News More Americans accept theory of creationism than evolution

[drankin]

When I was a teenager, I was friends with a younger boy who lived down the street and looked up to me like a big brother. This little boy went to a very strict religion-based seventh-day adventist "academy" comprised of a whopping 40 students in twelve grades. Just to give you a little perspective, he viewed going to the mall as an extravagant "field trip," and was almost dumb-founded by the presence of black people there. His hometown was 40% African-American, yet he had never actually seen a black person until he was a pre-teen.

One day I come walking down his street, and he stops me short with the question "Hey Warren, do you believe in evolution?". I paused for a long moment, trying to choose my words carefully. I finally said "of all the explanations available, I think evolution is the best."

"Really?" he said, "so who in your family is a monkey?"



The poor kid couldn't multiply two-digit numbers until he was 12. (I taught him how.) He was fascinated by my books on space shuttles and other planets, and I brougt them over whenever I could. He asked his parents for books like those, but they wouldn't buy him any.

Because of his poor performance in his "academy," his parents decided to home-school him for remainder of his childhood. He explained that he spent approximately four hours a day on the Bible, and a few left-over minutes here and there on other subjects like math and history. He also explained that when he didn't do well on his tests, his mom helped him. (Translation: his parents doctored his home-school exams to make sure the state didn't declare them incompetent and put him in public school.)

He works at Chic-Fil-A now, serving chicken sandwiches.

Now, this is of course just one data point: an anecdote. At the same time, I believe it illustrates very nicely what happens when parents almost literally exclude their children from an education of the real world. This is what many evangelical Christians would truly like to see: children educated solely from the Bible, at the expense of every other subject. The science classroom and the "debate" about the theory of evolution are nothing more than footholds in their larger attempt to achieve it.

- Warren

I'll give you a couple of other examples.

My friend has five children, all girls (ugh!). His wife home schools them all. Their 17 yr old daughter just got a full ride scholarship to Harvard, among a few other universities she had applied to. She chose Harvard.

My cousin has six children that she homeschools, her oldest started college to study some discipline of engineering at 16 yrs old.

Some parents can home school and some aren't so great. Some public schools are good and some are not.

*edit* Oh, and both of those households are "Christian" based.

 

[chroot]

My friend has five children, all girls (ugh!). His wife home schools them all. Their 17 yr old daughter just got a full ride scholarship to Harvard, among a few other universities she had applied to. She chose Harvard.

I think you missed my point entirely. What I wrote was not a tirade against home-schooling -- you are indeed correct that many parents are capable of educating their children more successfully than professional educators.

Instead, my point is that parents who actively limit a child's access to genuine educational experiences in favor of religious propaganda raise kids who can't do anything beyond serving fast food. Many well-meaning evangelical parents think they're raising good Christian children, when in fact they're really just raising morons.

- Warren

 

[Art]

Many well-meaning evangelical parents think they're raising good Christian children, when in fact they're really just raising morons.

- Warren

Very succinct!

 

[EL]

Here is a nice chart of a survey presented by national geographic comparing the acceptance of evolution theory in different countries. The chart is a little less in depth tha the gallup poll but its gives an illustration of the broad trends between countries.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html

Thanks, this is what I was looking for. It seems like this is a typical american phenomenon, and maybe its not fair to compare US to European countries due too their different histories. It would have been interesting to see the scores of Canada, which past is a bit closer to that of the US.

What is scary is that people think they know what the truth is, they are right and everyone else is wrong. I think that many people believe in some kind of higher intelligence, not that that implies a belief in the Bible. Trying to convince people that a red hot ball of lava (early Earth) just turned itself into people, on its own, it not easy, no matter how many small steps you describe it as. You claim people are "uneducated" because they have their own beliefs that do not match yours? That is the scary part...

Evolution is not a matter of belief. Evolution is a well established scientific theory (that is: not "just a theory"), based on numerous after numerous of scientific facts. Denying evolution has simply no more to do with religous belief than claiming the Earth is flat.

People have believed in "creationism" for thousands of years. It's not a big deal. It doesn't matter what people believe in, they are going to try to influence others of what they believe. It's human nature. There is nothing "scary" going on. Why would it matter any more today than it did 100yrs ago? The sciences have not been adversely impacted. I get a kick out of people acting as if there is some sort of epidemic. LOL

What is scary is people expecting that a government should censor what one can and cannot believe.

I do not agree with you here. "Believing" in unrational ideas is a big problem, not only just now, but also has been during the history. It simply did matter 100 years ago too. (Although I think it matters even more know due to the development in warfare.) Just because it has always used to be this way doesn't make it less problematic. As long as the unrational ideas only are followed by a minor part of the population it's true that it's not really a big problem. The problem really arises when the ideas are spread to the men in power, whos decisions affect a huge number of people. Too see the effects of unrational leaders just look at Germany in the 30th-40th, or Iran today...and there are plenty of more examples.
Btw, who are saying they think the government should censor what people can believe in?

I know my opinions on the subject of this thread are violently rejected here. I think that rather than butt heads with the religious community over this issue, we should be content to teach the scientific method and let people believe what they want. My belief is that if we could get more people to understand the scientific method, we will have the best victory we could ever have hoped to achieve.

I second that. I do think most people are capable of making rational choices. The hard thing is to make sure everyone has enough information to have a fair chance of doing so, and this requires hard work from the scientific community.

 

[drankin]

I think you missed my point entirely. What I wrote was not a tirade against home-schooling -- you are indeed correct that many parents are capable of educating their children more successfully than professional educators.

Instead, my point is that parents who actively limit a child's access to genuine educational experiences in favor of religious propaganda raise kids who can't do anything beyond serving fast food. Many well-meaning evangelical parents think they're raising good Christian children, when in fact they're really just raising morons.

- Warren

I have no doubt that happens, it just hasn't been my personal experience. I hope you weren't referring to your friend as one of those morons.

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.

 

[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