Slashdot Mirror
New Study Shows One-Third of Americans Don't Believe In Evolution
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Reuters reports that thirty-three percent of Americans reject the idea of evolution and believe that 'humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time' rather than evolving gradually through a process of natural selection, as described by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago. Although this percentage remained steady since 2009, the last time Pew asked the question, there was a growing partisan gap on whether humans evolved. The poll showed 43 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Democrats say humans have evolved over time, compared with 54 percent and 64 percent respectively four years ago. 'The gap is coming from the Republicans, where fewer are now saying that humans have evolved over time,' says Cary Funk. Among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants topped the list of those rejecting evolution, with 64 percent of those polled saying they believe humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."
The average IQ is 100, after all...
Is anyone actually surprised by these poll results?
33% of monkeys don't believe in it, either.
Republicans are such a perverted facsimile of what used to be a very reasonable party. If 6 years of Obama has taught us anything, it's that the empty can gets the grease. USA Politics desperately needs the GOP to fork into two factions - there are enough independents currently voting "D" to jump over to make a center-right candidate feasible. Center-right by US Standards, that is.
If time started less than 10,000 years ago, then sure, we've existed since the beginning of time. Time periods longer than that are very difficult for people to wrap their heads around.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
There is a statistically significant difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue. That's just the reality of it.
At least 33% of Americans are fucking morons, so why should this be any sort of surprise?
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
My position is that I agree with the stated percentage of those polled that they did not evolve from monkeys.
On the whole, monkeys are smarter than they are...
These are the same people that likely believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that man rode his dinosaur to work. Also same group of people likely to believe that global warming is some sort of liberal scam, or that Dungeons and Dragons will cause people to become evil, Harry Potter is some sort of liberal scam to turn our kids away from God, or that a Prius creates more pollution than a Hummer, etc.
And I say this with a heavy heart, but the difference does matter. It shows a continuing split between left and right and the loss of center ground. I could probably find some poll where Democrats displayed a great ignorance, but I think this graph does a better job. A wee bit off topic, but I think it does illustrate the point.
...is that it's true whether or not you believe it.
And I forgot to inculded the link:
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21591190-united-states-amoeba
That's only because it doesn't apply to them.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
There is a big difference between what someone believes and what someone says they believe. The main cause is needing to belong. Someone may say they believe something to fit into the mold they want even though they actually believe something quite different.
Exactly. I would blame the failing public education system more than anything else.
Party affiliations come and go. It wasn't that long ago (in the grand scheme of things) that religious zealots were largely Democrats. Sometime in the 50s - 60s the allegiance shifted.
Another likely factor is the lowering of IQ. If societal conditions are such that people of low intelligence breed a lot more than those with high IQ -- i.e. selective pressure in favor of lower IQ -- what could possibly be the outcome? This btw is the exact opposite of what happened to Ashekani jews during the middle ages.
There are roughly an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, so 54/64 to 43/67 means the score should have dropped by 3% rather than remain steady.
Evolution is the observation - that's the part we know is true because we actually observe it in the fossil record and elsewhere.
Natural selection was the part that was theory.
Therefore 1/3 of US are idiots. Good job!
And the opposite of what is happening America. IQ has been rising. Economically successfully families (which for myself implies higher IQs) have more grandchildren.
Darwin was not the first to notice that creatures evolve-it goes at least back to Aristotle. He was however the first to suggest "natural selection".
Oh, you mean a SCIENTIFIC theory? Then in that case it's a conspiracy of mass proportion. My god trumps your heathen lies.
At this rate, I expect to see hominids with rudimentary tool skills in the Deep South by the end of 2014.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
news flash - nobody believes in "discoursing the subject" except for non-native English speakers.
"We are not Men - We are Devo" (Song of the South)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The optimist's viewpoint is that 60% of American's *do* believe in evolution.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Does it take more faith to believe ones existence is the random meaningless act of circumstance or the purpose filled intent of a creator?
Or both or neither. There are four possible states here.
Yes, because supposing there's a creator, the obvious question is ``who created that creator, or did they evolve randomly''? I.e. you're back at the start.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
RELIGION vs REASON - BELIEF vs ANY amount of verifiable evidence. So sad to see this country, once the leading proponent for free expression and personal freedoms, falling into the same sectarian schism as the muslam world - who, by the way, before the CRUSADES, were very enlightened and tolerant of their neighbors' beliefs and lifestyles. It's SO much easier to fall under the sway of a charismatic gospel leader than it is to actually THINK for yourself. THIS is why I paste the Canadian Maple Leaf on all my luggage when travelling abroad (ashamed to be an American),
redneck geek
Idiocracy, here we come!!
"The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections."
bork bork bork!
Read the article... and the big change is 10% fewer people "believe in evolution" than (expressed) belief in evolution in 2007. Did 10% of Americans REALLY change their views in 5 years?
I think the survey measures something else. Something even more disturbing, perhaps - the growing willingness to express falsehood as a demonstration of political purity. The last Republican primary showed even very educated Republicans willing to state opinions they didn't really hold (and I doubt Democrats are much different in that regard). It's expressed in immigration law reform, in budget reform, climate change... It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, you show your value as a teammate by expressing the teams' view loudly and forcefully. Did 10% of American change their views about evolution? No. They just taking cues from people who think "denial" is a "philosophy"?
Gently reply
I just don't see the point in discoursing the subject with either parties - they are both quite unlikely to change their viewpoints - and even if they do, you don't win anything for your efforts.
So what I'm getting is that you talked with some people for a short while and for some reason expected them to change just because they had a conversation. But why should they change their views? It's not healthy just to change opinions and beliefs for change's sake.
Assuming there are as many republicans as democrats and the average between republicans and democrats is 55% it appears that more than 66% of nonaligned people believe in evolution.
Another likely factor is the lowering of IQ. If societal conditions are such that people of low intelligence breed a lot more than those with high IQ -- i.e. selective pressure in favor of lower IQ -- what could possibly be the outcome?
Obviously. Failure to enforce proper eugenics policies explains the Flynn effect.
Kwite wel.
But notice that word: BELIEVE. Belief is not scientific. It is, I dare say, RELIGIOUS.
Dare! But there is the matter of what is more compatible with the evidence we see. Scientists didn't come to believe in the theory of evolution by happenstance.
So what I'm getting is that you talked with some people for a short while and for some reason expected them to change just because they had a conversation. But why should they change their views? It's not healthy just to change opinions and beliefs for change's sake.
When it comes to matters of theology, I've found that it's difficult for most people to have a healthy conversation about the subject of evolution. There's always an exception to the normal, but humans are emotional and passionate creatures. You can scroll up and read the comments here for some examples what the conversations usually devolve into.
