Slashdot Mirror
48% of Americans Reject Evolution
MSNBC has up an article discussing the results of a Newsweek poll on faith and religion among members of the US populace. Given the straightforward question, 'Is evolution well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community?', some 48% of Americans said 'No'. Furthermore, 34% of college graduates said they accept the Biblical story of creation as fact. An alarmingly high number of individuals responded that they believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, and that a deity created our species in its present form at the start of that period.
America continues to worry about losing its edge in the high-tech industry.
But that couldn't possibly be related to poor science education, could it?
Note: I'm referring specifically to the 48% who believe that evolution is not well-supported by scientific evidence and that it is not widely accepted within the scientific community. Well, and the people who think the universe is less than 10,000 years old, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You can believe in God and have an understanding of science, just like you can have morals without being religious. But thinking that evolution isn't supported by evidence, or isn't widely accepted by scientists, is just plain ignorance.
Ok, there's a mislabeling of vitamin C, and NY politicians are posturing about something, and a majority of Americans are christians.
THIS IS NEWS????
C'mon editors, what happened to news for nerds, etc?
We'd better start evangelizing science to these poor bastards.
Come on, who cares? Let people be ignorant. It's not like bringing people of below average intelligence or fundamentalist mindset into the scientific fold is going to make them valuable contributors. It'll just be a new type of ignorance to deal with. Let them be.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Exactly. Let's look at the question again: Is evolution well-supported by evidence AND widely accepted within the scientific community?
Note the logical construct "and". They're asking for A and B to be true. This rules out:
People who think A is false (any religious zealot)
People who think B is false (anyone who believes in evolution but is disallusioned by its acceptance)
Actually that's not a well constructed poll. It's asking 2 things at once in a single yes/no question (Is evolution well supported, is evolution well accepted). So of the people who said no are they saying no to one of the questions or both?
That's clever, April fools joke the day before April. It has to be. Please.
sometimes, nothing.
Most Americans (people over the age of 35ish) were never taught evolution in school and those who were have been taught poorly. I didn't realize the piss poor job my teachers did in junior high and high school until I took an anthropology class in college. People still like to quip that we evolved from monkeys but don't realize we evolved seperate from monkeys and share a common ancestor.
The ignorance to evolution is amazing in this country. It's no surprise at all people haven't embraced it here like they have overseas in Europe.
People wonder why this country lost its lead in manufacturing and, most recently, technological development. Why is a fairy tale -- and an expurgated, badly translated fairy tale at that -- so much more compelling than the tools and concepts that allow you to take control of your own life and environment?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
If God had physically come down to earth, found a man living in one of the first civilizations, and tried to explain to him the Big Bang, stellar evolution, how the Solar System developed, and biological evolution, the man would be totally confused. It takes years in a modern school system to even parse these concepts. If other Christians can take Revelations and half of Jesus's stories figuratively, if they can understand that it didn't actually (or won't actually) happen exactly like that, WHY can't they understand this about Genesis? Is it so hard? I'm confused. It seems obvious to me. It actually follows the scientific evidence vaguely well, ex. "The earth was without form and void" meaning Earth hadn't coalesced from the nebulous cloud of material orbiting the new Sun.
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
Yeah, they're just in charge of the executive branch....
I'm pretty sure that this is just as bad since we see these people putting words in the mouths of and censoring federally funded scientists.
If Bush wants to kill the terrorists, he should jump off a cliff.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
My take on this issue is that people who do not have extensive scientific educations are being asked to 'believe' in science in a manner similar to how they 'believe' in religion. Science is fundamentally based on observations and the progression of the scientific method. That said, for most of us, we never see the evidence, nor do we see the details of each hypothesis test. This is further complicated because the body of scientific literature is massive and for every scientific field you can find crap science. Peer review is fallible.
I think we are requiring people to 'believe' in science, simply because science has become too complicated to cover adequately with a standard, non technical education. This creates a conundrum. These people are being required to choose religion -- remember they have been in church since birth -- or science. For them, this must be very difficult. When we listen to a scientist, we hope we are hearing testimony based on evidence, when we hear a preacher we hope we are hearing testimony based on belief.
