I don’t know any liberals “dumb enough to argue that Evolution isn’t real”—but plenty who are dumb enough to simply accept it (or any other dogma) at face value ("Evolution must be real—look, that bright Whoopi Goldberg says it is!").

I’m surprised you would equate the theory of evolution with ‘dogma’ as though it weren’t an ongoing theory that’s debated and modified based on new evidence coming to light. There’s hardly a Church of Evolution with robed priests handing down the rites and passages of evolution from on high.

I think the part that kills me the most about this is “I never thought about it, is the world flat?” Who the fuck can possibly be walking around in this day and age, in this country and not know that the world isn’t flat?  As bad as education is, and as willfully ignorant as some people want to be, is it really possible that somebody could not know this (with the exception of serious Flat-Earth society members, and of course that Time-Cube guy)?  She has to be joking right?

Someone needs to take her to the edge and push her off.

does anyone know of any liberals who are dumb enough to argue that Evolution isn’t real?

Unfortunately, liberal does not necessarily mean smart. Think of all those new age hippie types that are no doubt socially/politically liberal, but they believe garbage like homeopathy is valid science.  You don’t have to be a Christian to be stupid. I agree with ***Dave on this one; accepting anything at face value without any critical consideration is really no better than accepting the Bible or other religious tripe. 

Another way to put it is this:  How many people are more than happy to say they believe in evolution, but could in no way actually explain it correctly?  I’d bet money that the numbers are quite high.  I think it really boils down to a matter of poor education standards and lack of critical thinking skills rather than any political orientation.

You don’t have to be a Christian to be stupid.

And I never made such a claim to begin with. My point was that it seems to me that evolution deniers are almost exclusively conservative, I didn’t say anything about Christians being stupid. There may very well be liberals who don’t buy into the theory of evolution, but I don’t know of any and it seems they don’t tend to show up in the news much if they’re out there.

I agree with ***Dave on this one; accepting anything at face value without any critical consideration is really no better than accepting the Bible or other religious tripe.

And, again, I never suggested anyone should accept anything at face value. If anything I’m big on promoting the “look it up for yourself” approach to learning about anything science related.

Another way to put it is this:  How many people are more than happy to say they believe in evolution, but could in no way actually explain it correctly?  I’d bet money that the numbers are quite high.  I think it really boils down to a matter of poor education standards and lack of critical thinking skills rather than any political orientation.

So you’re suggesting there’s plenty of liberal evolution deniers? Otherwise my point stands as intended.

While there might be people who don’t understand but accept evolution as dogma ("man, is that Dawkins sexy!"), there’s falsifiable science behind that dogma.  Not so for religion: for many if not most believers, Holy Scripture is the Word of God and thus unquestionable: in other words, dogma.

Now I know that Christians have their own definitions of “dogma"- for many Protestants, dogma is all those false ("non-Scriptural") beliefs the Catholics hold, as opposed to the true-by-definition beliefs the Protestants hold.  But in the sense of a set of beliefs that may not be questioned, much of Christianity qualifies as dogma, and evolutionary science does not.

One erstwhile influential (at least in certain university humanities departments) group of liberals who do not believe in evolution is the postmodernists.  They take their cue from Chomsky, who thinks (for some strange reason) that language and thus humanity could not have evolved; and Derrida and others, who dislike evolution because they think it’s patriarchal and nasty.  Luckily, this particular school of thought seems to have been more or less laughed out of existence.

But basically, Les is right: statistically, there’s a strong correlation between being Republican and not believing in evolution.

As far as Sherri Shepard goes- I can actually sympathize with her: what does it matter to her, in her daily life, if the Earth is flat or not?  As bog brother pointed out, her education failed her.  The problem is that believing the world is flat (or not knowing) most likely goes along with a credulous worldview that will affect her daily life, and that of others.  I’d be willing to bet that flat-Earthers, and round-Earth agnostics, are more likely to vote Republican too.  Thank Darwin she plans to take her son to the library.

So you’re suggesting there’s plenty of liberal evolution deniers? Otherwise my point stands as intended.

