More Americans accept theory of creationism than evolution

[chroot]

To be fair, you have to admit that you have met plenty of morons that went through the public school system. And even a few that are college grads.

What's your point? Access to quality education is a necessary but not sufficient condition for not being a moron. This seems obvious.

- Warren

 

[drankin]

Back to Americans believing in Creationism, my point was that it's no big deal and does not compromise the progress of science. The US is and always has been competitive in the sciences despite it's religious majority.

 

[chroot]

Back to Americans believing in Creationism, my point was that it's no big deal and does not compromise the progress of science. The US is and always has been competitive in the sciences despite it's religious majority.

Of course it compromises the progress of science -- specifically, science education. If you have an hour of science class, and you spend half of it talking about Christian mythology, then you must be spending less than an hour talking about science.

Time spent talking about Christian mythology does not come out of blue sky -- it comes as a result of handicapping some other subject.

And surely you realize that, while most of the world's top universities are physically located in the US, many (in some cases most) of their students and faculty are foreign! The US is actually in the midst of a rather alarming decline in scientific and technological importance as other nations build better universities and attract top scientists with better laws and better public funding. Just take a look at the state of stem cell research.

- Warren

 

[EL]

Back to Americans believing in Creationism, my point was that it's no big deal and does not compromise the progress of science. The US is and always has been competitive in the sciences despite it's religious majority.

As chroot said, an unrational population of course affects the science development negatively. My main "fear" is though its infuence on the politics...

 

[Dr. Proof]

What's your point? Access to quality education is a necessary but not sufficient condition for not being a moron. This seems obvious.

- Warren

It's not obvious to me.

I think education is a good thing; however, most of our troops that went over-seas in World War II to fight for our freedoms did not have much education. Many dropped out of high school to fight for the very existence of our country. They fought and died by the thousands, and I don't think they were morons.

There's more to character than education.

 

[drankin]

Of course it compromises the progress of science -- specifically, science education. If you have an hour of science class, and you spend half of it talking about Christian mythology, then you must be spending less than an hour talking about science.

Time spent talking about Christian mythology does not come out of blue sky -- it comes as a result of handicapping some other subject.

And surely you realize that, while most of the world's top universities are physically located in the US, many (in some cases most) of their students and faculty are foreign! The US is actually in the midst of a rather alarming decline in scientific and technological importance as other nations build better universities and attract top scientists with better laws and better public funding. Just take a look at the state of stem cell research.

- Warren

I agree, and I never suggested that we teach Creationism in our schools. As far as the stem cell deal... I haven't followed it.

 

[chroot]

I think education is a good thing; however, most of our troops that went over-seas in World War II to fight for our freedoms did not have much education. Many dropped out of high school to fight for the very existence of our country. They fought and died by the thousands, and I don't think they were morons.

I think the conscription of high-school kids to fight wars is a rather exceptional event. Certainly, we shouldn't be designing our educational system in 2007 as if the typical student were to be sent to war at any moment, should we?

What's the point of bringing up exceptional arguments?

- Warren

 

[Smurf]

Religious Revivalism is nothing new in the US. This is just the most recent of several surges. It's notable that when life's hard people tend to turn to religion. Real wages and incomes have stagnated while work hours increased and benefits declined, and inequality has been increasing, this period is really quite bad economically. There's similar correlations in other places of the world. I don't consider this an education problem. Education today is more or less equally as bad as it was before the current fundamentalism trends.

Okay, who knows what's so ironic about this?

 

[chemisttree]

Of course it compromises the progress of science -- specifically, science education. If you have an hour of science class, and you spend half of it talking about Christian mythology, then you must be spending less than an hour talking about science.

I can only speak from my personal experience but the TOTAL amount of time spent in my Biology classes (high school through college) discussing evolution was minutes! If equal time were given to creationism, more minutes would be wasted. I've never had to use evolution or creationism in any scientific endeavor. We never talked about it in Physics, Chemistry, Engineering or Math. So how is it that this minor point is given so much importance?

