Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Why doesn't America believe in evolution?

This is crazy. You're all over the place, backpedaling and craw fishing. You're even contradicting yourself. First you presume to speak for America and now you're saying that even the duly elected president can't speak for you.
When I said I spoke for America I was being facetious, but you took me seriously. Not my fault.
And the President can't speak for me. Only I can speak for me.

The nearest Waffle House is at least 500 mile from my house. But were it nearby, I might just have me some nice greasy pork chops and eggs for breakfast. Do you have an insipid stereotype you need to insert into all your crap to make you feel better? Shoot'em up, genius. You badly need some cheap ad hominem here to deflect attention from your pitiful attempts at logic.

Just thought I'd cuddle up to your particular flavor of temperament when posting thoughts of personal opinion and criticism. Thought you'd feel more at home.
Too bad you take things too seriously to see through the illusion of generalities and sweeping statements. It sucks to be you.

OK, you've had the last word. Bye, Bye.

OK, you've had the last word.

There is no such thing. You really do enjoy the melodrama. tsk

wow, and I thought this was dead, who would have thought a few opinions on a page could spiral so dramatically into such a personal battle. No I am not American, but the question was no ' why don't Americans believe in evolution, please only Americans answer'. No I gave my opinion like everyone else. BTW kerb: • noun a stone edging to a pavement or raised path. Maybe I should have said gutter, or trash or something, I don't know it made sense at the time. Common vernacular ' kerb your behaviour - change the way in which you behave'. Look it up. I am speaking ENGLISH.

America doesn't believe in Evolution, I can only guess, but so can any of you. It is an impossible question to answer unless you are the collective mind of every American. To say that I am wrong is an OPINION, it's your right to have, but the odds alone would say that someone else in that big world would agree with me.

Tell me, even in a Democratic nation, are the defeated parties of a national vote wrong, simply because the majority won?

Sorry about the kerb question. But, I was spiraling dramatically into a personal battle. Tweakin twits as I call it. I'm sure you can understand.

I don't really understand what you're saying here except for your last question. The answer to that is: Yes! Of course they are wrong. They voted for the loser for crying out loud. How much wronger can you get? They should be incarcerated in isolation, fed only Vienna Sausages, forced to listen to John Denver 24/7 and given only vinagre to drink. Let them serve as an example to others so stupid as to consider voting for the wrong candidate.

Americans are solipcist. Only a twit wouldn't know that. And that's not my opinion. It's graven into a marble tablet hidden on top of Mt. Arafat. When Nostradamus comes back, he'll go up and retrieve it for us. And that will finally put a curb to all this dramatic spiraling that's spiraling so dramatically out of control these days.

And you thought this was dead? WRONG! Do you like your weenies with mustard or BBQ sauce? Sunshine on my Shoulders or Rocky Mountain High? Wine or Cider?

OK. what I should have said was that if this is a discussion, why should it get personal and ridiculous?

I mean sure, there are virtues of religion that are good and for the people and give hope to people and good for all those believers. Just as using the scientific method keeps many others entertained and whatever.

The point is America doesn't believe in Evolution because the majority voted not to, or at least those that make the laws decided not to teach it in schools.

So regardless of what points of view you have on whatever religion, good or bad, is inconsequential to the actual topic of discussion. I could not care less if someone is a Baptist minister or a well read scientist, because at the end of the day its all about what is being taught or not being taught in the classrooms of American schools.

Big note yourself all you want, call me a twit if it makes you feel better about yourself, and sorry for not spelling out my argument in a more concise manner.

When I submitted my first comment, I was hoping to garnish some real world perspective as to why 'America doesn't believe in Evolution' and all that I've read is about how Christians and theory of evolution supporters really feel about one another.

So to save on anyone commenting about what I have just written - because it is not important - can anyone here tell me why the American Education System can allow one unprovable theory over another, to be taught to their children, when all the real world evidence tips to the Theory of Evolution. Is it a case of no true separation of religion and state, or the sheer number of Christian devotees voting in someone who plays the 'I am a true believer' card......

and pleasssseee, don't take it personally.

