Slashdot Mirror
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."
First Post.
Shame? It's a not bad starting point...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Look, the education system in America hasn't exactly been seen as the 'cream of the crop' for a while. Just because they omitted data about our knowledge of the 'Big Bang' and 'Evolution' doesn't mean we didn't learn it, it just means some asshat within the White House didn't learn how to edit properly.
I still now that the 'big bang' was that hominid Lucy getting laid, resulting in the first darwinian instance of 'natural selection' whether the WH admits it or not.
Fake and Gay......fddsfs......... .....fsfsdf
in the article.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If people don't accept the big bang theory it is christians' fault.
if people do, it's christians' fault. No, rly. Look. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.html?q=bang.html
(btw often WRH is food for thought even if propaganda is probably there)
Now, us Christians have a lot of more serious accusations to deal with, and I think our organization has do take more serious steps on those things. Let science decide if big bang was feasible, it's their domain.
A fat bastard hipster faggot neckbeard loser called peter symmonds reverts all my edits and rangeblocks all my IPs.
Please do not use wikipedia. Also dferg is a cocksucker.
The explanation doesn't appear to have soothed White House officials, who say that the edit—made after the White House had reviewed a draft—left them surprised and dismayed. "The Administration counts on the National Science Board to provide the fairest and most complete reporting of the facts they track," says Rick Weiss, a spokesperson and analyst at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
National Science Board, which oversees the National Science Foundation (NSF), says it chose to leave the section out of the 2010 edition of the biennial Science and Engineering Indicators because the survey questions used to measure knowledge of the two topics force respondents to choose between factual knowledge and religious beliefs.
Slashdot is nearly as bad as mainstream media, constantly trying to sensationalize everything...
There was nothing in the universe. Not one atom. All of a sudden a tiny thing showed up (out of thin air) and exploded and gave birth to the physical universe.
Who cares that the most basic laws of physics say that there is absolutely no possible way the physical universe should be here. There should not be ONE SINGLE ATOM in the universe. But there they are.
Then ... life popped up all over the place.
Yeah I feel sooo dumb for wondering why the physical universe could not have just popped into place from thin air for no reason.
The atheists of this age are a wonderful irony. Elitist simpletons who simultaneously think they are genius yet have no ability to think for them self.
Talking about evolution or big bangs makes the baby Jesus cry!
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
So what was the question asked in this poll? If the question was something like Do you believe that God created the universe, or do you believe in the big bang theory... Then I can understand why the results look so bad in scientific terms.
When TFA says "data on Americans' knowledge of evolution and the big bang", that suggests it's a measurement of Americans' awareness level of the existence of the topics.
But when the TFA says "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", that suggests it's a measurement of American's agreement level.
Awareness != Agreement != Acceptance
For example, while I might be FULLY AWARE of and understand the reasoning behind Christianity, that does NOT mean that I accept the notion as true.
TFA seems to be suggesting that if you disagree with some topic, that you simply do not understand the topic, which is a complete fallacy.
Big Bang is, well, Big Bang, and only some religious fundies would have issues since the rest of us don't really care one way or another.
Sharing ancestors with apes, well, bit less so.
Evolution: now this is different since it's a demonstrated fact.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
...we just happen to know for a fact that this is the case? We don't know shit. We just theorize.
The Big Bang wasn't big, as it happened at a single point.
The Big Bang wasn't a bang, as there wasn't anywhere for sound waves to propagate.
From TFA:
That explains nothing.
And ...
So the guy pushing for the removal cannot maintain a consistent argument for that removal.
When it comes to this sort of polling, there's a little thing that slips by the people who comment on them.
When people from other countries take this sort of test, we get a solid mix of answers, taken seriously.
When people from the United States take them, a regular sample of about 33% hit the "funny answer button."
You get high school students who will, given the chance, answer "Who was Martin Luther King?" with "D. A famous dentist."
You get people on the Internet who answer "what is evolution?" with "D. A clever fiction thought up by some guy."
