Americans’ knowledge of science is in the dumper

Several websites have already posted about this, so I’ll be brief.  The Associated Press, in collaboration with GfK, conducted a poll on the state of American science knowledge, and the results were truly dispiriting. You can get the pdf of the results here.

1,012 adults were interviewed about their degree of confidence in what scientists regard as “truths”, as well as about issues like their religious and political affiliations, income, demographic information, health care, and so on.

The survey of science knowledge can be summarized in this chart prepared by CBS News:

Screen shot 2014-04-23 at 7.41.36 AM

That’s really depressing, especially, to me, the fact that 72% of Americans are very or somewhat confident that there is a “supreme being” behind evolution. That’s “theistic evolution,” the form of evolution most commonly endorsed by Americans, and the one that’s basically okay with organizations like the National Center for Science Education, who can’t be bothered too much about whether evolution is naturalistic or guided by a deity.

And that makes me worry a a bit about the 55% who appear to agree that life on earth evolved through natural selection (Larry Moran will no doubt kvetch about genetic drift!), for most of those probably feel that God was behind that process! What is most upsetting  is that only 60% of Americans are confident that the earth is 4.5 billion years old (with more than half of those being “somewhat” rather than “very” confident), and only 46% agree that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and was formed after the Big Bang.

What’s going on here? Well, some of it is surely plain ignorance (i.e., lack of knowledge), but other stuff, like the widespread rejection of global warming, is wish-thinking derived from capitalism, and, of course, the rejection of cosmology and evolution is largely based on religion. That’s not my take, but comes from statistical analysis of the poll itself, which isn’t given in the pdf. As CBS News reports:

Political and religious values play an important role in a person’s belief in science, the AP noted. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to express confidence in evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the Earth and climate change. As faith in a supreme being rises, confidence in the Big Bang, climate change and the age of the Earth decline, according to the poll.

“When you are putting up facts against faith, facts can’t argue against faith,” said 2012 Nobel Prize winning biochemistry professor Robert Lefkowitz of Duke University. “It makes sense now that science would have made no headway because faith is untestable.”

. . . The results of the poll are troubling to some scientists, who say it highlights “the iron triangle of science, religion and politics,” according to Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.

Indeed. As I always say, the best way to get Americans to accept an old earth and the fact of evolution is not through education, but through weakening the grip of religion on the public mind. If you’re not religious, you have no reason to reject evolution and an ancient Earth and universe. And I suspect, though the pollsters didn’t give some kind of multivariate analysis, that the reasons Republicans have less confidence in evolution and the age of the earth is that Republicans are more likely to be religious than are Democrats.

Finally, we have the accommodationists coming out of the woodwork, trying to deny the palpable fact that these figures, at least for cosmology and evolution, reflect religious opposition to science. After all, when properly conceived, Scripture and science are compatible!

People who take the word of the Bible literally are even less likely to believe in evolution, the age of the Earth or Big Bang. But Francisco Ayala, a former priest and professor of biology, philosophy and logic at the University of California, Irvine, noted that these three scientific concepts can be compatible with the belief in God.

“The story of the cosmos and the Big Bang of creation is not inconsistent with the message of Genesis 1, and there is much profound biblical scholarship to demonstrate this,” said Darrel Falk, a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University and an evangelical Christian.

If science is so obviously compatible with religion in these ways, why does the conflict persist? It’s because Falk (former director of BioLogos) and Ayala simply refuse to recognize the truth: evolution and cosmology don’t sit well with the religious beliefs of many Americans, and they’re not going to accept the scientific facts so long as they feel that those facts contradict scripture. Many of them see the “message of Genesis I” as what that chapter explicitly says. And, as BioLogos has discovered to its horror, telling evangelical Christians that their faith can be compatible with evolution simply doesn’t work. There are a number of aspects of evolution, for instance, that simply discomfit the religious—among other things, the pure naturalism of natural selection, the loss of human status as “special creatures,” the horrible possibility that our morality may be partly evolved rather than bestowed by God, and so on.

