In this article there is a gallup pole that shows 61% of americans reject evolution. WTF? Apparently, acording to another pole I will link to when i get off of work, fewer people today believe in evolution than did 20 years ago. 20 years worth of genetic evidence in support of evolution, 20 years of research that supports evolution, and today you are more likely than ever to hear someone say "evolution is just a theory". At the same time, I am just as likely as i was 20 years ago at age 3 to tell them "yeah, like gravity is just a theory". in any case, MHO is that this is crazy. is anyone else disturbed by this? is anyone disturbed by the 40% that reject adam and eve?

And thus we witness the fruits of decades of evangelical expansion and infiltration of American society; a population of ignorant drooling imbeciles of which 60% are preemptively unfit to study most major scientific fields. A self-imposed brain drain of enormous scale with potentially catastrophic long term consequences. Its fucking sick. I would rather have 10 more Bin Laden's than this horseshit.

For anyone who has ever doubted that Christianity is a plague, here's your evidence. Its now a pandemic and has stupified most of the population.

QUOTE (Ormond @ May 1 2009, 14.17)

Check out the original Gallup report. It does NOT say that "61% of Americans reject evolution". The question "Do you believe in evolution?" (a really simplistic way to phrase this, IMHO) had three possible answers. 39% said yes, 36% said they had no opinion, and only 25% said "No". I think only the 25% could be described as "rejecting evolution".

Gallup pole

25% is a lot higher than I want to see, but given the state of high school biology education in the USA -- and the fact that 15% of US adults over the age of 25 have never even completed a high school degree -- I don't think we should be really surprised about those results.

You don't get to be agnostic on one of the most fundamental questions of basic scientific reality. 'No opinion' is almost as stupid and ignorant as 'no' in this case. I mean would we hesitate to lament and scorn those who had 'no opinion' on whether the earth was flat or not? Same scenario here. You either believe the sky is blue, since it is in fact fucking blue, or there's something wrong with you whether you're fence sitting or firmly in the other camp. Cause quite frankly, there's no fucking fence to sit on. This is about as either/or as you get. If your answer is maybe, you're still dumb.

QUOTE (Ormond @ May 1 2009, 14.26)

And if you think that the 35% who told some Gallup interviewer over the phone that they have "no opinion" really all have "no opinion", you are just as stupid and ignorant of science as they are.

For most of them 'No opinion' likely means 'I don't know' or 'I'm not sure', which is still fricken bad.

QUOTE (CiaranAnnrach @ May 1 2009, 14.28)

Then why have the option in the poll?

They shouldn't have. That option fucks up more polls then you can count. Its not appropriate in this case. You're obviously gonna lean more one way then the other. But even if they did want a 3rd option, that option should have been 'unsure/Don't know', cause everyone has a damned opinion on it, even if its a weak one.

QUOTE (CiaranAnnrach @ May 1 2009, 14.33)

Well, according to EHK and others, religion is the source of all skepticism about evolution, and despite countless arguments their opinion has not been swayed any. Especially when EHK's first post is a heavy handed attack on religion.

Is it heavy handed when its 110% deserved and appropriate? And really, what other obstacle to a belief in evolution is there for the vast majority of the population? Religion is absolutely the culprit.

QUOTE (Ser Scot A Ellison @ May 1 2009, 14.37)

EHK,

Right. Given that my wife, my children, my parents, my siblings (one of whom is an evangelical Christian), my priest, and I all believe in evolution and are Christian (of various denominations) it's good to know we are now part of a "pandemic."

Not everyone dies of the plague. But it does seem to have a damned high casualty rate. Fuck the swine flu. We need to deal with Bubonic Christianity.

QUOTE (Blauerdrakken @ May 1 2009, 13.34)

I am not in the 61%, but could be counted as solidly anti-Darwinism only because I believe that more research is needed into how species have evolved and what catalysts drive evolution. I do not think that it is always the fittest that survive.

