Another really dumb poll question about evolution

The same problems we have with the news media are rampant among pollsters; the people in these fields have severe misconceptions about science themselves.

Yet the use their professional status to either wittingly or unwittingly spread and reinforce misconceptions. By wording their questions exactly in line with public misunderstanding, rather than getting an objective poll of opinions, they simply end up confirming the misconceptions people already have.

The news media are particularly annoying in this regard by propagating the notion that there are two sides to every issue while further compounding the problem by making it seem that these purported two sides have equal weight.

Most of the times pollsters and reporters don’t even bother to hone their own understanding of anything they are reporting on. They simply translate expert understanding into the prevailing public misconceptions thereby reinforcing the erroneous memes that are already propagating.

Most of the physicists and other scientists I’ve worked with over the years really dreaded having an interview with a reporter; and most tried to avoid drawing any public attention to their ongoing work even though it was important. Better to report it in the journals.

Some years ago I was interviewed by a newspaper reporter who attended a talk I'd given to a local business organization. The story as published precisely reversed the point I argued in the talk. Fortunately the story also got my name wrong, so it wasn't really me saying the dumb things attributed to me. :)

Ah well, I guess this can be filed in the same basket as the poll that, through poor wording, found that a large proportion of atheists believe in god.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/new-pew-survey-21-of-atheists-believe-in-god/

RBH said: Some years ago I was interviewed by a newspaper reporter who attended a talk I'd given to a local business organization. The story as published precisely reversed the point I argued in the talk. Fortunately the story also got my name wrong, so it wasn't really me saying the dumb things attributed to me. :)

Polls about evolution are almost always useless, because they rarely make any attempt to find out what the people they're polling actually know about the theory of evolution. So it becomes like asking the "man in the street" if radio signals are composed of waves or particles. All you'd really be testing is the number of people who are familiar with the "double-slit" paradox and other subtleties of the question (relatively few) vs. people who've heard of "radio waves" (and think they know the answer) vs people who just say "huh?" (probably most).

Hey, where's P Z Myers when we need him? One of his favorite stunts is encouraging his fans to mess up online polls, with amusing results:

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/p-z-myers-and-his-gang-wreck-a-christian-poll/

I don't think the bad wording will actually alter matters that much. Most people reading this sort of thing will just interpret as about evolution. Heck, the vast majority of the the population doesn't'/can't distinguish between evolution and abiogenesis. So poor wording but likely doesn't alter the interpretation of the data that much. The only issue that may be relevant is that there's some evidence that the percentage who accept evolution is lower when the word "evolution" is used explicitly in a question. But that's more of a framing issue than anything else.

The poll does tell us one thing: People -- especially ignorant fundamentalists -- think they know enough about evolution to answer those questions, regardless of their wording. As I pointed out in that comment thread, people in fundamentalist environments sometimes get a lot of the false and negative information about evolution through their pastor and feel they are informed enough to make a decision about the truth of it.

Maybe that should be one of the possible poll responses: "I don't know enough about evolution or abiogenesis to answer this question."

As I pointed out in that comment thread, people in fundamentalist environments sometimes get a lot of the false and negative information about evolution through their pastor and feel they are informed enough to make a decision about the truth of it.

— KP

Actually, the issue is not that abiogenesis and evolution are separate issues, which is very debatable in itself.

The fact is, not only do we not know the details of how the first cell arose, we also do not know anything of how this first simple cell transformed into a complex multi-cellular organism. I can think of over twenty+ development thresholds that defy explanation.

This is not to say that we can never figure it out. But current sophisticated speculation is no substitute for concrete knowledge. I think people intuitively understand this.

Whatever the case, one thing is for sure. It is way,way too early to call the game for natural selection.

"Natural selection is a maintenance junkie, not an engineer."

Dale Husband said: Hey, where's P Z Myers when we need him? One of his favorite stunts is encouraging his fans to mess up online polls, with amusing results: http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/p-z-myers-and-his-gang-wreck-a-christian-poll/

Steve P. said: Actually, the issue is not that abiogenesis and evolution are separate issues, which is very debatable in itself.

Steve P. said: Whatever the case, one thing is for sure. It is way,way too early to call the game for natural selection.

MrG said:

Steve P. said: Whatever the case, one thing is for sure. It is way,way too early to call the game for natural selection.

But it is way past time to call it for creationists, whose idea of playing the game is to spend all of it calling penalties on the home team and never scoring a goal themselves.

