Slashdot Mirror
Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science?
smooth wombat writes "As a follow-up to a recently posted Slashdot article, Reuters UK has an article which poses the question: is the U.S. becoming hostile to science? From the article: 'Among the most significant forces is the rising tide of anti-science sentiment that seems to have its nucleus in Washington but which extends throughout the nation,' said Stanford's Philip Pizzo in a letter posted on the school Web site on October 3. Cornell acting President Hunter Rawlings, in his state of the university address last week, spoke about the challenge to science represented by intelligent design which holds that the theory of evolution accepted by the vast majority of scientists is fatally flawed. Rawlings said the dispute was widening political, social, religious and philosophical rifts in U.S. society. 'When ideological division replaces informed exchange, dogma is the result and education suffers,' he said." What is your take?
Yes. Any other stupid questions?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
It's about the message science is bringing. Some people, for religious, political or business reasons don't want to hear what science is saying. This is initially a case of trying to silence the messenger. Not just about science, either. Tell people the economy stinks, they can see the evidence all around then, and they deny it.
Seems every couple generations people in the US have to re-learn the hard lessons of their forebearers. Silence science in this country and it'll be carried on all the more in other countries. e.g. Stem Cell Research. The State of California approved a bond for stem cell research, a few billion $ if IIRC, not much of it has been spent and it will be years before any of it is, on research, because a bunch of Right To Lifers are fighting it on many fronts in state courts.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I think it's sad that we only tend to hear the voice of extremism in the media.
I mean, I guess it makes sense, because nobody ever holds an "I'm riding the fence on this one" rally.
Still, this is making us look bad because the ones with the crazy opinions are the ones with the loudest voices sometimes.
America is more than anti-science. American culture in the broadest terms has become very anti-intellectual, which is really a super-set of being anti-science.
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
It would be nice if the anti-science stuff didn't always focus on the creationists and would occasionally also focus on the animal rights nuts who advocate killing researchers and blowing up labs. Just 'cause they don't tote Bibles (though some do), doesn't mean they're not every bit as big a problem as the creationists (besides, creationists rarely blow up biosciences labs like animal rights extremists do).
Most of the heavily religious people in the US are Christians with fairly fundamentalist, or at least evangelical, views. These people are not particularly interested in the physical world, because their religion teaches them that whatever they do here is merely preparation for an afterlife that will be much much better. If your primary concern is going to heaven when you die, why would you care about physics?
There's also the simple matter that learning about critical thinking in general and science in particular makes it hard to swallow religious dogma. Science isn't incompatible with spirituality, but it's totally in opposition to biblical literalism and other fundamentalist practices. It's very much in the interests of these kinds of religious groups to denigrate science, as doing so makes it easier to spread their beliefs. (And, for people whose faith isn't enough, easier to justify their beliefs.)
My take is that I should learn to speak chinese.
What's unfortunate in the US is the pitiful state of scientific literacy makes is easy to subvert voters with propaganda, everything from religious fundamentalism to superstitious pseudoscience like astrology and psychic phenomena. Go ask an average guy on the street to explain basic concepts of chemistry, physics, medicine or astronomy, and you'll see what I mean. All those TVs, microwaves and cell phones may as well run on magic for all they care.
Yes and I'm scared that we're approaching a Christian induced period of "believe in what makes you feel good" instead of "believe in what is correct, true and accurate."
I'd like to become a born again SCIENTIST but I never left the fold.
If any are tough enough to do it and already have a Biology degree, pick up and read Origin of the Species. Many things were not known to Darwin and his peers at the time like genetics and plate tectonics so many of his assumptions are not entirely accurate, but they are a path on the road to the understanding that we have today. Read it for reference, not to learn new concepts since many ideas posted are superseded by what we now know. And read it so that you actually can talk on an informed manner to those who claim to know that evolution is a myth.
Religion is a panacea for those of small minds who are to lazy to learn how the world really works and feel comfortable with small and easy answers - even if they are false.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
One of the actions of the US that is declared "anti-science" is the refusal to ratify Kyoto. I find that very strange since one of the lead scientists doesn't agree with kyoto. Lindzen's senate testimony is an extremely disturbing look into how politics shape science. Couple that with the bad data found in the Mann report and it's enough to make anyone doubt good science is being done.
