Miss USA 2011 interviews: should evolution be taught in schools? And is there a geek bubble?

- Edit
- Delete
- Tags
- Autopost
Miss USA 2011 interviews: should evolution be taught in schools? And is there a geek bubble?

I'm a bit uneasy about posting this, for obvious reasons. But it's interesting that they asked the question, and I think I'd forgotten the extent to which the acceptable range of mainstream, commercially desirable, conventional views on evolution in the US is incredibly strange. This is a bizarre window onto that strangeness.

If you want shortcuts, here's the winner (and a massive outlier on this question):
Here's a compilation of the other answers:
Incidentally, you might be pleased to hear that the candidate who self-identifies as a science geek was the winner; though this, in turn, triggered geek soul-searching in the WaPo about whether we are at the top of a "geek bubble".
- 22 June 2011
- Views
- Permalink
- Tweet
11 months ago Gavin responded:

Some great responses on this topic. Good to see this generation is mostly opened minded.

11 months ago Donal responded:

Pretty sad. Not one mentioned we teach things based on evidence.

11 months ago Carl Thomas (Facebook) responded:

Some really scary responses too. Some of these views are quite disturbing, scary to think that these are indeed acceptable mainstream views within the USA.
It is interesting how divided the USA is still between the coastal states and some of the hick states.
The idea of teaching creationism in anything other than religious education is absolutely farcical.

11 months ago James responded:

I agree with Donal, it's rather scary

11 months ago Carl Thomas (Facebook) responded:

I guess the scariest part of this is that they felt this was a reasonable question, and that there was any kind of debate.
Ask this question in most first world countries you would get a disdainful response. Even many of the more reasoned explanations still had religious overtones and comments of how it should be taught in addition to creationism.

11 months ago kelltrill responded:

@Carl I think comments like that just boil down to a basic lack of understanding in the fundamentals of Evolutionary theory. You can be as open minded about Evolution as possible, but if you don't have a basic grasp of the scientific facts then you're going to end up saying stupid shit.

11 months ago Simon Thompson responded:

Hmm I think that there is some selection bias going on in the interpretation of the interviews! The winner was not so much of an outlier really; quite a few of the contestants said that they thought it should be taught, quite a few pointed out that Evolution is a belief system (a very good and highly validated one in my opinion, and probably all of the readers of this blog), several said that teaching different ideas was a good thing. We must bring as many people along with us on the road to reason or we will find that we live in a chaotic and unreasonable world; being moderate and careful in selection and discussion of this kind of material is really important because otherwise the chasm to the other side will just get uncrossable.
Many gave answers designed to please a panel and the public as they perceive them "the great thing about America is"...
As scientists we should be careful; Darwin's story about natural selection to create fit individuals over time is clearly wrong; we don't sit on top of a pyramid of complexity or phenotype excellence. The molecular mechanism and the interaction with the genotype which limits and guides the phenotypes that we see around us really only became apparent in the last half of the last century. There are deep mysteries about the mechanisms as they are currently understood (the paucity of the gene count in humans for example). There will be substantial advances in this topic in our life time and we don't want the discussion to be centered on "you said that X was true, now you say Y".
Science is about contingent knowledge : you know what you know on the basis of observations so far. New observations may completely change your knowledge.
As a great man said; I change my views when the evidence changes - what do you do? We need to communicate that and to listen -many of the contestants were taking that stance (be open minded, look at the evidence, make a choice). They are right.
BTW: I am an atheist, a scientist and I think that there is a process rather like evolution as it is currently described at work in the world today and in the past and that's how I came to me. I don't claim to know this or to be right though.

