# Disbelief in Evolution is not an indicator of scientific literacy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428 "2014-06-09T19:53:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/1 "2014-06-09T19:53:41Z")
A new study from the Yale Cultural Cognition Project found an interesting result. > [@](#): > > Third – and here we are getting to the point where the new data come in! – profession of “belief” in evolution is simply not a valid measure of science comprehension. [Link](http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/5/24/weekend-update-youd-have-to-be-science-illiterate-to-think-b.html)to the article. The money shot: > [@](#): > > The National Science Foundation has been engaged in the project of trying to formulate and promote such a measure for quite some time. A few years ago it came to the conclusion that the item “human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,” shouldn’t be included when computing “science literacy.” > > The reason was simple: the answer people give to this question doesn’t measure their comprehension of science. People who score at or near the top on the remaining portions of the test aren’t any more likely to get this item “correct” than those who do poorly on the remaining portions. > > What the NSF’s evolution item does measure, researchers have concluded, is test takers’ cultural identities, and in particular the centrality of religion in their lives. What I find interesting, and should cause a shortage of a particular argument on the Dope, is that religion apparently overrides science in this one area but not all. It would be interesting to find out if there are other areas where this happens. Another interesting finding from the study: > [@](#): > > First, there is zero correlation between saying one “believes” in evolution & understanding the rudiments of modern evolutionary science. So, this dispels the ‘only idiots disbelieve in evolution’ in two ways. First just because someone says they agree with evolution does not mean that they understand what they believe in, which makes the agreement meaningless. Second, those who do not accept evolution are just as scientifically literate as those who do. From the same site there is also this finding: > [@](#): > > And --despite the boring boring boring “growing anti-science sensibility” trope to the contrary-- there’s no meaningful correlation between climate-change skepticism and disbelief in evolution and the perception that childhood vaccines endanger public health! [Link](http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/6/9/got-facts-the-boring-ignorant-anti-liberal-science-communica.html). Slee P.S. FTR, I am an atheist, understand and accept the theory of evolution and have serious questions on the science of AGW. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/2 "2014-06-09T20:00:16Z")
[We had another thread about these findings and they really didn’t pan out.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=705263) A few highlights: > [@Tea Partiers Are Well Versed in Science](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/2): > > That the researcher doesn’t think this means anything and that you should try posting less misleading thread titles. > [@Tea Partiers Are Well Versed in Science](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/17): > > The mathematical analysis was done by a Yale professor, but he was using somebody else’s data. > [@Tea Partiers Are Well Versed in Science](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/19): > > Anyway - a good understanding of basic science & math doesn’t mean they have an unbiased view of economics, or even about science. I used to know an engineer who had a Ph.D in astrophysics and still vehemently denied global warming. We debated a few times and it was clear that he had a good understanding of science, he was just biased in which studies he took seriously. (He also talked about Ayn Rand a lot and had a FairTax sticker, so I think it’s safe to classify him as a Tea Party person.) > [@Tea Partiers Are Well Versed in Science](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/20): > > He’s a [Professor of Law](http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/DKahan.htm). > [@Tea Partiers Are Well Versed in Science](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/38): > > Hah! > > I was about to start writing a post about how multiple comparisons will dredge up any fact you want if you look hard enough, particularly in the realm of 0.01 \< p \< 0.05. But a correlation that weak isn’t worth another sentence from me. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/3 "2014-06-09T20:23:25Z")
I don’t know if the study really proves the OP or not, but I don’t think it really gets to the heart of the problem either way. The troubling consequence of widespread professed disbelief in evolution is not that it means these people are scientifically illiterate when it comes to gravity or thermodynamics or 99% of science. Instead, what is troubling is that these folks regard scientific consensus to be less important than their cultural identities or political or religious ones. We want citizens like the lefty who is persuaded by the science that nuclear power kills fewer people than coal (or natural gas), or the righty who is persuaded by the science that fluoridating water is probably safe. Etc. Most policy questions cannot be solved by scientific consensus. But man, it sure sucks that on the few policy issues that really do turn on science, we cannot overcome cultural and religious attitudes. That’s why creationism is such a totem–it represents the quintessential example of identity trumping science, and suggests a propensity to let identity trump science among its adherents, even if they are otherwise well-versed in science. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/4 "2014-06-09T20:45:25Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Second, those who do not accept evolution are just as scientifically literate as those who do. Isn’t that wrong by definition? The moon landing hoaxers might know a lot more about the Apollo program than the average Joe. But who’s more ignorant? Would you say they’re just as knowledgeable about space flight as anyone else? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/5 "2014-06-09T21:51:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Disbelief in Evolution is not an indicator of scientific literacy Well, that’s true enough. It’s an indicator of scientific illiteracy. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/6 "2014-06-09T22:06:04Z")
