Theories of evolution

or how do you get inside the heads of 104 million people?

One of the problems that we often fail to acknowledge about this life is that we are, in fact, always alone. In the respect at least that we alone know what we are thinking. You may have been married for a long time and be used to that person being round the house and having a certain predictability.

But you never know exactly what is going on in their head at one particular moment, and that special close person may always have the ability to surprise you.

And then what happens with the people you know well but not that intimately, the people you know vaguely, and the billions that you do not know at all?

Most of us have had our own experiences, our own learning patterns and, let us face it, our own training. We may start with a capacity to learn to a greater or more limited extent, but our knowledge at birth is virtually zero, and while we do and should learn from experience, inculcation from an early age is a significant part of that learning process.

In other words as a child what your parents know, what close relatives know, what your teachers know, you learn. Of course you may become exposed to new information through reading, listening to radio, watching television, using the Internet these days (what I could have been if the Internet had been around in the 1950s!), but the influence of others on the information that you acquire remains. If you discover something that flies in the face of what your parents believe, it may be too embarrassing for you, as a child, to hang on to this as quotable fact.

What may surprise some American readers is the fact that in the UK religious education is compulsory in state (American = "public") schools, and these schools are obliged by law to hold a religious service. Brought up in a town where there was little immigration, that meant I had lessons in Christianity at school from the age of 5 till the age of 18 - what happens in the areas in the UK with large numbers of Hindu and Muslim families now I am not certain, but I digress.

In the 1950s, this even meant Protestantism. Catholic kids could opt out, and usually did (and my parents encouraged me, incidentally, not to mix with Catholics - what my longstanding friend in Glasgow would think if I told him that we were really not supposed to talk to each other .....). Later as a teacher myself in the 1970s, I shocked the school establishment by refusing to take part either in the compulsory school religious assembly or anything similar at class registration on grounds of conscience. As a committed atheist I believed (and still believe) that it was unnecessary and unacceptable indoctrination.

As Richard Dawkins has pointed out many times, correctly, the teaching of religion is a cultural thing (so Europeans become Christians, Arabs become Muslims, most Indians become Hindus usw, as that is what is taught in their communities). Children are for the most part not encouraged to examine belief and lack of belief , to question faith based regulations, or to decide which road to follow. It is not easy at that age as while intellect can actually be far more pronounced in children than in adults (I had instinctive arithmetical abilities as a child that still frighten me now, and I sadly seem to have lost many of them), experience is lacking, and all the information that you need to draw conclusions takes years to acquire.

But as adults we can assess, examine and change our opinions - dependant upon the facts available. If we so choose! Often there is a problem in that we do not choose to challenge the facts or look at the available alternatives out there. This is, though, not so surprising.

Academic and intellectual ability is not equal within individuals - there was a "Glück in Unglück" stat that I read a couple of  years ago where the top 40% of kids in the UK got the best ever results in the history of public education in the UK (great - there are some very bright kids out there doing really well, the ex-teacher in me beams with pride), while the bottom 40% got the worst ever results in the history of public education in the UK (yikes!). I am not sure how these stats are measured or how long they have been collecting them incidentally. 

Which does not mean that those 40% at the bottom are not worthwhile people who cannot go on to have thoroughly worthwhile lives as adults - given what I know of some members of my close family, lack of academic success at school may be a glitch in an otherwise very meaningful existence!

But trying having an in-depth discussion upon science and religion with them. Not impossible, but not easy. And often they will never get to move on later in life to a situation where they will question the beliefs that they have entrenched. Which, I repeat does not make them any less worthwhile people!

So when I see the survey that I saw last weekend regarding religion, creationism and evolution in the US last weekend and how horrifyingly ignorant a large number of people there seem to be, it is important to step back and consider the results carefully - and not be abusive or too critical.

The population of the US is approximately 310 million, of whom some 230 million are adults (figures courtesy of google), and the sample did seem small.

Nonetheless according to it some 46% of Americans believe in creationism (as taught in the Bible, no questions asked and dismissing any evolutionary possibilities), which equals some 104 million American adults.

32% believed in evolution but guided by God - more on this below. This equals approximately 73 million American adults.

15% believe in evolution - approximately 34 million American adults.

The other 7% fell into the "Don't know" category.

While there is some encouragement in those figures (the most "atheistically friendly" area of Europe, the Nordic countries - Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland - have a combined population of less than 30 million, so that 34 million is reasonably encouraging), it also has a disturbing side. It affects voting patterns (which given that the global economy and war, sorry "defence", policy also impacts us .... Another GWB asking God whether he should start another unnecessary war we definitely do not need!).

What gets me though is how little is really understood by a lot of people about evolution. It is not a static theory written in the 1850s (by Darwin, who was probably an agnostic, not an atheist), but rather is itself evolving as more and more scientific research is made. It also covers a whole load of areas, geology, physics, anthropology to name but three. Research in those areas has moved massively forward in the past 160 years, and will continue to do so.

Science does though impact all of our lives whether you believe in evolution or not, whether it is the simple act of switching on the television or the computer, turning on a light, or getting the latest wonder drug from your chemist.

Opposing this argument that everything was created according to a load of old Jewish myths and has remained unchanged ever since in spite of all the scientific discoveries since - it ought to be a straightforward argument to win, but how do you get inside the heads of 104 million people who are not obviously not even interested in the discussion on the "don't confuse my mind with facts" principle? It is like fighting for the world title with an opponent who will not get into the same ring.

The argument that God guided evolution is far more interesting (pretty much what I was taught in RI classes in school - 50 years ago! The UK was more advanced than the US in this respect even then?). It also sifts out some of the nonsensical inconsistent arguments about God (not just in the Bible, but in other religious works) and places a God in the universe who understands scientific principle. It is an interesting argument, often intelligently thought out - even if I don't agree with it!

A reasoned discussion on that aspect of things is possible though. Arguing with dogmatists who do not want to reason is another matter. Getting inside their heads and persuading them to think logically - if they are capable of it! - is difficult, if close to impossible. Which does not mean that we should not keep trying, and which also does not mean that we should be unnecessarily aggressive or abusive towards them - it does not help the quality of the debate or the value of our arguments to be overly confrontational.