At the end of the day, the US isn't anti-science it's a system that has been built around science in much of the developed world that doesn't promote enough skeptisism or honesty. Peer review in some circles just means you belong to the right clique, with the right point of view. Put that together with funding that often comes from political circles filled with "true believers" and you have a recipie for disaster.
Lindzen's quote "There is a certain charm when politicians are so certain of the science when the scientists are not" seems rather apt.
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Of course science is suffering in the U.S. In 1991, 9% of the U.S. population believed in Naturalistic Evolution. That went up to a whopping 10% in 1997 with 44% believing in creationism and 39% believing in Theistic evolution (evolution, but God-guided). Now, if you ask scientists (which pretty much includes anyone with a higher degree in science, but presumably people of intelligence and education), the percentage that believe in Naturalistic Evolution goes up to 55%, with only 5% believing in creationism and 40% in Theistic evolution. So 95% of scientists believe in Evolution in one form or another. Why? Because it's a friggin' fact!
The 44% of the US population that don't believe in evolution of any form believe there's a God who's idea of a good time is toss dinosaur bones around the world making them look millions of years older than our 4000 or 5000 year old Earth. As if his time couldn't be better spent smiting creationists or something.
But really, if you have such a large population that simply can't believe facts, then how on Earth can science advance in that kind of environment.
weapons development is science
Here, your own Bible says that God didn't directly create animals, but that he gave his blessing for the earth to produce life:
..."
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatues, according to their kinds
Gen 1:24
So, even if I chose to argue with the creationist point of view solely from the Bible, you can't say that God just popped a creature into existence. He let the land produce the living creatures -- can this leave room for interpretation that God said, "let life evolve?"
It would make for an interesting study whether evolution is completely random or not. Perhaps the whole tree of species is following some sort of pattern, like a literal tree growing from a single seed -- some randomness is involved, but overall, there is a meaning and order to how the growing tree develops.
This kind of science would overlap more with Gaia theory than theology.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
If anyone actually thinks there can be logical discussion about this topic on Slashdot, they should consult a doctor....or maybe just get out more.
Fortunately for science, though unfortunately for America, attacking science produces negative dynamic stabiity. You can't disrupt one part of science without disrupting *ALL* parts of science. The inevitable result is that, in the long term, the societies with the best science will wind up with the biggest and best bombs, too. (Unfortunately, in the short term, you might wind up dead due to the bad science...)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I think there should be a definate emphasis here that the US isn't in a dabate now over science in general, it's a debate about teaching controversial science in the classroom. Teachers in the US couldn't care less about teaching physics, chemistry, physiology, etc. The fight is over issues in science that are controversial, and whether or not they should be taught along side equally (if not more) controversial religious ideas.
If some "designer" spent time "designing" the "designed" parts of us
If the designer didn't need a designer, then why do we?Again, he doesn't have any testable points. It's pure religion.
Religion cannot be tested. Religion is not science.
"Intelligent Design" is religion. "Intelligent Design" cannot be tested. "Intelligent Design" is not science.
Those who believe that it is just demonstrate how poor our science education has become.
That's the whole point.
The people pushing "Intelligent Design" are claiming that it is "science" and should be offered as an alternative TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASSES to "Darwinism".
If it were just a religion, no one would care. No one is trying to get transubstantiation taught in physics class as an alternative to "Newtonionism".
There are plenty of European/Western scientists, that most would consider some of the greatest scientists in the world, believed in a Christian view of God. The two are not mutually exclusive. It seems to me that people that believe as you do are as ignorant as you believe Christians are. That is pretty sad.
Here is an article about a
chemical engineer/scientist that happened to be a Christian. Do you think he would have been more accomplished if he took on an atheistic view of the world? If so, why?
It doesn't matter if the dogma is religious dogma or scientific dogma. If you can't question it and get reasonable answers back, it's just dogma. And, unfortunately, too much of science is that way.
Science is the exact antithesis of what you've described. Science welcomes questions. (Well, except for stupid ones.) What you can't do is make wild claims without significant evidence or some other support for your ideas. Evolution has that support. ID doesn't. If ID can make scientific arguments and predictions and test for its claims, then it can get published in scientific journals. But it can't, so it resorts to publishing books and videos and marketing to the scientifically-ignorant public.
nobody has actually refuted "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe
There are numerous refutations of Behe out there. Behe's argument basically boils down to, "It looks really complicated. It must be magic!" See, for example: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html. Here's a good refutation of Behe's recent testimony in the Dover trial.
