About 25% of Americans Don't Know the Earth Revolves Around the Sun

[iseko]

Honestly, it's not only America (and this is a European speaking).

Here in Belgium I've seen people display appalling ignorance when it comes to basic science and awareness of our place in the universe, even people who are otherwise fairly smart and savvy.
In college (non-science major) I saw classmates who thought that the solar system = the universe / milky way, I've heard several who thought that the Earth revolved around the sun in one day. Almost no one knew that the Earth was the third planet from the sun.

That of course has to do with our lacking astronomy education, to be exact: there is none. During all my highschool physics lessons, we never really talked about the universe and our position in it. The lessons were always in favour of local examples, like the behaviour of gasses, lenses, etc. While those things are also important that still leaves a gaping hole in your worldview.

And having that correct worldview should really be very important for our modern society.

I'm from belgium as well. I second this so very much.

 

[Flatfrog]

Does it even matter? Most people forget that stuff right after they take the test for them in high school. The average chum doesn't gives a fuck about evolution or the big bang theory because it's not necessary in their day to day lives. That doesn't make them stupid, but it means that they have different priorities.

Evolution definitely does make a difference to our day-to-day lives in the issue of overmedication causing bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics. That's a major issue and one in which an understanding of the principles of natural selection really helps to appreciate the cause of the problem.

I think one should always be suspicious of any argument against education that takes the form 'why learn X? I'll never need to use X in my ordinary life'. It misses the point that all education is about learning *ways of thinking*, not facts. Very few people need to really understand the structure of an atom, but everyone should know the scientific method and be able to appreciate the difference between good science and bad science, especially with the number of bad scientific claims we're constantly being bombarded with. So understanding *how we know* the structure of the atom is much more important than knowing the difference between a proton and a neutron.

 

[Flatfrog]

The strong creationist lobby is mostly an American thing (I think S. Korea and Australia have that problem to some extent as well). And it's not even about religion in general, it's about the specific kind of Protestantism that's strong in those countries. HOWEVER, the way the theory of evolution has been dogmatized recently created an opening for the "stick it to the man" school of anti-evolutionism. The way it looks is that creationists are the ones giving arguments - wrong arguments, but who is Joe Blow to know? - and "evolutionists" being the ones shouting "No discussion! No debate! This is the one truth and everyone who questions it is an idiot!"

But that image is a misconception that has been promoted by the creationists themselves. I don't think a lot of 'evolutionists' fit that description at all - even the most strident atheist ones like Dawkins, Hitchens or Dennett. Yes, they do fiercely counter ignorant arguments against evolution and point out the errors in them, but they certainly aren't saying 'no discussion', they're just resisting outright lies masquerading as discussion, and in particular the tendency of creationists to keep coming out with the same old arguments despite the many, many times they have been rebutted.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, consider the parallel of holocaust denial. If you're faced with someone who claims the Holocaust never happened, you can respond by pointing out the known facts. Then what do you do if they come back with exactly the same claims you just disproved? Do you keep responding with the same facts? Or do you just get out of the argument? Is that saying 'no discussion! no debate!' or is it simply acknowledging the fact that the person you're talking to is incapable of engaging in a rational argument?

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

PEOPLE! EVERYONE, on BOTH sides of this. STOP RIGHT WHERE YOU ARE!

[HEADING=1]EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY.[/HEADING]

[HEADING=2]It literally is NOT a theory, not in the scientific sense, not in the laymens sense, not in any sense.

NATURAL SELECTION = THEORY

EVOLUTION = PHENOMENON = A FACT.[/HEADING]

((*steps down from soapbox*))

Ehem. Evolution itself is a scientific law, because it is simply the (indisputable 100% utterly proven) fact that lifeforms change over time. Natural selection is the (scientific) theory here - problem is people just keep using confusing/misinformed slang.

Similarly, Gravity is not a theory, it is also a scientific law, Newtonian Universal Gravitation I believe it was (or Einstein's newer General Relativity) is the theory. The phenomenon that 'things fall down' is fact.

More to the point, laws and theories never transition to the other. There is nothing 'higher' than a scientific theory, it starts as a Hypothesis and eventually ends up at Theory and then that's it. A theory does not 'get proven' and become a law, they are two very different things - an elegant way I heard of wraping your head around the distinction is: 'laws describe, theories explain', a law is 'X happens' a theory is 'and this is what we think causes it'.


