What Americans Think about Evolution

[dyanaprajna2011]

It is good to know the evolution propaganda machine has failed to convince a sizable portion of Americans who still think for themselves.

You never fail to entertain.

 

[Quintessence]

So.... er... does anyone have any remarks about the survey?

Dear gods, I swear... this might be the last time I create a thread in this subforum.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Colorado had House Bill Hb 13 1089, Jan 16 2013.

HB 13-1089 - Colorado 2013 Regular Session - Open States

Too close for comfort.

 

[outhouse]

So.... er... does anyone have any remarks about the survey?

Dear gods, I swear... this might be the last time I create a thread in this subforum.

You ignored my post #8

 

[idav]

So.... er... does anyone have any remarks about the survey?

I believe the numbers. When comparing to other denominations the numbers look real similar to whether people think the bible is infallible, inerrant or the bible may not be exact. Of course within a denomination there is diversity but they tend to lean towards one or the other and YECs will automatically be taking genesis quite literally. A lot of times it is the ultra conservative types within any denomination.

 

[Simurgh]

Ok, here is a remark about the survey.

The problem I see is with the selection of representative sample. I would like to know more what the demographics are re gender, age, level of education, and the rural/urban and the eat/west north/south divide in the particular graph shown. Another issue is why are Christians considered normative Americans, but other religious groups are not? Have yet to see Native Americans polled in that regard, or Muslims and maybe Daoists, or Pagans, maybe?

We all know that demographic variables matter greatly when surveying sociocultural phenomena in general.

That roughly 64% of evangelicals are in denial is to be expected. That they are mostly also republicans does not come as a surprise either. Maybe they view themselves as the embodiment of the puritan/Calvinist idea of being selected by their god especially. That would make it difficult to accept the fact that we are just another branch on the evolutionary tree of being. Must be a hard thing to give up that sense of supremacy and apparent uniqueness and just accept the fact that we are just another life form.

When you read the actual study, you will also learn that among those who accepted evolution more or less, a significant number (24% of general population) still view it as being guided by their god.

The interesting part is that republicans are less inclined to accept evolution today than they were in 2009. Might be connected to their feeling of empowerment and entitlement, this entrenchment.
People are known to retreat into religion when their worldview needs to be re-evaluated and their political and social fortunes shift.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/12/Evolution-12-30.pdf anyhow, this is the full report for that particular poll.

 

[Quintessence]

You ignored my post #8

I chose to not respond because I'm not interested in getting in an argument with you and couldn't think of any way to respond to what you said that wasn't argumentative. Sorry.

Ok, here is a remark about the survey.

The problem I see is with the selection of representative sample. I would like to know more what the demographics are re gender, age, level of education, and the rural/urban and the eat/west north/south divide in the particular graph shown. Another issue is why are Christians considered normative Americans, but other religious groups are not? Have yet to see Native Americans polled in that regard, or Muslims and maybe Daoists, or Pagans, maybe?

As far as demographics go, PEW does representative samples when they do their surveys and if you click the link and look at the entire report, you'll see that they also do a comparison of questions across some of the metrics you listed:

Is this what you were talking about? Their larger surveys on religion take into account other religious groups, but this one does not. It's unclear from the report why that is, but speaking as someone who knows a bit about survey methodology, I strongly suspect it is because their sample size was not adequate to represent small religious minority groups. Usually to get statistically viable results for small demographics, you need to go out of your way to target them in your methods, which they didn't do here.

I'm not sure how well their questions would apply to other religious groups either. I always have a problem with how surveys like this assume god instead of gods, and transcendence instead of immanence.

 

[Simurgh]

I chose to not respond because I'm not interested in getting in an argument with you and couldn't think of any way to respond to what you said that wasn't argumentative. Sorry.




As far as demographics go, PEW does representative samples when they do their surveys and if you click the link and look at the entire report, you'll see that they also do a comparison of questions across some of the metrics you listed:

Is this what you were talking about? Their larger surveys on religion take into account other religious groups, but this one does not. It's unclear from the report why that is, but speaking as someone who knows a bit about survey methodology, I strongly suspect it is because their sample size was not adequate to represent small religious minority groups. Usually to get statistically viable results for small demographics, you need to go out of your way to target them in your methods, which they didn't do here.