Physicist Brian Greene, co-director of the World Science Festival, also expresses his dismay at the figures:

“It is enormously distressing that science, which is our most powerful means for gaining insight into the world, insight into truth, is so mistrusted by so many people,” Brian Greene, a professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia University, told CBS News.

Greene, who co-founded the World Science Festival and World Science U. to help educate and excite the public about science, says understanding scientific ideas is not just academic — it’s essential to a vital democracy. “Issues like climate change or nanoscience or genetically modified foods — I mean all of these issues, and a thousand others, are scientific at their core,” he said.

Perhaps Greene, then, might reassess his policy of accepting large amounts of funding from the John Templeton Foundation for the World Science Festival. After all, Templeton’s mission is to blur the boundaries between science and religion, boundaries whose violation is amply evidenced by the data above.

45 Comments

  1. Posted April 23, 2014 at 6:30 am | Permalink

    Mind boggling. In certain areas it appears to be going backwards.

  2. Hempenstein
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    Well, some of it is surely plain ignorance (i.e., lack of knowledge)…

    That says as much as all the rest – we have reached a state where the definition of the word needs to be stated, just to be sure. I shudder to guess the percentage of the population that thinks the definition is the one that’s found under arrogance.

  3. Joseph
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    Looks like the U.S. is about to repress itself to its own version of the dark ages.

    • Posted April 23, 2014 at 6:40 am | Permalink

      Yes, but the trouble is that, thanks to climate change element, the US is very likely to take the rest of the world there with it.

  4. Posted April 23, 2014 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    The figures are indeed profoundly depressing, especially perhaps to those of us who’ve worked to try to stem the rising tide of science denial/science rejection in the US. In areas like climate change, of course, the reason for the widespread ignorance and stupidity on the subject is because said ignorance and stupidity have been enthusiastically fostered by rich and powerful interests. And, of course, the fact that in so many parts of the country people come out of school having received not just a lousy education but one that can be actually false plays its part. Religion, too, as you note.

    But, even with all of these excuses, it’s hard not to say that a major proportion of the blame for their science denial must lie at the feet of the science deniers themselves. And it’s hard to work out what to do about it. They’re impervious to facts (indeed, being confronted by the facts apparently makes them go even further into denial), if (rightly) ridiculed they become entrenched, if we make efforts to persuade (accommodate) we get nowhere, etc.

    I think the only approach left open/untried might be to make it profoundly unfashionable to reject science — to embarrass people into rationality, as it were — but here one would need the cooperation of an intelligent news media; so much for that, then.

  5. Daoud
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    It is depressing, but I find it odd that you were specifically depressed by the “72% of Americans are very or somewhat confident that there is a “supreme being” behind evolution.”

    This dovetails quite well with American’s overall religiousness doesn’t it? Well I suppose you are depressed by the % of Americans who are religious, but it’s hardly a surprise.

    • Sastra
      Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:18 am | Permalink

      If people accept evolution only because they think it’s imbedded comfortably into a supernatural world view, then it’s unlikely that the evidence for or against it was absolutely critical to them. First, it had to “harmonize” in their minds with the supernatural.

      That line of harmony is arbitrary. The figure is not surprising, no, but I think it is pretty depressing.

  6. Richard C
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:08 am | Permalink

    I wonder if the confidence levels for the age of the Earth and Universe might be a least a few percentage points higher if the questions weren’t so precise. Instead of “4.5 billion” and “13.8 billion years” the questions should have just said “billions of years”.

    I bet there are people not counted here who accept science but don’t know (or are confident of) the actual numbers themselves.

    • Greg Esres
      Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:21 am | Permalink

      Agreed. The questionnaire is poorly designed in that it doesn’t consider that there are degrees of error.

      • Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:46 am | Permalink

        The questionnaire is poorly designed in that it doesn’t consider that there are degrees of error.

        But the pollsters are presumably well enough trained to interpret the responses rationally.

        • Greg Esres
          Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:55 am | Permalink

          So all questionnaires are either properly designed or properly interpreted?

          • Posted April 23, 2014 at 8:00 am | Permalink

            So all questionnaires are either properly designed or properly interpreted?