Yeah, we have more people who really do believe in some things, but we also have a massively higher number of folks who get handed a "no points toward your final grade" test, fill in "D" for all of the answers, and spend the next 45 minutes staring off into space, because the results DO NOT AFFECT THEIR LIVES IN ANY RATIONAL FASHION...
To the average layman/Joe/Jane "knowledge" of the truth of the Big Bang and Evolution is really tantamount to believing that they are true (that is, valid explanations of our reality). If you go off of a high school education, what do teachers really tell you aside from a few weeks' lecture (at best) and showing some pictures in a book? How does that equate to knowledge of these things aside from "my teacher told me it was true". Perhaps we're just doing a horrible job of managing our credibility on topics such as these. People in all walks of life both deny and affirm the validity of these two theories, yet they seem to appear everywhere (and are wildly [un]successful at their pursuits). Widespread belief in the (in)validity of these two things does not denote the working value of a high school level education, if not even a higher education outside of the areas relevant to these theories. In my opinion, of course.
Thank you so much, America, and especially you, Bible Belt, for being a bunch of ignorant cunts and making the rest of us look bad, too. They of course had to leave that information out of the report because of how fucking embarassing it is, but the truth came out now didn't it? Pull your head out of your bible-thumping ass, USA, and get with the program.
I've seen more than enough bad science and outright anti-scientific posts here at Slashdot; I can't imagine how depressed — and depressing — the numbers must be among the general populus.
Luckily it's Friday afternoon, and the bar is close by.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
"The prevailing theories in science might one day be overturned so why shouldn't I remain ignorant?"
These are the same people who will insist that using anything more abstract than C means you're not a real programmer.
At the end of the day, thinking for them is more about ego-defense than actual synthesis.
Sorry, these two theories are not on a level playing field. Evolution is a ridiculously strong theory, it's really hard for anyone to not "accept" it unless they do so based on entirely irrational beliefs.
I might think, if not say, someone who doesn't "believe" in evolution is an idiot. I would not say the same thing about the Big Bang for various reasons, among them the fact that the Big Bang does not explain the state of existence at T(Big Bang) - 1. It does not explain creation, and in fact creation is inherently inexplicable unless one resorts to "Magic" of one form or another.
The questions are basically "Humans evolved from an earlier species: True/False" and "The universe started with a big explosion: True/False"
From a strictly scientific viewpoint, neither of those have been definitively proven. I couldn't answer the questions because there is no choice of "Maybe," or "as best we understand."
"The data shows that Americans are far less likely than the rest of the world to accept ... "
We are truly on our way to becoming a third world country.
You're too lazy to read even halfway through the article, but you will still post your idiotic blather here?
Well, I guess you fit in well around here, anyway.
All the idiotic thumpers in this country are taking us right down the tubes.
No. Not in regards to scientific issues.
You can refuse to accept that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, but that DOES mean that you do not understand the SCIENCE behind it.
education.
under the guise of 'practicing our faith', innumerable religious sects and groups pump youth with bullshit.
this is just the opening stages though. just keep it that way for a few decades more, you may see even the most basic scientific rules and laws getting challenged.
Read radical news here
If your beliefs separate you from knowledge, then you lack knowledge. Their polls are about measuring knowledge. Removing it because some beliefs keep people intellectually backwards is a shame.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Why are we concerned if people, in general, accept the big bang theory or evolution? Why not worry about general relativity and quantum mechanics?
For the vast majority of people, it simply does not matter. Will it pay my mortgage or put food on my table if the sun revolves around the earth or the other way around? If not, then why should they care?
We're all (sometime I wonder though) nerds here, so we care, but most people don't. I know that the operation of my GPS navigator depends on both general relativity and quantum mechanics, but it works whether I believe them or not. How many other people know or care?
A better question would be to ask if they believe that the scientific method is a valid method of seeking the truth. Another question would be if the scientific method was the only valid method of seeking the truth.
un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
Goddammit America - You used to be this shining beacon in the world of leadership, democracy and sensibility. Now you're just descending into some kind of nutbar crazy JesusLand. Every week there's another story like this one.
What the hell happened? I want my old America back... Can't you level-headed Americans (there must be *some* of you left...) do something about it?
