Science People who reject the theory of human evolution tend to have more bigoted attitudes

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

SlyPokerDog

Woof!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
126,656
Likes
147,214
Points
115
Individuals who accept human evolution tend to exhibit reduced levels of prejudice compared to those who reject the scientific theory, according to new research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The study indicates that disbelief in evolution predicts racism and prejudice around the world and in various cultural contexts.

“I have been interested in human-animal relations for a while now,” said study author Stylianos Syropoulos, a PhD candidate at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“I did my first study on the subject back as an undergraduate student, examining how and why people expand their moral circles to include/exclude animals or humans. Then in graduate school I joined the Psychology of Peace and Violence Program, where I became invested in research on understanding and preventing intergroup conflict and violence.”

“Further, I recently also came across a wonderful review article by Vezzali and colleagues which suggests that some interventions to reduce conflict can be non-conflict-specific,” Syropoulos said. “Namely, that means that they can focus on an unrelated psychological phenomenon outside the scope of the conflict, which in this case was belief in evolution.”

To examine the relationship between the acceptance of evolution and prejudicial attitudes, the researchers first analyzed very large sets of data collected by the General Social Survey and Pew Research Center.

For 10 years, the General Social Survey, a nationally representative survey of U.S. citizens, included measures of the belief that humans developed from earlier species of animals. An analysis of responses from 8,963 participants found that the belief that humans evolved from animals was associated with reduced prejudice, less racist attitudes and reduced support for discriminatory behaviors. This was true even after controlling for education level, religiosity, political beliefs, family income, and gender.

The researchers also analyzed Pew Research Center data from 21,827 Christian individuals in 19 Eastern European countries. Pew asked the participants whether “Humans and other living things have evolved over time” or “Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” After controlling for education, importance of religion, age, and gender, the researchers found that those who denied that humans had evolved tended to exhibit reduced acceptance of outgroups, such as Roma and Catholics.

Next, Syropoulos and his colleagues analyzed Pew Research Center data from 28,004 Muslim individuals in 25 countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. They found that disbelief in evolution was associated with decreased acceptance of Christians and with the tendency to only have Muslim friends. Similarly, an analysis of responses from 3,562 participants in Israel found that disbelief in evolution was associated with support for preferential treatment for Jews, less support for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and greater support for the expulsion of Arabs.

Syropoulos and his colleagues also conducted their own studies.

An online study of 499 U.S. residents recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing platform found that disbelief in evolution was associated with hostility towards Iran, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and Panemistan (a fictitious country). In two additional studies, which included 509 U.S. residents recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk and 1,072 students recruited from introductory psychology courses, the researchers found that belief in human evolution and perceived similarity of self to animals were only moderately correlated, suggesting that they are “psychometrically distinguishable constructs.”

“Our findings were consistent across cultural, religious, and national contexts, for majority and minority groups, and even towards groups that were fictional (i.e., created by the research team),” Syropoulos told PsyPost. “These findings are correlational, meaning we cannot make a causal argument about this relationship, but importantly, this relationship was consistent, and remained significant after adjusting for key psychological variables such as ideology or religiosity.”

“We believe this link makes sense because of theoretical work on Social Identity Theory (i.e., when people believe in evolution, they are more likely to believe that they are similar to other people, as we all have a common ancestor); Terror Management Theory (i.e., in short, people are less defensive of their cultural worldviews and more accepting of others) and Moral Expansiveness Theory (i.e., people who believe in evolution potentially expand their moral circle to include animals, as they perceive them and animals to originate from a common ancestor, which in turn leads to them valuing people from other groups a lot too).”

The researchers noted that Darwin’s theory of evolution has been cited to perpetrate racism and other forms of prejudice, in part through the phrase, “survival of the fittest,” used to describe the process of natural selection.

“There have been theoretical accounts that predict the opposite of what we found, so it was exciting for us to show that this actually is not the case, that the opposite is true and that belief in evolution seems to have pretty positive effects,” co-author Bernhard Leidner said in a news release.

