Question to Brits regarding currency

[unspun]

I was rather surprised (pleasantly) on arriving in England and converting currency to find Mr Charles Darwin adorning the 10 pound note. When did this happen? Was there much of an outcry from churches and whatnot?
I find it a bit strange because (aside from Liz of course) there are no other people represented among English notes or coins.

[Mangetout]

I was rather surprised (pleasantly) on arriving in England and converting currency to find Mr Charles Darwin adorning the 10 pound note. When did this happen?I can't remember the exact date of changeover, but it's been like that for quite a few years now. IIRC, it was Dickens on there previously.

Was there much of an outcry from churches and whatnot? Not really. We don't do that sort of thing very much here.

I find it a bit strange because (aside from Liz of course) there are no other people represented among English notes or coins.Yes there are. The new £20 has Adam Smith on it (previously Elgar), the £50 has Sir John Houblon, the fiver has Elizabeth Fry on it. Isaac Newton used to be on the pound note and other notable figures - including Shakespeare, Wellington, Florence Nightingale, Christoper Wren - have been on various other versions of various denominations

[Quartz]

I was rather surprised (pleasantly) on arriving in England and converting currency to find Mr Charles Darwin adorning the 10 pound note. When did this happen? Was there much of an outcry from churches and whatnot?

No - we don't have such a problem with YECs. They're rightly regarded as people whose theories are contradicted by the evidence.

[PaulParkhead]

ISTR a fiver with Michael Faraday on it. I'm not so familiar with recent Bank of England notes, because I'm in Scotland.

And I hate to do "me too" type stuff, but no, the addition of Darwin to the £10 BoE note was not controversial in any way.

[Mangetout]

I'm not sure on what grounds anyone could object in any case - Darwin existed and he made significant contributions to science. Not everybody likes Adam Smith, but you can't deny his existence and impact.

[KneadToKnow]

I'm not sure on what grounds anyone could object in any case - Darwin existed and he made significant contributions to science. Not everybody likes Adam Smith, but you can't deny his existence and impact.
Rational grounds for objection have never been hard to deal with. :)

[GorillaMan]

ISTR a fiver with Michael Faraday on it. I'm not so familiar with recent Bank of England notes, because I'm in Scotland.
The twenty had Faraday, before Elgar's appearance.

I have always taken delight in the thought of creationists coming here and finding Darwin's prominent position.

[Chez Guevara]

I was rather surprised (pleasantly) on arriving in England and converting currency to find Mr Charles Darwin adorning the 10 pound note. When did this happen?The first such notes were issued on 7 November 2000.

[Wendell Wagner]

unspun writes:

> Was there much of an outcry from churches and whatnot?

Aren't you aware that outside of the U.S. creationists are rather rare?

[GorillaMan]

Aren't you aware that outside of the U.S. creationists are rather rare?
Absolutely! In its modern existence as a religion which would rather if nobody was inconvenienced (if that's not too much trouble, thanks awfully), the Church of England happily accepts evolution. In any case, what Rowan Williams says, or the Pope or anybody else for that matter, has little-to-no bearing on people's lives.

[Apollyon]

Aren't you aware that outside of the U.S. creationists are rather rare?And I'd just like to add that we'd rather keep it that way... so even though I know you have a surfeit of these folks in the USA it'd be best if you didn't export them. :D

[Ximenean]

There was a certain amount of harrumphing when Adam Smith appeared on the twenty. Happy days :D

[Indistinguishable]

Aren't you aware that outside of the U.S. creationists are rather rare?
Out of curiosity, just how globally true is this statement? You hear this about Europe and Australia and so on a lot. But, for example, is there anything in the way of Creationist movements in fundamentalist Muslim territories, or is the theory of evolution ho-humly, uncontroversially accepted among them as well? Orthodox Judaism? Whatever the average Chinese person believes? Canada? Etc.

