I was reading a study abstract on belief in evolution amongst people who teach the teachers, when I started to chuckle:
Although 93% of the general faculty, educators, and students knew that evolution relies on common ancestry, 26% of the general faculty, 45% of the educators, and 35% of the students did not know that humans are apes.
Interesting, that. I had always understood that supporters of the theory of evolution taught that we were primates rather than apes. Related, you understand, but not immediate family (sorry, Tarzan).
Then, I read this:
Remarkably, 15% of the general faculty, 32% of the educators, and 35% of the students believed, incorrectly, that the origin of the human mind cannot be explained by evolution….
Two lovely words there, which lead one to believe that the study was not objective: remarkably and incorrectly. Of course, is it that people believed that evolution cannot reasonably explain the origin of the human mind, or that it has not attempted to? Those are, after all, two widely differing propositions.
Finally, we look at this interesting construct:
Understanding of science and evolution were inversely correlated with level of religiosity, and understanding of evolution increased with increasing science literacy.
Seems as though science is being equated with evolution, allowing the both of them to sit on the scale opposite religiosity. It would also seem that by an “understanding of evolution,” the authors mean “agreeing with major hypotheses of the theory of evolution.”
Bottom line? The longer people stay in college the less broad-minded they become.