Well, at least we beat Turkey

There's also this: WorldNetDaily poll on the age of the universe. That says a lot more about the readership of WND than it does about the state of science education in this country.

At least... I HOPE that's all it says.

no wonder our friends across the pond so often ask what all hoopla is about. I'm envious; they made it to the top 10.

Why Iceland?

Where's Canada?

I was wondering the same thing.
Canada is honorably mentioned in the Supporting Online Material pg.6 under "Attitude toward science and technology."

You would think we would secure a position on the graph. :-(

Well this just goes to show the affect of godless evolution ideology. Just look at that list of economically troubled countries filled with unhappy people engaged in all sorts of wickedness and crime. Why, my understanding is that morality was finally purged from the UK in late 1993. Compared to the US, their society is rife with murder, mayhem and chaos. At least, that's the message I get from Ken Hamm.

From my reading, it seems that the majority of people don't have a problem with the concept of evolution (78%). But when the question involves humans, a lot of us in the US have trouble accepting it.

I think they got the wrong segment of the Netherlands, only 12th... Shame on my country....

Alas, though, it's not just attitudes towards evolution. When it comes to virtually any topic, whether science, math, hisotry, geography, whatever, the US as a whole ranks very near the bottom.

We are, in effect, a nation of heavily-armed uneducated morons.

Where's Canada?

Iceland (gosh, only one slip of the finger away from Idland, and yet there at the top the anti-ID scale): one could just argue that they are a homogenous population, ethnically, culturally, and religiously, so that whatever attitude they hold about topics like this is likely to be widespread. The converse of some of the above is that there is a lack of the cultural and religious fault lines that fracture our more-diverse populace (and, of course, that same lack of diversity could potentially foster much more troublesome attitudes to science, and other things, as it has done elsewhere in the world).

Likewise, one might note that Icelanders are highly literate, strongly motivated to wean themselves away from a purely extraction-based economy, and that--like most northern European countries with high nominal affiliation to one of the Protestant versions of Christianity--they have also become highly secular (though, again, in other circumstances that same strong trend could cut against secularism).

But here's my highly-speculative pet theory: a long-running genealogical research study has been taking advantage of that very high degree of Icelandic ethnic/genetic homogeneity (and of well-documented church, family, and government records of marriages, births, and deaths), which makes it "easy" to cleanly isolate genetic diseases (and trace them back to the ancestor with the founding mutation, chromoosome mismatch, or what have you).

Virtually every Icelander is familiar with this study and the underlying (that is to say, common descent with variation) rationales for why it works and why it's important.

Anyway, that's my hypothesis and it's sticking to me.

I'd like to see a version of that bar chart sorted on the red/false data. It looks like it would stack up a little differently, although the US position probably wouldn't change. I figure it is the blue and ... is that yellow? ... people we need to be talking to about how evolution is taught in public school science classes. The blues need to get active. The yellows need to be brought on board and their education in this area updated.

More than half of human genes are identical to those of mice. (T)

I have one question for you...

Where is Canada?

I don't think we can really support this as being true unless someone has a very strange idea of what "identical" means. I think "identical" means having the exact same nucleotide sequence. Using that standard, the statement is most definitely false. Now the vast majority of humans genes have equivalent genes in the mouse genome would be true. Thus I think that this question is very badly worded.

Thus I think that this question is very badly worded.

Geography isn't my strong point, nor is geopolitics, but it appears the graph shows only EU and EU candidate countries + the US and Japan.

Geography isn't my strong point, nor is geopolitics, but it appears the graph shows only EU and EU candidate countries + the US and Japan.

Sorry for double - got a failure to reach IP address message the first time.

Sam's got it right: this poll is heavily biased toward industrialized nations. 34 countries out of (last i remember) 196. It omits countries that together constitute the vast majority of the world's population: Asia (except Japan), Africa, South and Central America and even (!!) Australia.

Where would the US reside on the complete list?

I also wonder about bias in sampling individuals: how were they chosen? Some were phone polls; some were individual interviews. Depending on where and how the pollers found their subjects, the results might differ significantly (remember "Dewey defeats Truman!" ?)

Also, if you examine the supporting online material (SOM), there is a puzzling discrepancy: in the US, the authors claim to have interviewed at least 7500 adults over 10 separate years (the number may be as much as 20,000, but the methods statement is ambiguous), yet the n given on the chart is 1484. A similar shortfall occurs for other countries: eyeballing n in the chart, I get about 25000, yet the SOM suggests that ca. 44000 were interviewed. Contrast this with the observation that in Japan, n in the chart is exactly equal to the number given in the SOM!

There's something more going on here than mere opinion. Most people who were 'interviewed' refused to participate (except POSSIBLY Japan, but perhaps the tally of 'interviews there only included those who responded).

Before I make my concluding statement, let me point out that I am not a US citizen, and that I accept evolution absolutely.

In the face of my observations, this survey should be 'subjected to critical analysis.'

Paul Meyers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the study, says that what politicians should be doing is saying, "We ought to defer these questions to qualified authorities and we should have committees of scientists and engineers whom we will approach for the right answers."

Sam's got it right: this poll is heavily biased toward industrialized nations. 34 countries out of (last i remember) 196. It omits countries that together constitute the vast majority of the world's population: Asia (except Japan), Africa, South and Central America and even (!!) Australia. Where would the US reside on the complete list?

I have one question for you... Where is Canada?

I can't understand why it's easier for people to accept what appears to be an abstract concept like evolution over a great period of time, but not the relations of humans to the other apes.