[ruadh]

Creationism is not an issue in England, but it seems that it has greater support within the British state as a whole than the above posters would suggest. Cite. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm) In the North of Ireland it has very strong support from Ian Paisley's DUP, who hold the First Minister post in the Northern Assembly (but fortunately not the Education Ministry). 'Nother cite. (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0807/1218047756470.html)

[si_blakely]

I'm not sure on what grounds anyone could object in any case - Darwin existed and he made significant contributions to science. Not everybody likes Adam Smith, but you can't deny his existence and impact.His hand, though, is another matter... ;)

Si

[Mangetout]

Creationists themselves are not absent from the UK, it's just that for one reason or another, they're not taken very seriously by anyone other than themselves (and perhaps not even that, in all cases) - which, when you consider that we don't have formal separation of church and state, is quite interesting.

[FRDE]

Just to add my 2 pence
- we don't have much truck with creationists, and don't pay much attention to our religious leaders.

If I remember correctly, we put Wellington on the blue £5 note at a particularly sensitive time with Europe :)

[Wendell Wagner]

Here's the Wikipedia entry that comes closest to talking about the level of belief in creationism around the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

Even the level of support for creationism in the U.S. is exaggerated. Those people in the U.S. who say that they don't believe in evolution are largely those that haven't seriously thought about the matter much. After all, very few people have the opportunity to think about the idea of evolution much in their ordinary life. Hardly any scientists are creationists. Not that many high school biology teachers are creationists. Courts in the U.S. have consistently ruled against even mentioning creationism in public schools. Those politicians who talk publicly about creationism have done almost nothing about it. Creationists in the U.S. are in the same position as people who believe in U.F.O.'s, parapsychological phenomena like telepathy, or Kennedy assassination conspiracies. Whatever the the level of popular support for these things are, it hasn't actually made any inroads on official support for them. The influence of creationism remains today much as it has been since the mid-twentieth century - lots of believers who have little effect on the official positions about the subject.

[Princhester]

I'm not sure on what grounds anyone could object in any case - Darwin existed and he made significant contributions to science. Not everybody likes Adam Smith, but you can't deny his existence and impact.

Insert "Hitler" where appropriate. ISTM Darwin's presence on a note does imply acceptance and a positive view of him, not merely that he existed and had impact.

[Quartz]

If I remember correctly, we put Wellington on the blue £5 note at a particularly sensitive time with Europe :)

And the irony is that it was seen as insensitive when Wellington was a great European. He had, after all, just saved Europe from the dictatorship of Napoleon. And he was an excellent diplomat. He spent a lot of time in diplomacy after Waterloo.

[PaulParkhead]

Creationists themselves are not absent from the UK, it's just that for one reason or another, they're not taken very seriously by anyone other than themselves (and perhaps not even that, in all cases) - which, when you consider that we don't have formal separation of church and state, is quite interesting.

Wasn't there a carry on a few years back when some car-showroom millionaire (Reg Vardy? Arnold Clark? One of those guys, anyhow) decided to fund a state school that "taught both sides of the debate"? I was in the US at the time, but I'm sure I read something about that.

[Nava]

Absolutely! In its modern existence as a religion which would rather if nobody was inconvenienced (if that's not too much trouble, thanks awfully), the Church of England happily accepts evolution. In any case, what Rowan Williams says, or the Pope or anybody else for that matter, has little-to-no bearing on people's lives.

The Pope accepts evolution, too. So that's another significant chunk of Brit population who, if they suddenly decided to get an attack of Churchness (is too a word!) would have no problem with Mr. Darwin on religious grounds.

[Mangetout]

Insert "Hitler" where appropriate. ISTM Darwin's presence on a note does imply acceptance and a positive view of him, not merely that he existed and had impact.

Good point - and well made. I suppose what I was aiming for was that Darwin is on the tenner because of his significance as a figure in history and science, rather than just through simple reverence for him or something like that.

[An Gadaí]

This is my favourite Sterling bank note, issued by Northern Bank in NI.
http://rodsell.com/plastics/ireland5pd.jpg

[An Gadaí]

Although this is a close second:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/158/333401919_c1dd9463ba.jpg?v=0

[Charley]

Wasn't there a carry on a few years back when some car-showroom millionaire (Reg Vardy? Arnold Clark? One of those guys, anyhow) decided to fund a state school that "taught both sides of the debate"? I was in the US at the time, but I'm sure I read something about that.

