This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.” The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.
A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory’s validity has increased over the past 20 years. (via)
If Americans live longer then it’s reasonable to expect the % answering out of favor of evolution to be shifted towards a younger more recently educated society. Sure this may or may not be true, and may not account for all of the difference, but I’d be curious to look at other causes for this difference than somehow saying americans are just dumb as your average U.S. liberal would love to have the rest of the world believe.
yes… I do believe that IS the problem…
I’ll keep Iceland in mind
Also, it’s interesting that Iceland is #1, as they are known to have one of the leading genetic research pools available. From Wikipedia: “Iceland has extensive genealogical records about its population dating back to the Age of Settlement. Although the accuracy of these records is debated, biopharmaceutical companies such as deCODE Genetics see them as a valuable tool for conducting research on genetic diseases.”
that survey chart is somewhat skewed and misleading. notice that all the other countries are located in Europe (no China, no India, no Africa?). The United States is made up of fifty states, with a population comprised of immigrants from across the entire world.
a more valid comparision would be the USA versus say the average of the European Union, or even the USA versus the global average.
think of it in reverse – how would say, a state like New Hampshire or Vermont compared to the ENTIRE European Union of 500 million people.
If i can help, as a frenchman and an observer, i can see that the major correlation axis is with the religious feeling and the social development.
The more religious and undevelopped the country, the higger the percentage of people that doubt Darwin.
This is why we find USA between Cyprus and Turkey … and France and Japan in top of the list.
You should have in mind that, here, nearly 60% of the population find themselves atheists (or agnostics) and a lot more don’t believe that much in a God.
@justinf : i think the 51 (don’t forget Alaska) states of the USA are really much more homogeneous than Europe, cultutrally speaking, and that the numbers wouldn’t have varied that much between states.
Litteuldav: I assure you there are only 50 states. Including Alaska. I saw this chart, and thought that it might indicate that our education system is not up to par on this particular issue. But I leave it up to the reader to interpret.
All? Japan is not in Europe. And the above list contains pretty much all the EU countries, with most of the most densely populated near the top, so the US average and the EU average would be just as markedly different. Probably if you cherry-picked a few coastal blue states you could manage parity with, say, Poland, but that’s a pretty divisive approach.
It’s true that the list is heavily skewed to the developed world, but are you really arguing that the proper comparison for quality of science education and levels of popular superstition in the world’s richest nation should be the poorest and most deprived? Perhaps so: many of them have a respect for science borne out of necessity. The US is in the privileged position of being able to *afford* disproportionate levels of stupidity; in the short term, at least. (This is not to say that Americans are dumb, but there’s a rather pronounced divide: the large number of very brilliant ones intellectually subsidise a good many credulous dolts.)
And given the lack of third world representation — and the extensive social healthcare systems in most of these countries — the idea that it’s all about longer lifespans is just arrant nonsense. Iceland’s age structure seems to be pretty much the same as the US; the UK has a somewhat higher percentage in the 65+ range.
Americans aren’t dumb. Well, unless you compare their educational standards to most other developed nations. And maybe if you consider that only about two thirds of Americans even know the name of their own Vice-President. But if you set aside education, knowledge, and not believing in scientific evidence, Americans are really darn smart.
What’s with the American apologists? Americans are dumb, period. Only a dumb fuck would think evolution is false.
Any green enthusiast must acknowledge this simple fact:
In terms of global warming, the “undeveloped nations”, as they are called, are the saviors of humankind.
It is the developed nations (US and in the EU) and the process of nations developing (India, China) that have caused global warming.
No matter how progressively we act with our “developed” tastes, our carbon footprints are as a cleated stampede when compared to the light-footed, sandalled “savages” of the world.
As for the chart, I propose another chart. Compare the countries of the world their acceptance of evolutionary theory and their carbon footprint. How striking a correlation, I presume! Now, let’s think about why?
I wonder if there is any connection here.
Iceland seems to have the least strong religion. They rather believe in science.
Icelanders have come out of SEVERAL charts as the happiest nation in the world. They have the highest living rate in the world, along with Japan.
I’ve been there 5 times and I’m in love with it.
Yes, Iceland has factually achieved excellence in the greatest fields. A very interesting homogenous nation.
Interesting homogenous nation = pure aryan nation? ;)
Not such a pure aryan nation anymore. Immigrants have been flooding there for the past years.
Seriously, why do people think that “God” just decided “hmmm, humans” and poof all of a sudden there was Adam and Eve?
Haha, it’s so stupid that it’s hilarious!
They’ve been flooding there for the past 5-6 years, to be exact. Iceland topped most of these charts long before that.