Have they even seen a chimpanzee? You can't spend more than five minutes watching how they interact with each other, their gestures and the way they look to realise that there's something fundamentally very similar about us. I think the solution is to take all schoolchildren to zoos where chimpanzees are, watch them for a while, and explain that we're related. If anyone has any trouble after that, I think it's probably a level of indoctrination that no teacher can change.

As for that poll about evolution in Britain, I think the results can be quite misleading. People over here really aren't familiar with the term 'intelligent design,' so they probably thought they were answering the question to mean 'theistic evolution' - still accepting evolution, but thinking that a god somehow put its mechanisms in place.

I can't account for the 22% of people who chose 'creationism,' but I really wouldn't be surprised if many didn't know that it usually implies a young earth with no instance of evolution. I live in a part of the country where science education standards are comparatively low, and I can count on one hand the amount of people I've met who in any way subscribe to a form of creationism.

As for that poll about evolution in Britain, I think the results can be quite misleading. People over here really aren't familiar with the term 'intelligent design,' so they probably thought they were answering the question to mean 'theistic evolution' - still accepting evolution, but thinking that a god somehow put its mechanisms in place.

I can't account for the 22% of people who chose 'creationism,' but I really wouldn't be surprised if many didn't know that it usually implies a young earth with no instance of evolution. I live in a part of the country where science education standards are comparatively low, and I can count on one hand the amount of people I've met who in any way subscribe to a form of creationism.

I can't understand why it's easier for people to accept what appears to be an abstract concept like evolution over a great period of time, but not the relations of humans to the other apes. Have they even seen a chimpanzee? You can't spend more than five minutes watching how they interact with each other, their gestures and the way they look to realise that there's something fundamentally very similar about us.

— Mephisto

I'd like to see the correlation between the responses to these questions and the question recently asked in a Washington Post poll: "in what year did the 9/11 attacks occur?"

Can there be any doubt that the 30% of Americans who didn't know the answer would be in the "don't accept evolution/don't know" categories?

As for that poll about evolution in Britain, I think the results can be quite misleading. People over here really aren't familiar with the term 'intelligent design,' so they probably thought they were answering the question to mean 'theistic evolution' - still accepting evolution, but thinking that a god somehow put its mechanisms in place.

I can't account for the 22% of people who chose 'creationism,' but I really wouldn't be surprised if many didn't know that it usually implies a young earth with no instance of evolution. I live in a part of the country where science education standards are comparatively low, and I can count on one hand the amount of people I've met who in any way subscribe to a form of creationism.

The article refers to a paper called "." How post-modern! Are you trying to say the article has a point? :-)

"Where's Canada?"

According to the press release the main amount of material were collected by the European Commission, and Japan and US were complementary work.

"Why Iceland?"

My pet ad hocs why Iceland and Japan almost always do well is due to their island geography. Iceland is very sparsely populated with a harsh climate, so people have had to eke a living and support each other. Japan is very densely populated, so people have had to eke a living and get along with each other. Either case promotes technical and social proficiency.

But Stevepinheads hypotheses trumps mine in this case. It was a very sticky one.

As for that poll about evolution in Britain, I think the results can be quite misleading. People over here really aren't familiar with the term 'intelligent design,' so they probably thought they were answering the question to mean 'theistic evolution' - still accepting evolution, but thinking that a god somehow put its mechanisms in place.

I can't account for the 22% of people who chose 'creationism,' but I really wouldn't be surprised if many didn't know that it usually implies a young earth with no instance of evolution. I live in a part of the country where science education standards are comparatively low, and I can count on one hand the amount of people I've met who in any way subscribe to a form of creationism.

Crap. Sorry about the multiple postings... I kept getting 'timed out' message, but apparently they were going through.

Connecting to PT/AtBC can be pretty annoying these days.

Yes, it sucks. Is there someone, anyone, actually running this site, and aware of what the problem is and when it might be fixed?

You might want to take a more considerate tone.

As for that poll about evolution in Britain, I think the results can be quite misleading. People over here really aren't familiar with the term 'intelligent design,' so they probably thought they were answering the question to mean 'theistic evolution' - still accepting evolution, but thinking that a god somehow put its mechanisms in place.

I can't account for the 22% of people who chose 'creationism,' but I really wouldn't be surprised if many didn't know that it usually implies a young earth with no instance of evolution. I live in a part of the country where science education standards are comparatively low, and I can count on one hand the amount of people I've met who in any way subscribe to a form of creationism.

I have one question for you...

Where is Canada?

Canada is directly north of the continental United States.

I hope this isn't too OT, but I thought that the linked article below from Luskin was interesting, if transparently bad. So here is the link and the comments I wrote in response at AtBC (slightly edited):

Luskin's blithering again, here (from link on UD):

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006...._1.html

What a maroon! Multiverses inhabit the limbo region of science, not thrown out because they are plausible and can't be tested to see if they're specifically correct, while not taught as factual science because, again, they can't be tested. And the multiverse concept is hardly the only cosmological idea that sits there in limbo, string theory actually being more famous in that respect.

Then too, both multiverses and string theory are considered as live concepts because they don't rely upon entities the like of which have never been reliably observed in order for them to work as models. Surely even someone as intellectually challenged as Luskin must at least be capable of understanding that multiverses would not be considered a reasonable concept if they depended upon Baal, Yahweh, or some unseen realm of the gods for the idea to be consistent. Nor would string theory be a live option if it depended upon the Greek pantheon, or the philosopher's God.