I suspect that rather than demonstrating anything about “literacy,” it demonstrates the human capacity for mental compartmentalization. I have known several people working in scientific careers, including a biologist, who simply did not accept the Theory of Evolution. Their objections generally are based on what they believe to be a “common sense” approach that “mere happenstance” could never provide a method to accomplish such phenomena as symbiosis. (The biologist was working as a taxonomist on existing fauna, and her specific daily tasks did not require her to examine the evolutionary chain that produced the various groups that she was categorizing.) While religion clearly plays a major role in producing such people, it is not necessary. Several of the doubters I have met, including the biologist, were atheists. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/7 "2014-06-09T22:53:08Z")
I’d be interested in looking at people who don’t have a background which compels them to disbelieve evolution. I’d also be interested in parsing out educational backgrounds in which the professors of all sciences themselves did not disbelieve evolution. People believe things that make their world view comfortable, and what they have been taught from the cradle shapes what is comfortable. I agree with tomndebb that the discomfort brought about by a belief in evolution is ameliorated by compartmentalizing that aspect of science. But a disbelief in evolution is nevertheless an indicator of either scientific illiteracy or a refusal to accept the obvious. I mean, it’s pretty darn obviously correct. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/8 "2014-06-09T23:27:59Z")
I think it’s misleading and counterproductive to test “scientific literacy” on the basis of personal “belief”, i.e., whether a person is merely willing to affirm their adherence to a certain statement about mainstream scientific theory. Rather, they should be tested on their awareness of specific evidence concerning scientific theories and on their understanding of what such evidence implies. For instance, a test might ask something like, “Why and how do paternity testing and evolutionary biology similarly rely on DNA evidence?” A respondent who understands the principle that more nearly identical DNA implies a closer genetic relationship, and that the principle applies both to identifying a biological father and identifying an evolutionary ancestor, is more scientifically literate on this issue than someone who doesn’t. Even if the more literate person happens to believe that the DNA similarities between humans and other animals were deliberately simulated during miraculous creation by a deity. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/9 "2014-06-10T00:03:09Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > P.S. FTR, I am an atheist, understand and accept the theory of evolution and have serious questions on the science of AGW. Ah, so in your view some kinds of science are quite valid, and other kinds, using exactly the same methods of evidence-based theory, challenge, and peer review, are complete bullshit. 😉 Methinks this has less to do with science and evidence than with your particular preconceived notions and biases, which seems to be exactly the point of the OP. Whether this particular study happens to be valid or not, I have certainly seen studies showing that scientifically knowledgeable individuals are far more likely to accept the scientific consensus on climate change. Perhaps in the case of evolution, religion is a more powerful driver of mental compartmentalization than simple ignorance or economic motivations. > [@tomndebb](#): > > I suspect that rather than demonstrating anything about “literacy,” it demonstrates the human capacity for mental compartmentalization. Exactly my point. Sometimes loosely referred to as cognitive dissonance, the power to dismiss evidence and believe contradictory things simultaneously, or to have a system of double standards. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/10 "2014-06-10T00:33:20Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > [QUOTE=sleestak] > > Second, those who do not accept evolution are just as scientifically literate as those who do. Isn’t that wrong by definition? The moon landing hoaxers might know a lot more about the Apollo program than the average Joe. But who’s more ignorant? Would you say they’re just as knowledgeable about space flight as anyone else? [/QUOTE] This. Denial of evolution is _in itself_ “scientific illiteracy”. ---