I'm not sure how well their questions would apply to other religious groups either. I always have a problem with how surveys like this assume god instead of gods, and transcendence instead of immanence.

yeah, this is not an argument and need not be seen as one. it is merely the nature of such research that data is not as tight as it ought to be. Then again, most lay people are fine with the results as they are portrayed.

I have noticed that especially when dealing with religious issues and questions pertaining to social status and/or attitudes, it makes quite a difference as to where the people polled live and if they are rural or urban.

if we wanted to be more exacting and have a result that would give us a better understanding of the real America, then we would need to get past the xtian population and poll all present religious groups with a membership of at least 10,000 (an arbitrary number) followers and break down the demographics accordingly.

My own research has shown that even if you take a general category, such as catholics for example, you will find that depending on where they come from, what their immigration status is (1st, 2nd, 3rd generation ), if they live in the North, South, etc., if they are from urban centers, the suburbs, country; all that makes a difference in attitude, expected and performed religious behavior. and the list goes on.

Hence, the best we can hope for with the poll from Pew, is a very generalized and homogenized idea of what goes on. then of course, the wording of the questions and the underlying premise that everyone agrees on the meaning of the terminology used is another assumption made that is fraught.

...and so we take statistics and polls with a grain or ten of salt and interpret them accordingly...

 

[metis]

I taught anthropology for roughly 30 years, averaging between two and three classes each semester. At the beginning of each course, I had students fill out a confidential survey, and those results were typically something like 1/3 believed in evolution, 1/3 didn't believe in it, and 1/3 didn't know.

At the end of each course, I had them fill out another confidential survey asking the same questions plus some more, and over all that time I only had one student who said (s)he did't believe in it, and maybe about two handfuls of students who said they still were unsure.

So, either I'm the world's greatest salesman or the facts speak for themselves, and let me tell ya it ain't the former.

 

[Quintessence]

I taught anthropology for roughly 30 years, averaging between two and three classes each semester. At the beginning of each course, I had students fill out a confidential survey, and those results were typically something like 1/3 believed in evolution, 1/3 didn't believe in it, and 1/3 didn't know.

At the end of each course, I had them fill out another confidential survey asking the same questions plus some more, and over all that time I only had one student who said (s)he did't believe in it, and maybe about two handfuls of students who said they still were unsure.

So, either I'm the world's greatest salesman or the facts speak for themselves, and let me tell ya it ain't the former.

Much of it is definitely education. We see that in the full report PEW released - there's a consistent correlation between level of education and acceptance of evolutionary theory. It's hard to be sure of causation from these data alone: are the people who are innately more prone to accept science simply the ones getting undergrad and grad degrees? Unless you major in biological sciences, you're unlikely to take a full course on evolution in college. There aren't many other classes you'd get exposed to it, but I find it interesting that you mention you incorporated it into anthropology. What sort of angle did you take on the subject, typically? I tend to think of it as a biology thing, but that's my bias given my background.

 

[Quintessence]

yeah, this is not an argument and need not be seen as one. it is merely the nature of such research that data is not as tight as it ought to be. Then again, most lay people are fine with the results as they are portrayed.

I have noticed that especially when dealing with religious issues and questions pertaining to social status and/or attitudes, it makes quite a difference as to where the people polled live and if they are rural or urban.

if we wanted to be more exacting and have a result that would give us a better understanding of the real America, then we would need to get past the xtian population and poll all present religious groups with a membership of at least 10,000 (an arbitrary number) followers and break down the demographics accordingly.

My own research has shown that even if you take a general category, such as catholics for example, you will find that depending on where they come from, what their immigration status is (1st, 2nd, 3rd generation ), if they live in the North, South, etc., if they are from urban centers, the suburbs, country; all that makes a difference in attitude, expected and performed religious behavior. and the list goes on.