A fat bastard hipster faggot neckbeard loser on wheels called peter symmonds reverts all my edits and rangeblocks all my IPs.
Please do not use wikipedia. Also dferg is a cocksucker on wheels.
i understand how we could figure out evolution, but understanding the universe is another matter.
So they pulled the questions at the last minute because they said that it conflated knowledge of scientific facts and the acceptance of scientific facts, and that the study should only talk about knowledge of, not acceptance of scientific facts. As the redacted section pointed out, "correct" responses to the questions about evolution and the Big Bang increased when prefaced with phrases as "according to the theory of evolution..." and "according to astronomers...".
That reasoning is flawed. It's the acceptance of scientific facts that is paramount for a modern and educated society. Just because I can correctly say, "Psychics cast magic spells and consort with the devil," doesn't mean I believe it. In fact, if a society that does believe that, that's deeply troubling and backwards. If a society does not accept scientific facts, it is an superstitious and backwards society, and deserves all the derision it gets.
But no. The religious right didn't want these findings published because they want to perpetuate the idea that religious beliefs (specifically, their beliefs) are sacrosanct. This is a country where people want science books banned, because they contain *gasp* science!
Times like this I'm reminded of Douglas Adams' take on criticizing religion. "You can't talk bad about religion. Why not? You MUST not. That's why."
Fuck that shit.
Really? From the way it seems to be phrased, he said that they would not answer "No".
Not that they would not answer.
What are the specific "subtleties" here?
You seem to be trying to argue generalities in a very specific instance.
Failure to accept an assertion is not the same as failing to understand that an assertion has been made
Those are not, in any practical sense of the word, facts. Whether or not they are literally true, speculating about what might have happened millions of years ago is of little real importance to people living today.
Am I to believe that the scientific construct a used to make a scientific discovery is as important as the discovery itself? It isn't. Scientific constructs have no intrinsic value.
Religious dogma aside, this Big Bang theory seems dated. The idea that the Universe might be finite has been challenged and, frankly, seems less likely as more is learned about quantum gravity and string theory. I am of the mind that there may have been a bang, perhaps many, but not just one big one. As some are monotheistic and others are polytheistic, I rebuke one big bang and claim to believe in many bangs. Just like thinking we are the only ones in the Universe, I doubt if this vastness could only come from one, 15-billion-year-old bang. Way beyond 15 billion light years might be a fireworks of bigger and better bangs. Our perspective is much too small to rule it out this soon.
As for evolution, I have questions as to its accuracy. For example, I think it is more likely that apes ascended from man. Evolution does not necessarily lead out of the jungle and into a Burger King.
From the deleted.txt file:
In response to another group of questions on evolution asked by Gallup in 2008, 43% of Americans agreed with the statement that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so,” while the 52% agreed with either of two statements compatible with the theory of evolution: that human beings developed over millions of years either with or without God’s guidance in the process (figure 7-12). These views on the origin of human beings have remained virtually unchanged in nine surveys since the questions were first asked in 1982 (The Gallup Organization 2008c).
In other words, significantly more than half of Americans know very well that the Christian creation story is a fable, and this has been the case for nigh on 30 years, at least. Headline: Genesis believers are minority in US.
Enough with the incessant navel gazing about this; the widespread and growing religious fanaticism you use to rationalize your loathing for your culture is a fiction. Secularism is (thankfully) firmly in control of the governance of the US, has been for several generations and shows no sign of abating, despite what you're being told inside the hysteria filled echo chamber of your choice.
I don't know if the Big Bang Theory is valid or not. But I believe tjhat smaller Big Bang is coming. Where americans and russians will nuclear bomb themselves to obliviation. I have had both american and russians friends and co-workers, and I have always wondered how ignorant they are about the world around them, except for their own country. And still both groups believe they are God's own and selected people.
Really? So the entire basis of modern medicine and biology is based on "a few observations"?
Despite the exact predictions those scientists had made about the genome before they were able to decode it?