This is simply a misunderstanding of evolution because evolution doesn't state this. Or if it does, they're using a significantly different definition of fittest.

QUOTE (Blauerdrakken @ May 1 2009, 13.34)

Then let them decide for themselves what they believe.

Youtube clip
Start at about 5 minutes in.

QUOTE (Ser Scot A Ellison @ May 1 2009, 14.49)

EHK,

You are presenting a false dichotomy. I can be Christian and believe in evolution. One belief does not preclude the other. Hence my family and friends. Heck, the Roman Catholic church as expressly endorsed evolutionary theory as doctrinally sound.

Of course it doesn't. But odds are one absolutely does follow the other and its not hard to see which one is the egg (or the first chicken) in this instance. Not every believer will be inexcusably stupid on this issue, but most in the US will. And they will be primarily because of religion.

QUOTE (El-ahrairah @ May 1 2009, 14.52)

The reason English is (mostly) used in schools is that most of the U.S. citizenry speaks the language. Likewise, as most Americans are adherents to the Abrahamic faith, it is more logical for Genesis to be taught than Ainulindalë or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have no objection to teaching Moses (along with proportional tales from other religions) along with Darwin.

Science is science. It is the pursuit of absolute truth, it attempts to answer our questions about physical reality. It is not dictated by cultural popularity and the notion that we should allow that to factor into what gets taught is absurd.

QUOTE (Ser Scot A Ellison @ May 1 2009, 14.55)

EHK,

So, you're going to, in effect, throw the baby out with the bathwater?

That cliche generally applies to situations where there's a few bad applies fucking things up for everyone else. This ain't a few isolated fanatics. This is the large majority. There ain't a rotted edge to the apple, the vast majority of the apple is rotted. At that point, yes I think its a good idea to throw away the entire fucking apple. Maybe there are a few chunks here and there you can slice away and munch down without killing yourself, but why bother? Just buy a fresh orange. They taste better anyway.

I want to post this again as probably the definitive argument against anyone who thinks its a good idea to teach creationism in science classes or to let the 'kids learn and decide' for themselves. The whole clip is good and really the entire 30 part series is excellent. But the relevant bits start at about 4:50 in. Shit like this single-handedly justifies Youtube.

Youtube clip

QUOTE (CiaranAnnrach @ May 1 2009, 14.58)

I 100% agree with you, but Gallup seemed to think it was a valid answer, and thus included it. If they really wanted to be accurate, they would increase the number of choices to:

[] I believe in evolution due to scientific evidence and I am not religious ( NR )
[] I believe in evolution due to scientific evidence and I am religious ( R )
[] I don't know much about the scientific evidence, but I believe in evolution ( NR )
[] I don't know much about the scientific evidence, but I believe in evolution ( R )
[] I'm skeptical about evolution, but not for religious reasons
[] I'm skeptical about evolution for religious reasons

That's about the only way to really get an accurate assessment of how America stands. Until then, any speculation on the reasons for peoples answers is just that, speculation. And no matter how much you think you know, you don't really know 100% why people picked what they did. The options are way too open ended.

Questions that detailed make for alot of self delusion bias. Some responders won't have a problem saying 'religion is the reason I don't believe in evolution'. But some will intentionally or unintentionally assert that they have non-religious reasons for not believing it. They may not recognize the awesome cultural influence of Christianity, the role it played in the information they received from every possible source (school, media, politics, parents, community), and how such factors may have influenced where they fall on the issue. Religion may still be the dominant factor in their position whether they're heavily religious or not and whether they personally realize it or not. Giving them that option simply gives us their own subjective impression, it does not answer the question.

