"Why doesn't America believe in evolution?" - NewScientist.com

[jerusalemcar5]

I think it is a bit more involved than that.  I'm sure most of Americans believe in Micro-evolution, which the article kind of ignores.  True, we do have a very close genetic match with chimps, but we also have the same number of chromosomes as oak trees, so did we descend from them too?  Yes, I know, it's a ridiculous example, but it is fair none the less.  Just because they are close in number/make-up doesn't mean that they have a historical link.  That is just scientific reasoning.  To believe in macro-evolution (which requires faith since it hasn't been proven) is the same as in believing in creationism (which requires faith since it hasn't been proven).  I'm sure once one or the other has been proven; you'll see a measurable switch in public opinion one way or another.

(And yes, we've had this discussion ad nauseum before, so I'm not going to repeat prior thoughts/comments on it.)

What does the having the EXACT SAME genes have to do with having the same number?  have you studied Biology or evolution?  Your example is not fair, it is irrelevant.

Number means nothing, at all, so get off that track please.  Um, how do we do DNA matches between families?  Oh, because our genes are similar... But that process is ENTIRELY different when we involve other species right?  No...

Gravity, the Cell theory, and the Atomic theory haven't been proven. The can't be proven.  It is not scientifically possible. Guess it requires a lot of faith to believe in those too, since I know I have to wonder whether the theories of evolution, gravity, cell, atoms, germs, and a host of others are true when ALL evidence points to them and there isn't any shred of real evidence contradicting any of them (which is why they reached the highest rank in science, theory.)

[jerusalemcar5]

3. A similar number of chromosomes as another species does not equate similarity; people with Down's Syndrome for example have an extra chromosome 21, one more than other humans or an oak tree, yet they are still human.

True, but in general (we're not talking mutations), humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs), while chimps have 48 (24 pairs).  Additionally, the chromosome matching among bands are not same (sometimes significantly different) between the two sets, as well as with other apes/monkeys. 

(And I was just using it as an example, and not the foundation of a debate.) 

It indicates a relationship.  Not all that close of one, but certainly support descending from a common ancestor recently (in geologic sense).

[jerusalemcar5]

3.  science isn't religion.  ever since thales of miletus first asked nearly 3000 years ago whether there might be a rational explanation for the behavior of things, as opposed to say volcanoes exploding becausing something is mad at us, science has been evolving.  Of course, until a couple of hundred years ago there was no real distinction between philisophy and science and you could call it faith-based till then.

In some context, it is.  For example, it is taken by faith that there was a big bang, with the galaxy expanding outwards from a single point.  However, there are some galaxies which appear to be moving in towards this point rather than away.  Additionally, some galaxies appear to be traveling along a particular ribbon in space; something not expected from a central explosion.  However, you accept that by all the scientific evidence to date that it was a great explosion which created what we have today, and that acceptance requires faith.

No it requires logic.  Just like any THEORY in science requires.  Some hypotheses might require faith to believe, but theories only require logic.

[jerusalemcar5]

No it requires logic.  Just like any THEORY in science requires.  Some hypotheses might require faith to believe, but theories only require logic.

When you grow up and take logic in college, you're going to look back at your statement and laugh.

Oh?  How so?  (By the way, I've already taken logic, but thanks.)

[jerusalemcar5]

Because we sold out our free will for a little comfort.

Can you explain TCash101?  I'm trying to figure out what your statement means in relation to the question.

The little comfort is religion.  he is saying many Americans don't examine the facts and use free will to make decision, but instead go for the comfort they get from religion's simple answers.

TCash can correct if I'm wrong, but that's what I got.