Latest comments

  • More on blue and pin...
    Nicolas Baumard More...
    Great post Ophelia! A very good topic for cognition and culture studies!

    As for the ... 3 hours ago
  • Brilliant!
    Lucy Fisher More...
    It\'s like when people say \"All you need is confidence\" or \"you\'ve got to have trus... 8 days ago
  • False Dichotomies
    Nicholas Smyth More...
    First: The idea of an unconscious mental realm as the source of our action and experien... 9 days ago
  • Fine print
    Olivier Morin More...
    Thank you very much, Young-Hoon Kim, for replying to Karen. I am glad to read from you ... 29 days ago
  • Wonderful Comments
    Young-Hoon Kim More...
    I really appreciate the comments by Karen Lofstrom. More of importance, I totally under... 29 days ago

Latest Blog Posts

Why pink? Color matters

Ophelia Deroy | 5/9/2010

Paul Rozin on what psychologists should study

Hugo Mercier | 28/7/2010

What if there had never been a Cognitive Revolution?

Nicolas Baumard | 22/7/2010

Paul the Octopus, relevance and the joy of superstition

Dan Sperber | 13/7/2010

Opacity tasting with Dan and Maurice

György Gergely | 11/7/2010

Homeopathy as witchcraft

Nicolas Baumard | 2/7/2010

The sacredness of God

Brian Malley | 27/6/2010

“Oy vey, have you got the wrong vampire!” A reply to Frans de Waal

Dan Sperber | 22/6/2010

Three Questions for Michael Tomasello

Emma Cohen | 20/6/2010

Why do acamedics oppose capitalism?

Nicolas Baumard | 14/6/2010

Communication, punishment and common pool resources

Hugo Mercier | 6/6/2010

Believing Maurice Bloch on doubting, doubting him on believing

Dan Sperber | 30/5/2010

Why do we make our tastes public?

Nicolas Baumard | 23/5/2010

Doubting among the Zafimaniry

Maurice Bloch | 16/5/2010

camphor - ammonia = anniseed x peppermint

Olivier Morin | 9/5/2010

Heaven before the space age

Brian Malley | 6/5/2010

Innocents fornicating and apes grieving

Dan Sperber | 4/5/2010

Is there a language instinct?

Nicolas Baumard | 1/5/2010

Endorsing evolution: A matter of authority?

Helen De Cruz | 27/4/2010

Are variations in economic games really caused by culture?

Nicolas Baumard | 23/4/2010

What explains the stability of animal culture?

Nicolas Claidière | 15/4/2010

On the Use of Natural Experiments in Anthropology

Nicolas Baumard | 5/4/2010

The social rationality of footballers

Hugo Mercier | 27/3/2010

Varieties of disbelief

Dan Sperber | 23/3/2010

Is the “problem of evil” universal?

Brian Malley | 18/3/2010

Cultural differences and linguistic justice

Nicolas Baumard | 15/3/2010

Pictures of the week: Globalized Prehistory in Arunachal Pradesh

Philippe Ramirez | 28/2/2010

Block and Kitcher review What Darwin Got Wrong by Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini

Dan Sperber | 24/2/2010

Can you tell who will win the election in another society just by looking at the faces of the candidates?

Hugo Mercier | 22/2/2010

Religion science: if you pay the piper, do you call the tune?

Olivier Morin | 19/2/2010

Better live in Sweden than in the US: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better

Nicolas Baumard | 11/2/2010

There is no such thing as sexual intercourse

Pascal Boyer | 8/2/2010

Altruistic adoption in chimpanzees?

Nicolas Baumard | 3/2/2010

Experimental epidemiology: The work of Chip Heath

Hugo Mercier | 1/2/2010

Four recipes for religion

Harvey Whitehouse | 25/1/2010

Mad in America

Ophelia Deroy | 20/1/2010

Na'vi Cognition and Culture

Nicolas Baumard | 19/1/2010

Cognition under the high brow

Pascal Boyer | 14/1/2010

Cross potatoes

Brian Malley | 7/1/2010

Essentialist animals?

Helen De Cruz | 5/1/2010

Jingle Bell - Punjabi Tadka

Dan Sperber | 24/12/2009

Golden bell and Iron shirt

Brian Malley | 17/12/2009

Conversation Hackers

Olivier Morin | 12/12/2009

Three Questions for Simon Baron-Cohen

Emma Cohen | 8/12/2009

The scope of natural pedagogy theory (II): uniquely human?

Pierre Jacob | 6/12/2009

Can you tell the language of the mother from her baby's cry?

Nicolas Claidière | 2/12/2009

Death, where is thy sting ?

Pascal Boyer | 30/11/2009

The scope of natural pedagogy theory (I): babies

Pierre Jacob | 26/11/2009

Some like it hot

Ophelia Deroy | 25/11/2009

Language faculty? Semiotic system? Or what?

Dan Sperber | 22/11/2009

Cross-cultural variation in creationism
Helen De Cruz's blog
Written by Helen De Cruz   
Monday, 04 May 2009 18:35

There is substantial cultural variation in the prevalence of creationism, i.e., the view that the Bible (or other religious writings) provides a historically accurate account of how living things came into being. In some countries, like Iceland or Japan, the view that species arose through a gradual process that is characterized by random variation, selective retention and modification through descent, is almost universally accepted. By contrast, and to the chagrin of scientists and philosophers of science in the USA, only 40 - 50 % of US citizens accept evolutionary theory. In this respect, the USA only does slightly better than Turkey, which ranks lowest on the list of Miller et al.'s study in Science (2006, vol. 313). Where does this variability come from? public acceptance of evolution

Evolutionary theory is incompatible with literal biblical or other explicit creationist ideas, but it is not altogether incompatible with theism (the view that God intervenes through his actions in the world). For example, theistic evolution is a widely accepted position by devout evolutionary biologists like Kenneth Miller. Some churches, such as the Church of England, endorse theistic evolution and openly reject both creationism and intelligent design. So the intuitively compelling view that religiosity - as for example measured in attendance of church, temple or mosque - is predictive of the acceptance of evolution does not seem that compelling to me (this view, for example, would account for the fact that Iceland is at the top of the list and it has one of the lowest church attence figures in the world, whereas the US is at the bottom).

Another problem with the view that religiosity predicts the public acceptance of evolution is that it cannot specify a mechanism why this would be so. Consider the graph from data gathered from a recent poll by the pew forum. In this graph, one can see that judaism has one of the highest percentages of people accepting evolutionary theory. Islam does significantly worse, yet there is no creation myth in the Qu'ran, whereas Judaism, of course, has two accounts of creation, just like christianity. Therefore, one should expect that muslims, given that their religion does not give any explicit account of creation, would be less creationist than jews and christians, whereas the opposite pattern is true. Perhaps there is some more indirect way in which religious conviction influences acceptance of evolutionary theory?

alt

Comments
Search RSS
Frank Bellamy 05-May-2009

The views of church leaders do not always correspond to the views of church members. For example, the catholic church is firmly opposed to abortion and marriage equality, but, at least in the United States, catholics themselves are far from unified on those questions. So the fact that the leaders of some churches endorse evolution doesn't seem at all incompatible with the idea that religiosity influences acceptance of evolution.

As far as Islam, I don't know a whole lot about that religion, but I do know that they have a significantly larger body of texts than just the Qu'ran, and in the Qu'ran itself there are many references both to adam and to the six day creation. So I don't think Islam is as lacking in an account of creation as De Cruz suggests.

Tom Rees 05-May-2009

The path analysis in Miller's paper suggests that religion is the cause of rejecting evolution in Europe and the USA. Tania Lombrozo has also studied this in US students, and found that religion does not reduce understanding of science, but does lead people to reject evolution.

Regarding the causes, there was an interesting study earlier this year on how orthodox Judaism increases essentialist beliefs in Children. You might expect essentialism to be a barrier to accepting evolution.

Helen De Cruz 05-May-2009

Thank you Tom, the paper you point out (on how religious belief leads one to accept essentialism), can indeed highlight a mechanism by which religious belief indirectly impedes acceptance of evolution.
A recent study by Shtulman and Schulz shows that people who think more essentialist are more prone to downplay within-species variation, and as a result are less likely to accept evolutionary theory.

Markus Urbanitz 05-May-2009

You say that Judaism has one of the highest percentages of people accepting evolutionary theory.
You should also say that Judaism has one of the lowest percentages (41%) of people believing in God or a universal spirit. But 82% of the Muslims believe in God. (Pew Religious Landscape Survey)
So the view that religiosity is predictive of the acceptance of evolution does seem very compelling to me!
And by the way: what’s the difference between theistic evolution and intelligent design?

Davis Nelson 06-May-2009

It seems that one could just as easily say that it's the lack of a fuller understanding of the theological underpinnings of one's religious faith that can lead to the false issues and confused controversies. For example, Thomas Aquinas would not have had the slightest difficulty accepting most current views on evolution. However, he would have been equally scandalized by the careless use of language and philosophical incompetence of scientists and the religious literalism of so many laymen.

If scientists are, in part, to blame for the low level of acceptance of evolution, it could be due mainly to their tendency to make claims that their data cannot possibly support -- thereby making precisely the same intellectual error as the intelligent design crowd. The layman's common sense recognizes that something is amiss, but can't pin down the nature of the error.

Even if one found that "religiosity is predictive of the acceptance of evolution," that might be true only at the layman's level. At some point, a reversal of the trend might occur. There seems to be nothing in the world's three major religions that would not permit that result. All have tried to draw bright lines between knowledge of the phenomenal order, the noumenal order, and revealed truth.

Donald Strong 07-May-2009

Would Davis Nelson please give three examples, with attribution, of the tendency of scientists to make claims that their data cannot possibly support? It would also be instructive to learn more about the common sense of laymen to recognize that something is amiss.

Tage Rai 09-May-2009

One potential indirect link between religion and belief in evolution that I haven't seen discussed might be dualist beliefs about humans and animals. If one thinks that there is a strong distinction between man and 'beast', then it would be difficult to accept a theory that puts everyone on the same field as it were.

Josh Weisberg 09-May-2009

Is there any indication that political considerations are at work here? In the US, denying evolution is something of a political statement, perhaps independent of the details of one's religion. The same may be true in Muslim countries: a denial of evolution may be seen as a denial of a Western or modernist idea, rather than something specifically mandated by the religion.

Only registered users can write comments!
Bookmark Google Yahoo MyWeb Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Myspace Reddit Ma.gnolia Technorati Stumble Upon
 

Creative Commons License
All the content and downloads are published under Creative Commons license