35% of Albertans believe in creationism

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Yeah ... "proximate" causes -- responses to whatever conditions they're exposed to, resulting in survival. There is no ultimate purpose, beyond survival, in evolutionary theories. It's theistic people who ascribe an ultimate meaning to human behaviours.

That was exactly the point of my post.

[Cube Inmate]

You said exactly the opposite.

[peter12]

I can see where we are misunderstanding each other, but I just saw your post as reiteration of what I had already said, which is that for evolutionary biologists all behaviours - no matter their cultural relevance - point to the ultimate purpose that every individual has to unconsciously replicate their genes.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So?

I may be way off base, but presumably there's some correlation between religiosity and church attendance.

[cracher]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I may be way off base, but presumably there's some correlation between religiosity and church attendance.

This may or may not be true. The most pathologically hardcore groups I've ever observed first-hand were the "home church" types - weekly gatherings in somebody's living room and take turns sermoning. Seeing this crap in the ex's extended family was a factor in my divorce.

[Regulator75]

This 35% shouldn't be allowed to breed or teach.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I may be way off base, but presumably there's some correlation between religiosity and church attendance.

Well that doesn't appear to be the case based on this not so recent poll.

I believe in science and haven't been in a lab in years.

Most of this comes from a belief in "this is what I was taught growing up so it must still be true".

In this instance you're using a poll to refute another poll. Why can't I just say yours is wrong? In an Angus Reid poll I just read, 20% of canadians 18-34 believed the earth was created less than 10% years ago. That's a pretty big percentage.

One of the reasons is that while kids may not be going to church often, they are going to school, and guess what they might be learning...:

However you describe it -- distinct, peculiar, or stubborn -- it's undeniable: Albertans possess a unique propensity for bucking national trends.

Not that we're troubled by it, mind you; quite the opposite, in most cases. When Albertans are seen to be out of step with much of the country, we wonder what's wrong with everyone else.

This is a case, however, where we should be wondering what's wrong with us -- a case where Alberta's anomalous body of opinion is not a source of pride, but rather a deep embarrassment.

An Angus Reid poll released last week asks Canadians their views on the question of evolution versus creation.

Overall, 58 per cent of Canadians say they are believers in evolution. By region, the numbers are more or less in keeping with the national average.

However, there's one notable exception in this poll: Alberta.

A shockingly low 37 per cent of Albertans supported the position that humans beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years. An even greater number of Albertans -- 40 percent -- agreed that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years.

How can this be?

Does this represent some serious shortcomings in our educational system? Have we been swayed by the charlatans of the Intelligent Design movement? Is there some truth to the stereotype of Alberta as a hotbed of religious fundamentalism?

If these numbers are accurate, we need to understand the source of the problem and correct it. The fact that Alberta boasts Canada's first creation museum suggests that these depressing numbers are not the product of some rogue poll.

The Angus Reid numbers show that older Canadians are more likely than younger Canadians to reject evolution. That may suggest that the problem is not entirely attributable to the education system, but here in Alberta two trouble spots need to be addressed.

Evolution is taught in Alberta schools, but not to the extent that it ought to be. Evolution is a component of Biology 20, and further explored in Biology 30. Of course, for high school students, those courses are optional.

Other experts have cited the need to further incorporate evolution into the science curriculum and, poll numbers aside, the case for such an overhaul is strong.

Furthermore, although Alberta's model of school choice is commendable, is may also be a source of the problem.

Alberta taxpayers should not be subsidizing pseudoscience and religious dogma masquerading as legitimate curriculum.

The government recently announced an increase in per-capita funding to private schools, providing those schools meet a specific set of criteria. That criteria should include a ban on the teaching of creationism and its gussied up offspring, Intelligent Design.

The article is from 2008.

[Kybosh]

I strongly believe that a high school course needs to be implemented for logic and the scientific method. That course would be significantly more valuable than whatever life skills course they use now about how to pay your damn bills or put a damn condom on.

I remember being relentlessly mocked for being a supporter of evolution back in the day. All the "arguments" were completely nonsensical including things like "your parent's are monkeys; I'm modeled in the image of the lord" or "the devil did it". The lack of critical thinking most people display greatly troubles me.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

I strongly believe that a high school course needs to be implemented for logic and the scientific method. That course would be significantly more valuable than whatever life skills course they use now about how to pay your damn bills or put a damn condom on.

I do wonder why we don't use the Socratic method in high school, and teach students to beware of cognitive biases and rhetorical fallacies. Are skepticism and reason considered threatening to other, more cuddly value systems? Is it hard to find teachers versed in these principles?

[flamesfever]

nm

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think these days many overemphasize the use of science to solve all of our problems. I think we should be cautious in disregarding the various lessons learned from the past.

I recall back in the 50's Universities recognized the schism developing between those involved in science and those in the humanities. As a result, many of the science types were required to take courses in the humanities. This was done to round our their education.

Can you imagine a world run by engineers?

That’s funny. My concern is more the opposite. I was shocked to find out this week that co-workers of mine who have MA’s don’t understand why we have seasons. I had to explain to them axial tilt and the absorption of solar radiation. Numeric and basic science ignorance is a widespread problem in my Professional Engineering opinion. Scientists/Engineers, medical professionals, and other applied scientists not knowing every poem ever written or why some abstract painting is worth $80MM is less of a concern in my opinion.