Despite using nationally representative data from across the world, the correlational nature of the data prevented the researchers from making causal claims about the relationship between disbelief in evolution and prejudicial attitudes. To overcome this limitation, Syropoulos and his colleagues conducted a final study of 1,279 U.S. residents in which they attempted to experimentally manipulate belief in human evolution.

Participants were randomly assigned to read about how humans have evolved from animals, read about evolution of currency from coins to paper bills, or read nothing before completing assessments of prejudicial attitudes.

Reading about evolution did not directly reduce prejudice. But the manipulation did reduce prejudice indirectly through changes in participants’ self-reported beliefs in human evolution. “Thus, although the manipulation itself did not prove to be effective, there is evidence to suggest that for those people who were convinced by it, prejudice was reduced,” the researchers explained.

“It’s not easy to make everyone believe in evolution, as depending on one’s education and religious background, they might reject this theory altogether,” Syropoulos told PsyPost. “More research is required in that direction.”

“This project was the result of a cross-national collaboration including researchers from the United States (Dr. Bernhard Leidner from UMass Amherst; Dr. Jeff Greenberg and PhD Candidate Dylan Horner from University of Arizona) and Dr. Uri Lifshin from Reichman University in Israel (who is a joint first-author on the paper). Additional work on perceived similarity to animals is coming out soon from this collaboration which will further validate this claim,” Syropoulos added.

The study, “Bigotry and the human-animal divide: (Dis)belief in human evolution and bigoted attitudes across different cultures“, was authored by Stylianos Syropoulos, Uri Lifshin, Jeff Greenberg, Dylan E. Horner, and Bernhard Leidner.

https://www.psypost.org/2022/04/peo...ion-tend-to-have-more-bigoted-attitudes-63008
 
Would be interested in further study of which causes which. Are less prejudiced people inclined to accept science? Or does rejecting science in favor of superstition promote bigotry?
 
I am open minded to the idea that there is space for both creationism and science (evolution). That they can co-exist and that one does not negate the other.
 
Would be interested in further study of which causes which. Are less prejudiced people inclined to accept science? Or does rejecting science in favor of superstition promote bigotry?

It's closed mindedness. Close mindedness is the sibling of ignorance. It begets bigotry and prejudice.
 
You'd have to be pretty ignorant to reject the theory of human evolution...

Or a biologist. Or an anthropologist. Or someone who requires at least a modicum of supporting evidence.

And for the record I am an atheist.
 
I really wish some people would take the advice that it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
 
The notion of calling people racist or bigoted for disbelieving Darwin's Theory that man evolved from apes is hilariously ironic, as Darwin was known as a rabid racist who was accused of sing his theory to imply Africans and Indians were basically the link between real men and apes.

I don't reject the basic theory of evolution, or creationism, or the Big Bang...I have studied the first 2 in great detail personally since childhood, but I find them unlikely and flawed just from a logical standpoint. The Big Bang theory provides little of anything to study so far, but seems like something thrown against the wall to see if it sticks.

My personal theory is there was never a "birth" of the universe and beyond, it's always been and it always will be.

Small minds have a problem wrapping their heads around such a simple concept, because they assume everything unknown must be ultra-complicated, but I have never seen anything or anyone who could provide evidence to dispute it.

But none are proven, and none are supported by any measure of credible evidence. They are merely ideas of what might be an answer.

All scientific knowledge begins with questions, proceeds to theories, and eventually is proven or disproven, or just stagnates forever due to the stubborn refusal of one side to admit they are mistaken.

Post your pictures of The Missing Link here. :cheers:
 
I am a biologist.

That's such a stroke of luck!

Ketanji Brown Jackson, associate justice-designate of the Supreme Court of the United States, has been searching for a biologist to provide her with a definition of the the word "woman".

Give her a call, not knowing if she's a male or a female must be torturous for her. :cheers:
 
That's such a stroke of luck!

Ketanji Brown Jackson, associate justice-designate of the Supreme Court of the United States, has been searching for a biologist to provide her with a definition of the the word "woman".