Well, I have to agree with my nation Iceland.
ICELAND ROCKS!!!!! best country in the world and best country to party in!
so far the comments have been up to the task to debate facts in the chart – but now I must warn you …cause a link to it has been posted to a icelandic website witch mostly young people visit to find links to funny/interesting/porny stuff on other web pages. .. so prepare for intrusion of young, stupid and cocky Icelanders ;)
Please don’t think these comments are from smart people..
..regarding the data in the chart .. yeah – Iceland rock’s!
Iceland is so amazing for many different reasons… past and present.
Right now it’s worthy of mentioning Icelandic businesses.. for example banks who have scored the highest possible grade from Moody’s and many should recognise CCP (creators of EVE Online).
In short: Iceland rules. :)
PS: It is funny people can believe what John wrote about here above ““God†just decided “hmmm, humans†and poof all of a sudden there was Adam and Eve”.
But since there is currently no known way of disproving it… any truly unbiased and scientific mind would have to accept it as a possibility.
Finally I encourage all to enter the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.. :P To learn more about it look up “Pastafarianism” on wikipedia.
;)
Hehe, Iceland rules!!! :)
IS there any moderation of the comment´s board if so would you please remove the Icelandic comments about how we rock and rule, it does my country no good. But to add to the comments I belive that Iceland is a country where faith in god does not rank important to most of us, we are all enlisted in the the national church not by choice but by law, although we can unenlist and pay our dues wich are paid by tax to another church or the national university, we can´t even be bothered to do that. I don´t know if undeveloped = disbelief in Darwin but I know that faith does. But lets not forget that Darwins theory is just that a “theory” and it has not been proven although to my eyes it seems very likely
about us it is illegal to teach the evolution in sum states becose of the f church
So, I think it is funny that there are moral judgments being passed by the atheist posters on religious people. You should recognize, of course, that in the absence of any kind of higher power, there is no right and wrong. At best, you can have some form of “right and wrong” that is derived from a social efficiency and planning based on an arbitrary metric.
So you can’t say that it is “wrong” to not accept the theory of evolution, and, although, as some posters have said, you could still call it “dumb”. In fact, maybe it is evolution that led those people to not believe in evolution. After all, they are more likely to have large families.
One poster here talked about how “bad” it was that the developing world produced so much Carbon output. Well, it may be socially inefficient, but it is not “bad” of course. Human kind is just doing what it was programmed for.
And don’t stop there, of course, the Nazi’s weren’t “evil”, they were simply acting on the natural inclination to further one’s own race in a world with limited resources. The allies weren’t “good”, they were also just competing for survival and resources and happened to be the stronger force. Either outcome would have been equally valid, because we are just an evolved animal engaged in the 2 billion year struggle for survival.
Bill Clinton’s actions also make more sense from this enlightened viewpoint. He was just trying to further his brilliant and amazing genes in the gene pool! Of course!
And hey, we have to give a pass to George W. Bush. Remember? there is no evil. Dumb maybe, but not evil. All the deaths at his hands aren’t wrong, they’re just, at worst, socially unfortunate.
And then we have to rule out the concepts of free will too. We’re all just synapses firing in a deterministic fashion. So, all of those foolish people in the United States who believe in God aren’t really foolish, they just running their deterministic programs as we all are. But thank dumb randomness that your program is powerful enough to accept evolution, and by all means, continue trying to reprogram the less fortunate. But remember, no moral judgments, because there aren’t any.
I find it ironic that, while most comments are supportive of evolution, most are falling into the theory vs. fact fallacy.
Evolution is not “just” a theory in the media sense. A theory in science is more like a fact in science, a hypothesis supported (in this case) by genetic, fossil and empirical evidence over the last 100+ years. It is simply the best model we have for understanding the principal driving force behind the apparent (some would say obvious) changes in all life forms since they are first recognized.
That some elements have changed or been modified over that span of time has no bearing on the correctness of the theory–it is a reflection of an increase in knowledge, understanding and evidence since Darwin first published Origin of Species (eg. the fossil record is far more complete; the gene and genetics were unheard of at the time). As it is there is no alternative theory that has even come close to better explaining the phenomenon of change in populations. At best, new ideas (such as Punctuated Equilibrium) are developed and incorporated into the overall theory, making it an even stronger theory.
It is one thing to keep an open mind; it is another to give equal weight to all opinions just to keep an appearance of fairness (this is the latest tactic by the Intelligent Design/Creationist movement in the good ol’ US of A–thankfully, I’m in Canada).