Yup - Sir Peter Vardy, it's Emmanuel College (http://www.emmanuelctc.org.uk/emmanuelcollege/emmanuelcollege/), although the foundation also has other schools in the UK. Their own site (at a cursory glance) doesn't make the 'both sides' approach too clear, from what I can see, but this is the one that's always brought up as the example (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/creationism-debate-moves-to-britain-478576.html).

[Meurglys]

If anybody's interested, this site shows all the current Scottish Banknotes (http://www.scotbanks.org.uk/banknote_denominations.php).
Click on one of the bank logos at the bottom...
After you choose a banknote, click on 'front' or 'back' for more details.

[Polycarp]

His hand, though, is another matter... ;)

Si

Ah, another example of that class of things that, though pink, are invisible! ;)

[GorillaMan]

Wasn't there a carry on a few years back when some car-showroom millionaire (Reg Vardy? Arnold Clark? One of those guys, anyhow) decided to fund a state school that "taught both sides of the debate"? I was in the US at the time, but I'm sure I read something about that.
Yup - Sir Peter Vardy, it's Emmanuel College (http://www.emmanuelctc.org.uk/emmanuelcollege/emmanuelcollege/), although the foundation also has other schools in the UK. Their own site (at a cursory glance) doesn't make the 'both sides' approach too clear, from what I can see, but this is the one that's always brought up as the example (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/creationism-debate-moves-to-britain-478576.html).
They've shown themselves to be inept at running a school in other ways as well. Their flagship city academy in Middlesbrough recently spent two years in special measures - Ofsted reports (http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_providers/full/(urn)/133768).

In some ways, I find this whole episode to be evidence of a public without sympathy for creationism or creationists, because the only way they're managing to get people to listen to them is by subterfuge.

[Illuminatiprimus]

If someone wants to start another thread on the subject of creationism in the UK I'm the government official who deals with the issue of creationism being taught in the context of science. I also used to work the Academies policy area and am very familiar with the Vardy schools controversy too.

Happy to give the straight dope on the issue if people would like it rather than hijack this thread further. :)

[Mangetout]

If someone wants to start another thread on the subject of creationism in the UK I'm the government official who deals with the issue of creationism being taught in the context of science. I also used to work the Academies policy area and am very familiar with the Vardy schools controversy too.

Happy to give the straight dope on the issue if people would like it rather than hijack this thread further. :)
I'd actually like to hear all about that - do you think it would be best suited to a MPSIMS thread, or GD?

[si_blakely]

Ah, another example of that class of things that, though pink, are invisible! ;)It's not just invisible, it's got a light touch as well. It is constantly reaching into my wallet and removing fivers that I swear were there this morning.

Si

[Lust4Life]

Just to add my 2 pence
- we don't have much truck with creationists, and don't pay much attention to our religious leaders.

If I remember correctly, we put Wellington on the blue £5 note at a particularly sensitive time with Europe :)

Hello mate!
Where the hell have you been?

I thought that you'd died or become a Frenchman or something.
Good to have you back!

But back to the plot,a poster says that a MORI poll for a T.V. programme revealed that quite a large (Though a minority)proportion of those polledin the U.K.believed in Creationism.

Well I have serious doubts on this,not the poll or the results but the way the poll was put into effect.

Ask the right people and ask the right questions and you'll get the right results.

Apart from Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons(And maybe Muslims) I cant honestly imagine any run of the mill Brit believing in Creationism.
I have in fact never met one myself,though this of course could be because of my seriously limited number of friends and aquaintances brought on by my my natural shyness and low self esteem.

The majority religious belief in the U.K. is of the apathy sect(And I'm not knocking that)where if we have a kid,get married or die then some of us MIGHT call on the services of the Church but its by no means incredibly common(except for the dying bit,a little bit of spiritual insurance never does any harm)

Can I add that I've actually looked round a Creationist travelling exhibition(I was passing,it was free and I'm nosy)but all that I can remember about it was some fossilised dinosaur eggs,the point of which nowadays totally escapes me.

[Ximenean]

The funny thing is, while there have been plenty of famous Brits depicted on bank notes, there have been hardly any on the non-heads side of coins. The only identifiable people I can think of are Winston Churchill, on the 1965 commemorative crown, and Isambard Kingdom Brunel an some £2 coins.

[clairobscur]

But back to the plot,a poster says that a MORI poll for a T.V. programme revealed that quite a large (Though a minority)proportion of those polled in the U.K.believed in Creationism.

