Evolution Made Us All from Ben Hillman on Vimeo
h/t Pharyngula
And here is a chart showing those countries with the lowest and highest numbers of people who accept Evolution as a fact:
Thank youTurkey! Otherwise the good ole USofA would be the bottom feeder.
For a technologically advanced country, how can the USA be so backward? We and radical Islamists share the ignorant ideology that Evolution is only a "theory." (Actually, one of our presidents, RWR, shared that belief as well. Oh, Dog!) And several Tea Party candidates proudly raised their hands in the last presidential campaign when asked how many DID NOT accept Evolution as fact.
That alone should disqualify any man or woman from holding public office. We should have some basic requirements for the leader of the free world, not the least of which should be intelligence.
Evolution is a fact. Period.
Anyone saying otherwise should not be considered fit to hold important political office.
It's interesting to note that the UK has a state religion, but perhaps familiarity has at long last bred some level of contempt for hollow ecclesiastical certainties. Even Italy, for heaven's sake! And Spain with their long histories of persecuting reason and science. Just amazing.
ReplyDeleteShould Evolution or Creationism or both be taught in school?
ReplyDeleteThis question can be answered this way. A man goes to his doctor with a bad infection the doctor asks do you believe in evolution or creationism. Patient says creationism doctor gives him old antibiotic that is not effective because this bacteria has evolved a resistance to this drug. Patient dies. Pretty soon everyone believes in evolution. Theory my ass.
Still, Evolutionary Theory is insufficient to explain why Republicans exist.
ReplyDeleteGee whiz, I knew that there were a lot of people in the U.S. who dismiss evolution as a theory but this chart is truly disturbing. I wonder if they also believe that the earth is flat!
ReplyDeleteDear Captain, having a religious belief doesn't mean that you are a moron. Science and religion are separate, one grounded in faith and spirituality, the other in proof and evidence. I believe in love but I can't prove that it exists; however, the preponderance of the evidence supports that evolution is fact not theory. There are a lot of Americans who continue to be trapped in the belief that the Bible is a history book and that God is a big white guy with a flowing beard who lives in the sky. It appears that others have moved on from such a simplistic concept of the spiritual aspect of existence. I really don't find it amazing that the UK, Spain, or Italy lives in the 21st century, what I find amazing is that so many Americans live in the middle ages.
"Dear Captain, having a religious belief doesn't mean that you are a moron."
ReplyDeleteI thought we established that long ago. I have a religious belief. It's called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and it tells me that the only way any god can be anywhere or indeed have any characteristic at all is if you can say nothing about it. There can only be angels if there is no pin for them to dance on. I can prove it.
There's an infinitely large difference between saying I believe in God and I believe in some characteristic of God. I do mean infinite. The second is far more vulnerable to dismissal, for one thing, but I'm not going down that road again.
Other than that. . .
"Just a theory" is a meaningless defense anyway and based on a misunderstanding of the word. Gravity is just a theory. Don't jump off that bridge just because it's an imperfectly understood theory. Faith is a conjecture and the road to theory from conjecture is paved with observation and logic and testing.
To me, the danger of faith is not in the belief, but in the unwillingness to change one's mind or refine one's concepts. Science is ruthless, like nature itself. Faith may be otherwise -- or not. Depends on who you are.
That's what we're talking about here: a person that can look at 300 million fossils and say there are none and call you a liar for showing him. Call it blind faith if you like. Call it Denialism, which is a kind of faith in itself. We're talking about people so fearful of reality they will not look nor allow anyone else to. It almost defines human history.
Whether or not one thinks there's a purpose to existence, evolution shows clearly that natural processes of chemistry and physics must create ever more adaptive varieties of self replicating molecules without the need to presuppose that purpose. It's an irrefutable law of nature. It's so well demonstrated and documented and observed that it takes a strong will to maintain the supporting ignorance of Denialism.
Poor old Hawkings, he said as much for the evolution of the universe in his latest book: it didn't need a purpose to be the way it is -- and without reading the book, the faithful were all over him like flames on a martyr.
Cruel nature that it gave us a brain unable to cope with intelligence.
The USA is just as fundementaly religious as any Islamic State. It's no surprise so many deny evolution, or even the religion of our President. Their answer, is to put up Palin, Bachmann, or Pawlenty for President.
ReplyDeleteGod! Save us all from your false supporters.
Found this somewhere on the Internet (no citation needed - seems to be everywhere in the public domain):
ReplyDeleteTwo different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school.
In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.
Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:
1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.
2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.
3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.
4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.
5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.
6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.
Cute, I thought.