Razib pulls some data from the General Social Survey and find that not only are Catholics more likely to consider the theory of evolution to be correct than Protestants, conservative Catholics are more likely to consider it correct than liberal Protestants. 58% of Catholics who also identify as politically conservative (and 71% of those who identify as politically liberal) agreed with the statement, "Humans beings developed from animals". However, only 26% of Protestants who identify as politically conservative and 53% of those who identify as politically liberal agreed with that statement.
It turns out, however, that race is a significant factor in the results. Many Protestants who are Black are politically liberal by reject evolution. If you filter the results on non-Hispanic whites, 65% of politically liberal Protestants consider evolution to be correct.
I'm a little surprised that so many Catholics actually doubt evolution, given that the Catholic Church has never been explicitly against the theory of evolution and Pope Pius XII specifically stated there was no conflict between the faith and evolution back in his encyclical Humani Generis back in 1950, something John Paul II echoed in his letter Truth Cannot Contradict Truth in 1996. However, since concern about evolution is fairly common among religious people in the US overall, it's probably not hugely surprising.
Thursday Random
11 hours ago
18 comments:
Off-topic, but what do y'all use for science curriculum, if you use a curriculum? (Versus spending every day building batteries out of toothpicks, which is what WE do.) I haven't spent a ton of time researching the options but it seems there are a lot of anti-evolution texts out there and I really would like something that is not written from any particular religious point of view.
Dorian,
I'm not who you asked, but I really like Bernard Nebel's "Building the Foundations of Scientific Understanding," which has the added bonus resource of a very active yahoo group moderated by the author.
Kate
Dorian,
Right now we're mostly using the science sections out of the "What Your X Grader Needs To Know" books, supplemented with books we own and from the library on the topics being covered.
On topic:
1) Often evolution is used not as a scientific theory but as a socio-political club. People opposing the latter can then be accused of opposing the former. Chesterton pointed this out in his comments on the Scopes Trial iirc.
2) Since evolution is material, it covers only the development of the body. The rational soul ain't in that game, so Catholics can accept evolution of the body just as they can accept auto mechanics. Sure, auto mechanics is part of what lets you drive to work each day; but it ain't the whole story.
I'm a little surprised that so many Catholics actually doubt evolution...
I'm not. Per Mike's point. Many RCs conflate evolution the science with evolutionism (the socio-political club).
And quite justly, too. Those who use a scientific theory for social or political purposes do the science no great favor. Think of the eugenics movement of the early 1900s: many prominent Darwinian scientists were involved, as well as prominent fanboys in the intellectual community. Mary Midgley dedicated her book Evolution as Religion to "Charles Darwin, who never said such things."
Those who use a scientific theory for social or political purposes do the science no great favor.
That's a very key point.
I think one of the things that some of the "new atheists" completely fail to grasp is that when they try to convince people that materialism necessarily follows from evolution, that many people who believe them may well ditch evolution rather than faith.
What TOF said, plus it seems to me that observant Catholics have more of a... dang it, I can't think of an elegant way to put it, we can accept the idea of an idea being worthy without believing or disbelieving.
For example, I'm not sure what I think about any specific apparition. I'll generally be curious if it's gotten Vatican approval or not, and if it's too new I'll see if there are any major problems with it, but... well, it just doesn't matter to me; if it did, I'd have a view on it.
Oh, incidentally-- I've been informed that if I think God had ANYTHING to do with how things turned out, I'm just a creationist playing dress-up. Because all levels of intelligent design are creationism, you see, and evolution requires that you believe it was totally random.
Bet that got a pretty big chunk of folks to state that they reject "evolution."
Yeah, it's pretty much a re-phrasing of the point already made, but I wanted to share!
(...it probably doesn't help that I can't think of anyone in face-to-face life that responds to questioning of evolution with anything but hysterics. Same for most orthodox science, really. I grow more and more sad about the defense of science as I get older. That said, "skeptic" cryptid podcasts are a hoot! Everything is because of the fundies and creationists!)
Thought I better be clear:
the important bit to me is: "God did it." I don't give two shakes of a lamb's tail if he did it by undetectable guiding us from primordial soup, or by manifesting, grabbing a hunk of mud and going all Michelangelo.
It doesn't matter to me how, although I do sometimes tweak the noses of those I think will give me a well-thought-out response. I've got a weakness for good salesmanship, not that one finds it much these days.
Thought I'd make that very, very clear to avoid exasperating the host. ^.^
evolution requires that you believe it was totally random
Heh-heh. But it cannot be totally random; otherwise sheep would evolve into petunias. I don't think those folks know what "random" actually means. In fact, evolution canonically aims at better adaptation to a niche. Ad-apt: toward being more apt. (And being more apt means being more apt to survive.)
This is of course what Aristo-Thomists call "final causes."