That's okay. Personally, I don't believe in Republicans. Indeed, I'm pretty confident at this stage in my life that "Republicans" and "Americans" were things my Dad invented for bedtime stories when I was young to scare the crap out of me and keep me on the straight and narrow.
Yaz
But the influence of inherence ranks below that of IQ. This is particularly true in America when compared to Europe. Education and social competency are higher than inherence. FYI, all of these things hold even after you subtract out the effect of the parent’s wealth.
I suspect they actually do believe in evolution, but they're commonly confusing it with the theory of the origins of life where stardust simply assembled itself to form us.
Signature intentionally left blank.
Or rather, it is a question of whether people believe in evidence and hence in the scientific method. Evolution is just one of the many implications. Those that think Evolution is not a scientifically proven fact are mentally stuck in the age of ghosts, spirits and other esoteric fantasy constructs. This just shows that 30% will insist on believing stupid things, no matter what evidence is given. Politicians have used that fact for a long time to neutralize the control mechanisms of democracy.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You know, the third with the legs and bit fat arses on it. The other two thirds probably have other opinions.
Measuring proportion of body mass here, of course...legs aren't a lot of volume, and USians are famous for being big around the waist.
Max.
You must be living in some alternate reality version of America. Because where I live, people with PhD in physics/math have 0 or 1 children while the welfare moms and illegal immigrant street vendors have 3++.
Economic success is only loosely correlated with IQ. You know what the best indicator of IQ is? A direct IQ test. An advanced degree is far closer to an IQ test than how much money one has.
Nobody was around to witness and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution occurred. We only have suggestive and circumstantial evidence.
And no one has ever seen an electron either, so I guess that's mindless conjecture. Maybe you should read up on what science is and how it's pursued.
nobody can explain certain codependent gender traits
Even assuming that's true, it hardly invalidates an entire theory. You'll understand that better if you follow my above suggestion. BTW, until about 40 years ago no one could explain the evolution of altruistic traits either.
Very likely though you're citing a nonexistent scientific issue. A quick net search didn't reveal anything, so please provide a link to an appropriate creationist site.
At least this way we know where the Neanderthals ended up...
Huh? What are you saying?
I should also point out that Evolution is a theory, i.e. a hypothesis lifted to high levels of credibility by supporting evidence and absence of a credible competitor. It is not a fact, just the best model (with a very, very large margin) that we have. It can turn out to be completely wrong, see the simulation hypothesis. (Which is neither new, not has "strong evidence" in its favor. It is just something that cannot reliably be ruled out and fits the observable facts. But there are competing theories with similar strength. In this area, any honest scientist will sum up the state-of-insight up as "we do not know".)
Now, cretins from the religious factions usually try to muddy the waters by claiming that scientists say that evolution is a fact, in order to present idiocies like "Intelligent Design" as a competing "fact" and claim that you have to chose between them. Not so, that is just a cheap attempt at manipulation. Evolution is a theory. It is incomplete and has its inaccuracies and white spots. Yet its main claims have strong supporting evidence. "Intelligent Design" is a pure fantasy construct, supported by no scientifically sound evidence at all. As such it is not even a (scientific) hypothesis.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Also, GP is fundamentally misunderstanding (or willfully ignoring to pursue a religious agenda) the word "theory": The Theory of Evolution has roughly the same scientific standing as the Theory of Gravity. For an idea to be elevated to the title of "Theory", there has to be really overwhelming evidence that the theory accurately describes the observable universe, demonstrated by different scientists in different labs in a lot of different ways.
I am officially gone from
The others may just not have been willing to admit it. Some research suggests the level of complete idiots in the US is more like 70%: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The Idiocracy that we are getting into is explained by natural selection. Evolution don't need to mean "improvement" for every criteria, and of course, not becoming smarter.
That is only 33% is a good thing in a country like US, but the question asked wasn't exactly evolution, but "humans and other living things have evolved over time", not sure if that rules out creationism or intelligent design, my idiocracy example could be compatible with those (as in change after design/creation)
There must be an American born every minute. Of course it could be that evolution is leaving them out and that's why they can't see it. One third of Americans will go the way of the Neanderthals.
This country is really becoming an embarrassment. I just don't understand it. Wikipedia at your fingertips, public libraries, a phone in every hand with access to all the world's knowledge, and people are still dumber than dog shit. Absolutely crazy.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
No such circular reasoning in many religions, they either have origin stories for their creators or a creator that always existed.
Jacob and his sons identified themselves to Pharaoh as shepherds, and earlier Jacob bred goats specifically for the coloration that was part of his deal with Laban. Our biblical forefathers understood about "selection" and "breeding for traits". The idea that natural circumstances are as much a "selection" as human choice is not much of a stretch.
But the influence of inherence ranks below that of IQ.
What's "inherence"? Is that a term used by people of high IQ?
This is particularly true in America when compared to Europe.
That certainly doesn't seem to jibe with the fact that Europe has higher inter-generational economic mobility than the US.
Education and social competency are higher than inherence.
IQ does not measure social competency. Any reasonably intelligent person posting on Slashdot should understand that.
Remember: gravity is a theory, not a fact.
What do you think microbiologists do? What do you think Mendel saw?
I'm aware that you are taking the devils advocate position but people have been watching evolution at work in short lived species for well over a century.
'nuff said http://www.frasesparafacebook.info/84181-homer-simpson-wallpaper-1920x1200-homer.html
It's odd that proponents of the free market (with its "invisible hand") can reject evolution -- suggesting that only intelligent design (or straight up creationism) can explain how life got this way. The market and evolution are both amazing examples of "survival of the fittest"; why not accept the same mechanism/explanation for both?
Indeed. I am a scientist and I do not believe in Evolution at all. I think that it is just the (by far) best supported theory for the issue it tries to explain. Deciding whether to believe it or not is a fundamentally flawed approach. Now, by the strict meaning of the survey, I would be one of those that do not "believe in Evolution". The whole wording is deeply flawed.
I should point out though, that the scientists are honest about this, while the religious idiots are not.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
About a quarter claim to believe in evolution, but say it is divinely controlled. The whole point of the theory of evolution is that speciation and adaptation result from natural selection rather than design. So "divinely controlled evolution" is really a longer way of saying "creationism".
84 percent of humans have a "faith", some non-rational belief in deities or supernatural forces.
So I'm having a hard time seeing a reason to mock the 30% of a nations in this study; most humans hold irrational religious beliefs.
