Only 45% of American's believe in Evolution, 33% in the Big Bang

[Blalron]

According to a report (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/evolution-big-bang-polls-omitted.html) by the National Science Foundation.

The section, which was part of the unedited chapter on public attitudes toward science and technology, notes that 45% of Americans in 2008 answered true to the statement, "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." The figure is similar to previous years and much lower than in Japan (78%), Europe (70%), China (69%), and South Korea (64%). The same gap exists for the response to a second statement, "The universe began with a big explosion," with which only 33% of Americans agreed.

What is it about America that makes so many of us dumber than a shit sandwich? I could understand if I saw these numbers from people in backwards third world countries where most people haven't had access to a K through 12 education, but what's our excuse? :smack:

[Phatlewt]

God, apparently.

[John Mace]

As disappointing as this is, are we supposed to think this is something new (or that this is news)? We've got this weird concept of religion in this country. Well, not all of us, but a lot. It's really no more complicated than that.

[Rumor_Watkins]

What is it about America that makes so many of us dumber than a shit sandwich?


I hope you lumped yourself into that sammy, given your atrocious apostrophe usage.

[Lobohan]

Let's take a moment to thank America's conservatives for pulling us in to their stupidity.

[Squink]

It's really no more complicated than that.Well that, and how lacking in any practical effect on everyday life the answers to some of these questions are. I've been hitting the gym 4 times a week for the past year, and the big bang has come up in conversation with other weightlifters exactly zero times. People don't care, so they don't know.

[Miller]

I hope you lumped yourself into that sammy, given your atrocious apostrophe usage.

Hey, look who figured out where the shift key is!

[Chimera]

So if the theory that our Universe came about because of the interaction with two other Universes is true, will we call it the Big Ejaculation Theory? Or the Big Baby Theory? That whole 'cosmic flow' thing has me wondering.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Hey, look who figured out where the shift key is!

???

[John Mace]

Well that, and how lacking in any practical effect on everyday life the answers to some of these questions are. I've been hitting the gym 4 times a week for the past year, and the big bang has come up in conversation with other weightlifters exactly zero times. People don't care, so they don't know.
Yeah. I've brought that up many times in other threads. Neither of those things has much practical use in everyday life, but it does sort of breed a culture of ignorance.

OK, now cue the post where someone comes in and brings up antibiotics...

[Gagundathar]

Antibiotics were caused by the Big Bang?

??WTF??

[Blalron]

I hope you lumped yourself into that sammy, given your atrocious apostrophe usage.

I was so overcome with rage that I was rendered temporarily unable to punctuate correctly.

[John DiFool]

The evolution thing I can understand (grok, not necessarily condone). But the Big Bang would seem to be a perfect match for "God said, 'Let there be Light, and there was Light.'" Seems more a matter of science classes not even touching on it in the first place.

[AClockworkMelon]

Thankfully I attended school in Phoenix, AZ. We learned what I think was pretty straight stuff.

The worst I had to endure was a self-hating white apologist and a photography teacher who'd occasionally remind us that "there aren't any atheists in foxholes."

[Der Trihs]

God, apparently.Exactly; America is highly religious, and is therefore intellectually crippled since religion is incompatible with truth and rationality.

Yeah. I've brought that up many times in other threads. Neither of those things has much practical use in everyday life, but it does sort of breed a culture of ignorance.

OK, now cue the post where someone comes in and brings up antibiotics...

Antibiotics were caused by the Big Bang?

??WTF??That would be a reference to evolution, not the big Bang; and to the fact that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics. Evolution is quite important.

[Uncle Brother Walker]

I worked for a guy like this once. Pretty smart guy, family man, Senior VP in a large company. But he couldn't give up the God concept.

He didn't show it much, but when it came out he really tooted that horn. During my first annual employee evaluation (which normally takes less than 30 minutes), we got on this tangent about the universe, and he started with a simple statement that he "didn't believe" in dinosaurs, because they weren't mentioned in the Bible. :dubious: Then we went on and he really showed his beliefs - Fossils were a hoax, The Universe really was created in seven days, the whole enchilada.

Now, I like a good fight, and I am more than willing to give a fool enough rope to hang himself with in an argument, but this guy had biblical counter arguments for every (valid) scientific point I made. And he really believed himself.

That review took over three hours. At the end, I basically stopped him by making him listen to the PA announcements, as the receptionist had been paging us both for about 20 minutes because neither one of us would answer the phone.

[pohjonen]

Evolution makes sense. However, the Big Bang is totally counterintuitive. Once upon a time there was this teensy weensy infinitely dense speck in the middle of nothing (oh wait - there is no middle!) and one day for no apparent reason it exploded into everything in the universe that exists today and this universe is forever expanding into nothing and there was no space or time before any of this happened and there is nothing outside of it and all of your questions about it are meaningless. No wonder the response of the average laymanoid to this is "Yeah, right". I concede that the cosmologists know more than I do, but this is damned hard to swallow.

[Triskadecamus]

You know, I would disagree with the second statement being true. It wasn't an explosion, and it wasn't big. Definitely a false statement. In fact, the portion of the sample who thought that statement was true were, in fact, the scientifically illiterate portion of the study.

And, to be precise, human beings as we know them today did not develop from other animals. That isn't how it works. The humans we know today might all be members of the sole surviving line of hominids from a larger pool of species, and that line might have originated from a series of mutation involving from "other animals" but that is not the same thing. Humans that we know of today were the offspring of other humans. Simplification of science into such silly single statements is not a good measure of the understanding of the reader. One of the disagreements might be a bit pedantic, sure, but the first one I mention is simply accurate reading of the question, and a reasonable understanding of cosmology.

Boo, to the NSF.

Tris

[John Mace]

You know, I would disagree with the second statement being true. It wasn't an explosion, and it wasn't big. Definitely a false statement. In fact, the portion of the sample who thought that statement was true were, in fact, the scientifically illiterate portion of the study.

And, to be precise, human beings as we know them today did not develop from other animals. That isn't how it works. The humans we know today might all be members of the sole surviving line of hominids from a larger pool of species, and that line might have originated from a series of mutation involving from "other animals" but that is not the same thing. Humans that we know of today were the offspring of other humans. Simplification of science into such silly single statements is not a good measure of the understanding of the reader. One of the disagreements might be a bit pedantic, sure, but the first one I mention is simply accurate reading of the question, and a reasonable understanding of cosmology.

Boo, to the NSF.

Tris
The "big explosion" question was a little sloppy, but not the question about evolution. Still, do you really think the numbers would have been different if you had written the questions? I doubt it.

[thelurkinghorror]

Exactly; America is highly religious, and is therefore intellectually crippled since religion is incompatible with truth and rationality.