Nope, I’m suggesting there are plenty of stupid people on both sides of the isle, and that plenty of the people on our side don’t have any solid basis in their belief in evolution, and as such, it is just as valid as a theist’s belief in their silly superstitious drivel.

I’m also saying that people need to understand science a whole lot better than they do and learn how to think skeptically about stuff like religion and prevailing belief systems be they faith or reality based.

You would need to actually ignore evidence to to deny evolution or a spherical world - and beleive something without any evidence in favour of it

***Dave - it goes far beyond dogma, it has evidence and makes sense given our models

Bog Bro: I’m also saying that people need to understand science a whole lot better than they do and learn how to think skeptically about stuff like religion and prevailing belief systems be they faith or reality based

Or at least develop religion that at least agrees and ties in with scientific observation

Bog Bro: Unfortunately, liberal does not necessarily mean smart. Think of all those new age hippie types that are no doubt socially/politically liberal, but they believe garbage like homeopathy is valid science

That’s because they see a bunch of people regarded as smart and think that if they make themselves one of them, that everyone else will believe they’re smart just because of the group they’ve associated with. Belief in homeopathy arises because they need a little deviation from the smart route

Zilch: I’d be willing to bet that flat-Earthers, and round-Earth agnostics, are more likely to vote Republican too

If someone accepts that earth is round through looking at the evidence, and accepts that they have no way of knowing about the existence/not of a god, they have already made evident a questioning nature, one that would be largely/somewhat immune to right-wing brainwashing (the mechanism by which it gains popularity).

A lot of right wing ideas hold no water when questioned (ie what is wrong with immigration if it helps the economy?… why resist free healthcare to those who can’t afford? etc) - it’s often feuled by hate, but in being an emotive issue it can exist outside the cognitive realms of the brain, particularly in those who’s emotions are louder than reasoning

Nope, I’m suggesting there are plenty of stupid people on both sides of the isle, and that plenty of the people on our side don’t have any solid basis in their belief in evolution, and as such, it is just as valid as a theist’s belief in their silly superstitious drivel.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. I generally accept the current scientific consensus on most issues as true even when I neither understand them fully nor even know them in detail. But my confidence is based on the value of the scientific method and not on the scientists. I guess most people who accept evolution without fully understanding it do so for the same reasons.
There is a difference between accepting scientific consensus and following dogma. I doubt there are many people (liberal or conservative) who accept evolution as dogma or actually “believe” in evolution. I’m my experience most non-religious people’s attitude is: I’m not smart or knowledgeable or educated enough to understand for myself so I’m willing to believe the scientists for now.

But my confidence is based on the value of the scientific method and not on the scientists.

Mine as well, but does that hold for the majority?  I know some pretty sharp people in their fields, but they know little to nothing about science (and I mean they have poor critical thinking abilities, not that they know few scientific facts). 

I think there is confusion in general between knowing facts and being able to reason.  Critical thinking is more important than being able to recite facts by rote, but in the U.S. it appears that rote memorization is actually more important than critical thinking.  Sorry if this muddles what I am trying to say even further.

Julian: I generally accept the current scientific consensus on most issues as true even when I neither understand them fully nor even know them in detail

That’s dangerously vulnerable, I don’t have the highest trust in scientific consensus for reasons I’d only go into if asked, nor do I feel I can afford to. Part of my mind isn’t at rest with a lack of explanation, or when things appear to conflict

Bog bro: Critical thinking is more important than being able to recite facts by rote, but in the U.S. it appears that rote memorization is actually more important than critical thinking

In my field there are those who made it through the course, into research, though actually understanding the subject, and those with awesome rote memory. An insufficent rote forced me to try to learn the subject in the first place, adapt in order to ‘survive’, learning is difficult to start with but gets dramatically easier. Rote learners treat the textbooks like a bible, and unfortunately so do the markers.

Mine as well, but does that hold for the majority?

Actually I can’t answer that as I have a lot of contradictory thoughts on that subject myself. But I will say this: Most people who “believe” in evolution, i.e. the ones who have only a vague or incomplete understanding of it, would be willing to abandon that “belief” IF they were convinced that the general scientific community had found a better theory or evidence that invalidated the ToE.