11 months ago Donal responded:

Simon:
Thats pretty all over the place answer.
You say
"you know what you know on the basis of observations so far. New observations may completely change your knowledge."
and then say
"I think that there is a process rather like evolution as it is currently described at work in the world today and in the past and that's how I came to me. I don't claim to know this or to be right though."
surely you see the contradiction in both these statements.
Also you seemed not to have grasped the problem. Science is not as you say merely about knowledge. To quote the late Carl Sagan its "its a way of thinking"
This leads on precisely to the problem observed here. Many of these young women and America it would seem based on recent polls see evolution as something to "believe or not". As they say "its each ones choice to make". No its not. Same as saying its my choice to decide if gravity is real.
The main principle is to teach this method of thinking. That our understanding of the world is not random choices on faith. Its based on evidence. Mind numbing amounts of evidence to help us gain different degrees on certainties on different subjects.
Nobody mentions the central point. Which is a damning indictment of science education in America. We teach things based on evidence. Therefore evolution should be thought in schools and faith should be left for elsewhere if people want such nonsense.

11 months ago Adam responded:

The comments by both groups, the contestants and those responding to the video are interesting and inform us on several topics. Firstly, the inclusion of this question is, in my mind, a step in the rigt direction. As an American living abroad I can tell you that we are not the only country struggling with such issues. For weeks now there has been a televised debate in the United Kingdom about religions place in modern society. Evolution has come up time and again as the only true proof opposing religion. This is, of course, a stretching of the information at hand.
Evolution is a theory, not a scientific law like universal gravitation or Newton's three other laws of motion. So arguing that it's the same as these is a difficult position to adopt if we are to maintain any sense of objective reasoning. The question posed to the Miss USA contestants was simple. "Should evolution be taught in schools"? Obviously, there is a lot of personal opinion in answers to such questions and I don't think we should hold these women accountable for all of their answers. After all, they are trying to win a pageant and not spark off a debate about the relevance of data supporting evolution and how this far outweighs that for religion.
Whether the amount of evidence in support of evolution is enough to sway the entire population of the United States is irrelevant. It also seems that some of the comments above confused the types of evidence there are in support of this theory. I must disagree with Simon, who states that, "Darwin's story about natural selection to create fit individuals is clearly wrong..." I don't believe he was "clearly wrong" I think he, along with everyone in his time, lacked a basic understanding of genetics and how changes in an organisms genotype influence its phenotype.
As we all know, Darwin wasn't the first, nor was he the only person to discuss evolution. He was simply the first one to provide a decent account of the mechanism underlying it. We now know that genetic mutation leads to variation within a population and that some of these mutations are favored while others are not. Over time those which are favored become represented more often in the genotype of an organism, thus changing the frequency with which that mutation is found in the overall population. This leads to the evolution of species. How this belief in a theory influences an individuals cosmology is another issue all together.
Following on from those who commented before me I would like to quote a brief exchange between Dr. Sheldon Cooper and his mother on The Big Bang Theory,
Sheldon: "Evolution is not an opinion, it's a fact".
Sheldon's Mother: "And that's your opinion".
Evolution must not continue to be seen as the only source of opposition to religion in the world today. It's an idea, a theory. Unlike some other theories designed to slight those who choose to belief in religion, like the giant spaghetti moster, evolutionary theory has evidence supporting its claims. Rubbing that evidence in the face of those who choose not to believe in it makes athiests, agnostics and the like no better than those who choose to ignore such evidence. I disagree with Dawkins' call for "militant athiesm". One must realize that there are myriad ways with which to navigate the time spent on this planet. My final quote is from Lennon, "Whatever gets you through the night". In my brief history on this planet I have never closed someone elses eyes before falling asleep. If, as an athiest, I ask that members of any of the worlds religions refrain from attempts at converting me than I must afford them the same courtesy.