Look, I know there's no changing your opinion, but this says more about religion in American than in general. According to some other numbers, 16% of the US is nonreligious, for example, while it's 5% of Ireland. Yet 40-45% of Americans believe in evolution while 70% of the Irish do.


That would be a reference to evolution, not the big Bang; and to the fact that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics. Evolution is quite important.

Most creationists will say they believe in microevolution (non-camouflaged animals get eaten), but deny macroevolution (we are evolved from a primate ancestor).

...he "didn't believe" in dinosaurs, because they weren't mentioned in the Bible. :dubious: Then we went on and he really showed his beliefs - Fossils were a hoax, The Universe really was created in seven days, the whole enchilada.


They're not dinosaurs, they're Jesus horses!

You know, I would disagree with the second statement being true. It wasn't an explosion, and it wasn't big. Definitely a false statement. In fact, the portion of the sample who thought that statement was true were, in fact, the scientifically illiterate portion of the study.

Good point. The statement presented comes across as incredibly specific and disingenuous. If they said "the universe was created by the Big Bang," I wonder if the numbers wouldn't be a bit higher. With these kinds of questions, you can seriously alter the results by changing the wording slightly, or even by changing to negative from positive. The best surveys ask different questions about the same thing. They shouldn't ask "Do you believe in evolution? Yes/No" without asking about things like descent from a common ancestor or adaptations or selection.

[pohjonen]

P.S. I llke to think of myself as at least a little brighter than a shit sandwich.

[John Mace]

Look, I know there's no changing your opinion, but this says more about religion in American than in general. According to some other numbers, 16% of the US is nonreligious, for example, while it's 5% of Ireland. Yet 40-45% of Americans believe in evolution while 70% of the Irish do.
One key difference, though, is Catholicism, which has no problem with evolution (generally). Only 25% of Americans are Catholic, although it's sad how many of them are creationists.

Most creationists will say they believe in microevolution (non-camouflaged animals get eaten), but deny macroevolution (we are evolved from a primate ancestor).
Exactly.

[Triskadecamus]

The "big explosion" question was a little sloppy, but not the question about evolution. Still, do you really think the numbers would have been different if you had written the questions? I doubt it.I am not a professional statistical poll writer. But I do know that exactly and precisely how you word your questions makes a lot more difference in the outcome than any other single factor in the matter of who answers your poll, and what they agree with.

I will admit that if your questions are poorly written, my sieve for true/false will become extremely narrow, and exacting, eventually leading to me answering almost all your questions as false. Of course, mostly, I won't answer polls at all, since I know that almost none of them really seek information, but rather seek confirmation of their authors biases. That is trivial to obtain, and certainly not in need of my input.

Tris

[AClockworkMelon]

I thought it was common knowledge that the pollster controls the results of his poll?

[John Mace]

I thought it was common knowledge that the pollster controls the results of his poll?

There are lots of polls that pretty much show this same result. Whether it's 45%, 40% or 50% isn't really a big deal-- the numbers are astonishingly high, for a 1st world country.

[Princhester]

The evolution thing I can understand (grok, not necessarily condone). But the Big Bang would seem to be a perfect match for "God said, 'Let there be Light, and there was Light.'" Seems more a matter of science classes not even touching on it in the first place.

I don't think it's science classes, it's US religion. As thelurkinghorror says there is not, worldwide, a close correlation between acceptance of evolution and religion.

Religions are only in small part sets of superstitions. Mostly they are cultures and power structures. US fundie religion and its leaders are fighting a cultural war against science (particularly science relating to Big Philisophical Questions, like origins of life and the universe). It is about having or not having the lead role in people's overall worldview.

There is no inherent logical or factual contradiction between evolution and the big bang on the one hand and many religions. Religious teachings often don't actually describe the mechanism of how their god or gods are supposed to have created the universe or life (the Abrahamic religions don't for example). So you can mesh them with evolution and the big bang simply by saying they are the mechanism by which one's particular god did it.

The problem for religions though is the more you start thinking about finding answers to questions using scientific enquiry, the less the tendency is likely to be to seek answers from religion and religious leaders. It's a different worldview. It doesn't absolutely have to be as a matter of logic, but it's where the path tends to take you.

US fundie religion is not against evolution because it contradicts their religion, they are against it because science is not of their culture. And that extends to all science to a degree but most particularly to science that goes to deep understanding of what has traditionally been the religious preserve. That's why they are against the big bang and stem cell research and evolution and so on.

[Wesley Clark]

Obviously religion plays a huge role, but I wonder what role American exceptionalism plays. I think in the US we are encouraged to believe in arrogant delusions.

We have the best health care system in the world
No other country on earth has civil or political rights like we do
We played a central role in winning WW2 and beating the Germans (the Russians actually did most of the fighting)
etc.

I don't know though. But it seems in the US (speaking as a person who has never traveled internationally, so I don't know for sure) we are encouraged to believe in lies, just so long as those lies tell us what we want to hear. It saturates our politics. Maybe inhabitants of other countries are more humble, and willing to accept painful truths (for many the fact of evolution can be painful at first, since there is no god watching out for us and no divine plan). But in the US we generally are not.

[Princhester]

I should have said in my second para "Organised religions are only in small part sets of superstitions."

[wolf_meister]

Well, given my age (58), I can remember a time when people were interested in education. Way back in October, 1957 there was a country called the USSR (aka Russia) that launched the first satellite into orbit around the Earth. What, ... America wasn't first? :eek: NO !!!
Needles to say the general population of the USA was scared shitless that Russia was way ahead of us technologically and Americans had better start thinking seriously about how their youngsters were being taught, particularly in math and science. Being in the second grade at the time, I'd say my K-12 education was pretty good. (Yes college was pretty good too but that is not part of the public educational experience). At no point during that time, did I hear anyone screaming that our students had to be taught creationism, intelligent design or that a superhuman entity brought about the inception of the Universe in less than a week. :mad:
So, as the decades passed, Russia grew weaker and dissolved, and Americans realized that we could afford to become stupid once again and needn't have none of that book-learnin' no more.
When, the US was attacked on Sept 11, 2001, I thought the reaction was going to be similar to Oct 1957 or maybe even Dec 7, 1941. Well. I guess not.
I think it is a sign of the new stupidity that in 2008 when there were 9 Republican Presidential candidates debating, and when asked if they didn't believe in evolution, 3 raised their hands. :mad: I wonder what would have happened if those candidates gave the same answer a week after Sputnik was launched.

So, I am wondering what the fuck is happening to this country.
Thank you for listening to this grumpy old man complain about things today.

EDIT - Wesley Clark made a good point. And when you're arrogant delusions are totally blown apart - by Sputnik for example - then you have to face the truth.