"Americans are solipcist. Only a twit wouldn't know that."

True. (Solipsist.)

Another way to put it is:
Someone is making an assumption or claim, that America doesn't believe in evolution because of the controversy around religious beliefs, and whether religion should be a part of the educational curriculum regardless of whether anyone believes in it or not.
Because of the controversial nature of religion in public schools it was decided by the loudest voices, (remember how many americans do not get involved and vote) to remove all relative information that might be tied to religious views from the public school system so that it remain in house and dealt with on an individual basis according to personal or family values so as not to upset someone who might feel opposed to it.

It's kind of like the American legal system where warning labels have to be put on everything because invariably someone might die from the misuse of an object or product if improperly used. Remember McDonalds was sued for serving a warm beverage which someone decided to place between their legs while driving and tho it was clearly a negligent act by the consumer, McDonalds lost the suit.

Now to be fair, this kind of thinking is not isolated to the U.S. To be fair we could actually take this subject and retitle it to indicate the devolution of common sense on Planet Earth. There is no nation free of stupid behavior.

1) Does the US teach Evolution in schools or not?
2) Does the US teach Creationism in schools or not?
3) Does the US teach both in the same school or not?
4) Are there exams (tests) to pass on Creationism in US schools?
5) How are the tests on Creationism studied and marked in order to differentiate them
from tests in Religion? After all would not the main textbook be the Book of
Genesis?

Oh yeah, and it's TIRE, not TYRE.

Okay, seriously for a change. I didn't mean to call you a twit. Bad wording on my part. I just get tyred of questions like "Why don't cheerleaders wear panties?" that I get to where personal and ridiculous seem the only way to freshen it up.

The point is: America is clueless as to what it believes. There are consistent stats that indicate 85+% of Americans are Christians. I have traveled America extensively. I have worked/lived in all but 4 or 5 states. My job required that I have rather extensive dialogue and even social relationships with hundreds of people. From this I know/opine that most of the men I have ever met, especially husbands, call themselves Christians because they hate sleeping on the couch. When you get them alone and make them comfortable, they don't have a clue what they "believe". And the few that did believe were the scariest humans I ever met. There are huge numbers that call themselves Christians because that's how they grew up and they have never bothered to check it out. They also have never read the Bible. The all time best seller and all time never read. And the all time least understood because it's also the all time least understandable. There are huge numbers of Americans who became Buddhists because it's cool and the only thing they do is argue with each other over whether they should meditate sitting on a pillow or not. Just like the Baptists argue with the Catholics over Sprinkle vs. Dunk. There are huge numbers of people who "believe" because they don't have a clue but also don't want to take the risk of missing the big guy when he calls them all to the sky. In a nutshell, most of the thumpers I’ve ever got to know never gave so much as a thought to belief. They spent all their time memorizing the dogma and ritual. Remembering the Rosary, genuflecting, transubstantiation, transmogrification, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

If you could get all these "religious" people together and figure out some way to get them all to answer truthfully, it would sound like a huge flock of seagulls trying to eat a hubcap.

Questions worth consideration are questions like "Is religion hardwired?" "Are there evolutionary reasons for its enormous popularity?" Logic and research can be applied to these questions. Something can be learned. Questions like "Why doesn't America believe in evolution?" are doomed to spiral dramatically into personal tirades because they are bullsh** questions in the first place.

In real life, I've had to learn to duck a roundhouse. On this forum, I may have over-reveled a bit knowing I didn't have to worry about that and I love a blistering dialogue with people who express themselves well. I’ll try to kerb my satirical side as well as my schadenfreude a bit. I’m just trying to have a little fun while I await the event horizon. If I can learn a little along the way, so much the better.

Cheers.

One could easily apply this type of thinking to humanity in general rather than isolating it to the Americas



Religion is a belief inspired by Self enquiry, and a lot of mixed information. Spirituality on the otherhand lay dormant within each personality, underneath the self identifications of the ego and it inspires one to give thought to ones life and its purpose of note, and the possible structure of the Universe and its life experiences.



