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

[Sunrider]

2: No points for including a religious question. We still haven't found the "missing link" and while plants and animals mutate and adapt to new environments over generations, evolution isn't scientific law yet.

So many misunderstandings like this, because people not knowing the definition of the words they use within this context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Some excerpts from the second link:

"Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts."

"However, in science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous. A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them."

I implore you and everyone in this thread to at the very least skim these articles. So many things would be cleared up.

It is not a religious question.

 

[iseko]

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.

Pretty much agree with everything you said in your last post. Just want to zoom in on this bit. When I say I "believe" in science I mean that science will one day have all the answers (at least that is what I think). That day may be far off, as in 1000's of years but we will get there some day. Or at least close enough to having all the answers that the distinction becomes irrelevant. However that is not something I can ever know for sure (let alone prove). It might be we will never know everything there is to know. Still I like to believe we will.

But our modern day knowledge indeed does not require belief. That is the beauty of science. Science does not require you to believe in it in order for say: making it a bad idea to go out in a field with a long metal rod when its a lightningstorm out.

or

That it is a bad idea to dip your foot in molten lava.

or

That it is a bad idea to hit a tree with your car at 120 miles/h

Science tells us that those things are bad ideas and it does not require your belief in order to make it true. That is why so many people prefer it I guess. Eventhough some people don't listen and then we have a new form of evolution. The evolution of human kind that weeds out the people so blissfully stupid that even modern medicine can not save them from their stupidity. (j/k)

 

[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]

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

Hah, good point. Perhaps the 25% are merely cynical. I can live with this.

 

[K12]

It's funny reading some of the posts from people who are so ignorant of science that they are stubbornly claiming that these wrong answers are actually correct.

Dunning-Kruger effect in action!

 

[Ranorak]

Just for the record antibiotics don't work on viruses (or mass effect altering wizards) because they target bacteria.
They disrupt their metabolism or otherwise inhibit vital functions the bacteria need to survive.

Viruses on the other hand are nothing but genetic material (either DNA or RNA) wrapped in a protein coat. And, in some cases, a additional lipid layer.

Viruses are a grey area when it comes to life.
They can reproduce, but not on their own. They need a host cell.
But they cannot do anything else. they don't have any metabolism, or respond to stimuli.

So, naturally antibiotics won't work on viruses.
But there in an exception.

Most viruses target specific cells, or bacteria. When a bacteriophage (a virus that only attacks bacteria) has infected otherwise harmless gut bacteria, they could release toxins or other harmful substances even-though they're not directly targeting our own cells. In this case, a doctor can still proscribe an antibiotic to kill off the bacteria, to get rid of the virus.

However, this is an exception.

 

[Yopaz]

Lastly: my example is STILL valid (somewhat).

Your example is only valid if you can find any evolutionary biologist who believes that complex structures evolved purely through random mutation. I doubt you'll find someone. So if you ask a creationist if he believes the evolution of complex structures may have been caused purely by random mutations he will say no. Ask the same question to an evolutionary biologist and he is most likely going to say no. You have managed to disregard such a huge part of evolution that you can ask a scientist and a creationist the same question and get the same answer. I have to congratulate you on that feat.

Your example is as invalid as it could possibly get.

 

[Yeager942]

For the sake of my sanity, I will choose to doubt this article.

 

[Yopaz]

[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]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature?that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion?and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings, leading to a more accurate theory. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge . This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).

Theories are used to explain phenomena. Boom! Theories are the most rigorous, reliable and comprehensive forms of knowledge in science. Boom!

If you go to the article there's also a bit about the misconception of theories getting "upgraded" as the evidence builds up. It's a myth. A theory is basically the best thing you can get. Even a hypothesis needs a lot of ground to stand on before it will be presented as a scientific hypothesis rather than just an experimental hypothesis. Evolution is pretty much undeniable, but that's what a theory means in the world of science.