The theory vs. fact fallacy is mainly used by those who wish to discredit evolution, since the media has made the word “theory” seem to refer to a baseless guess, which is anything but true. If nothing else, physicists have been known to complain that if they had half the evidence that the theory of evolution has to explain the laws of gravity, their lives would be much easier (yet almost no one denies gravity).
And scientific theories aren’t morality based.
There is a different branch of human understanding that exists for the passing of judgement (sarcastic or otherwise) on others.
What people do with the knowledge gleaned from science is not a fault of the theory (can anyone say A-bomb?).
SN, just remember, an atheist who lives a good life does so for himself, you do so because of the threat of punishment. Now which person has the moral highground?
Or, maybe the problem is too many people globally are clueless about how to differentiate between well-selected and poorly-selected survey methodologies.
For example:
— ——-
Population of Iceland =~ 300,000
Population of United States =~300,000,000
n for Iceland = 500 (0.17% of population)
n for United States = 1,484 (4.95 x 10^-6% of population)
Culture groups in Iceland = 1
Culture groups in United States = Constant shifts in demographics make this impossible to quantify
Land area of Iceland = 100,250 sq.km.
Land area of United States = 9,161,923 sq.km.
——–
The chart above compares puffin birds to gorillas and says, “See? America’s bad.” (As if we haven’t spent the last forty years hearing that song sung over and over and over…)
In Iceland, you’ve got a monolithic culture, a small population centered mostly in a few cities on a very small island (and a single system of education). In the U.S., you’ve got a truckload of people spread across a massive chunk of land, speaking every language on the planet, each with their own sense of historical and cultural sensibilities. How do I know the survey takers didn’t call 1,484 residents of Tennessee (no offense, Tennessee, but c’mon, you’ve got some religious whackos out there–you know it, I know it, the whole world knows it) to get these numbers?
The fact is, I don’t know anything about the survey methodology (the caption’s not even there with the graphic, which it should be). Thus, I can in no way assess the validity of this study.
Unless, of course, all I was really looking for was something to validate my preexisting bias.
For the record: evolution good. Manipulative statistics bad.
Kiddi Gunnars…. gosh you are so modest….
“And don’t stop there, of course, the Nazi’s weren’t “evilâ€, they were simply acting on the natural inclination to further one’s own race in a world with limited resources.”
Ahh, it’s not a thread unless someone invokes Godwin’s Law!
Only a dumb fuck would believe a theory that has no solid verifiable scientific proof.
Evolution is a theory.
Only a theory.
Evolution has never been observed. Ever.
So you may call Americans dumb for not believing it, but anyone that would stand behind a theory, with no evidence to support it, is worse than dumb.
Unlike, say, believing a myth written down several thousands of years ago by people that thought the earth was flat and that rain was controlled by a pantheon of gods (and, to be accurate, borrowed those beliefs from other, earlier civilizations). That makes perfect sense for explaining the phenomena that we actually have observed and have a great deal of evidence for.
Oh, unless by “never observed” a person might mean “observed things that I don’t understand or would prefer to ignore so that it doesn’t conflict my unfounded or otherwise illogical beliefs”.
Also, please note about what a theory means. No, a real one in the scientific sense, not in the sense of needing to discredit something.
And I don’t call Americans dumb. Just individuals (from any nation) that prefer to ignore facts.
@jeff
Evolution is observed every day in bacteria. It’s how certain strains become resistant to certain antibiotics. If someone believes evolution is impossible, it’s because he/she doesn’t understand it.
I am Christian and am an enthusiastic supporter of the theory of evolution; the two do not contradict either other. I think the problem here is when irresponsible scientists (Dawkins, perhaps?) comment on religion by saying things such as “This theory of evolution proves God doesn’t exist.” It proves no such thing and only succeeds in causing people who believe in God to be unwilling to even hear what evolution is all about. I’d think the average American layperson would sum up evolution by saying: “Humans evolved from monkeys”; which, of course is not only wrong, but misses the point entirely.
Science has no place in religion. Religion has no place in science. That doesn’t mean the two can’t coexist. Scientists need to stop trying to comment on religion because, when they do so, they’re alienating the very people they’re trying to convince. People who believe in God need to stop being so closed-minded, need to educate themselves, and stop disputing obvious facts because a handful of proponents say it proves the nonexistence of God.
the u.s. is the least homogeneous country in the world. there are people from every race and culture here. watch video footage from all over the world and the u.s. is the only place where you will see so many different colors in the crowd.