Well I have serious doubts on this,not the poll or the results but the way the poll was put into effect.


It seems to me that "believing in creationism" might not be understood by pooled British in the way it would be understood by pooled Americans. I would suspect that Britons stating they "believe in creationism" likely meant that they thought the universe was created by god, not that they didn't believe in evolution.

[Illuminatiprimus]

It seems to me that "believing in creationism" might not be understood by pooled British in the way it would be understood by pooled Americans. I would suspect that Britons stating they "believe in creationism" likely meant that they thought the universe was created by god, not that they didn't believe in evolution. No, believe me, even if the majority of people in the UK believe that God had something to do with the creation of the universe (unclear from my own experience), they still believe in evolution. I've only met one person who professed not to believe in it and he was a bible thumper of the most anachronistic kind.

[GorillaMan]

It seems to me that "believing in creationism" might not be understood by pooled British in the way it would be understood by pooled Americans. I would suspect that Britons stating they "believe in creationism" likely meant that they thought the universe was created by god, not that they didn't believe in evolution.
Quite true. Also they'd perhaps tend to say they agree rather than disagree with a statement such as 'the account of the creation of the Earth given in the bible is broadly true'. Yet ask them to actually tell you what that account describes, and they will sometimes have difficulty remembering...

[kellner]

It seems to me that "believing in creationism" might not be understood by pooled British in the way it would be understood by pooled Americans. I would suspect that Britons stating they "believe in creationism" likely meant that they thought the universe was created by god, not that they didn't believe in evolution.That's certainly true in Germany. There is a sizeable segment of the population that has half-assed and ill-defined vaguely deist beliefs. If you just ask them "Did God create the world?" many of them might say yes but that doesn't really mean that they take a meaningful stance against evolution or any other aspect of a scientific world view.
Actual creationists certainly exist but they are about as recognized and respected as hollow-earthers and UFO-abductees. Generally mainstream churches or polititians won't touch them with a ten foot pole.

The only time that I can think of was a few years ago when it became known that a conservative state Prime Minister planned to attend an event where one of the speakers was an intelligent Design proponent and he caught a lot of flak because of that. The result was the speaker's invitation was withdrawn, the politition denounced creationism and denied any connection to George Bush (!)

[MOIDALIZE]

When will the Benny Hill notes be issued?

[Ximenean]

Benny who?

[GorillaMan]

When will the Benny Hill notes be issued?
He's WAY down the list. Brits care about him about as much as they do about creationism. Perhaps when all the Pythons are dead they'd be in with a shout, likewise the Beatles (yawn).

Certainly artistic fields have had a raw deal so far, compared to the scientists.

[Mangetout]

Benny Hill came from Eastleigh - a stone's throw from where I live. When they knocked down the old Pirelli works in Eastleigh to build apartments, one of the roads was named Benny Hill Close - Every time I walk past it, I feel like setting my glasses crooked, sticking out my tongue sideways and saluting.

[MOIDALIZE]

They should put Keeley Hazell on the money. It would cause an economic boom as men worked harder to attain more of the notes.

[Mangetout]

Keeley who?

[Mangetout]

If someone wants to start another thread on the subject of creationism in the UK I'm the government official who deals with the issue of creationism being taught in the context of science. I also used to work the Academies policy area and am very familiar with the Vardy schools controversy too.

Happy to give the straight dope on the issue if people would like it rather than hijack this thread further. :)

I'd really, really like to know more about this, so I have started the thread in MPSIMS - I guess if it turns into a debate, it can be moved...

http://boardstest.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=482078

[Ximenean]

one of the roads was named Benny Hill Close - Every time I walk past it, I feel like setting my glasses crooked, sticking out my tongue sideways and saluting.
Near where I used to live, there was for some reason a street called "Ayrton Senna Road". Whenever I drove past it I always felt like slamming into the sign at full speed.

I'm not making this up, there really is an Ayrton Senna Road in the outskirts of Reading. Look it up on Google Maps.

[GorillaMan]

Near where I used to live, there was for some reason a street called "Ayrton Senna Road". Whenever I drove past it I always felt like slamming into the sign at full speed.