Scientists do not actually believe in it. Otherwise it would not be called a "Theory", but a fact. But the whole discussion has to be placed into context: There is an upstart hypothesis with zero supporting evidence, that its followers would dearly have accepted as a fact to be believed (because they do not understand what "theory" means) and they routinely claim that Evolution is promoted as a fact to elevate their own mad ramblings to the same level. As soon as you compare "Intelligent Design" and the Theory of Evolution, it becomes quite clear where the problem is: Most people have no clue what the Scientific Method is and why it works. There are quite a few manipulators on the religious side that try to exploit this educational problem.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
"white evangelical Protestants topped the list of those rejecting evolution, with 64 percent of those polled saying they believe humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."
Both of the creations in Genesis have things happening before there were people.
White evangelical Protestants, why do you hate the Bible?
Why can't pollsters phrase questions correctly?! Surely no biblical literalists believe that humans existed "since the beginning of time", as a literal reading of Genesis presents them as created on day six.
I have no use for employees that can't pass 5th grade science.
Evolution is a theory, just as Gravity. But I don't see anyone jumping out of windows.
... is an empire in its decline.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I am originally from Europe and now living in the US. I have an 8 yr old son and am appalled at the low standard of education he is receiving here, even in supposedly top schools.
I am therefore not surprised that 1/3 of all Americans are so scarily ignorant that they have to rely on superstition to understand even the basics. I see this as just more confirmation of how dangerously powerful churches in the US are, and how broken the US education system is, even compared to most 3rd world countries.
The US approach reminds me of the Eurpoean dark ages, when cartographers used to write "Here Be Dragons" on parts of the map to avoid admitting that they didn't actually know what was there at all.
When it comes to matters of theology, I've found that it's difficult for most people to have a healthy conversation about the subject of evolution.
So what makes the conversation unhealthy? Zeal and vigor merely indicates you care. That's healthy especially given the debate is about our origins which I think would be important to most people.
Age and Education are the interesting findings here, not political views:
Age:
- 18-29 age group - 68% evolution, 27% existed, 4% don't know
- 65+ age group - 49% evolution, 36% existed, 15% don't know
Education:
- College grad - 72% evolution, 24% existed, 4% don't know
- Some college - 62% evolution, 33% existed, 5% don't know
- High school or less - 51% evolution, 38% existed, 11% don't know
Side note: Kudos to the survey methodology being described in detail. Looks like it was properly designed.
I have no use for employers who lack basic logic and/or are over-reliant on hyperbole to make a point. "Rejects evolution" does not imply "can't pass 5th grade science". Not least of which because someone who rejects evolution can likely still figure out the answer he's expected to give and just parrot back that answer.
Also, to anticipate one possible retort: my having written the above doesn't imply that I'm one who rejects evolution.
I hope that there is a large overlap with the 31% that believe in astrology - keep them all in one bucket...
Empirical evidence, however, sadly, shows that wrong-thinking folks are spread all over the place!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Well, here is one fact: Most scientific output is of very bad quality. If anything, reviewing papers for publication has taught me that. By implication, most scientists are not very good at their job. Commercialization makes this worse: The mediocre is declared the norm and actually good scientists find it hard to get funding or find that they cannot do science anymore. This great dumbing down has been vastly advanced by the "MBA plague" taking over the universities. It is getting worse. Look for example, what Peter Higgs says about his chances of having a scientific career today http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-interview-underlying-incompetence. And he is certified one of the greatest minds in physics alive. Or think what Stephen Hawkins chances would have been if he had already been in a wheelchair.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You're just playing with semantics. I would guess the question was most likely interpreted in its intended form by at least nearly all those asked it.
So do you think Evolution is happening at all, and is the most likely explanation for our existence, or do you have an interesting alternative hypothesis? If so please share.
"it's self-evident. if you believe in unprovable things your brain is defective." not so long ago, radio was considered to be "magic". "Unprovable" things could also be worded as "things we haven't been able to prove / have not discovered / our senses do not detect, yet". We know that ultra violet light exists, but our eyes and brains do not detect it. Without technology, we would not know that UV existed, so, using your premise, our brains are defective. Uh, wrong... And This: "religion is the politics of spirituality". IOW, a smart person sees through the dogma of a religious sect, which is, after all, nothing more than a social group that functions the way all social groups do. They have rules of membership, and it is these rules that smart people see as being irrelevant to their spiritual values. For example, it is not true that you will go to hell if you are not baptized by complete immersion. Silly. Smart people see that there is no need to belong to a particular religion to have any spiritual values, and by and large, they are suspicious of the motivations of the religious leader, and skeptical of "worship"of some deity. Which is why some religions have a fit if you do not belong to a religious group. That makes you a threat to the foundation fo their social group, and they can't have that, so, whether you be atheist or an independent believer in some sort of cosmic order / cause and effect / karma, that makes you "the enemy". Religions do not liek people who ask too many questions and they insist that their dogma be taken on faith alone, and you are showing a lack of faith by asking too many questions. Which is why I got out of organized religion long ago. They do now want their followers to be too self aware, because self awareness leads to seeing through a social construct, and society in itself.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
So what makes the conversation unhealthy? Zeal and vigor merely indicates you care. That's healthy especially given the debate is about our origins which I think would be important to most people.
I don't think having a healthy passion for an opinion or belief is inherently wrong. However, as I've already stated, you can see a demonstration of how people react to this subject already.
Welcome to the bottom third.
Sure, so you jump from a roof and theoretically hit the ground.
Fact is: everyone who tried that before has hit the ground.
Your turn.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No.
It is NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY crazy to investigate and then follow up your theories seeking out evidence and experiment to try and disprove your theory and on failure to disprove your theory put it forward to others as a possibility.
It is NOT AT ALL crazy to postulate and theorise about the world - even the most bizarre mental wanderings.
It is NOT crazy to suggest that after decades of proof, study and discussion that a theory with no solid competitors is strong enough to be considered a "law" and something that for now can be considered as close to the truth as we can get.
It is crazy to tell people a mountain of evidence and decades of analysis mean nothing and because 100% proof is impossible that what they say is the same as another theory with no significant proof.
It is EXTREMELY crazy to BELIEVE a theory with no solid evidence.
It is TERRIFYINGLY BASHIT crazy (and stupid) to BELIEVE things with no evidence for and evidence against and state that the "whole point" is to have "faith" and that "the devil" tries to make everyone not believe in the thing you believe in that has no evidence.
There you go. All fixed...
No, I am not playing with semantics. The details do matter very much here. If you disregard them, all manners of unsavory people try to sell you things that serve to manipulate you and take your money, freedom, self-determination, etc.