The evolution of self awareness is the foundation for beliefs that are labeled religion. As a species mankind often lacks the imagination to elude superstition, and includes it in all of its sciences and theory in its process of growth or evolution.

One could easily apply this type of thinking to humanity in general rather than isolating it to the Americas
That's why I didn't say "America and America alone doesn't have a clu..."

Religion is a belief inspired by Self enquiry, and a lot of mixed information. Spirituality on the otherhand lay dormant within each personality, underneath the self identifications of the ego and it inspires one to give thought to ones life and its purpose of note, and the possible structure of the Universe and its life experiences.
Answers nothing.

"a belief inspired by self inquiry..."
Vague and ill defined.

"Spirituality, on the other hand lay dormant..."
Physchobabble.

underneath the self identifications of the ego
C'mon. Ego? Why even use this junk word? It was co-opted by Sigmund Freud from his translator who just Latinized a bunch of crap into words like super-ego, id, Oedipus-complex, etc. They have no meaning at all. Ego is just a crock of crap word stolen by a coke-addled narcissist who was trying to hold on to his job and inadvertently started a fad that became a world-wide institution. You want to know what is going on in the “ego”, try studying the relationship between the limbic system and the frontal lobes.

This crack-head even convinced millions that most male children developed a sexual fantasy with their mothers as the object of desire and called it an Oedipus-complex. No one thought to ask him why on earth he named it that. Oedipus had no idea that was his mother. Turns out that it was all crap anyway. Your statement is pretty heavy on woo. Freudian Psycology is in the same catagory as opium/alcohol based snake oil which was also a world-wide institution for a while.

As a species mankind often lacks the imagination to elude superstition, and includes it in all of its sciences and theory in its process of growth or evolution.
I certainly agree as to mankind's mixing woo with science. So, why are you doing it with all this pseudoscientific crap you're spouting? You've got Shirley McClain mixed up with Richard Feynman with a drib of Stephen Pinker added... not to mention a generous helping of Tooter the Turtle.

Try just dumping the psychobabble and study the Brain.

Correct. There is no one answer to the question. Every answer leads to another question. There is no finite answer that words could contain. That is why religion is often changing with the evolving knowledge and experience.


You mean it doesn't permanently satisfy. Correct again. No answer completes an experience it only leads to experience if one is actually interested in finding one. Then experience continues to evolve and change.


Because it applies to a greater experience than Freud's musings and the misconceptions of egoic definitions.


The understanding of the Self, or "Consciousness" includes the Spiritual aspects of reality. Sciences derelict in giving any thought or attention to spirit assumes reality is confined to the physical machinery of mans current intelligence levels and mans mind and senses.
In other words, some believe the world begins and ends with the birth and death of the meatsack we call the human body.
The typical meatsack retort to anything unknown or not believed to be real, is to label the intrusion of spirituality in science, pseudo science and all verbiage regarding spirituality as a science psychobabble.
Psychologically speaking, by popular belief and limits of experience and information, most only dabble in the first 3 states of consciousness, which are sleeping, dreaming and waking. The states beyond are relegated to the labels of those confining themselves to the meatsacks boundaries of life and death, and all that we can contain in perception as belief allows.

The Ego is predictable when it confines science to personal preferences and ideals. Typically speaking it's more difficult for someone over 50 to imagine anything new because the mind has chained itself to a personality of egoic idealism.

You mean it doesn't permanently satisfy. Correct again. No answer completes an experience it only leads to experience if one is actually interested in finding one. Then experience continues to evolve and change.
No. I don't mean it doesn't permanently satisfy. I mean it's vague and ill-defined.

Because it applies to a greater experience than Freud's musings and the misconceptions of egoic definitions.
"It" applies to nothing. "It" is a junk word and has no meaning. A word with no meaning can not apply to anything. "It" very roughly resembles some of the behaviors of survival triggered by the activity of the limbic system buffered by the frontal lobe system which can be and usually is conditioned by the cultural setting. Depending upon the strength of the limbic impulse and the strength of the individual's conditioning within his cultural setting, a persons behavior is described as humble or egotistical. This is nothing more than slang, These words are used by those who simply don't know WTF they are talking about. The words and terms have become memes. They are extremely popular like the archaic and senseless term “heart attack”. "Oh, he died because his heart attacked him."? Yeah, right.

