# 51% of Americans have yet to evolve.



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 25, 2005)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005...l?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=HOME_965223


Regards,



Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 25, 2005)

This is just scary data, isn't it?

I don't know why those with a belief in a higher power can't come to terms with the ideas contained within science. Most scientists believe in a higher spiritual force.

I am an Athiest at this point in my life. All of the higher power stuff really seems to magical for me to embrace. I did spend a significant portion of my involved in religious organizations. And most of those didn't have a problem (or so it seemed) with science. 

And while I don't believe it, I kinda fancy the way God is described in the RAMA books by Aurther C. Clarke. God just keeps creating universes throughout the infinite expanse of time and space. Patiently waiting for one of those infinite numbers or universes to evolve a species capable of perfect love of him.  .... at least that's how I remember the description. 

The RAMA God came close to describing an all powerful creator appropriate for a universe as big and wonderful as that around us. But, as I recall, God's invovlement ended when he put the universe in motion ... all since has been science. 

Oh, well.

Peace be with you.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 25, 2005)

Sounds a little bit like traditional deism, Mike, albeit with a quantum physics twist...

As for the statistics, I'm inclined to treat them with a modicum of skepticism. Some poll like this is released at least once a year, and numbers just keep changing. The last poll I saw had the literal creationists in the 30-45% margin, so you'll have to pardon my cynicism.

As for "God", I'm more of a neo-Hegelian myself.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 25, 2005)

Come to think of it, neo-Hegelian's not all that descriptive...

Maybe... Evolutionary panentheist?? Postmodern nondualist?? Scientific transcendentalist??

Meh. *shrugs*

Laterz.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 25, 2005)

> 51% of Americans have yet to evolve


 
I'm sure I'm not the only one taking offence at the subject for your post. Part of the problem I've had with scientist has been the elitist attitude of "gee, you are an idiot if you don't agree with us". Sometimes it makes me quite sorry I'm in the field.

People have different views. Thats fine. Let them have their views. Some people won't ever agree with you regardless of the "evidence" you chose to show, the philosophers you chose to quote or naturalist you idealize. Thats fine. Move along. They have their own opinions. No need to insult them by saying they are "not evolved". There are plenty of threads out there ready to insult those people. Populate those if you must. I've lately chosen to ignore them, as I'm sure alot of people have.

anyways, my .02 for the afternoon...

MrH


----------



## arnisador (Oct 25, 2005)

Well, the number of people who believe in modern medicine would be much larger...yet, most physicians would tell you that it's based on biology, which is based on evolution. So, there's a logical disconnect in there somewhere.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 26, 2005)

Wow...

I'd be curious to see stats for other countries.  I've met very few people that didn't take evolution pretty much for granted (right up there with gravity) up here... We're proud of our monkey ancestors


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 26, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> They have their own opinions. No need to insult them by saying they are "not evolved".



Don't mean to be nitt picky (ok, yes I do) but those 51% where the ones that said they haven't evolved.  Telling them they had evolved from monkeys should be the insult...


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 26, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Part of the problem I've had with scientist has been the elitist attitude of "gee, you are an idiot if you don't agree with us". Sometimes it makes me quite sorry I'm in the field.


 
I am not sure that is the attitude of scientists. 

I think science provides a series of tools that allow everyone to observe, measure, and review the world around them. I think science may think that someone who makes claims about the nature of the universe *while not taking advantage of the tools of science* is an idiot. 

I'm not asking you to believe what I believe because I believe it.

I'm asking you to believe what I believe because you, yourself, can go out and replicate the 'evidence' that I have used to come to my beliefs. ​If you don't believe my evidence - well fine (Any significantly advance technology would appear as magic). 

Go and use the tools of science and produce (reproduce) the evidence for yourself. If you are unwilling to do so, because of your beliefs, you are an idiot. 

By condensing the argument, we lose the logic of the argument, and open ourselves to the attacks we currently are witnessing in Pennsylvania.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 26, 2005)

Personally, I think science is a means of acquiring and analyzing data and, as such, does not have 'feelings' or 'thoughts'.

