America Doesn't Believe Evolution

[Dov Henis]

Jon Miller, MSU,East Lansing, concludes in Science:

 

- "the percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005."

 

- "The acceptance of evolution is lower in the United States than in Japan or Europe, largely because of widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States."

 

- "The US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has been politicised. Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue."

 

------------------------

 

I wish to place one specific critical "politicization of science in the USA" under a magnifying glass. I refer to the AAAS, the Antiscientism Evangelist in the USA.

 

AAAS = American Association for the Advancement of Science. Few samples of its stand on science and religion:

 

A) Here is a recent sample of the sad, hypocritical, pathetic, wishy-washy stand of our highest American "scientific" organization on humanity and science. On the positive side AAAS contributes to advancing of mostly technological and of some scientific knowledge, but concurrently it holds back scientific progress by carefully proclaiming anti-scientific concepts and stands, upholding politically correct stands, as it is actually a political-economic interests organ-guild of mostly technicians and of also some scientists.

 

AAAS News and Notes, Science, 28 Oct 2005:

 

" Science and Society, AAAS Fighting to Defend the Integrity of Science Education

 

With evolution on trial in Pennsylvania and under renewed attack by the Kansas State Board of Education, AAAS has stepped up its high-profile campaign to protect the integrity of science education by defending the scientific underpinnings of evolution and making clear that science and religion should not be pitted against each other.

 

With intelligent design on trial in Pennsylvania, the York (Pennsylvania) Dispatch published a column by AAAS CEO Alan I.Leshner. In a series of interviews, press briefings, and op-ed commentaries, AAAS Chief Executive Officer Alan I. Leshner and other AAAS officials have stressed that most religious leaders accept evolution and that many scientists are religious. But, they said, leaders of the intelligent design movement who claim scientific motives are actually trying to undermine science—at significant risk to U.S. students.

 

The world's religions "bring great value to many people's lives," said AAAS President Gilbert S. Omenn. But "they do not prepare students for a world in which math, science, and empirically tested evidence are essential" for advancing human health, security, and economic progress...."

 

This goes on and on with repeat statements. I cut it off here, though, with the AAAS prsdnt explanation, so succinctly, of the division of labor between Science and religion...

 

 

:) The key sentences from: "Advances - The Monthly Newsletter For AAAS Members, May 2005, Message to Members, Separating Fact And Faith", from Alan I. Leshner, CEO, AAAS.

 

" Science and religion are not in opposition; many scientists are deeply spiritual and most religious leaders accept evolution. However, the place for discussions of creationism and intelligent design—based on faith—should be churches, temples, religious schools, and perhaps even public schools, but only during nonscience classes."

 

For me the above sentences are The Symptom. The Diagnosis is Mental-Emotional Blind Confusion:

 

- What is the plain meaning of "deeply spiritual scientists"?

- In what way are "religious leaders" different from plain non-leaders religious persons?

- How, in plain language, do religious persons accept evolution?

- What makes Faith non-discussable scientifically?

- What makes anything non-discussable scientifically?

- Why can't we and should'nt we discuss EVERYTHING scientifically, ESPECIALLY religion?

 

C) From "Science and Society", AAAS News and Notes, Science, 28 Oct 2005:

 

" He (AAAS CEO Alan I. Leshner) also was quoted by New York Times Magazine columnist William Safire. "Whether or not there is or was an intelligent designer is not a scientific question," he told Safire. "It's not an alternative to evolution. What they are trying to do is get religion in the science classroom."

 

I suggest that Mr. Leshner's and the AAAS' above position and attitude are wrong both conceptually and socially.

 

I posit that "Whether or not there is or was an intelligent designer" is definitely a most significant existential, cultural and social SCIENTIFIC question and that this question does indeed belong in science classrooms and warrants extensive consideration and discussion.

 

Furthermore I suggest to fellow-humanists and scientists that this issue is one of the most important and most practical-results-fraught issues facing us and all human society.

 

Dov

[learnin to learn]

As I have mentioned in many other threads, I am a Christian. BUT, I am not a fundamentalist, and I do believe in evolution (in a certain since). I believe that all organisms will evolve,over time, to their environments.

Dov, what you have to understand about America is it is a land of freedom opinion, freedom speech, and the freedom to sue anyone who teaches your children differently than what you think is right. The main issue is that there is so many other possibilities to our existence, other than evolutionism. And since the majority of Americans are Christian, the children learn other ways in which we might of come into existence before we learn evolution. In the south, we learn other theories in elementary school, and middle school, then in high school biology we begin to learn about evolution.

 

- What is the plain meaning of "deeply spiritual scientists"?

- In what way are "religious leaders" different from plain non-leaders religious persons?

- How, in plain language, do religious persons accept evolution?

- What makes Faith non-discussable scientifically?

- What makes anything non-discussable scientifically?