The fact of the matter is that I realize I have no expert opinion of Evolution as I am not a scientist in that field. Clearly some selection and some mutation is happening (I have enough other scientific insights to see that), but whether they are actually enough to produce the observable results is not quite clear and would very much depend on the concrete parameters. These are not understood to the degree necessary at this time. Still, there is no competing hypothesis that even begins to have the amount of supporting evidence.
So as to my beliefs: What is clear, is that Evolution is the best current model for how the human animal developed. On matters of mind, I do not think it explains anything, far to little is known about that at this time. Intelligence and self-awareness as a result of selection pressure does not cut it. They would have to be there before and would have merely been selected and amplified. Evolution cannot create anything new, the development space is fixed right from the start. But Evolution does not actually make a claim here (although some scientists do), as it is about genetics. What I believe in is Dualism, as it offers a nice, non-religious, model for these things. You could also say it is a minimalist model, as self-awareness and parts of intelligence are simply declared "non physical" (which is a semantic trick...). The funny thing is that the world is so overloaded with religious idiots that anything that is not readily explained by science is immediately declared to be invalid by many of those that managed to avoid religion. That is just as wrong either. There are white spaces on the scientific landscape. Self-awareness and intelligence are two of those. (For example, despite what idiots like Marvin Minsky claim about computers getting "intelligent" any time soon, nothing even hinting at that has been observed or even credibly predicted by theory today.) The scientific way to tackle this problem is to recognize the white space and to form hypotheses, the simpler, the better, by Occam's razor. Dualism merely describes the hypothesis that physical reality as understood at this time is an incomplete model when taking account the experience of existing and manipulating our environment, e.g. by forming hypotheses and testing them.
This is then were most religion fails: It is a complex, extraordinary explanation for these "white spots" that would require extraordinary evidence to be upgraded to a theory. Yet, there is no evidence at all. In fact, the religious "explanations" are subject to the scientific method themselves and very clearly show that they are a memetic mechanism designed do control people, and to allow some to accumulate power and exercise this control. The claim to have "the truth" is just one of the tools of manipulation used to great effect.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Except that Hitler (and other white supremacists) are consciously pushing back against the demise of the white race. Its this white race that is gradually being eroded by superior genetics.
You can't have evolution unless you are willing to kill off all the neanderthals
Except that there's no evidence that Neanderthals were pushed out in some sort of race or species war. In fact, recent evidence shows that there was some mixing of Neanderthals with the homo sapiens that came out of Africa later. Side by side, the stronger species won out. What white supremacists and the religious right wing are doing (which the Neanderthals failed to perceive) is to fight back against the inevitable by wiping out potential challengers before they get out-competed.
Have gnu, will travel.
IQ is garbage to begin with.
You yell too much. Also, I am having difficulty relating how your response addresses my specific observations. Note that by "crazy" I didn't mean "insane and wrong". It was more like "whoa, this is bizarre stuff that the best minds in the world don't fully understand". And I was just saying, don't be so quick to call people idiots as long as there are these huge, mostly unmapped frontiers of our knowledge.
Gravity is a downer, and friction is a drag.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
This is what we're dealing with; I'm surprised that it's as low as one third - surely religion in the US is more popular than that?
Many christian denominations accept scientific discoveries and find no conflict with faith. This includes cosmology and evolution. Matter of fact the physics professor who put forth the big bang theory was a roman catholic priest.
These denominations do not interpret the bible literally, they consider it figurative language. They see science and religion as orthogonal. That science is explaining the mechanics of god's universe, and religion is explaining god's desires and intentions.
Another study shows that 1/3 of all Americans have suffered some kind of blow to their head during their childhood.
Let's now debate about causation and corelation.
You are equating natural selection with eugenics. There is nothing natural about eugenics. And no, eugenics is not the same as being rejected by the opposite sex because you are a moron.
More genocide has been committed in the name of religion than any other rationalization that exists.
Perhaps it might be worth reflecting on the probability that the majority of people on either side of the debate have no real justification for their belief for or against evolution than that they identify with a social group who holds a particular stance on the issue. It's just as easy to fall in to the trap of thinking you're more intelligent and learned by looking down on creationists - while never having applied any kind of personal critical analysis on evolution except to think that God doesn't exist therefore the theory of evolution must be true - as it is for creationists to accept a thousands of years old interpretation of creation - without sharing the cultural context in which it was written and understood - from the book of Genesis.
We see the same thing with politics. Very few people have any real idea what the Republican and Democratic parties really believe, except for lazy mischaracterizations of the opposing party fueled by whatever echo chamber a person tends to consume their news and media from. Meanwhile we're completely distracted from the abuses of both parties in nearly every single newly passed piece of legislation pandering to lobbyists and campaign donors.
The obvious solution is to raise citizens who are able to critically think for themselves, but we're only getting worse in this regard the more we see the government intervening in public education, and things aren't looking much better in the private education sector.
Realize "believe" is the wrong term when talking about science in the first place. (Man I hate it when people say that instead of "I accept evolution is a valid scientific theory as supported by reams of evidence and creationism isn't even science." )
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
43% + 67% = 100% but 54% + 64% > 100%
To add to the confusion and misunderstanding, percents are broken down into not well defined other percents.
Article provides good examples of how many people don't understand basic science, basic math, and effective communication skills.
new letter/phrase: hex-u means "www"
I am not yelling. I am using capitalisation for emphasis. If you want to interpret that as yelling feel free but when a single word or phrase is capitalized in a sentence it typically means emphasis not yelling.
For example. THIS HERE IS YELLING BECAUSE I AM USING CAPITALS IN THE WHOLE SENTENCE.
And I understood perfectly what you meant and were trying to achieve. It was similar to point 4 on my list but with less vigour than is typical.
Just because the universe is a complex and wonderous place containing many things we don't understand it does not follow that we know nothing...
O ye of the unwashed masses, devoid of the great lessons and wisdoms of life:
http://www.extremelysmart.com/humor/howtofly.php
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
really? i wonder why 1. energy and or matter cannot be created or destroyed. 2. there is no know process of turning inorganic matter into organic matter 3. there is no know process of turning organic matter into a life form.
#1 - This has relevance for what reason?
#2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea You are incorrect, it's been done since 1828.
#3 - http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703559004575256470152341984 You are incorrect, again. This is just one example of continuing research.
My suggestion is that you quit listening to whomever it is that's been filling you head with bullshit, and perhaps start learning some basics of chemistry and biology.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
A lot more than that changed their minds on health insurance reform crafted by the Heritage Foundation. The Republicans who spent the better part of 20 years pushing it suddenly "realized" it was the lovechild of Stalin and Hitler. Democrats who used to mock Romneycare, and kicked Hillary out of the primaries for supporting the mandate, now think it's the Most Progressive Plan Evah.