I have yet to meet a religious person who was willing to abandon belief in his/her “dogma” when confronted by anything.

Edit: The above is just my opinion. The only evidence I have to back it up is personal/anecdotal.

Double dipping as I didn’t see Bahamat’s reply:

That’s dangerously vulnerable, I don’t have the highest trust in scientific consensus for reasons I’d only go into if asked, nor do I feel I can afford to. Part of my mind isn’t at rest with a lack of explanation, or when things appear to conflict

You are correct in principle, but there is a practical limit to how much confirmation one can perform oneself. I certainly cannot understand every single facet of say QCD and General Relativity. Even if I were do specialize and do some research myself, would I be obliged to start by measuring the speed of light experimentally for myself before proceeding (presuming that that value was important for my research)? If I was writing software for a GPS system, would I need to first experimentally verify Special Relativity for myself? Or even understand the reasoning behind the equations I was given to work with?

While I certainly would like to understand every facet of physics to date, it is simply beyond my ability.

I certainly do not mean that we should accept anything on “faith” as it were, but there is a line between faith and confidence.

Julian - I am also unable to experimentally verify many things practically or mathematically, but nethertheless you can assess if a model makes conceptual sense given what you already know, it needs to make sense in order to be true, so this is a direct way to resolve things.

All you’d be doing by verifying something is saying yes to it, it says how things are/appear to be, but it gives no conceptual explanation itself as to why it is that way, and that way, just by getting concencus on results, it’s perfectly possible for an incorrect ‘explanation’ to go unchallenged. Remember, within a field there are only a (relative) handful of true specialists on issue the research is about, and a small number of people is more likely to unanimously make a common mistake

I certainly do not mean that we should accept anything on “faith” as it were, but there is a line between faith and confidence

Don’t expect them to admit it, or they’ll always say something along the lines of “no you didn’t suceed” and abandon any progress they were making (polarising them more).

If you want to succeed, sow the seeds, leave it to do it’s job, and wait to see if anythings different. If they move the discussion on it’s a sign they’ve taken it in a little and need to adress the next barrier, don’t dig up the last crop before they’re done with it (which could take years)

it is simply beyond my ability

Don’t underestimate your potential, you will understand any concept you care to study as long as you have, and keep, determination, promise. Finally I’ll say I cannot see the line between faith and confidence, or at least it’s very smudgy, and amounts to the same thing.

All you’d be doing by verifying something is saying yes to it, it says how things are/appear to be, but it gives no conceptual explanation itself as to why it is that way, and that way, just by getting concencus on results, it’s perfectly possible for an incorrect ‘explanation’ to go unchallenged. Remember, within a field there are only a (relative) handful of true specialists on issue the research is about, and a small number of people is more likely to unanimously make a common mistake

I partly agree with this but my understanding of a Scientific Theory is that it gives a conceptual explanation, as opposed to a Law, which describes results. Also according to my understanding, a hypothesis only reaches the status of a Theory after extensive peer-review and experimental confirmation of its predictive power. Personally I consider the predictive power of a Scientific Theory as the most confidence inspiring aspect of it.

Don’t expect them to admit it, or they’ll always say something along the lines of “no you didn’t suceed” and abandon any progress they were making (polarising them more).

If you want to succeed, sow the seeds, leave it to do it’s job, and wait to see if anythings different. If they move the discussion on it’s a sign they’ve taken it in a little and need to adress the next barrier, don’t dig up the last crop before they’re done with it (which could take years)

This honestly piqued my interest but please clarify who it is you mean by “they”.

Don’t underestimate your potential, you will understand any concept you care to study as long as you have, and keep, determination, promise. Finally I’ll say I cannot see the line between faith and confidence, or at least it’s very smudgy, and amounts to the same thing.

To clarify, I lack confidence in the breadth of my ability to understand and not in the depth. In other words I do not doubt my ability to understand any level of detail in a given topic, but the time and resources available to gain a detail in-depth understanding of all relevant subject matter.
Also to clarify, when I say “faith” I mean “blind faith” and when I say “confidence” I mean experience based confidence. Unfortunately our language does not always lend itself to maximum clarity.