That said, as a scientist familiar with evolutionary theory, I am troubled by the level with which we understand the mechanisms of evolution and that 48% of people don't even understand the most basic of concepts within it. Should we require people to swallow science without evidence? Should we follow *anything* without evidence? I know I don't, ironically, science doesn't allow me to.
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
I am not surprised.
Half of the US population has IQ's below 100.
48 percent of people are stupid and believe that Genesis is the literal Word Of Gawd and that science is some sort of mental buggery? This is not news.
The fact is that we're *this* close (holding thumb and forefinger a millimeter apart) to burning (well, hanging and pressing, actually) witches again in this country. The code words for "witches" these days are "terrorist," "paedophile," and "science teacher."
--
BMO
Anyway, enough of this. I want someone to help me evolve the long, thin, incredibly strong fingers I'm going to need to open up ther case of the Mac Mini to my right and slot in the replacement disk drive.
New Doctor Who was great tonight, by the way. Rose was great, but you're all going to love Martha Jones. Except for the creationists, of course, who are going to hate The Doctor kissing (whisper it) a black woman.
Let people be ignorant. It's not like bringing people of below average intelligence or fundamentalist mindset into the scientific fold is going to make them valuable contributors. It'll just be a new type of ignorance to deal with.
First you call them ignorant (which is true). Then you call them stupid. Then you call them religious fundamentalists. Then back to ignorant. These are all very separate categories, which you would understand if you had the above-average intelligence that you probably believe you possess. Given the large percentage of the population that is being cited, I think it's unlikely they are all below-average in intelligence. I didn't RTFA so I don't know about their religious beliefs. I submit to you that these are probably people of average intelligence who are ignorant. That means that we as scientists are not getting the word out in a manner that most people find compelling. The problem is not with them, it is with us.
Perhaps you should check out the film Flock of Dodos before you start pointing fingers at who is to blame. (Hint: the dodos are not the intelligent design folks, it's the scientists who are in danger of becoming extinct because they can't communicate simple facts to the mainstream audience.) Elitist attitudes like yours ("hey, if they can't keep up, fuck 'em!") is partially what drives the mainstream to give ID folks a listen.
GMD
watch this
That's what is scary. People making life changing decisions for you believe things with little/no scientific backing. That's why the country is the way it is. That's why we lost the edge we once had. There's a rebirth of celebrating ignorance and we are in the middle of it. Hell, we are basically as a culture in a dark age right now. Once knowledge is acquired it's like our culture as a whole has to check the bible to see if it's credible. Would you want people with the ability to kill you at any moment completely impermeable to reason?
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
An omnipotent, omniscient being always gets what it wants, by definition.
All that pain and suffering in the world? All the bad things that simply happen on their own without human intervention? If an omnipotent, omniscient being exists, those things are there intentionally.
The bottom line is that if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator, then you believe in an evil, sadistic being, by definition, and one need only look at the world to see it. No being that cared about what it creates would intentionally set up the universe such that pain and suffering were possible, much less undeserved pain and suffering, and certainly not one in which pain and suffering were necessary for survival (i.e., hunters and prey).
And no, "free will" doesn't help you here, because the universe constrains your free will, sometimes to the point where all your available choices are bad. No being that truly cared about you would set up the universe to make that possible unless said being had no other choice (so much for omnipotence).
Call this a troll if you will, but before you do, work through the logic. You'll find that an omnipotent (can do absolutely anything), omniscient (knows everything) being that cares about its creation and allows undeserved suffering in the world is a logical contradiction.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Everyone's a sheep. Modern neuroscience pretty much confirms that most of us run on autopilot most of the time. The real question is, who's your shepherd?
I think the average Slashdotter mostly agrees with Jesus about this. The difference is, the average Slashdotter believes that he's not a sheep, and sees this as insulting. Well, reality check. You are. But who's your shepherd? If there's a single most important decision you can make in your life, it's this. Is it Jesus? Mohammad? Richard Stallman? Pamela Jones? Jimmy Carter? Al Gore? Brad Pitt? Your parents? A good friend? A friendly and knowledgeable professor at school?