"the two topics force respondents to choose between factual knowledge and religious beliefs."
i.e. the respondents might belief X is false even though they know X is true. That's the best description I've seen of the stupidity of religion.
Humans and apes share 96% of their DNA. I forget which comedian asks if you have sandwich that's 96% crap and 4% ham, would you still call it a ham sandwich?
That by itself doesn't prove we descended from apes, but sure would seem to lend it scientific plausibility. If you're faith leads you to a different conclusion, that's fine. But that doesn't mean the rest of us need to teach it in school or avoid teaching what science can measure.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Both of the questions at issue ask for a fact to be known when both are only accepted theories and the most likely answer given the knowledge available today.
I'm an atheist and a scientist. I believe that the theory of evolution most accurately describes how species evolved on Earth. OTOH, I do not believe that the universe was created by a Big Bang. I believe that there have been an infinite number of Big Bang, expansion, collapse, crunch series. I don't have any proof since nothing inside the universe survives across the crunch/bang boundary.
How did the universe start? I don't "KNOW" and there's no proof for my theory. In a poll, would I say the Big Bang or would I argue my own theory? That depends on the way the question was asked and whether I had time to explain my view. I've had my view on this since around 1975, but I was a little young to publish then. Call it intuition.
I believe my theory just as much as (probably more than) the Pope believes in God and Jesus. Too bad he's wrong and has wasted his life without any proof in his belief. I have more proof in my belief than he has in his.
Evolution and the Big Bang in the U.S.A. Slashdot must be celebrating International Troll Story Day
There was no Big Bang, first of all the current theory that is used to explained the observed facts states that the universe started out as a singularity so it was not big and considering there were no molecules present that could propgate any sound it didn't start out with a bang neither.
The previous poster was going on about how UNDERSTANDING does not have to lead to AGREEMENT.
I pointed out how, in regards to SCIENCE, that was not possible.
Now you're claiming that NOT understanding, but agreeing anyway means that it is a religion.
Whatever. Since I never claimed that. You might want to look up "straw man".
... the one-eyed man gets to play some *evil* practical jokes.
Except, it is a good thing when basic scientific facts are challenged, and progressive when they are superseded.
Religious Idiots are just plugging their fingers into their ears and cry aloud while repeated the same tired lies. The problem is not that people learn religion but that they lack the critical mind to judge it.
I used to think there was no solution to the religion problem until, in an interview, Richard Dawkins half jokingly said that high performance drugs could rise IQ levels over the next generations, add in genetic therapy, and I think he is pretty much spot on, while IQ is not the only deciding factor in the level of religiosity/critical thinking in a person, it *is* positively correlated to Atheism.
I'm sure I'll get modded down for this big time, but my question is "How much does it matter?" We really don't know any of this stuff for fact, but even if we did, it still wouldn't rule out a creator. Big Bang theory isn't set in stone. There's many different takes on both it, and also how the Universe could die. Were there multiple big bangs, and a multiverse? That's being suggested a lot lately. One of the widely held theories by Big Bang theorists was that the universe would end in a "Big Crunch" where the universe would run out of energy and collapse in on itself. Stephen Hawking at one time even held the belief that for no apparent reason when the Big Crunch began, time itself would reverse, and everything that had been done would be undone. He has since abandoned that position, especially given the evidence that the Universe is actually expanding. Now we get a new theory of "dark energy", which is everywhere but undetectable. "We know it's there, we'll find it some day!" People complain about the "God of the gaps" argument, what about "science of the gaps"?
/. link right now, search engine on /. appears to be down?). About the only thing we can be certain of with science is that the answers are always going to be changing. I think the intellectually honest answer for Big Bang Evolution Theory, "We think it could have started like this, but we really don't know." Yes, I think Christians should do the same concerning the question of Old Earth/New Earth creation, miracles in the Bible, etc. They are called miracles for a reason, we really don't have the capacity to understand how they could have occurred.
