QUOTE (Shryke @ May 1 2009, 17.50)

No, that's just him trying to throw out the people who aren't sure, despite them being an important part of the poll, because it conflicts with his ideas.

What is there to be unsure about? Oh that's right, religion again.

QUOTE (Shryke @ May 1 2009, 18.22)

When it comes to education level, "No" and "Don't Know" follow the exact same pattern.

HOWEVER, when it comes to church Attendance, while the "No"s still follow the same pattern, the "Don't Knows" DON'T.

Because they are saying "Don't know" for a different reason then the people saying "No" are.

Are you reading chicken entrails or something? If you go to church weekly, the No's siphon off a shitload of the don't knows. Add em together and there isn't much of a statistical drop between weekly and monthly attendance. But there is a large one once you get to seldom/never attending. Also, what reason do people have to have so many doubts around the issue? What is there out there that makes people hesitant to cast a definitive 'vote' either way? I know of only one group actively casting doubt on evolution. You might have heard of it.

Where is this debate or controversy without religion? Where is there a substantive reason to doubt without religion? Yeah, education can help the problem. But it is not THE main problem. Education is trying to do the right thing, sometimes doing it badly. Religion is in large part actively encouraging and indoctrinating the wrong thing. This is the difference between traffic accidents happening and 25-60% of drivers actively trying to run eachother off the road.

QUOTE (Shryke @ May 1 2009, 18.57)

Lack of education casts a doubt on all sorts of scientific theories, with no help from religion.

But keep saying it's all religion's fault, it might make it true sometime around when Unicorns show up.

Lack of education does not cast doubts. Lack of education simply makes you more susceptible to dishonest/ignorant bullshit peddlers attempting to cast doubts.

QUOTE (ljkeane @ May 1 2009, 18.50)

I suspect that 60% of the US population are not members of religions that dispute the validity of evolution and as the amount of concern given to this issue in other western developed societies seem extremely low regardless of how religious their population is I don't think that it's entirely clear that religion is the sole cause of the problem.

Whether your particular church or faith disputes evolution or not, you're still exposed to the nonsense from the faiths that do. The evolution friendly churches aren't exactly launching a counter-crusade on the issue. So while their influence may not be too negative, it is not necessarily positive either. That this may not be a huge problem in other countries doesn't really tell us much. Guns also aren't a problem in many other countries, but they are here. So we must (or should) implement measures against them that may not be strictly necessary in say...Switzerland. Deal with the problems you've got. Right now we've got religions in the US fighting a knock down, drag out, idiotic propaganda campaign against evolution. And its having their desired effect.

No other group I can point to is actively trying to CAUSE a problem. Some entities (schools) are simply insufficient at the moment to fixing the problems being caused.

QUOTE (ljkeane @ May 1 2009, 19.09)

If you have had sufficient education to understand the evidence for evolution and you still choose to believe creationism is scientific fact you're an idiot and that's your problem, it seems to me the only issue is whether students are being provided with a good enough education

This is bullshit. The problem is that various groups are smearing evolution on a massive, national scale and indoctrinating kids from birth in beliefs that are not only wrong, but fundamentally stupid. Schools can deal alright with simple ignorance. That's their job. They are less skilled at dealing with intentional, ongoing propaganda campaigns that carry divine fucking approval and parental/community advocacy. You're essentially asking schools not just to educate kids, but to win the battle of hearts and minds against parents and preachers. Don't you think that's JUST A BIT of a tall order? Double teacher salaries tomorrow and you're not gonna get that.

And even kids who are not raised in that environment will be exposed to similar nonsense. There is still active competition, an outside force encouraging and mandating ignorance. Schools got enough problems educating on subjects for which there are no outside preconceived biases. You're asking them to counteract varying degrees of cultural indoctrination. We could have the best schools in the world and that'd still be tough. And for many kids, there never will be a 'good enough' education that will counter those other forces.

QUOTE (Shryke @ May 1 2009, 19.11)

Except you'll get "I don't knows" out of tons of people with most scientific questions. And most of those question have no group out to "disprove" them based on some agenda.