[Starving Artist]

Well, given my age (58), I can remember a time when people were interested in education. Way back in October, 1957 there was a country called the USSR (aka Russia) that launched the first satellite into orbit around the Earth. What, ... America wasn't first? :eek: NO !!!
Needles to say the general population of the USA was scared shitless that Russia was way ahead of us technologically and Americans had better start thinking seriously about how their youngsters were being taught, particularly in math and science. Being in the second grade at the time, I'd say my K-12 education was pretty good. (Yes college was pretty good too but that is not part of the public educational experience). At no point during that time, did I hear anyone screaming that our students had to be taught creationism, intelligent design or that a superhuman entity brought about the inception of the Universe in less than a week. :mad:But...but...there was RACISM then!!! Don't you understand?

Book learnin' had to be fucked up in order to eliminate racism.

You must not have been paying attention. There are tons of threads around here (mostly with my name high in the post count list ;)) explaining why single-parent homes and drug use and crime and promiscuity and STDs and poor literacy rates and the creation of a crass and vulgar society have all been necessary in order to eliminate racism.

I'll be glad when racism is well and truly dead in this country so we can get back to having adults run things again. :D

[eleanorigby]

How is not wanting the USSR to "win" the space race related in any way to racism?
:confused: Flight of ideas, much?



IMO, education is not valued in this country and hasn't been for some time. We pay lip service as a society to improving our schools etc, but there is a strong anti-intellectual streak present. It's sad and does us no good for the future. Hell, college freshmen can't even write decent essays, never mind thinking critically.... But that's another soap box for another day.

[zoid]

P.S. I llke to think of myself as at least a little brighter than a shit sandwich.

WOW - mighty impressed with ourselves, aren't we?
"Ooo, look at us - we're to good to wipe our ass with our hands!"
"Sleep with our cousins? - NEVER!"


Damn intellectual elite

[crowmanyclouds]

... There are tons of threads around here (mostly with my name high in the post count list ;)) explaining why single-parent homes and drug use and crime and promiscuity and STDs and poor literacy rates and the creation of a crass and vulgar society have all been necessary in order to eliminate racism. ...Bullfuckingshit. (Just doing my part in the fight against racism! :rolleyes:)

There are tons of threads around here (mostly with your name high in the post count list) in which posters;
1 Question if there's is any correlation to your perceived causation (or is it causation to your perceived correlation ..... actually, I think it's both).
Q Challenge your perception that those things have in fact increased (with cites, that you find any reason you can to reject).
% Reject your perception but take the position that even if your perception is correct, the price was worth it. (Which you then, later, misrepresent as "explaining the necessity of ...". See above.)

But please continue to misrepresent the actual positions of the majority of those that disagree with you, it's awuseing* amusing.
(*Hmm FF's spell-checker wants that to be nauseating, maybe it's on to something).

CMC fnord!
Anyway, I've come to feel that you're {Harborwolf} one of the good guys on the other side. Several of you I tussled with have become people I respect. FinnAgain, GIGObuster and crowmanyclouds are some of the others. - Starving Artist (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7497597#post7497597)

[Eyebrows 0f Doom]

Well. I guess not.
I think it is a sign of the new stupidity that in 2008 when there were 9 Republican Presidential candidates debating, and when asked if they didn't believe in evolution, 3 raised their hands. :mad: I wonder what would have happened if those candidates gave the same answer a week after Sputnik was launched.

So, I am wondering what the fuck is happening to this country.


You think 6 out of 9 Republican Presidential candidates would have said they believed in evolution back in 1957!?

[wolf_meister]

Eyebrows of Doom
Thinking back to 1957, I'd say they ALL would have said they believed in evolution. If they started complaining about all the Godless scientifical stuff, people would have said they were Communists.
Personally, I think they would have been booed off the stage.
Now, it's hip to be stupid.

[zoid]

If they started complaining about all the Godless scientifical stuff, people would have said they were Communists.

You got that backwards. Even back then the word was that "Godless Commies" were on a mission to destroy the Rightous God Frearin' USA and by the Lords Grace we would prevail against the Red Hoard.

BTW - I'm remembering this from my older relatives rantings so if I've left anything out I appologize.

[thelurkinghorror]

In 1925, there was a large creationist movement, as evidenced by the Scopes trial. What do you think are the odds that this disappeared by 1957, and then suddenly came back in modern days.

I think what you're thinking of is the National Defense Education Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Education_Act), which encouraged evolution teaching. Note that this does not imply that people were any more accepting of evolution, only that the government thought it prudent to teach.

[wolf_meister]

Well I must admit that growing up (and still living) in the Boston area may have kept me far removed from the creationist movement. Plus, when I was young, John Kennedy was President and you never heard him spouting that creationist crap.
What really surprised me was around the early 1980's my father was listening to Paul Harvey (I never could stand the guy) and good old Paul was lauding the fact that some dipshit town in Dipshit, USA had ruled that evolution could not be taught as the only explanation for how humans came about. :mad: I thought that shit was killed off in the Scopes Trial.

[Sitnam]

Now, I like a good fight, and I am more than willing to give a fool enough rope to hang himself with in an argument, but this guy had biblical counter arguments for every (valid) scientific point I made. And he really believed himself.
In my Freshman Speech class my first year in college a Young Earth Creationist stood up and gave his three three facts proving the Earth was young, I still remember them:

1.) Before landing on the Moon scientists calculated the age of the Moon and predicted 6 feet of moon dust, turns out there was only an inch or so.

2.) Because of exponential growth the human population would be astronomical now if there were humans earlier than 6 thousand years ago.

3.) The Great Barrier Reef has a predictable growth rate and no scientist will claim it's older than 10,000 years.


#3 is my favorite, please Dope don't waste a minute refuting any of these 'proofs', it is beneath you all.

[gladtobeblazed]

Define "belief". I believe in the Big Bang Theory because the majority of physicists say this is how the Universe came into existence, and I've studied a little bit of cosmology myself to understand some of their reasoning. But if 20 years from now a better theory is developed and the consensus is that the Big Bang Theory was bullshit, then what? Am I supposed to just change my belief just like that? Of course I would, because I base my beliefs in evidence and proof, but I think a lot of people conflate belief with faith. This is true in regards to religion, politics, etc. People just can't accept the fact that they were wrong.

[FriarTed]

I believe that the Universe came about through the mechanism of the Big Bang and I believe that much of life on Earth may indeed have developed via Evolution.

But I believe IN The Creator God Who triggered the Big Bang & directed Evolution.