ID makes no predictions, observations, or has any supporting evidence. Just vague claims of "it's complex" or "it looks designed". The only reason it's getting the attention that it is getting is because it dovetails nicely into fundamentalist Christian theology. And don't doubt that Behe's "irreducible complexity" is anything other that Christian creationism in fancy clothing.
If he's such a damn genius, why does he keep trotting out the bacterial flagellum line even after the pathway was demonstrated? That sounds more like a liar who hopes that the audiences he's speaking to don't actually read the refutations. Oh, and look what's happening over in Dover. Behe is looking like a complete twit right now. His days as ID's super star scientist are over, and just how many researchers does the Discovery Institute have left that are in fields even remotely related to biology?
ID is a scam, Creationism-sans-God. At best, it's a god-of-the-gaps argument, and at worst, simply a bit rhetorical incredulity. It has nothing to say other than somehow something somewhere is wrong with evolution. It's so devoid of meaningful content and prediction that it appears to be espoused by everyone from Young Earth Creationists (who obviously don't read Answers In Genesis' obvious dislike of this "theory") right on through to the more theistic evolutionist types. It's a big tent strategy, a political manifesto that has nothing to do with science at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Do you think that this is somehow not the norm for every society throughout history?
I find it humorous that ID has gotten so much attention lately. I imagine its advocates appreciate the publicity. However, I think it's a fairly small part of any problems the US is having staying at the forefront of scientific study. Even as a biologist, believing strict evolution or ID isn't going to greatly affect your current research, and in any other field, the impact will be nil.
A greater problem is the shortsighted policies toward research in the US. In the past, the National Science Foundation has focused on foundational research while DARPA, NASA, and various other agencies have funded practical, shorter term applications. For some reason after 9/11, it was decided that NSF grants should only go to projects that had a short timeframe for "useful" results. Suddenly, the engine that drives all the discoveries that aren't just applications of previous work has dried up.
Another huge problem started 25 years ago. Since the early 80s when educational institutions were given full rights to market their discoveries, we've seen huge profits to Universities, and an equally perverse incentive to keep research secret. It also gave a big incentive for researchers to study quick, economically valuable problems, regardless of long-term benefits. Who cares if you could find a cure for malaria? Only the third world countries would need it, and they don't have enough money to make the researcher and her university rich.
It's easy to scapegoat religious fundamentalists for the problem, but it goes far deeper. The problem of a lack of foundational research will affect the US for a generation, if not corrected.
Well, the United States is not and has never been one thing or the other. It's a very heterogeneous country, with many strong and often conflicting trends.
Among these, yes, there's a long and robust history of anti-intellectual populist amateurism, a feeling that any man's opinion is just as good as a trained expert (maybe better), and that any one of us, just by sitting down and thinking hard about the matter, can give an authoritative opinion on any subject whatsoever.
Um, does this remind anyone of any community in particular? Say, an on-line discussion group? No? Well, let's move on...
As a direct consequence of this robust amateurism, Americans have always tended to distrust the voice of authority when it conflicts with their own "instincts" and "common sense." People who think the authority of religion is why folks reject evolution or global warming, et cetera, are utterly misunderstanding Americans. These things are rejected not because Joe Sixpack trusts authority A (the pastor) over authority B (the professor), but because he trusts his own instincts more than either.
Now, it turns out neither evolution nor global warming are plain as the nose on your face obvious. (After all, even clever scientists took centuries to clue in to them.) It takes a fair amount of education and sifting of subtle data to really understand the arguments for and against, and to accept that these theories are much better explanations for the facts than anything else.
Not surprisingly, for someone who lacks both data and education, it's going to seem hard to believe that (for example) a change of carbon dioxide content from 0.033% of the atmosphere to 0.034%, which raises the average temperature of the Earth by 2.0 degrees, or maybe only 1.5, is going to result in an onslaught of massive hurricanes, massive species extinction, desertification of big swathes of the Midwest, the cessation of ocean currents that will turn England into Greenland, buried in ice 8000 feet thick, and other miscellaneous global catastrophes. Joe Average, confronted with such a bald statement, can perhaps be forgiven for initially responding: what the hell are you smoking?