A little bit back on topic, is anyone else disturbed that unwavering belief in the theory of evolution has become a litmus test for intelligence?
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
My thought exactly, except that I'd point out another aspect of the question that's overly broad. "Evolution" isn't a single theory, it's a whole complex set of theories, some of which have very solid observational evidence supporting them and others of which are almost pure hypotheses. For example, on the one hand, it's scientifically indisputable that species do evolve. We have seen it happen under controlled conditions in the laboratory, as well as having a deep fossil record. On the other hand the theory of punctuated equilibrium is just a fairly random stab at trying to explain why the fossil record seems to show long periods of little change separated by short periods of massive change. There are lots of other examples all across the spectrum.
Personally, I'd have had a hard time answering yes to the question "Is evolution well supported", not because I don't believe it is, but because I *know* it's a political question, not a scientific question, and I know that if I say "yes" I'll be indicating assent to a much broader range of ideas than those I actually believe are supported.
A better poll would have asked several, more precisely-focused questions, such as: "Do you believe evolution occurs?"; "Do you believe that the large number of species that exist today evolved from a small number of ancient species?"; "Do you believe that humans evolved from earlier species?"; "Do you believe that evolution is a result of purely random chance?"; plus similar questions oriented towards getting the individual's opinion about the scientific support and opinions of scientists, such as "Is there solid scientific evidence that evolution occurs?" and "Do most scientists believe that evolution occurs?".
The result would have been a much better view into the understanding and beliefs of Americans, rather than just their religio-political views.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You have to understand that a Christian CAN be a scientist. There actually is quite a bit of evidence for a young earth. I don't think that a true scientist can say that evolution is fact. There are just too many contradictions. And in fact, more recent scientific discoveries tend to suggest that evolution is the religious dogma of blind zealots. Rather than accepting evolution as blind fact, scientists should be doing experimentation to support the idea of evolution... however, many of the experiments are done with faulty reasoning and make assumptions (of things that are not even good theory). Evolution is a hypothesis at best. The world has truly forgotten what the scientific method is. Now... we accept things as theories based on the popularity of the scientist. Which is sad. So... what will the future hold. Today's science is founded more and more on popularity. It has become more and more like science fiction. Science (those that do not believe in God) want to make sure that God does not exist... so, as evolution continues to fall apart (because humans DO like to learn and explore... so TRUE scientists will exist), the scientific community WILL undoubtably have to come up with another Godless answer to the creation of humanity. Personally, given our infatuation with science fiction, I believe that the next big popular "theory" will be the space seed theory. While it does not answer original creation, it will help satisfy the evidence of a young earth and a history that only goes back 4,000 years.
The next time a jesus chrispie gets in your face about this, ask him this: "OK, so the bible says god this, that, and the next thing. Does it say anywhere HOW he did it? And if it doesn't, did you ever wonder why? Did it ever occur to you that if god is POWERFUL enough to make a universe and populate it with life, then he might also be SMART enough to make it run AUTOMATICALLY according to certain laws, such as gravitation and evolution, that don't require constant meddling and micromanagement? And that these laws are simple enough that us mere humans can actually learn and understand them?"
I.e. "In the beginning, god created heaven and earth. For further details, consult a science book".
Why is it that we insist on freedom of thought, unless it's thought we don't want people thinking? Am I the only one who sees the inherent hypocrisy of orthodox free thought?
You're not going to Hell for not having a literalist interpretation of Genesis. But... neither is society going to hell in a handbasket because not enough people believe in evolution. It's okay if your auto mechanic believes something different from you. Your software isn't any better or worse because an evolutionist|creationist wrote it.
Really, it's no big deal. Take a deep breath and relax. You'll find you'll live longer for it.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
as a devil's advocate, the alternate explanation could be that your idea of what it means to care about something could be wrong, what is "undeserved" sufferring could be wrong, and that sufferring for some is not in fact the best the thing for the creation as a whole.