[Gymnopithys]

Evolution makes sense. However, the Big Bang is totally counterintuitive. Once upon a time there was this teensy weensy infinitely dense speck in the middle of nothing (oh wait - there is no middle!) and one day for no apparent reason it exploded into everything in the universe that exists today and this universe is forever expanding into nothing and there was no space or time before any of this happened and there is nothing outside of it and all of your questions about it are meaningless. No wonder the response of the average laymanoid to this is "Yeah, right". I concede that the cosmologists know more than I do, but this is damned hard to swallow.

Thanks Pohjonen, I copied and pasted your post.

[Sailboat]

Most creationists will say they believe in microevolution (non-camouflaged animals get eaten), but deny macroevolution (we are evolved from a primate ancestor).

But there's no such distinction, outside of Creationist lies.

[John Mace]

But there's no such distinction, outside of Creationist lies.

The point is that even most creationists understand that antibiotic thing, which someone always brings up if you mention the lack of relevance evolution has to our everyday lives.

[gonzomax]

You got that backwards. Even back then the word was that "Godless Commies" were on a mission to destroy the Rightous God Frearin' USA and by the Lords Grace we would prevail against the Red Hoard.

BTW - I'm remembering this from my older relatives rantings so if I've left anything out I appologize.

Creationists are able to create godless enemies who simply exist to attack them and take away their freedoms. After the Commies ,they still can dig up enemies that actually care little about American lives, but we can pretend that they want to kill us for no reason.. If you want to be afraid, it is not hard to do.

[Der Trihs]

The point is that even most creationists understand that antibiotic thing, which someone always brings up if you mention the lack of relevance evolution has to our everyday lives.They "understand it" because they lost that fight. That didn't keep them from doing their best to retard progress on the matter. Give them enough power though and I'm sure they pass laws insisting everyone ignore the evolution of antibiotic resistance and and other such sinful realities.

[Squink]

Give them enough power though and I'm sure they pass laws insisting everyone ignore the evolution of antibiotic resistance and and other such sinful realities.Only after 'Pasteur-gate'* let's em brand it Snake Oil Science:

“America does not need this snake oil science stuff.” (http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/ron-ferguson/the-kirk-must-learn-to-cope-with-hot-topics-1.1019898)



--------
*Or possibly 'Fleming-gate'.

[MaddyStrut]

The point is that even most creationists understand that antibiotic thing, which someone always brings up if you mention the lack of relevance evolution has to our everyday lives.

Yup. It's how my cousins can reconcile evidence of evolution with their absolute refusal to believe in it.

[marshmallow]

Forget evolution. Check out the polls for whether the Earth goes around the Sun or vice versa. Then you'll be really sad.

[Lightnin']

Antibiotics were caused by the Big Bang?

??WTF??

It took a while*, but ultimately... yes.





*About 13.75 billion years or so.

[hotflungwok]

Thanks Pohjonen, I copied and pasted your post.
Why? Did you need an example of a strawman argument?

[Sitnam]

Define "belief". I believe in the Big Bang Theory because the majority of physicists say this is how the Universe came into existence, and I've studied a little bit of cosmology myself to understand some of their reasoning. But if 20 years from now a better theory is developed and the consensus is that the Big Bang Theory was bullshit, then what? Am I supposed to just change my belief just like that? Of course I would, because I base my beliefs in evidence and proof, but I think a lot of people conflate belief with faith. This is true in regards to religion, politics, etc. People just can't accept the fact that they were wrong.
To be fair, you are exhibiting faith in science. To you, truth about facts can change but science remains unassailable.

Not that I disagree, I just don't think it's all that black and white.

[smiling bandit]

To be fair, you are exhibiting faith in science. To you, truth about facts can change but science remains unassailable.

Not that I disagree, I just don't think it's all that black and white.

I can't agree with that kind of attitude. We can observe that evolution exists. In fact, I maintain a certain skepticism about everything, including whether I am human, the existence of matter, and if science actually does anything besides trick peope into believing that it works (which, ironically may makes it work sometimes). If someone proposes the existence of the Flying Spagetti Monster, I do not dismiss it. I see no evidence of it, but it may exist, and in the infinite vastness of space and time and the very plausible, and probably probable, existence of infinite alternative dimensions, such a thing certainly does exist somewhere.

In fact, there are only two things I am really quite sure of: I exist, and I also believe in God. Many dismiss the latter, but my logic ultimately requires some being and/or force, of which we cannot really conceive, which set all things in motion. If nothing existed, nothing ever would exist, anywhere, because nothing would or could exist. Whether you believe this is Christ, as I do, or not, is really irrelevant here. I believe that for certain reasons, but it's not the topic here.

Ok, *deep breath* , this means I couldn't really answer positively to the quesitons posted by the OP. The former is probable but not certain, and even within the framework of science is highly technical in its definitions. The latter seems likely now, but is still essentially saying "Something we don't understand exploded we reasons we don't know and in a manner we can't quite grasp, with implications we haven't remotely explored, and which we still can't adequately predict."

[Sitnam]

I can't agree with that kind of attitude. We can observe that evolution exists. In fact, I maintain a certain skepticism about everything, including whether I am human, the existence of matter, and if science actually does anything besides trick peope into believing that it works (which, ironically may makes it work sometimes)....
The majority of people don't know much about the Big Bang and Evolution and don't care. They believe what they were taught in school or in Church. When pressed against a wall those who believe the Big Bang happened will be unable to reference any proof beyond 'scientists told me this was so in high school'. How is that really different from 'I know Evolution didn't happen because my priest told me so in sunday school.'

[hotflungwok]

The majority of people don't know much about the Big Bang and Evolution and don't care. They believe what they were taught in school or in Church. When pressed against a wall those who believe the Big Bang happened will be unable to reference any proof beyond 'scientists told me this was so in high school'. How is that really different from 'I know Evolution didn't happen because my priest told me so in sunday school.'
Science has a proven track record, priests don't?

[Sitnam]

Science has a proven track record, priests don't?
The analytical is only one patch on the quilt of the human condition, like it or not your parents had a powerful influence over what kind of adult you became using dictates "because I said so".

[hotflungwok]

The analytical is only one patch on the quilt of the human condition, like it or not your parents had a powerful influence over what kind of adult you became using dictates "because I said so".
Yeah, but I got better.

[Chessic Sense]

Forget evolution. Check out the polls for whether the Earth goes around the Sun or vice versa. Then you'll be really sad.

I'm going to have to answer that one the "wrong" way as well. It's all relative motion. We go aroung the sun, the sun goes around us, the galaxy goes around that...

Why people insist that we go aroung the sun, and not vice versa, I'll never understand.

Science has a proven track record, priests don't?