Laterz.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 26, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Don't mean to be nitt picky (ok, yes I do) but those 51% where the ones that said they haven't evolved. Telling them they had evolved from monkeys should be the insult...


 
Not believing in something does not imply lack of knowledge in the subject. Yes, we (or at least I) know quite well what is being implied, whether or not we believe in it.



> michaeledward
> I'm asking you to believe what I believe because you, yourself, can go out and replicate the 'evidence' that I have used to come to my beliefs
> 
> Go and use the tools of science and produce (reproduce) the evidence for yourself. If you are unwilling to do so, because of your beliefs, you are an idiot.


 
Many people lack the skills to do such. Would you consider them an idiot? Lets consider some of the areas of science you would need to study just to look at to understand evolution:
    biology - genetics, microbiology
    biochemistry
    statistics
You need to read a ton of literature in the specific fields of interests. You might require a lab to accomplish certain things (microevolution perhaps).

Where did the heavy compounds on earth come from? Perhaps you should study astrophysics to understand where these compounds come from. You might have to study comets if you believe that theory of the origin of organic matter. Of course, that had to come from somewhere, so you would need to study exobiology too.

The simple point being, you *CAN'T* go and simply replicate everything that has been done.  All of these things have been studied by a multitude of people in the past, some coming to differing conclusions. Claiming someone is an idiot because they refuse to take 95% of their life to obtain a host of PhD's is ridiculous. Not everyone has the aptitude, desire or time to do such.

In your defense, you did say "because of their beliefs". My point is that regardless of their belief systems, it is still quite impractical to claim something like this. I'm quite sure you have not verified every piece of evidence youself. Could I safely say that you take some things *gasp* on faith? Do you honestly believe everything you have read is true? I can provide you with some fine examples of published lies if you like.



> I think science may think that someone who makes claims about the nature of the universe *while not taking advantage of the tools of science* is an idiot.


 
Do you think science can explain absolutely everything in the universe? Is everything truly detectable? Is there a God detector? How about string theory? In theory, the "strings" are undetetable. How much of physics is assumption? The fact is, nothing is completely measureable. Well, perhaps a better phrase would be perfectly measurable (think quantum physics, uncertainty).

Gotta scoot, I'll try to finish this after I get back. Best friend defending his thesis at 10:00  *gasp* I have scientific friends! oh my gosh! Call the police? ;-)

MrH


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 26, 2005)

Only 45% believe humans evolved! I find that truly fascinating!
I would also be interested in other countries data concerning this
particularly a comparison between Europe and America!

Brian R. VanCise


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 26, 2005)

The thread's title is quite accurate, given the nature of the article.  I stole the tag line from the web site that linked to the piece.

As for the accuracy of the figures...it is a small sample.  Still, assuming only HALF of the people reported as creationists really are, that is still a frightening percentage.

Its all so silly, anyway.  Its a simple FACT that in the beginning at a place called Niflheim river ice melted,  forming Ymir the primeval giant and the cow Audhumla. While Ymir slept his under arm sweat begat two frost giants, one male one female, while his two legs begat another male.






Regards,


Steve


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 26, 2005)

Steve,

If only everyone could really figure out how simple
it is!

Brian R. VanCise


----------



## arnisador (Oct 26, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Its all so silly, anyway. Its a simple FACT that in the beginning at a place called Niflheim river ice melted, forming Ymir the primeval giant and the cow Audhumla. While Ymir slept his under arm sweat begat two frost giants, one male one female, while his two legs begat another male.


 
More details here:
http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/europe/norse/articles.html

Isn't it our Holy Day today? Shouldn't people be bringing us beer and viands?

On topic, I do believe that many people don't believe in evolution. My colleagues who teach the subject _at the college level_ get frequent pressure from students to admit it's "just a theory" and find it stressful to have cover the subject.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 26, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> On topic, I do believe that many people don't believe in evolution. My colleagues who teach the subject _at the college level_ get frequent pressure from students to admit it's "just a theory" and find it stressful to have cover the subject.


 
The subject of the "theory" of evolution has been gone over in different threads...

if I may:

:deadhorse 

MrH


----------



## The Kai (Oct 26, 2005)

How do you wonder people will ever explain the DNA simularities between the apes and humans.  Can you expalin my primal response to the funky, tribal drumming of adam and the ants?