“Science has no place in religion. Religion has no place in science. That doesn’t mean the two can’t coexist. Scientists need to stop trying to comment on religion because, when they do so, they’re alienating the very people they’re trying to convince. People who believe in God need to stop being so closed-minded, need to educate themselves, and stop disputing obvious facts because a handful of proponents say it proves the nonexistence of God.”
DEAD ON MY FRIEND!!! DEAD ON!
There is no science in the Bible and there should be no “bible” in Science. (Note caps in the previous sentence.) Scientists are allowing their studies to become their religion and they spout inaccuracies as blatantly and with the same fervor as the religious fanatics they fight against.
God doesn’t tell us HOW He created the earth, just that He did. Science doesn’t tell us WHO made earth, just how they did it.
Several people have made comments about America being a multi-cultural society, what exactly is this supposed to mean? That science is less accepted in different cultures and somehow adding them to our own would produce such low acceptance of the theory of evolution?
If you look at the chart the VAST majority of the world thinks evolution is a sound scientific theory and worthy of acceptance in greater numbers than we do, if we were to mix all these cultures together you would think that our multi-cultural society would be much more accepting of evolution. (unless we have millions of people from Turkey throwing the numbers off)
I think Americans trick themselves into thinking that because people from all over the world live here that we are multi-cultural. Every town has a taco bell, every town has a walmart, everyone all over the country goes to the same movies, we all watch the same TV, we all listen to the same songs on the radio. Americans are not as diverse as we might like to think (at least culturally)
Many people in America seem to want to reject science, and being multi-cultural is certainly not the reason. I am not sure why, they reject it, but I have a couple of ideas.
In my earlier comment, I meant multicultural in the geographic sense sense–the South as culturally different from the North, for example–rather than in the solely ethnic sense found in forced-plurality countries like Canada (although of course the ethnic sense applies in the U.S., too).
The multicultural argument had to do with the fact that taking a scientifically valid sample is much more difficult in the U.S. than Iceland or most of the other countries on the list, and that the ‘n’ numbers belie a poorly designed survey (percentages of population surveyed vary by several orders of magnitude, with heavier bias towards the less culturally and religiously diverse nations–exactly the opposite of what you’d shoot for if you’re trying to minimize culture bias [bias in the statistical, rather than the bigoted sense]).
You’re going to get a radically different data set if your survey includes only people from the Bible Belt than if your survey includes only people from northern California. But nothing’s mentioned on the chart or text about how the cohort was chosen, who was included, and so forth. If you look at every other country on the list (with the exceptions of a couple of the western European countries), you’re comparing some fairly homogenous areas to an extremely heterogenous one.
The point being, a simple chart that purports to compare nations had better do a good job explaining its sampling methodology, which this one doesn’t.
We also need to be very careful making broad assertions like “VAST majority of the world.” The sad fact is, the vast majority of the world is populated by people for whom this isn’t even an argument, because questions of evolution hold very little significance when you can’t read or write. What we’re really talking about is the so-called developed world. Note that there are no African countries on the list, none from Latin America, none from the Middle East (grouping Turkey with Europe for politcal correctness, of course), and only one Asian nation. If you don’t live here, or live with blinders on, you’ll see that a significant portion of our population lives in conditions of poverty equal to those found in the developing world (a bold assertion I know, but visit Southeast D.C., or Appalachia, or the Ozarks, and you’ll have to agree).
On the Walmart/Taco Bell comment, I concede that that’s a valid observation, but it also doesn’t dig very deep into how our cultures vary with geography (even without accounting for the ethnic and religious differences). This really is a massive country, and traveling from end-to-end of it will drive home the point that the people this nation cannot be fairly quantified as a single, monolithic group. Take a trip to the Texas Panhandle, then head straight for San Fransisco. It’s safe to say that the cultural environments in those places vary as radically as New York does from London–if not more.
Again, evolution good. Just make sure you’re comparing apples to oranges. Or chimps to orangs.
Also, wearing bias like a badge of honor (“Could This Be Our Problem” makes it seem like “our” problems are somehow more significant than those confronting the other 95% of the planet) is never a good thing. I don’t think we can justify this sort of introspective self importance by saying the U.S. has a leadership role in global affairs, because frankly we don’t have any real credibility on that stage. Who cares if a paper tiger has trouble accepting elementary-level science that was revolutionary a century ago?
Last night’s Republican Presidential Debate, which occurred under the watchful eyes of Nancy Reagan at the Reagan Library, made me realize something about the candidates and about America in general.
