Thread: Relative to the rest of the West, why is the US so anti-science?

Note: People, the OP addresses more than just Evolution. This is a holistic phenomenon. I would like defenders of US anti-science to address the stem-cell issue, the mockery-of-scientists-in-general issue, etc.

Originally Posted by Swoop187

Well microbe is NOT man, try again.

I never claimed evolution didn't exist... I claimed evolution in man has not yet been proven. Nor do they have any evidence it EVER occurred in humans.

Sure humans adapted.. A good example of this would be the color of ones skin but that doesn't prove anything on behalf of evolution.

That's why this is a theory, not a fact.

The content at that URL applies to all life on earth, both extant and extinct.

Try again.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Find a way to make stupidity painful?!

Only a stupid person would accept human evolution as fact without any evidence to support it.

You want people to accept a theory just because it SEEMS to be the most logical.

That's called JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS and jumping to conclusions is NOT part of scientific method.

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

My thoughts are you provided no links/sources to your original OP.
A quick study and you can see that the %'s claimed for "# of Americans believing Evolution" etc. - will net you a very wide variety of claims.

'Biologist Richard Dawkins talks evolution, religion' by Alex Benson and Eric Wittke - Indiana Daily Student - RichardDawkins.net

Originally Posted by Rationalist

'Biologist Richard Dawkins talks evolution, religion' by Alex Benson and Eric Wittke - Indiana Daily Student - RichardDawkins.net

Dawkins is a fucking idiot.

Ben Stein exposed him for what he is, an anti-religious nut with an agenda that isn't for science but rather hate of the church.

Originally Posted by Swoop187

Only a stupid person would accept human evolution as fact without any evidence to support it.

You want people to accept a theory just because it SEEMS to be the most logical.

That's called JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS and jumping to conclusions is NOT part of scientific method.

We're still waiting for you to explain away the molecular evidence, the overwhelming correlation between geographic location and clades of species (with Australia being a very good example, and the fact that you don't find penguin species indigenous to the northern hemisphere being but another example), vestigial structures, homologous structures, and the fossils found so far.

Say, Swoop, would you care to explain why some humans are born with tails, complete with muscles and everything?

Originally Posted by Rationalist

What is there to explain?

If you don't see something odd with that, I'm asking the wrong person.

Originally Posted by Swoop187

Dawkins is a fucking idiot.

Ben Stein exposed him for what he is, an anti-religious nut with an agenda that isn't for science but rather hate of the church.

Ben Stein is a drooling moron who doesn't have the brain power to see that a god who created the universe would logically have to be more complex than the most complex thing in the universe, and therefore, the "Argument from Design" put forth to support god's existence falls flat on its face, and utterly fails to explain the complexity that we see in nature.

You trust an entertainer over a scientist in these matters. That really says it all.

Originally Posted by Swoop187

Well Darwin stated that man and monkey had a common ancestor, an ancestor that HAS NOT been found yet in fossil record.

I think reserving judgment until the "missing link" has been found is appropriate.

I don't buy evolution either [yet], not because I'm a religious nut but because the "missing link" has not been found.

Terms like the 'missing link' are used by those who don't understand evolution.

Originally Posted by chassisman

If you don't see something odd with that, I'm asking the wrong person.

If you don't see that whales and dolphins have nearly the same encephalization quotient (EQ) as humans have, and have complex languages, yet merely lack the means to create technology (appendages and an environment where fire can be made), then you should read more about these things before thinking that humans are in need of some special explanation.

Originally Posted by Swoop187

There is absolutely ZERO evidence of human "evolution."

There is overwhelming evidence for human evolution. I'm not sure what "evolution" is.

Sure their is ample evidence of human "adaptation" to environment but not evolution.

If you don't understand what a word means, you should refrain from using it.

The only "scientists" who try to even claim, humans didn't just appear over night are those who accept human evolution without any evidence.

That statement is absolutely with foundation and borderline insane.

Human evolution is probable but its not fact yet....

For all purposes evolution is just as good as a theory as would be the theory that humans are hybrid aliens.

I suggest in the strongest terms that you not talk about what you clearly don't understand.

Originally Posted by Rationalist

We're still waiting for you to explain away the molecular evidence, the overwhelming correlation between geographic location and clades of species (with Australia being a very good example, and the fact that you don't find penguin species indigenous to the northern hemisphere being but another example), vestigial structures, homologous structures, and the fossils found so far.

Say, Swoop, would you care to explain why some humans are born with tails, complete with muscles and everything?

For the same reason men are born with nipples...

Like I SAID their is NO evidence of HUMAN evolution.

If you said "evolution exists in microbes" I would say you're right, but you're wrong here trying to paint human evolution as fact.

No intelligent person would sit here and accept human evolution as FACT just because it occurs in other forms of life, simple forms of life.

Originally Posted by Rationalist

Why are so many Americans eager to embrace new technology, yet hostile to the men and women, and the methodologies, that gave them the new technology?

Americans aren't anti-science. Many of us are simply undereducated, do not understand the use of terms such as "theory" and are all too willing to let politics invade rational thought.