- Why can't we and should'nt we discuss EVERYTHING scientifically, ESPECIALLY religion?

What is a spiritual scientist? well that is simple! A scientist who is a Christian and believes in creationism.

 

As I have stated before, I accept evolution as we evolve over time to better fit the environment in which we live.

 

Faith is non-dicussable scientifically, because most of our beliefs cannot be proved to be the act of a supreme being. In the terms of science: particles, matter was all created during the big bang. The do not think it is logical that all these things were created by a supreme being. Why you ask? because there is no evidence.

[Dov Henis]

Dear LTL,

 

Obviously, yet sincerely respectfully, the twain of us shall never agree on some things...

 

But I do have two remarks:

 

(1) "searching for enlightenment" (in yr icon)

 

Enlightenment in my mind-files is the capability to take in scenery/data, to self-analyze it and to self-draw conclusions from it. The reference for this in my mind-files is the early 16th cent' W.Tyndale's good translation of the bible from Latin to spoken English, which enabled interested persons to self-assess the bible rather than be dependent on mediators supposed to know what is written in the Latin or Greek texts + instructing the flock what/how to think and do.

 

(2) "faith is non-discussable scientifically"

 

I posit that EVERYTHING is discussable scientifically. Faith , like each and all cultural matters, is/are human cultural artifacts, and culture inheres in biology. In the context of human life each and every cultural matter functions and serves for individuals and for communities like biological factors.

The evolution of human culture and of its functions IS the most important difference between us and our 5-6 million yrs ago parents.

 

Dov

[learnin to learn]

Dov, I agree some things we will not see eye to eye on.

you are an apple among oranges my friend.

I have read many of your posts, you are very knowledgeable.

 

BUT, I still have to disagree with you. I still believe that Religion cant be discussed scientifically. yes you can hold scientific discussions about religious artifacts such as the Bible, Noah's ark, the Koran etc. And you can scientifically discuss matters such as the parting of the red sea, and the plagues of Egypt.

But you cannot accurately discuss the true form of religion. The spirituality of that religion. Why? because religion differs person to person. Take Christianity for example. God affects all of our lives differently. You cant hook someone up to a computer to measure or analyze their belief. It is illogical to hypothesize when god is going to return....

 

what my icon means is that I am searching for ultimate knowledge and the peace that it will bring.

 

I await your response!:D

[Boerseun]

- What is the plain meaning of "deeply spiritual scientists"?

"Deeply spiritual scientists" will be people trained in the sciences, who would also want to claim a platform of credibility amongst believers. They typically are people not trained in the biological and/or geologic sciences. They know very little about evolution, and argue from authority without fail. Heck, they're "scientists", right? They MUST be right!

- In what way are "religious leaders" different from plain non-leaders religious persons?

They are inherently the same as the 'non-leader' types, except that they are power-hungry and have small penises.

- How, in plain language, do religious persons accept evolution?

Let's say when we talk of 'religious persons' we talk exclusively of Christians. For a Christian to accept the reality of evolution, would be to deny what is written in the bible. It would mean that the bible isn't the literal truth. And, hey - if we can chuck some bits out, why not all of it? Did it really take six days to build the world? Guess not! Did all of this happen six thousand years ago, according to the begats? Guess not! Ask any geologist! Ask any biologist! Did Jesus really come down as the Son of God? Accept any of these, and the floodgates of doubt will open.

 

A 'religious person' can only accept evolution by selectively believing in the Bible, and not taking the Bible as the literal Word of God. In other words, by denying the final bit in Revelation (and that's in the New Testament, for all of you who'd want to take me up on the Old Testament not having to be taken literally) which says that this Bible (OT & NT) is the FINAL WORD and should not be f'ed with.

So - a 'religious person' accepting evolution is a hypocrite. End of story. This is actually such a lame, bullshit issue.

- What makes Faith non-discussable scientifically?

Because it's not testable, not falsifyable, makes zero predictions in the physical world, doesn't contribute anything at all to the sciences (except for the promotion of pseudoscience like creationism etc. - which is detrimental to the proper sciences.)

- What makes anything non-discussable scientifically?

See my above reply. Stuff like religion doesn't qualify for scientific probing because of that. Fairytales like Jack and the Beanstalk can also not be probed scientifically for very much the same reasons.

- Why can't we and should'nt we discuss EVERYTHING scientifically, ESPECIALLY religion?

We can discuss religion scientifically, to the tune of discussing its effect on society, and exposing it as the meme it is, for example. But an objective, scientific discussion of religion can only discuss its artifacts, but not the 'truth' it claims to be. Omnipotence and omniscience is untestable, sadly.

I posit that "Whether or not there is or was an intelligent designer" is definitely a most significant existential, cultural and social SCIENTIFIC question and that this question does indeed belong in science classrooms and warrants extensive consideration and discussion.