The fact is that ID is not only itself unevidenced and untestable (as it is bandied about today, that is. Testable ID was tested and it failed), it relies upon entities behind it which are unknown, untestable, and unobserved (aliens in real design hypotheses are presumably observable if we see obviously rational design solutions, so long as their capacities and aims are reasonably similar to our own--ID does not look for design that is similar to our own, however). String theory and multiverses do not depend upon unknowns beyond themselves to appear plausible, rather they are ways of working out knowns, although so far the unknowns preclude both from being full-blown science.

Seen any multiversers or string theorists trying to force their ideas into the curricula of high schools (otoh, they nothing should preclude them from being mentioned in science class, so long as the fact that they are not confirmed is noted well)? No? Why not? Perhaps it is because they, quite unlike IDists, understand what is science and what is not.

Of course Luskin "strongly suspects" that ID is testable, which sort of begs to question why he brought it up in the first place, were he telling the truth (he may well be telling the truth, of course, which wouldn't compliment his analytical abilities). Evolution is testable, no matter that someone like O'Leary doesn't know it, and ID would need to be really testable (and not in the opinion of some scientifically ignorant thing like Luskin) to compete with it.

Perhaps Luskin is actually too uncomprehending to understand the difference between models which move partly beyond the limits of testability, but which do not deny established science, and those models which flatly contradict highly successful working models like evolution. How did he ever pass the bar exam (assuming he did) if he's as incompetent as that?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

A more relevant question would be "Do you believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is a sufficient explanation for the complexity of life?"

Shocking!!! But did you know that 50% of the population has an IQ below 100!? Just think about that - half of all Americans are below average. (Or at least the median, if the distribution is asymmetrical.) We really need to fix our educational system :)

(I'm just being silly - I'm horrified by this story, too. It's almost too depressing to comtemplate.)

Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life.

Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.

Turkey, probably the only country in the list with more severe fundamentalism vs. modernism issues than the U.S.

this poll is heavily biased toward industrialized nations

— djlactin

These descriptive statistics provide evidence of the isolation of the United States from the mainstream of western industrial societies.

I assume that Ireland means the Republic of Ireland and not the geographical unit of Ireland ? I have absolutely no doubts that if Northern Ireland was taken alone in this survey we would actually be placed below Turkey in the acceptance of evolution league. Since we are probably included in the UK on this one, at least we have come in at the top end of the table !

In particular, the growing doubts about Darwinism undoubtedly reflect growing doubts among scientists about Darwinian theory.

"Turkey perhaps was thrown in"

I believe it wasn't excluded. The press release says: "The data for the 32 European countries were collected by the European Commission using primarily personal interviews." Turkey is screened for EU membership.

"Why Iceland?"

It's all the fatty fish they eat. It's rich in omega-3 fatty acids, and studies show that high maternal omega-3 consumption is positively correlated with higher cognitive scores in the children.

This would also explain why Japan's high score.

In truth, I'm not sure what the point of the polling was. Was it to show the US population's beliefs in an unfavorable light?

Turkey perhaps was thrown in because it has something of a rationalistic tradition, and is typically quite a lot more modern than most other arab countries, while it has been a hotbed of pro-creationist activity.

Where is Canada?
Due south of Detroit ;-).

A more relevant question would be "Do you believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is a sufficient explanation for the complexity of life?"
...a question to which I (and more relevantly, most of the world's working biologists) would have to answer "No". We've learned a lot since ol' Chuck's day -- genetics, drift, detailed models of pop-bio, evo-devo, odd second-order effects, what-have-you. Darwin (and Wallace) may have started the ball rolling, but it's not really "his theory" any more.

It is a common Creationist rhetorical tactic to identify "evolution" with "Darwinism" (and sometimes "natural selection"). The DI's infamous list exploits this ambiguity.

The press release says: "The data for the 32 European countries were collected by the European Commission using primarily personal interviews."

— Tombjorn Larsson

This must be like GOLF SCORES.

America is near the bottom of the chart which explains why we are one of the world's leading countries.

According to Table S2 above, at least 2% of Americans believe that

Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life.

— Pierce R. Butler

and that Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.

I can't say that I see much value in that poll at all.

But I do have to correct myself, since I see now that I wrote of Turkey and the "other arab countries", when I meant to write "other muslim countries". Turkey is not an arab country.

If people wonder why the difference between ourselves and other "first world countries" or whatever they were trying to include, the biggest difference is probably that virtually all of the others predominately have religions that accommodate evolutionary theory. Chicken and egg, I know, but there are historical reasons for this, like the assertion of "fundamentals" early in the last century (IIRC) by many Xian groups, and the fact that much religion is sort of home-grown here, without much of an intellectual tradition among many of them. Literalism appeals to such rootless religions.

In a sense, a rootless "independence" is part of the cause (contrary to what some bloggers are saying), though of course fealty to little tyrannical religions ends that independence for many. And "independence" without an adequate intellectual basis produces mindless reaction in many Americans, who mistake sheer rebellion against scientists or other demonized leaders for a meaningful independence (the founders didn't seek to produce freedom to effect a mindless independence).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

This must be like GOLF SCORES. America is near the bottom of the chart which explains why we are one of the world's leading countries.

I definitely would have liked to see Australia. It is similar to the other countries on the list in terms of wealth, heritage and industrialization, and they've had some interesting faith/politics clashes of their own. Plus, isn't Ken Ham Australian?