Polls like this are problematic because designing good questions is difficult. For example, take a look at recent poll of professional scientists who are Christians on the ASA Voices Blog. http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/

Note in the comments where both the wording of the statements and my calculations had issues (a correction for my calculation error that did not materially affect my conclusions should be posted soon). This makes an assessment of the absolute value of support difficult because there is differences of opinions of what the various statements mean. It is pretty clear, however, that affirming none of the statements is a proxy for YEC and that would mean that less than 7.5% of our members are YEC.

My particular interest was the relative support of mainstream science and why there is a difference amongst us. One key area that did not promote any meaningful difference was whether our members went to a Christian or secular college for our undergrad degrees.

In increasing degrees here were factors that caused a difference of response:

1. Full-time employed scientists were more likely to accept the mainstream science than retired ones.

2. Scientists employed in areas where there was more basic research going on (education, government, and medical) were more likely to accept the mainstream science than not (industry, ministry).

3. Scientists whose areas of expertise are closer to the issues of evolution and the age of the earth (biology, geology, physics/astronomy) were more likely to accept the mainstream science than not (engineering)

It seems to me that the reason why mainstream science is more accepted is not starting presuppositions but rather the greater personal and professional exposure to the evidence.

Please note the conclusions above are my own and may or may not reflect the opinions of the ASA or its board of directors. The ASA does not officially endorse a particular view of origins but we do insist that our members approach the issue with scientific integrity. I would like to thank our executive director, Randy Isaac, for granting me permission to access the raw survey data.

Steve P. said: Mr. G, Actually, ID is scoring when it hypothesizes that information is a separate entity, independent of matter.

I have asked creationists a half dozen times: “If, somehow – who knows how it could possibly be done – we actually had proof that life magically poofed into existence … how much of a book on evo science like, say, Coyne’s WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE would have to be changed?”

Ah, creationist information!

"1) Life actually does has purpose."

OK, we add that. One sentence. Nothing else in the book
changes.

"2) Natural selection is a bit player."

Huh? Life poofed into existence and that means natural selection is a bit player? Sounds like added assumptions
here.

"3) Information is real and independent of matter."

Huh? You can't even define "information".

"4) There is no single universal common ancestor; there are several."

Huh? So you're not just claiming life poofed into existence, it did it a whole bunch of times. On what basis do we determine if it did it once or many times?
Sounds like added assumptions here.

"5) There is a universal design principle based on the integrity of the whole."

OK, the Universe seems to have an underlying design. But
evolution is not part that design, right?

"6) Out of sight is not out of mind."

Ah, say something vacuous and then dare someone to ask what it means. Nah, I just know vacuous when I see it.

See what I mean? You don't like the destination so you mock the drivers. Go for it, m' man.

Steve P wrote:

":The fact is, not only do we not know the details of how the first cell arose, we also do not know anything of how this first simple cell transformed into a complex multi-cellular organism. I can think of over twenty+ development thresholds that defy explanation."

The fact is that we have a great deal of knowledge about how eukaryotes and multicellular organisms evolved. You cannot, or will not, look at this evidence. You have no right a to an opinion on the subject. Of course it would not matter how much evidence there was, you would always claim that it wasn't enough. Who cares what an uninformed an willfully ignorant person believes?

Steve P. said: Mr. G, Actually, ID is scoring when it hypothesizes that information is a separate entity, independent of matter.

While I hate to seem to agree with Steve P on anything, I'm not sure why so many of you on Panda's Thumb want to distance your discussion from abiogenesis. The origin of life is interesting, is pertinent to the study of evolution, and is a valid subject for biology.

It's true that abiogenesis is still beset with many unanswered questions, but that shouldn't scare scientists. That's what makes the subject so interesting. The details of abiogenesis are not well understood at this time, but research will throw light on those questions, and when the answers are found I am confident that they will involve natural causes. No poofs!

RWard said: While I hate to seem to agree with Steve P on anything, I'm not sure why so many of you on Panda's Thumb want to distance your discussion from abiogenesis. The origin of life is interesting, is pertinent to the study of evolution, and is a valid subject for biology.

Steve P. said: Mr. G, Actually, ID is scoring when it hypothesizes that information is a separate entity, independent of matter. Yes, it is counter-intuitive and hard to grasp and validate, but who said science is easy. are you saying that you believe 'information' is analogous to 'Soul' or 'Mind'? Is 'detecting informtion' detecting the work of God?

sorry for formatting errors

RWard said: While I hate to seem to agree with Steve P on anything, I'm not sure why so many of you on Panda's Thumb want to distance your discussion from abiogenesis. The origin of life is interesting, is pertinent to the study of evolution, and is a valid subject for biology. It's true that abiogenesis is still beset with many unanswered questions, but that shouldn't scare scientists. That's what makes the subject so interesting. The details of abiogenesis are not well understood at this time, but research will throw light on those questions, and when the answers are found I am confident that they will involve natural causes. No poofs!