((... I mean, I may be wasting my time replying in a thread on a topic like this, with so many pages... but here's hoping the big goofy text might catch atleast a couple of peoples eye and mean a little less misinformation gets argued))

 

[w9496]

Does it even matter? Most people forget that stuff right after they take the test for them in high school. The average chum doesn't gives a fuck about evolution or the big bang theory because it's not necessary in their day to day lives. That doesn't make them stupid, but it means that they have different priorities.

Evolution definitely does make a difference to our day-to-day lives in the issue of overmedication causing bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics. That's a major issue and one in which an understanding of the principles of natural selection really helps to appreciate the cause of the problem.

I think one should always be suspicious of any argument against education that takes the form 'why learn X? I'll never need to use X in my ordinary life'. It misses the point that all education is about learning *ways of thinking*, not facts. Very few people need to really understand the structure of an atom, but everyone should know the scientific method and be able to appreciate the difference between good science and bad science, especially with the number of bad scientific claims we're constantly being bombarded with. So understanding *how we know* the structure of the atom is much more important than knowing the difference between a proton and a neutron.

Personally, I wish people would remember these things. I'm just saying what people actually do.

Your example of evolution and medicine definitely is a problem, but our public schooling system has failed at making students care. It's too easy to get through high school without knowing anything, so naturally people exploit it. Why learn something inside and out if you can just guess when the test comes around?

And when it comes to anything science related, there needs to be a national standard of what to teach. Every school is different when it comes to science, and the American people suffer for it. School A may learn about evolution, while School B skips over it.

 

[Flatfrog]

And when it comes to anything science related, there needs to be a national standard of what to teach. Every school is different when it comes to science, and the American people suffer for it. School A may learn about evolution, while School B skips over it.

I'm certainly with you there. The 'grade point average' system (as far as I understand it) seems hopelessly unstructured from the point of view of this country where all children sit national exams. Having said that, there are definitely problems with the exam system and national curriculum too.

 

[Flatfrog]

EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY.

NATURAL SELECTION = THEORY

EVOLUTION = PHENOMENON = A FACT.

Weeeelll, let's be perfectly accurate about this. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, in the sense that *nothing* in science can be 100% proved to be true but nevertheless evolution is such an obvious fact to anyone who is not both dogma bound and an idiot that we might as well call it true.

Evolution is still a theory because we can't actually observe it happen - we can observe mutation and changes in allele frequencies, but we can't observe speciation because it takes too long. Creationism is still *theoretically possible* - it's just overwhelmingly unlikely based on the evidence, and is inconsistent with the concept of a just and loving God.

Oh - and just to be clear, Natural Selection is *less* 'just a theory' than evolution because we *can* observe it happening!

The only genuine question is whether the evolution of life on this planet was *principally or entirely* due to natural selection, or whether other processes had a part to play as well. (Eg self-organising principles, the intervention of aliens, quantum evolution etc) So far there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume that anything other than natural selection (including sexual selection and, of course, artificial selection by humans in recent history) was necessary for the evolution of life, but it's not as certain as the facts of evolution and of natural selection themselves.

 

[GabeZhul]

EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY.

NATURAL SELECTION = THEORY

EVOLUTION = PHENOMENON = A FACT.

Weeeelll, let's be perfectly accurate about this. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, in the sense that *nothing* in science can be 100% proved to be true but nevertheless evolution is such an obvious fact to anyone who is not both dogma bound and an idiot that we might as well call it true.

Evolution is still a theory because we can't actually observe it happen - we can observe mutation and changes in allele frequencies, but we can't observe speciation because it takes too long. Creationism is still *theoretically possible* - it's just overwhelmingly unlikely based on the evidence, and is inconsistent with the concept of a just and loving God.

Oh - and just to be clear, Natural Selection is *less* 'just a theory' than evolution because we *can* observe it happening!

The only genuine question is whether the evolution of life on this planet was *principally or entirely* due to natural selection, or whether other processes had a part to play as well. (Eg self-organising principles, the intervention of aliens, quantum evolution etc) So far there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume that anything other than natural selection (including sexual selection and, of course, artificial selection by humans in recent history) was necessary for the evolution of life, but it's not as certain as the facts of evolution and of natural selection themselves.

You are just playing with semantics there.

Also, the whole "cannot observe it" argument is actually a apologist ploy, so please don't use it unironically. It's like saying that "We cannot observe the American Civil War in the present, therefore we cannot be sure it happened."