Mindless political hacks, all of them.
Time began about 13.5 billion years ago at the big bang.
yeah cos a statement like that doesn't require any faith at all
Before the gloating sets in, you have to put these numbers into perspective: a significant fraction of Europeans also do not believe in evolution; here is data from the UK:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism
In addition, although scientific literacy is low in both Europe and the US, American adults are generally better informed on science than European adults:
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/science-literacy-us-college-courses-really-count
For those with open minds, macroevolution is just as crazy to think about as the origin of life. Not saying it's wrong, just that it's crazy to think about. Well, isn't it?
No, it's not. In fact, once you have it explained to you properly, and when you begin to appreciate the amount of time involved (a scale of hundreds of millions of years) - and how long it took, say, to get from single-cell to multicell organisms alone - it does, in fact, become quite obvious that evolution would be happening.
Note that the question of "where did DNA come from" is a separate one. Evolution and natural selection do not concern itself with the question of how life (really, a system of entities that possess the ability to reproduce in such a way that traits can be selected for) began; only how it proceeded to where we are now.
And what does this have to do with evolution?
No, it's not. In fact, once you have it explained to you properly, and when you begin to appreciate the amount of time involved (a scale of hundreds of millions of years) - and how long it took, say, to get from single-cell to multicell organisms alone - it does, in fact, become quite obvious that evolution would be happening.
If you don't see any craziness here, you're not reading the right books. As I alluded, there is intense debate and mystery surrounding the details and mechanisms of macroevolution, just as with biogenesis. Gould wrote about fossil records where you have evolutionary stasis for hundreds of millions of years (evolution just hovering close to a species' mean, if you will), and then in the course of 100K years or so, a new species dramatically emerges. How? What happened?
Now, mind you, evolutionary biologists and paleontologists are unified in belief in the _fact_ of macroevolution. But it is weird stuff and while there are lots of ideas being researched and developed, it's my understanding that nobody can really say that they understand the mechanisms.
Gould wrote about fossil records where you have evolutionary stasis for hundreds of millions of years (evolution just hovering close to a species' mean, if you will), and then in the course of 100K years or so, a new species dramatically emerges. How? What happened?
Just because we don't know what exactly happened, we do have numerous hypothesis that could explain it - just no means of validating them. We do know that many systems tend to form near-static equilibrium when inputs remain constant; simply put, natural selection hits a plateau where the normal speed of evolution (which is, after all, defined primarily by speed of mutations, especially early on - before secondary mechanisms such as sexual selection kick in) is not sufficient to "leap over" the local maximum. From this follows that once the inputs - i.e., the environmental conditions - change for whatever reason, this can provide the necessary kick. The reasons can be mundane, like climate change, or exotic, like a nearby supernova increasing radiation levels, and with them, number of mutations. It can even be self-induced, e.g. when the ecosystem slowly consumes one of its components to extinction.
Maybe all the God believers don't like this. They feel that every person and race should have an equal opportunity to exist on this planet. There
Unless they believe in a different sky daddy, then it's their duty to kill them and hope they burn in hell?
There is one creation myth that I'm partial to, where the creator-god in question starts the ball rolling by travelling back in time to create his own mother pregnant with himself. I can't remember the exact name, unfortunately; if I recall correctly, it was African in origin.
Believing that our universe came forth by accident from nothing and then that our planet just happened to be one which could support life, and then we evolved initially from primordial ooze, and then from single- celled organisms into... fish... then monkeys.. and then people, is completely unbelievable and unrealistic. It would take a tremendous leap of faith and abandonment of logic to believe then entire big-bang to evolution concoction of theories. Evolving from simple to complex violates the laws of thermodynamics. It is far easier to believe that were were created in perfect form, and have De-evolved over the years due to various factors. I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I voted for Romney :-) for the sake of protecting the unborn.
You're confusing evolution with eugenics.
Who cares?
30% non-believers.
Does that mean 70% believe?
In that case just let evolution and breeding sort it out until all the non-believers are gone!
(Yeah. You don't need to tell me.)
When it comes to political decision making, I prefer someone who honestly says that he doesn't believe in evolution because he doesn't understand the evidence for it to someone who says that he believes in evolution because scientific experts have told him that it's true and doesn't want to look stupid.
Unfortunately, most respondents who believe in evolution fall into the latter category.
"That's freedom (or free-dumb)."
Actually it free-doom, you know, chaos, but who's counting?
I neither believe or disbelieve in the theory of evolution. It simply is the current best theory that matches all the available evidence. my believe is neither required nor given.
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
“If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
– St. Augustine of Hippo, 5th Century AD (considered by some Protestants to be one of the theological fathers of the Reformation)
- See more at: http://truecreation.info/
My kids came home from their first day of school asking "are people really this stupid?" They weren't asking about the students. They were asking about the teachers. They knew kids didn't know stuff, but the idea that their teachers might be ignorant also was a shock. My answer: yes dear, but don't let them know you know how stupid they are, or they will hurt you.
I wish I could claim this was the benefit of my genome, but it is environmental. If the kid learns to read at 18 mos, they will develop some way to evaluate the text on their own and establish their own ethical domain. They will experience the mainstream educational method in that context, objectively finding it ridiculous.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I think, to be fair, that this bit of research is pretty inconsequential. Most people simply don't have the insight to understand what evolution is about - as evidenced by much of the discussion on this forum. It's like accepting general relativity or quantum mechanics - if you believe or disbelieve simply because the group you associate with believes or disbelieves, then it is no better than following the fashion of the day.
The danger in a democracy, however, is that there is a risk that popular sentiment can influence scientific research indirectly, through funding and otherwise; for that reason alone, science should work at being more appealing and to the public. It shouldn't be hard, either - just point out how all the benefits we enjoy today are directly connected to science in general. Without the insights of QM and GR we would have no computers and other modern electronics; without those and the insight of the theory of evolution, we would have very little modern medicine: no cure for bacterial infections, and we wouldn't now be just on the verge of cracking cancer, genetic diseases, Alzheimer and viruses, just to mention a few.
There are (at least) three positions a person can hold regarding God's existence:
1. "I believe that God exists" (aka religion) 2. "I believe that God does not exist" (aka atheism)
This is extremely restrictive in that it frames things in terms of a single god and only in belief. The more common atheist position is:
2b. I lack belief in the existence of gods.
