I think the author had it right when she described the cultural factors involved in acceptance of evolution:
quote:
For decades we've known that beliefs about evolution are well-predicted by demographic factors, such as religious upbringing and political affiliation. There's also enormous variation in the acceptance of evolution across different countries, all of which suggests an important role for cultural input in driving beliefs about evolution. A child raised by Buddhists in California is much more likely to accept evolution than one raised by evangelical Protestants in Kansas. (Emphasis in original)
However, when she starts exploring the psychological factors and "cognitive styles" that contribute to the degree of acceptance of evolution, she even points out the weakness of her own approach:
quote:
These factors are typically taken to hold for all humans, not only those who reject evolution. But this naturally raises a question about what differentiates those individuals who do accept evolution from those who do not. In other words, if the California Buddhist and the Kansas Protestant share the same cognitive mechanisms, what accounts for their differing views on evolution?
I guess it depends on how convincing you find this sort of 21st-century phrenology. I think there's much more to be said for the way that certain communities relate to knowledge, especially knowledge that's as counter-intuitive as that which supports the theory of evolution. The problems of public education, and the reluctance of school systems to emphasize evolution by natural selection in biology curricula, provide a vast amount of soil for misunderstanding to thrive even among people who affirm the validity of species evolution.
Politically, the right wing obviously has a vested interest in de-emphasizing a theory that unsettles its religious constituents. However, the specter of Social Darwinism is just as disturbing to progressives. Economically, there's a lot of money to be made in the textbook trade, and the cottage industry of anti-Darwinist literature and film can be just as lucrative as the one that put money in the pockets of celebrity debater/authors like Dawkins.
Which brings me to one last cultural factor that's a stumbling block to the acceptance of species evolution: the way Darwinism has become a totem of anti-religious activism. It's a little disingenuous of us to tout the Christianity-crushing power of evolution by natural selection on one hand (and put Darwin-fish bumper stickers on our cars to taunt the fundies), then turn around and act astonished when people continue to express doubt about the construct on religious grounds.
Edited by MrHambre, : Typo.
™ Version 4.2
