4 ms·

Is that some weird American thing? I went to a Catholic school in Poland, and we were told about evolution as a matter of fact. No one questioned it. I think ou

Is that some weird American thing? I went to a Catholic school in Poland, and we were told about evolution as a matter of fact. No one questioned it. I think our biology teacher was actually a priest in fact. And as far as I understand the Roman Catholic church completely supports evolution as the dominant theory, maybe with a bit of "god helped along the way" somewhere but no one questions it being true. And suggesting that dinosaurs weren't real would just get you laughed out.

saint_fiasco 4y ago
It's a Protestant thing, I believe. Catholics have a central authority that is in charge of telling people more or less what to believe, but Protestants are free to make their own interpretations so they sometimes choose to believe stuff that sounds crazy to outsiders. The Catholic Church happens to believe in evolution, so most Catholics accept evolution as well.
- namdnay 4y ago
  Nah, no one believes that in Denmark or Germany either It’s a nutty evangelical thing, not a mainstream Christian thing
programmer_dude 4y ago
Yes it is. To put it bluntly a large portion of the American population is scientifically illiterate. Some of them believe the earth is around 6000 years old. They even have museums dedicated to such things.
- _dain_ 4y ago
  that hasn't been a relevant cultural force for at least a decade
- mistrial9 4y ago
  upvote this as an American but not for the reason that you might think; outside of college towns, you are going to be surprised at the actual education and literacy levels about anything. You can definitely find college undergrads and get them to say dumb things on camera, too (a reflection of their social surroundings)
  - programmer_dude 4y ago
    > outside of college towns, you are going to be surprised at the actual education and literacy levels about anything Surprised how?
chmod775 4y ago
> Is that some weird American thing? Yes, but no. It's still quite common in other places as well (take a guess), but none you are as likely to hear of as the US. The US may also be the developed nation in which such belief is most common and - more importantly - openly discussed.
tluyben2 4y ago
Yeah same here; not catholic but, for the Netherlands, very strict Christian (I do not know the particular name in English); we were taught evolution, dinosaurs and carbon dating etc.
analog31 4y ago
I think there's a strong evangelical influence over Catholic culture in the US. Church doctrine does acknolwledge evolution, but with certain exceptions such as human consciousness. Disclosure: Went to Catholic university
- yarpen_z 4y ago
  Catholics teaching includes the existence of a unique soul in each human - this obviously cannot be a product of evolution.
  - mcphage 4y ago
    However, the soul isn't biological, so it is completely orthogonal to evolution.
  - analog31 4y ago
    Indeed, and in particular it's the coupling of the eternal soul to the temporal body, that is held to be inaccessible to naturalistic inquiry. There are similar problems surrounding reproduction.
  - aarpmcgee 4y ago
    Why could the soul not be a product of evolution?
    - ben_w 4y ago
      The thought process is probably the same reason we're all telling ourselves LaMDA and GPT-3 can't be conscious: Our subjective experience of reality constantly eludes our ability to explain in terms of any physical or informational processes, so every time a system becomes explicable, it leaves the domain of "things which might be self-aware". Some people take this in the other direction and attribute a soul to everything, others go further and say that even our self awareness is an illusion.
heavyset_go 4y ago
This was during the height of the teaching of "intelligent design" in schools debacle, so I'd say it's very much a US thing.
jessaustin 4y ago
I was raised Catholic in a very rural rustic area of midwest USA, and we Catholics laughed at those of other religions who "didn't believe in evolution".
partdavid 4y ago
Well the point of the paper is that regardless of what your religion teaches (and the Roman Catholic church, in particular, is not anti-evolution; but not pro-evolution either, and offers its members essentially a choice of which mechanism of creation to believe), your "sociocultural environment" influences your beliefs more than what religion you say you're a part of. So yes, in accordance with the paper, it's probably more likely that even Catholics in the U.S. will be exposed to more anti-evolution indoctrination and more of their parents and teachers will try to deny evolutionary science, even if they aren't members of a specifically anti-evolution sect. What the paper doesn't really go into is to how religion influences that "sociocultural environment"--it's just measuring effects for individuals. It's clear to me that "teach the controversy" movements, attacks on evolutionary science like the Scopes trial, attempts to remove evolution from biology texts and the actual removal in some schools are in large part motivated by religion, and comprise a lot of that "sociocultural environment" the paper refers to. Catholics have a choice whether to believe in a literal six-day creation and the creation of all life in its current form, so in a place like the U.S., where it's simply more socially acceptable to be an anti-evolutionist, they'll do so in more frequent numbers than where it's not.
akira2501 4y ago
> And suggesting that dinosaurs weren't real would just get you laughed out. There's a contrarian part of me that sees this as somewhat negative. It suggests that perhaps some students may actually have hidden beliefs that they're simply unwilling to expose due to the lack of space for unconventional ideas in the environment. Are students being educated or merely bullied into a particular point of view? That's another question from this study. They say students "given instruction on the nature of science" accept evolution more readily. What is the "nature of science?" And, what does that instruction entail, exactly?
- kube-system 4y ago
  Unspoken political views are pretty common in the US, and they’re likely why identity (and dog-whistle) politics play such an important role in US politics.
77pt77 4y ago
>Is that some weird American thing? Almost certainly. Also, in there most protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christians. The place is completely bananas.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
prewett 4y ago
It definitely is an American evangelical/fundamentalist thing. (Might also be elsewhere, I can't say) The history is that in the 1800s many seminaries, beginning with German seminaries, began teaching theology that differed from traditional orthodoxy. In the early 1900s a counter-movement emerged in the US which insisted on five fundamentals (hence "fundamentalist"): the Bible is "infallible" and inspired by God, the virgin birth of Jesus, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, that Christ's death atoned for our sins, and the reality of Jesus' miracles. It seems that over time the first point seems to become a literal interpretation of much of the Bible, in particular, Genesis 1. I assume this is because the Modernist theology has to symbolize the Bible if it wants to harmonize the Bible with Modern ideas about there is no literal God, miracles can't happen, etc., since a God that exists and intervenes (e.g. miracles) is kind of the whole point of the text. I'm not totally what happened or why, but it seems like the fundamentalists simplified things from "these are our assumptions" to "this is what the Bible says". YEC is the poster-child, but an unnuanced, one-sided view is endemic. I think evangelicals were originally more nuanced, but over time seem to have merged with the fundamentalists. However, I don't think the Church has historically had an official position on how long creation took. I know some early Church fathers figured Creation took 6000 years: "a day is to the Lord as 1000 years". I also assume that "1000 years" had a similar feeling as "a million years" to us: you can do math with it, but a million years is pretty much an unimaginably long time. It is also well-known that it is a hermeneutical error to interpret poetry literally, but there is little recognition, at least among evangelicals/fundamentalists that Genesis 1 is actually poetry, and hence interpreting it literally is what I would call a hermeneutical gaffe.

