<p>In looking at the MIT website, I found a survey showing that about 20% of MIT students do not accept the theory of evolution.</p>
<p>Given the evidence for evolution, and the knowledge level of its students, that strikes me as a very high percentage.</p>
<p>How can so many students who study science possibly arrive at that conclusion?</p>
<p>Much2learn</p>
<p>Could you please link to that survey? I think the answer depends largely on how the question was worded.</p>
<p>How familiar are you with the concept of “■■■■■”?</p>
<p>Lemme guess; those 20% of MIT students have formulated their own theories of how living organisms have evolved - ahem, changed - throughout time? Lol.</p>
<p>Hi PiperXL, </p>
<p>While I admit that it would seem like a ■■■■■, I am not. This data surprised me too. It was published in The Tech. Specifically, if you go to the link below, and then select science on the left and then “belief in evolution”, the dorms seem to run at about 80% with a few higher and a few lower. That is a lot higher percent than in the country, but to me, it seems low for such a science oriented institution.</p>
<p>Here is a link to it:</p>
<p>[The</a> Tech Religion | Dorm Breakdown](<a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N25/religion/dorms/]The”>http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N25/religion/dorms/)</p>
<p>Much2learn</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the link, it says 89% of MIT students believe in evolution, not 80%. Still, I am surprised at that number. It seems way too low. The fact that the number for the graduate dorms is even lower is striking.</p>
<p>I agree with piper that the wording in the survey may be important. Someone who doubts that random mutation could account for the development of sophisticated organs doesn’t necessarily think that the only alternative is a divine hand (i.e., intelligent design).</p>
<p>Collegealum314,</p>
<p>I see that it says 89%, but since only 4 of the 23 facilities have a % over 89%, that appears to be too high of a percentage. </p>
<p>Also surprised that the group accepting evolution specifically includes people who see evolution as not a natural process, but rather one that is guided by a supernatural being.</p>
<p>I found that surprising. I would love to see the breakdown of that detail.</p>
<p>Well, 6 out of 10 of the men live in fraternities, and their number for believing evolution is 93%. I don’t know what the sorority number signifies, since a lot of sorority members actually live in dorms. There are a lot of independent living groups (non-Greek living groups that are self-run, not dorms), and the number for them is 91%. </p>
<p>It still doesn’t quite add up, and even if it did, I don’t get why the people living in frats and living groups would be more likely to believe in evolution. However, the way it’s written it appears that the off-campus people bring up the number of people who believe in evolution, and this is what accounts for the 89% statistic overall.</p>
<p>I count six “facilities” over 89%, including frats, sororities and ILGs, but still your point is taken. [Edit: apologies, collegealum]</p>
<p>Another anomaly, to me anyway, is that in the same survey, 40% of respondents indicated a belief in God. I wonder if some survey takers might have been having a little fun with this.</p>
<p>It could also be that many of the respondents think that a supernatural being “initiated” the process. I don’t attend MIT but am in a department where something 10 million years old is considered recent. The above belief seems somewhat common in my college even though I seriously doubt anyone would argue against evolution.</p>
<p>I should add that I am not implying anything negative about MIT at all. I think it is likely that MIT has better percentages than all other schools, or nearly all. </p>
<p>To me, these percentages just highlight the difficulty that many people have (even highly intelligent, educated, and scientifically trained people), in separating what must be true based on the evidence, from what they as individuals may wish were true.</p>
<p>The exact quote is
</p>
<p>
What anomaly? There’s either a non sequitur in this or one of several unpleasant assumptions.</p>
<p>
And that is just plain unpleasant.</p>
<p>I am actually studying evolution here at MIT. One thing I’ve learned about doing science, including science about evolution, is that it’s important to approach your data and the possibilities within it with an open mind. The goal is to learn more about the world around us, not to validate our beliefs. So 11% of MIT does not lean in the currently trendy direction. That’s not stupid. It is also not necessarily motivated by religion, though if it is you <em>still</em> do not have a good reason to judge or look down on that 11%. For one thing, it’s entirely possible that we’ll find out in a few centuries that evolution does not work how we currently believe it works. More important for the present, we can’t possibly approach the world without bias if we are so passionate about something being or not being right. This applies to evolution, to visualizing organelles, to modelling earthquakes, to global warming and climate change. Once you politicize science it stops being science.</p>
<p>Imagine if you were trying to study an organelle with a very complex, very interesting shape, but you were determined that it was spherical, so determined that you refused to consider that it might be something other than round. Anyone who thought it might be star-shaped was obviously a complete idiot because the analysis you have done so far suggests that it isn’t even pointy. In reality it isn’t star shaped at all, but it also isn’t round, and you don’t get to find out about it. At the end of the year you wind up missing out on some interesting science and calling a bunch of people idiots who don’t deserve it.</p>