“4) There is no single universal common ancestor; there are several.” Huh? So you’re not just claiming life poofed into existence, it did it a whole bunch of times. On what basis do we determine if it did it once or many times? Sounds like added assumptions here.

— MrG

"If you can't tell me how Alice walked to Bob's house, then I can claim she actually teleported there."

Suppose a 4-foot-wide ditch in your backyard ... separates your property from that of your neighbor. If one day you met him in your yard and asked how he got there, you would have no reason to doubt the answer, "I jumped over the ditch." ... If the "ditch" were actually a canyon 1000 feet wide, however, you would not entertain for a moment the bald assertion that he jumped across.

TomS said: This reminds me of a passage in "Darwin's Black Box" ...

Another thing about Behe: one expects a creationist to be an assertive ignoramus -- "It's da style!" -- but one would think that a person with Behe's qualifications would know better than to make obviously lame arguments like his "woodchuck" story. "You didn't even bother to run this past anybody!"

Behind doors #1, #2, and #3 "The alternatives offered were"

– Biological life developed over time from simple substances, but God guided this process,
– Biological life developed over time from simple substances but God did not guide this process,
– God directly created biological life in its present form at one point in time?

[Note: the order of answers was randomized among people]

Did I miss something? In all instances it is presumed that there is a supernatural god that either did or did not have a hand in the process. None of the responses appear to say sorry, no supernatural explanation necessary.

Rich Blinne said: Polls like this are problematic because designing good questions is difficult. For example, take a look at recent poll of professional scientists who are Christians on the ASA Voices Blog. http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/ Note in the comments where both the wording of the statements and my calculations had issues (a correction for my calculation error that did not materially affect my conclusions should be posted soon). This makes an assessment of the absolute value of support difficult because there is differences of opinions of what the various statements mean. It is pretty clear, however, that affirming none of the statements is a proxy for YEC and that would mean that less than 7.5% of our members are YEC. My particular interest was the relative support of mainstream science and why there is a difference amongst us. One key area that did not promote any meaningful difference was whether our members went to a Christian or secular college for our undergrad degrees.

Steve P. said: "Natural selection is a maintenance junkie, not an engineer."

Steve P. said: Well, for starters: 1) Life actually does has purpose. 2) Natural selection is a bit player. 3) Information is real and independent of matter. 4) There is no single universal common ancestor; there are several. 5) There is a universal design principle based on the integrity of the whole. 6) Out of sight is not out of mind.

RBH said:

Rich Blinne said: One key area that did not promote any meaningful difference was whether our members went to a Christian or secular college for our undergrad degrees.

Thanks for outlining your analysis. It was on my list of potential posts here. On my initial reading I found that particular finding--that the nature of the undergrad institution had no relationship to acceptance of mainstream science--to be surprising. However, thinking about it more, that may have to do with the history of ASA, founded in the 1940s as an anti-evolution organization but evolving into what seems to be primarily EC/TE membership. It's a self-selecting membership, and YECs may be selecting themselves out of ASA.

I’m not sure why so many of you on Panda’s Thumb want to distance your discussion from abiogenesis.

FL:

Prebiotic chemical evolution shares the same "materialistic presuppositions" as "kinds" from "dust."

Your bait-and-switch may work on 90% of nonscientists, but it doesn't work here.

FL said: Abiogenesis is currently in TRAIN-WRECK mode, ("the weakest strut in the chassis of modern biology", said John Horgan). May postbiotic evolutionary theory likewise jump the tracks as it crosses the railroad bridge. Bon Voyagee, baby!! FL

Nitrogen is an essential biotic element, yet difficult to fix into biotic/prebiotic molecules directly from N2. Despite N2 being the most abundant constituent in the Earth’s atmosphere through most of its history, only limited fixed nitrogen is available for the biosphere. In the thick N2 atmosphere of Titan with a trace amount of methane, atmospheric chemistry leads eventually to heavy organic gaseous species and aerosol particles. Understanding the formation chemistry and the resulting chemical structure of possible nitrogenated organic aerosols in the Titan atmosphere might help in constraining the atmospheric contribution in abiotic nitrogen fixation processes relevant to the origin and evolution of early life. ... In the upper atmosphere of Titan where substantial amounts of excited N(2D) are generated accompanied with unsaturated hydrocarbons, nitrogen incorporation into organic aerosols efficiently proceeds via N(2D) and HCCN. The HCCN heterogeneous incorporation may have great impact on the entire nitrogen chemistry, beause a significant fraction of excited N(2D) is decoupled from the CN-unit-based chemistry (Fig. 1, dashed box). Organic aerosols in the upper atmosphere of Titan might be a hidden N sink, which eventually accumulate on the surface of Titan with chemical potential for prebiotic evolution.