Then what about evolution? I think the a high number of Christians accept that species have the ability to adapt and change in reaction to their surroundings through natural selection, which seems to fill a definition of evolution, even if it is not the one scientists want it to be. What most religions seem to not accept though is abiogenesis. The "primordial soup" theory, one of the corner stones of evolution has been largely rejected by scientists. A new article comes out rejecting it, and even slashdotters are jumping on board (sorry, can't find the
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
"[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was [perfectly] spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." - Isaac Asimov
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
The same gap exists for the response to a second statement, "The universe began with a big explosion," with which only 33% of Americans agreed.
I wonder how many of the remaining 67% are people who accept that the big bang happened, but understand that it wasn't an explosion.
Technoli
Just define a coordinate axes with origin at Earth.
Otherwise stated as the universe is a big cluster fuck. Philosophers will debate whether it was necessary or contingent, the religious types will debate as to who wrote the invitations, while empiricists will claim that nothing else exists except the ass into which their heads are stuck.
How better could they have said it than this, taken from TFA: "because the survey questions used to measure knowledge of the two topics force respondents to choose between factual knowledge and religious beliefs."
Religion is fiction. And it's high time we all got that.
AC
Suppose a woman becomes a biology professor. She spend her fertile years studying, either in a lab or out in some horrid part of the world. Does she reproduce?
Suppose a woman goes door to door trying to save people. (from science I guess!) She meets a lot of nice guys. She has no significant way to support herself. She thinks birth control encourages sin. Does she reproduce?
Given that mental traits are largely genetic, you can tell where humanity is going. The resulting creatures ("humans") will of course **KNOW** that it was God's will to strengthen people's faith.
and i believe the universe is constant across time and space. that the expansion we see cosmologically is only local, where elsewhere it could be contracting. the universe is like the surface of the ocean on a windy day, forever and in all directions
i think the big bang theory is extrapolating too much from the data. and in fact, its very judeochristian: there really doesn't need to be a creation event you know. there is no god and the universe has simply been around forever and will be around forever and stretches infinitely everywhere
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Reporter: So, err, Mr. NSF, as you have stated that the world began in ca 1850, why would the early inhabitants start their calander at 1850, why not 1, like in FORTRAN77 or at 0, like in C, for instance?
Mr. NSF: Zess is a moooooost important question! Ve vill consult.
A huddle then commences amougst the NSF staff. A few hours later they breakup and Mr. NSF approaches the microphone.
Mr. NSF: I vould like to express my zanks for baering vits os for zis important matter. Ve have reached a startling new discovery! Zee answer to zee brave reporter's question is ... "Ein Vunder!" [Google Translation "Its a Miricule!"] ... Sig Heil!
I have no problems with evolution while also believing in Creationism. Creationism says how things started. Evolution says how things change.
God spoke to me.
That data might have been...
NSF...
Report!
Yeeeaaaahhhh!
That fairy tale is well over 2000 years old. Genesis is a Semetic legend about the origin of the Universe.The Hebrew calendar year is 5770.
Literacy means reading comprehension, not memory. Look facts up sometimes!
I have trouble believing in the evolution of species, because I'm not even sure what a species is. I might read an article once and a while to try to figure it out, but I never really get anywhere significant, and I other things to do as well. My conception of a species is as muddied as my conception of a breed, yet I'm told that a breed has no scientific basis. I'm not sure what the scientific basis for a species is. I've heard that it has something to do with groups of organisms which can breed together. A group which can breed together is a species, an organism that can't breed with members of this group is of a different species. I don't see how this applies to organisms which don't breed at all, however. And I've also heard that it is not if an organism _can't_ breed with some group which defines that organism as a different species, but that it _won't_ breed. So someone might be able to mechanically force the organism to breed with members of the group, but this would never happen naturally. This is just plain a different definition from the first. Which is the right one I have no idea, and so I have no idea what a species is, and so I have no idea what the evolution of species is.