Also, most polls ask demographic information (do you go to church, how often, do you identify yourself Christian, is religion an important factor to your daily life, etc) separately and compare that data with the results, so there's no need to attach a religious modifier to the actual question itself. The more complex and more parts you add to the question, often the less useful and meaningful the results become. 'Do you believe in evolution?': Yes, no, I don't know--is the absolute maximum that's necessary. More detailed questioning may be useful to determine just what people believe about evolution. (If you believe in evolution, do you believe it occurred on its own or do you believe god guided it, that sort of shit)

You will not find an appreciable number of people today who do not believe in radio waves. Or gravity. Who believe the world is flat. But you will find a HUGE number of people disbelieving evolution. Why is just about every other 'proven' (science doesn't like that term, but you get the idea) scientific theory accepted pretty much without question, but this one meets such large scale and vocal opposition? If you can find another cause beyond religion, I'd be fascinated to hear it.

QUOTE (CiaranAnnrach @ May 1 2009, 14.58)

Of course it's not going to appear heavy handed or unjustified to you, and we've discussed this before without your opinion being swayed. That is just supporting what I've said. And no matter what we really say here or try to point out, you are not the type of person who will give in easily, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But when it comes to religion, you are the type to use a chainsaw, when a scalpel would yield the best results.

[Edit] was supposed to be ( R ), to denote religious.

I would LOVE to take a chainsaw to religion.

QUOTE (Shryke @ May 1 2009, 15.18)

Yeah, but that just speaks to the ill education of the masses, and not to their belief in Religion and/or Creationism. Which is kinda the point of separating the 2 groups.

There's the ignorant and the deliberately ignorant.

I don't really think most of them are deliberately ignorant. They're all victims of the mass propagandic plague that is religion. Even the 'No's'. But that doesn't give them a pass.

QUOTE (Shryke @ May 1 2009, 15.28)

It's like asking someone if they believe in Quarks. Many will give an "I'm not sure", not because they don't believe in particle physics, but because they don't understand the subject.

Quarks are a tad new, not well publicized, and haven't been exhaustively confirmed and reconfirmed a thousand times over for a century like Evolution has. But even if there is that level of confirmation, its not like there's a massive theological smear & misinformation campaign out against quarks.

QUOTE (CiaranAnnrach @ May 1 2009, 14.36)

Level of schooling/Intelligence.

Which would be less necessary and relevant without the massive cultural influence of religion peddling nonsense and misinformation on a daily basis. These people aren't coming from a blank slate and simply being asked to choose based on what they learned in science textbooks. They've been indoctrinated with this nonsense to one degree or another since childhood. Science would have a HELL of alot easier time propagating science if it didn't have so much braindead competition.

QUOTE (HT Reddy @ May 1 2009, 14.43)

So would you say science is the pursuit of empirical truth?

Empirical would be better wording sure. I'm aware of the nuances of evolution, the scientific definition of theory, the basics of the scientific method. I just like making my statements as unequivocal as possible. If someone wants to challenge the nitty gritty details or needs clarification of the statement, I'll happily get into them.

QUOTE (CiaranAnnrach @ May 1 2009, 14.46)

There's a very clear link between the level of schooling you've received and how much you know about evolution, and it's hard to make an opinion on something you know nothing about.

You don't have to know much about evolution. Most don't. Nor do you have to know much about gravity, relativity, radio waves, tectonic plates, Newton's laws, or just about any other major scientific theory out there. When its been proven to the level of many of those theories however with near unanimous support amongst everyone with serious expertise in the field, your (used generally) opinion to the contrary simply has little merit if its not coming from an informed and educated standpoint and supported by sound argument + persuasive evidence. The problem isn't necessarily the education. People readily accept or shrug at a million things they barely understand because it seems to work and every significant expert in the field agrees with it. We wouldn't need polls on the matter and in fact we wouldn't have any if not for the counter-intellectual influence of religion. But its not about accepting without thinking, its about deferring to the highly intelligent people who spend their lives studying this shit and only entering the conversation once you have an adequate background and understanding of the field.

