The Growing Disbelief in Evolution Among Republicans

[CynthiaCypher]

I agree there is this sort of complication in terms of identifying the scientific establishment with a push for naturalism in general. This is where I think scientists could do better at focusing on the relevant scientific theories in the public sphere, as representatives of scientific knowledge. Evolution is a fact about the world, but how many people do you run into who insist that it is 'just a theory' and there is this other way of thinking about things that is equally as valid? I think it is precisely because evolution has gotten tied up with naturalism, with atheism, and since atheism and naturalism are philosophical 'choices' so evolution must be also.

I think part of the reason is that many of them are confusing the theory of evolution with political ideology also. Many associate the theory with liberalism and that is why they reject it.

 

[metis]

I think part of the reason is that many of them are confusing the theory of evolution with political ideology also. Many associate the theory with liberalism and that is why they reject it.

I do believe you're likely correct on this. When Al Gore came out with his "Inconvenient Truth", I had no doubt that the Republicans en masse would start to take the other side, and surveys have indicated that this indeed is what happened.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I do believe you're likely correct on this. When Al Gore came out with his "Inconvenient Truth", I had no doubt that the Republicans en masse would start to take the other side, and surveys have indicated that this indeed is what happened.

It is really a sad situation. Much of science as been shamefully politicized by non-scientists on both sides of the political spectrum. And that includes the Big Bang.

 

[metis]

It is really a sad situation. Much of science as been shamefully politicized by non-scientists on both sides of the political spectrum. And that includes the Big Bang.

I hear ya.

BTW, I was listening to a historian on education talk about the fact that, here in the States, we tend to distrust "egg-heads" and/or think they're weird. Very few true intellectuals have ever been elected as President, and they're not well represented in Congress either.

 

[1robin]

It is really a sad situation. Much of science as been shamefully politicized by non-scientists on both sides of the political spectrum. And that includes the Big Bang.

Science has become a shame because of the same thing that makes everything else corrupt, money. It has ruined sports, every political system ever devised, television, u-tube, etc..... Man's greed is the problem. Anything man is involved in will inherently go bad unless God intervenes and that only limits the problems. The politics of cliques, tenure, being published, and celebrity is ruining science, at least theoretical science. Application science (which is my field) has the unfortunate requirement of having to produce stuff that works.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Science has become a shame because of the same thing that makes everything else corrupt, money. It has ruined sports, every political system ever devised, television, u-tube, etc..... Man's greed is the problem. Anything man is involved in will inherently go bad unless God intervenes and that only limits the problems. The politics of cliques, tenure, being published, and celebrity is ruining science, at least theoretical science. Application science (which is my field) has the unfortunate requirement of having to produce stuff that works.

Yeah I'd definitely recommend becoming a theoretical physicist for the great wealth proportional to your level of schooling and expertise.... ?! I don't think so. If you are after cash there are much more profitable fields for you to go into.

 

[1robin]

Yeah I'd definitely recommend becoming a theoretical physicist for the great wealth proportional to your level of schooling and expertise.... ?! I don't think so. If you are after cash there are much more profitable fields for you to go into.

I am sure Tyson DeGrasse, Hawking, and Dawkins are really struggling. My comments were more subtle. To get money you need to be tenured and published and that requires towing the line on all the un-provable and unknowable theories or at least trends in theoretical science. Politics is certainly involved but politics are always centered around money and or power. Science has begun to covet both exceedingly. In the town I live in a lady was denied tenure so she shot several people.. You may have heard about it.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I am sure Tyson DeGrasse, Hawking, and Dawkins are really struggling. My comments were more subtle. To get money you need to be tenured and published and that requires towing the line on all the un-provable and unknowable theories or at least trends in theoretical science. Politics is certainly involved but politics are always centered around money and or power. Science has begun to covet both exceedingly. In the town I live in a lady was denied tenure so she shot several people.. You may have heard about it.

Right, and the chances you are going to become the next DeGrasse if you get into theoretical science? About nil! This is not rational. SUre,people covet tenure in all academic fields, so what? It's job security, it's not an assurance of riches.

 

[1robin]

Right, and the chances you are going to become the next DeGrasse if you get into theoretical science? About nil! This is not rational. SUre,people covet tenure in all academic fields, so what? It's job security, it's not an assurance of riches.

Sorry I have to leave but I will get in depth with this soon. Have a good one.

 

[Revoltingest]

Science has become a shame because of the same thing that makes everything else corrupt, money. It has ruined sports, every political system ever devised, television, u-tube, etc..... Man's greed is the problem. Anything man is involved in will inherently go bad unless God intervenes and that only limits the problems. The politics of cliques, tenure, being published, and celebrity is ruining science, at least theoretical science. Application science (which is my field) has the unfortunate requirement of having to produce stuff that works.

"Science has become a shame...."? Looking at the history of science, particularly in the period of
Darwin & later, science has always been victim to the problems you state. Big deal....it's productive
in spite of human frailties, which will explain some bone headed escapades, but disprove nothing.
Did you perhaps mean "sham" instead of "shame"?

