Only 32% of Americans Believe in Evolution?

[truethat]

That wasn't the "Pew!!" poll this thread's about (now you corrected it, well done!)

The poll we're discussing favoured to reply what the person would prefer to be the truth, not what they think. It's like making people provide their signatures and from those deduct what's the current state of calligraphy continent-wide (weren't talking of America?).

I didn't correct it. I pointed out that I use a different one in my class that has the limitations of study right there. (Maybe I didn't word it clearly enough, sorry about that!)

The article the OP linked to didn't have the limitations of the study on the same page. I had to go to the actual study and find it.

When you do though, you see it's the same type of crap as the one I posted.


What's interesting as well is the breakdown in ages

18-29

30-49

50-64

65 and older.


We can see that the majority of people that answered this were older than 29 years old. That is something to consider.

 

[Pixel42]

2000 is a big enough sample for the results to be reasonably accurate, provided the sample is representative - which is the trick, of course. The size of the population from which the sample is taken is not a factor. It's like tasting soup: give it a good stir, and whether the spoonful you sip comes from a small saucepan or a large cauldron makes no difference to your ability to tell whether more seasoning is required.

I've agreed to take part in a phone survey only to be told "thanks, but no thanks" when I answered the first question (name and gender). Obviously the interviewer had filled their quota for my age/gender. I imagine that must happen quite a lot as a reputable pollster looks for the right people to ensure their sample is representative.

 

[truethat]

2000 is a big enough sample for the results to be reasonably accurate, provided the sample is representative - which is the trick, of course. The size of the population from which the sample is taken is not a factor. It's like tasting soup: give it a good stir, and whether the spoonful you sip comes from a small saucepan or a large cauldron makes no difference to your ability to tell whether more seasoning is required.

I've agreed to take part in a phone survey only to be told "thanks, but no thanks" when I answered the first question (name and gender). Obviously the interviewer had filled their quota for my age/gender. I imagine that must happen quite a lot as a reputable pollster looks for the right people to ensure their sample is representative.

I don't think it's like "tasting soup!" People are not soup in some blended mix of beliefs. Many people have very different beliefs cognitive dissonance and also might not answer the question correctly.

People are often asked to choose from an OPTION of choices, not asked what they actually believe.


When I use the first example in my class I point out how the HEADLINE doesn't match what they were actually asked. There is a lot of equivocation on these types of polls, they are, as you pointed out, looking for a specific end result.

But that's how polls are done in the U.S. It's considered the correct way to do it. That's why we get statistics that say over 90 percent of Egyptian women have endured female genital mutilation when it's total ********.

Who paid for the poll? The WHO. Gee I wonder if they are using confirmation bias to justify their need for funding to "solve this problem."

 

[tuco]

The thing is when it comes to origins of life that there will probably always be those saying something like this:

Can you make life from non-life, organic from inorganic?
Sure, there you go.
Can you make this life to evolve?
Sure, there you go.
Can you make this into human?
Sure, there you go.
Oh well, if you could do it, someone else could also do it!

And you are **********.

 

[Pixel42]

Well the questions also have to be meaningful and properly formulated, of course.

I was only taking issue with the suggestion that a sample of 2000 is not enough to get a reasonably accurate idea of a population's views when the population from which the sample is taken is 320 million. It certainly can be enough, provided it's a representative sample. From memory 2000 should give you about a 95% chance of achieving an accuracy of plus or minus about 2%.

 

[tuco]

It is obvious that the US lacks education in this area.

In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring public school students to learn both evolution and creation science violated the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on the establishment of religion.

This is ridiculous and where I live unimaginable.

 

[aleCcowaN]

We can see that the majority of people that answered this were older than 29 years old. That is something to consider.

The median age in the USA is about 38 years (32 in my country, 42 in a typical European country). So I would be extreme surprised if among adults those being 30 or older aren't at least 83% of the total. Do you have evidence that contradicts that?

I insist the poll has little value, and not because of the sampling procedure. Like most polls, it's measuring the interests and/or prejudices of the ones designing and delivering the poll. Good polls aren't cheap.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sounds like you're cool with ignoring reality simply because it provides you certain (perceived) advantages.

But it's not ignoring reality.

The belief that God guided our evolution is a religious belief, it is not a scientific belief. But it still fits the data, which is that humans evolved. The reason that it is not scientific is because it's not falsifiable. But for exactly the same reason, it doesn't conflict with reality either. If it did, it would be falsified, and it's not.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But it's not ignoring reality.

