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

[MODU]

It's one of those cases - for those who believe, no proof is necessary. 

Which is one of the underlying issues on the debate.  How can you prove (or disprove) that creation occurred if you cannot test for it? 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree, which is why I would have a HUGE problem having it taught in schools. Thankfully the last time creationism was taught in a school in Australia was during the 1950s.

I'm not saying that creation didn't happen - I don't know - but in the context of science, one has evidentiary support, the other doesn't. IMHO.

[MODU]

That's why I say it should be taught in English/History courses in its proper context.  After all, you don't learn about Zeus or Ra in Biology classes.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Well, most schools in Australia offer an junior/senior year elective in Religious studies so you study a variety of religions and beliefs including creation.

If you attend a catholic or other church school, then those classes are compulsory.

[MODU]

Well, most schools in Australia offer an junior/senior year elective in Religious studies so you study a variety of religions and beliefs including creation.

That's not a bad option.  In the US, foreign religions and myths are taught in English and History classes due to their literary context and global cultural influences.  However, Christianity tends to be left out since "everyone should already know it" or "we must have a separation of church and state."  Basically, it's discrimination.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Don't get me wrong I am very very secular

However, I don't see a problem at all with schools offering an all encompassing religion course. But some I know would have problems having Christianity placed with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc etc. You can't please everyone.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There is plenty of evidence for evolution, those that don't believe in it are simply poorly informed, and should either inform themselves or stop voting.

[angus]

stop voting.

Those who don't share your conclusions should stop voting.  Nice.

[Nym90]

stop voting.

Those who don't share your conclusions should stop voting.  Nice.

You should've kept the rest of your post intact.

I do agree, though, that the negative view of the public is part of the problem with the current Democratic strategy. I strongly believe in liberalism as an optimistic ideology, with its ultimate tenet being the fundamental goodness of the human spirit and of people in general. Besides that idealism, it's simply good politics to be positive and not insult people.

[WMS]

I really need to get out of here. Those numbers are unexplainable and pathetic.

^^^^^^^^^^

I just don't understand; in what way does people believing or disbelieving in evolution affect you?  I don't subscribe to the theory myself, but it doesn't bother me that you do.  In fact, I think evolution is a very interesting theory, and enjoy studying it, I just don't think it's true.

Heres the problem. I want to be a physicist. No fun being a scientist in a place that wont believe you or use basic logic skills. Like a logger in Anarctica.

You seem to be suffering from some serious misconceptions. First off, physics and evolution are really unrelated subjects. Aside from a few issues like physics of the big bang, most of physics won't contradict with religious teachings, so disbelief won't be as big of an issue in that area. I mean are there really people today who would say that the statement "gravity is caused by mass" or "a change in magnetic flux induces electric current in a conducting loop" goes against the word of god? Secondly, unless you end up working in a really crappy community college or something it's doubtful you'll be talking to many people who can't use basic logic - you're more likely to end up dealing with mainly other scientists and possibly college students if you're a professor. Most of the people you'll actualy work with will be very intelligent, educated people, so again, not an issue. Lastly, if you think that people in those other countries are smarter or more logical simply because they have a higher belief in evolutionary theory you're likely in for a shock. The people there are probably no more logical than the ones here - I find it probable that most of them believe in evolution because it's what they've been told, not because they've seriously researched other theories and ideas and considered the evidence.

You'll find that people will often believe something just because an authority figure or 'expert' tells them it's true. Creationism and religious leaders, global warming and the media, evolution and school teachers - when it comes down to it most people believe because someone of perceived authority or expertise told them to believe it. It just happens that there's a difference in which figures have more sway in this country relative to others. Suppose for a moment that you got a degree in physics, now suppose you go to guest lecture a high school class that has never taken physics before: tell them a complete lie that sounds good, for instance how about that Gauss's law is used to calculate magnetic flux(it's really for calculating electric flux). How many students would believe you at face value simply because you are an expert, doing no additional research whatsoever? I'd wager the majority.

Rock on, Dibble.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

for instance how about that Gauss's law is used to calculate magnetic flux(it's really for calculating electric flux)

Not sure I agree with this, though it has been many years since I studied Maxwell's equations.  But I do still have my Applied Electromagnetism book.  I would think you could use it to calculate the magnetic flux, but you'd always come up with a value of zero for the net flux.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I strongly believe in liberalism as an optimistic ideology, with its ultimate tenet being the fundamental goodness of the human spirit and of people in general. Besides that idealism, it's simply good politics to be positive and not insult people.