I wouldn't believe it myself, except I have studied the data and I do understand the physics.
Of course, experts are unanimous that these theories are correct. And if Americans were more in the habit of trusting experts, they would just take their word for it. "Oooookay, global warming of 1 degree causing massive climate change seems plain nuts to me, but Professor Foo here says it's so, and he's a smart guy with all the data, so I guess it must be so."
But many of us don't think like that. Hell, none of us thinks like that. How many here are willing to make a similar statement about (say) the President's judgment with respect to WMDs and the war in Iraq? "Well, it seems nuts to me, but he says it's so and he has all the data..." Ho ho. Plain fact is, we all think we're just as smart as the "smart guys" and are entitled to question their conclusions if they don't make obvious sense to us.
So, big chunks of the population remain skeptical of anything nonobvious in science. Fact of American life, mostly.
If I had to put my finger on any reason why this fact might be a smidge more prevalent than it ever was, I'd put it square on the pernicious spread of relativism over the last 40 years. We are trained for years, in school and sometime in the workplace (sensitivity training, anybody? TQM?) in the basic principles that (1) all viewpoints are equally valid, (2) truth is not an objective thing, but a subjective opinion that legitimately varies with your viewpoint, (3) explanations of events that reduce social friction and validate everyone's worth are to be preferred, even if you must doubt the evidence of your own eyes to accept them, and (4) there are often "higher truths" than the plain ordinary truth. That is, statements can
I see a lot of comments here blaiming Washington DC, Bush, etc. And that has a lot to do with it. But let's not forget the rest of the people who live here, too. This is a country where every science related expence is examined with a microscope and disected, but we think nothing of paying athletes millions of dollars. And don't even get me started on how much we spend on those with absolutely no talent, like Paris Hilton. Washington will not change until the people want change...and quite frankly, I don't see that happening any time soon.
And local issues are just as bad. In my own area (Bartholomew County, Indiana, USA), if the schools need money for something like computers or science equipment, no one can help. Same goes when we run short of money for teachers. But when one of the local highschools wants to raise $400,000 US to replace the grass in their football field with astroturf, people run over each other trying to get to their checkbooks so they can donate.
Washington will not change until the people want change...and quite frankly, I don't see that happening any time soon.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
It has everything to do with the fact that our other friends who became doctors, lawyers, MBAs, etc are making more money, at younger ages, than we will.
Yes! I'm also a young scientist (physics grad student). You're right, although it's not just the money. It's the sacrifices you have to make in terms of family and having a life. For instance, my supervisor nearly forgot her own (young) son's birthday. She also had to carefully plan her pregnancy to coincide with tenure decisions, and had to wait a long time to have kids (which increases the risk of lots of problems).
Then there is the lack of jobs (if there aren't enough scientists, why aren't there jobs for all the current scientists?). If I wanted to end up as a medium-paid programmer, I wouldn't get a physics PhD to do it. There are much easier ways.
Then there's the slave labor that's expected of many grad students (I have a friend who was working 70+ hours a week who was told he needed to work even more).
One of my professors told me that you should only go into physics* if you love it and can't bear the thought of not doing it. He's right, except that I would add that you shouldn't do it unless you love it more than anything else. I have a feeling I won't make a really good physicist because I refuse to put my career ahead of family. One might say that this is true of many professions, except that you can make a very comfortable living in almost any city as a mediocre doctor or lawyer, whereas you have very few options as a mediocre scientist. You'll be lucky to get a job as an untenured instructor making 40k in Cornfield State University, Generic Midwestern State, and you'll be stuck teaching unmotivated students while having zero time for research, which is probably the reason you got into physics in the first place.
* this probably applies to most other sciences in addition to physics.
This is why we have so few Americans going into science.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Small?
Stats: 80% plus of americans (including our current elected leader) hold one (or more) superstitions as the basis for the formation (and often more) of the world and universe. 50% (more, actually, because there are many at the center of the curve) of Americans have an IQ of 100 or under. They wouldn't know science from sophist nonsense if you gave them a roadmap, a GPS, and a seeing-eye dog. They don't know what theory is, what it means, or what it implies. This is not their fault, at least in my view; it is the fault of the educational and political system, mainly. In a system that does not protect its citizens, why would we not expect them to turn their eyes to Zeus or the constellations?