I'm not making this up, there really is an Ayrton Senna Road in the outskirts of Reading. Look it up on Google Maps.

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=466166&Y=173098&A=Y&Z=1
It looks to me that it could perhaps be a private road, in which case they could name it whatever they want with ease?


Edit: it has speed bumps (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Ayrton+Senna+Rd,+Tilehurst,+Reading,+West+Berkshire+RG31,+United+Kingdom&ie=UTF8&hl=en&cd=1&geocode=FUodEQMdbv7v_w&ll=51.453429,-1.048624&spn=0.000574,0.001368&t=k&z=20)!!!! I do like the sound of the Ayrton Senna Play Area (http://www.reading.gov.uk/leisureandculture/parksandopenspaces/fulllistofparksandopenspaces/General.asp?id=SX9452-A77F8F65), mind...

[Ximenean]

It's not exactly a major thoroughfare, no, but if memory serves it was a proper street and had the Reading Borough Council logo on the sign and all that. Maybe there was some connection to the McLaren racing team in Reading? But I thought they were based in Woking? Did they get the wrong -ing? Maybe there's a Kimi Raikkonen Close in Dorking, too.

[GorillaMan]

Maybe there was some connection to the McLaren racing team in Reading? But I thought they were based in Woking?
Good point.
Maybe there's a Kimi Raikkonen Close in Dorking, too.
When he dies live on TV, maybe. We can only hope. (Ouch, that was really bitchy, wasn't it?)

[postcards]

Keeley who?
Keely Hazell. (http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/keeleyhazell/keeley_hazell_1.jpg) (Not entirely safe for work.)

Use Google Images, man!

[Mangetout]

Never heard of her.

[Hari Seldon]

Here's the Wikipedia entry that comes closest to talking about the level of belief in creationism around the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

Even the level of support for creationism in the U.S. is exaggerated. Those people in the U.S. who say that they don't believe in evolution are largely those that haven't seriously thought about the matter much. After all, very few people have the opportunity to think about the idea of evolution much in their ordinary life. Hardly any scientists are creationists. Not that many high school biology teachers are creationists. Courts in the U.S. have consistently ruled against even mentioning creationism in public schools. Those politicians who talk publicly about creationism have done almost nothing about it. Creationists in the U.S. are in the same position as people who believe in U.F.O.'s, parapsychological phenomena like telepathy, or Kennedy assassination conspiracies. Whatever the the level of popular support for these things are, it hasn't actually made any inroads on official support for them. The influence of creationism remains today much as it has been since the mid-twentieth century - lots of believers who have little effect on the official positions about the subject.

In a very formal sense that might be true, but they are noisy and organized enough to make the teaching of biology fraught. But there is a deeper issue. One of the two political parties in the US is infested with creationists. While that fact per se has little effect on policy, what it conceals is contempt for evidence and that permeates their policies.

While it is doubtless true that most people haven't given evolution much thought, polls regularly show that maybe 50% of Americans claim not to believe in evolution. I think that the fact that biology is taught purely descriptively and the other sciences are not generally required means that most US schools have basically given up teaching science as a serious subject. And fewer and fewer study science in college. There are no doubt other reasons, but I think it starts with objections to evolution. Does anyone know what percentage of US HS students are actually taught serious biology (as I was in 1951-52).

[Wendell Wagner]

I don't think that it really has to do with evolution though. The problem is not an American disdain for evolution or even for science. It's an American disdain for knowledge for its own sake. In the past forty years, although the number of college graduates has gone up quite a bit, the number of graduates who majored in any liberal arts field has stayed the same or gone down, with only a couple of exceptions. This is true of any liberal arts subject - mathematics, physics, chemistry, history, sociology, anthropology, English, all foreign languages, philosophy, etc. The growth in college graduates has all been in non-liberal arts subjects - education, engineering, nursing, business, etc. The point of college for most people is to prepare for a career, not to develop an interest in learning. The only two liberal arts subjects with any growth in graduates are psychology and some biological sciences, which are fields that feed people into career-oriented graduate programs in psychology or medicine.

