Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Study: religion not much of a factor in evolution acceptance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Study: religion not much of a factor in evolution acceptance

    I have some issues with this study which I'll mention later

    Source: Religion is not the factor that most influences rejection of evolutionary theory in schools, study says


    Religion influences secondary school students' understanding and acceptance of evolutionary theory, but social and cultural factors such as nationality, perceptions of science and household income are more influential, according to a study involving 5,500 Brazilian and Italian students aged 14-16. An article on the study is published in the journal PLOS ONE.

    The participants were asked to agree or disagree with a number of statements relating to Earth's age, the significance of fossils and the origin of human beings, among other topics. When the researchers analyzed the results, they concluded that nationality was more relevant than religion to acceptance of theories on common ancestry and natural selection, which was greater among Italian Catholics than Brazilian Catholics, for example, while the pattern of answers was similar among Brazilian Catholics and Protestants.

    "The results of our survey show that a broader socio-cultural context influences acceptance of evolutionary theory. Conservative societies like Brazil tend to be more averse to the evolutionary ideas proposed by [Charles] Darwin and included in the school curriculum," Nelio Bizzo, last author of the article, told Agência FAPESP. Bizzo is a professor at the University of São Paulo's School of Education (FE-USP) and the Federal University of São Paulo's Institute of Environmental, Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences (ICAQF-UNIFESP) in Brazil.

    Scientists at the Federal University of Mato Grosso (UFMT) in Brazil and the University of Trento in Italy collaborated on the study, which was part of a Thematic Project on issues relating to the inclusion of biodiversity in the school curriculum and conducted under the aegis of FAPESP's Research Program on Biodiversity Characterization, Conservation, Restoration and Sustainable Use (BIOTA-FAPESP).

    "We wanted to investigate in more depth the clash between religion and evolution because we needed to explore the mechanisms of evolution in order to understand biodiversity and its conservation. They're related. Students will better understand the consequences of extinction of a species, or local and global extinctions, for example, if they're familiar with such concepts as common ancestry, natural selection and the origin of species," Bizzo said.

    True or false

    Analysis of responses to such statements as "The formation of our planet occurred some 4.5 billion years ago", "Humans are descended from other primate species" and "Fossils are evidence of beings that lived in the past", among others, pointed to patterns of greater or lesser acceptance by the students.

    The results showed more frequent acceptance of evolution by Italian Catholics. The pattern of Brazilian Catholics' response most resembled that of Brazilian non-Catholic Christians (Protestants of various denominations).

    According to the article, Italian and Brazilian Catholics differed significantly in their understanding of geological time. Indeed, the gap was wider than the difference between the views of Catholics and Protestants in Brazil. Italian Catholics accepted evolution more and also understood it better than Brazilian Catholics.

    Acceptance of evolution was influenced mainly by nationality, the educational system, income and other socio-economic variables, family cultural capital, and society's attitudes toward scientific knowledge in general.

    "Both countries have Catholic majorities, yet there are major social and cultural differences associated with complex factors such as education," Bizzo said.

    Although scant data is available, he added, surveys by the Pew Research Center, a United States-based think tank, confirm that rejection of evolution is not generalized or deeply rooted in Italian society. "The same can't be said about Brazil," he said. "Another study by Pew showed recently that creationism is on the rise among adults in Brazil, and acceptance of evolution by Christians in Brazil is significantly lower [51%] than in Italy [74%]."

    Acceptance of the theory of evolution has been investigated in many studies in recent decades because it is considered a prerequisite for a better understanding of the topic. "Our study wasn't about whether people understood evolution. It went a step further by analyzing acceptance, which is necessary to achieve comprehension. If you don't accept the idea of thinking about a subject, your understanding is inevitably compromised," Bizzo said.

    Secular textbooks

    In light of these findings, the researchers suggest the school textbooks supplied by the São Paulo State Department of Education on Darwin's evolutionary theories should not refer to the Bible's account of creation by God in Genesis, held sacred by Christians and Jews alike.

    "Many textbooks evidently think religion alone is the most important factor when tackling evolution, which leads to Darwin's theory being intermingled with the narrative of Genesis. Our study shows that's wrong. From a theoretical standpoint, we could argue certain points regarding state secularity, but our study has nothing to do with that. What it shows is that one shouldn't assume religion must be included in any account of evolution because otherwise students won't accept it," Bizzo said.