----------



## arnisador (Oct 26, 2005)

I don't mean to restart that, *mrhnau*. Just anecdotal observation that supports the claim that it's a wide-spread belief.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 26, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I don't mean to restart that, *mrhnau*. Just anecdotal observation that supports the claim that it's a wide-spread belief.


 
Noted... just wanted to use the uber-cool emoticon for once 

MrH


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 26, 2005)

I wonder if that 51% is the same 51% who voted for Bush.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 26, 2005)

Why would people that don't believe in evolution elect a monkey...



ok, I couldn't resist


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 26, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> More details here:
> http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/europe/norse/articles.html
> 
> Isn't it our Holy Day today? Shouldn't people be bringing us beer and viands?





I myself was going to pillage a monastary.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 26, 2005)

A couple of points:

1) The degree to which science explains "absolute everything" in the universe is dependent on what you mean by science in the first place. A popular usage of the term "science" among some is simply as another word for naturalism, in which case it can only explain a very limited subset of phenomena --- not to mention hypocritically denying scientific validity to a bulk of tools and means that naturalists use every day (abstract mathematics, logic, etc).

2) Contrary to popular belief, there is a modicum of "faith" by which you have to take many of the claims in science, because you can't simply validate or confirm every single claim that you come across. However, this is not blind faith, or faith in the "you have to believe what I say because I/tradition/our holy book say so" variety. This, of course, is the vital importance of peer review in science; it keeps everyone honest (for the most part).

3) Humans have had a "God detector" for the past 5,000 years or so. Its called meditation, and its not the unique to Eastern cultures.

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 26, 2005)

It may be difficult for an individual to become learned enough in every field of science to replicate every experiment ever concieved to prove our day to day existance. 

However, if an individual undertook the study to understand how to conceive of, control, execute, and evaluate an experiment in one specific field. They would gain a level of understanding about science that should allow them to accept the results of similar experiences from other scientists.

So, perhaps, an individual undertakes an experiment on genetics; mating a black mouse with a white mouse, for five generations. Regardless of the results, the individual should be able to review and understand the basics of an experiment in a different field, such as Chemistry.

Of course, those of us with a bit of experience should be able to predict the results of the genetic tests ... and it would not be magic.

The issue, to a great extent, is that American's are not skilled at the basic tools and vocabulary of science. We learned enough to pass the class, but not enough to comprehend and retain it taught us. And on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, we gather to learn of a simpler way.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 26, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The issue, to a great extent, is that American's are not skilled at the basic tools and vocabulary of science. We learned enough to pass the class, but not enough to comprehend and retain it taught us. And on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, we gather to learn of a simpler way.




With each passing day I appreciate more and more the education I received in high school.  My son got through high school without having to take chemistry, and had a rudimentary biology class.  I HAD to take science every year...biology and chemistry were required, and as electives I took marine biology and oceanography.  All my science classes were taught by PhD's...the perks of going to a private academy (The Punahou School).  I was fortunate.

I daresay that most people--secular or religious--can't even give a person a rough idea of what the scientific method is.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 26, 2005)

I agree, Steve.

I attended a public high school in south Florida. Luckily for me, however, I was enrolled in the International Baccalaureate program in my school, receiving the equivalent of honors-level classes during my underclassman years and the equivalent of college-level classes during my upperclassman years. They even managed to squeeze in a few AP classes in between.

And, while I absolutely sucked at it in high school, we were continuously taking _some_ level of biology during _every_ semester there, which included laboratory experiments. In the end, I didn't get any college credit for biology (but I did manage enough overall credits to get the IB diploma), but having the material consecutively pounded into my brain for the better part of three years (in addition to the anatomy/physiology and psychobiology courses I later took in college) left a lasting impression. 

Ironically enough, even in IB the topic of evolution was given only cursory attention --- and it was often accompanied with 'alternative' accounts of the origins of life. The teacher seemed almost worried to be teaching the subject.

Laterz.


----------



## Kane (Oct 27, 2005)

I think I have to agree with michaeledward on this one. I definatley believe in a higher power but hold science as our main source in understanding His mind.