saint_fiasco 4y ago

It's a Protestant thing, I believe. Catholics have a central authority that is in charge of telling people more or less what to believe, but Protestants are free to make their own interpretations so they sometimes choose to believe stuff that sounds crazy to outsiders. The Catholic Church happens to believe in evolution, so most Catholics accept evolution as well.

namdnay 4y ago
Nah, no one believes that in Denmark or Germany either It’s a nutty evangelical thing, not a mainstream Christian thing

programmer_dude 4y ago

Yes it is. To put it bluntly a large portion of the American population is scientifically illiterate. Some of them believe the earth is around 6000 years old. They even have museums dedicated to such things.

_dain_ 4y ago
that hasn't been a relevant cultural force for at least a decade
mistrial9 4y ago
upvote this as an American but not for the reason that you might think; outside of college towns, you are going to be surprised at the actual education and literacy levels about anything. You can definitely find college undergrads and get them to say dumb things on camera, too (a reflection of their social surroundings)
- programmer_dude 4y ago
  > outside of college towns, you are going to be surprised at the actual education and literacy levels about anything Surprised how?

chmod775 4y ago

> Is that some weird American thing? Yes, but no. It's still quite common in other places as well (take a guess), but none you are as likely to hear of as the US. The US may also be the developed nation in which such belief is most common and - more importantly - openly discussed.

tluyben2 4y ago

Yeah same here; not catholic but, for the Netherlands, very strict Christian (I do not know the particular name in English); we were taught evolution, dinosaurs and carbon dating etc.