Re:"But then you still haven't explained how the Colorado moved uphill into the Kaibab Plateau in order to carve the Grand Canyon, how the Chicxulub crater manages to date to the same time as the iridium layer, why relative dating and absolute dating are in agreement, or why it is that DNA dates correspond rather closely (where preservation is reasonably expected) to fossil dates in documenting divergences"

Didn't you know Glen that the answer is here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/dating.asp

As you can see, radiometric dating does not prove the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. (I'm being sarcastic by the way !). With research like this blinding people with science it's no wonder that 28% of people questioned believe that the earliest humans lived along side dinosaurs.

On a side note: Turkey is not an 'Arab country' by any definition.

Turks are Turks, Arabs are Arabs. Consult a Greek if you need someone to distinguish the two for you.

Turkey is also a secular state.

afdave on August 11, 2006 02:26 PM (e) This must be like GOLF SCORES. America is near the bottom of the chart which explains why we are one of the world's leading countries.

Turks are Turks, Arabs are Arabs. Consult a Greek if you need someone to distinguish the two for you.

Turkey is also a secular state.

Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghans aren't Arabs either, but Americans are so ignorant of the rest of the world, the popular equation seems to be 'Arab' = 'Middle Easterner' = 'Muslim', like they're all synonyms. It's rather embarrassing.

In truth, I'm not sure what the point of the polling was. Was it to show the US population's beliefs in an unfavorable light?

Americans are so ignorant of the rest of the world, the popular equation seems to be 'Arab' = 'Middle Easterner' = 'Muslim', like they're all synonyms.

It's also a democracy, unlike many other countries America supports.

Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghans aren't Arabs either...

[Turkey is] also a democracy...

Remember in the post-9/11 period when Americans were running around beating up Sikhs because they had dark skin and wore turbans? Truly, we are a boorish pig-ignorant lot.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

They have, however, been Arabized.

They have, however, been Arabized.

They have, however, been Arabized.

Arabized? oh you muslimaniac you. perhaps you could try a bit more research instead of inventing words to express your ignorance.

My good Toejam, I thought you would have learned the last time I handed your ass back to you on a silver charger. By the way, if you and Pill Popper's Ghost are going to share a brain, then at least get one that works.

The cultures of those countries (including, most importantly, their languages and religions) have been greatly influenced by Arabic culture.

FWIW, here are some facts from the CIA World Factbook:

Iran:
Ethnic groups: Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%
Languages: Persian and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic and Turkic dialects 26%, Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%

Pakistan:
Ethnic groups: Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtun (Pathan), Baloch, Muhajir (immigrants from India at the time of partition and their descendants)
Languages: Punjabi 48%, Sindhi 12%, Siraiki (a Punjabi variant) 10%, Pashtu 8%, Urdu (official) 8%, Balochi 3%, Hindko 2%, Brahui 1%, English (official and lingua franca of Pakistani elite and most government ministries), Burushaski, and other 8%

Afghanistan:
Ethnic groups: Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%
Languages: Afghan Persian or Dari (official) 50%, Pashtu (official) 35%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%, much bilingualism

Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghans aren't Arabs either...

[Turkey is] also a democracy...

Their national elections probably aren't much worse than America's.

I think we need to shame the Fundy Christians into accepting evolution.
I might be onto something with my last blog entry: THE USA IS ISLAMIC WHEN IT COMES TO EVOLUTION, where I add a line: So it looks like Ann Coulter and Muslims do have something in common.

We should attack creationists by comparing them directly to third world Muslims.

I definitely would have liked to see Australia. It is similar to the other countries on the list in terms of wealth, heritage and industrialization, and they've had some interesting faith/politics clashes of their own. Plus, isn't Ken Ham Australian?

I think we need to shame the Fundy Christians into accepting evolution.
I might be onto something with my last blog entry: THE USA IS ISLAMIC WHEN IT COMES TO EVOLUTION, where I add a line: So it looks like Ann Coulter and Muslims do have something in common.

We should attack creationists by comparing them directly to third world Muslims.

We should attack creationists by comparing them directly to third world Muslims.

Indeed, most American fundies are too utterly pig-ignorant to even realize that "God" and "Allah" are one and the same. "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God", just as "Dieu" is the French word and "Gott" is the German word.

Both the Muslims and the Christians worship precisely the same deity.

The story was covered by Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207858,00.html

and it provoked this response from AIG:

. FOX NEWS: U.S. Lags Behind Europe, Japan in Acceptance of Evolution

It is no surprise that this study's results are presented as the United States "lagging behind" other countries in acceptance of evolution---can you imagine a news organization printing these results under the heading "Europe, Japan Lag Behind U.S. in Acceptance of Creation"? But the headline matches the pro-evolution spin in this article.

Interestingly, over the 20 years this study was conducted, not only did the level of acceptance of evolution fall in the US, but so did the level of acceptance of creation. But perhaps most interesting---and frightening---is this comment:

Paul Meyers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the study, says that what politicians should be doing [instead of legislating for more open discussion of evolution in schools] is saying, "We ought to defer these questions to qualified authorities and we should have committees of scientists and engineers whom we will approach for the right answers."
How long will it be till Americans have to contact the scientists and engineers on the National Committee for the Determination of Human Origins and ask, "What does the word yom mean in Genesis 1?"

The last sentence is reminiscent of Ken Ham telling kids that when teachers talk about dinosaurs being alive "millions of years ago" they are to respond "Excuse me sir, but where you there ?"

It is no surprise that this study's results are presented as the United States "lagging behind" other countries in acceptance of evolution---can you imagine a news organization printing these results under the heading "Europe, Japan Lag Behind U.S. in Acceptance of Creation"? But the headline matches the pro-evolution spin in this article.

