The headline is true, but it's just a bit of fun. You can see the survey in the article by clicking on the picture, which shows that it is based on a survey.
Here are some results from the article.
According to a survey, more than half of Americans think Arabic numerals should not be taught in school.
>
According to the research, 56 per cent of people think that the numerals should not be in the curriculum for US children.
>
Arabic numerals refer to the digits 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The system was developed by Indian mathematicians and spread through the Arab world to Europe.
>
A survey by Civic Science asked if schools in America should teach Arabic numerals. The term Arabic numerals was not explained in the poll.
>
2,020 people answered no. Twenty-nine per cent of respondents said that the numerals should be taught in US schools, and fifteen per cent had no opinion.
John Dick, the head of Civic Science, sent out a message with the data in graphic form.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the sad and funniest testament to American bigotry we've ever seen is in our data.
>
John Dick is on May 11, 2019.
Dick thinks that this is an example of bigotry. I am not sure. Although I am sure that many of us know that Arabic numerals are the numerals we use every day, some people don't and, this being America, it's possible that nobody has told children that they are learning Arabic numerals. Dick seems to be in agreement with the idea that the figure could be seen as ignorant rather than bigotry. It is pretty appalling if it is ignorant. Everyone knows what Roman numerals are.
Wait! There is more. Snopes had to investigate the results of the survey because there was so much doubt.
Snopes says it is difficult to answer survey questions if you don't fully understand the meaning.
They reluctantly admit that the claim is true in the analysis, which you can read by clicking on the picture.
Wait! There is still more to come. If you read on, you will get this knife for free.
Snopes.
The results of a real survey were posed by Civic Science. John Dick is the CEO of Civic Science, the person who posted a screenshot of the survey question.
>
Dick has posted a few other questions from the poll, as well as some information regarding the purpose of the survey, but the full survey doesn't appear to be available at this time.
>
Dick shared a survey question about what should or shouldn't be taught in American schools, which he said was to tease out prejudice among those who didn't understand the question. The survey found that a majority of respondents thought that schools in America shouldn't teach the "creation theory of Catholic priest" as part of their science curriculum. The results are here.
Republicans, Democrats, and independents all thought that Lematre's theory should not be taught.
How many Americans know what the "creation theory of Georges Lematre" is? Lematre was a catholic priest and held a modern theory of the Big bang and the expanding Universe. According to the notes on the website:
Lematre was the first to theorize that the recession of nearby galaxies was caused by an expanding universe. The Hubble–Lematre law was published by the IAU in 1927, two years before Hubble published his article. Lematre proposed the Big Bang theory, which he called the "hypothesis of the primeval atom", and later called it "the beginning of the world".
Lemaitre did other science, including analyzing Einstein's theories of relativity. He should have gone into physics instead of the priesthood. There is a photo of him with Einstein.
The current theory of the Universe's origin, not taught, is what Lematre's theory is. The question identified Lematre as a Catholic priest. People probably thought his theory was the one expounded in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. They did not want a religious theory taught in school.
It is possible that more Republicans are creationists than are Democrats. Why did so many Democrats not want to learn Lematre's theory? Is it possible that they are less creationist than Republicans? Maybe that is one answer. It seems less likely that they are anti-Catholic. SimpleIgnorance is the underlying data that underlies much of the data about Arabic numerals. I wouldn't expect the average Joe orJill to know what Lematre said.
Lematre got it right, and that is evidence that there is no conflict between science and religion. I am not sure if Lematre thought God created the Universe, but if he did, he might have thought the Big bang was God's way of doing it. He wasn't a biblical literalist. Religious people can make big contributions to science. Science and Evangelical Christianity are compatible, but only if Francis Collins's biological work is any indication. I have explained before that religious people can do science.
Lematre, Francis Collins, and other religious scientists are victims of a form of unconscious cognitive dissonance: accepting some truth statements based on the toolkit of science, and other truth statements based on the inferior way of knowing. There are different ways that we determine scientific truth as opposed to religious truth.
So shall stop.
George Lematre was taken in 1930.
From the internet:
Millikan, Lematre and Einstein were at the California Institute of Technology in January 1933.
Phil D.