The problem with people who believe in creationism is the same as the problem with the people who believe in astrology, parapsychology, U.F.O.'s, or elaborate conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination, 9/11, or whatever - the contempt for evidence. I don't think that courses in biology have gotten any worse in the past forty or fifty years. I suspect that they have gotten better. (Does anyone have any statistics about this?) People who believe ridiculous things don't care about what they learned in high school courses. It's often like they choose the ridiculous things they believe in at random. The idea for them is to annoy other people, not to have a consistent set of beliefs.

[constanze]

I don't think that it really has to do with evolution though. The problem is not an American disdain for evolution or even for science. It's an American disdain for knowledge for its own sake.

I agree that the American attitude of "what's it worth?", that is, looking at everything from a cost perspective, is very bad for science and education. Fundamental research (as opposed to applied research) has a harder and harder time getting funding. This also cripples NASA - too many people say "why should we spend money going to the stars" without knowing the elementary astrophysics to understand the benefits and chances.

However, the bigger problem in today's society is that science and technology are so much more important, because of the problems they cause, and the necessary solutions. If the majority of the people in a country have never been even exposed to the scientific method or who don't understand the most basics of the basic sciences like physics and biology, then they will make bad decisions based on false information, half-truths, populistic propaganda about important topics like stem-cell research and cloning, Global warming and energy consumption and production, organic agriculture vs Genetic modification, etc.

The problem with people who believe in creationism is the same as the problem with the people who believe in astrology, parapsychology, U.F.O.'s, or elaborate conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination, 9/11, or whatever - the contempt for evidence.

Here I disagree. Creationism is different because of the loud support it gets from the bible-thumping ignorant ignorants. (People who preach about the bible without having taken a basic theology course, who've never read the original hebrew and koine, because they believe that KJV is the only proper version of God's word would not be taken seriously as Church here, but regarded as crazy sect.)

Moreover, the religious right breeds a whole attitude towards life of obeying authority because it says so, not asking for evidence. People who aren't able to keep this seperate from normal life and apply critical thinking and scientifc method where it's necessary, but instead accept the Word from Above in all areas are a serious danger to democracy, because they enable dictatorship. Democracies need well-informed, critical citizens, not Pledge-reciting, flag-revering, unquestioning believers.

Astrology is rampant everywhere, but does not do as much harm. As for conspiracy theories: you do know that the problem in that case is that there have been quite a number of real conspiracies by the US Govt. in the past? (Tuskegee experiment, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Operation Paperclip et al., the secret experiments by CIA and Army about drugs in the 70s on non-consenting people etc. all real).

I don't think that courses in biology have gotten any worse in the past forty or fifty years. I suspect that they have gotten better. (Does anyone have any statistics about this?)

While I don't have statistics, either, the posts on this board* about how aggressivly ID proponents challenge local school boards and PTAs about the teaching of evolution in the last two decades seem to indicate a definite trend. This one organisation of scientists (forgot the name, sorry) that fights to keep ID nonsense out of the science classrooms say so (as do some of the IDs themselves, apparently, admitting that it's all a front to get religion in the schools.)

* I don't have quotes myself, or links to the discussions, but during these discussions, other posters gave quite a lot of cites.

Plus, there's been quite a lot of increase in home-schooling in the last ten or so years, a certain segment of which (no idea how large) cites two main reasons for keeping their kids out of normal schools: evolution and sex ed. So quite a number of kids are never even exposed to biology in the first place, except in a strawman way like Jack Chick.

People who believe ridiculous things don't care about what they learned in high school courses. It's often like they choose the ridiculous things they believe in at random. The idea for them is to annoy other people, not to have a consistent set of beliefs.

The problem is that many kids aren't exposed to proper biology, apparently. Anecdotally, how many newbies have asked basic strawmen questions about biology because all they know about evolution are the Jack Chick or similar pamphlets? How many dopers have reported about discussions on local school boards that evolution should not be taught? And how many teachers self-censor because they are afraid of the controversy, by pushing it into another year, instead of teaching the basics anyway?

And I don't think most of them do it to annoy people. They choose creationism esp. out of religious reasons - that is, their pastor or a book told them, and that convinced them - and then we come into the psychological reasons for people holding simplistic views of life and submitting to authority instead of critical thinking for themselves: because it's so much easier. You're no longer responsible for everything, and there's no uncertainty, because there's an answer for every question. No shades of grey with their unease that sometimes, each choice is wrong and we just have to live with that, or that all people carry good and bad. No, it's good people here, and everybody else are sinners. Much more satisfying.