Hence, the best we can hope for with the poll from Pew, is a very generalized and homogenized idea of what goes on. then of course, the wording of the questions and the underlying premise that everyone agrees on the meaning of the terminology used is another assumption made that is fraught.

...and so we take statistics and polls with a grain or ten of salt and interpret them accordingly...

Oh definitely, but by and large, PEW does good work. I trust them over Gallup polls any day of the week, and definitely over those trashy internet polls that don't even use controls to ensure a proper sample frame. PEW does a more extensive religious landscape survey that has an n = 20,000 or so to better catch small religious demographics, but I forget if that survey included anything about evolution. I don't recall that it does. Surveying religion is hard. I don't know how I would approach it myself, because I'm too aware of how framing the question can alter responses and it is neigh impossible to frame questions in a theologically-neutral fashion.

Take their evolution questions in this survey. It really isn't framed in a fashion that accurately reflects my position on the subject. The wording assumes a division between the gods and nature that doesn't exist in immanent-based theologies like mine. The Spirit of Evolution is a deity in my book, so asking "evolution or divine creation?" then forcing me to pick one just frustrates me.

 

[Iti oj]

Much of it is definitely education. We see that in the full report PEW released - there's a consistent correlation between level of education and acceptance of evolutionary theory. It's hard to be sure of causation from these data alone: are the people who are innately more prone to accept science simply the ones getting undergrad and grad degrees? Unless you major in biological sciences, you're unlikely to take a full course on evolution in college. There aren't many other classes you'd get exposed to it, but I find it interesting that you mention you incorporated it into anthropology. What sort of angle did you take on the subject, typically? I tend to think of it as a biology thing, but that's my bias given my background.

My local community college taught the evolution of man as part of the curriculum.

 

[Simurgh]

Oh definitely, but by and large, PEW does good work. I trust them over Gallup polls any day of the week, and definitely over those trashy internet polls that don't even use controls to ensure a proper sample frame. PEW does a more extensive religious landscape survey that has an n = 20,000 or so to better catch small religious demographics, but I forget if that survey included anything about evolution. I don't recall that it does. Surveying religion is hard. I don't know how I would approach it myself, because I'm too aware of how framing the question can alter responses and it is neigh impossible to frame questions in a theologically-neutral fashion.

Take their evolution questions in this survey. It really isn't framed in a fashion that accurately reflects my position on the subject. The wording assumes a division between the gods and nature that doesn't exist in immanent-based theologies like mine. The Spirit of Evolution is a deity in my book, so asking "evolution or divine creation?" then forcing me to pick one just frustrates me.

I have participated in some research projects and always found that the questions asked and the answers expected do not even cover half of the responses I could come up with, or the myriad of changes I would make in the questions just because it is all just too simplistically worded. But there is no helping that. If we are too specific, most people couldn’t answer because those things that are dear to us mean nothing to them. It’s like me going to the mechanic and asking him to fix my car and him giving me the excruciating details that are meaningless to me before he gets it done.
You can go and enter “evolution” into the search box and there will be some articles with stats from 2009, I think. Clearly, wording of questions and demographics are supremely important in all polls regarding religion, as nuances are highly significant. I mean, a question that asks do you believe in a personal god will mean different things to Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Then again, we are dealing with an organization that caters to the average population and not necessarily us anal academic types. It is therefore a bit presumptuous to expect the kind of anal retentive data that would be meaningful and interesting to those of us who have highly specific interests and need data that is far more exacting. Yep, we do our own and it is damn hard to get anything more than anecdotal results, given lack of time and funds.