            If they’re professionally conducted polls, then, by and large, yes. It may make you feel pleasantly smug to think that all pollsters are idiots, but, just like professionals in other areas, they do generally know what they’re doing.

            And, yes, I’m sure you can find an isolated example somewhere of a pollster having made some egregious error — I’ve come across examples myself — but those are the exception, not the rule.

            • Prof.Pedant
              Posted April 23, 2014 at 10:39 am | Permalink

              Long ago in another life I used to be one of the people who called you up to ask you those polling questions. Some of the people who actually ask the questions are very good at listening and coding the responses appropriately. Some of them are not. And often the supervisors are more interested in production than precision. Consequently, it would not surprise me at all if a rewording of “billions of years” vs. “thousands of years” would result in a significant increase in the number of people who select ‘billions’ as the more accurate response.

              • Posted April 23, 2014 at 11:06 am | Permalink

                You surprise me. In my own experience as a questionee I’ve always found professional pollers very . . . well, professional!

                Whatever the case: If I were a fossil-fuels company I’d be laughing myself silly over the fact that so much of the discussion on this page isn’t about the important business of trying to get through to the public the truth about science (and the very urgent need to do so in the case of climate change), but has been sidetracked into quibbling about the minutiae of the questions’ phrasing. Just what the Koch Brothers like to see — in fact, it’s a tactic that the climate misinformers often actively encourage: get people arguing over the trivia so that the main meat of the matter gets lost amid (to mix my metaphors entirely) the fog of irrelevance.

    • Diane G.
      Posted April 26, 2014 at 10:45 am | Permalink

      My thoughts, too.

      And having watched my children’s teachers trying to trip them up with tricky T/F questions (increasing the angst while submersing the take-home lesson), I wonder how many Americans are just leery of statements worded to such a degree of precision?

      For people who don’t deal with a subject on a daily basis, it can be hard to remember exact numbers (I think the estimated age of the universe has changed just in the scope of my lifetime, for that matter). Simply adding an “approximately” before the numbers might have produced more “extremely confident” responses.

  7. Mark Reaume
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    I’m not Extremely / Very Confident that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. I would be Extremely Confident if asked the question: is the Earth 4.5 +/- .5 billion years? Same goes for the age of the Universe.

    I still would have answered Extremely Confident if asked the original question on a survey because I get what they are trying to do. I wonder if there was one or two people in this survey that were as anal as I am. Not that it would have made a difference in the results though.

    I think maybe I’ve been burned by too many project managers asking for commitments based on early estimates.

    • Greg Esres
      Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:18 am | Permalink

      Expecting the average American to be familiar with the 4.5 billion or 13.8 billion figures is a bit too much, I think. For instance, someone who incorrectly recalls the age of the universe as 11.8 billion years would be grouped with the people that think it 6,000 years old.

      • Greg Esres
        Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:19 am | Permalink

        Sorry, didn’t mean to attach this to the above comment.

    • Sastra
      Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:21 am | Permalink

      I have the same problem with survey questions: I tend to overthink them.

      Unless it isn’t overthinking and this is what the question meant.

      So there are always two questions: the one which is actually asked … and the one about who is asking and why.

      • Kevin
        Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:41 am | Permalink

        You have just summarized the experience I have for every standardized test I have ever taken.

      • Posted April 23, 2014 at 9:00 am | Permalink

        I have the same problem with quizzes: eg, how many tentacles does a squid have? Is the quizmaster looking for “two” or “ten”?

        /@

      • Diane G.
        Posted April 26, 2014 at 10:52 am | Permalink

        Precisely.

        My son has always had an instinct to read statements in a way that was unintended, esp. in primary school where everything was dumbed down. In kindergarten he had to justify his answer (“white”) to, “what color is a banana?” And that was just the start…

  8. Greg Esres
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:18 am | Permalink

    Expecting the average American to be familiar with the 4.5 billion or 13.8 billion figures is a bit too much, I think. For instance, someone who incorrectly recalls the age of the universe as 11.8 billion years would be grouped with the people that think it 6,000 years old.