Can anyone name a single unique useful scientific discovery that was based on evolution or creationism?

And surely you realize that, while most of the world's top universities are physically located in the US, many (in some cases most) of their students and faculty are foreign! The US is actually in the midst of a rather alarming decline in scientific and technological importance as other nations build better universities and attract top scientists with better laws and better public funding. Just take a look at the state of stem cell research.

Entirely unrelated to the discussion of creationism vs evolution. Surely you aren't saying that spending equal time discussing useless mythology and useless evolution is the root of this problem! And what does all this have to do with stem cell research? Is bioethics now only the turf of christian fundamentalists?

 

[Smurf]

Can anyone name a single unique useful scientific discovery that was based on evolution or creationism?

There's a bunch of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

[chemisttree]

There's a bunch of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

So name them. You can't expect me to believe that all genetics followed from Darwin's description of evolution!

 

[drankin]

I can only speak from my personal experience but the TOTAL amount of time spent in my Biology classes (high school through college) discussing evolution was minutes! If equal time were given to creationism, more minutes would be wasted. I've never had to use evolution or creationism in any scientific endeavor. We never talked about it in Physics, Chemistry, Engineering or Math. So how is it that this minor point is given so much importance?

Can anyone name a single unique useful scientific discovery that was based on evolution or creationism?



Entirely unrelated to the discussion of creationism vs evolution. Surely you aren't saying that spending equal time discussing useless mythology and useless evolution is the root of this problem! And what does all this have to do with stem cell research? Is bioethics now only the turf of christian fundamentalists?

LOL, you hit the nail on the head. People are making an issue about a non-issue. Creationism vs Evolution has little to do with anything substantial impacting the scientific community. It's all religion vs anti-religion, a pointless argument with no value to either bias.

 

[Cyrus]

Can anyone name a single unique useful scientific discovery that was based on evolution or creationism?

Are you serious? How about how animals have evolved over millions of years and adapted to their environments. Have you ever been to a natural science museum to see fossils slowly change over time?

I would call that pretty significant.

 

[Cyrus]

LOL, you hit the nail on the head. People are making an issue about a non-issue. Creationism vs Evolution has little to do with anything substantial impacting the scientific community. It's all religion vs anti-religion, a pointless argument with no value to either bias.

Hello, stem cell reserach? Is this thing on -tap -tap -tap

 

[drankin]

Hello, stem cell reserach? Is this thing on -tap -tap -tap

And stem cell research has to do with what? Are you on the right thread?

 

[Cyrus]

Who is against stem cell research, atheists?

mic check, microphone check, 1-2, 1-2. eeeeeeruuuuuuuu.

 

[siddharth]

Evolution has little to do with anything substantial impacting the scientific community.

I've never had to use evolution or creationism in any scientific endeavor. We never talked about it in Physics, Chemistry, Engineering or Math. So how is it that this minor point is given so much importance?

The whole field of evolutionary biology? Genetic algorithms? Explaining drug resistant bacteria, domestication of animals? drug discoveries?

In fact, you should read this
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

 

[drankin]

Who is against stem cell research, atheists?

mic check, microphone check, 1-2, 1-2. eeeeeeruuuuuuuu.

Yep, wrong thread. Try plugging that thing in over there...

 

[Cyrus]

The plug is universal (Its the same problem, [religious people], that are harming science. Take your pick, evolution or stem cell research). Its the same reasoning that's at fault. Some goop in a dish is a person. Some goop millions of years ago, that's NOT a person!

Talk about hypocrites. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Reshma]

Evolution is an ongoing process process in every stream of science I can think of. Even in the case of computers and softwares. Starting from Charles Babbage's analytical machine to the pocket-computers of today's time, evolution is a continuous process even in the field of technology.