With the big bang I have other problems. I don't know what primordial nucleosynthesis is really. But I'm told, if I remember correctly, that the relative abundances of certain elements in our universe is evidence that once our universe was so small and dense that this primordial nucleosynthesis occurred. This then is supposed to prove that the big bang occurred. But that primordial nucleosynthesis occurred is seems to me to only show that there was a certain density of the universe, but I don't why then the universe is supposed to have been even denser than that, as at the very start of the universe on the big bang model. Why couldn't the matter and energy have been moving in an overall inwards fashion before the time when primordial nucleosynthesis began? The universe was then less dense before primordial nucleosynthesis, became denser as the mass and energy generally moved in towards each other (because that was the path it all was travelling at before reaching this maximally dense point), and then it began to become less dense as the mass and energy continued on their trajectories. I would wager I'm just talking nonsense because all the astrophysicists seem to believe in the big bang, but I don't understand the issues and so this account I give here seems to match up with the evidence just as well as the big bang model does. Basically what I'm saying is that I lack resources to even conceive of what the big bang is and how our observations give evidence for it; so how can I believe in it?
I can understand wanting to distinguish between what you believe and dogmatic, unshakable faith, but we do use the word "believe" to refer to psychological certainty, which is appropriate for one of the most well-supported theories in science.
I would say I believe in the big bang and evolution, and I believe that neither will be shown to be entirely wrong, only incrementally wrong. I justify that by example: The Earth is approximately flat, locally -- it's only at a large scale that this becomes inaccurate at best, but we can still pretend it's flat when we do landscaping, city planning, etc. The Earth is also not spherical, but pear-shaped, and so on. While the Earth does revolve around the sun, we still talk about sunrise and sunset, and for much of our lives, it works to think of the Sun as going around the Earth, and it's certainly more convenient to assume the ground beneath our feet is stationary, even when we know it's not.
It's possible that I could be shown to be entirely wrong, but that seems incredibly unlikely. So I could say I don't know with absolute certainty, but I can certainly say that I do know and believe with about as much certainty as it is possible to know or believe any physical fact.
So the question could've been worded better. Even so, if you want the word "belief" to have any meaning whatsoever, it might make sense to apply it to things you admit might one day be shown to be false. While "believe in" sounds stupid, irritating, and demeaning to science, I would still rather be counted in such a poll as believing in evolution, rather than not believing.
Semantic arguments are fun, but at a certain point, for expediency's sake, I might decide to adopt the terminology of my opponent so that we can move forward. I can bitch about the abuse of the word "hacking" as much as I want, but at this point, it's just easier to talk about "hacking" to mean cheating, cracking, or any number of other things.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Yes. One day you may prove that evolution (the basis of modern medicine and biology) is wrong. And all the years of research that support it.
Or at least you believe that you might be able to do that.
And that is because you do not understand basic science.
Of course you would. Again, because you do not understand basic science.
All the supporting evidence for evolution ... just doesn't matter to you. You might be able to prove it wrong. Despite all the evidence and all the research that contradicts you.
They agree on HOW to learn about those things. There's a huge gulf between empirical observations and explanatory theory. There are plenty of cosmologists around that do not accept the Big Bang theory even now - in fact, there are probably proportionately more now than 20 years ago. There are thousands of climatologists, geologists, meteorologists, and physicists who think that anthropogenic globe warming is crap. Few, if any, though disagree with the opposing theoreticians about the fundamental methods required to actually gain an understanding. What is interesting from an anthropology-of-science view point is that often these divisions between theory-based cliques lies along the divide between observation-based theory and theory-based observation. Theory-based observation expects observations to help verify theory, while observation-theorists often take any unexpected observation as grounds for new theory. The division that emerges is from the basic divide between mind sets that are convinced they have an explanation and mind sets that are convinced they have found a shortcoming the popular theory does not cover. Cliques tend to nucleate around issues and - ideally - new or modified theory emerges. The disagreement is not a bad thing necessarily, but occasionally it can devolve into what amounts to gang warfare.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
BITE YOUR TONGUE! Have you even tried?
Don't give in so easily! Go down fighting, seeing double, and puking on your own shoes!
Where's your sense of adventure, you piker?!!? You're not living unless you're waking up in a strange place, laying naked next to *insert random gender/ transgender/ pangender/ non-gender here* at least once a week!
I should have known you kids were getting soft when 'bar crawling' evolved into 'bar hopping'.