**Author:** ![Twoflower](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/twoflower/32/22_2.png) [@Twoflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twoflower)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/11 "2014-06-10T00:41:29Z")
The very use of the term “belief” with respect to evolution is scientific illiteracy. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/12 "2014-06-10T01:57:22Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > P.S. FTR, I am an atheist, understand and accept the theory of evolution and have serious questions on the science of AGW. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Ah, so in your view some kinds of science are quite valid, and other kinds, using exactly the same methods of evidence-based theory, challenge, and peer review, are complete bullshit. 😉 > > Methinks this has less to do with science and evidence than with your particular preconceived notions and biases, which seems to be exactly the point of the OP. Whether this particular study happens to be valid or not, I have certainly seen studies showing that scientifically knowledgeable individuals are far more likely to accept the scientific consensus on climate change. Perhaps in the case of evolution, religion is a more powerful driver of mental compartmentalization than simple ignorance or economic motivations. What I have seen is that people that for a living do the good fight and defend evolution in schools and academia is that crank magnetism is very strong with the deniers of evolution. Groups like the National Center for Science Education have found so many incidents of the same creationists and Intelligent Designers moving to remove climate science or to “teach the controversy” that a few years ago the NCSE decided to also add Climate Science to what was mostly an organization to defend evolution in schools and academia. > **[Home | National Center for Science Education](https://ncse.ngo)** > [@](#): > > The best guarantee of good education is public understanding of the issues. NCSE continues to work constructively to promote public awareness of the importance of science education, and the importance of evolution and climate change in science education. Meanwhile, even though the past few decades have seen several court decisions confirming that religiously inspired “scientific creationism” and its cousin “Intelligent Design” may not be advocated instead of or alongside evolution, pressure to teach so-called “alternatives to evolution” continues. Much of NCSE’s work still involves supporting citizens who oppose anti-evolution at the state and local level. > > In 2012, in response to complaints from teachers that they were coming under fire for teaching global warming and other climate change concepts, NCSE decided to support the teaching of climate change in addition to evolution. Both evolution and climate change are well-accepted by scientists as being based on sound research, but the percentages of members of the public accepting these sciences is sharply lower. There are organizations dedicated to decreasing the acceptance and teaching of evolution and/or climate change: another parallel. NCSE has had decades of experience helping teachers cope with political and other pressures against the teaching of evolution; we believe this experience is transferable to the problems involving the teaching of climate change. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/13 "2014-06-10T06:25:53Z")
> [@Twoflower](#): > > The very use of the term “belief” with respect to evolution is scientific illiteracy. And that’s the point. Believing in evolution in the same way some idiot believes in the latest junk science is not scientific literacy. Understanding it is. Though he claims that creationists can be taught evolution, in my experience they lose it as soon as the final is turned in. The first thing I ask a creationist in here or in real life is to explain what evolution says. They seldom can. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/14 "2014-06-10T06:36:11Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > And that’s the point. Believing in evolution in the same way some idiot believes in the latest junk science is not scientific literacy. It’s closer than not, since it’s \*right. \* ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/15 "2014-06-10T06:54:24Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It’s closer than not, since it’s \*right. > \* Well, but only in the sense that if somebody reads a sentence to you correctly and you repeat it, you are “closer” to literacy than if you repeated a sentence that was read _in_correctly. Either way, you’re not really entitled to credit for being able to read. Likewise, docile acceptance of scientific conclusions that doesn’t involve any actual understanding of the theories or the evidence that produced them doesn’t really qualify as “scientific literacy”. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/16 "2014-06-10T07:55:01Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > And that’s the point. Believing in evolution in the same way some idiot believes in the latest junk science is not scientific literacy. Understanding it is. Though he claims that creationists can be taught evolution, in my experience they lose it as soon as the final is turned in. The first thing I ask a creationist in here or in real life is to explain what evolution says. They seldom can. Can’t or won’t? I suspect creationists (or at least those for whom school wasn’t so long ago) _could_ recite what they learned but it would stick in their craw to do so. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Likewise, docile acceptance of scientific conclusions that doesn’t involve any actual understanding of the theories or the evidence that produced them doesn’t really qualify as “scientific literacy”. I understand what you are saying but I think you are ultimately not correct, and here’s why: There is so much damn science these days that docile acceptance is about all anyone (even the moderately scientifically literate) can manage for most of it. Of course there is docile acceptance and there is docile acceptance. Someone’s “belief” in a scientific conclusion could be as docile as religious faith. However, it could also be the result of a very considered view that, given that one cannot study everything oneself, the best one can do is accept scientific conclusions that are the consensus peer reviewed conclusions of other scientists. This is one of the reasons why the first of the OP’s postulates (“just because someone says they agree with evolution does not mean that they understand what they believe in, which makes the agreement meaningless”) is wrong. It may well be that the person’s agreement is an indication they understand the benefit of relying on the work of others who have adopted the scientific method, even if they don’t understand that work. If so, that person’s agreement is far from meaningless: it is an indicator (not conclusive, but an indicator) that they may well be of a scientific mindset. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/17 "2014-06-10T08:05:22Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I understand what you are saying but I think you are ultimately not correct, and here’s why: > > There is so much damn science these days that docile acceptance is about all anyone (even the moderately scientifically literate) can manage for most of it. Well, I’m not claiming that docilely accepting a scientific conclusion that you don’t understand _fully_ makes you scientifically illiterate. I’m just opining that docilely accepting a scientific conclusion that you don’t understand _at all_ makes you scientifically illiterate, even if the conclusion in question happens to be correct. (Of course, so does blindly rejecting a scientific conclusion that you don’t understand at all.) Most somewhat knowledgeable people are in the broad middle ground between subject-matter specialists and completely ignorant accepters of authority. If somebody has at least a vague understanding of the general principles on which sexual reproduction and evolutionary selection work, and some awareness of the evidence that supports those principles, I’d consider them sufficiently scientifically literate to make their adherence to evolutionary theory more than mere prejudice or guesswork. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/18 "2014-06-10T09:12:56Z")
The opposite of _disbelieving evolution_ is not in fact _‘believing in evolution’_. It may seem like that should be the case, but it really isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/19 "2014-06-10T09:22:37Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Most somewhat knowledgeable people are in the broad middle ground between subject-matter specialists and completely ignorant accepters of authority. > > If somebody has at least a vague understanding of the general principles on which sexual reproduction and evolutionary selection work, and some awareness of the evidence that supports those principles, I’d consider them sufficiently scientifically literate to make their adherence to evolutionary theory more than mere prejudice or guesswork. WRT evolution, I’m not that persuaded that one has to understand the scientific underpinnings in the same way that I should need to understand quantum theory and general relativity before I can present myself as scientifically literate on how the universe works. The reason is that evolution is so obvious, and competing explanations are so abjectly improbable. I don’t know that Darwin could defend DNA science, but he could look at locally isolated populations and figger out they were uniquely locally adapted, having apparently descended with modification. IOW, evolution is easily the most obvious–indeed; the only–scientific explanation for the world as we see it. As an ironic aside, most Creation Scientists believe in massive amounts of evolution, on a scale of extent and rapidity far beyond what a mainline scientist would accept. In order to support a paradigm in which an ark of known size could support all the (land) animals which currently exist, Creation Science generally holds that [Noah’s ark took on animals at the family and genus level.](https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-noah-fit-the-animals-on-the-ark-and-care-for-them/) While most Creation Scientists are coy about giving out actual numbers, it’s generally in the range of 5-10 thousand unique pairs. Those pairs, upon exiting the ark, began re-populating the earth. Most of the diversity we see today represents modified descendants from those original pairs, according to Creation Science. They don’t like to call it “evolution” because their basic idea (I think) is that all of the DNA for all of the expression we see today was present in the ark progenitors. It is nevertheless a remarkable amount of evolution in an incredibly short period of time to generate the diversity we see today. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428/20 "2014-06-10T09:41:47Z")
I don’t think this tells us anything interesting at all. Imagine that major mainstream religions had it as gospel that electromagnetism was a divine illusion but that all other areas of science could be reconciled. Run the survey again and you’d find that “belief” in Maxwell’s work was not an accurate indicator of scientific literacy in other areas either. The above sounds nonsensical but of course the theory of evolution carries much the same authority(and we all know how to use “theory” in the correct way here don’t we?) Those with a strong enough cultural or doctrinal imperative will accept the rest and justify their way around the problematic issue. No great surprise there it just confirms their status as fallible human beings and their unsuitability for a career in evolutionary biology. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disbelief-in-evolution-is-not-an-indicator-of-scientific-literacy/690428.md?page=2)