Of course, one would beg to question, where are the other 3 billion people on Earth in this survey? How about some of the world's largest nations (by population or land mass): China, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Brazil; or South Africa, Pakistan, Mexico, Canada (as mentioned before), Phillipines, New Zealand, Australia, et cetera. Of course one could imagine that in some countries, pollsters would find difficulty asking these questions due to violent reactions (i.e. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, or the Phillipines), political distaste for the polls (China), or a gross poverty of education variant (Bangladesh and much of Africa).

Secondly, it is true the question definite matters. Here's an example of statements that would get significantly or even dramatically different response totals:

- Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life.
- Human beings were created by God and did not evolve from earlier forms of life.
- Human beings were created by God and evolved from earlier forms of life.
- Human beings were not created by God and evolved from earlier forms of life.
- Human beings were not created by God, but did not evolve from earlier forms of life.

The first and second are similar, but different enough. The last is unlikely to get a lot of responses, but certainly could. The third is my own belief. I believe evolution is a function of the Divine, and that all science is the study of how the Divine manifests and manipulates creation, translated to our level of understanding so we can in turn become creators ourselves.

Of course, one would beg to question, where are the other 3 billion people on Earth in this survey?

Posted by Robert O'Brien on August 12, 2006 02:16 AM (e) Yes. The cultures of those countries (including, most importantly, their languages and religions) have been greatly influenced by Arabic culture. I account for your ignorance of this most uncontroversial fact by attributing it to your discipline, which from your banal username I deduce is worthless philosophy.

And of course, the huge incorporation of Arabic words into the English language, including my favorite which adequately measures you competency in this area - ZERO.

And of course, the huge incorporation of Arabic words into the English language, including my favorite which adequately measures you competency in this area - ZERO.

Iceland (gosh, only one slip of the finger away from Idland, and yet there at the top of the anti-ID scale): ...

But here's my highly-speculative pet theory: a long-running genealogical research study has been taking advantage of that very high degree of Icelandic ethnic/genetic homogeneity (and of well-documented church, family, and government records of marriages, births, and deaths), which makes it "easy" to cleanly isolate genetic diseases (and trace them back to the ancestor with the founding mutation, chromoosome mismatch, or what have you). Virtually every Icelander is familiar with this study and the underlying (that is to say, common descent with variation) rationales for why it works and why it's important.

Seemingly, Arab nations were once at the forefront of science !

To get an idea how pervasive the influence of Arab mathematicians was during the Middle Ages, visit the MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive and look for biographies of mathematicians born between A.D. 500 and A.D. 999. You'll find the vast majority of names are Arabic.... To read more on the development of science during ancient and Medieval times, see Isaac Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, the source for much of this article.

Comparing Turkey and Iceland... I don't think either is a desirable result. For one, Iceland seems to be a nation of fishermen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Demographics

So I doubt that their acceptance of evolution is an indicator of their progressiveness but rather their ignorance. (lack of scientific knowledge)

On the other hand, acceptance of evolution is probably hampered by religious beliefs in the mainly Islamic nation of Turkey.

I think the United States is just fine the way it is. I do know that Naturalistic Evolution is full of holes. (which is probably the reason why they never seem to crush Creation Science) If people reject evolution with the full knowledge of what it entails I think that it is perfectly justifed.

I do know that Naturalistic Evolution is full of holes. (which is probably the reason why they never seem to crush Creation Science)

Strange as I may sound, I don't believe that there is a wide enough public acceptance pyramid power, ESP, Bigfoot, flying saucers, alien abductions or the Lost Continent of Atlantis, such that they actually need a survey to cerify this.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank: "Don't focus on the science. ... ...Don't do it. This fight is a political fight. It's simply not about science." - http://www.geocities.com/lflank/

I've always been interested in what both parties have to say about each other. Maybe you are right that IDers have a political agenda, but then again so do you. Whether you are right or wrong, I don't think you should mix politics with science. It brings you down to the same level as the "Uneducated Creationists". Maybe you just can't win a scientific argument. Maybe you can. How am I supposed to know if you rely on politics?

Maybe you just can't win a scientific argument. Maybe you can. How am I supposed to know if you rely on politics?

I don't believe that there is a wide enough public acceptance pyramid power, ESP, Bigfoot, flying saucers, alien abductions or the Lost Continent of Atlantis, such that they actually need a survey to cerify this.

It is interesting that you assume that I even have a side. Maybe you're just shooting yourself in your own foot.

Art Hobson wrote somebit surprising in 2003:
"Miller found that the percentage of American adults who were scientifically literate increased from 10% to 17% during 1990 to 1999. Although these levels are low, surely too low for the requirements of a democratic society in today's world, they are higher than the level for European adults in 1992 (5%), for Canadian adults in 1989 (4%), and for Japanese adults in 1991 (3%) (Ref. 8, p. 2; Ref. 6, p. 98). "

http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2003/hobson.cfm

Comment #119173 Posted by Wing|esS on August 13, 2006 09:31 AM (e) | kill Strange as I may sound, I don't believe that there is a wide enough public acceptance pyramid power, ESP, Bigfoot, flying saucers, alien abductions or the Lost Continent of Atlantis, such that they actually need a survey to cerify this.

Poll: U.S. hiding knowledge of aliens June 15, 1997 Web posted at: 12:00 p.m. EDT (CNN) -- Nearly 50 years since an alleged UFO was sighted at Roswell, New Mexico, a new CNN/Time poll released Sunday shows that 80 percent of Americans think the government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life forms.