Show me that poll. A popularly 'known', but not widely understood scientific theory. Relativity, as discussed earlier, would be a good one. I highly doubt there will be that many 'I don't knows' when it comes to that. And even the ones that are there won't have much practical effect on the study of relativity and concepts related to it as the religiously motivated brain drain on evolution most certainly does.

QUOTE (ljkeane @ May 1 2009, 19.22)

The only realistic solution to what seems to be a very real problem is to address the education students receive so that they know that the evidence for evoulution is clear.

I like my 'destroy religion' solution better. Impractical though it might be.

QUOTE (Craster's Son @ May 1 2009, 19.27)

I tend to agree with EHK that religion is the primary cause of doubt for the veracity of Evolution. (As a religious person who is a member of a denomination that does not officially doubt the veracity of Evolution, I would prefer to say certain religious groups as opposed to religion as a whole.) Having said that, I wonder what the result would be of a poll that asked the same question about climate change. I suspect that the results would be somewhat similar, even though most (possibly all) faiths are pretty close to neutral on this issue. Admittedly, the science isn't quite as strong regarding climate change, but it's pretty solid on the general details.

Climate change is an interesting one that we've had limited discussion on before. For whatever reason that I can't quite grasp, climate change has become a MASSIVE ideological issue with opponents falling pretty neatly and fervently along those lines. Outside of basic pro-business mantra, the perception of environmentalists as flaky hippies, and of course vested business interests in some industries, I can't really see a reason for it. I don't think those are really sufficient to explain how virulent opponents are against the subject. Nor why they gleefully dance a jig everytime a milkbone of evidentiary doubt gets thrown their way. Its become a cause celeb, one that we can't really pin on religion.

For this one, I blame Republicans.

QUOTE (ljkeane @ May 1 2009, 19.35)

I'm asking schools to teach students the scientific facts and not present creationism as 'science' beyond that what do you suggest as a realistic way to address the issue?

Mock, ridicule, shame and embarrass religion every time they give you an opportunity. Pat Robertson blames hurricanes on gays and abortions? Splash that everywhere. Rant about it on web forums. Shake your head with incredulous scorn at family gatherings. Some religions speak in tongues? Get a video of it and splash it all over youtube. That shit looks inherently silly on its face, don't even need to add commentary. In every possible way try to diminish and ridicule religion. (preferably when they do/say something inherently stupid or mock-worthy) Expose their horseshit. Make people feel ashamed to openly identify with it. Reduce its influence to the extreme fringe.

QUOTE (ljkeane @ May 1 2009, 19.35)

I think you're overstating the influence of conservative religious groups on students especially on those who are not members of their religion, they're also against sex before marriage how well do you think that propaganda is working out?

Not a good example. People do not have a biological imperative reinforced by billions of years of evolution to believe in evolution...they do on fucking and procreating. Not even religion can win on basic biology. But they've got a fighting chance against education.

QUOTE (CiaranAnnrach @ May 1 2009, 19.59)

You'd have a very hard time doing that without becoming a hypocrite, you realize that, right? A smear campaign, persecution of people for their beliefs. I don't think that's very realistic.

What would be hypocritical? I never said there's anything wrong with smear campaigns in the proper circumstances. If they're warranted, necessary, and/or useful, why not? My problems stem from dishonest, damaging & ignorant ones.

QUOTE (CiaranAnnrach @ May 1 2009, 19.59)

Plus, you run the risk of causing all those who are religious from gathering together to act /together/ to counteract that same persecution. Giving all religions a common enemy who is out to get them might not be the best idea, you might inadvertently make them stronger.

All religions won't have a common enemy. This attack would not be against all religions or all religious expressions. It would be targeted at the most obviously and objectively stupid and ridiculous expressions. The things that most people, religious or otherwise, nod their heads and utter 'That's kinda weird (or dumb)' anyway. The most discredited would be the fanatical, evangelical right. They most certainly would develop an 'us vs. them' siege mentality, but they've got one already anyway, so who gives a fuck? They are the lions share of the problem. But it won't just impact them. Most religions will suffer varying degrees of guilt by association that will slowly but surely creep into the national consciousness. The individual, non-fanatical believer can say 'This is weird, but hey, that ridicule doesn't apply to me', shrug and be on their merry way.