Trying to write questions in a theologically neutral manner is not really possible, because you always to have to make some assumptions concerning the faith in question just so you can provide the querant with an useful framework in which to answer.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have participated in some research projects and always found that the questions asked and the answers expected do not even cover half of the responses I could come up with, or the myriad of changes I would make in the questions just because it is all just too simplistically worded. But there is no helping that. If we are too specific, most people couldn’t answer because those things that are dear to us mean nothing to them. It’s like me going to the mechanic and asking him to fix my car and him giving me the excruciating details that are meaningless to me before he gets it done.
You can go and enter “evolution” into the search box and there will be some articles with stats from 2009, I think. Clearly, wording of questions and demographics are supremely important in all polls regarding religion, as nuances are highly significant. I mean, a question that asks do you believe in a personal god will mean different things to Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Then again, we are dealing with an organization that caters to the average population and not necessarily us anal academic types. It is therefore a bit presumptuous to expect the kind of anal retentive data that would be meaningful and interesting to those of us who have highly specific interests and need data that is far more exacting. Yep, we do our own and it is damn hard to get anything more than anecdotal results, given lack of time and funds.
Trying to write questions in a theologically neutral manner is not really possible, because you always to have to make some assumptions concerning the faith in question just so you can provide the querant with an useful framework in which to answer.

This is a very thoughtful & lengthy post. My cats would at most say "Rawrr rah rah rawrrr".

 

[metis]

Much of it is definitely education. We see that in the full report PEW released - there's a consistent correlation between level of education and acceptance of evolutionary theory. It's hard to be sure of causation from these data alone: are the people who are innately more prone to accept science simply the ones getting undergrad and grad degrees? Unless you major in biological sciences, you're unlikely to take a full course on evolution in college. There aren't many other classes you'd get exposed to it, but I find it interesting that you mention you incorporated it into anthropology. What sort of angle did you take on the subject, typically? I tend to think of it as a biology thing, but that's my bias given my background.

There's two major divisions within anthropology, "physical" (human evolution) and "cultural" (past and present societies). Since mine was an introductory course, I taught physical for the first third of the semester and the rest cultural.

 

[Simurgh]

This is a very thoughtful & lengthy post. My cats would at most say "Rawrr rah rah rawrrr".

ah, you are such a sweet man, listening to your little kitties when your brain cannot handle the text. take some catnip, it will help you understand their translation a bit better.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I strongly suspect it is because their sample size was not adequate to represent small religious minority groups. Usually to get statistically viable results for small demographics, you need to go out of your way to target them in your methods, which they didn't do here.

They did. They used RDD ("random-digit dialing"). Time was you would hold the first 6 numbers (not including 1) or more constant (i.e., 1-###-###-xxxx, or 1-###-###-##xx) and really narrow down random sampling within a region. However, as cell-phone providers have created their own area codes and as landline service providers now allow you to remove to another state and keep your old home number, one can't just rely on a phone book to get the constant digits. That said, recent studies have continued to show that RDD remains an effective way to reach a target population of interest (minority, age group, etc.). This is true even of young adults who are most likely to rely entirely on a cell-phone (see e.g., Gundersen, D. A., ZuWallack, R. S., Dayton, J., Echeverría, S. E., & Delnevo, C. D. (2014). Assessing the Feasibility and Sample Quality of a National Random-digit Dialing Cellular Phone Survey of Young Adults. American journal of epidemiology, 179(1), 39-47).

From the original link to the article: "A combination of landline and cell random digit dial (RDD) samples were used to reach a representative sample of all adults in the United States who have access to either a landline or cellphone. Both samples were disproportionately stratified to increase the incidence of African-American and Hispanic respondents. Within each stratum, phone numbers were drawn with equal probabilities. The landline samples were list-assisted and drawn from active blocks containing three or more residential listings, while the cell samples were not list-assisted but were drawn through a systematic sampling from dedicated wireless 100-blocks and shared service 100-blocks with no directory-listed landline numbers. Both the landline and cell RDD samples were disproportionately stratified by county based on estimated incidences of African-American and Hispanic respondents."