 

[vanesch]

It is my impression that Biblical creationism (Genesis style) is essentially a US phenomenon (in the Western world). To give you an idea in France, it is seriously frowned upon, although there is also a "scientific creationism" movement:

En France, l'Université interdisciplinaire de Paris (UIP), une association qui regroupe 1 250 adhérents[2], existe depuis 1995 et organise des conférences soupçonnées de défendre le créationnisme. Un certain nombre de scientifiques, tels que Jean Chaline, Rémy Chauvin ou Anne Dambricourt Malassé, défendent la théorie de la logique interne, proche du créationnisme.

with... 1250 adherents. (quote from http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Créationnisme)

However, there are many more people who like to adhere to a much softer form of creationism, which is just a philosophical stance: a deity "created" the laws of nature, and evolution is just a part of it. I know some catholic French people who say that they are "creationist" in this sense, but are entirely accepting a billions-year old Earth and humans-evolved-from-apes and all that, in as much as there is scientific support for that. Their stance is simply that the laws of nature where made such (by their deity) that the way evolution happened, was a (planified) result of them. This is of course an unfalsifiable position, but not in contradiction to science.

The Genesis-style creationism is generally viewed as totally absurd, even by most catholic French, and is very seriously frowned upon in the entire educational system.

 

[chemisttree]

Are you serious? How about how animals have evolved over millions of years and adapted to their environments. Have you ever been to a natural science museum to see fossils slowly change over time?

I would call that pretty significant.

No, I've never seen a fossil change over time... It isn't a question of significance, it's a question of utility. How more USEFUL is it to know that species evolve to fill niche environments vs. God putting them there? All of the study of evolution seems more important to evolutionists than to anyone else as the study of biblical creationism is most important to biblical scholars.

 

[chemisttree]

Hello, stem cell reserach? Is this thing on -tap -tap -tap

Again with the stem cell research! How is this related to evolution? Do you know what stem cells are?

 

[chemisttree]

Evolution is an ongoing process process in every stream of science I can think of. Even in the case of computers and softwares. Starting from Charles Babbage's analytical machine to the pocket-computers of today's time, evolution is a continuous process even in the field of technology.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Here we see evolution misapplied to mean "Development".

 

[Office_Shredder]

No, I've never seen a fossil change over time... It isn't a question of significance, it's a question of utility. How more USEFUL is it to know that species evolve to fill niche environments vs. God putting them there? All of the study of evolution seems more important to evolutionists than to anyone else as the study of biblical creationism is most important to biblical scholars.

How USEFUL is it that I've read works of Shakespeare? How USEFUL is it to konw the table of elements? How USEFUL is it to know the force of gravity is mg? For any given fact, 99.9% of people will never use it... so why don't we just call off all education, because it's clearly a waste of time

 

[chemisttree]

However, there are many more people who like to adhere to a much softer form of creationism, which is just a philosophical stance: a deity "created" the laws of nature, and evolution is just a part of it. I know some catholic French people who say that they are "creationist" in this sense, but are entirely accepting a billions-year old Earth and humans-evolved-from-apes and all that, in as much as there is scientific support for that. Their stance is simply that the laws of nature where made such (by their deity) that the way evolution happened, was a (planified) result of them. This is of course an unfalsifiable position, but not in contradiction to science.

I think you would find this true in the US as well although not so much as in France. I believe that roughly one-third of French citizens are acknowledged athiests (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131) whereas only 5% of US citizens are.

 

[chemisttree]

The whole field of evolutionary biology? Genetic algorithms? Explaining drug resistant bacteria, domestication of animals? drug discoveries?

In fact, you should read this
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

Genetic algorithms? Leave out the word 'genetic' and nothing is lost. Perhaps you meant to say 'directed evolution'. Drug resistant bacteria can be completely understood without resort to evolution. Humans have been domesticating animals for thousands of years... you prove my point exactly!

I don't know how you get "drug discoveries" from knowledge of evolution. Do you?

 

[Astronuc]

It's all religion vs anti-religion,

Not quite.

It is about the degree to which religion is involved in public education.