But how do we know that? Again, it's usually just "a teacher told me that" or "I read it on the SDMB". You can cite a source, but then that cite needs a cite. For most people, on most topics, it's turtles all the way down. Eventually, you've just got to "cut the cord" and let the evidence convince you. So it comes as no surprise that people pick the option that a priest told them vs what a teacher told them, especially when the option is contrary to the rest of the world. Picking evolution makes you feel smart. Picking creationism lets you feel smart and special!

[gonzomax]

I believe that the Universe came about through the mechanism of the Big Bang and I believe that much of life on Earth may indeed have developed via Evolution.

But I believe IN The Creator God Who triggered the Big Bang & directed Evolution.

And I believe in pre-god who made all gods that we have in religion. I am not quite sold on pre-pre god yet. I am leaning that way though.

[The Tooth]

But how do we know that?

To believe otherwise is to suggest that we're just very, very lucky that machines work and predictions often turn out to be true. Are you suggesting the measured cosmic microwave background agrees with theory to ridiculous accuracy is just luck, or do you think the people who said it ought to be so are on to something?

[septimus]

I think it is a sign of the new stupidity that in 2008 when there were 9 Republican Presidential candidates debating, and when asked if they didn't believe in evolution, 3 raised their hands. :mad: I wonder what would have happened if those candidates gave the same answer a week after Sputnik was launched.

I don't watch TV but became aware of Republican candidates' 2007 anti-evolution stance when Sen. Brownback posted a "retraction" in the N.Y. Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html). I assume his NY Times contribution was intended to appeal to rationalists, but he must not have expected many to read all the way through since the closest he comes to endorsing Darwinism is:

"If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true."

(Yes, man has known about dog-breeding for many centuries, Senator; we were asking if you know anything about evolution.)

BTW, wolf_meister, I'm slightly older than you and one of my first glimpses of world events was when my father excitedly said "there's a new moon in the sky, kids!"

[John Mace]

The majority of people don't know much about the Big Bang and Evolution and don't care. They believe what they were taught in school or in Church. When pressed against a wall those who believe the Big Bang happened will be unable to reference any proof beyond 'scientists told me this was so in high school'. How is that really different from 'I know Evolution didn't happen because my priest told me so in sunday school.'

Two things.

1) We should not be getting our information about scientific matters from priests.

2) Many of the people saying that (or the equivalent) didn't hear their priests say that in Sunday school. Many Catholics won't accept evolution, and yet that is not what the priests, etc, are telling them.

[SenorBeef]

Thankfully I attended school in Phoenix, AZ. We learned what I think was pretty straight stuff.

The worst I had to endure was a self-hating white apologist and a photography teacher who'd occasionally remind us that "there aren't any atheists in foxholes."

I wonder what point he was trying to make. I think the statement has some merit -but more as an observation rather than as some sort of proof. Yeah, when you're scared out of your mind and your brain isn't functioning clearly, it's so intense that you're going to grasp at any sort of comfort you can. So is the guy's point "when your brain is stressed to the max and you can barely function, then you will come around to my way of thinking!"? Great point there...


To be fair, you are exhibiting faith in science. To you, truth about facts can change but science remains unassailable.

Not that I disagree, I just don't think it's all that black and white.

Ugh, this is equivocation using the word "faith" in different contexts. One can throw around the word "faith" to mean less than actual unfaltering religious-style belief. For instance, you could say I have faith that my car will start up when I turn the key because it doesn't have any mechanical problems - but if it doesn't, it's not like my world view is shattered. And you can believe that the scientific method is the best way to learn about the natural world, and coloquially you could be said to have "faith" in that fact, but that again does not mean unthinking, unquestioning devotion. The whole "haha science is your religion!" thing is the dumbest fucking thing that people feel clever about declaring.

Science occasionally arrives at incomplete conclusions due to the limitations we have at the time. For instance - Newton wasn't exactly wrong, but he didn't understand the components of relativity. But science is the methodology by which we keep testing and refining our knowledge, so when Einstein came along we were able to expand our understanding of physics. That doesn't mean that we had blind faith in Newton and we were proven wrong - the nature of science is self-correcting, our knowledge gets better over time. Religion, on the contrary, is quite inflexible.

But...but...there was RACISM then!!! Don't you understand?

Book learnin' had to be fucked up in order to eliminate racism.

You must not have been paying attention. There are tons of threads around here (mostly with my name high in the post count list ;)) explaining why single-parent homes and drug use and crime and promiscuity and STDs and poor literacy rates and the creation of a crass and vulgar society have all been necessary in order to eliminate racism.

I'll be glad when racism is well and truly dead in this country so we can get back to having adults run things again. :D

This is so fuckingstupid I don't even know where to begin with this. None of what you said even remotely approaches anything anyone has ever said to you - and besides that, why are you using this particular example (religiosity and ignorance) as a way that society has declined from your mythical ideal? The people who deny evolution are the good god-fearing people like they made back in the 50s! You should be happy!

[SenorBeef]

To expand on my reply to Starving Artist

I looked up this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=540009) again in which Starving Artist basically indicates he doesn't believe in evolution. He doesn't quite come out right and say that, because he knows how much we'd ridicule him, so he hides behind it by basically repeating debunked creationist arguments and then declaring that's why it's reasonable for people to not believe in evolution.

This is as direct as he'll get, but it's pretty damning:
"As for myself, I'm taking a more wait-and-see approach but I do have to admit that I find evolution alone as an explanation for all this to strain credulity as much if not more than belief in God."

So for him to come into this thread, and indicate that this particular ignorance spreading in our society is THE FAULT OF LIBERALS and that in the good old days we wouldn't have this problem WHILE HE DEFENDS PEOPLE WITH THIS PARTICULAR BELIEF and seems to believe it himself, is fucking retarded.

[gonzomax]

Who says there are no atheists in fox holes. That is a dumb statement.

[Sitnam]

Ugh, this is equivocation using the word "faith" in different contexts. One can throw around the word "faith" to mean less than actual unfaltering religious-style belief. For instance, you could say I have faith that my car will start up when I turn the key because it doesn't have any mechanical problems - but if it doesn't, it's not like my world view is shattered. And you can believe that the scientific method is the best way to learn about the natural world, and coloquially you could be said to have "faith" in that fact, but that again does not mean unthinking, unquestioning devotion.
You act as if you have first hand experience in every known scientific subject and it is only you and the scientific method. There is no subject area where you must simply take anothers word for it.

The whole "haha science is your religion!" thing is the dumbest fucking thing that people feel clever about declaring.
Straw shaped as a man.

I didn't say science = religion, I said the scientific minded are apparently unaware of how little they actually know personally and how much they rely on the testimony/opinions of others.

I'm not making the claim that religious faith is any substitute for our combined body of knowledge, my posts were just trying to answer the OP, as in 'why are many Americans as dumb as a shit sandwich?'.