  9. Kevin
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    When I was beginning to study physics, my mom saw Greene on TV and said why can’t you dress like him, he looks nice.

    The Greene-machine. He could be a much brighter light if he actually understood that humanity is need of ‘elegant’ speakers who can combat the supernatural. Until he promotes against religion, he is doing very little to help science. I would argue that Hitchens has done more for science than Greene ever has.

    • John Scanlon, FCD
      Posted April 24, 2014 at 10:32 am | Permalink

      I actually own a book by Greene, called ‘The Sartorially Elegant Universe’ or something like that; it’s a nice introduction to cosmology, relativity and string theory. The several very interesting books by Hitchens that I also possess are, it could be said, mainly about Hitchens. If my shelves were in order, they would sit with other works by journalists and historians. This doesn’t necessarily refute your claim, but you would have some work to do.

  10. eric
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    People who take the word of the Bible literally are even less likely to believe in evolution, the age of the Earth or Big Bang. But Francisco Ayala, a former priest and professor of biology, philosophy and logic at the University of California, Irvine, noted that these three scientific concepts can be compatible with the belief in God.

    “Can be” isn’t the issue. “Whether this is the case or not is the issue…and empirically, confidence and support for scientific concclusions goes down as religiosity goes up. Ayala is arguing what it is philosophical possible for some hypothetical human to believe, when we have real data about what real people actually believe, and it doesn’t match his ideal very well.

    This is analagous to pointing out that GOP ‘small government’ conservativism can be fully consistent with the pro-choice abortion position. That’s true as far as it goes…but in reality, that correlation is not predominantly how things fell out. In real people, the correlation largely went the other way. So its time to get over what is philosophically possible for some hypothetical person to believe, and start dealing with what actual people actually believe.

    • Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:52 am | Permalink

      Ayala is arguing what it is philosophical possible for some hypothetical human to believe, when we have real data about what real people actually believe, and it doesn’t match his ideal very well.

      Actually, there are lots of real, non-hypothetical people who share that belief with Ayala. Whether they’re right in that belief is a separate matter; but they don’t not exist just because you (and I) think they’re misguided.

    • Jeffery
      Posted April 24, 2014 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

      “… noted that these three scientific concepts can be compatible with the belief in God.”- it seems that what Ayala is talking about here is what HE believes: of course, an all-powerful being could use a “big-bang” to create the universe (or form it from the mud on the back of a giant turtle, for that matter)however far back in time he wished it to be; such a being could easily “use” evolution to produce different species, including Homo Sapiens. In this sense, the concept of a “God” is the “ultimate fudge-factor” in any equation: why is there evil? God wanted it that way; your sister had a miraculous recovery from cancer? Praise God! What? She died? Oh, God needed her in Heaven.

      “The story of the cosmos and the Big Bang of creation is not inconsistent with the message of Genesis 1, and there is much profound biblical scholarship to demonstrate this,”
      – The use of the word, “message”, and not “text” is telling here: read Genesis, and you’ll see little that agrees with modern cosmology; the “message”, of course, being, “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth”- just can’t seem to get away from that “sky-guy”!

      I think another root of the problem many people have with trusting science comes from an old cultural “hangover”: that of equating science with sorcery. Sorcerers and scientists deal with things largely unknown to most people, and we may indeed be “hard-wired” to be discomfited by, or perhaps even fearful, when there are “unknowns” in a situation (picture an animal in a forest, unable to ascertain exactly what a certain noise is; a genetic tendency for nervousness in the face of uncertainty may be a potent survival trait). The sorcerer/scientist may, or may not, be able to help with your mother’s cancer, while religion promises that it already knows all; has the proper and correct answers to life’s problems. Should mom live, or die, the “ultimate fudge-factor” provides a ready explanation for either outcome. The very fact that scientists admit they don’t know everything and make mistakes can add to the suspicion that science is an “inferior” source of wisdom (most of its benefits going largely unnoticed or ignored) compared to belief systems that claim ultimate knowledge.

  11. Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:45 am | Permalink

    To claim that “guiding hand” creationism is compatible with evolution is as claiming that “hammering” Thor is compatible with weather science.