<p>Also, science and mathematics started with religion. The goal was to learn more about and get closer to God by studying the world around us. Atheism and science have not gone hand in hand in history; this fashionable atheist scientist image is a very new one. One is not necessary for the other. We definitely don’t need to disrespect or polarize anyone or develop a superiority complex just because we don’t believe in God(s).</p>
<p>
Piper and I are sooooo not the same person…</p>
<p>Hi Lidusha,</p>
<p>I am a fan of many things you have written, but I respectfully disagree with several things you said in this post.</p>
<p>Your point about keeping an open mind is completely accurate and supports my comment. However, reducing evolution to “currently trendy” status is not accurate at all. It is as much of an established fact as the currently trendy view that the earth is round. To your point, the details can and will change as scientists obtain more knowledge. That is part of the beauty of science, just as it did when we learned that the earth was not exactly round. </p>
<p>If a significant number of students who had strong backgrounds in history did not believe that the Romans ever existed, or did not believe that the Holocaust happened, that would be comparable to this situation. I agree that the details of our understanding of events related to the Roman Empire and the Holocaust may change, but the evidence that they happened is now beyond dispute by any reasonable standard.</p>
<p>I would also add that I do not make fun of any individual for their beliefs, or call anyone stupid. There are many people much smarter than I am who have odd beliefs. However, when their belief is in direct conflict with a vast body of scientific evidence, I am not above pointing that out in certain situations, even if it may be polarizing. Sometimes someone needs to tell the Emperor that he has no clothes, even if it may upset him. I would also add that there is no credible scientific research opposing evolution, not even one study. In contrast, thousands of them support it. </p>
<p>Finally, you are correct that it is not a given that Atheism and science are linked. I do not believe that evolution and religion are necessarily in conflict at all and did not assert that they are.</p>
<p>The college students taking surveys are the trolls, which was what the person before was trying to say I think. They find it funny to answer sarcastically to surveys like the one presented here.</p>
<p>Thanks, Jazzed.</p>
<p>Good discussion, but I think I will assume observer status on this one from here on out.</p>
<p>I did not “reduce” evolution to currently trendy. You don’t have to try to convince me to believe in evolution. I am not one of those 11%. I’ve studied evolution in classes and labs at MIT and Harvard.</p>
<p>I don’t think that not believing evolution is quite comparable to denying that the Holocaust happened.</p>
<p>I think it’s disrespectful to call people’s beliefs “odd.”</p>
<p>
Is it really? Have you talked with any of the people at MIT who don’t believe that “humans and other living things evolved due to natural processes or that a supreme being guided the evolution of living things”? Do you know what their “belief” (should really be plural) is? It’s quite possible that their views on how the world got to be what it is are actually very similar to yours.</p>
<p>
That is simply not true. There is not an entire field built around understanding that the Earth is round. Evolution is a work in progress. It is also not fact, it’s more of a mathematical model. It is something that we are working on understanding. Again, this is what I study. This is what I do research in.</p>
<p>
I don’t think the people who answered No were ■■■■■■■■. That is, I know people who answered No and were not ■■■■■■■■. You can’t handwave away people’s beliefs.</p>
<p>Jazzed, I see what you are saying. I am not sure that is what was intended, but it is certainly possible. </p>
<p>I can imagine that if The Tech went around surveying students about whether they believe babies come from sex or storks, that there would be a number of students who would not be able to resist the stork response. I had not initially considered this possibility.</p>
<p>@lidusha: Sorry about that! Ha ha. I didn’t go back and check who had written the post.</p>
<p>To the OP: When I was a kid, we read about Lamarck and we all laughed about how stupid his theory was. Lamarckism is the theory that the parent can acquire some trait due to the environment, and then pass that trait to the offspring. The example given is the giraffe stretching its neck to reach a fruit high on a tree, and then passing on the trait for a longer neck to its offspring.</p>
<p>15 years later, with the advent of epigenetics, we found out that there is actually some basis for this idea. So it was not so stupid after all. The moral of the story is that it isn’t unscientific necessarily to have doubts about the currently accepted theory. </p>
<p>Also, there has been some very recent studies in evolution (last few years or so) which have explained how a complex organ may have evolved. I can’t describe it here because I don’t remember the study. It’s not simple to think that a complicated organ may evolve simply due to natural selection. The organ may be an advantage in natural selection, but the intermediate mutations need to be selected for to get there. Someone who had doubts about this wouldn’t just have their head in the sand.</p>
<p>Anyway, without more information, it’s hard to draw conclusions whether these numbers are due to people believing in intelligent design or something else.</p>
<p>One last thing: I don’t think a belief in God is mutually exclusive with believing in evolution.</p>