"Number of peer-reviewed science findings published by ID/creationists every year: zero" -
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

""Intelligent design" (ID) advocate Stephen C. Meyer has produced a "review article" that folds the various lines of "intelligent design" antievolutionary argumentation into one lump. The article is published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. We congratulate ID on finally getting an article in a peer-reviewed biology journal" - http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html

I find you a liar, 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
and I seriouly doubt you interllectual honesty.

"Intelligent design" (ID) advocate Stephen C. Meyer has produced a "review article"

STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

It is interesting that you assume that I even have a side

It is interesting that you assume that I even have a side. Maybe you're just shooting yourself in your own foot.

— Wing|esS

I think the United States is just fine the way it is. I do know that Naturalistic Evolution is full of holes. (which is probably the reason why they never seem to crush Creation Science) If people reject evolution with the full knowledge of what it entails I think that it is perfectly justifed.

— Wing|esS earlier

Maybe you are right that IDers have a political agenda

but then again so do you.

It is interesting that you assume that I even have a side. Maybe you're just shooting yourself in your own foot.

I do know that Naturalistic Evolution is full of holes. (which is probably the reason why they never seem to crush Creation Science)

Is there an echo in here?

I recommend trying a different angle.

Actually, the number of Arabic loanwords in English is fairly modest, though a disproportionate number of them are terms used in either astronomy or math.

— Arden Chatfield

I am quite shocked about the low acceptance in Germany. Does anybody know what the exact question was there?

Thanks,

Carsten

Comparing Turkey and Iceland... I don't think either is a desirable result. For one, Iceland seems to be a nation of fishermen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Demographic... So I doubt that their acceptance of evolution is an indicator of their progressiveness but rather their ignorance. (lack of scientific knowledge)

— Wing|esS

So I doubt that their acceptance of evolution is an indicator of their progressiveness but rather their ignorance. (lack of scientific knowledge)

Iceland is the 5th richest country in the world based on GDP per capita at purchasing power parity. It is also ranked number two on the 2005 United Nations Human Development Index. The economy historically depended heavily on the fishing industry, which still provides almost 40% of export earnings and employs 8% of the work force. In the absence of other natural resources (except for abundant hydro-electric and geothermal power), Iceland's economy is vulnerable to changing world fish prices. The economy remains sensitive to declining fish stocks as well as to drops in world prices for its main material exports: fish and fish products, aluminium, and ferrosilicon. Although the Icelandic economy still relies heavily on fishing it is constantly becoming less important as the travel industry and other service, technology, energy intensive and various other industries grow. [4] The centre-right government plans to continue its policies of reducing the budget and current account deficits, limiting foreign borrowing, containing inflation, revising agricultural and fishing policies, diversifying the economy, and privatising state-owned industries. The government remains opposed to EU membership, primarily because of Icelanders' concern about losing control over their fishing resources. Iceland's economy has been diversifying into manufacturing and service industries in the last decade, and new developments in software production, biotechnology, and financial services are taking place. The tourism sector is also expanding, with the recent trends in ecotourism and whale-watching. Growth slowed between 2000 and 2002, but the economy expanded by 4.3% in 2003 and grew by 6.2% in 2004. The unemployment rate of 1.8% (3rd quarter of 2005) is among the lowest in the European Economic Area. Over 99% of the country's electricity is produced from hydropower and geothermal energy. [4] Iceland's agriculture industry consists mainly of potatoes, green vegetables, mutton, dairy products and fish. [4] Iceland's stock market, the Iceland Stock Exchange (ISE), was established in 1985.

Most Icelanders are either very liberal in their religious beliefs or uninterested in religious matters altogether, and predominantly do not attend church regularly or even at all.

I love the ridiculous ones, but it would be nice to have an occasional decent opponent.

On further reflection though, I don't think that's possible. A decent opponent would require decent arguments for ID. None exist.

As always, people who start out writing such things as "the possibility that an alternative evolutionary theory e.g. neo-Lamarckism might prove superior to neo-Darwinism" and "It seems to me that the Intelligent Design theorists make a fair point" end up demonstrating that their thought processes are dominated by selective perception and unscientific attitudes towards evidence.

"Iceland is the 5th richest country in the world based on GDP per capita at purchasing power parity. It is also ranked number two on the 2005 United Nations Human Development Index. The economy historically depended heavily on the fishing industry, which still provides almost 40% of export earnings and employs 8% of the work force. In the absence of other natural resources (except for abundant hydro-electric and geothermal power), Iceland's economy is vulnerable to changing world fish prices. The economy remains sensitive to declining fish stocks as well as to drops in world prices for its main material exports: fish and fish products, aluminium, and ferrosilicon. Although the Icelandic economy still relies heavily on fishing it is constantly becoming less important as the travel industry and other service, technology, energy intensive and various other industries grow. [4]"

It's interesting that you have made the leap of faith from GDP to education level. I, on the other hand, can't find the University of Iceland on the top 500 list. http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005TOP500list.htm

It's interesting that you have made the leap of faith from GDP to education level. I, on the other hand, can't find the University of Iceland on the top 500 list. http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005TOP500li...

Yeah, that's why they have the 11th-highest per capita GDP in the world and their 15-year-olds beat ours in science literacy, math literacy and problem-solving ability.

Wingless said:

"I find you a liar, 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
and I seriouly doubt you interllectual honesty."

Dude. The very link you referred people to made you look like a DONUT! Tip - don't make yourself look like a donut before you mention someone else's "interllectual honesty."

>quote>It's interesting that you have made the leap of faith from GDP to education level.