[SenorBeef]

You act as if you have first hand experience in every known scientific subject and it is only you and the scientific method. There is no subject area where you must simply take anothers word for it.


So, what's your point? I've never been to Australia or had first hand evidence that exists, but I trust that there's not some giant conspiracy to make me think it exists. I cannot be an expert in every field possible, but I could be an expert in any particular one - and I trust that other people have chosen that path and became experts in their fields and then share their findings with me. This isn't "faith" in the same sense of religious faith anymore than taking my friend's word that he went to Australia and it really exists is taken on faith.

Edit: And taking this back to the original issue of whether or not to "believe in" evolution or the big bang - I learn enough to understand the issues but for the most part trust the experts. There's no excuse for promoting ignorance over trusting actual experts. I don't understand quantum physics very well, but I'm not about to tell all the PhDs working at particle accelerators that what they're seeing is actually the result of fairies being rammed together at high speed, spreading fairy dust everywhere.

I don't buy that anyone can be too dumb to understand a simple concept like evolution, but even so, if you're ignorant of the facts and can't make a proper judgement, then the default course of action is to trust the consensus of the people who actually do understand it, not declare them to be wrong and instead promote whatever seems intuitive to you as the truth.


Straw shaped as a man.

I didn't say science = religion, I said the scientific minded are apparently unaware of how little they actually know personally and how much they rely on the testimony/opinions of others.

I'm not making the claim that religious faith is any substitute for our combined body of knowledge, my posts were just trying to answer the OP, as in 'why are many Americans as dumb as a shit sandwich?'.

Maybe I misread a message that wasn't there into your words. I'm a little jumpy because of all the retarded fuckers who do try to pull the "science is your religion!" bullshit.

[Chessic Sense]

To believe otherwise is to suggest that we're just very, very lucky that machines work and predictions often turn out to be true. Are you suggesting the measured cosmic microwave background agrees with theory to ridiculous accuracy is just luck, or do you think the people who said it ought to be so are on to something?

But what Sitnam and I are saying (I hope I'm not putting words into your mouth, Sitnam) is that you've never done any experiments involving cosmic microwave background radiation. You've likely never studied the theories in depth. I know I only have a 101 education on the subjects and that's more than most people.
So if you've never done the experiments, how do you know they were done at all? Now, you can use any evidence you want to demonstrate why those sources should be trusted, but that's neither here nor there. The point remains that you're using some metric to evaluate your source. It doesn't matter if the topic is particle physics or "Australia exists". In the end, you're relying on other human beings to tell you the truth about something that you have no first-hand knowledge of.

Why is such an obvious point relevant? Well, let's backtrack a little:

OP and others - How can American's (sic ;)) believe such silly shit?
Sitnam and me - Because someone told them A was true and B was false.
OP et al. - But how can someone just trust another person like that, when it's clearly false?
Sitnam and me - People do it all the time. You do it on almost every topic, from "Australia exists" to Special Relativity.

This last line is what Sitnam meant by saying if you push most people up against a wall in regards to scientific knowledge, it will always boil down to "My high school teacher said it was true" and what I meant by saying that cites need cites, which need cites and eventually, you just have to trust someone.

[Triskadecamus]

Why are people studying biology in church? They should be praying!!

And why are people praying in school? They should be studying biology!!

I am so confused.

Tris

[The Tooth]

But what Sitnam and I are saying (I hope I'm not putting words into your mouth, Sitnam) is that you've never done any experiments involving cosmic microwave background radiation. You've likely never studied the theories in depth.

I know a thing or two about radio astronomy and am very proud of a research paper I wrote on space-based VLBI, actually.

I know I only have a 101 education on the subjects and that's more than most people.

But not me.

So if you've never done the experiments, how do you know they were done at all? Now, you can use any evidence you want to demonstrate why those sources should be trusted, but that's neither here nor there.

Then I won't bother discussing the matter further with you. It seems to me you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

[hotflungwok]

So if you've never done the experiments, how do you know they were done at all? Now, you can use any evidence you want to demonstrate why those sources should be trusted, but that's neither here nor there. The point remains that you're using some metric to evaluate your source. It doesn't matter if the topic is particle physics or "Australia exists". In the end, you're relying on other human beings to tell you the truth about something that you have no first-hand knowledge of.
But the metric matters. If your source has a well established track record at being right, that means your using a better metric than someone who's source is some guy who's only qualification is that he can type. Science has a well established track record at not just being right, but on being able to correct mistakes. Religion, on the other hand, does not, it's pretty much as far from reliable as you can get. I don't have to do the experiments to know stuff for myself, my metric is satisfied by science's strict process. At the same time, my metric is not satisfied by religion, so I do not trust it as a source like I would for science.

This last line is what Sitnam meant by saying if you push most people up against a wall in regards to scientific knowledge, it will always boil down to "My high school teacher said it was true" and what I meant by saying that cites need cites, which need cites and eventually, you just have to trust someone.
But who you trust matters. Relying on the word of an evolutionary biologist who is an expert in his field and well respected by his peers is much different than relying on the word a priest when discussing evolution. The two are not equivalently reliable. Someone who's metric is satisfied by a priest's qualifications and trusts them on scientific matters is being intellectually lazy, substituting belief for knowledge. Either way, they're using a bad metric, and an unreliable source.

The fact that so many people do this is bad.

[Gatopescado]

What is it about America that makes so many of us dumber than a shit sandwich?

Not defending anything one way or the other, but maybe it is because we are allowed to think (and even speak and write!) for ourselves and not force-fed any governmental party dogma?

[Cyningablod]

Y'all are looking at this the wrong way.

We all know that the average person is no sharper than a sack of hammers. Hell, most folks don't even know what century WWII happened in.

If 45% of US adults agree with a simple statement that affirms the basics of evolutionary theory, that's a whomp-ass lot more than I thought believed in it! Apparently even in very secularized, pro-science countries (whatever that means), you're not gonna get much higher than 80%.

So I'll take the 45% happily, and put up with the occasional mindless creationist (I'm sorry; that's a redundancy, I do believe! :smack:) whenever I have to.

Hooray for public education!

[wolf_meister]

Cyningablod
I don't mind the occasional mindless creationist believing in the "God Did Everything" view of the Universe. However, when they think that view should be taught with an equal emphasis along with evolution, that's going much too far. :mad:

[Cort]

And also, if the OP's poll is correct, you should have said "occasional evolutionist".

[Princhester]

Not defending anything one way or the other, but maybe it is because we are allowed to think (and even speak and write!) for ourselves and not force-fed any governmental party dogma?

This is a joke, right?

[Chessic Sense]

I know a thing or two about radio astronomy and am very proud of a research paper I wrote on space-based VLBI, actually.
OK, fine. I assumed too much. Pick anything about oceanography then.