(emphasis added)

 

[nazz]

Late last year, PEW research issued an update on Americans views on evolution and creationism (article link). I thought I'd share this anyway for those of you who would be interested. It is sometimes claimed in discussions that "most" (as in more than 50%) in my country are creationists who reject the idea of evolution. This is simply not true:



I'll grant that 33% is still a pretty big number, and with the way this question was worded avoids some of the problematic false dichotomies of their later questions. It's hard to deny that a disturbing number of people in my country are either ignorant of evolution or choose to actively deny its importance in biological sciences. It's interesting to note that the article examines the prevalence of this view across a small number of religious demographics:

I doubt if any of the above comes as a surprise to most of you, but it's nice to have statistical data to back up our assumptions (which can, sometimes, be wrong!). Another nice thing about PEWs survey here is that they avoid some of the false dichotomy which insists creationism and evolution are necessarily opposed:



There are quite a few compatibilist out there. I think that they sometimes get left out of these discussions as people favor the stark black-and-white approach to the discussion. I have some problems with how they asked this question, but it probably provides an adequate snapshot of the demographics.

Any thoughts about the PEW survey on evolution and creationism? Anything in the report surprise you?

Yes. Why is the white vote broken down and the black not? And does "unaffiliated" cover all other religions and non-religious?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I have noticed that especially when dealing with religious issues and questions pertaining to social status and/or attitudes, it makes quite a difference as to where the people polled live and if they are rural or urban.

While I agree that demographics are key, bad survey research is more likely to be bad because the standard statistical tests used are not robust to violations of the assumptions underlying the tests (e.g., continuity), or to outliers, or are otherwise deficient than because the data collection itself was poor.
Keep in mind that this is a follow-up survey study in more ways than one. A lot of what into it comes from previous studies, particularly their Religious Landscape Survey of over 35,000 people polled.

I've looked over their data set (they used SPSS, or at least their dataset is in a .sav and there's no reason to do so unless one is using SPSS or a cheap alternative), their sampling methods, response rates, RDD methodology, etc.

Their questionnaire design, sampling, and data collection methods seem to be sound. However, there is a lot of data (over 100 variables for each of over 35,000 response sets), so I can't be sure yet what kind of issues might or do exist. A key issue, for example, is weighting responses, and I can't assess the appropriateness of the weights they used without looking at the multiple frequencies of different types (they used a two-stage process to derive the weight algorithm used).

if we wanted to be more exacting and have a result that would give us a better understanding of the real America, then we would need to get past the xtian population

They had already done this more than once. This was a follow-up study.

and poll all present religious groups with a membership of at least 10,000

There is no point whatsoever in doing this. A sample of 10,000 can easily be far, far, far worse than a sample of 1,000 simply by handling nonresponses poorly, treating categorical data using tests that assume a not only numerical data, but continuous variables. Luckily, their study didn't require any statistical analysis of the data, just reporting frequencies/percentages.

My own research has shown that even if you take a general category, such as catholics for example, you will find that depending on where they come from, what their immigration status is (1st, 2nd, 3rd generation ), if they live in the North, South, etc., if they are from urban centers, the suburbs, country;

That's why the number of persons polled is far less important than how such persons are selected to be polled, questionnaire design, interview methods, etc. For example, tiny samples are usually fine for cognitive interviewing because it is meant to be part of the questionnaire design. Meanwhile, hundreds upon hundreds of studies on moral judgments on millions of participants turns out to be problematic not because of sampling, research paradigms, etc., but because the population of interest was "humans", and although samples were drawn from very diverse populations these populations all shared particular attributes/traits that large subsets of the population of interest do not share.

Hence, the best we can hope for with the poll from Pew, is a very generalized and homogenized idea of what goes on

We can expect considerably more.

then of course, the wording of the questions and the underlying premise that everyone agrees on the meaning of the terminology used is another assumption made that is fraught

It wasn't an assumption. They explicitly address this: "Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance used in this report take into account the effect of weighting. In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls"

...and so we take statistics and polls with a grain or ten of salt and interpret them accordingly...

Alternatively, we learn how methods in survey research and statistical analysis work and, having done that, evaluate the current study based upon something substantive and relevant, rather than suggesting poor sampling methods and pointing out sources of biases as if they weren't taken into account.

 

[creXifiction]

I Believe in Evolution but ONLY in the Context of 10,000 to 7,000 Years.

Anything Else is IMAGINATION. there are no Trees Older than that.

No PROVEN Artifacts that Give a INDENTIFIED DATE before that.

Thank You