I guess I'd hesitate on saying evolution "aims" at anything, though the result is as if it did, but very much agreed that "random" is a much abused term in these discussions. When people claim that the "randomness" of evolution means that God does not exist (or that He is somehow totally disconnected from the world) they mostly just show that they don't know what "random" means in this context.
BTW (If I can say with without embarrassing myself or others) I don't know if you're a regular reader or just stopped by, TOF, but since you're here I'll take the opportunity to say that I've really enjoyed your books, particularly Eifelheim.
I blush; but thank you for the compliment.
+ + +
If the randomness of evolution means that God does not exist, what does the randomness of dice throws mean?
+ + +
Moderns have a hard time grasping what was meant by finality in nature. To Aristotle and Aquinas, it was a natural thing, and obvious. The hard part was reasoning from there to God. Moderns think that establishing finality is hard, but once you have it getting God is easy. That's why they adamantly deny finality in nature.
When people claim that the "randomness" of evolution means that God does not exist (or that He is somehow totally disconnected from the world) they mostly just show that they don't know what "random" means in this context.
Yes, and as Mike's example makes clear, the more precise term they should be employing is stochastic--it doesn't have the ontological overtones that 'random' does, and it is intended to define the level of unpredictability to the niche under examination.
When people claim that the "randomness" of evolution means that God does not exist (or that He is somehow totally disconnected from the world) they mostly just show that they don't know what "random" means in this context.
I kind of look at the almost inevitable prior statements that there's no way you could identify God working in science, realize that if your tool can't identify evidence of something you can't say there is no evidence because your tool didn't find it, and try to leave the conversation without starting a freaking family feud.
I... had no idea that "stochastic" was a word, I would've probably translated what they meant as "unguided" or maybe "without influence from non-survival related forces."
Darwin,
Have you ever written on the Church's teaching on first parents (Adam & Eve) and evolution?
I would love to hear what you think...
I've heard arguments that claim that genetic diversity essentially makes the idea that we all descended from one man and one woman ludicrous.
What do you think?
I've heard arguments that claim that genetic diversity essentially makes the idea that we all descended from one man and one woman ludicrous.
Easy answer: mutations-- in theory, every single person has a bunch. They even use the term "genetic Eve" and "genetic Adam".
Although most serious articles I've seen are very careful to point out it's a theory, and that it's just the estimated folks that everyone came from for a couple of genes (IIRC, Mitochondrial DNA and the Y-chromosome) -- and I think the theory-people are not even in the same area?-- that argument wouldn't work so well.
My favorite is that God evolved everything, then took two proto-humans and gave them souls. Even makes it literally correct for Adam, if life really did come the classic "primordial goo."
No idea if interbreeding would be possible. Wasn't there some line about Cain worrying about all the other people killing him? Guess Adam and Eve could've made good headway on populating the Earth....
Zach,
I have written about the issue, though since it's a little bit on the edge theologically, let me state, just for extra clarity, that this is just my opinion:
http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2011/01/many-parents-one-sin.html
Foxfier,
FWIW, this is something that most science popularizers get badly wrong, so I'm just taking the opportunity to set things out clearly:
All people on earth share a single common male ancestor "y-chromosomal Adam" and a single female ancestor "Mitochondrial Eve". The thing to understand is that this does not these are based on separate means of measuring male and female descent, so even if it were true that everyone were descended from a single pair, these separate means of tracing back to a common ancestor are just that: separate. The point in time they trace back to is pretty different. "Mitochondial Eve" lived about 200,000 years ago and "Y-chromosomal Adam" lived about 142,000 years ago, so they're separate periods of common ancestry established by separate means, not a single couple.
The key thing to understand is that all humans trace back to a common group much more recently. That's just the most recent point we can trace a common ancestor only through the male line or only through the female line. The most recent common ancestor to all living humans (allowing for both the male and female line) is far, far more recent. By some estimates, just a few thousand years ago.
Thank you for a much better elaboration than I managed!
The most recent common ancestor to all living humans (allowing for both the male and female line) is far, far more recent. By some estimates, just a few thousand years ago.
Picturing it as a family tree-- which it is, I'd say-- that makes perfect sense.
Well, at least to anyone who's lived in a valley that doesn't get a lot of outsiders... the one I was born in had folks from the wagon train days (one family), a small Basque community and a small Scottish community. ("Valley" isn't exact, it's more... like paint splots for families.) Almost everyone is "related," but you don't share ancestors that were alive in your parents' memory with... most anyone. A place that's LESS new than California? Wow.
For appearance....
My brother looks scary-like our great grandfather, and my cousin also looks a lot like that ancestor, but put them side by side? They look more like the ancestor than each other. It's very easy to imagine untold generations down being more identified with the shared ancestor (which we don't have pictures of) than each other.
Post a Comment