So if I voted in that poll I would have chose "Humans evolved, God guided the process". Why couldn't God guide process? I think it is because many people in America still blindly believe the Bible creation myth . The Bible is a great book containing some good moral philosophy and history (with some supernatural elements) but believing everything in the Bible happened exactly and believing that no other myth such as the Illiad did not happen is ignorance.

No offense to any Christians here .


----------



## Shaolinwind (Oct 27, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> How do you wonder people will ever explain the DNA simularities between the apes and humans. Can you expalin my primal response to the funky, tribal drumming of adam and the ants?


 
Aye, or the urge to never stop being dandy.. That's gotta come from somewhere.


----------



## Loki (Oct 27, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Personally, I think science is a means of acquiring and analyzing data and, as such, does not have 'feelings' or 'thoughts'.
> 
> Laterz.


Science agrees with you on that definition. (Could you, btw, write a thread where you explain what a neo-Hegelianism is if you haven't already?)

Personally, I'd think belief in godless evolution is tantamount to atheism/agnosticism, and since atheism isn't widespread in America (according to this site), the rough correlation between the percentage of atheists/agnostics and believers in godless evolution seems to make good sense.



			
				CBS (original article) said:
			
		

> Humans evolved, God did not guide process 15%





			
				The Barna Group said:
			
		

> Atheists and agnostics comprise 9% of adults nationwide.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 27, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Science agrees with you on that definition.


 
Hah, irony! 



			
				Loki said:
			
		

> (Could you, btw, write a thread where you explain what a neo-Hegelianism is if you haven't already?)


 
Its my own term for the metaphysical philosophy of Wilhelm Hegel supplemented with the findings of postmodern philosophy, developmental psychology, and evolutionary biology.

But, we can start another thread on that if you'd like.

Laterz.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 27, 2005)

The 9% of atheists that Barna reports is a low-end figure.  I don't think he's under-reporting, necessarily.  Such it is with stats.  He might be using a different definition for determining what an atheist is.  Others who report 15% might be including other non-religious categories.  

As to whether God guided evolution or not, I suppose that could be.  For it to be taught in a science class, however, one has to have a testable hypothesis and data for it to be presented as science.  If we teach intelligent design in the classrooms, we're making a vague apologetic appeal, and not doing science.  

Leave the intelligent design theories for the churches, synagogues, and mosques.  Teach science and science alone at school.  Seems an easy enough compromise, doesn't it?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 27, 2005)

Sounds fair to me, Steve. 

Laterz.


----------



## Kane (Oct 28, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The 9% of atheists that Barna reports is a low-end figure. I don't think he's under-reporting, necessarily. Such it is with stats. He might be using a different definition for determining what an atheist is. Others who report 15% might be including other non-religious categories.
> 
> As to whether God guided evolution or not, I suppose that could be. For it to be taught in a science class, however, one has to have a testable hypothesis and data for it to be presented as science. If we teach intelligent design in the classrooms, we're making a vague apologetic appeal, and not doing science.
> 
> ...



Why couldn't God guide evolution? Even if you don't believe in a literal transcended figure, Nature in many ways can be considered a "God". A lot of people view Nature as a God (or in the case of Mother Nature, a Goddess). My belief is that Nature is an aspect of total sum of God (Nature IMO is physical reality), and Her works have lead to the homo genus to where it is today.


----------



## Ray (Oct 28, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Why couldn't God guide evolution? Even if you don't believe in a literal transcended figure, Nature in many ways can be considered a "God". A lot of people view Nature as a God (or in the case of Mother Nature, a Goddess). My belief is that Nature is an aspect of total sum of God (Nature IMO is physical reality), and Her works have lead to the homo genus to where it is today.


A personification of nature that is looked upon as a "god/godess" is not the nature that science uses, IMO.  