Eventually enough people on the sidelines or with moderate vested interests one way or another will start agreeing more and more that 'Yes, that shit is fucking stupid/scary/ridiculous/embarrassing' and slowly but surely many of them will dissociate and distance themselves. This won't help the most fervent, true-believing god warriors, but they're not the prize anyway. Their destruction would be nice, but I'd be happy with their irrelevance.

QUOTE (ljkeane @ May 1 2009, 20.00)

I'm sure the kind of people who are devoted enough to restrictive religious groups to reject scientific evidence will be devasated by a campaign of ridicule on web web forums and youtube, clearly it's only a matter of time until they renounce their religion.

I'm not after them.

QUOTE (CiaranAnnrach @ May 2 2009, 01.31)

ETA: @EHK, I reserve my doubts that it will work out quite the way you think it will. I think more than likely, any attack on a single facet of religion will result in all religions retaliating, simply because this is a country where all religions are supposed to be free of persecution. All it will take is for one group of people to call your attack on their specific religion an attack on "the religious freedom of America", and that's a banner every church can rally under with relative ease.

Mockery and criticism is not persecution. And the regular Catholic or the lazy Methodist has no common cause with the evangelical getting ripped a new asshole for blaming earthquakes on evolution teaching.

QUOTE (the Blauer Dragon @ May 1 2009, 23.45)

As I said before. Creationism doesn't belong in a science class. It should be studied for the cultural and historic significance, not the scientific.

I'm fine with it getting the same treatment in High School history textbook's as similarly significant concepts...which is a sentence...at most. It sure as fuck doesn't merit a chapter or even a paragraph.

QUOTE (Ser Scot A Ellison @ May 2 2009, 06.02)

My parish priest, in his homilies, has been known to say, "We're either crazy for beliving in the amazing 'God/man' who comes back from the dead banishing true death from the world. . . or we're right. There is no in between.". How's that for non-hypocracy?

How's that for misrepresentation? There's the implicit suggestion there that the two are equally likely propositions. They're not.

QUOTE (Horus Bergeron @ May 2 2009 - 05.11)

The difference between them and the Greeks is that they were able to convert the Western World to their religion through the powerful reach of the Romans. Had Constantine not "seen the light" we'd all likely be worshipping Jupiter today.

I'm gonna have to go with 'historical forces' over 'great men' on this one. By the time Constantine adopted Christianity into the empire it had already spread far and wide, representing a huge chunk of the population, and didn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon. If Constantine didn't adopt it, some other emperor a generation or a century later most likely would have. Earlier persecution was not having the desired effect. Also, it was spreading pretty handily throughout the Persian empire as well. It was only once the Romans made it the official religion that the Persians started treating it like a suspect, enemy influence. Who knows how they would have ended up if Christianity's adoption had been delayed. Or if Islam some centuries later would have been able to arise. I don't want to say that Christianity's ascension was inevitable, but it seemed like it at that time.

QUOTE (Horus Bergeron @ May 2 2009 - 05.11)

Surprisingly, I still get offended by Protestants who rip on the Catholics when they have thier own demons so I am still part of the problem.

I was raised Catholic and trust me, I get exactly the same way. Part homerism, part cultural identity. Yeah its a silly ass faith, but its MY silly ass faith (not really, but you understand), and only myself and other Papists get to rip on it! Don't really mind secular criticisms from anyone at this point so long as I don't even sniff a Protestant v. Catholic agenda driving the criticism.

QUOTE (Horus Bergeron @ May 2 2009 - 05.11)

I've dated Persian-Islamic women in the past.

That sounds hot actually.

QUOTE (Horus Bergeron @ May 2 2009 - 05.11)

I have little doubt that President Obama is likely a closet agnostic, he pretty much admits that both of his parents and his Indonesian stepfather were. They were all intellectuals who had little use for religion. I think he saw the United Church of Christ as useful in his efforts to help in the struggling communities in Chicago, and so he joined their church. I also see the potential for good that churches can do and recognise the good that Catholics can do. I don't think that things are as cut and dry as the poll suggests.