Religionists (and some cosmologists, sad to say) are constantly self-reinforcing the proposition(s) that things happen(ed) by what amounts to magic, and that science is merely the bastard stepchild of some supernatural entity's imagination, a descriptive convenience, no more.
When fervent assertions that entirely lack evidence in the form of objective fact form an important, or the important, part of your thinking, how are you going to be able to discern the difference between convincing reality and this conviction without any reality at all?
Yes, there might be one person doing the main attacking; but mark my words, there are hundreds of mute, average or below average folks standing quietly in the wings behind that person, urging them on, funding them, and so forth.
As science knowledge expands, the cracks between the known parts get thinner and thinner. These are the dark places where religion and superstition live. But people cherish those thoughts; we have to expect that as those superstitious ideas are squeezed into the light (which generally speaking, kills them) the holders of those ideas are going to react.
This is where "intelligent design" came from. it is purest sophist nonsense with no objective fact backing up the assertions is makes, trying to hide the idea of a god under a cloak that they cry as loudly as possible "is science" when in fact it is not. Nothing testable is put forth. It's just more hand-waving. I expect the light will kill it shortly.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Frankly, I could care less if kids in Asscrack, KS have to deal with a sticker on their textbooks warning them of potentially contentious science within. The smart ones will see through the nonsense (possibly with the help of smart family members) and the stupid ones will stay stupid. No great loss either way. Complex societies benefit from stupid kids growing up to be stupid adults - someone's gotta do the cleaning, the gas pumping, the infantry duty, and it certainly shouldn't be smart people. Education isn't the problem.
The REAL danger is that, by changing the public perception of the value of real science, it makes it that much easier for fake science to take its place. We're seeing this happen on a regular basis, as the heads of important "scientific" advisory bodies are actually just pulled directly from industry, PhDs in unrelated fields wielded mightily to reinforce non-existant credentials.
Want less regulation on pollution? Appoint EPA "scientists" who are actually just businessmen.
Want limits on reproductive freedom? Get testimonials from "scientists" who are actually just clergymen.
I believe in evolution, (the full-blown kind, not the ID kind) yey I am going to have to disagree with you here. I have yet to hear of a single testable facet of evolution. The example you give, that chimps and humans share a large portion of their DNA is consistent with evolution. But that is not the same thing as a repeatable test not is it predictive. No one has ever conducted an "evolution experiment" whereby the input was some lower life form and the output was a higher life form. We can observer similiar phenomena such as selectively breeding animals to enhance certain traits and we can and have observed minor variations in species as they react to changes in their environment. These are both evidence of evolution, but neither is a prediction or an experiment. I could always propose some exotic other mechanism (such as perhaps monkeys evolved from humans) which may be less likely to be consistent with other pieces of evidence, but is similarly not "disprovable" by any test until someone actually observes a monkey evolve into an human.
My argument also holds incidently for general relativity, newtonian gravity, or the Ptolemeic model of the solar system. All were at one time or another believed to be consistent with all the evidence, but we still don't know even if GR is the actual mechanism of gravity...it just seems to be the most accurate (hence the term theory of relativity.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
you seem kind of confused. the controversy comes from the fact that science has disproved many claims and suppositions about the universe (including claims about the word of god himself) that have historically been peddled by religious doctrineers. for example: that demons cause sickness, that sin causes sickness, that the world is a few thousand years old, that the sun revolves around the earth, that this or that woman is a witch.
science has helped us understand the world without using ghost stories, even though there's a lot we don't know. it exposes zealous claims about "the word of god" for the frauds that they are.
as you said, "science" doesn't "disprove god." it disproves various PROPOSITIONS about the world that god-fearing people have historically repeated over the years. science is a METHOD for investigating reality in a sensible way, not a collection of claims. if you oppose it, you're an ostrich with your head in the sand. you can oppose some of the claims that a scientist might make, and then make a counterargument. that's great. but opposing rational inquiry itself is something else entirely.
the "strident atheist" is a straw man. you can't test, prove, or falsify claims made about an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity. so theology doesn't belong in a science classroom. the only "strident" thing that fundamentalists are opposing is the TRUTH itself, and the acknowledgment of certain facts about the world, which is why their current goal is to dumb down the science curriculum in school. you should have noticed by now that the provocateurs DON'T go around saying "Hey, everyone, science does NOT actually disprove the existence of a god. let's be careful when we talk about theology." which would be theologically sound, and possibly even appreciated by many people. but instead of saying that, they say "Evolution? I don't believe it. We gotta stop teaching it, or, at least, it's just a THEORY, and it's mostly wrong". the whole controversy is nothing but a repeat of the persecution of Galileo.
and in due time, everyone will be so familiar with the basic facts of biology that the campaign against teaching evolution will be nothing but a historical absurdity, just like with astronomy in the case of Galileo. you can only keep people in the dark so long.
the truth comes home to roost. and it ruffles a lot of feathers.