Let me preface this by saying I had just finished reviewing all the episodes of “A Brief History of Disbelief,” the BBC documentary by Jonathan Miller (who will be interviewed on Bill Moyers’Journal tonite on PBS) which will soon be shown on our local PBS affiliates. Miller’s series is on the history of atheism, and he spends a considerable amount of time in one episode discussing Darwin and the influence that the Theory of Evolution had in bringing us out of the religion-dominated culture of the 19th century into the scientific culture of the 20th.
Now I thought, at this point, that the Theory of Evolution was pretty much accepted by educated Americans as scientific fact. But last night, the 10 debaters were asked if they believed in Evolution, and three of them, Tancredo, Brownback and Huckabee, raised their hands to say that they didn’t. A Congressman, a Senator and a Governor, three educated (two of them former teachers) and elected leaders who are firmly hooked into the 19th century belief structure!
This situation affected me much more than the fact that the debaters seemed like they were campaigning against Bill Clinton, or that they all seemed to ally themselves with Reagan and pretended not to be connected in any way with Bush, or that they seemed to all think Iraq has been mismanaged but was worthwhile to be involved in.
How can we still be electing people who, if it were not for Galileo’s conflict with the church (the Pope apologized in 1984), would still see the sun revolving around the earth?
And we expect these people to deal with intelligence about complex issues that relate to our survival in a dangerous world. So, if 30% of the candidates are “world created in 6 days” types, what does this say for the millions of Americans who support them. Will we have to wait until the 22nd century to face reality?
The United States being a culturally diverse country is totally irrelevant in this argument because about 90% of these creation believing pickup truck driving, John Deere hat wearing, Bud Light drinking, Garth Brooks fans can be found in the Bible Belt of the Southern U.S. I assure you, that they will be the first to admit to being 100% Amrrrcan!
But they’re right, forget about scientific fact. If it’s in the 1000 year old bible, it must be true. Oh and by the way, did you know that stomach aches are caused by little trolls mining for gold in your stomach! That’s right, people believed that for a long time too until SCIENCE PROVED THEM WRONG!!!!
Yeeeeeehaaah!!! Enjoy yourselves Jesus freaks, we may not have enough proof to convince you yet, but give us time, we will!
If you notice, i’m pretty sure the sample sizes are different, and not even based on a percentage of a county. I’m pretty sure that 1500 people are not an accurate representation of the U.S. If they were all from the southern states, the numbers would be different if they were all from say, California. There are many diverse area’s in the US with different beliefs. And i’m sure that 1300 is not a very good representation of the UK either, they could all be from london where they are better educated rather than out in the country areas. You have to know where the results of this study is comeing from and what they are aiming to prove before accepting these results as a good marker for a country.
Eric wins.
If you believe in evolution then nothing you do matters.
I think you may have misunderstood the concept of evolution.
1500 may not nail down the exact numbers but in my experience the numbers here are reasonably accurate. I should also point out that even in the US there are people like myself that know damn well the minions [ID idiots] are lying and see it for what it is- an inability to adapt to the knowledge that evolution represents. I have had the unfortunate oppertunity to be in the presence of the especially rabid ID crowd and was quite disguisted with them, no ethics in regarding to science, the whole mindset revolves around ignoring anything that contradicts their views. they also had a nasty habit of trying to connect evolution and immorality which is utter nonsense of which I am quite sure they themselves dont truly believe, but they do love to use it in their propeganda.
I agree with you Mike, but still, i think the numbers are a bit off.
I Find it funny that so many people compete over blogs ,and who is correct in the first place. Understand that everything in the above sampling is just statistics. In that, the basis of statistical analysis, is that you can warp the outcomes. So if your figure, the only 10% of the entire world’s population has internet access, and that in order to achieve that 10%, your education level surpasses that of nine out of ten others on the planet, we can see how statistics can skew perspective, and alignment. Figure from there, that the world population is skewed to 41% Asia, 28% Africa, 20% Europe, 10 America, “North and South,” and finally 1% Australia. So now that we know we are are only sampling 1st and 2nd world countries we can continue. To go from here , we need to look at the average education level that teaches evolution. From there we can plug in the number of people sampled, weighing in the different average education, and bravo we got another chart like the same. Basically what we are really tackling here in this post, is not where a country ranks in the evolution theroy , but how, like any other statistic you have seen, heard, or told; is, or can be changed to say pretty much whatever you would like it to say.
It seems likely to me that US belief in the falsity of evolution is increasing. Evangelical groups have been pushing homeschooling programs, and an evangelical college (I don’t remember the name, and haven’t been able to locate it) boasts some ridiculous percentage (something like 80-90%) of congressional interns who are alumni. Basically, they’re ideas are quickly having a stronger influence on American youth, along with the push to have intelligent design included in public school curricula.