I've got the same take on Obama and faith. Ironically enough he's given the most thoughtful and intelligent statements on faith that I've ever heard from a politician. (read the text of his Call to Renewal speech. Great shit) He saw those churches as a means of helping those communities and I have no doubt as a necessary step in his own political advancement. The guy is also practical and a politician after all.

I do not doubt that Churches can and do many good things. But these are not things that can't be done and done well at a secular level. And that on the grand scheme of things, they do cause more harm than good.

QUOTE (CiaranAnnrach @ May 2 2009, 12.16)

So, the primary focus of your crusade isn't really the normal mainstream church, but then the extreme right wings? Such as the groups that refuse medical service, etc.? That's a bit different than what I thought you meant, and might work. Just be careful that the level of attack remains at criticism and mockery; it'd only take a handful of overzealous rednecks drunk up on beer to escalate things to a level where it would be considered persecution. But good luck with it! Just, let me know when you're starting so I can go get some popcorn.

I'm in favor of taking the opportunities given. Those extreme right wing churches give more opportunities than most. But any statement, action, or expression that qualifies as pretty obviously silly, offensive, or stupid is fair game. Guilt by association should hopefully do the rest of the work.

QUOTE (CiaranAnnrach @ May 2 2009, 12.25)

Possibly, but possibly not. I'm not going to feel very guilty if you're railing on XXX Church for claiming "earthquakes are 'cause we're teaching evolution" - because /I /think that's stupid as shit, too. The only way you'd get the guilt by association is if you really directly attack something that is a common belief. Otherwise, it's kinda like saying by attacking George W. Bush, all white people are going to feel guilty by association, 'cause we're all white. And I know for sure that you aren't really feeling much guilt by it.

Guilt by association never gets applied fairly or equitably. Look at Islam with the whole terrorism thing. A tiny few causing most of the problems, but right now we've got 80% (might be off a bit) of Canada...CANADA...with a negative view of Islam. Smear one Christian group and some of it will splatter the rest to varying degrees.

QUOTE (turinturambar @ May 2 2009, 13.41)

I know very few people who don't believe in evolution. Even most religious people I know(the more sane ones) believe in evolution, at least to an extent.

I think you have to take response/non-response bias into account with these polls.

Might just be selection bias. I hear and read alot of unfathomably dumb things, but I don't associate with people in my everyday life who spew that shit. Or if I do, the subject doesn't come up in that company. Hell, if you bum around Chicago a while you'd think it'd take an act of god to get a Republican elected anywhere. But there indeed are people that dumb. Alot of them in the south, in rural areas, and to some extent suburbs.

QUOTE (Ser Scot A Ellison @ May 2 2009, 14.54)

EHK,

Well, Fr. Thomas isn't saying the propositions are equally likely. He's saying Christ is the God/man who freed the world from true death. However, he's admitting if the central tenat of Christan faith is untrue Christians are holding to a belief that is insane. How is what he said in any way a "misrepresentation?

When you present those two as the only options without any qualifiers, 'equally likely' is more or less implied. If he'd rattled off a few hundred other beliefs, from reincarnation to invisible pink unicorns to leprechauns along with it, he might have been on to something.

QUOTE (ljkeane @ May 2 2009, 16.53)

I don't disagree with you that it is extremely important to ensure that students receive a high level of education and that groups with an anti evolution agenda should not be allowed to dictate the science curriculum. I just don't agree with EHK that the problem with knowledge about evolution in the US is entirely due to religion or that the solution to the problem is to ridicule all religious groups.

Are you disputing semantics or what? Did I miss an 'almost entirely' or 'nearly completely' qualifier here and there? Clearly 100% of the problem regarding evolution in America is not at the feet of religion. But the lions share is. And the main factor that separates evolution from any other educational subject in terms of general public ignorance IS religion. After reading Watcher's posts, my posts, how can you really dispute it at this point? Religion is just about (qualifier) solely responsible for the existence of a counter-argument to evolution. They've neutered science education to one degree or another and seek to do more. They've corrupted their own kids and actively try to do the same with others.

Religion is at the root of this problem no matter how you look at it. How can schools do a 'better job' when the kids are being brainwashed early and the school boards themselves are under constant assault or threat of assault? This is a public menace that is hurting the country.