Since you don't know the "End state" of the creation, or its purpose, you have no way to judge that. You are using your own arbitrary guidelines for all of these things, and since you are neither omniscient nor omnipotent you have no logical grounds with which to judge such a being... to even presume you have the barest idea of what such a creature would do and why, and whether that means it "cares" about its creation or you or not is totally irrational.
don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there IS such a massively perfect, caring being out there. But as a flawed, limited being such as you or I cannot possibly construct any logical arguement that addresses the motivations of such a superior being... you have absolutely no qualification to judge. All you know is what "feels bad" to you; and you are not perfect, so you don't really know what IS bad, just what seems bad to you.
It's not in TFA, but the poll also reported the following statistics:
27% of Agnostics and Atheists think God guided the process of evolution
13% of Agnostics and Atheists think God created man in his present form.
So a better title for the article might have been "40% of Atheists believe in God".
When you're getting that kind of result, it might be a clue that there's something wrong with your methodology.
I'm not surprised by the percentages, frankly. I'd be interested in seeing the trends. I'd (like to) be surprised to see if it was really all that different in the past. That said, I do think it reflects on our state of education in good ol' USofA. Possibly a good excuse to rail about the state of science education in particular, but I'll take it, 'cause I think it does indeed suck.
I love the story of Genesis; there's good stuff in it. Almost as good as the Silmarillion.
As chance would have it, I'm reading through my old copy of Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Now, I know it would be viewed as dated (both factually and cinematographically), but it was a tremendous influence on me. It addresses topics in a very approachable and friendly manner, and is (as I remember it) very far from preachy. It lit me on fire about science, and though I don't make my money in science, I think this program had an impact on my science-based view of the world.
But this is more than 20 years ago now. Short of a Sputnik analog, what voices do we have to popularize science?
.sig,
I've read the original article (perhaps) which indicates that this article is misrepresenting the data, but even there I couldn't find out how they selected who they would ask questions of.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
A little bit back on topic, is anyone else disturbed that unwavering belief in the theory of evolution has become a litmus test for intelligence?
I disagree. The best intelligence litmus test is to be skeptic and never accept everything as the complete unquestionable truth. The way I see it, the creationists have about 0.000001% chance of being completely right, the evolutionists have about a 30% chance of being completely right. The complete truth is probably either a slight modification of the evolution theory or a completely different concept that either no one has ever thought of, or that no one is capable of thinking of.
There should be a "-1:Groupthink"
I read a comment on Slashdot just a few days ago (really wish I had bookmarked it, since I'd love to read it again) where the poster mentioned evolution, the Y2K bug, avian flu, and said "science just has no credibility left." I wanted to say "so I guess you won't be using medicine, driving in cars, or POSTING ON THE INTERNET anymore...?" but I've said it before, and the absurdity of rejecting science while depending on it so heavily is just lost on these people.
Because of my car's bumper stickers I'm frequently asked: "Do you believe in evolution?" Instead
of just saying that I do, I try to raise their consciousness a bit by answering "No, I accept
that evolution is the theory that best explains the evidence." This usually gives them a pause.
Belief is often closely associated with faith, and faith is something that isn't necessary to
accept evolution. Only evidence is needed and there is lots of that available.
I'm a teacher and my bumper sticker if very appropriate and funny in several different ways, it
reads: "Leave no child behind - Teach Evolution." I wish I had another one as this one is very
faded.
"Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.
It's pretty well-known that most people who call themselves Christian don't practice it in their daily lives and in essence, don't actually or truly believe. They are just club members who don't pay their dues. But when you corner these people, they will assert that they are true believers to the very end. It's best nnot to provoke Christians by asking them direct, polarizing questions. Better to let them go on acting like heathens. They will have children and they too will be non-participating Christians except that they will not likely go to church but once in a while... the next generation after that will be lighter still. Eventually, religion will fade away. It's fighting religion that keeps it alive.
is anyone else disturbed that unwavering belief in the theory of evolution has become a litmus test for intelligence?
Why is it disturbing to define intelligence as having a modicum of knowledge and rational analysis capability?
DNA + "survival of the fittest" = evolution. It's not a theory - it's just a plain consequence of the the tautology "survival of the fittest" and the fact that we're based on a naturally varying chemical hereditory mechanism (DNA). If you don't understand that people who have more children leave more descendents, or that we're based on DNA, then, YES, you are stupid.