I’m surprised you would equate the theory of evolution with ‘dogma’ as though it weren’t an ongoing theory that’s debated and modified based on new evidence coming to light. There’s hardly a Church of Evolution with robed priests handing down the rites and passages of evolution from on high.

I use the term “dogma” here in terms of how it’s received, not how it’s developed.  Some folks just accept any old thing they’re told is “scientifically proven” as axiomatic, without any attempt to understand even the fundamentals of how it works, or how it was determined, or whether the folks presenting it are, in fact, credible (let alone correct).  A truth accepted simply on the basis of unestablished authority is, to my mind, dogma.

In this case, of course, I believe that evolution etc. are correct.  But the problem with uncritical acceptance is that it can very easily be shifted into less savory areas.  Hitler’s propagandists had all sorts of “science” they claimed supported their theories of racial superiority. 

I never meant to accord religion with the same sort of scientific foundation that evolution has.  But sheep are, at least to some degree, sheep, and folks who say, “I know it’s so because, well, that’s what the Important People all say,” are, unfortunately, not uncommon, and not restricted to one end of the political spectrum (which gets back to the issue of the limits of a Left/Right, Conservative/Liberal single-axis spectrum, but that’s for another post).

Nor do I deny that most evolution-deniers are Republican or self-identified conservatives (the post-modernists, or the New Age “we were planted here by beneficent, homeopathic unicorn spirits in crystalline UFOs” types notwithstanding—and your question was ”any liberals").  My point was that conservatives don’t have a lock on credulity, on appeal to authority, and on dumbness.  Though, being monopolists, they keep trying to.

I partly agree with this but my understanding of a Scientific Theory is that it gives a conceptual explanation, as opposed to a Law, which describes results. Also according to my understanding, a hypothesis only reaches the status of a Theory after extensive peer-review and experimental confirmation of its predictive power. Personally I consider the predictive power of a Scientific Theory as the most confidence inspiring aspect of it.

I would assert, Julian, that your even knowing something about the scientific method, and how science treats theories different from laws, etc., and your willingness to express it as “confidence” rather than “belief” puts you ahead of quite a number of folks who accept evolution because “scientists say it’s true” (or “because only dumb people don’t"). 

How many simply go with what they’re told, uncritically?  A review of the political discourse in this country (at least) should indicate the answer, and it’s not all those folks on the Right.

I know these things because I am interested in them. What about people who don’t have the time or inclination to learn about science or how it works? If they accept or in this case “believe” in evolution, is it fair to be disappointed that the reason is “because scientists say so”?

Most people just do not have the education or knowledge or interest to learn the intricacies about theories, laws etc that you mentioned. In those cases what is the best we can expect from them?

I realize that the above may come across as patronizing but that was not my intention.

But the problem with uncritical acceptance is that it can very easily be shifted into less savory areas.  Hitler’s propagandists had all sorts of “science” they claimed supported their theories of racial superiority.

Julian: understanding of a Scientific Theory is that it gives a conceptual explanation, as opposed to a Law, which describes results. Also according to my understanding, a hypothesis only reaches the status of a Theory after extensive peer-review and experimental confirmation of its predictive power

Maybe formally. Paint me cynical but I wonder how strictly it’s followed at times when it doesn’t need to be - the peers may be researchers of a field (ie quantum mechanics), but not necessarily at the same level on the specialized sub-topic, they cannot contest what they don’t know, and cannot afford to admit what they don’t know, so they’d just challenge what they do know and rubberstamp everything else. I’ve had lecturers disagree with one another about mechanistic detail (organic ch) as a result of some level of inclarity, and they teach their version as if fact - below the formal level you can spread ideas that will influence the direction of research and even cast doubt on certain things (which is why people still research evidence for global warming, evidence for evolution in fossil records, etc, because outside, unscientific political forces casted doubt on an established explanation by coming in below the radar.

And - not every explanation can be tested, think of the ideas behind what would happen were time to reverse, at most they’re possibilities

This honestly piqued my interest but please clarify who it is you mean by “they”.