    But there is worse examples of thinking in the asylum loose here, the obvious cherry picking: Genesis 1 isn’t consistent with Genesis 2, “and there is much profound biblical scholarship to demonstrate this” [like reading the texts in the first place]!

  12. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    On the subject of the wording of the questions, I would also add that having 3 degrees of confidence can also be an issue. In addition to the ‘extremely confident’ column, there is also the ‘somewhat confident’ column. Some people who give qualified assent to a statement might choose that middle column. Adding those two columns is still depressing in many cases, though.

  13. E.A. Blair
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 7:56 am | Permalink

    It’s things like this that make me wish I’d left for a more enlightened part of the world after college.

    It also makes me more comfortable with human mortality because I cannot live so long as to see this situation reach the end it seems to be rushing towards.

  14. Steve Gerrard
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    This is what bothers me most about compatiblists and Hart’s “swirl of bliss” woo. I don’t mind so much if they want to claim a little specialness as comfort food for their soul. But when it interferes with the public understanding of science, something needs to be done. If the churches themselves would teach some science, that might help.

    Also, the numbers on the age of the earth and the universe are both within 0.1 billion now, (where age of the universe means time since the big bang in the current observable universe). There is no reason for bigger uncertainties.

  15. Posted April 23, 2014 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    Two thoughts… First, they didn’t say “Did the universe begin with “The Big Bang” but with “a big bang.” I don’t know if it was loud. 😉

    But on to serious (I hope) points: The true danger here is in the continuing conflation of “science” the process with “Science” the weasels who attempt to actively manipulate statistics to serve an agenda.

    I don’t care if it’s the cigarette industry or big oil, or clean coal, or whatever… if you’re doing work to support an agenda it is NOT science.

    It would be good for “our side” to regularly acknowledge that, yes, some really weaselly people do “science” and misuse it, while strongly reiterating that this flaw of human nature does NOTHING to weaken the concept.

    That does not denigrate the tool (the method) and the principles of transparency, replicability, public access to raw data, etc. that make “science” the powerful tool for discovering knowledge that it is.

    • Posted April 23, 2014 at 8:42 am | Permalink

      It would be good for “our side” to regularly acknowledge that, yes, some really weaselly people do “science” and misuse it, while strongly reiterating that this flaw of human nature does NOTHING to weaken the concept.

      A very good point. As an aside, I thought Neil deGrasse Tyson did a good job of making this plain in last Sunday’s episode of Cosmos.

      (As an even asider aside, following the episode there was this exchange between my wife and I. Me: “There must be an innermost circle of Hell reserved for scientists like Kehoe who deliberately debase and corrupt their science merely in order to get the big bucks.” She: “Pity there’s no such place, then, isn’t it?”)

    • Posted April 23, 2014 at 9:11 am | Permalink

      That “a big bang” praising irked me too.

      But what I found most strange was the statement, “The universe is so complex, there must be a supreme being guiding its creation”, given that all others represent statements of scientific consensus. The wording and figures should be adjusted accordingly to put the statement in the red zone.

      /@

  16. Posted April 23, 2014 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    Reblogged this on Episyllogism and commented:
    Sad state of affairs!

  17. rickray1
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    If about 60% of Americans still believe the Noah & flood story then it’s far more than ignorance. It is total lack of critical thinking and just plain laziness. “Ow, it hurts my brain to think about this !” screamed the creationist to the atheist.

  18. Timothy Hughbanks
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    I find myself putting together a list drawn from this polling data of just how religiously brainwashed or just plain ignorant you have to be to not accept the scietific consensus on the issues involved. My personal ordering is:

    (1) Evolution and Natural Selection.
    Just about any idiot should be able to ‘get it’ from fossils and biogeography, even if they know squat about radioisotope dating and molecular biology.

    (2) Effectiveness of vaccines. How difficult is a little history of infectious diseases?

    (3) Smoking causes cancer. Anyone who has listend to a smoking parent cough their lungs up every morning for years isn’t too hard to convince.

    (4) Overusing antibiotics – gotta accept “micro”evolution, so it’s not too threatening.