 

[Moishe3rd]

I have never been told I'm going to hell by anyone who's Jewish, so I'm sorry that what I posted seemingly misled you. I have had plenty of contact with many of the chasidim over the years, and almost all of it was positive-- not negative.

As far as the latter is concerned, our experiences are the opposite, but that may well be accounted for by whom we mostly discuss things with, which probably is different between us because of the circles we live and associate within.

This is most likely true.
However, due to my deliberate discussions with almost everyone I meet - in the street; in the store; at a public meeting; on the elevator; in a waiting room; with the people I deal with on almost any level, I don't find that religious people are nearly as likely to denigrate secularism as are secular people to denigrate "religious" people for their perceived "anti-science" opinions.
I, personally, get a pass from these kind of folk because 1), I am an obviously an Orthodox Jew and in the name of political correctness they don't want to offend me; and 2) because I am a very gregarious non threatening kind of guy who does not let people offend me.
And, I do, indeed, walk around replying "Thank G-d, Life is beautiful all the time" when people say to me "how are you?" This tends to throw even the most cynical folk "right off their French fried Lobster" (to quote the original Hawkeye Pierce in the original MASH.)

 

[icehorse]

What is going on with these people?

How about this: They do not like you. They do not like people like you. They do not like the things you believe in. They think that you are evil and for good reason.

They are merely considering the source. They reject the theory of evolution not because they reject science, they reject it because they reject everything certain people in the other side of political stand for, so what we get is guilt by association. They believe that you are trying to destroy them and their way of life, and to them that is threatening. So why wouldn't they reject the things you try to push on them?

+1

They do not critical thinking. They do not like evidence. They do not like logic. They are afraid that their kids will be better educated than they are. They fear losing control.

 

[Revoltingest]

+1

They do not critical thinking. They do not like evidence. They do not like logic. They are afraid that their kids will be better educated than they are. They fear losing control.

A simpler (& more likely) explanation for their rejecting evolution is conflict with their religious views.

 

[Alceste]

This is but a drop in the bucket. I personally enjoy Dawkin's presentation of evolution, but he has basically ensured he can't help by being so vocally anti religious- most people are religious to some extent, the large majority even. The people who are going to be able to make an impact this way will manage to not comment on religion, or make briefly positive comments about how evolution need not interfere with religious belief etc., and then focus on a friendly presentation of the evidence. Dawkins makes the situation worse in some regards in terms of the public perception of evolution.

Sure, I don't care for his efforts to promote empirical naturalism. He's a little acrimonious for my taste. But (always a but) I mentioned this particular book because it does exactly what you wish scientists would do. Namely, "presenting the basic evidence in a simple way, a compelling way, in a systematic and directed way".

It's a great book. Gift it to anyone you know who is struggling to come to terms with the evidence and just Sharpie out his name so they'll read it.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

A simpler (& more likely) explanation for their rejecting evolution is conflict with their religious views.

I think it is much more complicated than that. I do not view these people s simple minded and stupid as some of you obviously do. There are complex issues that these people are concerned about. They feel that there is a movement to destroy them and their traditional way of life, so they will reject everything valued by their enemies.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it is much more complicated than that. I do not view these people s simple minded and stupid as some of you obviously do.

Just don't put me in that crowd.

There are complex issues that these people are concerned about. They feel that there is a movement to destroy them and their traditional way of life, so they will reject everything valued by their enemies.

Religion still seems the fundamental cause of these other reactions.

 

[Gordian Knot]

How sad that the people of this country have become so extreme that we now have to consider someone with a different opinion our enemy.

 

[Alceste]

I think it is much more complicated than that. I do not view these people s simple minded and stupid as some of you obviously do. There are complex issues that these people are concerned about. They feel that there is a movement to destroy them and their traditional way of life, so they will reject everything valued by their enemies.

When you put it like that, it actually sounds even stupider.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I think it is much more complicated than that. I do not view these people s simple minded and stupid as some of you obviously do. There are complex issues that these people are concerned about. They feel that there is a movement to destroy them and their traditional way of life, so they will reject everything valued by their enemies.

I sympathize with that on one level, but on the other, there are facts about the world that cannot be denied. If we start denying evolution that would hamper our efforts at things like medical research.And I wonder, if they feel that their way of life is threatened by facts we learn about the world, why ought it be protected? Or, why should we support it being protected? That being said, I do agree that the commentary directed to evolution deniers could be less acerbic and more focused on presenting the scientific model and attendant evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

I sympathize with that on one level, but on the other, there are facts about the world that cannot be denied. If we start denying evolution that would hamper our efforts at things like medical research.

I don't worry about that. No matter how large the number of deniers, there'll always be scientists unencumbered by religion, & able to do research which takes evolution into account. There are plenty of fields where evo-deniers can be productive. So there's no need to decry the existence of creationists. (I even have some for friends & business associates.)