicans are; most of them don't even believe in evolution? Isn't it possible to have a conversation about the importance of Darwin without turning it into a "let's bash the Republicans" thing?

First off, notice how no one else actually said "stupid Republicans"?

Second, the statistic, if true, is in fact telling, not so much in terms of anyone's intelligence or lack thereoff, but in understanding the demographics and ideological forces that support one of two major political parties.

As quite a few posters here prove, science is perfectly compatible with religion. It is however entirely incompatible with blind faith. It's the opposite of it, being founded on constant questioning of EVERYTHING.