 

[Para199x]

Uhm arguing against evolution is like arguing against 2>1. The evidence is so overwhelming and it comes from so many different areas its almost embarrassing, between the fossil records, the DNA records and heck the very physiology of the human body not to mention the fact we see proof of it in every other living thing around us every day.

It's only considered a theory because the results of it can't be properly predicted. I.e Laws are a case of where X then Y. All evolution says is that given time.. change will occur, that's pretty much a law of the universe so it doesn't really count. but beyond stating that change will occur... you can't predict what that change will be or when it will happen.

Evolution isn't speculation...it's fact.

No it's not. 2>1 is a fact. Evolution is a theory which means there is still at least some doubt in it be factually correct. It doesn't matter whether that doubt is 20%, 1% or even 0.0000000001%. It's still there. And while it's still there there is always a chance that a new and better theory could come up and replace it.

That's not to say I don't believe in it because I do. It's just that it gets on my nerves when people still go around treating theories as facts. They've been proven wrong in the past, there's nothing stopping that happening again, hence why they are called theories rather than facts.

OT: Some of those questions are pretty stupid. Namely the ones on evolution and the big bang. They're reported on as though they are both facts but they are instead still theories. And with the big bang one especially, the "correct" answer according to them is the wrong answer. If it had of said "the universe as we know it" then it'd sit next the evolution one. But it didn't, it just said "the universe". And the thing is, something had to of been before the big bang for it to even happen. Don't get me wrong though, they're solid theories and I believe in both of them they just aren't facts. Not yet at least.

Actually the only doubt of the existence of evolution is among philosophy and a question of whether human perception is reliable. The only question at the time of Darwin was do we really wanna believe it's caused by natural selection (because people want to believe the universe is just).

For natural selection consider:
1. It is an observed FACT that genes can and do mutate (you don't deny existence of cancer do you?)
2. Differences in genes can lead to differences in physicality in non-superficial ways
3. Genes are passed on during reproduction
4. Reproduction almost exclusively happens amongst (or by in the case of asexual reproduction) living beings
5. Useful differences in physicality I define as giving a higher survival chance to the being

Therefore increase of prevalence of a given useful mutation will be more likely to occur than not. Therefore natural selection is at least a contributing factor to evolution.

A few things about the other question (unrelated to quote):

1. The Big Bang was not an explosion or nothing turning in to stuff. The exact definition of the Big Bang is this: If we extrapolate back our model of the Universe using General Relativity to a given time, call it time 0, the energy density of the Universe would be infinite, and in this model the history of the Universe (at least which we can say anything about) starts at this point and space expands with time.

This is, however an approximation, we know for a fact that our theory of Gravity breaks down completely at (very roughly) time 10^(-30)seconds (that's 0. twenty nine zeroes 1), and worse, our understanding of particle physics restricts us (if we want to be SUPER CAUTIOUS with our claims) to around 10^(-12)seconds after time 0. Strictly speaking it's hard to say that we really know ANYTHING about the evolution of the universe before 10^(-30)seconds. This means that the popular science usage of the big bang is actually just a VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY good approximation to what we actually know because the general public don't usually care about such details as the difference between 0 and 10^(-30) of something that is already perceived to be basically the shortest useful measure.

2. I've seen people pedantically say that the Sun does go round the Earth (from the Earth's reference frame) and this is true, however it is not useful. To say which thing is going around which I personally think it is best to use the centre of mass reference frame to avoid ambiguities and because extending the system does not cause the answer to change (considering only Sun and Earth, the Earth goes around the Sun, considering the whole solar system, it is still the same and including the Galaxy it is still the same). Again I could be more specific and say the both orbit the centre of mass, but using that as a central location from which to measure motion (make it the origin), only the Earth's orbit encloses the Sun.

 

[Para199x]

[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]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature?that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion?and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings, leading to a more accurate theory. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge . This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).

Theories are used to explain phenomena. Boom! Theories are the most rigorous, reliable and comprehensive forms of knowledge in science. Boom!