The first was a moral law, the second was one to show how the Jews were supposed to be set apart. That became redundant when the gospel was opened up to Gentiles as Jesus' coming.
Similar thing applies here, as is clearly shown by Peter's dream in Acts.
There are quite a few people in the world who attack Christians for being ignorant of science, then go and attack Christianity without having made any attempt to understand it. Providentially, I'm both a physicist and a Christian.
The problem I have with this entire ID vs. evolution thing, speaking as a computational neuroscientist and a biologist, is that the entire framing of the argument is arrogant and flawed because it presupposes a definition of "intelligence" that is invalid at the level of basic neuroscience. Nobody can define intelligence adequately, but it's obviously something that (basically by definition) is a property of the human brain. The human brain is a dynamical system with a huge number of degrees of freedom and strong nonlinearities, but that's it. There isn't any magic, and there aren't any souls (and yes, I would argue that there IS scientific evidence against the existence of souls, and there has been since Galen's groundbreaking work in ~200 AD), there's just swirling masses of atoms inside peoples' heads. If you accept that "intelligence" is simply a property of the dynamics of a certain nonlinear system (e.g. the brain), then there's nothing to prevent other complex systems from displaying "intelligent" behavior. Like evolution, for example.
What bothers me the most is not that ID is fundamentally religious, but that it's based on a fundamentally anthropomorphic definition of "intelligence" that is impossible to define, and even proponents of evolution fall into supporting this false dichotomy. Instead of saying "No, evolution is not intelligent!" they should be pointing out that intelligence itself is not intelligent. There's atoms, they move around, and that's it. If there's even a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise, please point it out, because I've never seen it, and I've been looking for a long time.
No one has ever conducted an "evolution experiment" whereby the input was some lower life form and the output was a higher life form.
The entire idea of a "lower life form" and "higher life form" is grounded in the idea that humans, created in God's image, are innately superior to other animals, which are merely dumb beasts to be shepherded by Adam and his descendants. (Or any of a dozen other creation stories in which humans are created by a deity.)
Biologically speaking, a successful life form is one that survives. Some are more complex than others, but there is no evolutionary reason to conclude that a human is "higher" than a chimp or a paramecium. It is not necessary to have some function that transforms lower to higher...merely to have an effective transformation function resulting in a new species.
I hear that a large objection to Evolution is that it is "just a theory". Unforturnately, the people making that objection do not seem to know just what the scientific definition of Theory really is. In science, if you make a guess regarding something-or-other, the official terminology of "guess" is "Hypothesis". A hypothesis is always supposed to include ways of testing it, to determine its accuracy. So tests are made and evidence is gathered, and IF the hypothesis holds up as proven accurate, then it graduates to "Theory" status. Evolution is a Theory because we have an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence for it. Creationism, by comparison, is still only a mere Hypothesis. In all scientific truth, Isaac Newton's "Laws" of Motion and Gravitation are actually ALSO "only Theories" --but extremely well supported by evidence (and, nevertheless, superceded by the MORE ACCURATE Theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity, as it happens). The lack of supporting evidence for Creationism is its ultimate downfall, as far as the scientific community is concerned.