While your 1. hides the existence of the asymmetry between theism and atheism, every theist I have ever come across believes in a single god or particular pantheon of gods and either lacks belief in the existence of other gods, actively disbelieves in them or thinks they are a misattribution of the god(s) that he worships.
3. "I hold no beliefs concerning either the existence or the non-existence of God" (aka agnosticism)
Is a misunderstanding of what agnosticism is. Theism and a-theism (not the privative alpha) are about belief, gnosticism and a-gnosticism are about knowledge. It is perfectly possible to lack belief in god(s), i.e. be an atheist while at the same time not being certain that god(s) do not exist, i.e. agnostic.
I always thought that scientists are the ones looking for unanswered questions and christians are the ones who pretend that their god has all the answers.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Yet you assume a high correlation between poverty and low IQ, even amongst illegal immigrants. OTOH, it seems likely that illegal migration selects for higher IQ individuals (at least high motivation) from their home country. Therefore you'd want these ambitious, motivated people to have loads of kids.
Perhaps "IQ" is just a cover-word for what you really want to attack? After all, "Welfare moms & illegals" is a pretty standard code for non-whites amongst your fellow travellers.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Both the biological theories of evolution and the alternative ideas you hear flying around are massively oversimplified compared to how reality is. The basic principles of evolution are a mathematical consequence in many systems with feedback, for example dynamical systems. The idea that evolution happens should be a no-brainer to most rational people. The idea that our current understanding of the behaviour of systems that evolve over a long period of time is sufficient to explain our distant origins in any sufficiently detailed degree so as to be of practice use, however, is not so clear cut. The idea that the fine detail sufficient to make accurate experimental predictions in real world cases is beyond what we can comprehend is a natural idea given modern notions of information and complexity, but have more in common with the 'ineffability of God' type ideas you find in religious circles, rather than either the 'we can know, we shall know' sentiment once uttered by Hilbert before Godel threw a spanner into the works of his plan to make the foundations of mathematics provably rigorous, and also the 'we have this pretty theory and we like it, therefore we _do_ know' type attitudes that are become all too common amongst sciency types these days.
I believe in evolution, but I don't believe current science properly understands evolution, nor will they for some time, so I seriously doubt anything beyond 'evolution has been going on for a long time and contributes massively to how we are today'.
John_Chalisque
There's a Heinlein story to this effect, All you zombies.
... is so scientific ...
Perhaps you could provide us with a helpful list of things that we must believe or be shunned.
You could call it a "catechism" ...
Now, statistically, the chances of mosquitoes evolving twice... That's a doozy.
Insects are common. Flying insects are common. Blood-sucking is an obvious niche. So it seems reasonably likely that a mosquito-like insect would have evolved. (Blood-sucking also evolved in bats, and even amongst Darwin's finches on the Galapagos.)
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
there is so much idiotic bollox in your post its not worth refuting as facts are of no use to you
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
"need to keep open minds and try to grow our little bubble of knowledge and always challenge the prevailing belief of the day" - thats what scientists do everyday
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Intelligent people can blindly believe incredibly false ideas. Isaac Newton is an excellent example. I think few would argue that he was smarter than more or less anyone on /. But he went ended up following some pretty fallacious paths, which I am sure he would have defended fiercely and intelligently. This may be understandable given the times he lived in, but it is not today since so much of what people believe is so demonstrably false. Yet people persist in the belief that opinion is as good as proven fact (clue - it's not), and that anyones opinion is as good as anyone elses (another clue - it's not. As an engineer, my opinion, say, of a bit of code or circuit design is more well founded than, say, my wifes, who is a teacher. On the other hand her opinion on teaching is more well founded than mine.). What is missing in the US is being taught to *think* and to think *critically*. Instead we allow pressure groups to dictate what is taught and what is not. I do not have a problem with organized religion, but I do have a problem when schools of thought are dictated by people who are so shallow minded that they are afraid to use the intelligence they were born with. It seems as if you scream and stamp your feet loudly enough, and hide behind good old freedom of speech, you can force any harmful creed down someone elses throat.
I don't see why more folks don't believe in God and evolution at the same time. I always interpreted the 7 day thing as figurative meaning each day was a phase and could have taken thousands or millions of years. The concept of an almighty being is also feasible and every single computer science major should believe that. Just ask yourself whether or not it is possible to create a world with millions of sentient beings that you can interact with and control? Maybe not today but how about 100 or 200 years from now? I find the people who argue vehemently against either idea (evolution or God) to be severely misguided.
I don't mean to imply that I am an opponent of the theory of evolution... But why is that many of those who are either atheists or believers in evolution (deniers of intelligent design) are so eager to embrace the concept of an the aliens causing life on Earth? (I've read theories about a life alien DNA landing on Earth, aliens artificially putting life cells or DNA on the planet)? After all, to those atheists, what is the difference between an alien cooking Primordial Soup vs God cooking Primordial Soup?
As a staunch conservative, let me just say that I'm embarrassed by these numbers. In case no one else has pointed this out, I'd like to put at least some of the blame for this on conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved, who devotes an hour each week to the promotion of "Intelligent Design".
One thing in his favor is that he greatly prefers to take dissenting opinions from his callers, so I'd like to encourage articulate and well-informed call-ins. Just make sure that you've read some of the literature in support of "Intelligent Design" first, as he tends to ask that as a way to put the caller on unequal footing.
I have a family member who I just found out doesn't believe in evolution. Well, humans evolving from apes anyway. He believes in microevolution. Can anyone point me towards a very up to date, single resource, that can help me convince him of evolution? Something that lays out a clear case from the fossil records to the genetic information -- all of it in one, clear argument.
So adding "believing" in something else is not a compatible narrative.
Neanderthals!
Think about it. Visit a zoo and watch the monkeys & apes throw poop. Then watch Congress in action. I see no sign of evolution.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Another study suggests people tend to only believe what they see happen before their own eyes, or that which their elders can explain to them in less than 20 words.
Things change over time yes, but to extrapolate that humans came about from apes which came from amoeba? If I had to guess I'd say Darwin was trying to sell books at the time, that or become famous.
Then you are a moron.
When 15 states have mandatory (politically imposed by republicans) creationism brainwashing sessions in their biology cursus in high school How is it NOT a political issue ?
What's more it isn't about education, it is a political issue about religion...
You're looking for a political fight when there isn't a need for one. The evolution poll breaking down the results by party affiliation serves no constructive purpose and is only intended to stir the pot and bring out reactions such as you display above.
Of course whichever party that has more religious fundamentalists will have less percentage of people believing in evolution, it should be obvious. But it's tangential to the issue on public knowledge on science. Political affiliations come and go. It's just fodder for launching political attacks and has no significance other than confirming that the religious zealots prefer party X.