QUOTE (CiaranAnnrach @ May 1 2009, 16.20)

Aaaaaand all of this is exactly why I said what I first did, about no matter what we say, you won't change your mind. It's quite obvious any further argument we bring to you will be futile, because at this point you're really only seeing what you want to see. I'm sorry, EHK, but you are so overwhelmingly anti-religion that, when it comes to religion, reason simply does not reach you, because you don't actually want to be reached. And I have absolutely little doubts you will go on to call my reasoning flawed, in an attempt to justify your own reasoning.

This is precisely why I will now keep my arguments and opinions to myself, and save myself my breath. Arguing this point further is about as effective as punching a mountain in the hopes it'll move for you. Good luck to anyone else who wants to pick up the torch.

Except that my opposition to religion is entirely based on reason. And there is no problem with my reasoning in this instance. Whether people would be in the 'Yes or not sure' category on relativity isn't terribly important. There is no massive, kneejerk, religiously fueled opposition to relativity anywhere in America. No kid reading about it for the first time in a textbook will have a built in blockade to further study or interest. Scientists won't have to waste time and resources debunking ignorant & fraudulent nonsense related to it. They won't face the threat of ideologically/theologically based barriers to research grants and funding in the field, whether government or private. There is no massive anti-relativity agenda to contend with. The expansion of human knowledge in that field is not hurt by any major artificial societal factors over which there's much disagreement. (aka, everyone agrees we need better schools and that we're slacking in science education.)

Also, I don't think you'd get the same breakdown (no's to the unsure's) in a relativity poll largely because people don't have a major cultural influence that infiltrates every aspect of society telling them to believe otherwise. Whether people have a sophisticated understanding of relativity or not, quite simply they have no reason to say no and not much reason to say maybe/don't know. In the absence of such a blockade, I suspect most people just shrug and say 'sure'.

QUOTE (HT Reddy @ May 1 2009, 16.42)

Nothing you say is wrong really EHK, but wouldn't you feel better if you just chilled and got over it? Or, actually achieve something to ameliorate the situation which I guess would be more satisfying to you. Yes you're right religion has impeded scientific progress in America (there's no inherent reason why it should do so, but it has in this case), but aren't there bigger issues both in America and worldwide? There's no doubting science education needs improvement in the US, it just, I dunno, feels like your passion is oddly out of proportion with the issue.

Sure there's bigger issues, but GC ain't exactly exclusively filled with global economic collapse, Darfur genocide (that thing still going on?), AIDS in Africa, and Iraq war threads. The important gets discussed, as does the less important, and the entirely frivolous. Nothing wrong with that. This happens to be an issue I have a fair amount of interest and outrage on. Do you give people shit for their interest in issues that on the grand scheme of things, just aren't terribly important? (I'd argue that religion's negative influence on America and the world is hardly an unimportant issue, but whatever) How many animal rights types have you called out? Or people avidly arguing films and TV while tens of thousands of jobs are being lost and little kids are starving in Burundi? Everyone has their interests...this is one of mine.

As for achieving something to ameliorate the situation, yeah I'd like to. Currently I think I am to a very limited extent. Remember my 'discourses' on mockery and ridicule in previous religion threads, part of the overall strategy and all. I'd like to write a book, but someone's already done that. I'd like to give speeches, but several people already do that. I don't parrot those guys, but I do borrow some points here and there. Overall, I'm not in a position to do much about it. And like the overwhelming vast majority of the people in the world, I likely never will be in a position to exercise serious influence over the major sociocultural currents that push, shove, and guide the world. Its disappointing, but not something I lose alot of sleep over. So like all those other people who are not global movers and shakers, I'll come here and bitch about "shoulds, coulds, and ought to be's" and go about my own life.

If you have some reasonable suggestions about how I might further my 'Crusade', i'd be interested to hear them.

QUOTE (Shryke @ May 1 2009, 15.39)

Your opposition to religion is at least 50% pure emotional bile.

For the past like 2 months you've turned any thread with even the barest hint of religion into a polemic on how religion is responsible for whatever societal ill is currently the bee in your bonnet.

First sentence is bullshit. I have alot of bees in the bonnet, but very few of them do I blame religion for and I've been consistent with those. I've simply talked about the same ones alot because for whatever reason, they've come up alot in these threads lately.