It referred mainly to those you refered to in:
“I have yet to meet a religious person who was willing to abandon belief in his/her “dogma” when confronted by anything.”
But I do use general terms to try to apply to as many situations as possible, because it may work in, say, political discussions, etc

but the time and resources available to gain a detail in-depth understanding of all relevant subject matter

Understood. I’ll also say that determination is a finite resource, but one that replenishes. You can only do the best you can with the resources you have in the situation you’re in.

Also to clarify, when I say “faith” I mean “blind faith” and when I say “confidence” I mean experience based confidence

I can find similarities
Both involve accpetance without full explanation
Both involve trust of those who issued the concept that one adopts
Both usually involve experience in some form, be that real (your case) or imaginary ("i saw jesus”...)

They are two words that mean the same thing on this level or perhaps more correctly, different shades of the same thing, it’s like brave=foolish, one word is percieved as a good thing, the other as bad, but both mean the same thing.

Is the trust justified when you have no knowledge of the person saying it? Is the system really as watertight and foolproof as it’s intended to be? I don’t expect you to agree, it’s one of those things you have to see for yourself.

If they accept or in this case “believe” in evolution, is it fair to be disappointed that the reason is “because scientists say so”?

Disappointment is a negative response to the results of expectation. Expect less/nothing and you can’t be disappointed, in fact you’d be glad. I’d like to see the world adress the positive more than the negative

I realize that the above may come across as patronizing but that was not my intention.

Not to me. Speak freely, I do (or try). Intention is all that matters in decision, if you intended well, others should recognise that and you should feel no guilt. I like to look into what people’s intentions are behind something, and many, both good and bad intentions are possible with nearly every interaction - even something like hitler’s campaign could have a possible benevolent intention should you wish to look for it - ie to end the long term suffering (of life) for jews by getting people to hate and kill them - though I seriously doubt this was hitler’s actual intention given his asshat personality

I think this is the purpose behind the scientific process and behind peer reviewed journals. We don’t have the time to review scientific literature and understand it. At least not if we want a successful family and career. There are too many other things to focus on. The scientific process and peer reviewed journals allows us to place some trust in the information that comes out of said sources.

Is it safe to have this trust? It’s an interesting question. If you answer no, you may have answered no for religious reasons, for junk science reasons, or because it’s important to questions everything. If you answer yes, you have blind faith in too many things, generally trust what comes from scientists, or just do not have enough time to find out for yourself. Depending on how you answer doesn’t make you a bad person. Or make the scientific process and less valuable.

I don’t have the time or brain power to understand quantum mechanics, PHD level math, or chemical engineering. And the list grows vastly from there. So to some extent it’s important I can trust these scientific outlets. Bahamat is correct they essentially we all have the brain power to understand these concepts, but the real problem boils down to time. If it takes me 2 years to understand anyone of these theories, that is 2 years I have spent not learning new ideas and concepts in my career. To me that is income and more important knowledge lost that can never be re-gained.

So where is the line for TrueBeliever and regular, “I have a life” American?

I’m probably more willing to cut some slack on this than Bahamat, Julian, but ...

If they accept or in this case “believe” in evolution, is it fair to be disappointed that the reason is “because scientists say so”?

Yes, I think it is.  There are scientists and there are scientists.  “Cigarettes are safe - our scientists confirm it!” “I heard a scientist on Oprah say that mercury in fillings is a plot by the secret cabal of Lizard Men to pollute our precious bodily fluids.”

“Scientists” is far too broad a category to give uncritical belief to.

Now, if someone says, “The broad consensus of scientists in the field say that evolution is real, and the basic mechanism they describe makes sense, so I have confidence that’s the way things are,” that’s a whole different matter.  I don’t think it’s necessary to intimately understand quantum physics in order to be a good citizen—but if some major public and educational and social policies hinged on quantum physics, I’d want to understand it better before I simply nodded and said, “Well, they’re scientists—I can tell because they’re wearing white lab coats and glasses—so they must be right.”

In some ways, dogmatic belief in evolution is even worse than dogmatic belief in the Resurrection of Jesus, since belief in it doesn’t have to be dogmatic, and dogma is, in fact, antithetical to science.  (I’d argue that it’s antithetical to religion, too, but that’s a discussion for another time, and a lot less clear a conclusion.) It happens to be right, but the corruption in the process in reaching that conclusions is highly dangerous.