But the metric matters...

But who you trust matters...

The fact that so many people do this is bad.

Well of course it matters. And of course it's bad. No one has said otherwise. But that's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is that it's very unsurprising that people that have not studied a subject will just believe what people tell them about it. Sure, not just any old person off the street, but if your friends, family, clergy, and community all tell you that Goddidit, then it's not surprising that you'd believe it.

I'm saying that the rebuttal "But they don't have any evidence" isn't a valid counterpoint. Because you, too, accept truths without any real evidence. You just take people's word for it. Whether or not you should or whether or not that's justified doesn't change the fact that you do it. And that's all that's required to make my point stand.

So sitting here wide-eyed going "What were they thinking?! How dumb can they be?" isn't a fair appraisal of the situation. It's very understandable how someone could not believe in evolution when all they've got to go on is other people's words.

[SenorBeef]

If someone tells me the wrong city is the capital of New Guinea, I'll probably take their word for it, because it's not a particularly important part of my world view and it's not likely I'll come across the truth anytime soon.

But the issue of evolution is contentious - it gets a lot of media time, it's a "culture war" issue, etc. I can't buy that no one has really been exposed to opposing views and so they just go with whatever is easiest to grasp. Everyone has at least some idea that this is an important issue, and so you can't treat being ignorant of it being as excusable as not knowing the capital of New Guinea. Besides that, a significant fraction of the people who are ignorant about it would support it being taught their way in school - that's not just ignorance, but a deliberate intent to keep others from learning the truth as well.

No, all these justifications are inexcusable. Don't be apologists for ignorance.

[hotflungwok]

I'm saying that the rebuttal "But they don't have any evidence" isn't a valid counterpoint. Because you, too, accept truths without any real evidence. You just take people's word for it. Whether or not you should or whether or not that's justified doesn't change the fact that you do it. And that's all that's required to make my point stand.
But I do have evidence, I have evidence that science works. Science has a proven track record, religion does not. Accepting something backed by science is a much different thing than accepting something backed by religion.

So sitting here wide-eyed going "What were they thinking?! How dumb can they be?" isn't a fair appraisal of the situation. It's very understandable how someone could not believe in evolution when all they've got to go on is other people's words.
First, they have much more to go on than other people's words. And second, as I said before, who's words they take matter. People who simply take the word of a priest on the matter of evolution are at the very least lazy. If they wanted to, they could go get more information on the subject, and from real sources. Instead, they choose to place faith in something that is obviously not a reliable source, and end their inquiry there. They are ignorant and not only happy about it, but insistent that they are right and further inquiry is not required.

[thelurkinghorror]

If someone tells me the wrong city is the capital of New Guinea, I'll probably take their word for it, because it's not a particularly important part of my world view and it's not likely I'll come across the truth anytime soon.

I'd hope you wouldn't take their word so soon, as any answer given is wrong. New Guinea is an island, not a country, and thus has no capital. The eastern part is Papua New Guinea which does have a capital, as well as the Indonesian provinces of Papua and West Papua.



Folks, priest usually refers to clergy in the Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, and Lutheran traditions. Most are in favor of evolution except the more conservative Lutherans (Missouri and Wisconsin synods in the US), and I'm not 100% sure about Orthodox. Use the term minister or pastor, it's more accurate here.


Port Moresby, Jayapura, and Manokwari if you care.

[SenorBeef]

I'd hope you wouldn't take their word so soon, as any answer given is wrong. New Guinea is an island, not a country, and thus has no capital. The eastern part is Papua New Guinea which does have a capital, as well as the Indonesian provinces of Papua and West Papua.


I don't care! My intuition was that New Guinea was a country, and I'm not listening to you "experts" with your "maps", I think we should teach that New Guinea is a country in our geography classes.

[Chessic Sense]

But I do have evidence, I have evidence that science works. Science has a proven track record, religion does not. Accepting something backed by science is a much different thing than accepting something backed by religion.


First, they have much more to go on than other people's words. And second, as I said before, who's words they take matter. People who simply take the word of a priest on the matter of evolution are at the very least lazy. If they wanted to, they could go get more information on the subject, and from real sources. Instead, they choose to place faith in something that is obviously not a reliable source, and end their inquiry there. They are ignorant and not only happy about it, but insistent that they are right and further inquiry is not required.

But what if the priest tells you that scientists agree with him? That there's a debate? What if there are a bunch of science-looking websites and books that support creationism? Then is their ignorance excusable? What if I compound that confusion with the fact that for most people, the truth about evolution is about as important as the capital of New Guinea?

On one hand, I've got a teacher telling me that the Great Barrier Reef is shrinking. How do we know that? Because scientists say so. On the other hand, my uncle tells me that the earth is 4000 years old and that dinosaurs had saddles. How do we know that? Because scientists dug up dinosaur footprints alongside human ones (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm).

In both cases, I've got someone I trust telling me that scientists believe in X. And in both cases, it's not terribly important if they're right (because, hey, I'm just a farmer!). So it's not shocking if I buy into X, is it?

[hotflungwok]

But what if the priest tells you that scientists agree with him?
Then he's bypassing his own authority, and deferring to science. Go look at the science.

What if there are a bunch of science-looking websites and books that support creationism?
If you actually cared about the truth you'd find out if they were real science. A simple look at the sites and their content should demonstrate that they obviously aren't. Someone who doesn't actually care about the truth is perfectly happy to rely on priests & ministers & rabbis & imams & kannushis & gurus for answers on evolution.

Then is their ignorance excusable?
Their ignorance is willful, and is based on the obviously flawed idea that a religious leader is a better expert on evolution than an evolutionary biologist. It is not excusable.

What if I compound that confusion with the fact that for most people, the truth about evolution is about as important as the capital of New Guinea?
This would be fine, if evolution wasn't such a controversial topic. People who try to get laws passed to force the teaching of creationism because they don't belive in evolution, etc, clearly care more about the subject than about the capital of New Guinea.

In both cases, I've got someone I trust telling me that scientists believe in X. And in both cases, it's not terribly important if they're right (because, hey, I'm just a farmer!). So it's not shocking if I buy into X, is it?
Why do you trust the second source as much as you trust the first? Does the second source have the same track record as the first? Or do they base their assertions on belief rather than fact? The only shocking thing here is that you would think that someone who's basing their knowledge of science on a 2000+ year old book written by desert nomads more than on the findings of 1000s of scientists working today.

[Voyager]

But what if the priest tells you that scientists agree with him? That there's a debate? What if there are a bunch of science-looking websites and books that support creationism? Then is their ignorance excusable? What if I compound that confusion with the fact that for most people, the truth about evolution is about as important as the capital of New Guinea?