Which is, by the way, an actual apologist argument. They call it "Historical Science" and claim that anything that is untestable in the present should be removed from the school curriculum because it's not "true science" and it was one of the weasel-words they tried to use to introduce Intelligent Design into the school curriculum.

The truth is that there are a near-infinite number of phenomena we cannot directly observe because of either time- or space-problems (read: they happen in for too short/long time or are too small/big to measure properly), yet you don't see any other field of science being forced to apologize for not being 101% accurate all the time.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Sounds like the survey was expecting the common, simplified answers. Because the earth orbits the sun only from the sun's frame of reference.

Also, the specifics of the Big Bang (which is a misnomer) is continuously revised. Last theory I recall stated that the Big Bang's energy was released everywhere simultaneously, an event which lacks many of the usual traits of an explosion.

Then again, I doubt that 25-39% of Americans are theoretical physicists.

I would have said NO on that question because the big bang wasn't an explosion, not to any real degree.

It was really a poorly phrased question, and I wouldn't be surprised if the answers were a bit twisted by it.

 

[Flatfrog]

Weeeelll, let's be perfectly accurate about this. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, in the sense that *nothing* in science can be 100% proved to be true but nevertheless evolution is such an obvious fact to anyone who is not both dogma bound and an idiot that we might as well call it true.

You are just playing with semantics there.

Also, the whole "cannot observe it" argument is actually a apologist ploy, so please don't use it unironically. It's like saying that "We cannot observe the American Civil War in the present, therefore we cannot be sure it happened."

I'm only playing with semantics because WeirdGuy made a semantic argument! If we're going to debate what is 'just a theory' and what is 'a fact' then we ought to use the words correctly.

Something can be both a theory and true (the theory of evolution by natural selection, the theory of the truth of the Civil War);

it can be a theory and false (the Aether theory of light, the Phlogiston theory of burning);

it can be true but not a theory (otherwise known as a fact, eg the fact that fossils exist, the fact that we have documents about the Civil War, the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun);

it can be neither a theory nor true (the 'theory' of creationism is not a theory because it has no explanatory power, and as it happens it probably isn't true either). So to separate out the two questions is not just playing with semantics, it's useful.

You can also talk about whether something is a 'good' or a 'bad' theory independently of its truth on the basis of how much it explains and how easy it is to test. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a great theory in terms of explanatory power, but it has some falsification issues (the Baldwin effect, sexual selection and Red Queen hypothesis among many other examples mean that it's often hard to come up with examples of things that would disprove the theory)

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

as much as i'd like to cry "oh we're doomed, such a powerful nation filled with idiots" it wouldn't be fair or accurate in the slightest. if this was actually representative of a whole country, then fair enough, but this sample size is really really small, and not even close to a representation of a city, let alone a country...

still, the people who answered were fucking idiots for getting those questions wrong xD

Nooo, these answers have are pretty directly comparable to very similar surveys of similar or bigger sample sizes, not only in several US states but all over the world. All of them produced very similar results in developed countries globally (I'm working off memory here so I might be wrong).

The percentages are both accurate and expected if you've ever read the results of other surveys like this.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

*Prepares snarky comment ragging on American stupidity*

*Remembers survey last year which found 1 in 3 UK <16s think cheese is made from plants*

*Goes and sits quietly in corner*

As an Imp from Wisconsin (The dairy State), I find that a bit scarier than the "Do antibiotics kill viruses?" question results.

<.< Not as scary as the earth going around the sun question results though.

I feel your pain, Grouchy.

*sits in the corner with you*

Cheers man.

Spoiler: Have a solidarity cracker.

[sub]33% of the people in my country don't even know what that stuff on top is.[/sub]

[sub][sub][sub]And the worst thing is, the same survey revealed that 25% of the study also thought that fish fingers were made from chicken.[/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[Bruce]

*Prepares snarky comment ragging on American stupidity*

*Remembers survey last year which found 1 in 3 UK <16s think cheese is made from plants*

*Goes and sits quietly in corner*

As an Imp from Wisconsin (The dairy State), I find that a bit scarier than the "Do antibiotics kill viruses?" question results.

<.< Not as scary as the earth going around the sun question results though.

I feel your pain, Grouchy.

*sits in the corner with you*

Cheers man.

Spoiler: Have a solidarity cracker.