For a scientific inquiry of "how we came to be" since God is "supernatural" (or held to be "outside/over" nature) He doesn't come into consideration.  The question of whether or not God guided evolution cannot be tested.  Evolution, as a hugely long process, can't be tested although experiments/observations on a smaller scale seem to confirm evolution as a fact.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 28, 2005)

I sorta remember recalling that many of the early scientists in the the middle ages, the ones responsible for the Enlightenment, took it as a given that because of the nature of God, the science was actually possible.  By that, they viewed that since God was rational and intelligent, that He had set up the universe to work in an ordered and consistant way without interference.  Unlike say, Greek gods who were capricious and got involved in the day to day running of reality, God's omnicience and omnipotence and rationality allowed Him to set up a universe that worked in a predictable and measureable way, which made scientifc discovery possible because you could explore and measure and describe the universe in preditable and repeatable ways.  Scientifc investigation is/was possible *because* of God, in a sense, not as a challenge to faith or religion.

Which is why, as someone who would be called a 'born-again Christian' by most, I don't quite understand why many Christians today look for the 'breaking point' at which the universe doesn't work without interference from God because I think in a lot of ways that undermines the capabilities of God.

I once knew another Christian who explained that the six-day creation account in Genesis was not meant to be taken seriously as a true even that had happened and that all cultures had stories that they would use to explain themselves to other cultures and that much of Genesis was the Jews' stories that they used to explain their relationship of God to themselves, not to be taken as a literal account.  I find that plausible.

There are things in in 'evolution' that don't always make sense to me.  Everytime I watch a nature show and they show a hundred bay alligators head the lake and 80% or so of  them get eaten randomly I think to myself, "how in the world does natural selection work with *that*? All these mechanisms in adult alligators to ensure the best genetic material gets passed on and it doesn't mean nothing because the adult alligators are just randomly selected anyway because some snake turned left instead of right and gobbled this one instead of that one" .  That's just me, though

But, anyway, I think it's sorta a dis-service to God to assume that he could manage to engineer gravity and quantum mechanics and who knows what else but couldn't quite manage to get life working sufficiently in a way that doesn't require his intervention.  I don't know all the answers, but I kinda go back to the original point; the universe works, science seeks to explain how it works and in my mind, God set up the universe to work properly in a way that is predictable so that science is even possible, so explanations that say 'well this just doesn't work without God' I think to me are not only unscientific, but also unfaithful


----------



## arnisador (Oct 28, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Why couldn't God guide evolution?



He could! It's juts not a scientific question, that's all.



> Even if you don't believe in a literal transcended figure, Nature in many ways can be considered a "God".



Well...I think of a God as an intelligent, personified entity, so I wouldn't say it quite like that.


----------



## Kane (Oct 28, 2005)

In regards on what exactly God is, God means different thing for different people. For some people, such as Christians, Muslims, or Jews, God is a literal supernatural being.

My view of God is different. God to me is not an object or *literal* being. He It's an idea, a philosophy, a thought. We can not say God created the world or universe. Because that naturally leads to the question of who created God then. There is no "creation"...There just "is" .

Therefore in my opinion God can very much be considered the total sum of the physical and spiritual universe. I believe that spiritual reality is God and physical reality is Goddess, two realities that function differently but are still tied together and fundementally the same. Whether they have have an intelligent thought can never be known, but I do think we are in fact the minds of God trying understand himself (if you understand what I mean by that).

Even these people that claim to be atheist according to my ideology do still believe in a God, only one aspect of God (physical reality). Einstein knew this and believed in a similar way. If you notice Einstein refers to Nature in his work as God.

Get it?


----------



## Loki (Oct 28, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Why couldn't God guide evolution? Even if you don't believe in a literal transcended figure, Nature in many ways can be considered a "God". A lot of people view Nature as a God (or in the case of Mother Nature, a Goddess). My belief is that Nature is an aspect of total sum of God (Nature IMO is physical reality), and Her works have lead to the homo genus to where it is today.



I consider that a bit misleading. It's personification of a bunch of phenomena, nothing more. Why call it "God" if you can call it "nature"? I think it's pointlessly confusing.

There really is no way to prove that God, if he/she/it exists didn't guide evolution, but junk DNA, human tail bones, lethal recessive genes and a whole bunch of other things cause me to think otherwise. Some are listed here.


----------



## Ray (Oct 28, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> We can not say God created the world or universe. Because that naturally leads to the question of who created God then. There is no "creation"...There just "is"


I've been thinking lately...if you have a line segment then it is finite from any way you look at it.  

