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

Re:But it is sooo simple to understand

[rickb928]

Are you seriously asking the poster to EXPLAIN how it was done?

Would you care to try, sir? Please leave out no detail, no matter how insignificant it seems, for we cannot be sure just what small thing was the crux of all of this, or if it all was crucial.

Like the poster said, atheists do tend to go with the flow, especially if it avoids critical thinking. Contemplating the ludicrous notion that the Universe sprang into existence from nothing would leave any thinking person asking the most obvious question - 'what was there before?'.

I do not know how 'before' came into existence, but at least I have a theory, every bit as good as any that Science has to offer on the subject. Yours? Step up to the plate, have a swing. Worth a try, eh?

Re:They explain why

[h4rr4r]

If you do not agree that statement is the most likely probability they might as well believe Prometheus shaped man out of mud. One set of superstitions is no better than the rest.

If you choose Religion over science you are not well educated or prefer to be ignorant.

Re:They explain why

[FooAtWFU]

See, part of the problem asking a question like "Was there a Big Bang?" is that people assume that if the answer is "yes" the next step is someone going "AND THEREFORE ALL RELIGION IS A SHAM AND A DECEITFUL LIE, YOU IGNORANT UNWASHED UNEDUCATED BACKWARDS SUBHUMAN! Burn all churches! Shred the Bibles and sterilize the Christians! Mwuahahahahaha!" because in day-to-day "debates" (and by that I mean "arguments") - because in day to day debates (and by 'debates' I mean 'shouting matches'), some lesser form of that rhetoric usually does come next (and some small exposure to the rest of that rhetoric fuels the imagination).

So framing such a question doesn't appear a matter of science vs religion, it's a matter of militant-atheists-wielding-science vs religion. And I for one am glad that the NSF isn't trying to assert a cultural standard of science to the exclusion of religion. We have a First Amendment, you may have noticed, which would prohibit it as well.