You, sir, are a hypocritical lying moron. You quoted material I posted, but I made no such leap. Now tell us why you wrote "Iceland seems to be a nation of fishermen" and "I doubt that their acceptance of evolution is an indicator of their progressiveness but rather their ignorance. (lack of scientific knowledge)" when the evidence doesn't support those claims.

It's interesting that you have made the leap of faith from GDP to education level.

It's interesting that you made the leap of faith that Iceland is a 'nation of fishermen' when only 8% of them do that for a living.

Jobs include working on the processing line, operating machinery, being a deckhand, quality control, or even finding a job as a government inspector or aquaculture scientist.

"That would be due to the fact that Iceland only has a population of 293,000 people, genius." - Arden Chatfield

I'm convinced that they are a reasonably educated lot now, (although whether most are educated in biology is questionable) but I think that a small population is probably more easily persuaded than a larger population.

And 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank, the fact of the matter is,

1. Meyer managed to get his article published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

Which, regardless of how it occurred, testifies against your statement:

2. "Number of peer-reviewed science findings published by ID/creationists every year: zero" as false.

You invoked the use of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

Spanish has quite a large number of Arab loanwords, though, some quite basic, if I'm not mistaken

— Andrew

I am quite shocked about the low acceptance in Germany. Does anybody know what the exact question was there?

— Carsten

Meyer managed to get his article published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington

— Wing|ess

To further prove my point on why 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank is a liar when he asserted his statement:

"Number of peer-reviewed science findings published by ID/creationists every year: zero"

I just found this statement on the Panda's Thumb:

"Is this the long-awaited peer-reviewed publication which will finally do it?" - http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/10/theory_is_as_th.html

Apparently 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank claims that there are no peer-reviewed science finding by IDers but this website keeps claiming the exact opposite! I think the ICR deserved to be disbanded if they really were dishonest Creationists but apparently this community is no better.

I think that a small population is probably more easily persuaded than a larger population.

You invoked the use of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy

"Is this the long-awaited peer-reviewed publication which will finally do it?"

I think the ICR deserved to be disbanded if they really were dishonest Creationists but apparently this community is no better.

I just found this statement on the Panda's Thumb: "Is this the long-awaited peer-reviewed publication which will finally do it?" - http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/10/theo... Apparently 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank claims that there are no peer-reviewed science finding by IDers but this website keeps claiming the exact opposite!

— Wing|ess

Mr. Wing|ess, are you really so stupid that, finding an article that has a question as a title, somehow managed not to read down three paragraphs for the answer, "No."?

I think the ICR deserved to be disbanded if they really were dishonest Creationists but apparently this community is no better.

— Brain|ess

I.e. It is not the peer-reviewed science finding because, amongst many other problems, it is not peer reviewed.

The article mentions what Lenny has been saying all along: it is not a peer-reviewed article.

Grey Wolf, you're mistaken; the Behe/Snokes article was peer-reviewed.

— Popper's Ghost

Hey ****less. Here is the rest of the quote you mined : -

"Is this the long-awaited peer-reviewed publication which will finally do it?

No.

Although some in the "intelligent design" community tout Behe and Snoke's paper as the long-awaited theoretical paper (Discovery Institute 2004), it contains no "design theory", makes no attempt to model an "intelligent design" process, and proposes no alternative to evolution."

"there are no peer-reviewed science finding by IDers" that indicate INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!! (As shown in the very post you linked to.)

Do you feel better now that has been spelled out for you?

My ****less = DONUT theory still stands.

Really? Then I withdraw my statement. Mind you, I thought we were talking about the article in the proceedings. I assume this is the one were they proved a colony of bacteria could evolve something in 20000 years in a cubic square of earth, and concluded the opposite?

but I think that a small population is probably more easily persuaded than a larger population.

Are Iceland in favour of a Ban on the hunting of whales by the way ?

Sorry for the confussion,

— Grey Wolf

and you don't have to assume anything; just read more than one word of the PT article wing|ess linked to.

— Popper's ghost

And I guess "Grey Wolf's" just causing all of this by himself as well, Popper's ghost?

Your inferences are as bad as wing|ess's.

Even if we revert back to the ban on commercial whaling, we still need to whale for scientific purposes. We need to find out why whales die when you harpoon them. It's a very difficult and important scientific question that needs to be answered.

And 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank, the fact of the matter is, 1. Meyer managed to get his article published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Which, regardless of how it occurred, testifies against your statement: 2. "Number of peer-reviewed science findings published by ID/creationists every year: zero" as false.

Strangely, some countries near the top of the evolution acceptance league (Japan for instance) were in favour of lifting the ban. One would have thought they should have known better. Have they forgotten so easily the dodo or Tasmanian tiger ?

— Peter Henders

I love the ridiculous ones, but it would be nice to have an occasional decent opponent. On further reflection though, I don't think that's possible. A decent opponent would require decent arguments for ID. None exist.

— steve s

...but I think that a small population is probably more easily persuaded than a larger population.

— Wing|esS

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

— Charles Mackay

And 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank, the fact of the matter is, 1. Meyer managed to get his article published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Which, regardless of how it occurred, testifies against your statement: 2. "Number of peer-reviewed science findings published by ID/creationists every year: zero" as false. No, my dishonest fundie friend, the facts are: (1) Meyer sneaked his paper in with the help of a creationist editor (2) Meyer's paper never underwent peer review of any sort (3) Meyer's paper did not offer a single shred of testible data or evidence in support of ID, but merely parroted the same "Cambrian explosion" argument made by creation "scientists" thirty years previously (4) Meyer's paper was withdrawn from publication by the journal's editors in its very next issue, and (5) Meyer's paper is the ONLY "peer-reviewed journal article" claimed by IDers in the past 15 years, compared to the thousands of evolutionary science papers published each and every year.