If you go to the article there's also a bit about the misconception of theories getting "upgraded" as the evidence builds up. It's a myth. A theory is basically the best thing you can get. Even a hypothesis needs a lot of ground to stand on before it will be presented as a scientific hypothesis rather than just an experimental hypothesis. Evolution is pretty much undeniable, but that's what a theory means in the world of science.

Actually the point is that evolution is a documented phenomenon which has been observed. Natural selection is a theory which attempts to explain it. An equivalent to your arguement would be to say that motion is a theory, it is not, it is a phenomenon which we require a theory to describe.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

It would appear that at least 25% percent of Americans don't value education very highly. Which is fine I suppose.

 

[black_knight1337]

Actually yes there is a chance. The most classic example is Descartes trickster god where an all powerful entity is deliberately misinforming your senses to make you believe a false reality for it's own amusement. The Matrix is a more contemporary example. The odds of this being the case are pathetically low but they exist. That's my point though when those odds reach a certain degree of probability one can safely ignore the alternatives. This is what is known as "facts" though by strict definition nothing is fact except maybe the ascertainment of one's own awareness: "I think therefore I am." Glad to open your eyes.

Sure, I'll give you that one. For all we know everything could be an illusion. However, even if this is true, things like mathematics and linguistics still hold. 1+1=2 is always going to remain a fact because it's something that we've defined.

Actually the only doubt of the existence of evolution is among philosophy and a question of whether human perception is reliable. The only question at the time of Darwin was do we really wanna believe it's caused by natural selection (because people want to believe the universe is just).

For natural selection consider:
1. It is an observed FACT that genes can and do mutate (you don't deny existence of cancer do you?)
2. Differences in genes can lead to differences in physicality in non-superficial ways
3. Genes are passed on during reproduction
4. Reproduction almost exclusively happens amongst (or by in the case of asexual reproduction) living beings
5. Useful differences in physicality I define as giving a higher survival chance to the being

Therefore increase of prevalence of a given useful mutation will be more likely to occur than not. Therefore natural selection is at least a contributing factor to evolution.

Like I said, I believe in evolution. You don't need to question that. But at the same time I'm not going to go around saying that it's a fact, because it's not. Not yet at least.

 

[Sunrider]

Like I said, I believe in evolution. You don't need to question that. But at the same time I'm not going to go around saying that it's a fact, because it's not. Not yet at least.

Yes it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

To borrow a quote from the link above:

Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental or empirical data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.
"A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true." - Douglas Futuyma

There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. You can safely state it as a fact, as you should.

 

[black_knight1337]

Yes it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

To borrow a quote from the link above:

Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental or empirical data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.
"A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true." - Douglas Futuyma

There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. You can safely state it as a fact, as you should.

And from the exact same link:

'evolution' cannot be regarded as a fact even in the context of hypotheses since the causal points of reference continue to be organisms, and no amount of confirming instances for those hypotheses will transform them into facts...While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions...An emphasis on associating 'evolution' with 'fact' presents the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty.

There's definitely still some doubt there.

 

[Something Amyss]

2: No points for including a religious question. We still haven't found the "missing link" and while plants and animals mutate and adapt to new environments over generations, evolution isn't scientific law yet.

Actually, we have quite a few "missing links [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution]." The problem is, every time we find a new one, creationists shift the goalposts.

What's better is that evolution has amazing predictive powers. Not only have we found missing links, we've been able to predict what traits they would have with pretty good accuracy.

Also, Evolution is a law. Like gravity, there is the law of evolution and the theory of evolution. But I'm not sure you understand the terminology very well.

And no. It's not a religious question. Religion can argue with the facts, but that doesn't make them stop being facts or make it a religious matter. Although I'm very interested in your "science to prove religion" thing, since pretty much every attempt I've seen fails.