“Scientists” is far too broad a category to give uncritical belief to.

Maybe, but the dude on Oprah is no scientist. Just cause you say you are one does not make you one. When professionals in chemistry vastly disagree with your assertions, and prove that your assertions are based on no facts at all, well I’m not sure how you call yourself a scientist.

From another perspective, are 911 conspirators that claim there was thermite used a scientist? What about the guy that is a university professor that claims, “with scientific evidence” that thermite was used? Is he a scientist?

I think the topic at hand is most closely addressed, as far as I can see it, in this comment:

Now, if someone says, “The broad consensus of scientists in the field say that evolution is real, and the basic mechanism they describe makes sense, so I have confidence that’s the way things are,” that’s a whole different matter.  I don’t think it’s necessary to intimately understand quantum physics in order to be a good citizen—but if some major public and educational and social policies hinged on quantum physics, I’d want to understand it better before I simply nodded and said, “Well, they’re scientists—I can tell because they’re wearing white lab coats and glasses—so they must be right.”

On the one hand, I am sure several people indeed mean this when they simply say, “I believe the science behind it.” On the other hand, all too often a guy with a clipboard shows up on Oprah calling himself a “scientist” with no credentials and then no matter the vitriol he spews, it is believed based on the authority the viewer gives him or her.

The true danger in the motives of the speaker, and more, the understanding of the listener, is on the actions the belief initiates. Specifically, someone doesn’t “believe” in evolution, despite the facts put forth and the supportive science, simply because their pastor tells them not to. Is there harm in this? Not really (someone, somewhere, likely “believes” he is the 238 year old Napoleon of France, and has only been in hiding all these years). Does this in some way harm the rest of society? No. However, when the afore mentioned evolution-denier sees a presidential candidate declare their non-belief in evolution, and thus decides based on that comment that this candidate is the one to vote on, therein lies the true tragedy.

In short, people can hold all the beliefs they wish, and they may be downright dangerous. But it is when these beliefs are acted upon that the rest of us must stand up and oppose them.

Webs: At least not if we want a successful family and career. There are too many other things to focus on. The scientific process and peer reviewed journals allows us to place some trust in the information that comes out of said sources.

Also applies to scientists though (family + life bit), and the students of science. People won’t usually study more than they need to unless out of curiousity, and a degree that shoves enormous quantities at an unnatural rate is exactly the thing to kill that. On the other hand it can force a complete mental overhaul, which is good.

Webs: To me that is income and more important knowledge lost that can never be re-gained

Depends how deeply you learned it in the first place - rote is painful to gain and easy to lose, but engaging with a concept enough to model it in your head a little and make predictions pretty much changes the infrastructure of the mind - you may “forget” it from short term memory, but it’d only require promting of a few points and it’d come back much easier - get something into long term memory and it’s permanent and natural, but perhaps difficult to access

Depending on how you answer doesn’t make you a bad person

True, because the truster isn’t the protagonist, but is vulnerable to rogue health companies +products (teslar watch, some herbal companies, etc), and would believe too strongly that they have to have a certain excessive quantity of suplements just to survive, they’d believe too strongly that when the doctor says they’ve got a certain disease they happen to meet criteria for or a limited period of time to live, they’d be afraid.

So where is the line for TrueBeliever and regular, “I have a life” American?

Shades of grey on that level
Obviously there’s a more distinct line between asshat and non-asshat aspects of personality though (of which one may have features on both sides)
A life? Was ist das?

***Dave:“Scientists” is far too broad a category to give uncritical belief to.

Very true, people from completely different fields can give an opinion on anything else within science and have it legitimately called concencus (not through scientific method - but for advertising perhaps)

Kylgar: But it is when these beliefs are acted upon that the rest of us must stand up and oppose them

By that point there’s little we can do. Why wait till then? It’s within our power now to do something, maybe. Ideas complement each other and lead onto other ideas and new lines of thought - there is more benefit to an idea than the direct consequences, even if that benefit is just generally more critical thought. Additional education can’t be a bad thing.