Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report

cremeglace writes "In an unusual last-minute edit that has drawn flak from the White House and science educators, a federal advisory committee omitted data on Americans' knowledge of evolution and the Big Bang from a key report. The data shows that Americans are far less likely than the rest of the world to accept that humans evolved from earlier species and that the universe began with a big bang."

Comments

And this is crazy because...?

[carlhaagen]

...we just happen to know for a fact that this is the case? We don't know shit. We just theorize.

Re:My question

[Arker]

Well, in fact, we *do* "know [...] for a fact" that humans evolved from earlier species. Some relatively minor details may be subject to uncertainty but the basic fact is clear and incontrovertible.

But you are right, this doesnt rule out an ultimate creator. The teacher that got me really interested in evolution, in fact, was a pretty conservative and deeply religious southern baptist as well as a biologist. Scientific knowledge certainly rules out the naïve literalist reading of the bible that a few ignorant loudmouths reliably push, but even in conservative religious circles that isnt a respectable reading and probably never has been, and you dont need modern science to debunk it, it's untenable even on its own terms. Darwin was religious and most scientists historically have been - many people have and do pursue the natural sciences as disciplines which glorifies the creator by helping us to understand and appreciate his work and methods. From this point of view, evolution doesnt denigrate the creator, but reveals his sublime genius and foresight.

And in an eery mirror image to the fundamentalist religious idiots, we also have fundamentalist anti-religious idiots who add lots of heat but no light to the conversation by loudly proclaiming that evolution disproves theïsm - a position no more accurate than that of the most irrational bible thumpers who agree wholeheartedly with the false proposition that the two are fundamentally incompatible.

But while I believe I see and sympathise with your point here, and as devils advocate I will even postulate that the results *in part* reflect a healthy skepticism, a population which is less inclined to simply believe whatever someone who appears authoritative tells them and is more willing to reject assertions without proof and/or has some awareness that theories change over time and rarely if ever represent ultimate truth, experience also leads me to believe that the bulk of the difference is better explained by the abysmal state of science education in the US and a significant number of irational and ignorant "believers" who simply accept the pronunciations of the loudest and least authoritative religous authorities then refuse to consider anything else, unfortunately.

Re:So?

[Just Some Guy]

We count babies as "born" which most countries end up counting as "stillborn," which hits a different category in the stats.

I've also wondered how the US ranks on number of immigrants (legal or illegal) coming to America to have their babies born on American soil. If a coyote smuggles an 8-month-pregnant woman in poor health into the country, and the birth has a poor outcome, does that count against us?