Evolution can not be wrong. It's not a theory - it's just a plain fact.
If your DNA causes you to have more children than me, then the DNA of our species has taken a step in the direction of your DNA rather than mine. If the DNA of species A group #1 has diverged from that of species A group #2 to the extent that they can't interbreed then (by definition) one of these groups is a new species.
There may be additional subtleties to how evolution actually plays out (there's plenty of post-Darwin realizations such as that it's environmental change that drives punctuated equilibrium), but the mechanism itself can't be wrong - it's just plain fact. More children = more descendents with your DNA.
> What kind of "intelligent" designer puts a recreational facility next to a waste disposal site?
... but I do believe in God's involvement, however he did it) he seemed to figure out how to make it work. I am copying a message I recently read on some web forums dedicated to discussing sexuality from a Christian perspective. The context is oral sex:
:)
*Sigh*. I'll bite, and hope I'm not modded through the floor. Even though the designer did it that way (note that I'm not arguing for or against evolution here
********
One of the really cool things about God's design of the male body is this: When sexual arousal begins, two very important things for OS begin to take place. First, the opening to the bladder is squeezed shut, making it difficult for urine to pass through (which is why it's difficult for guys to urinate while they have an erection). Second, the Cowper's glands, which are located close to the prostate, secrete a substance that neutralizes any remaining urine in the urethra.
So, when your FW performs OS on you, rest assured that she will not be getting any urine in her mouth!
Just another cool thing God did to bless the marriage bed, I figure!
******* [end message copy] *********
The sad part here is how backward the Church is being (assuming that those 48% are all God-fearing Christians). Rather than trying to fill the gaps in science or offer alternatives for the trickier aspects (where did the Big Bang come from? What was there before? etc), Christianity (or its public face) tries to send us back to medieval concepts. Their mistake is denying clearly factual evidence (the Earth is 6000 years old? Ancient fossils are there to test our faith? etc) rather than moving with the times and working alongside scientific theory and using it as a backup for Christian beliefs rather than a contender.
Theory is a problem-word. No big surprise: I'm sure most /.ers
realize this. But I can't help but wonder whether we don't all
underestimate how *much* of a problem this little word is.
Referring to the *theory* of evolution makes too many people think of
some dubious hypothesis, perhaps just another man's opinion, rather
than of the fact-constructed model for explaining observed phenomena
that it truly is.
I bet if we talked about the *model* of evolution, we'd have less
trouble than we currently do with all the knee-jerkers who attack
the word theory. A model is stronger than a mere conjecture, but
even an unproven conjecture as it's used in math or science is on
firmer territory than figmental tenets of something like, oh,
Frisbeetarianism (just to pick a religion I'm unlikely to get
lynched over).
Consider number theory: no one imagines number theory to be some vague
notion open to individual interpretation and belief. Imagine if
instead of talking of Newton's three laws of motion, these were
bundled together and called Newton's theory of motion. Swap law into
theory and what happens? Sound a bit shakier?
Not if you understand that theory means more than just somebody's
guess. The Dictionary records 7 principle senses for the noun theory;
of these, the first 2 are obsolete, and the 7th is for combining forms
such as theory-neutral or theory-making. The last main sense, sense 6
(whose first citation is from 1792) is the one giving us grief here:
6 In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation;
hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of
ideas about something; an individual view or notion.
However, sense 6 that's *not* the operative definition for theory as used
in number or automata theory, or in the theories of gravity, of relativity,
or of evolution. Instead, it's sense 4 (first cited in a 1638 example) that
applies here, usually in subsense 4a but sometimes in 4c:
4a A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or
account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been
confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is
propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement
of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of
something known or observed.
4c A systematic statement of the general principles or laws of some
branch of mathematics; a set of theorems forming a connected system:
as the theory of equations, of functions, of numbers, of probabilities.
If our treatment of science and math in primary and secondary education in
the United States weren't in such sorry shambles, more Americans might
understand that *this* sort of theory isn't so much a loose notion as a
model that explains observed phenomena and predicts others, all subject
to empirical testing.
Which would be easier: fixing general science education in American public
schools, or adopting a term like evolutionary model? Although the second
may seem only a small measure compared with how serious the first is,
wouldn't it still be a good idea to attempt the second anyway?