The belief that God guided our evolution is a religious belief, it is not a scientific belief. But it still fits the data, which is that humans evolved.

Why do you think that's true?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I thought the evangelicals (25% of US) fell into the 33% who don't believe in evolution at all,

Correct. They are the largest subset of those who don't believe in evolution.

why do so many people reject the idea of solely natural evolution?

If you don't think evolution is natural then what you believe in isn't evolution.

"I believe in evolution, but only within kinds".

"I believe in evolution, but guided by the hand of God".

"I believe the twin towers were downed by hijacked jet planes, but building 7 was a controlled demolition".

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The belief that God guided our evolution is a religious belief, it is not a scientific belief. But it still fits the data, which is that humans evolved.

But the most common belief of religious types is that humans didn't evolve. That doesn't fit the data.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Why do you think that's true?

Unless you doubt evolution, the part of that belief that can be disproven, then how could it not fit the data? Does evolution not fit the data? If it does, then adding something on that doesn't depend on data still fits the data.

 

[Magrat]

But the most common belief of religious types is that humans didn't evolve. That doesn't fit the data.

According to the poll in the OP, it is actually nearly equally split between "didn't evolve at all" and "guided evolution".

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

But the most common belief of religious types is that humans didn't evolve. That doesn't fit the data.

Well, you're right that doesn't fit the data, but that wasn't what Ziggurat was addressing and it's also not clear it's true that that's the most common belief among religious types. That view is usually ~33% view amongst the population at large and then might comes close to 50% amongst religious depending on the poll and definitions.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Unless you doubt evolution, the part of that belief that can be disproven, then how could it not fit the data? Does evolution not fit the data? If it does, then adding something on that doesn't depend on data still fits the data.

No, I mean why does a god or gods fit in there at all. You might as well stick a plumber's helper to the theory.

 

[theprestige]

Sounds like you're cool with ignoring reality simply because it provides you certain (perceived) advantages.

See what I mean?



Anyway, if ignoring gravity meant I could fly, or ignoring digestion meant I could go for weeks without food, then hell damn yeah I'd ignore reality.

Meanwhile, the process of evolution is about as important to me as is the name of the capital of Canada: If I ever actually need it for some practical purpose, I'll look it up.

The only difference being that if I wanted to visit the capital of Canada, I could find out the reality of its name, location, and other vital information, from a variety of sources, with a high degree of reliable factuality.

Whereas, if I wanted to visit evolution--or do whatever useful thing one does with evolution (which would be what, exactly?)--I could find out... ooh. Good question. What's the vital information I need to know about reality of evolution?

Tell me, Cabbage, what is the real, useful thing I should know about some evolutionary event a million years ago?

 

[truethat]

Well the questions also have to be meaningful and properly formulated, of course.

I was only taking issue with the suggestion that a sample of 2000 is not enough to get a reasonably accurate idea of a population's views when the population from which the sample is taken is 320 million. It certainly can be enough, provided it's a representative sample. From memory 2000 should give you about a 95% chance of achieving an accuracy of plus or minus about 2%.

I get it, believe me. But I like your analogy of soup because that's how it's done. Like it's a taste of soup. This is based on the idea of the "melting pot" phenomenon which is inherently racist and biased. A better example would be the mosaic.

So perhaps a tossed salad instead of soup. I've you reached into a tossed salad and grabbed 2 percent yeah it MIGHT accurately represent the whole salad. But you also might grab a bunch of onions and cucumber and that doesn't really represent the whole thing.

 

[Magrat]

No, I mean why does a god or gods fit in there at all. You might as well stick a plumber's helper to the theory.

Synthesizing the myth (which many people learnt at a young age) to the scientific idea (that many people don't learn until at least middle school). The myth is an emotional idea, evolution the logical. Also, many, maybe even most, people do not fully understand evolutionary theory or biology, whilst the myth of Adam and Eve is, at its face, simple.

That's what I think anyway.

 

[macdoc]

evolution the logical.

rather evolution is the one with evidence...logic proves nothing about the real world.
Evidence does.

 

[ehcks]

But it's not ignoring reality.

The belief that God guided our evolution is a religious belief, it is not a scientific belief. But it still fits the data, which is that humans evolved. The reason that it is not scientific is because it's not falsifiable. But for exactly the same reason, it doesn't conflict with reality either. If it did, it would be falsified, and it's not.

It is, by definition, impossible for anything related to a god to fit any data. The supernatural is not natural, and therefore not real.

However, the claim that a god created the forces of the universe and let evolution do its thing because it knew humans would evolve is minor enough that I won't fight it.