analog31 4y ago

I think there's a strong evangelical influence over Catholic culture in the US. Church doctrine does acknolwledge evolution, but with certain exceptions such as human consciousness. Disclosure: Went to Catholic university

yarpen_z 4y ago
Catholics teaching includes the existence of a unique soul in each human - this obviously cannot be a product of evolution.
- mcphage 4y ago
  However, the soul isn't biological, so it is completely orthogonal to evolution.
- analog31 4y ago
  Indeed, and in particular it's the coupling of the eternal soul to the temporal body, that is held to be inaccessible to naturalistic inquiry. There are similar problems surrounding reproduction.
- aarpmcgee 4y ago
  Why could the soul not be a product of evolution?
  - ben_w 4y ago
    The thought process is probably the same reason we're all telling ourselves LaMDA and GPT-3 can't be conscious: Our subjective experience of reality constantly eludes our ability to explain in terms of any physical or informational processes, so every time a system becomes explicable, it leaves the domain of "things which might be self-aware". Some people take this in the other direction and attribute a soul to everything, others go further and say that even our self awareness is an illusion.

heavyset_go 4y ago

This was during the height of the teaching of "intelligent design" in schools debacle, so I'd say it's very much a US thing.

jessaustin 4y ago

I was raised Catholic in a very rural rustic area of midwest USA, and we Catholics laughed at those of other religions who "didn't believe in evolution".

partdavid 4y ago

Well the point of the paper is that regardless of what your religion teaches (and the Roman Catholic church, in particular, is not anti-evolution; but not pro-evolution either, and offers its members essentially a choice of which mechanism of creation to believe), your "sociocultural environment" influences your beliefs more than what religion you say you're a part of. So yes, in accordance with the paper, it's probably more likely that even Catholics in the U.S. will be exposed to more anti-evolution indoctrination and more of their parents and teachers will try to deny evolutionary science, even if they aren't members of a specifically anti-evolution sect. What the paper doesn't really go into is to how religion influences that "sociocultural environment"--it's just measuring effects for individuals. It's clear to me that "teach the controversy" movements, attacks on evolutionary science like the Scopes trial, attempts to remove evolution from biology texts and the actual removal in some schools are in large part motivated by religion, and comprise a lot of that "sociocultural environment" the paper refers to. Catholics have a choice whether to believe in a literal six-day creation and the creation of all life in its current form, so in a place like the U.S., where it's simply more socially acceptable to be an anti-evolutionist, they'll do so in more frequent numbers than where it's not.

akira2501 4y ago

> And suggesting that dinosaurs weren't real would just get you laughed out. There's a contrarian part of me that sees this as somewhat negative. It suggests that perhaps some students may actually have hidden beliefs that they're simply unwilling to expose due to the lack of space for unconventional ideas in the environment. Are students being educated or merely bullied into a particular point of view? That's another question from this study. They say students "given instruction on the nature of science" accept evolution more readily. What is the "nature of science?" And, what does that instruction entail, exactly?

kube-system 4y ago
Unspoken political views are pretty common in the US, and they’re likely why identity (and dog-whistle) politics play such an important role in US politics.

77pt77 4y ago

>Is that some weird American thing? Almost certainly. Also, in there most protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christians. The place is completely bananas.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

prewett 4y ago

It definitely is an American evangelical/fundamentalist thing. (Might also be elsewhere, I can't say) The history is that in the 1800s many seminaries, beginning with German seminaries, began teaching theology that differed from traditional orthodoxy. In the early 1900s a counter-movement emerged in the US which insisted on five fundamentals (hence "fundamentalist"): the Bible is "infallible" and inspired by God, the virgin birth of Jesus, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, that Christ's death atoned for our sins, and the reality of Jesus' miracles. It seems that over time the first point seems to become a literal interpretation of much of the Bible, in particular, Genesis 1. I assume this is because the Modernist theology has to symbolize the Bible if it wants to harmonize the Bible with Modern ideas about there is no literal God, miracles can't happen, etc., since a God that exists and intervenes (e.g. miracles) is kind of the whole point of the text. I'm not totally what happened or why, but it seems like the fundamentalists simplified things from "these are our assumptions" to "this is what the Bible says". YEC is the poster-child, but an unnuanced, one-sided view is endemic. I think evangelicals were originally more nuanced, but over time seem to have merged with the fundamentalists. However, I don't think the Church has historically had an official position on how long creation took. I know some early Church fathers figured Creation took 6000 years: "a day is to the Lord as 1000 years". I also assume that "1000 years" had a similar feeling as "a million years" to us: you can do math with it, but a million years is pretty much an unimaginably long time. It is also well-known that it is a hermeneutical error to interpret poetry literally, but there is little recognition, at least among evangelicals/fundamentalists that Genesis 1 is actually poetry, and hence interpreting it literally is what I would call a hermeneutical gaffe.