Perhaps I've been listening too much to George Lakoff or Jeffrey Feldman
talking about the importance of word-choice in framing discourse and
debate. But I truly see this "theory"=="hypothesis" misunderstanding as
an unnecessary source of trouble, and think underplaying "theory" in
favor of something more readily apprehended by the layman might help.
--tom
"1: The existence of God is proven (or disproven) definitively to every dead human being."
You're kidding, right? Because this would presuppose awareness, if not conscoiusness and self-awareness on the part of a human after death, for which you have zero - and I do mean zero - evidence. No one, not even you, can prove that a dead human being is anything more than compost.
Your argument starts off with an unprovable statement. A glib and clever-sounding one, to be sure, but unprovable.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
You are a stinking animal. Get over it. Love (the passionate one you feel in the first 5 years of meeting somebody) can directly be linked to hormons delivery in the brain. This 5 years periods can definitvely be traced to the divorce rate being higher at the end of it, and the drop off when that type of neurotransmitter drop down in level. As for the "longer" love I would not be surprised that there is a similar explanation based on neuron pathway created during those 5 years. Remmember the brain learn by repeating.
Yes this is all chemistry despite you prefering to think you have a soul and be a "higher" being than the rest of the animal, in reality you are a mamal and you simply go in a complexer "rut". Sorry to break it to you , you aren't "superior" and "chosen".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
This must be the 48% that also believe Abass Ayeni Dantate, a very wealthy Nigerian, has over $35 million waiting to be transferred directly to their bank accounts.
Warning: Could be fatal if taken seriously
This is a popular statement of Karl Popper's falsificationist philosophy of science. Falsification is known to be an inadequate demarcation criterion for what counts as science. No evidence can falsify any particular hypothesis, because we can always revise some belief other than the hypothesis.
Are you adequate?
I am more worried about the 52% who really don't have a clue why they believe in evolution other than "some smart people say I should". I would wager that more of the 48% know why (with good reason) they don't believe than the 51% do know why (with good reason) they believe in evolution.
I've had a look. It's nonsense - the babblings of a lunatic.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Here's the deal: stop saying that America is the greatest nation on Earth, the most advanced nation on Earth, the home of the free, the home of the brave, or any of that other bullshit, and MAYBE people will stop pointing out that every one of those claims is a baldfaced lie.
Why don't we just get Kent Hovind out of jail and make him Secretary of Education and get it over with? I mean, the way scientific ignorance is celebrated, hell even encouraged, in America you might as well.
Mystery #1: how on earth Americans can have been fooled by Bush, not just once but twice, the second time ignoring four years' worth of evidence of what an evil fuck he is...
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
I don't mind my country of origin getting called out for being the home of millions of people who lazily and habitually defer to the loudest voice in the room, rather than take a moment to form their own opinion.
And I don't mind the actions of my government being loudly decried as arrogant, clumsy, and in some cases: motivated by genuine corruption.
Nor do I mind when religious zealots of any nation are criticized for allowing a narrow set of dogma and ritual dictate their entire world view.
What I DO mind:
I resent statements that begin with "Americans are...", "Americans believe...", and "America thinks..."
The United States consists of roughly THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE spread (thinly!) from one North American coast to another. I live in the northeastern USA. I have more in common with my friends in Quebec than I do with Texans, Floridians, or even West Virginians. And I guarantee you there are plenty of Austin, Texas residents who take issue with being lumped in with the entire state. Or even their neighbors.
The U.S. is a very big place, brimming with brilliant, vibrant and insightful individuals whose eyes are pointed right out into the big bright world outside. It's a country born out of a vast cultural confluence -- constantly in flux not only as one moves across state lines, but year to year, as well.
Please keep in mind that there are many of us in the U.S. who DO understand the significance of an established peer-approved scientific theory, who DON'T believe that might always makes right, and -- believe it or not -- even hold onto a thick immutable optimism that our homeland might one day come around.
Rather, it's about Revolution.
Ignorant people are easier to manipulate.
They are less likely to question the acts of their government.
They are less likely to cause problems.