QUOTE (turinturambar @ May 2 2009, 17.19)

Also, I have to point out that a lot of traditionally red states have high average IQ scores and test well on national tests. It's simply a different culture.

If dumb doesn't work, then I have no problem associating Republican with tragically fucking ignorant. Really, I don't care how much you associate with the basic Republican platform, if you're not embarrassed and disgusted by what the party has become, whether you continue to vote that way or not, you're dumb. Or simply not paying attention.

QUOTE (ljkeane @ May 2 2009, 17.51)

Certain religious groups clearly are the driving force behind opposition to good education about evoulution in the US but since I suspect members of these groups don't constitute anywere near 60% of the population of the US the issue I would have is with the level of education those who aren't members of these groups.

I don't really care that certain groups choose to reject the evidence for evolution it's only when these groups are allowed to dictate the science curriculum of schools that I do have an issue with them. Ultimately it's not the beliefs of these groups that is the problem but that they are able to influence the level of education that students receive.

I covered this several times about 20+ posts ago. They don't have to be 60%. The victims don't have to be their kids or go to their schools. Their deliberate misinformation, smear campaign, and theological crusade against evolution affects everyone. As Watcher explained, it affects the schools, the teachers, and the textbooks that every kid has. As I've explained multiple times, overcoming simple ignorance is hard enough, countering ignorance laden propaganda signed off by mom, dad, and god is fucking impossible.

Their beliefs hurt the country whether they attack schools and school boards or not.

QUOTE (turinturambar @ May 2 2009, 15.57)

My friend on the other hand is more about the traditional economic conservative. Believe it or not there are plenty of those out there, they simply haven't had much luck on the national stage the last decade or so. Believe it or not, McCain use to be more of that type, though once he ran for president he changed a lot of things to please the more conservative side of the party. That really disappointed me as there was a point in time when I liked him and would have voted for him. I voted for him in the primary when I turned 18 and I was pretty much devastated when Bush won the primary....and that's pretty much what turned me off to the primary process.

I liked McCain for quite a while myself. Voted for him in the primary as well. Disgusted with what the Republicans did to him. And even more disgusted with the ass licking he chose to do to get the nomination the second time around.

QUOTE (turinturambar @ May 2 2009, 15.57)

This country has become so freakin' split on the issues with blind party loyalties that sane moderate candidates simply don't have a chance.

Sane moderates have every chance. They're called 90% of the Democrat party. There's so many damned sane, sober moderates in that party it annoys the fuck out of me. I'd love to see a few prominent ones who weren't ashamed to be true blue liberals. Seriously, we have very little real left in this country. Sure as hell not much in elected office, or if they are, they hide it well. The Republicans have been the ones slitting the throats of their moderates and pushing for ideological purity for 20 years, Democrats have been welcoming all comers with open arms. So much so that if you examine many of the positions of the more conservative ones, you'd swear they were a Republican.

QUOTE (turinturambar @ May 2 2009, 15.57)

Actually, I don't vote either or. I'm generally embarrassed and disgusted by what both parties have become.

A vote for a third party in our system is a vote against your own interests. Whichever party you hate more, you just gave them a partial vote.

QUOTE (ljkeane @ May 2 2009, 19.02)

The way their campaign impacts on those who are not members of their groups is either directly on their education or is a reflection of the level of education they have received.

No.

QUOTE (ljkeane @ May 2 2009, 19.02)

I think the impact of your suggestions on people who actually are members of the more extreme religious groups will be minimal

To quote myself: I'm not after them.

QUOTE (ljkeane @ May 2 2009, 19.02)

what is important for everybody else is that they recieve a good enough education.

Education does better without unnecessary & ignorant artificial barriers.

QUOTE (ljkeane @ May 2 2009, 19.02)

Something like national requirements for the curriculums schools teach would probably reduce the influence of fringe groups on the education students receive.

National standards are useful, but alot of shit still happens in the trenches even with declarations and textbooks from Washington.

QUOTE (Triskele @ May 2 2009, 19.22)

I don't know if religion is the root of all evil or not but these Youtube videos mocking creationists are making my day.

Fucking classic series. Love em all. 17 & 21 are favorites.