    Saved by methodology

    In contrast, previous research including large-scale surveys of more than 6,000 European students found religion to be the key reason for rejection of evolution by secondary school students. The contrast may reflect methodological differences, according to Bizzo, who explained that most studies on this topic involve Likert-scale questionnaires, widely used in customer satisfaction surveys.

    This methodology typically offers five response options. For example, in response to the statement that Earth is 4.5 billion years old, the options would probably be Agree completely, Agree somewhat, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree somewhat, Disagree completely.

    "The problem is that the instrument used [the Likert scale] assigns an imprecise number to statements about scientific facts. The variation in the answers can lead to imprecision when the scores are added up. For this reason, it's better to offer the options Yes or No, or True or False, in this kind of questionnaire," he said.

    Moreover, he continued, the Likert scale should not be used in studies on scientific topics. "We discovered that when you present a recognizably scientific statement, such as "Vaccines are good for your health", those who disagree know they're disagreeing with a scientific finding, just as those who agree are aware they're positioning themselves in favor of science," Bizzo said.

    Another methodological issue is the question of anonymity in studies on sensitive subjects such as religion, for example. "Surveys and polls with religious implications, especially in conservative contexts, should be conducted in such a way as to avoid what the literature calls 'social desirability', where respondents know what's expected of them and try to meet that expectation instead of saying exactly what they think. Social expectations may have contributed to the imprecision of the measurements made by these different studies," he said.


    Source

    © Copyright Original Source




    The paper itself, Acceptance of evolution by high school students: Is religion the key factor? can be accessed and read by clicking the hyperlink although I made the abstract available below

    Abstract

    The idea of biological evolution is not accepted by many people around the world, with a large disparity amongst countries. Some factors may act as obstacles to the acceptance of evolution, such as religion, a lack of openness to experience, and not understanding the nature of science. Although the strength of the association between evolution acceptance and non-scientific factors varies among studies, it is often assumed that resistance to evolution is the byproduct of a religious background. Some studies are even more specific and try to associate the acceptance of evolution with precise religious affiliations. We aimed to explore the strength of associations among nationality, religion, and the acceptance of evolution by students using multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and statistical tools, with nationwide samples from two different countries. Here, we show that wider sociocultural factors predict the acceptance of evolution to a higher degree than a religious background. We carried out two nationwide data collections that allowed us to compare differences in the acceptance of evolution in Italy and Brazil by high school students who declare to belong to the same religion in the two countries. Roman Catholic students showed significant differences between the two countries, and the gap between them was wider than between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians within Brazil. Our conclusions support those who argue that religious affiliation is not the main factor in predicting the level of evolution acceptance. The sociocultural environment and the level of evolutionary knowledge seem to be more important in this regard. These results open up new interpretative perspectives and provide a better understanding of attitudes towards evolution.




    Now, what issue could I have with this study?

    It was conducted in what could be considered Catholic countries (Brazil and Italy) where the church has had a profound influence in areas like education. Basically, even Protestants living in the country get a Catholic-influenced education from teachers who are likely Catholic.

    Why does this matter?

    Because the RCC early on accepted the possibility of evolution and several decades back they full on embraced Theistic Evolution. Hence, it is hardly a surprise that Christians in Italy and Brazil don't have much in the way of religious objections to evolution.




    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  • #2
    In some fairness, the RCC doesn't accept evolution in its fullest sense. To quote Humani Generis:

    37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.



    Not that I'm formerly Catholic or anything.
    P1) If , then I win.

    P2)

    C) I win.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
      In some fairness, the RCC doesn't accept evolution in its fullest sense. To quote Humani Generis:

      37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.



      Not that I'm formerly Catholic or anything.
      As I said. They're Theistic Evolutionists.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        First of all, the PR on the study doesn't actually reflect the content of the study. The study was about religious affiliation, not the presence or absence of religious belief; the PR makes it look like it's the opposite. So, bad on the PR person, and bad on the researchers for not checking the PR before it got released.