 

[Sunrider]

And from the exact same link:

'evolution' cannot be regarded as a fact even in the context of hypotheses since the causal points of reference continue to be organisms, and no amount of confirming instances for those hypotheses will transform them into facts...While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions...An emphasis on associating 'evolution' with 'fact' presents the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty.

There's definitely still some doubt there.

A mere difference in definition of "fact". I would implore you to read the rest of what is written under the category "Evolution as theory and fact in the literature", the very category you quoted from.
The man you quoted, Kirk J. Fitzhugh, is using the word in the same way that Loki_The_Good did in your discussion with him, that there is nothing we can ever really know with a 100% certainty, but rather that we can only say what is true of what we can observe.

To add a few more quotes into the mix (because playing the numbers game is fun).

"Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently, evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact. The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact."

"Evolution has been described as "fact and theory", "fact not theory", "only a theory, not a fact", "multiple theories, not fact", and "neither fact, nor theory". The disagreements among these statements, however, have more to do with the meaning of words than the substantial issues and these are discussed below."

I also recommend checking out AronRa on youtube. His focus is on biology, but he touches on various other things that concern both evolution and religion as well. I'd link you to one of his longer videos, but chances are you (and most people) would ignore 10+ minute videos outright, so I'll take my chances with a three minute one instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmuLxPklXrc

It is part of a longer video, if I'm not mistaken, but I can't remember which one it is. If I knew, I'd link that video instead, because this is a mirror upload, as you can tell from the title. His account is just named AronRa.

 

[Something Amyss]

[
'evolution' cannot be regarded as a fact even in the context of hypotheses since the causal points of reference continue to be organisms, and no amount of confirming instances for those hypotheses will transform them into facts...While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions...An emphasis on associating 'evolution' with 'fact' presents the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty.

There's definitely still some doubt there.

Except you quote mined. Didn't even include the full sentence, let alone the whole context.

 

[QUINTIX]

So a headline like "1 in 4 Americans doesn't know Earth circles sun" is a kind of headline designed to attract a certain crowd. You know the ones I?m talking about: the ones who think they're just better than you, but at the same time are so insecure about it they're itching for a debate, after which victory will be claimed regardless of events.

I can't better a single word from this [http://www.redstate.com/2014/02/18/nsf-science-poll-americans-compartmentalize-science/]
Edit: Just ignore the patronizing ads. Even the creator of the website complains about them.

Further edit/somewhat related. My father was an atheist as a teenager, but then an elder challenged the confident young atheist about what came before the big bang.
He's now a military chaplain and teaching elder at my church

 

[DirgeNovak]

Where are the other six questions? None of the sources talk about those. And two out of the four questions that are discussed in articles are basically faith-based. While I still find it appalling that people reject scientific discoveries because of some old book, identifying the "no" answers to the evolution and big bang questions as wrong is disingenuous. A lot of those people are likely aware of what science says, they just go wih their faith.
The Earth rotation and antibiotics questions are fair game, though. Those people are fucking stupid.

 

[Yopaz]

Actually the point is that evolution is a documented phenomenon which has been observed. Natural selection is a theory which attempts to explain it. An equivalent to your arguement would be to say that motion is a theory, it is not, it is a phenomenon which we require a theory to describe.

Cite any kind of source that doesn't regard a scientific theory as the most reliable form of scientific knowledge. You are making claims without sources that contradict other sources. You can contradict other sources, but only if you have more than "No it is like this because I said so!".

An alternative source would be Futyama's Evolution. Evolution is described as a theory on page 1 (not counting index and preface).

Evolution is a theory BECAUSE it has been well documented and observed. Because that's what theories mean in science. While we're at it natural selection isn't a theory used to explain evolution. Natural selection is one of the mechanisms of evolution, but so is mutation, genetic drift, kin selection and migration just to mention a few.

So no. Evolution is a theory, natural selection is not. If you want to use the layman's definition of a theory go on, but don't think you're correct. You have also managed to simplify evolution to the point where you're wrong so I wouldn't speak up too much about evolution either if I were you.