Give her a call, not knowing if she's a male or a female must be torturous for her. :cheers:
When did she say she didn’t know she is a woman?
 
I am a biologist. And I know the scientific use if the word theory is not the same as general use, where it often means good guess.

Call it whatever you want. Fact is most scientific theories are eventually disproven, no matter how widely accepted (because generally people are intellectually lazy).

Here's a few:

10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked
By Scientist

The most genuine merit of science is probably its readiness to admit its mistakes (usually!). The theories in science are always being reconsidered and scrutinized. Modern research often rejects old ideas, hoaxes and myths.

Today’s post on our Science Blog will discuss ten of the most popular and influential scientific discoveries that were based on dubious data, and were consequently proven wrong, debunked and replaced with more reliable and logical modern theories.

1- Fleischmann–Pons’s Nuclear Fusion
cold-fusion.jpg


Cold fusion is a supposed kind of nuclear reaction that would occur at relatively low temperatures compared with hot fusion. As a new type of nuclear reaction, it gained much popularity after reports in 1989 by famous electrochemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. The craze about cold fusion became weaker as other scientists, after trying to repeat the experiment, failed to get similar results.

1a – One of Modern Science’s Greatest Misconceptions
The misconception that mass is destroyed in nuclear reactions.



2- Phrenology
phrenology.jpg


Now widely considered as a pseudoscience, phrenology was the study of the shape of skull as indicative of the strengths of different faculties. Modern scientific research wiped it out by proving that personality traits could not be traced to specific portions of the brain.

3- The Blank Slate
blank-slate.jpg


The Blank Slate theory (or Tabula rasa), widely popularized by John Locke in 1689, proposed that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Modern research suggests that genes and other family traits inherited from birth, along with innate instincts of course, also play a very important role.

4- Luminiferous Aether
luminiferous-aether.jpg


The aether (or ether) was a mysterious substance that was thought to transmit light through the universe. The idea of a luminiferous aether was debunked as experiments in the diffraction and refraction of light, and later Einstein’s special theory of relativity, came along and entirely revolutionized physics.

5- Einstein’s Static (or Stationary) Universe
static-universe.jpg


A static universe, also called a “stationary” or “Einstein” universe, was a model proposed by Albert Einstein in 1917. It was problematic from the beginning. Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift obliterated it by completely demonstrating that the universe is constantly expanding.

6- Martian Canals
martian_canal_large.jpg


The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that some 19th century scientists erroneously thought to exist on Mars. First detected in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli, modern telescopes and imaging technology completely debunked the myth. The “canals” were actually found to be a mere optical illusion.

7- Phlogiston Theory
bonfire.jpg


First postulated in 1667 by German physician Johann Joachim Becher, Phlogiston Theory is an obsolete scientific theory regarding the existence of “phlogiston”, a fire-like element, which was contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. The theory tried to explain burning processes such as combustion and the rusting of metals, which are now jointly termed as “oxidation”.

8- The Expanding or Growing Earth
earth.jpg


The Expanding Earth or Growing Earth is a hypothesis suggesting that the position and relative movement of continents is dependent on the volume of the Earth increasing. Modern science has turned down any expansion or contraction of the Earth.

9- Discovery of the Planet Vulcan
vulcan.jpg


A small planet that was supposed to exist in an orbit between Mercury and the Sun, French mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier coined the name “Vulcan” while trying to explain the nature of Mercury’s orbit. No such planet was ever discovered, while the orbit of Mercury was explained in detail by Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

10- Spontaneous (or Equivocal) Generation
aristotle.jpg


Spontaneous generation or equivocal generation is an obsolete principle concerning the origin of life from inanimate matter. The hypothesis was brought out by Aristotle who advocated the work of earlier natural philosophers. It was proven wrong in the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, drawing influence from Francesco Redi who was an early proponent of germ theory and cell theory.
 
Call it whatever you want. Fact is most scientific theories are eventually disproven, no matter how widely accepted (because generally people are intellectually lazy).