11 months ago David responded:

Adam,
"Rubbing that evidence in the face of those who choose not to believe in it makes athiests, agnostics and the like no better than those who choose to ignore such evidence"
How can someone "choose not to believe in it" - they could perhaps say that the evidence indicates otherwise (and back that up with an explanation) but you cannot just choose to ignore evidence...and then expect that view to be respected, which is what you seem to be suggesting. In that sense it *is* like Gravity. Would you respect someone's view not to believe in the evidence that gravity makes things fall to the ground?
And then you use the word "ignore" such evidence. Exactly. If they are ignoring the evidence is their point of view valid in any way? No. Quoting evidence is not "rubbing it in the face". It is merely pointing out the facts (of the existence of the evidence).
I would also refer you to what scientists mean when they use the word "theory". Evolution is more than just an idea. If it were no more than that it would be called the Evolution Hypothesis.

11 months ago Dave Cross responded:

Nice to see that the mostly came down to the right answer. It's just a shame that a lot of the reasoning was so batshit insane.

11 months ago Simon Thompson responded:

Hi Ben,
It wasn't an answer; it was a comment :) If I had an answer to this stuff I think I'd probably be known as "The Great Omintron" and spend my time sitting on a big golden throne getting foot massages. (Un?)fortunately I am instead known as "That guy with the tie" and am spending my lunch hour commenting on your blog - but this is no bad thing really.
To your main points:
On the statements - the first one I actually don't see the contradiction in. The second on contains a purposeful contradiction; I think that there is a deep gap between beliefs based on knowledge that is not just incomplete but known to contain inconsistencies, and assertions that I am right.
Gravity is a good one to mention; failing to believe in things falling down when they are not supported, or planets going round the sun rather than flying away is loopy. Failing to believe in the Newtonian account of gravity is mainstream science - it describes most things quite well, but not everything that we can point out with good instruments. Newton also made no claims about the hows of gravity, so when we talk about believing in gravity in that sense we are being pretty vague to be honest. The best theories of gravity we have break down at a very small scale and at very large scales, we have invested huge efforts into trying to understand exactly how they breakdown and very large efforts in developing theories which are by definition beliefs at the moment (because they are un-testable, and may always be un-testable). Yet string theory and quantum loop gravity are science - they have validity in the development of ways of seeing the world and understanding it.
The theories of gravity are not wrong in terms of certainty. We know 100% that they are wrong, just a bit wrong, but certainly wrong in some corner cases and unusual (incredibly unusual) circumstances.
Your point about evidence is also interesting. Should we teach only things that we can personally test? I accept that they people at CERN are developing detailed and incredibly well verified evidence about the nature of the universe; my acceptance of that is an act of faith in the institutions of science. I publish papers (ok I haven't published for 2 years, things are tricky) and I worry intensely that I have screwed up the data or the analysis, or that I won't be able to help people replicate my results if I am challenged and I believe that almost all the people involved in science are the same. This belief is shaken sometimes when I do try other peoples work and find that I can't do it and then find that they won't respond to my emails or have moved on and disappeared, but I am small fry working on obscure stuff in a small community and the work on the edges isn't subjected to the kind of intense gaze that mainstream science is.
I know, in my heart, how it works - I believe in science, in the scientific process. Most people don't because they haven't lived it. When we talk about evidence we need to understand that there is a failure to comprehend what we mean by that; a scholar may find an original source (say a new letter from Caesar to Cicero) and burn that to preserve the validity of their thesis on their relationship in the knowledge that the act of destruction changes the facts that will be available to contradict their thesis for all time. A shepherd boy can come down from a mountain clutching a scrap of blue silk he found in a bush and claim that the Virgin Mary told him he was cured of a pox that he hadn't even realised that he had had and no one can argue that he is doing anything other than telling his story (we all think it is a lie, but it could have been a hallucination, and it fits with theories that explain why babies are alive, why we think, why we have free will all of which are not explained by science as it stands now). A court of law accepts evidence from eye witnesses; if 10 people see something then juries are likely to believe them.
Scientists largely agree on what is evidence and what isn't, even so there are gaps due the the difficulties of obtaining evidence in some areas. Evidence of surgical outcome is very different from evidence of pharmaceutical trails, because surgeons are all different and surgery is a very serious experimental intervention to undertake. Should we provide the religions of the world with the resources that are provided to science to gather evidence? Should we allow them to define what evidence is and what the standards of evidence are in the way that we allow type of science to develop and define standards?
Nope... But we could end up with a lot of things taught to children "because there is evidence for it" which we would think are crazy.
What we should do is expose children to the scientific process and demonstrate to them how to investigate questions for themselves. I think that we would get generations of scientists as a result. Then they would act just like you or me if we were "taught" faith, perhaps they would laugh, perhaps they would find it interesting intellectually, perhaps they would get worried about their teacher. Maybe they would believe and treat that as a personal choice.