You might not have heard of it, but there was a case called the Scopes Monkey Trial. It was a big deal, the granddaddy of evolution court cases. Politicians in Tennessee passed a law called the Butler Act, which forbade public schools from teaching evolution. Representative Butler, who wrote the law... guess which party he belonged to? (hint: it's not Republican)
I like the idea of deporting all of them to some third-world country that insists on living in the forefront of the 14th century. All the Republicans we send them will feel *so* at home.
mark
I've always read that parent's "success" determines the success of the children more than IQ. Especially in the USA. I've read that there's more movement between classes in India, which still has a class system, than the US, where there is no class system. Maybe you mean something different than inheritance, but if your parent's education correlates strongly with yours, and education correlates strongly with success (wealth not considered), I'd still consider that "inheritance."
Paris Hilton would have been nobody, if not for who her parents were.
Learn to love Alaska
Your confusing ignorance with disagreement. Most people who don't believe in evolution have been explained what it is and what the evidence is for it. They know about dinosours, carbon dating and DNA. There is no evidence that the people who disagree with you are less intelligent than yourself. That is just your ego making your feel good. Your fear of people who think differently is predictable but also kind of lame.
Sure. Evolution is science. Actually, no. It's more like a religeon. And just like most folk here say 'religeous' folk won't listen to reason, neither do many who say they are into science. It's all just inflated ego on some subjects. I usually get dropped or banned here - even when I'm polite and careful in my responses. So why bother. But here is some science for you. Check the link. It appears that the apostles of global warming are having some problems with their theories. I'm not a troll. I'm just tired of Slashdot's biased treatment of anyone with an opinion even slightly different.
http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17277-global-warming-alarmists-stuck-in-antarctic-sea-ice
This is called: Bifurcation Fallacy. It sets up the false dilemma that only the two choices you present can possibly be correct. If you're going to respond to something, at least have a little integrity about it. You've opted to do a couple things which are fairly ludicrous with any honest assessment of the information.
I'll happily admit these scientists are certainly intelligent. They put in decades of effort and learning to achieve what they have; and that effort and learning was based on more than a century of knowledge gathering in biology and genetics. I put it down as one more sign that intelligent people actually get things done, while stupid people sit around bitching, whining, and complaining about nonsense. For some reason though, you seem to want to elevate them to be the 25 most intelligent people in the universe, or some such. Allow me to say it as simple as possible: because humans can do it does not mean it can't happen naturally on it's own.
This article is about evolution through natural selection, not life origins. It's a common mistake made by people who want to rail against evolution that those two are the same subject, and are both part of the theory of natural selection; they are not. A basic education in biology at the high school level would have informed you of this.
As for our assertion in #2: you clearly do not have a basic education in Ochem. The problem with such discussions is that in order for you to understand anything, you'd first have to get an education, and from the leaning of your writing, it would appear you don't want to be educated about what you're trying to talk about, you simply want some place to air dogma that someone else fillers your head with.... and that you've fallen for.
My advice to you is: go learn something.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
I think you missed my point on grandchildren, not children. There are 2 broad strategies in propagating your genes. One can have a lot of children and hope that a few will make it. The other choice is to invest your resources in fewer children so they have a greater probability of thriving. Of course you can’t tell which strategy is better until you count the grandchildren. And in industrialized countries it is families that are having fewer kids that are having more grandchildren and thus winning the Darwinian race.
As for your other point, I am pretty sure that you’re wrong. Read up on Bayesian statistics. You are making the assumption that IQ and education achievement are 2 independent variables. They are not. 40% of educational performance can be traced back to IQ. That is most people with advance degrees have high IQs while few low IQs get in. And, of course, those with high IQs have other routes to prosperity. This is why education has a lower predictive power then IQ in forecasting economic success. If you have a some other different source I would like to hear it.
It is not garbage but it needs to be used with care. It is meant to be used as a starting point.
Name one other diagnostic tool which is as powerful as an IQ test that can be given by some who is only certificate in ½ a day. The next step up is normally a 5 day affair run by somebody who has a master’s degree.
No, it is used by people making a quick post using a small screen.
I would like to see your cite for Europe having higher mobility. Everything that I have seen shows American having a higher (but falling) rate of mobility.
And yes, IQ and social competency are 2 separate and independent factors – and each of these factors has a higher explanatory power of economic success then inheritance.
Name one other diagnostic tool which is as powerful as an IQ test that can be given by some who is only certificate in ½ a day.
Nothin'. There is no solution. There is no quick, easy way to determine how intelligent someone is and measure their intelligence using a number.
The only people I recognize as intelligent are those who have solved previously unsolved problems or innovated in important ways, not those who took some crappy test.
I am going to assume you are British. If so I think you are ahead. The British system is designed for deeply partisan parties and still work. This is less true for the US. The founding fathers had a strong fear of parties and rigged the system so that parties would have little power. This is causing issues today.
Which touches on your point on the US being on the right of the political spectrum. Being on the left or the right is a relative thing, and Americans are doing a better job at sorting themselves out, moving to states of likeminded individuals. It used to be that a southern democrat was on the right of northeasterner republicans. That lead to a fertile middle ground. Now this is no longer true.
I on the contrary believe in evolution precisely because it is the current best theory. If something comes along that better explains what we observe, then I'll believe that.
"many different education systems in African countries"
or perhaps
many different education systems in a particular country in Africa
it would have been clearer.
I believe America’s mobility, while falling, is still high. If you have a cite I would love to see it.
As for inheritance, I am talking strictly about wealth. Not income, but assets. Things one can actually inherit. We can measure this factor and it has a low predictive power.
Then there is a slug of other factors: parent’s income, social class, parent’s education, school quality, social competency, peers, etc. These factors are hard to pull apart and I would not call them inheritance. I have seen studies which suggest that your neighborhood’s level of education has a greater influence then the actual parent’s level of education. Is something a inheritance if the effects can be simulate using non-family proxies?
"here in Australia" - not British ;)
Unfortunately, the voting system in the US (plurality) is heavily biased towards a two-party system (whatever the intentions of the founding fathers). It's better here with an instant-runoff system, but still not ideal (there are still strategies where voting for your preferred candidate is not the best option, but they're much much rarer, and almost impossible to predict where it would be effective).
What does happen in Australian elections (where voting is compulsory - approximately 98% of eligible voters voted) is that a small number of swing voters can have a disproportionately large effect in our lower house. The current government won in a landslide in terms of numbers of representatives (90 to 55), but only had 53.5% of the two-party preferred votes (there are also a couple of independents).
