Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it

[Suppressed]

Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it
7th February 2018 by Katherine Lindemann
https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/americans-who-understand-how-evolution-works-are-more-likely-to-accept-it

Even among religious or politically conservative people, new research links accurate knowledge of evolutionary theory to acceptance of it.

In 2005, a US federal court ruled that it was unconstitutional for a public school district to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolutionary theory in science classes. Over a decade after the decision, evolution education remains a divisive topic in the United States. Now, new research underscores its potential impact, finding that people with a good understanding of evolution are more likely to accept it. This was true even for people who identify as conservative or religious, identities tied to rejection of evolution. We spoke with Deena Weisberg, one of the researchers behind the study, to learn more.

[...]

[Frank Cannon]

I guess it doesn't matter that Darwins work was shown to be a fraud and the Big Bang Theory was disproved a year ago. As long as everyone believes the Liberal Communists version of science, then everything is good.

[roamer_1]

Understands how it works? 

It doesn't work.

[the_doc]

@roamer_1   
@Frank Cannon
@Bigun
@rangerrebew
@Sanguine

Even among religious or politically conservative people, new research links accurate knowledge of evolutionary theory to acceptance of it.

I would say, on the other hand, that "accurate knowledge of evolutionary theory" would necessarily include all of the scientific arguments against it.  In my forty-plus years of following the controversy, I have never seen an evolutionist address these arguments honestly.  Rather, I have seen scientifically solid research by creationists banned from publication.  The self-congratulating "community of scientific consensus" is playing a propaganda war that the "new research" mentioned in the article does not even notice, much less acknowledge.

The more I have studied evolutionary theory, the more strongly I reject it.  I certainly don't fit the claims of the "new research." 

[roamer_1]

I would say, on the other hand, that "accurate knowledge of evolutionary theory" would necessarily include all of the scientific arguments against it.  In my forty-plus years of following the controversy, I have never seen an evolutionist address these arguments honestly.  Rather, I have seen scientifically solid research by creationists banned from publication.  The self-congratulating "community of scientific consensus" is playing a propaganda war that the "new research" mentioned in the article does not even notice, much less acknowledge.

The more I have studied evolutionary theory, the more strongly I reject it.  I certainly don't fit the claims of the "new research."

@the_doc
Exactly. Knowledge filter.


No matter how elegant the theory, one tiny bit of errata, and the whole thing comes tumbling down.
Unless one sees fit to ignore the errata.

[Bigun]

@roamer_1   
@Frank Cannon
@Bigun
@rangerrebew
@Sanguine
I would say, on the other hand, that "accurate knowledge of evolutionary theory" would necessarily include all of the scientific arguments against it.  In my forty-plus years of following the controversy, I have never seen an evolutionist address these arguments honestly.  Rather, I have seen scientifically solid research by creationists banned from publication.  The self-congratulating "community of scientific consensus" is playing a propaganda war that the "new research" mentioned in the article does not even notice, much less acknowledge.

The more I have studied evolutionary theory, the more strongly I reject it.  I certainly don't fit the claims of the "new research."

@the_doc

I don't think there is any doubt about a thing you said.

[Sanguine]

@the_doc, love you man, but I've already been on a "baking a cake for a gay wedding thread" today.  I like to limit my participation to the War of Northern Agression/Gay Weddings/and Eviilll Evolutionists threads to one per day. 

But, I do agree with the premise of the title.

[Frank Cannon]

@the_doc, love you man, but I've already been on a "baking a cake for a gay wedding thread" today.  I like to limit my participation to the War of Northern Agression/Gay Weddings/and Eviilll Evolutionists threads to one per day. 

But, I do agree with the premise of the title.

Typical cake hating Southerner response.

[Sanguine]

Typical cake hating Southerner response.

 

[Oceander]

@roamer_1   
@Frank Cannon
@Bigun
@rangerrebew
@Sanguine
I would say, on the other hand, that "accurate knowledge of evolutionary theory" would necessarily include all of the scientific arguments against it.  In my forty-plus years of following the controversy, I have never seen an evolutionist address these arguments honestly.  Rather, I have seen scientifically solid research by creationists banned from publication.  The self-congratulating "community of scientific consensus" is playing a propaganda war that the "new research" mentioned in the article does not even notice, much less acknowledge.

The more I have studied evolutionary theory, the more strongly I reject it.  I certainly don't fit the claims of the "new research." 

/snicker

Creationism is to science what black is to white, what stupid is to smart.

Yes, it is just that simple. 

[The_Reader_David]

Correlation does not imply causation.  Most likely the causal link between "accepting" evolution and "understanding" it (meaning being able to accurately describe the neo-Darwinian synthesis), if there is one, runs the other way -- those who fancy that neo-Darwinism gives a complete account of the origin of biological diversity (human nature included) are more likely to be invested in the theory and, thus, able to describe it accurately.

[Free Vulcan]

@roamer_1   
@Frank Cannon
@Bigun
@rangerrebew
@Sanguine
I would say, on the other hand, that "accurate knowledge of evolutionary theory" would necessarily include all of the scientific arguments against it.  In my forty-plus years of following the controversy, I have never seen an evolutionist address these arguments honestly.  Rather, I have seen scientifically solid research by creationists banned from publication.  The self-congratulating "community of scientific consensus" is playing a propaganda war that the "new research" mentioned in the article does not even notice, much less acknowledge.

The more I have studied evolutionary theory, the more strongly I reject it.  I certainly don't fit the claims of the "new research."

Very important point. I'm not much for evolutionary theory myself, but more importantly is that they've done such a crap job of trying to prove it, that I remain unconvinced regardless of what I believe. They expect you to support a constantly moving target, and it's just not going to happen.

[Neverdul]

/snicker

Creationism is to science what black is to white, what stupid is to smart.

Yes, it is just that simple.

 

[roamer_1]

Very important point. I'm not much for evolutionary theory myself, but more importantly is that they've done such a crap job of trying to prove it, that I remain unconvinced regardless of what I believe. They expect you to support a constantly moving target, and it's just not going to happen.

That's right.

[Texas Yellow Rose]

I guess it doesn't matter that Darwins work was shown to be a fraud and the Big Bang Theory was disproved a year ago. As long as everyone believes the Liberal Communists version of science, then everything is good.

[WingNot]

Everyone knows we were deposited here. A bunch of space seeds deposited by aliens.  Any other explanation is pure science fiction.