 

Furthermore I suggest to fellow-humanists and scientists that this issue is one of the most important and most practical-results-fraught issues facing us and all human society.

I posit that you are wrong in even worrying about this.

 

The whole ID-debate is artificial. There is a very big component of fundamentalist Christian Americans, who literally take the bible as the full and final Word of God. From their ranks leaders will rise - wether they actually believe in their argument doesn't matter - they are power-hungry and they know exactly what the people want to hear. So they politicise a complete non-issue for political gain. The whole ID debate is a no-brainer. A bunch of idiots preaching idiotic things to idiots willing to make an issue out of such idiocy in order to remove stuff from their school curricula so that their kids can grow up to be a bunch of idiots as well.

 

It's a well-oiled machine.

 

The idiots are amongst us...

 

Look at Kent Hovint, for example. This guy's an idiot. But he's there for the power and the money. And he identified a piece of the market that nobody catered for - THE IDIOTS. And he's spewing his bullshit to these IDIOTS in order to make bucks.

 

I HAVE HAD IT WITH IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!

 

(Sorry - this last line had nothing to do with your post... it was just a general letting go of idiot-induced steam - and thinking of Kent Hovint just blew it...)

 

Any case - the idiot ID-supporters believe that the vocal 'Christian' ID-promoters are sincere. I don't think they are. They are coining it on superstition, scientific illiteracy, Christian fundamentalism, and, of course, IDIOCY.

 

Sorry for the rant.

[ughaibu]

Anything that can be conceived can be believed. If the question asks 'why cant objects of faith be studied scientificaly?', the answer is that they can be scientificaly examined as hypotheses, but as there is an unlimited number of such objects spread throughout the mental worlds of each living individual, the study of all such objects is impractical and the study of any particular object requires an existing scientific justification. If the scientific study of a hypothetical object lacks this justification, the enforcing of such study is an act of coercion in suggesting that the object in question has an existence in the reality of the student.

If the question is 'why cant faith be studied scientifically?', the answer is that it already is being studied, so too is the general class of faith-objects.

[learnin to learn]

 

I posit that you are wrong in even worrying about this.

 

The whole ID-debate is artificial. There is a very big component of fundamentalist Christian Americans, who literally take the bible as the full and final Word of God. From their ranks leaders will rise - wether they actually believe in their argument doesn't matter - they are power-hungry and they know exactly what the people want to hear. So they politicise a complete non-issue for political gain. The whole ID debate is a no-brainer. A bunch of idiots preaching idiotic things to idiots willing to make an issue out of such idiocy in order to remove stuff from their school curricula so that their kids can grow up to be a bunch of idiots as well.

 

It's a well-oiled machine.

 

The idiots are amongst us...

 

Look at Kent Hovint, for example. This guy's an idiot. But he's there for the power and the money. And he identified a piece of the market that nobody catered for - THE IDIOTS. And he's spewing his bullshit to these IDIOTS in order to make bucks.

 

I HAVE HAD IT WITH IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!

 

(Sorry - this last line had nothing to do with your post... it was just a general letting go of idiot-induced steam - and thinking of Kent Hovint just blew it...)

 

Any case - the idiot ID-supporters believe that the vocal 'Christian' ID-promoters are sincere. I don't think they are. They are coining it on superstition, scientific illiteracy, Christian fundamentalism, and, of course, IDIOCY.

 

Sorry for the rant.

 

I have had it with those idiots too! That is one of the main reasons that I pulled away from the church! Most preachers nowadays are all about politics. All they are is sells men. If they sell their story well, then they will increase the size of their congregation hence making more money.

 

greed rules their lives

/forums/images/smilies/devilsign.gif

[HydrogenBond]

The problem with evolutionary theory is that it is not complete. There is something missing. For example, can one use evolutionary theory to predict the next stage of human evolution? The answer is no. The theory in its current form can only correlate the past. This implies it is more like history that makes use of science. History can analyze the past, using 20/20 hindsight, but is very limited about the future. History is open to debate, which is this case is a Creationist history book. The evolutionary history book has better evidence, that is consistent with science, but the theory itself represents one interpretation of history.

 

If the theory of gravity could only correlate the past but had no value to predict future I would be afraid to use it for space flight. Under such conditions it would not be solid science but only a reasonable line through historical data that can't be relied upon to extrapolate the future. It is analogous to an astrology version of astronomy, with human subjectivity added to the uncertainty.

 

The idea of selective evolution sounds good but if one look at history often selective advantage does not always win the day. Two animals may be ready to fight with the winner passing on the future. At that moment a tree falls on the one with obvious selective advantage, causing evolution to go down a different path. Or during times of famine, a stupid animal stumbles upon a stockpile of food. He goes on to be the future of that species. Simple twists of fate change the future and the idea of only the best moving evolution is simplicitic.