Actually liberalism is pessimistic in nature.  It assumes that power corrupts and therefore to help the common man the state should be given as little power as possible, with what power it does have being used to prevent the use and accumulation of power by narrow interests.

Wait a moment, you probably meant the new fangled version that believes that in order to help the common man, we need to concentrate power in bureaucrats and the like.  It certainly is optimistic in assuming that those bureaucrats will be both knowledgable and motivated primarily by the common good.

About the only thing that unites the two liberalisms is the tenet that the good of the common man should be the primary concern of how to organize a government.

[John Dibble]

for instance how about that Gauss's law is used to calculate magnetic flux(it's really for calculating electric flux)

Not sure I agree with this, though it has been many years since I studied Maxwell's equations.  But I do still have my Applied Electromagnetism book.  I would think you could use it to calculate the magnetic flux, but you'd always come up with a value of zero for the net flux.

I just took physics 2, electromagnetism, and I'm pretty sure you can't. I know magnetic flux is involved, but I don't think the equations interact that way. Anyways, I was more talking at the basic idea of what Gauss's law is - that is the electric field times the area it goes through equals the electric flux.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I just took physics 2, electromagnetism, and I'm pretty sure you can't. I know magnetic flux is involved, but I don't think the equations interact that way. Anyways, I was more talking at the basic idea of what Gauss's law is - that is the electric field times the area it goes through equals the electric flux.

i think you've learned just enough to be dangerous. 

Gauss' law does apply to magnetic flux, but the net is always zero, meaning magnetic monopoles don't exist.  Whereas the net electric charge on a surface caused by electric monopoles (electrons) leads to an net electric flux, the absence of magnetic monopoles leads to a net magnetic flux of zero.

[??????????]

I don't put my faith in human (fallible) scientists.

[Dr. Cynic]

I don't put my faith in human (fallible) scientists.

I don't put my faith in the human authors of the bible. Then again, it's a good idea not to put your faith in anything... It'll only let you down in the end.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The correct answer to this question is:

"Because Americans aren't as stupid as other nations"

[Tender Branson]

Hmm, no reason for me to bash the US on this question because Austria is not better off Didn´t know it´s that extreme here ...

[TomC]

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

[dazzleman]

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.

[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.

[TomC]

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.

JCar is somewhat right. Americans prefer religion's easy answers and the comforts of believing that an omnipotent, benevolent being is "in charge." I didn't mean to say that "Americans don't examine the facts." And perhaps "sold out" is a little unfair.

[muon2]

I just took physics 2, electromagnetism, and I'm pretty sure you can't. I know magnetic flux is involved, but I don't think the equations interact that way. Anyways, I was more talking at the basic idea of what Gauss's law is - that is the electric field times the area it goes through equals the electric flux.

i think you've learned just enough to be dangerous. 

Gauss' law does apply to magnetic flux, but the net is always zero, meaning magnetic monopoles don't exist.  Whereas the net electric charge on a surface caused by electric monopoles (electrons) leads to an net electric flux, the absence of magnetic monopoles leads to a net magnetic flux of zero.

Indeed. Gauss' Law is a mathematical statement that applies to any field: electrical, magnetic, graviational, even the field of a moving fluid like water in a stream. It describes the relationship between any sources or sinks of the medium and the field at a surrounding surface. It's most important in elctrostatics since point sources exist. In Maxwell's equations the magnetic statement of Gauss' Law is equally important, divB = 0, so no magnetic point charges exist.

[dazzleman]

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.

JCar is somewhat right. Americans prefer religion's easy answers and the comforts of believing that an omnipotent, benevolent being is "in charge." I didn't mean to say that "Americans don't examine the facts." And perhaps "sold out" is a little unfair.

That could also explain the prevalence of wacko conspiracy theories.  It's actually more comforting to believe that bad things that happen require a large appartus to plan and execute, than to believe that they can be totally random.

[minionofmidas]

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.

JCar is somewhat right. Americans prefer religion's easy answers and the comforts of believing that an omnipotent, benevolent being is "in charge." I didn't mean to say that "Americans don't examine the facts." And perhaps "sold out" is a little unfair.

That could also explain the prevalence of wacko conspiracy theories.  It's actually more comforting to believe that bad things that happen require a large appartus to plan and execute, than to believe that they can be totally random.

Oh yes, that's certainly true.