A geometric "line" goes to infinity in either direction and looks like infinity any way you look at it.

If you have a geometric "ray" (or a "line" that starts at one point and goes infinitely at the other end then) it looks finite at the starting point.  If you are at the middle of the ray (or at the infinite end), then it looks infinite in either direction.

So who says the infinite can't have a starting point?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 28, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> There really is no way to prove that God, if he/she/it exists didn't guide evolution, but junk DNA, human tail bones, lethal recessive genes and a whole bunch of other things cause me to think otherwise. Some are listed here.


Here's a really interesting point from your link.



> Hundreds of millions of tons of pollen are cast into the air every year, with only the tiniest of fractions reaching its desired destination. (Mind you, compare _Genesis_ 38:9-10: wasting one's gametes was a serious enough sin for Onan to be killed in punishment. Yet the Good Lord is supposed to have created things which _by their very nature_ spill so much seed on the ground?).


This is highly illogical, Captain.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 28, 2005)

_We can not say God created the world or universe. Because that naturally leads to the question of who created God then_

Very briefly, there is an argument with philosophy dealing with the existance of God called the "Cosmological Argument" that roughly breaks down to the observation that everything in existance is contigent on something else, in a long chain of contigency..where does it end?  The argument says that therefore there must exist something which is *not* contigent, a 'neccessary being' whose existance is not contigent on anything else but from which contigency starts for everything else in the universe.  Note that this does not really imply "God" as such, but God would fit the definition of such a such a 'neccessary being'.

The thing is, if you reject the need for a neccessary being then you are still left to explain how contigency works and how it all got started anyway. Or an endless cycle of contigency with no beginning and no cause, but that sorta just replaces one metaphycial explanation ("God") with another, which may not really be any more intellectually satisfying if you pursue it.  You can say "well God created the basic material for the big-bang and God is a neccessary being for which no explanation is really needed or available because he exists outside of what we understand time and space to be"  Or you can reject that as being an insufficient explanation in which case your have to answer the question of "well, how/why did the material in the big bang exists at *all*, why does reality exist?" and if you want you can keep pushing the question back further and surmise, or perhaps with science you can hypothesize and discover, what there was before the big bang, but then..why that, and how that?  Eventually you run out of ability to push back and you have to decide whether you think there was a neccessary being that kicked it all of whos existance is a brute fact with no real explanation, or you think that contigency goes on forever and has no beginning and no root cause, but that's just an obervation, not anexplanation.

To say that the universe "just is" it to pretend contigency doesn't exist, and at the heart of it, to say that the universe 'just is' is ultimately not any better an explanation than to say that 'God started it all'.  It's not any more satisfying an answer.

Not to say that the cosmological argument dealing with contigency proves the existance of God, but it does propose the idea that something with characteristics often descibed of God has to exist, or conversely if it doesn't then, you still need an explanation for contingency and that line of thinking may not lead you any place any better


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 28, 2005)

While ya'll debate the existence of God, here's an follow up piece on the one I originally posted:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051028/sc_nm/science_usa_dc


_"When we ask people what they know about science, just under 20 percent turn out to be scientifically literate," said Jon Miller, director of the center for biomedical communication at Northwestern University.

He said science and especially mathematics were poorly taught in most U.S. schools, leading both to a shortage of good scientists and general scientific ignorance.

U.S. school students perform relatively poorly in international tests of mathematics and science. For example, in 2003 U.S. students placed 24th in an international test that measured the mathematical literacy of 15-year-olds, below many European and Asian countries.

Scientists bemoan the lack of qualified U.S. candidates for postgraduate and doctoral studies at American universities and currently fill around a third of available science and engineering slots with foreign students._

Asian countries have overtaken us in the sciences.  We have to come to grips with this.  Our economic edge won't hold forever...not unless we continue to import Asian techs, engineers and scientists to do the work for us.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Loki (Oct 28, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> This is highly illogical, Captain.



How come, Admiral?

Another related example I'm not sure is listed is that about half of newly formed zygotes die soon after their creation. Why?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 28, 2005)

My dad once said we have a service enocomy, and he semi-joking/semi-seriously said that s servive economy means that we are all flipping each others burgers.