[Dov Henis]

Somewhat exasperated.

 

I aimed in this thread to develop a discussion about the absurdly strange role that our ( I'm both a USA & Israel citizen ) supposedly most forward ascientific organization plays in accepting/rejecting evolution. However, so far the discussion is side-tracked to the listed AAAS malcondition symptoms that I see in the message of AIL, CEO, AAAS.

 

I hope the discussion returns to the intended thread track because most matters raised so far have, undoubtedly, been discussed and over-discussed already in this forum. Yet in the present course of discussion I feel obliged to elaborate shortly on each of the listed items:

 

1- What is the plain meaning of "deeply spiritual scientists"?

2- In what way are "religious leaders" different from plain non-leaders religious persons?

3- How, in plain language, do religious persons accept evolution?

4- What makes Faith non-discussable scientifically?

5- What makes anything non-discussable scientifically?

6- Why can't we and should'nt we discuss EVERYTHING scientifically, ESPECIALLY religion?

 

(1) My interpretation is that AIL coined this phrase ambiguously simply because he was bent on connecting science with religion (politically correct) and 'spiritual' was for him a synonym of religion without saying religion thus satisfying everybody...

 

(2) Obviously high politics. We top leaders of the top organs of the nation, especially church leaders with their political effects... we get along OK and understand each other...

 

(3) Evolution is evolution is evolution. There are no several varieties of evolution. A scientist might live in peace with a vague indefinite idea and feeling that his existence is purposed towards something of which it will somehow sometime become a part (I have my own idea, but you wouldn't like it and this is another thread...). His scientism is definitely absurd if he is a member of a specific religious order. One definitely cannot be a sincere member of a specific religious order and accept evolution.

 

(4) The abstract general term Faith, as well as a specific faith, like every human artifact, are discussable scientifically. Why and how it arose/arises and how it functions and what and how it effects individuals and communities etc., etc.,

 

(5) Of course everything is discussable scientifically, like faith above...

 

(6) "Especially religion" because its constellations have an immense effect on our individual and community and world-wide matters. ( Another separate extensive thread...)

 

Dov

 

PS : Wish I could have more than one hour daily for forums matters...

[Tormod]

But why is this posted in social science and not the philosophy of science forum...? To me your original post sounds more like a political issue (in the meaning of internal politics in a science organisation) rather than a social science issue.

[Dov Henis]

But why is this posted in social science and not the philosophy of science forum...? To me your original post sounds more like a political issue (in the meaning of internal politics in a science organisation) rather than a social science issue.

 

Per my simplistic mind process the inherent issue of the AAAS stands and policies is paramountly SOCIAL in its effects and consequences for many individuals and for nearly ALL aspects of society, local and international. This seems to me A Topic of social science. Internal politics in a science organisation is, in my simplistic mind, a non-issue, of no importance to anyone but to AAAS guild members.

 

Dov

[learnin to learn]

Well, if that satistic is true, then 40% of Americans DO understand or realize the validity of Evolution...:eek:

 

So please do not lump all Americans as blinded religious zealots, when at least 40%, if not Half (1/2) recognize Evolution as something to be expounded upon...

 

just sayin...

 

 

anyway the "blinded religious zealots" are a minority in America. They just happen to be the minority with a lot of money, and political standing.

[InfiniteNow]

It's important too to first understand if the study population represented an accurate cross section of the US population, and also how the questions were phrased. Leading questions, and specifically formulated sequences of questions are all too often used to exploit certain purposes. Evolution (by natural selection) is probably one of the strongest theories ever put forth.

[Dov Henis]

Dear ∞ňǿω,

 

I confess, being a scientist myself, that I trust the Science editorial board to a degree that I would not even think about checking the scientific reliability of the survey...

 

Dov

[InfiniteNow]

Furthermore I suggest to fellow-humanists and scientists that this issue is one of the most important and most practical-results-fraught issues facing us and all human society.

For me, it's global warming, overpopulation, and a continued and outdated propesity toward war and violence, but yeah, I can see how one might think that the question of whether or not there was an intelligent designer might be more important... :beer:

[InfiniteNow]

If politics doesn't reflect the average opinion, its because the average voter doesn't vote! :beer: :beer:

Hey bro, did you perchance mean the average citizen?

[learnin to learn]

But there is a new fator in politics! That is the media! lets take sex offenders for example! Sex offenders are at the bottom of the list for crimes commited in the US, BUT they have more laws on sex offenders than murders! Why? What do we here on the news almost everyday? SEX OFFENDERS, CHILD PREDITORS! It is as though there is at least a dozen sexoffenders on every street corner.

 

If politics doesn't reflect the average opinion, its because the average voter doesn't vote! :beer: :beer:

You are right racoon. if 1million people march on washington, they can get a bill past! is that not a minority?