[sub]33% of the people in my country don't even know what that stuff on top is.[/sub]

[sub][sub][sub]And the worst thing is, the same survey revealed that 25% of the study also thought that fish fingers were made from chicken.[/sub][/sub][/sub]

To be fair, in the wake of last year's horse meat scandal, I for one wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Teriver]

*Prepares snarky comment ragging on American stupidity*

*Remembers survey last year which found 1 in 3 UK <16s think cheese is made from plants*

*Goes and sits quietly in corner*

Wait we can justify this.
Cheese comes from cows and goats etc, and they EAT PLANTS.
In a round about way it's right.

Like that kid who answered the question of "How do you keep milk fresh?" with "Keep it in the cow."

I used to use this logic to avoid fruit and vegies as a kid. Animals eat them and I eat animals therefore I eat fruit and vegies.
Fortunately that logic didn't fool my folks.


On a relevant note, I've seen a lot of these these kinds of surveys, most are bollocks and just done to make a barely newsworthy story.
I am perfectly willing to accept that a lot of Americans don't know the answers to basic science questions but I think that's mostly because of religion disagreeing in some cases and terrible schooling for poorer people for the rest. The same could be said of most countries.

 

[Flatfrog]

On a relevant note, I've seen a lot of these these kinds of surveys, most are bollocks and just done to make a barely newsworthy story.

I agree with this, and having made up a similar survey myself just for fun, I was amazed how easy it is to get even perfectly educated people to answer the question wrong just by the most mildly ambiguous or confusing wording, or just catching them at a bad moment.

 

[Megalodon]

The environmental conditions that allowed the first organic molecules to be created? Followed by the physical and chemical principles that allowed a first "life" like organism to be created?

Please don't bother with this fallacy, abiogenesis (what you're talking about here) is separate from evolution. This is like saying an architect is incompetent because he cannot design a working plane.

Lastly: my example is STILL valid (somewhat). Irreducible complexity. Look it up. It means that some biological processes are to complex to explain by means of evolution. Which makes it an argument for intelligent design and in some cases even creationism (i'm not saying it is a good argument). The flagella is an example of such a process. I say somewhat valid because in my previous post I was too lazy to do some research about it. As it so happens, there has been some progress on this topic since last I heard of it (another prime example of how I am not all knowing). There are a few hypothesis on how the flagella could have been created through evolution. Allthough the theories are very vague.
This would be an example why I believe in science. It is not because we have not explained something YET that we will never be able to do so. Everything can someday be explained through science if given enough time. I may be wrong in this belief but it is what I belief none the less.

Except that every 'example' of irreducible complexity I've ever heard can have and does have an evolutionary explanation, for your example:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html

or another one

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#bactflag


I don't know what you're arguing for here to be honest. Intelligent Design has been dis proven, it is bullshit. Any journal worth its name won't publish ID, hell even the US court ruled that ID is not science (almost a decade ago).

Abiogenesis and the following formation of the first cells is what I was referring to. When do we talk of organic molecules and when do we talk about life? Spherical formation of lipids with organic molecules entrapped? Precursor nucleotides that can pass the spheroid membrane as monomers but cannot leave once they start polymerizing (i.e. formation of first DNA). With the handy benefit of them being able to polymerize without the need of DNA polymerase or any other enzymes. Bigger spheres that absorb (i.e. eat) smaller spheres. Big spheres that split up into two smaller ones (reproduce). Thats what I was talking about in that first quote. You'll have to excuse my simplistic representation of a very complex model in advance. And this is important because the beginning of life is the beginning of evolution.
I like that analogy about the architect though.

Kind of, but the fallacy the creationists/ID proponents bandy about is that evolution has to explain how those first proto-cells formed. Which it doesn't, because that's abiogenesis, once they have coalesced out of the primordial soup, that's when evolution kicks in and the better replicators propagate more and colonise their environment better. Now I don't know enough about the current state of abiogenesis research to say when these molecules became 'life', but it's only then that evolution has anything to say on the subject.

I'm not for intelligent design. Nor do I agree with irreducible complexity. But theories are not facts. One theory does not proof make. Nor does it disprove another theory.

You are correct that theories are not facts. Theories explain facts (a fact being an objective and verifiable observation). Also, nothing is ever proven in science, only dis proven. Take the theory of Phlogiston, when it was developed, it made sense and was in line with the observable facts of the time (eg. ash is lighter than the wood used to be before it was burned). However this theory was called into doubt by Boyle, before finally being conclusively proven false by the demonstration that combustion required gas with a mass.