The ability to manipulate abstractions and money and 'services' has been seen to be more valuable than the ability to build (farmers, real industry) or create (scientists, mathemeticians) so as a result a lot of people want to be lawyers and MBAs and few want to be scientists and inventors, because they pay better.  So we end up with a economy of abstract numbers changing hands and chasing each other around and a lot of people playing games with those numbers and no one really actually producing anything of concrete substance.

Meanwhile, in Asia, they have a lot of raw resources, both as producers and consumers, and due to outsourcing, they now have the intellectual capacity and expertise to take advantage of those resources

People don't know science because science isn't cool and science doesn't pay, until our service economy turns from flipping burgers to stirring chow-mein.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 28, 2005)

Of course, "The Onion" weighs in on this issue, as well.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512


Oh...and 50% of zygotes die before coming to term because they did evil in the sight of the Lord.  Or its the mystery of God.  Or something.  Perhaps the latter, but I'm not sure.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 28, 2005)

_How come, Admiral?_

Well if you were trying to make a statement about the fact that a lot of reproductive material goes unused based on the story of Judah and Unan, than tha's an illogical connection.  In Jewish law/custom, when a married man died without children, his brother was supposed to marry his wife and raise children through her.  Onan's sin was not spilling his seed on the ground in wasting the sperm, his sin was that he knew he was supposed to impregnate his bother's wife, but refused to


----------



## arnisador (Oct 28, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Another related example I'm not sure is listed is that about half of newly formed zygotes die soon after their creation. Why?



More like 70%, isn't it? One theory is that those with genetic defects are automatically rejected by the process.

I love the "flipping each others' burgers" line!


----------



## arnisador (Oct 28, 2005)

Yeah, Onan got a bum rap on the masturbation thing. He was just practicing the withdrawal method.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 28, 2005)

_Onan got a bum rap..._

Well, most of the bum rap seems to be about what he did; but what really got him in trouble was *why* he did it.

_
 I love the "flipping each others' burgers" line!_

SometimesI catch myself thinking if my music career is really a backup...or an eventuality, if and when my software development career disappears in this country


----------



## Loki (Oct 29, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Well if you were trying to make a statement about the fact that a lot of reproductive material goes unused based on the story of Judah and Unan, than tha's an illogical connection. In Jewish law/custom, when a married man died without children, his brother was supposed to marry his wife and raise children through her. Onan's sin was not spilling his seed on the ground in wasting the sperm, his sin was that he knew he was supposed to impregnate his bother's wife, but refused to



I wasn't basing myself on Onan's story. I posted a link to a lot of factoids and one of them was quoted.

Even then, the connection can't be called illogical. The bible isn't clear about whether God was angry with Onan for spilling his seed or for not impregnating his brother's wife. It can be taken either way, and since Onan is remembered for spilling his seed (hence his name serving as a root for the Hebrew word for masturbation) and Abrahamic religions used to (or still) consider masturbation a sin, it seems more likely the former. Even if the likeliness is equal, that doesn't make the connection illogical.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 29, 2005)

Okay...then if you've had a vasectomy, it isn't a sin?

Just checking...for a friend...er, yeah.  A friend I know had a vasectomy and is wondering and all.


Regards,



Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 29, 2005)

Here's an interesting link.  Farkers ask what would have happened had evolution taken a slightly different turn....

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1718576


Some of them are pretty good.  Others not so much.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 29, 2005)

I'm a Christian, I'm going to get a vasectomy, I don't consider it a sin, just wise stewardship


----------



## Marginal (Oct 31, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I've been thinking lately...if you have a line segment then it is finite from any way you look at it.
> 
> A geometric "line" goes to infinity in either direction and looks like infinity any way you look at it.
> 
> ...


So, if it looks infinite, that's enough?