    (5) AGW. While you have to be pretty thick to reject the fact that the earth is warming, seeding doubt about whether it is anthropogenic turns out to be pretty easy if the mark doesn’t want to “change his/her lifestyle”. Rationalizations to the effect that “the climate has always changed” are quite popular among the general public.

    (6) Age of the Earth. Many people aren’t equipped to follow radioisotope dating and the geology, sadly.

    (7) Age of the Universe. The cosmic background radiation, Doppler-shifted distant star light and now graviton signatures – a whole lot of people won’t get it if they don’t want to even a little bit. To be fair, I have a nice Scientific American by Joseph Silk published in the mid-90’s that doesn’t say anything about dark energy and dark matter. It is easy to see how people might rationalize that astrophysicists aren’t too sure of what is going on.

  19. Andrikzen
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    If it’s not in your face and doesn’t kill you immediately then you have the luxury to belief what you want.

    Most people’s Mundane Utility Kit has no provision for dealing with the far removed.
    For most the age of the earth, the origins of life and of the universe do not occupy their immediate attention.When pushed they grab for a quick and dirty answer-solution or quickly surround themselves with a SEP field.

    • Diane G.
      Posted April 26, 2014 at 10:56 am | Permalink

      We’d be all set if we could only find a link between religion & cancer.

      (Other than a metaphoric link, of course.)

  20. uglicoyote
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Road.

  21. Posted April 23, 2014 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Not ignorance, willful ignorance. That’s 50% more ignorant than regular ignorance – a super ignorance really, the kind that requires a super, all-crushing soul to sustain it. Is there a link to the Chopra kit?

  22. Filippo
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    Well, Ah wuz a-hopin’ that the below question, asked on the last several National Science Foundation American adult science literacy surveys (and missed by approx. 50% of Amuricun adults, per Lawrence Krauss), would be on the survey at hand:

    “T or F: the Earth goes around the sun and takes a year to do it.”

    Regarding the age of the Earth and the universe, one might give the benefit of the doubt and lower the bar and more generally frame the question in terms of “billions.”

    But, can the earth-around-the-sun question be phrased any more clearly and concisely? What’s going on with American adults? Is there any more basic scientific, provable fact to which they are exposed? It’s significantly more basic than the cause of the four seasons. How many of them think the moon creates its own light?

    There’s a video on Youtube from the 80’s where some fundamentalist preachers/theologians give Paul Kurtz the sandpaper for asking them how old the Earth is. They repeatedly decline to answer him, replying, “It doesn’t matter!”

  23. s.k.graham
    Posted April 23, 2014 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    These results are not nearly as bad as the media/bloggers (or even original pollsters?) are making it seem. Consider the choices given. There were 5 choices, which have been lumped together as above. But the middle choice “somewhat confident” is pretty good, and even the 2nd-to-worst “not too confident” is slightly positive.

    Think about it. “Not too confident about ‘X'” does *not* mean “somewhat or very confident about ‘Not X'”. “Not too confident about ‘X'” typically means “Unsure, but leaning slightly toward X”.

    Does anyone really think the average and below average person (which we would expect to comprise 2/3rds of respondents) would be extremely or very confident about their scientific facts? “Not too confident” to me sounds like they’ve at least heard & vaguely remember the scientific fact and have no particular reason to think it is not the case.

    Take heart, 61% are at least somewhat confident about climate change, with another 22% on the fence, and just %15 in denial or absolutely no clue. A clear majority, %55, are at least somewhat confident about evolution. The age of earth and age of universe questions suffer a bit from being too specific — I think many people gave “low confidence” answers simply because they don’t really know the numbers.

    The supreme being question is the most troubling, but a lot of those people just hide their supreme being in the “gaps” which though usupported, does not contadict science.


2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] Speaking of knowledge: It should come as no surprise that science knowledge among Americans is…less than stellar. […]

  2. […] reported all over the place, from Fox News and NBC News to the Post-Gazette editorial, to the blogs Why Evolution Is True and Friendly Atheist, to the International Business […]

%d bloggers like this: