Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
2

Evolution acceptance in children linked to aptitude, not belief. In contrast to adults, acceptance of evolution in schoolchildren in the UK is linked to their scientific aptitude rather than conflicts with belief systems.

26 comments
100% Upvoted
What are your thoughts? Log in or Sign uplog insign up
Sort by
Mirror
Moderator of r/CreationExposed, speaking officiallyOriginal PosterScore hidden · 5 months ago · Stickied comment

Posted by: A*****************r

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

As I'd previously stated, this is another case of conflating the evolutionary mechanism with the evolutionary theory of common descent. It's absolutely true that properly teaching the science of evolutionary mechanisms should result in an acceptance of evolutionary methods, because they can be observed, tested, and repeated. But it's absolutely not true that higher aptitude necessarily results in a belief in common descent: just look at Dawkins and you'll quickly divorce aptitude from acceptance of common descent. :P


Posted by: N***************g

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

n a belief in common descent: just look at Dawkins and you'll quickly divorce aptitude from acceptance of common desc

By evolutionary mechanisms are you referring to observation mutations or what specifically?


Posted by: T***********w

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

Natural selection acting on change via epigenetics or mutation. We can observe that (but we cannot observe or reproduce anything remotely close to abiogenesis).


Posted by: N***************g

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

Nothing near abiogensis I agree. I also think we're lacking on observable true speciation (an old term I know), the introduction of new productive genetic data that persists and propagates into a new species.


Posted by: T***********w

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

but we cannot observe or reproduce anything remotely close to abiogenesis).

This is evolution we're talking about, you dont have to.


Posted by: a*************s

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

As I'd previously stated, this is another case of conflating the evolutionary mechanism with the evolutionary theory of common descent.

Honest question required here because this kinda ties in with your answer... Have you read the full paper?

I have. They asked the students questions regarding the evolutionary theory of common descent, not just the mechanism of evolution. The questions involved questions regarding common descent too, and the study concluded that scientific aptitude better explains poor responses to teaching of evolution than psychological conflicts.


Posted by: A*****************r

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

The study tries to correlate lack of understanding of the mechanism with a denial of common descent, but all the study shows is that a lack of understanding of the mechanism results in a denial of the mechanism (which is obvious). When factoring in only those who adequately understand the mechanism, acceptance of common descent will correlate more closely with the denial of the inerrancy of Scripture than anything else.


Posted by: N***************g

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

The study tries to correlate lack of understanding of the mechanism with a denial of common descent

Again. Have you read the study and have you taken a look at the questionnaires? The study directly tests lack of understanding in questions directly related to common descent and then correlates that with acceptance of evolution. What you're saying is blatantly wrong.

I'm not going to do the homework and list the whole series of questions that they tested, but just as an example, these were among them:

The wing of the bat and the fore-limb of the dog are said to be homologous structures. This indicates that:

Marine mammals have many structural characteristics in common with fishes. The explanation that evolutionary theory would give for this similarity is:

It is thought that there was a rapid evolutionary rate once animal life invaded land from the oceans. The explanation given for this rapid evolution is:

The first animals to settle on land probably had which one of the following characteristics?

Two islands are found in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, isolated from any other land mass. These two islands were at one time connected by a land bridge and are of recent origin. They have identical plant and animal life and are separated by 50 miles of ocean. Assuming different selection pressures, which of these island populations would be most likely to be reproductively isolated, possibly allowing for species divergence?

A sudden major climatic change would most likely initially result in:

All answers require that you understand some major mechanisms of speciation and common descent.

Those are all questions of understanding regarding common descent that both evolutionists and creationists can answer, regardless wether or not they actually accept it.

You make it sound like they only tested the kids with questions regarding the mechanisms of small changes and natural selection.

They didn't.

You're wrong.


Posted by: A*****************r

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

All answers require that you understand some major mechanisms of speciation and common descent.

"Mechanisms of common descent"? Sorry but no, common descent is not a mechanism. Factor in only those who have sufficient understanding of the mechanism, and you'll see that acceptance of the theory of common descent correlates best with a denial of the inerrancy of Scripture.

Darwinism comprises a historical claim (common descent) and a naturalistic mechanism (natural selection operating on random variations), with the latter being used to justify the former. -William Dembski, No Free Lunch


Posted by: N***************g

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

The questions I featured still require you to have an understanding of what the theory of evolution states, including common descent.

Students who had a better understanding of common descent and speciation scored higher in the acceptance rate.

Thus your initial point stands defeated.


Posted by: A*****************r

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

your initial point

My initial point was that if we only consider those who scored high on the understanding (aptitude), we will find that acceptance of common descent correlates better with a denial of the inerrancy of Scripture than anything else.


Posted by: N***************g

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

Alright I guess. If we only consider those, okay.

As long as you don't deny that the test did ask questions of understanding regarding common descent, I am totally fine with personal and further interpretations of the paper. That's fine.


Posted by: A*****************r

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

Thanks - I'm sorry I had a hard time getting my point across. To give an analogy, it's like saying, "Being a NASCAR fan is linked to an understanding of its rules, not belief about whether racecar driving is a sport." Just because most who deny racecar driving is a sport are not NASCAR fans and are not knowledgable about its rules, doesn't mean that teaching people the rules of NASCAR are necessarily going to make them a fan. If we only surveyed those who knew the rules, we'd find NASCAR fandom is actually better correlated with other things.


Posted by: N***************g

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

Darwinism comprises a historical claim (common descent) and a naturalistic mechanism (natural selection operating on random variations), with the latter being used to justify the former.

The same as with most scoentific theories.


Posted by: a*************s

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

As I'd previously stated, this is another case of conflating the evolutionary mechanism with the evolutionary theory of common descent

Perhaps, but they are highly, highly correlated. Especially since evolutionary theory states that evolutionary mechanisms give way to common descent.

just look at Dawkins and you'll quickly divorce aptitude from acceptance of common descent. :P (/s)

No you wont. Because Dawkins does have aptitude. It may very well be selective aptitude, but its still aptitude he is still a respected evolutionary biologist

doesn't mean that teaching people the rules of NASCAR are necessarily going to make them a fan.

No but it is highly correlated and there is a clear relationship.


Posted by: a*************s

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

Dawkins does have aptitude.

Lol it was a joke

teaching people the rules of NASCAR it is highly correlated and there is a clear relationship.

You are seriously claiming teaching someone the rules of NASCAR will make them a fan?


Posted by: N***************g

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

You are seriously suggesting that teaching someone the rules of NASCAR will make them a fan?

No, Im saying that the people who are most likely to understand and know the rules of NASCAR are fans.


Posted by: a*************s

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

the people who are most likely to understand and know the rules of NASCAR are fans

You’re not from Daytona are you ;)


Posted by: N***************g

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

No. Why?


Posted by: a*************s

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

"Conflict with belief systems", because conflict with scientific evidence is not considered possible. They must use this study in assuming evolution 101.


Posted by: C******************r

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

Bad study.


Posted by: P*************e

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

Why?


Posted by: A*****************r

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

This is a thinly veiled way of saying "if you are smart you won't have metaphysical beliefs".

Pathetic


Posted by: c***t

Mirror
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

I mean it's a study. You can conceive it any way you like but in general, it's a study that showed that kids who were more correct when answering questions about evolution, natural selection, common descent and evolutionary theory correlated with also being people who accept the theory of evolution.

Tl;dr: The more a kid knew about evolutionary theory, the more a kid belonged to the group that accepted evolutionary theory.


Posted by: A*****************r

Community Details

61

Subscribers

8

Online

A subreddit dedicated to documenting /r/Creation, a creationist subreddit that is restricted.

Create Post
r/CreationExposed Rules
1.
1. Be Polite
2.
2. No Spam
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.