Here's a few:

10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked
By Scientist

The most genuine merit of science is probably its readiness to admit its mistakes (usually!). The theories in science are always being reconsidered and scrutinized. Modern research often rejects old ideas, hoaxes and myths.

Today’s post on our Science Blog will discuss ten of the most popular and influential scientific discoveries that were based on dubious data, and were consequently proven wrong, debunked and replaced with more reliable and logical modern theories.

1- Fleischmann–Pons’s Nuclear Fusion
cold-fusion.jpg


Cold fusion is a supposed kind of nuclear reaction that would occur at relatively low temperatures compared with hot fusion. As a new type of nuclear reaction, it gained much popularity after reports in 1989 by famous electrochemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. The craze about cold fusion became weaker as other scientists, after trying to repeat the experiment, failed to get similar results.

1a – One of Modern Science’s Greatest Misconceptions
The misconception that mass is destroyed in nuclear reactions.



2- Phrenology
phrenology.jpg


Now widely considered as a pseudoscience, phrenology was the study of the shape of skull as indicative of the strengths of different faculties. Modern scientific research wiped it out by proving that personality traits could not be traced to specific portions of the brain.

3- The Blank Slate
blank-slate.jpg


The Blank Slate theory (or Tabula rasa), widely popularized by John Locke in 1689, proposed that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Modern research suggests that genes and other family traits inherited from birth, along with innate instincts of course, also play a very important role.

4- Luminiferous Aether
luminiferous-aether.jpg


The aether (or ether) was a mysterious substance that was thought to transmit light through the universe. The idea of a luminiferous aether was debunked as experiments in the diffraction and refraction of light, and later Einstein’s special theory of relativity, came along and entirely revolutionized physics.

5- Einstein’s Static (or Stationary) Universe
static-universe.jpg


A static universe, also called a “stationary” or “Einstein” universe, was a model proposed by Albert Einstein in 1917. It was problematic from the beginning. Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift obliterated it by completely demonstrating that the universe is constantly expanding.

6- Martian Canals
martian_canal_large.jpg


The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that some 19th century scientists erroneously thought to exist on Mars. First detected in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli, modern telescopes and imaging technology completely debunked the myth. The “canals” were actually found to be a mere optical illusion.

7- Phlogiston Theory
bonfire.jpg


First postulated in 1667 by German physician Johann Joachim Becher, Phlogiston Theory is an obsolete scientific theory regarding the existence of “phlogiston”, a fire-like element, which was contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. The theory tried to explain burning processes such as combustion and the rusting of metals, which are now jointly termed as “oxidation”.

8- The Expanding or Growing Earth
earth.jpg


The Expanding Earth or Growing Earth is a hypothesis suggesting that the position and relative movement of continents is dependent on the volume of the Earth increasing. Modern science has turned down any expansion or contraction of the Earth.

9- Discovery of the Planet Vulcan
vulcan.jpg


A small planet that was supposed to exist in an orbit between Mercury and the Sun, French mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier coined the name “Vulcan” while trying to explain the nature of Mercury’s orbit. No such planet was ever discovered, while the orbit of Mercury was explained in detail by Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

10- Spontaneous (or Equivocal) Generation
aristotle.jpg


Spontaneous generation or equivocal generation is an obsolete principle concerning the origin of life from inanimate matter. The hypothesis was brought out by Aristotle who advocated the work of earlier natural philosophers. It was proven wrong in the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, drawing influence from Francesco Redi who was an early proponent of germ theory and cell theory.

The inventor of the saxophone was Adolphe Sax.
 
Would be interested in further study of which causes which. Are less prejudiced people inclined to accept science? Or does rejecting science in favor of superstition promote bigotry?

The rampant racism and race-baiting of the article and most posts in here aside, as a biologist you should know that PROVEN science is accepted almost universally by all races of people, and UNPROVEN science THEORIES are considered and some are acknowledged as "likely", but not "accepted as fact" by anyone but the most gullible or pliable people.

Just throwing around the word science the way you do strongly implies you don't know what science is.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top