Freud wasn't "musing". He was fabricating. There's a difference.

Okay, these words and terms are handy. For casual conversation. We don't need to be so specific when we are telling a friend about the death of a mutual friend. Heart attack is fine for that. Egomaniac is fine when you're chatting about some puffed-up ass down the street. But, we're not engaged in a casual conversation here. You are trying to convince me and/or the reader that you know what you're talking about and impart some "universal wisdom" upon us. And you're using slang. In this context, your slang is drivel.

The evidence of your language means it doesn't satisfy your opinions and beliefs. Definitions are superlative. They satisfy a niche in the intellect, nothing more.
In this case it applies to your inability to grasp an understanding of the word beyond Freud's definitions, or fabrications as you have decided.
It applies to your imagined line in the sand. Whether you agree or not is moot; you don't really matter when it comes to the opinions of anyone else. You decide to build your castle walls proclaim yourself King and give yourself meaning. No one else has to live within your expectations.


Why would anyone need to convince you of anything? You give yourself more importance in the scheme of things than is necessary. Such is the ego as it is described in scripture and Eastern philosophy rather than the isolated definitions confined to Freud.


Your ignorance and prejudice reveals itself.

This is a fun game isn't it!

The evidence of your language means it doesn't satisfy your opinions and beliefs. Definitions are superlative. They satisfy a niche in the intellect, nothing more.
My oh my, how you bandy the obvious. I've never even implied that any opinion can do anything but satisfy a niche. Are your opinions somehow above and beyond?

In this case it applies to your inability to grasp an understanding...
Any disagreement with your woo is immediately branded as "an inability" Standard answer of the peddler.

You give yourself more importance in the scheme of things than is necessary.
Standard ad hominem. You can do better.

Your ignorance and prejudice reveals itself.
You can do much, much better than this. It's so predictable from you. If you must rely on worn-out insults, at least re-word them. Freshen them up a bit.

This is a fun game isn't it!
It is indeed, for a while, but your repetitious ad hominems and vagueries do weary one after a bit.

Negatory O' Master of the Obvious. Simply meeting your flatulant responses with an appropriate remedy.


No, the ignorance of said subject matter branded as woo is immediately recognized as a weakness rather than a strength by someone who is more knowledgable.


I could, but first we must address you at your current level of comprehension to see if there is any hope to improve upon its stagnant levels of perception. Moving forward without your understanding of the subject would be pointless. One would have to point out the obviousness in your lack of comprehension before we could actually have a conversation on said subject, intelligent or otherwise.

The game can be played any way you want to. When you decide, everything about the game will change. You can position yourself and others as the victim to circumstance, or the creator of ones reality. When you decide to improve, so shall your world and everything in it.
Until then, you attract toward you all that you give your attention to, and the universe does not hear negatives. It is the very things you give the most attention to that are attracted to you, and that would include the tremendous content of thought laying within the subconscious.
Mostly you give your attention to that which underlies your surface awareness. The stress or fear in discovering your lack of experience and the hope that your life means something to someone other than yourself so you might feel better.

So when you actually want to discuss the subject rather than what you think about the subject and those in it, the conversation will change in its energetics from a pissing contest to expanding knowledge and experience.

Until then beating your chest and adjusting your balls will only temorarily satsify your need to claim a measure of self worth. And then you die...

"...and the universe does not hear negatives."
That pretty much sums up everything you've had to say, for star-gazers and deviners of chicken guts. But as I said, you do weary one after a bit. I won't be seeing any more of your woo. You'll have to come up with yet another username to assault me with this crap. And then I'll just toggle that one off too.

Cheers.

Kinda like watching table tennis really. Everyone's really serious, watching the ball getting smashed back and forth, stern faces at the height of concentration... Small court, tiny white balls.

Systematically closing out the world until you are locked into the room of personal belief is the nature of being close minded.

C'est la vie

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."
-Albert Einstein-