QUOTE (Shryke @ May 1 2009, 17.21)

This poll says more about the shittiness of education in the US then about religion.

No it doesn't.

Speaking of education, didnt want to start a new thread, but I was reading The Guardian like a good socialist should and came across this bit of news (and a quote)

"In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made school boards."
Linky:

QUOTE

Texas's school board, the State Board of Education (BOE), has been fighting about standards for science textbooks the state buys. Since March, clamorous attention has focused on a proposal to require that texts discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theory. Everyone knew this was a ploy to get creationist ideas into the classroom. The scientific community was relieved when the BOE finally voted not to include that language and dismayed when it then voted for amendments that mandate the same thing. The BOE's exuberant chair says he's not afraid to "stand up to the experts."

QUOTE

In Texas, the governor appoints a BOE member as chair. Republican governor Rick Perry selected Dr Don McLeroy, a dentist and young-earth creationist.

QUOTE

McLeroy gloats over the idea of textbooks using the Texas standards to discuss the fossil record or the complexity of the cell. "I'm curious to see how they'll cover these subjects. I think the science behind those things is pretty weak." He runs through some creationist favourites the Cambrian explosion, the flagellum. "They haven't come up with an explanation of the eye. They haven't. They haven't!"

You cant make this shit up.

QUOTE (Shryke @ May 1 2009, 17.29)

25% don't believe in Evolution. These are the (generally religious) crazies. 36% don't know. These are the ignorant/ill-educated. (Look at the education section lower down. The worse their education, the more likely they are to say "I don't know".)

36 is greater then 25.

I've already explained my reasoning for why that is not the case, either respond to that or don't.

QUOTE ( @ )

McLeroy gloats over the idea of textbooks using the Texas standards to discuss the fossil record or the complexity of the cell. "I'm curious to see how they'll cover these subjects. I think the science behind those things is pretty weak." He runs through some creationist favourites the Cambrian explosion, the flagellum. "They haven't come up with an explanation of the eye. They haven't. They haven't!"

Urge to kill Rising.

QUOTE (CiaranAnnrach @ May 1 2009, 17.31)

I was the one who posted the bad misreading of poll numbers, and that was done across two different edits within the time frame of 5 minutes, and EHK's post was 3 minutes after my original post. It's very likely EHK opened the thread before the first edit containing the criticism of the misreading came up, and by that time, he had no reason not to start up the religion bit.

Plus, it wasn't until the second page that education system came up at all.

I agree he goes overboard with it usually, but I don't think his initial post and stance in this thread are entirely at fault, given the environment GDMisfits set up with the initial post.

Thanks CA. As CA says, I posted my initial mini-rant before the poll numbers were clarified. But as I've gone on at length explaining over a few posts, that clarification doesn't really change all that much.

QUOTE (CiaranAnnrach @ May 1 2009, 17.31)

ETA: The poll is a fair criticism of both education and religion. To deny one without denying the other would be deluding ones self, and trying to pick and choose which facts you used and which ones you omitted. EHK, I hope you can at least admit that it is somewhat damning of the education system and the flaws inherent within it, in addition to religion.

That our education system is ailing goes without question. But you simply don't have people coming out in rampant opposition to a scientific theory without some outside impetus. The only one I can find for this is religion. It makes education's job twice as hard because not only must they educate students, they also have to compete with years of indoctrination and misinformation. Not to mention a less quantifiable, but no less disturbing mindset of unthinking, uncritical acceptance of something when there is no evidence to support it and indeed sometimes in the face of massive evidence to the contrary. Instead of being taught from birth to think critically, apply logic, and investigate evidence, kids are taught, at least in some areas, that they must accept unquestionably and believe unconditionally. That is not healthy.

QUOTE (Shryke @ May 1 2009, 16.33)

It must have gotten buried in the mouth froth. I don't see it.

You have a back button.