QUOTE (HT Reddy @ May 2 2009, 19.33)

Honestly, if you just attempt to see things froma different point of view than your own, you would realise that this isn't some cheap rhetorical trick to make Christianity seem more credible than it reallt is (why would he need to do this - he is preaching to believers and is a believer himself), he is simply saying that Christian claims would be crazy if they weren't true. Yes he believes they are true - get over it. Like, if I say that to jump out of a three-storey window is either stupid or brave, am I saying that each possibility is 50%? No, because talking about probabilities is totally irrelevent to the sense of the sentence, and it's the same in Scot's example.

I don't believe its a conscious or intentional misrepresentation, but it still is one. His suggestion is that its 'either/or', which technically it is. But the 'either' is completely random and arbitrary with absolutely nothing to support it and the 'or' is the only logical conclusion without significant evidence showing otherwise (or more specifically, in the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever for anything). Unless there is good reason to believe 'something', the default position should be 'nothing'.

If he wants a pat on the back for acknowledging this stuff to the fawning masses, he'll have to do better. If he'd continued with the fact that there's absolutely no reason to believe in the abrahamic god, that there's no actual evidence to support his existence, that this particular church domination is no more or less likely to be the 'right' one than all the other Christian faiths, muslims, zoroastrians, gnostic heretics, mormons, hindus, buddhists, Pre-christian pagans, sun worshipers, Scientologists, hippy crystal worshipers, counter-cultural trend following Wiccans, leprechaun and Nessie believers, etc, etc, etc...he just MIGHT be approaching an accurate statement.

QUOTE (The Humble Asskicker @ May 2 2009, 19.51)

You don't at all consider that ascribing certain opposing beliefs as "unnecessary barriers", in the very broad manner you advocate, is overly simplistic? You mentioned earlier the idealistic notion of eliminating a harm greater than whatever benefit is offered (the whole rotten apple analogy). As Zap pointed out, this isn't exactly the most easily quantifiable area. It's merely a cross your fingers sort of stray hope.

Besides which, what religions would you excise? Would it just be a complete, anything non-secular gets the boot sort of deal, or would we would appoint some reasonably objective (whatever the fuck that means in this instance) scientists to determine what religions pose the most threat to any pet area of science and progressive social fad and eliminate those?

I think this bears repeating: (from my earlier post)

The entirety of religion is an unnecessary and unnatural barrier to alot of things, certainly not limited to education. It is a barrier to tolerance. The popular ones these days being homosexuals and sometimes other religions. I hear Jew hate is still popular with some of them. It is a barrier to medical research (stem cells) and sometimes proper medical treatment. (JW's on blood transfusions) It is a barrier to the battle against AIDS and other STD's, both abroad and here at home. A barrier to sustainable populations. A barrier to rational public policy generally, because even if they do attempt to couch their agenda in secular terms at times, they are not being put forth for secular reasons. The ultimate root of too much of their would be policy is 'god says', which is appalling on so many levels.

I can go on for a while, but you get the picture. They are the root cause of a whole host of ills. And I can't for the life of me see what they offer that cannot be done and done well via secular means. The things that they do manage very competently, say charitable donation or drug treatment, won't suddenly go to hell without them. And its quite possible that given the party (and its platform) that most devout religious folk choose to represent them in the US, that they're a net negative on these things as well.

Ideally, I'd drop all religions. I cannot see much redeeming value in any of them and the potential for increasingly greater harm persists if you let even the quiet moderate ones stick around. Whatever benefits are lost by the disappearance of religions will be plugged by other means. People aren't gonna suddenly refuse to go on or start behaving like barbaric sociopaths just because god is gone. God isn't required for people to be good people.

And to your last post, no, eliminating religion would not rid us of ignorance. But religion is right now one of the largest and most active encouragers of ignorance. The entire concept of religion is founded upon varying degrees of selective ignorance. Its ignorance is more successful then others because it can't be disputed by rational means in many cases. It carries weight unmatched by anything in certain circles. God Says trumps all. Getting rid of it doesn't win the war against ignorance, but its a damned good start. If we cure cancer, people will still die of the flu and other ailments, but damn...we still fucking cured cancer. Its a big first step.