        That said, I think the whole framing of things is wrong. Acceptance of evolution is a cultural issue, and religion is one part of an individual's culture - the two should be thought of as being in dialog. Should it surprise anyone that two countries with distinct cultures also have different takes on what it means to be a Roman Catholic? It shouldn't. And so it shouldn't surprise anyone that one of the ways those differences can be apparent is in thoughts on evolution.

        I should also note that these sorts of polls often capture a mix of what people believe personally, and what they feel they should believe. So, if you're in a culture where lots of people say "to be a good Christian you have to reject evolution", then someone asks you what denomination you are, you're more likely to endorse creationism in subsequent questions. In contrast, if you just simply ask "true or false: dinosaurs lived millions of years ago" without having people think about their affiliation first, you're more likely to get an accurate answer.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          First of all, the PR on the study doesn't actually reflect the content of the study. The study was about religious affiliation, not the presence or absence of religious belief; the PR makes it look like it's the opposite. So, bad on the PR person, and bad on the researchers for not checking the PR before it got released.

          That said, I think the whole framing of things is wrong. Acceptance of evolution is a cultural issue, and religion is one part of an individual's culture - the two should be thought of as being in dialog. Should it surprise anyone that two countries with distinct cultures also have different takes on what it means to be a Roman Catholic? It shouldn't. And so it shouldn't surprise anyone that one of the ways those differences can be apparent is in thoughts on evolution.

          I should also note that these sorts of polls often capture a mix of what people believe personally, and what they feel they should believe. So, if you're in a culture where lots of people say "to be a good Christian you have to reject evolution", then someone asks you what denomination you are, you're more likely to endorse creationism in subsequent questions. In contrast, if you just simply ask "true or false: dinosaurs lived millions of years ago" without having people think about their affiliation first, you're more likely to get an accurate answer.
          It reminds me of when Kent Hovind came through town back in the '80s and spoke at a couple local churches. Someone asked those in attendance how many people thought that all animals originated from a single point on the globe and only a few raised their hands in agreement. Then Hovind first asked how many people believed in the account regarding Noah and the Flood and followed by repeating the question regarding all animals originating from a single point on the globe. At that point a sizeable majority raised their hands.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
            In some fairness, the RCC doesn't accept evolution in its fullest sense. To quote Humani Generis:

            37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.



            Not that I'm formerly Catholic or anything.
            That's not rejecting "evolution in its fullest sense" though. That's simply a rejection of polygenism and insisting upon monogenism. And monogenism is, as I understand, the favored of the two among scientists anyway, so no issues there.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
              That's not rejecting "evolution in its fullest sense" though. That's simply a rejection of polygenism and insisting upon monogenism. And monogenism is, as I understand, the favored of the two among scientists anyway, so no issues there.
              Humans are one species represented by the human race. Most biologists reject the notion that human's have multiple origins but IIRC it's still fairly popular in China.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                That's not rejecting "evolution in its fullest sense" though. That's simply a rejection of polygenism and insisting upon monogenism. And monogenism is, as I understand, the favored of the two among scientists anyway, so no issues there.
                I don't think that's actually true. There's no indication that the human population went through a bottleneck as small as a single individual at any point in its history. The current diversity of the Y chromosome, in fact, includes a contribution from a population that probably predated modern humans. (Meaning roughly the equivalent of some of the Y chromosomes out there having been derived from Neanderthals.)
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  I don't think that's actually true. There's no indication that the human population went through a bottleneck as small as a single individual at any point in its history. The current diversity of the Y chromosome, in fact, includes a contribution from a population that probably predated modern humans. (Meaning roughly the equivalent of some of the Y chromosomes out there having been derived from Neanderthals.)
                  Answerable if you accept the notion of pre-Adamites that the ancestors of Adam and Eve could breed with.

                  That might raise some theological issues but not biological ones.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I find the article and the interpretation of the evidence concerning the rejection of the sciences of evolution and the history of the earth not reflecting the actual facts. The primary reason remains up front that evolution and the geologic history is rejected remains a religious commitment based on a literal interpretation of scripture by many Christians and Muslims. What this research indicates is that there are other factors among Christians and Muslims that influence whether the believe in sciences evolution and the history of the earth
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                    48 responses
                    135 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Sparko
                    by Sparko
                     
                    Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                    16 responses
                    74 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post shunyadragon  
                    Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                    6 responses
                    46 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post shunyadragon  
                    Working...
                    X