Oh, and I dated a very attractive creationist in university. She ultimately broke-up with me because of my belief in science versus her 6000 year-old earth beliefs.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

That’s funny. My concern is more the opposite. I was shocked to find out this week that co-workers of mine who have MA’s don’t understand why we have seasons. I had to explain to them axial tilt and the absorption of solar radiation. Numeric and basic science ignorance is a widespread problem in my Professional Engineering opinion. Scientists/Engineers, medical professionals, and other applied scientists not knowing every poem ever written or why some abstract painting is worth $80MM is less of a concern in my opinion.

Oh, and I dated a very attractive creationist in university. She ultimately broke-up with me because of my belief in science versus her 6000 year-old earth beliefs.

I think it's less about teaching people poetry or art and more about making sure that people who do work in scientific fields consider the social implications of what they do, and don't end up blinded by pure ambition to discover something new. Especially as we approach questions of AI and artificially adapting our genetics to give desired traits. There are pretty serious human questions that come with those things.

I would also say that mediums of art play an important role in communicating science to the masses, and understanding how to communicate new discoveries to people who may not understand them, question them, or even fear them.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Like others in this thread, I remember a girl in HS about 15 years ago who claimed that the earth was only 5-6k years old.

Her story wasn't a conspiracy, just that when lizards die their bones keep growing and that scientists misidentified their bones as being from dinosaurs.

I've heard the theory that dinosaurs existed, but are actually only a few thousand years old. The dinosaurs didn't get on Noah's ark and when the floods came, the weight of all the water super compacted their bones/carbon which is why carbon dating is incorrect on those bones.

I mean... how do you seriously even bother with a rebuttal? It's not worth it. I just shook my head and moved on.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

Numeric and basic science ignorance is a widespread problem in my Professional Engineering opinion. Scientists/Engineers, medical professionals, and other applied scientists not knowing every poem ever written or why some abstract painting is worth $80MM is less of a concern in my opinion.

Humans have accumulated a lot of scientific knowledge in our time on this planet, including some foundational stuff that's useful for someone living in 2016 to know. We've also accumulated a lot of cultural knowledge about ourselves. It's handy to know that stuff too. For example, there's pretty much nothing in politics that the Greeks didn't identify and write about first, so knowing a bit about Thucydides can help us understand how a guy like Trump can find so much support as a presidential candidate.

[flamesfever]

I think it's important to study the history of Evolution, as proposed by Darwin, and how it led to the field of Eugenics, and all the atrocities that followed as a result. It's an example of human reason and logic leading us into very dark areas. Without the fundamental principals and values that underpin society, we are fully capable of losing our way. I think, in the case of Eugenics, it lasted for almost a century i.e from Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" until after WW II.

It seems whenever there is some major breakthrough in science, man always finds a way to misuse it. Perhaps we should be little more questioning about the sudden worldwide response to Climate Change. Although, coming from Alberta, I can't help being biased.

[peter12]

Haha that is awesome. A very good point!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

I strongly believe that a high school course needs to be implemented for logic and the scientific method. That course would be significantly more valuable than whatever life skills course they use now about how to pay your damn bills or put a damn condom on.

I remember being relentlessly mocked for being a supporter of evolution back in the day. All the "arguments" were completely nonsensical including things like "your parent's are monkeys; I'm modeled in the image of the lord" or "the devil did it". The lack of critical thinking most people display greatly troubles me.

Definitely. And also personal finance

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think it's important to study the history of Evolution, as proposed by Darwin, and how it led to the field of Eugenics, and all the atrocities that followed as a result. It's an example of human reason and logic leading us into very dark areas. Without the fundamental principals and values that underpin society, we are fully capable of losing our way. I think, in the case of Eugenics, it lasted for almost a century i.e from Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" until after WW II.

It seems whenever there is some major breakthrough in science, man always finds a way to misuse it. Perhaps we should be little more questioning about the sudden worldwide response to Climate Change. Although, coming from Alberta, I can't help being biased.

People can lose their way, no question. But it is misguided to lay any of the blame on science.

It is also ironic, considering the extent of atrocities humans inflict on each other in the name of faith and religion.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

I strongly believe that a high school course needs to be implemented for logic and the scientific method.

Does the education curriculum in Alberta not have such a course?

When I was a high school student in New Brunswick back in the '90s, an "intro to science" course (the first unit of which covered the scientific method) was a mandatory graduation requirement for all students, and successfully completing it was a prerequisite before you could enroll in other HS-level science courses (biology, chemistry, and physics). Strange that Alberta doesn't have a similar mandatory course.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think it's important to study the history of Evolution, as proposed by Darwin, and how it led to the field of Eugenics, and all the atrocities that followed as a result. It's an example of human reason and logic leading us into very dark areas. Without the fundamental principals and values that underpin society, we are fully capable of losing our way. I think, in the case of Eugenics, it lasted for almost a century i.e from Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" until after WW II.

It seems whenever there is some major breakthrough in science, man always finds a way to misuse it. Perhaps we should be little more questioning about the sudden worldwide response to Climate Change. Although, coming from Alberta, I can't help being biased.

Conflating WWII eugenics with Darwinism is another example of Godwin's law. Those events are the result of Nazi racial theory rather than anything to do with "On the Origin of Species" even though it was cited as an excuse to proliferate a genocidal state on ethnic atrocity. Selective breeding, animal husbandry, killing of the disabled, sterilization of undesirables, marrying your own people or even blood relatives etc. have been known and practiced since early human civilization.