The tale of the tortoise and the hare comes to mind here....
Or, since you're a youngster, here's the modern version:
There were these two bulls looking over a pasture full of cows and heifers from a hilltop; a young bull, and an older bull.
The young bull said....
P.S. I agree with your point.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
If the USA would be a country like Afganistan or Italy without nuclear weapons I wouldn't care and hope that some day they will understand that religion is not a good source to find out how the universe come into existence, but a possible good source for ethics and mental stability (as long as you do not become a fanatic). The real problem is that there are so many religios fanatics running around in the US believing in all kinds of things including Armageddon. And now think one of those crazy guys becomes president and pushes the button... This possibility frightens me most. Therefore it is very good to hear that the US is reducing their nuclear potential. Even though they will still be able to fry everyone on this planet. But at least not six times.
And no, I am not saying that the universe was created by a god, that is silly and not even worthy of discussion. But we don't really know exactly how the universe got started. And a big explosion is a bit simplistic anyway, because for someone to explode in the conventional sense, there must be something there. But nothing exploded into something. That is not "possible" (well obviously it is possible) by the normal explanation of an explosion which is a very rapid burn. What fuels were there for the big bang? Unknown.
And no, I am not just nitpicking. Science is about answers, not assumptions. We can't just say "well the universe seems to be expanding there for it must have started very small and gone boom". That is fairytale thinking. WHAT HAPPENEND? In theory it might have been a hole that opened up and stuff streamed in from someplace else. Not a big bang, but a big drain. No proof whatsoever for it, but it fits the facts as well as the idea that nothing explodes. The idea of black and white holes.
Questionares like this are always full of holes and can be all to easily steered. I do not have to believe in the Big Bang theory AND be a religious nutter at the same time. But in a simple multiple choice that distinction can't be made. I do not believe in the Big Bang theory as it is explained on TV. Because something can't come from nothing. That would defy all natural laws of our universe. I do belief that real scientist are just working with what they got and partly making it up as they go along. Dark matter, dark energy. We are in the middle of the detective story and all kinds of theories are being flung around but we lack the vital bit of evidence or just haven't made all the connections yet.
That is science too. No real scientist claims the Big Bang is a fact. It is a theory. The best theory we have so far, but there are flaws within it. So the scientists keep looking.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The question should be, if a sandwich is 96% ham and 4% crap, would you still call it a ham sandwich. And yes you would. A disgusting ham sandwich but a ham sandwich still.
And we are not descended from Apes, we share a common ancestor. And we share one with most life if indeed not all.
And faith shouldn't go against facts and be considered normal.
If my faith led me to believe gravity doesn't affect me, wouldn't I be considered normal if I jumped of a building? No, I would be called insane. If ignoring the theory of gravity is insanity, then so is ignoring the theory of evolution.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Americans are far more likely to be ignorant religious loonies who refuse to believe scientific fact in favour of archaic superstition and myth and profess to follow the word of a deity, meanwhile trying as hard as they can to ensure that the poor and sick don't get the help they need.
Can someone please explain why America is like this?
Stick Men
At some point we should be asking why the government would have any interest in skewing a report with this information. What is behind the supression of this kind of data? Who is behind it? Who does it benifit? WAKE UP PEOPLE!
These are not "fights over science." They are fights between high confidence viewpoints backed by strong, yet malleable theoretical underpinnings, and the viewpoints of ignorant, and/or gullible, and/or critical-thinking deficient and consequently superstitious low-functioning who subsist on a diet of dogma and wishful thinking; compounded enormously by our huge social error of putting religious delusion off-limits for serious public criticism at most levels, particularly in schools.
Our problem is a social problem brought on by the underlying theocratic disease we continue to allow our people to suffer from.
It isn't going to go away until/unless all currently popular religion is treated the way it should be - the same way we treat Odin and Zeus. As the imaginary creations of primitive societies. This should be done in school. As part of normal education. So kids have some chance of escaping the cycle of ignorance that religion uses to propagate itself. Kids should be exposed to the (many) falsehoods used as arguments for religion, from the loaded dice of Pascal's wager to the complete and utter intellectual bankruptcy of creationism.