But their intended quod est demonstrandums are actually non sequiturs. Debates over gene conservation, contingency, self-organization, and other issues do not disprove the theory of natural selection any more than debates over how galaxies form disprove the big bang theory.

LoL, John Horgan

*rolls eyes*

The guys whole shtick is basically "science will never figure anything out, it's all too complicated, and here's the cherry picked lines of inquiry that went nowhere (or appear stagnant) to prove it." His most irritating trait is his penchant for conflating media hype and actual scientific claims to try and make his case against the real potential of science.

I can see why, as a gaps humper, FL would be a fan.

darvolution proponentsist said: The guys whole shtick is basically "science will never figure anything out, it's all too complicated, and here's the cherry picked lines of inquiry that went nowhere (or appear stagnant) to prove it."

FL said: The fall of prebiotic chemical evolution would not overturn evolutionary theory, but it would open the door for increased public doubts.

RWard said: What exactly would disprove "prebiotic chemical evolution"?

MrG said:

RWard said: What exactly would disprove "prebiotic chemical evolution"?

I always get such a look on my face when I am told that it is "unreasonable" or "ridiculous" to refuse to believe that life magically poofed into existence. "Huh? Even if it did, how could you prove it? By showing there was no possible other explanation? Even those nobody's thought of yet? How could you rule out that we won't have an explanation in 10,000 CE?" "And why would we be inclined to prefer it as an answer? Because of all the other things that have been explained by IT JUST MAGICALLY HAPPENED? Oh RIGHT there's such an enormous list of precedents. Indeed, why should we even consider that an explanation? It sounds more like saying THERE IS NO EXPLANATION IT JUST HAPPENED."

Orthogonal approaches, Stanton. Science is a smoke-screen for FL, IBIG, Steve P., and similar tangential individuals. They simply do not care what empirical investigation reveals. If it's not in the book, it's just not true, and nothing, absolutely nothing, will change that. And they are proud of that fact.

Actually, I almost hate to say this, but I give FL points for saying that proof of life magically poofing into existence won't affect evo science much -- it wouldn't change the vast bulk of it -- but would open the door to increase public doubts.

It sure would. *I* would have doubts! But there's the problem of how it could be possibly proven even in principle. No, sorry, a "negative argument of ignorance" is not persuasive -- it's just annoying.

fnxtr said: If it's not in the book, it's just not true, and nothing, absolutely nothing, will change that. And they are proud of that fact.

Questioning motivations and processes behind the poll.
Sounds like creationism dealing with evolutionism.
just 43% for the good guys.? That makes 57% for important evolution.
The poll might be wrong.
Anyways the 43% is pretty good considering the apathy and therefore general tendency of people to accept what is taught in school and on TV. Indeed the whole media establishment is pro-evolution.
Imagine if schools were free and diversity of ideas on origin prominent in the media?
Creationism would be hitting 80%.
What wrong with evolution advocates?
Why can't they make their case persuasive?
is evolution basically illogical and common sense quickly smells this out?!
Is evolution just believed in by people who have confidence its true because its dominant in education but they are ignorant of what it is about?

What America needs is a series of great debates before great audiences to inform,educate, persuade the people about the peculiar studies of ancient origins.

Are evolution advocates on this forum making a persuasive case?
Not to me!

Are evolution advocates on this forum making a persuasive case? Not to me!

— Robert Byers

Robert Byers said: What wrong with evolution advocates? Why can't they make their case persuasive?

Are evolution advocates on this forum making a persuasive case? Not to me!

FL said: Prebiotic chemical evolution shares the same materialistic presuppositions as postbiotic evolutionary theory (for example the total denial of teleology).

Byers: "Indeed the whole media establishment is pro-evolution."

Colbert: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

The difference: Colbert gets the joke.

MPW said: Teleological/supernatural ideas in biology went the way of the humours and all sorts of other once-dominant concepts - they were refuted, and then deservedly relegated to the history books.

fnxtr said: The difference: Colbert gets the joke.

What wrong with grammar schools. Cant they teaches proper grammars? Not to me!

"Biological life developed over time from simple substances but God did not guide this process, "

This question still seems to imply a god exists. It would be better to say something like "Biological life developed over time from simple substances by natural means" Although it would still be sloppy