Or for an evolutionary example, Lamarckian theory of evolution was an alternate explanation for the observed facts of evolution, but when a proper understanding of Mendelian genetics was reached and proagated through the scientific community, that theory was rejected. Of course it turns out that epigentics are showing that Lamarck may not have been 100% wrong, but that's besides the point. Both of these old theories were at least vaguely scientific in their day, supported by verifiable observation, while being falsifiable. Whereas ID offers no insight, explains observations about the world worse than evolution, and has been proven false, and hence is not science, and should be relegated to the pages history along with alchemy, phlogiston, miasma, aether and the humours.

Allthough I am a big fan of occams razor which is why intelligent design sounds like a load of bollocks to me.

No argument here, ID is a terrible model for explaining the observed truth of reality.

And because the US court has said so it is deemed true?

More of an example that the 'debate' between ID and evolution is so one sided that even the US court system threw ID out for not being science.

What I am arguing for is:
1) people have a right to their own believes whatever they may be (as long as they don't use violence to enforce those beliefs).

I'd agree with this, although I'd also like to see less automatic indoctrination of children, but that's just me.

2) just because you do not agree does not mean they are automatically wrong. Even piling on 'proof' of evolution does not mean you are right. There have been theoretical models in evolution that later on have proven to be wrong: the origin of mitochondria in cells for example. (and offcourse replaced by a more accurate version but that is not my point just now).

Again nothing here that I disagree with on the surface here. But the bold part of your statement really is the point. The ignorant in this 'debate' are trying to tear down a model that works, not to replace it with a better version They want it replaced with a worse one, because they think the working model does not agree with their beliefs.

3) complex problems are represented in a simple manner every day. If you want to explain the entire process of evolution every bloody time something vaguely comes in contact with the subject then go ahead. No scientist I know will ever concern himself with doing so. Random mutation is a small aspect and yet the very foundation of evolution. There is no point in argueing about that. Without random mutation -> no evolution what so ever. Because nothing would ever change.
It's like asking how a car works and just explaining how the engine works. Sure: an engine does not a car make but without it you're not gonna get very far are you? One could argue that it is the most essential part of your car. Eventhough without wheels, transmission, steering wheel,... it is not going to drive very far.

Nothing really to dispute here.

You could say that I am on your side. I believe evolution is correct. For the large part at least. I just hate the fact that people need to feel entitled to say: "I know more so you are both wrong and an idiot" and "you believe in god so you are an idiot because there is no proof".

This reminds me of a thread from the other day about when you can call someone stupid. When it comes to evolution you have the problem that the 'other side' are often wilfully ignorant/proud of their dogmatic ignorance. Which ultimately makes arguing with them exasperating and mostly pointless. So it often is more "I know more than you, cite example, you refuse to admit you're wrong and wallow in your ignorance, thus you are stupid". You also have the false science vs religion conflict, which thanks the the internet, easily boils down to "these religious people are wrong because of their religion, therefore all religious people must be equally wrong".

Believers can't prove god exists (not by means that I would accept anyways) but neither can we disprove him.

Which is pretty much why I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't believe in any god, but I don't know that such an entity doesn't exist (but I am pretty sure that all extant religions are wrong).

On the subject of belief and science, I'm never comfortable about "believing" in science, that term carries a connotation of uncertainty that I'm not really comfortable with. Which is why stuff like the Extra Credits video about faith was complete bullshit in my opinion. I prefer trust, I trust that other scientists are honest about their work and that peer review will catch the ones that aren't. Seeing the progress science has made, I assume we'll continue to advance and hopefully understand what today seems incomprehensible. I assume that the same experimental conditions will produce the same result, in the same way that I assume that the sun will rise every morning and that the bacon in my fridge hasn't become toxic overnight.

 

[Mr.PlanetEater]

I love statistics, but this is a good example of how they can be misleading. Want another statistic to throw around? The average person has one fallopian tube*.

Spoiler

Now obviously this isn't true, but it technically is because half the population doesn't have any, and half the population has two. Two plus zero is two, divided by two is an average of one.

*

 

[Steve Waltz]

Almost all surveys like this are bogus anyway; I can't believe people believe this is legit and are genuinely arguing about it.

The people that set this up had an agenda so they set up their survey to get these results. Heck, They probably wrote the headline for this survey before tallying the results. Seriously, anyone clever enough can use loopholes to rig a survey to show the exact results they want. Surveys and statistics are all devices for public trickery and deception.


I learned that the Earth revolves around the Sun before I even entered first grade, and so did most kids growing up in the 90's with a TV. Five words: Bill Nye the Science Guy.