Church attendance is not mandatory, but attendance in school is. Religious instruction belongs in one's home and religious institution, not in the public classroom. Discussion of religion is an entirely different matter, and I don't see why a course in comparative religion or study of religion should be a problem, except where someone invokes the idea that one's religion or set of beliefs is the only 'right' or 'correct' one, and all others therefore are not.

The debate on evolution vs creationism is largely a philosophical conflict, but also one of public policy, which does affect the effectiveness of the educational system.

 

[Dr. Proof]

I've never had to use evolution or creationism in any scientific endeavor. We never talked about it in Physics, Chemistry, Engineering or Math. So how is it that this minor point is given so much importance?

Can anyone name a single unique useful scientific discovery that was based on evolution or creationism?

Amen and Amen.

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

uses of evolution

 

[Moridin]

More recent Gallup polls and articles

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=27682

About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word.

There is also a strong relationship between education and belief in a literal Bible, with such belief becoming much less prevalent among those who have college educations.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=21814

 

[siddharth]

Genetic algorithms? Leave out the word 'genetic' and nothing is lost. Perhaps you meant to say 'directed evolution'. Drug resistant bacteria can be completely understood without resort to evolution. Humans have been domesticating animals for thousands of years... you prove my point exactly!

I don't know how you get "drug discoveries" from knowledge of evolution. Do you?

I'm not a biologist, and I might be wrong, but from the earlier link, what I understand is that

(i) Genetic algortihims in computer science directly use major principles from evolution such as natural selection, mutation and recombination.

(ii) An understanding of evolution surely offers insight into how resistances are built up in bacteria. For example, how bacteria respond to the selective pressure of the antibiotics, and how mutations and how the inherited trait of drug resistance changes from generation to generation

(iii) I think that the concept of common descent is used to find out how unknown genes function, by tracing the evolutionary pathways of genes with known function, and see how they relate to the unknown gene.

Besides, what practical applications have creationist theories resulted in?

Maybe Moonbear or someother biologist will have more to add on the practical aspects of the theory of evolution?

 

[chemisttree]

Not quite.

It is about the degree to which religion is involved in public education.

Church attendance is not mandatory, but attendance in school is. Religious instruction belongs in one's home and religious institution, not in the public classroom. Discussion of religion is an entirely different matter, and I don't see why a course in comparative religion or study of religion should be a problem, except where someone invokes the idea that one's religion or set of beliefs is the only 'right' or 'correct' one, and all others therefore are not.

The debate on evolution vs creationism is largely a philosophical conflict, but also one of public policy, which does affect the effectiveness of the educational system.

I agree with most of this but disagree with some points (in a minor way). I think that religious belief has no place in a science classroom, however; it offers a spectacular opportunity to teach the scientific method and illustrate how the scientific method cannot be applied to prove or disprove an article of faith. A very useful lesson these days...

 

[Kurdt]

I agree with most of this but disagree with some points (in a minor way). I think that religious belief has no place in a science classroom, however; it offers a spectacular opportunity to teach the scientific method and illustrate how the scientific method cannot be applied to prove or disprove an article of faith. A very useful lesson these days...

Which ultimately brings one to question faith because it allows people to believe whatever they wish with no evidence in support of it. Thus its usefulness to the pursuit of the truth of the universe is non-existent.

I believe this thread has made the unfortunate descent into the usual bickering that generally occurs with critiques of faith.

 

[out of whack]

I am a critic of faith. What I find alarming in this story is the willingness of so many people to base their entire system of belief on ancient unverified stories in preference to what can be seen and verified today. Most religions are collections of unprovable stories and beliefs, I don't think this is in dispute, and this is why the word "faith" is needed. Those who make the decision to accept such unsubstantiated hypotheses on faith willingly abdicate their right to use reason and their ability to verify the validity of these beliefs against what is actually verifiable. Making this conscious decision is the saddest thing. Seeing the proportion of Americans who favor superstition over science is alarming.