[Pushkin]

This is my favourite Sterling bank note, issued by Northern Bank in NI.
http://rodsell.com/plastics/ireland5pd.jpg

The best bit is the other side, with the space shuttle :D

[PaulParkhead]

Never heard of her.

Neither had I, but the information provided by postcards was, em, uplifting.

[PaulParkhead]

While it is doubtless true that most people haven't given evolution much thought, polls regularly show that maybe 50% of Americans claim not to believe in evolution. I think that the fact that biology is taught purely descriptively and the other sciences are not generally required means that most US schools have basically given up teaching science as a serious subject. And fewer and fewer study science in college. There are no doubt other reasons, but I think it starts with objections to evolution. Does anyone know what percentage of US HS students are actually taught serious biology (as I was in 1951-52).

I suppose this is a related GQ - what actually is the science taught in US schools these days? When I was at high school in Scotland, a relatively intelligent person like me would be expected to study science for all of the 5 or 6 years I was there. Science education was separated into physics, chemistry and biology.

It would be unusual for someone like me (basically, folks intending to go on to university) not to study at least one and possibly two of those subjects until leaving school.

[Princhester]

Every time I walk past it, I feel like setting my glasses crooked, sticking out my tongue sideways and saluting.

And the reason you don't is...?

[Wendell Wagner]

PaulParkhead writes:

> It would be unusual for someone like me (basically, folks intending to go on to
> university) not to study at least one and possibly two of those subjects until
> leaving school.

The same is true in the U.S. People who are going to college will generally take one year of biology, one year of chemistry, and one year of physics. In some schools these will be extremely good courses, and in some they will be mediocre ones, but they will nearly always take those courses if they plan to go to college. A year-long course in one of those sciences would be more detailed than an O-level course in the subject but not as detailed as an A-level course (or whatever terms are used in the U.K. at the moment).

constanze writes:

> If the majority of the people in a country have never been even exposed to the
> scientific method or who don't understand the most basics of the basic sciences
> like physics and biology, then they will make bad decisions based on false
> information, half-truths, populistic propaganda about important topics like stem-
> cell research and cloning, Global warming and energy consumption and
> production, organic agriculture vs Genetic modification, etc.

A lot of people take good science courses and still make stupid decisions about such things. They don't care what scientists think, even if they took good science courses in high school. They would say, "Oh, who cares what those pointy-headed pseudo-intellectuals think. My favorite radio commentator says that they don't know what they're talking about, and I trust him." Indeed, they like it better when they disagree with the experts. They like annoying people who they consider to be in power.

Furthermore, they frequently know almost nothing about the Bible. They don't believe in creationism because it comes from the Bible. They often couldn't even find the Adam and Eve story in the Bible if you asked them to do so. They will say they like creationism because it annoys intellectuals, who (they claim) are in power. The same is true of astrology, U.F.O.'s, parapsychology, or conspiracy theories. They know very little about the evidence for or against these theories. They aren't interested in finding evidence one way or another. (The fact that some conspiracies did happen is irrelevant. They don't distinguish between different conspiracy theories based on evidence.) They want to annoy the people that they think are in power because they want someone to lash out against. The fact that the people that they're lashing out against aren't really in power doesn't occur to them. Intellectuals don't control anything in government policies. The government that they're complaining about isn't really in power, since they aren't complaining about the politicians they elect but some vague bureaucracy that doesn't control policy. They will agree with their favorite radio commentator who tells them that the government or the intellectuals are wrong and evil not because they've thought about the evidence but because it gives them someone to blame. They don't want to blame the politicians they elected.

> While I don't have statistics, either, the posts on this board* about how
> aggressivly ID proponents challenge local school boards and PTAs about the
> teaching of evolution in the last two decades seem to indicate a definite trend.

ID proponents challenge local school boards and consistently lose in courts. This doesn't affect the content of biology textbooks. The treatment of evolution in high school textbooks varies between negligible and moderately detailed. The extent to which evolution gets mentioned in high school biology course varies between nonexistent and moderately extensive. At worse, evolution becomes just one more scientific subject that some people never learn much about in school.