Would the guy who believes what the priest says about science and the creationist websites also believe some web page saying Jesus was an alien, or that there was proof that he never got crucified and the whole thing was a hoax? He probably wouldn't, because he knows that priests aren't pulled off the streets and put into pulpits, but have had training in theology and have been certified. If he used the same criteria for accepting science, he might be in good shape. It is no accident that the guy who started the modern creationist movement had nothing to do with biology.
As has already been mentioned, science has the advantage of predictive power, something lacking in religion. (When is Jesus coming back again?) You can look up the predictions, like for CBR, published before it was found. Ditto for inflation. For evolution, we predict what fossils we can expect to find, and we find them. We also can predict how our DNA should match that of other animals, and that came through also.
Most people need popularizers to translate the actual papers into things they can understand - but most people can't read Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic either.

[Voyager]

Well I must admit that growing up (and still living) in the Boston area may have kept me far removed from the creationist movement. Plus, when I was young, John Kennedy was President and you never heard him spouting that creationist crap.

You didn't hear Ike or Nixon spouting it either. I have some DVDs with old ads, and some of them were Eisenhower campaign ads from 1956, with average everyday people saying why they liked Ike. A few said how important god was, but none were anywhere close to being fundamentalists or anti-science. (Pre-Sputnik, of course.)

[Voyager]

In 1925, there was a large creationist movement, as evidenced by the Scopes trial. What do you think are the odds that this disappeared by 1957, and then suddenly came back in modern days.

I think what you're thinking of is the National Defense Education Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Education_Act), which encouraged evolution teaching. Note that this does not imply that people were any more accepting of evolution, only that the government thought it prudent to teach.

Creationism was limited to a few backwaters, mostly laughed at. You think Hollywood would have been brave enough to film Inherit the Wind as a major production if there was a wide creationist movement? That plumber Morris started it up again long after 1957 - when I was growing up in the '50s and '60s it was not an issue in most of the country.

[Voyager]

I know a thing or two about radio astronomy and am very proud of a research paper I wrote on space-based VLBI, actually.

There are plenty of books around to make this accessible to any reasonably intelligent person. I've read a bunch, and anyone doubting their accuracy can look up reviews by people with proven expertise in the area.

My only direct involvement was that I designed some circuitry for a very ground based VLBI for my bachelor's thesis (and probably held the field back) and I've given some talks to Penzias, who isn't nearly as smart as you'd think.

[foolsguinea]

Why exactly should I "believe in" the Big Bang? It's a speculative cosmology extrapolation! Does favoring an oscillating or steady-state paradigm make me stupid?

I'm offended here!

[mrklutz]

...what they're seeing is actually the result of fairies being rammed together at high speed, spreading fairy dust everywhere.

This image made me cackle maniacally. Now I want to build a high-speed fairy collider. Eee! Ow! Faith and begorra!

(Sorry for the hijack -- just had to share.)

[The Tooth]

OK, fine. I assumed too much. Pick anything about oceanography then.

Done!

The point is that it's very unsurprising that people that have not studied a subject will just believe what people tell them about it. Sure, not just any old person off the street, but if your friends, family, clergy, and community all tell you that Goddidit, then it's not surprising that you'd believe it.

I'm saying that the rebuttal "But they don't have any evidence" isn't a valid counterpoint. Because you, too, accept truths without any real evidence. You just take people's word for it.

No, it's more than just someone's word. The faith I have that my chair will hold me up is one grounded in a lot more than the faith some other guy has in the supernatural being of his choice. Faith based on something (long-established, shared experiences of chairs holding people up around the world) is not the same as faith based on nothing but stories about outlandish supernatural events.

So sitting here wide-eyed going "What were they thinking?! How dumb can they be?" isn't a fair appraisal of the situation. It's very understandable how someone could not believe in evolution when all they've got to go on is other people's words.

Not in the western world in the 21st century it isn't. Not to me.

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

This image made me cackle maniacally. Now I want to build a high-speed fairy collider. Eee! Ow! Faith and begorra!

"Faith and begorra"? You appear to be colliding a specific subset of faerions: the lepretons.

[tagos]

Not in the western world in the 21st century it isn't. Not to me.

Not in the 20th either.

People who don't think evolution is real are stupid. No excuses.

[marshmallow]

I'm going to have to answer that one the "wrong" way as well. It's all relative motion. We go aroung the sun, the sun goes around us, the galaxy goes around that...

Do you seriously think anyone who would answer that the Sun orbits the Earth knows what the hell an inertial frame is?

Besides, you have to pick one. I can throw one of those hyper bouncy rubber balls around in a room and either say the ball is bouncing around or say the ball is static and the entire universe is rapidly shifting from side to side. It's just way, way easier to model the Earth orbiting the sun. The center of gravity of the Earth-Sun system is inside the Sun, and the abberation of light and parallax back in the 1700s nailed it.

[Voyager]

This image made me cackle maniacally. Now I want to build a high-speed fairy collider. Eee! Ow! Faith and begorra!

After my kids watched Peter Pan for the 20th time slamming Tinkerbelle into a cinder block wall at relativistic velocities would have been pretty cool.

[sohvan]

Religion doesn't necessarily have to be anti-scientific, but many religions do end up that way.

It's true that Europe is generally less religious than the US, but it's also differently religious. For a lot of people who self-identify as christian here, it might mean something completely different from what people in a different culture take it to mean.

Someone might consider himself a christian, if he goes to church once a year on christmas eve to listen to christmas songs, gets his children baptized, gets married by a priest, and buried on a church cemetary. But if you ask them if they believe that Jesus died for mankinds sins, they'll say no. They might not even believe in God, but say that they are spiritual or believe in some general force. This has a certain distorting effect on statistics when reporting religiousity.

In that way being a christian for a large part of the population is more about the culture than the beliefs. Not that there aren't plenty of real believers here too. However, being very open with your personal religious beliefs to strangers is considered to be somewhat rude.

I don't have a lot of personal experience with the US, but I understand the situation is different there. You also seem to be much more open to displays of patriotism. For example using the Finnish flag outside official circumstances or sport events is considered a sign of right wing extremism.

[SenorBeef]

To add to the asshattery of this whole thing, I was just listening to a podcast yesterday that mentioned that this section was actually stricken from the official NSF report (as part of a more general report on american education and attitude towards science). We're only seeing this data because it was leaked. Apparently they went super chicken shit and wanted to avoid offending retards by publishing this or something.

[kaylasdad99]

This image made me cackle maniacally. Now I want to build a high-speed fairy collider. Eee! Ow! Faith and begorra!

(Sorry for the hijack -- just had to share.)

"Faith and begorra"? You appear to be colliding a specific subset of faerions: the lepretons.This exchange made me giggle.