Even then, I bet it takes a couple of generations to die down to the level of, say, astrology. We'll never eradicate it completely, or at least, not until we edit gullibility, stupidity, and the inability to think critically out of our own genome, and expose the underlying dogmatic thinking as part of a normal education.
Countdown before some poor utterly deluded person comes in here to "defend" some religion or other: 3, 2, 1...
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The first thing anybody will learn about the Big Bang is that it, despite the name, it is NOT an explosion. Furthermore, although I belive in the Big Bang, I do not believe this was the absolute beginning..and there is no evidence to suggest that nothign could have been before the big bang. Therefore the low response to this question cannot be attributed solely to lack of education.
maybe adam & eve had relations with primates. it was such a long time ago, any & all 'research' would include the 'required' agenda/persuasions of the researchers/sponsors.
never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators. no need to name he/she/it/them, as that is another of man'kind's' manipulations of our thinking/lives.
most of us know/feel that there's something there. further investigation may lead to total permanent understanding, survival etc.... see you there?
Because they still are apes! *ba boom*
(Yeah yeah, I know none of us evolved from apes, its a joke you see - now hand me back my banana!)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
He appears to have the same observation platform for the universe as you do. The same singular sample set as well.
They're not surprising findings, but the National Science Board, which oversees the National Science Foundation (NSF), says it chose to leave the section out of the 2010 edition of the biennial Science and Engineering Indicators because the survey questions used to measure knowledge of the two topics force respondents to choose between factual knowledge and religious beliefs.
IMHO religion has no place in a scientific report. That's not to say that the two sides can't coexist. In fact they must coexist or our country will end up like Afghanistan under Taliban rule. I think fundamentalist's see science as the enemy instead of man's attempt to understand the workings of god.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
Nope. Disagreeing with evolution shows "a lack of understanding of basic science".
Possibly. But that indicates an inability to comprehend basic English. That, "hypothetical", "lesser theory" is not what is under discussion. Nor has the other poster identified it. If he wants to fight a straw man, that's up to him. I'm talking about evolution.
And, further delving into science, the problem with the other poster's statement is that not only would have have to disprove evolution, he'd also have to provide a TESTABLE AND FALSIFIABLE theory that accounts for all of the evidence supporting evolution that has been gathered over the years.
What other "ways of knowing" are you talking about? Please be specific.
And yet, after 1951 years (or so) the Bible is just as relevant today as it was then.
The first part of that hearkens back to Isa. 29:14 written around 750 B.C., so really, the more things change....
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.
It's an important distinction, at some point you accept that Santa Claus was your parents. You believe or you don't that Christmas morning was the happiest part of your childhood.
While I agree that evolution is the only scenario that stands up to scrutiny, that's not the point. If I were to be asked such a leading question, I'd intentionally give the answer that goes against the grain.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
No, again, and this kind of fallacy has already been discussed. _Everything_ in science is a theory. Taking your own analogy, disagreeing with a theory means you don't understand it. With that kind of logic, everyone who doesn't "believe" in string theory doesn't understand it.
Scientific "fact" does not exist; you just point out something most scientists believe to be true but is still, in fact, just theory.
So, will Science become some kind of secret, underground guild in the US?
How then they plan to maintain their position of global bully and thus their standard of living?
Because with a lot of manufacturing (and more recently also some R&D) being moved out of US, what else can they use to maintain their status?
hany
Has living under socialism instead of freedom really been that great? Don't you miss having, I dunno, freedoms? I almost wish I were as ignorant as you so I could be happy in bondage also. Palin-Bachmann 2012! USA! USA!
PS -- when our Kenyan-born terrorist president starts nuking our own cities, don't say I didn't warn you!!!!11!1!!!1!oneone
[/TEABAGGER]
So, because the evidence all points at one thing, and not your favorite fairy tale, everyone who decides to take the evidence seriously is claiming to "know everything"? Just because you willfully choose ignorance over evidence does not make everyone as addle-headed as you are.