Here are two specific examples in which Evolution explains what Creationism cannot. First, consider Vitamin C. Lack of this in the diet causes the deficiency-disease known as "scurvy". All primates (monkeys, apes, humans) require Vitamin C in their diets. But various "lesser" animals, such as rats, can manufacture Vitamin C within their bodies, and so don't need any in their diet. The Evolutionary explanation is that as ancestors of the primates took to the trees and gradually became the primates, they found plentiful supplies of fruits rich in Vitamin C. Animals with defective genes (or missing genes) for making Vitamin C did not suffer scurvy and die; they survived and passed the inability to make Vitamin C onto their descendants. In terms of "biological energy", an organism that can save a little by using environmental availability instead of of internal manufacturing, has a slight evolutionary advantage -- as long as the environment maintains the availability of the nutrient, of course. In the tropics, where primates evolved, fruits with Vitamin C are available year-round. And so, over millions of years, primates became utterly dependent on Vitamin C in their diets -- and humans, of course, when described as evolved primates, continue the tradition. (Possibly to be FIXED, once Genetic Engineering gains wide acceptance, heh!) OK, NOW, The Creationism explanation, for why a loving God blessed us with the potential for scurvy instead of the dietary independence that rats have, is what, exactly?
Second example: Eyes have evolved in different ways among different branches of the animal kingdom. In the fish/amphibian/reptile/mammal line of evolution, the human eyeball has various superior traits to many precursor animals. Color vision, for example. Nevertheless, the human eye, like those of its precursors, share certain particular overall architectural features, which are: The back wall of the eyeball is covered with retinal cells. The nerves that transmit retinal signals are between the iris and the retina (the nerves are pretty transparent, but do reduce impinging light a little). At one place on the back of the eyball, all the nerve-strands bundle together to plunge through the eyeball, to connect to the brain. There are no retinal cells in this part of the eyeball, so every amphibian/reptile/mammal has a "blind spot" in the vision. You can prove it to yourself; just print this out and follow the instructions: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/mindh...ter/hack16. pdf One of the other branches of the animal kingdom, the molluscs, includes clams, snails, slugs, cuttlefish, octopi, and squid. They branched off from the other evolutionary lines so far back that the development of the eyeball (most well-known in the octopus, which also has color vision) took a different route. In this architectural design, the nerve-signal cells are behind the retinal cells,
I'll start with a couple of disclaimers:
1- I am not American.
2- I am a Christian, and hold a Christian world view.
Having said that, it is really disheartening to see so many anti-Christian views being expressed because a "they don't believe in Evolution".
It is this kind of attitude that makes all things america look silly to an outsider. Science is not Evolution. Science is much much more than that. There's chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, astrophysics, you name it. Biology is just one part of quite a large field.
A statement that says: America is becoming less scientifically inclined, means that they are no longer interested in engineering, mathematics, physics etc etc.
Is this the case?
To blame christians for this percieved lack of interest is naive and misinformed. It also harbours an agenda. It's like saying the problems with the western world are all related to TV. Is this a valid statement?
When you bring things out to that level of abstraction, you really need to begin considering what all of those words mean. It seems that people, assuming I'm not imagining them in the first place, ascribe meaning to the world around them. That is to say that meaning is something we create, and the universe doesn't give meaning to itself.
When you describe "swirling masses of atoms inside peoples' heads" you are merely trying to assign meaning things that you've experienced. If some one else, when observing the same phenomena, see "intelligence", "souls", or "magic", is isn't wrong, it's just different. The important question is which meaning will allow us to make the predictions that will ultimately result in interaction with our environment in a way that is most beneficial to us.
So, as a neuroscientist, it may be the most beneficial for you to you to understand the brain as you do. That doesn't necessary mean that it is best for other people to view it that way. Indeed, a lot of what you've said wouldn't have meaning for someone outside the sciences. On the other hand, the idea of "intelligence" is pretty easy to understand. Basically, intelligence is just the process by which an object (something to which we have ascribed meaning) promotes a specific goal or set of goals. I'm not trying to say that this is a universal definition, but it works well for me. So in the case of evolution, one could see a particular class of organisms as the object, and survival as the goal being promoted. It's easy to see why people would ascribe intelligence to a number of "natural" processes. We are simply projecting aspects of ourselves onto the world around us so that we may better understand it.
The problem with the view you espouse (and, hopefully, you can tell from comment that I don't really disagree with you) is that people are gregarious. We are horribly afraid of being alone, and like to believe that there something fundamental connecting us to the rest of the universe. For this reason, people like the believe that the intelligence they've ascribed to other people, and to the rest of the universe, is real (whatever that means). I don't know if there's anything wrong with that interpretation. Indeed, if the natural processes going on inside your body (assuming the processes and your body are real) have given rise to your own (real) intelligence (such as you understand it) there's no reason to believe that the intelligence you assign to other people and objects is any less real.