----------



## Ray (Oct 31, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> So, if it looks infinite, that's enough?


Not only does it look infinite, it is infinite.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 31, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I sorta remember recalling that many of the early scientists in the the middle ages, the ones responsible for the Enlightenment, took it as a given that because of the nature of God, the science was actually possible. By that, they viewed that since God was rational and intelligent, that He had set up the universe to work in an ordered and consistant way without interference. Unlike say, Greek gods who were capricious and got involved in the day to day running of reality, God's omnicience and omnipotence and rationality allowed Him to set up a universe that worked in a predictable and measureable way, which made scientifc discovery possible because you could explore and measure and describe the universe in preditable and repeatable ways. Scientifc investigation is/was possible *because* of God, in a sense, not as a challenge to faith or religion.
> 
> Which is why, as someone who would be called a 'born-again Christian' by most, I don't quite understand why many Christians today look for the 'breaking point' at which the universe doesn't work without interference from God because I think in a lot of ways that undermines the capabilities of God.
> 
> ...


 
Wow, another reference to deism. Interesting. :ultracool 



			
				FeerlessFreep said:
			
		

> There are things in in 'evolution' that don't always make sense to me.


 
Quite possibly, because a lot of evolutionary mechanisms _don't_ make sense from the dominant paradigm of genetic determinism and random gradualism.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 31, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> To say that the universe "just is" it to pretend contigency doesn't exist, and at the heart of it, to say that the universe 'just is' is ultimately not any better an explanation than to say that 'God started it all'. It's not any more satisfying an answer.


 
Perhaps not, but it is the more parsimonious of the two solutions.

Laterz.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 31, 2005)

_Wow, another reference to deism. Interesting._

Sorta.  I'm a theist myself, not a deist.  I think God does get involved with what happens in the universe, but I think it's the case of special intervention for particular goals (miracles and other forms of divine intervention, if you will), not as part of the mechanics that keeps it all running


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 31, 2005)

_Perhaps not, but it is the more parsimonious of the two solutions._

I wouldn't think so.  As someone who always wonders what's over the next hill, I don't find the idea that the user 'just is' to be satisfying at all; neither the idea of an infinite line.  An infinite line is just a concept, used for exploring ideas.  A true infinite line...well nobody of any really inquisitiveness I think will accept that the line is truly infinite and where the scientist meets the explorer is somone who will start the journey to find the end.  And if the line is truly infinite then the questions that must be answered are 'why?' and 'how?'  To say that the question can't be answered is a cop out as well.

To say that there must be a neccessary being is a cop-out in a sense, it's an admission that there is something 'special' that exists outside of all observable evidence that nonetheless attempts to explain why there is observable evidence in the first place.  However, to say that no neccessary being exists is to merely push contigency off to some unknown, and possibly unknowable, distant past.  It's not really a scientific answer, it's a cop-out in it's own of saying the questions of 'how' and 'why' of the universe cannot be answered within the universe. 

Or you can say that the stuff of the universe that was all contained in the big-bang simple 'just is' and that was the beginning of all, but anyone of curiousity is going to say "how did it exist, why did it exist, why did it go 'bang'".   I suspect that is more of a metaphysical answer than a scientific one.

At the core, everyone chooses their cop-out, in a way, whether they know it or not, based on whichever aswer they wish to be happy with.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 31, 2005)

Fascinating.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 1, 2005)

Jay,

I would argue that an infinite chain of causality is a more parsimonious explanation because we already know a chain of causality exists and that it goes back several billion years. Furthermore, we aren't really given any compelling reason to believe that the chain has any predetermined beginning point. Even the Big Bang was supposed to have subatomic particles of matter and antimatter in its womb.

By contrast, we do not necessarily know that an external Creator or Designer exists. Furthermore, as many physicists and biologists have demonstrated, the universe does not appear to have been 'designed' with any moderate degree of _intelligence_ --- whether we're talking about comets that hit planets like Earth and wipe out all life or human appendices. This means that if there is an Unmoved Mover, then it is either: a) impersonal, b) stupid, or c) malevolent.

Personally, I don't think its really that big of a deal either way. I go with the idea that ultimate nature of reality is Emptiness (to borrow from Mahayana Buddhism) or Luminous Darkness (to borrow from Christian mysticism). I also find Meister Eckhart's explanation of time and creation to be much more compelling than St. Aquinas'.

But, hey, that's just me.

Laterz.


----------