11 months ago Ben Goldacre responded:

simon, i dont know who youre replying to but it's not me.

11 months ago Simon Thompson responded:

sorry - can't edit the post, I am replying to Donal, case of happy fingers disengaged brain..

11 months ago Stewart responded:

I think the real problem here is the conflating of "scientific theory" and the dictionary definition of "theory." I'd like to see that taught in schools immediately preceding the theories of evolution and gravity.

11 months ago Adam responded:

David:
It certainly is a choice. There are those who choose to ignore the evidence or suggest that it is placed there purposefully by God to test faith. From an objective and scientific perspective this is not a point which can be argued. If they are unwilling or unable to engage in open dialogue than I believe, as an athiest and a scientist, that it is more fruitful to adopt a position of understanding and compassion rather than attacking their intelligence or beliefs.

11 months ago nancy brownlee responded:

Beauty pageant contestants are vigorously taught to respond to ANY and ALL questions in as noncommittal a manner as possible- because, after all, you never know what the judges might believe. Pleasant, non-confrontational replies that seem to explain a viewpoint but actually say very little and which also give a respectful nod to "the beliefs of others" are treated as a social grace which every poised and accomplished young woman must master. You get negative points for critical thinking.

11 months ago John responded:

"Evolution must not continue to be seen as the only source of opposition to religion "
It isn't.
It isn't seen as a source of opposition to religion, it is not a source of opposition to religion.
Christians on the whole, the vast majority of the 2 billion who follow various variants of that belief system, have no problem with science or evolution, a fringe of people who call themselves Christians as well as their equivalents who declare themselves followers of Islam have deep problems in reconciling what to them are important aspects of their faith with the reality represented in science.
Evolution is not in opposition to religion, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with belief in religion or not.
It is simply one of those areas where some well meaning people have tried to get irrational people, who also declare as religious and who have chosen to make this extreme and bizzare irrationality the cornerstone of their belief; to confront that same irrationality.
But it has all the success of telling someone who believes themselves to be Napoleon that they are not Napoleon, no matter how much evidence you show them they will stick doggedly to the belief that they are Napoleon and maybe we just have to tolerate that as long as they are not an active physical danger to themselves or others.

11 months ago scotslawstudent (Twitter) responded:

Kentucky's quite an interesting answer -- we shouldn't teach it in schools because people in classrooms wouldn't agree on it.

11 months ago scotslawstudent (Twitter) responded:

Come to think of it, you should really be applauding Regina Turner, 21, Connecticuit who doesn't bother with the what-am-I-like big science geek big bang stuff but just says, no bullshit, "I do think evolution should be taught in schools".

11 months ago cosmicbabs responded:

I can't believe that science is considered a religion in the USA ... the answers would have been ok if the question was: "should CREATIONISM be taught in schools?"
Ben Goldacre's Space

I like stats. I'm a doctor. I write about dodgy scientific claims in my spare time.
This isn't my main blog. Find me here:
Blog:
www.badscience.net/
Book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X/?tag=bs0b-21
Tweet:
www.twitter.com/bengoldacre
TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html

bengoldacre - secondary blog

Miss USA 2011 interviews: should evolution be taught in schools? And is there a geek bubble?

Ben Goldacre's Space

About Ben Goldacre

Archive

Follow Me