As for inheritance, I am talking strictly about wealth. Not income, but assets.
As that transfers (usually) after top education is achieved, "wealth" seems to have little correlation with achievement. You inherit genes, and just as wealth is an acquired inheritance, so is a work ethic and belief in the value of education. It is common in English to refer to a variety of traits as "inherited". I presume you are not a native speaker, based on your selective and unusual definition of "inheritance".
But yes, I've seen the effect you mention. Students try to fit in. So, the "pressure" on their peers to achieve (or not) will affect them. I agree with your inference that the average (likely weighted) of parents and peers parents is a better predictor than wealth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility has some cites on the low mobility in the USA.
Learn to love Alaska
The Tumbuka god Chiuta is self-created, though i haven't heard of story involving making own mother.
No, I am a native speaker and I was using the word precisely. Partly because if you look up the thread the were connotations (at least in my mind) of the wealthy staying in top because of their wealth, not because of other qualities. The second reason is because I was trying to explicitly separate two things. The effect of wealth (as in cash) in the family can be measured and the effect is not that great. The other thing is this whole tangled mess interrelated things. Empirical studies have a very hard time pulling out the difference between the effects of DNA and the parent's culture because both were “inherited” from the parents. If it from the DNA that one thing (see eugenics), if it is from the culture it is another. Can you inherit your culture? Your peers? The studies are poor and the details are wooly.
On to your second point, I still contend that the US has a higher mobility rate. I have already mention that it is falling. Maybe to European standards but I don't think we are there yet. Dig into the numbers and you get a more nuanced story. For example, the upper 1% America has a much higher mobility rate, a type of economic dynamism which is good for society. Dig lower and the mobility drops. Why this is happening ranges from begin explanations to darker ones.
If that is what you think then you apparently have no understanding Judaism or Christianity.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
About the same number of Americans consistently vote Republican although for most of them it is against their interests. Seems like a linkage here: Ignorance, superstition and stupidity, along with a big dose of manipulation and fear-mongering by the 1% and their wannabees.
You don't "believe" in science or evolution. You accept it, challenge it with alternative ideas, or confess ignorance, Belief is about faith not science. The two things are not equivalent. I don't have "faith" in science. The very idea is absurd.
Gravity is a theory too.
No one should BELIEVE in evolution. It's a theory. It's a field of study. It isn't for believing it's for understanding and researching. If you want to believe in something, which suggests faith rather than the acquisition of or pursuit of knowledge you might as well just be reading a bible rather than a science text book.
I don't believe it for a second. The fact is that if you thought your group believed that the earth was flat, you would say it was flat, even if you knew it to be false. So, the media frenzy on this makes it more likely that people will SAY that they disbelieve evolution, because of their need to be part of the tribe.
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
Let's see, what if the CDC denied the flu shot to those people who said that evolution is false. Then we would know in a few generations if they were right or not; no, the belief itself is not inherited, but the meme that supports the belief might be contagious. There ought to be fewer people who believe evolution doesn't happen because the rapidly evolving flu viris should kill them off at a differential rate.
The other thing that is far easy to do is to eliminate some areas of the country where evangelical Protestantism is more common from the sttistics. That would seem to introduce a bias or a correlated fact connected with belief. For example, just eliminating the Old South from the study might reveal much different statistics, Similarly removing Southern Baptists might have a similar effect on the data. I thought that earlier versions of this sort of study came up with a higher percentage of Americans saying that they didn't believe in evolution, say 30 years ago, than now. That is progress.
Creationism is a ruse. It is a rhetorical position and like any such argument it is designed to substitute a strategic point of view to defend a weak permise. In this case belief that God created the static universe depicted in Genesis defends the weak permise that authority of The Word is an absolute and defendable. The term used by these bigots is "inerrancy in Scripture" and it comes from the preliterate belief that written words are exactly what they are said to mean and not crude approximations to fact. The world's religions are rooted in a time when most people did not read and had an almost magical belief in the wisdom of people who could read. Now, we know that words can easily be twisted and that semantics and meaning can change over time and be manipulated, something not accepted through out much of the history of the Bible from Rabbinic times up to past the beginning of the Reformation. Some parts of America were settled by refugees from Europe at a time before this distinction was widely accepted in the 17th Century, and these people are relics of the earlier way of thinking. They have been sheltered from the outside world by their own imposed isolation and by living in rural and isolated parts of what had been a sparcely populated nation. Now, they are being exposed.
Actually the apparent medical ethics case playing out right now in Oakland Ca. might have something to do with this. A 13 year old girl is still on a ventilator two weeks after a surgury caused cardiac arrest and "brain death" meaning that there is no electrical activity in her brain. According to Children's Hospital and a couple of neurologists the girl is deceased, yet her family insists that she is still alive and that a miracle could occur to revive her, and retained a lawyer to fight to keep her on life support and even transfer her to a sub-acute care facility. The hospital insists that the girl has died and that she has no more chance of being revived as does a corpse that is being maintained to be used for organ transplant. The experience of being alive resides in the neural activity of the brain. The outspoken mother believes that because her child is warm and still has a heart beat she is still alive and is a person. Her belief is reinforced by a faith-based community she is part of, probably faith-healing, probably evangelical. I have no issue with the anguish the mother and family feels, the whole thing is tragic and possibly criminal if a routine operation went bad due to carelessness, but the case reveals the pitfalls of ignorance of science and resulting magical thinking. The hospital cannot yield on the science that brain death is death for it would destroy organ donation practice, but the unfounded beliefs of the mother are like the belief in Creationism. It would not surprise me at all of the group that his been supporting her also believes in Creationism or that evolution is false.
Nice stuff mate. ;)
Do you have the source code for that or is it just an adaptation of the classical Bullshit Generator?
An URL would be nice too
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Can you please translate into Human Language please?
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Not believing in evolution because an invisible man in sky, told a bunch of random men / women to write a book, isn't really logical now is it? The evolutionary tree is pretty complete, it does a great job of tracking many different branches and thanks to DNA we can verify the branches pretty closely. So I wouldn't say that one third of Americans don't believe in evolution, I would say that one third believe in blind ignorance.
1> Do you believe you are related to Chimpanzees?
And a "no" answer means you don't believe in evolution.
I've become so jaded and skeptical as it is so easy to design questions to get the response you want. I know when I was teaching it was expected to design them so to increase the pass/fail ratio for my classes.
As to republican vs democrat, that is a very regional perception. Where I grew up it was the democrat sheeple that were not too sure the world was really round.
NRRPT/RCT
Well not the electron itself but as of last year we do have a picture of the orbit.
Sorry for being a pedant. :)