Not sneaky enough. Lenny's original statement was, "Number of peer-reviewed science findings published by ID/creationists every year: zero" In order to make Lenny a liar, you'd have to show that the FINDINGS were peer reviewed, not that they were published in a peer reviewed journal. wingless may not care how it got into a peer reviewed journal, but Lenny won't be a liar until the article itself is subjected to peer review, which it wasn't.

The fact taht it was a revew article also disqualifies it from satisfying Lenny's demand. There were no discoveries in it at all. Even if you accepted every word in it as true, it was only a rehash of old material.

In order to make Lenny a liar, you'd have to show that the FINDINGS were peer reviewed, not that they were published in a peer reviewed journal. wingless may not care how it got into a peer reviewed journal, but Lenny won't be a liar until the article itself is subjected to peer review, which it wasn't.

Now freely available through Project Guttenberg (links in the article above).

wingless is just the typical fundie.

they claim persecution, but haven't the slightest clue exactly what consitutes persecution.

they claim censorship, but when challenged on exactly what is being censored, haven't the slightest clue.

they claim peer reviewed publications of their ideas, but haven't even read the papers they claim were published in support.

It really is truly pathetic.

they claim "darwinists" are stuck in groupthink, but really I can't think of a better example of projection.

There were no discoveries in it at all. Even if you accepted every word in it as true, it was only a rehash of old material.

damn! i forgot all about the online free ebook giveaway at PG. did you check that out?

— Sir_Toejam

In order to make Lenny a liar, you'd have to show that the FINDINGS were peer reviewed, not that they were published in a peer reviewed journal.

Oddly, while Discovery Institute has a multimillion dollar budget (much of it coming from billionnaire nutter Howie Ahmanson), NONE of DI's money goes to scientific research. Not a dime. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not one dime. Instead, ALL of it goes to lobbying and political PR. Indeed, when the Templeton Foundation asked DI to submit a proposal for scientific research into "design theory" for them to fund, DI ***refused to submit any***, leading Templeton to conclude that DI is just a political organization, with nothing scientific to offer.

It reminds me of the time when the tectonic theory was criticised by mainstream scientists, such that the tectonic theorists had to run a massive multimillion dollar lobbying and political PR campaign to get the theory accepted by mainstream geology.

— Anonymous_Coward

And they had all the activist judges on their side, too.

it's clear enough what he meant, which was a peer-reviewed article that actually supports ID, not just is authored by an ID proponent. As I wrote earlier, "what is relevant is that no peer-reviewed articles by IDiots support IDiocy".

From Merriam Webster's Unabridged Dictionary:

Arabize

1 a: To cause to acquire Arab customs, manners, speech, or outlook; b: to modify (a racial or national stock) by an admixture of Arab blood.

It is a historical fact that such things occurred in the countries in question. Thus, I used the term correctly.

Kind of like us and our Arabic math and astronomy. And the fueling of the Renaissance because the "Arabics" were the only ones who'd bothered to keep the culture and learning of the Greeks & Romans alive, never mind their own contributions... And of course, the huge incorporation of Arabic words into the English language, including my favorite which adequately measures you competency in this area - ZERO.

Both the Muslims and the Christians worship precisely the same deity.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote: Both the Muslims and the Christians worship precisely the same deity. To which R. O'Brien answered: Wrong. Tell me, Lenny, did you get your degree from Patriot Bible U?

Posted by Robert O'Brien on August 16, 2006 12:51 AM (e) 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote: Both the Muslims and the Christians worship precisely the same deity. Wrong. Tell me, Lenny, did you get your degree from Patriot Bible U?

Not terribly bright, are you, O'Brien . . . .

Slow down on the little creatures
AC, even I'm having trouble making sense of that, considering the original jibe would have produced O'Brien's world view rather than Lenny's

There is no need to completely bamboozle O'Brien, I think he's doing a fine job of that by himself.

even I'm having trouble making sense of that

Which explains why they are both called Abrahamic religions and Mr J. Christ is called a prophet in the Koran. And the Tomb of Abraham in Hebron which is sacred to both Islamic and Jewish belief. It has one door for Jews and one for Moslem's since to enter through the same door would be a sin worse than death. I can see it would be pointless to examine the fact that your so called Christian Church which was actually the tool ,pure obscurantism, used by the Absolute Monarchs of the day as a means establishing law and order, shut down the last of the Greek Pagan schools in Athens (Christian Emperor Justinian CE 529) when the authority of their 'One true word of god' was being questioned by a tradition of philosophical skepticism among which placing the sun at the center of the solar system invited a distasteful competitor for the divine rule of the Emperor and his agents of god, the priests. A small hiccup giving us a 1000 years of the dark ages until the renaissance which saw the church brought kicking and screaming into the beginnings of the enlightenment. As for the concept of zero, your considerable scholarship sums to an equivalent amount.

Not terribly bright, are you, O'Brien ....

Is this your (vain) attempt to come off as intelligent? The "Dark Ages" is a historical misnomer, and anyone who still uses it as a synonym for Medieval Civilization is stuck in the Dark Ages of historical scholarship. I suggest you read some books on Medieval Scholasticism and the Byzantine Empire (or, more appropriately, have them read to you.)

I love the continental drift beard-tugging, AC. :-)

Have you considered that one of the biggest turk cities in the world (if not the biggest) is actually Berlin, Germany?

— Grey Wolf

The Turk population of Germany is *huge*.

— Grey Wolf

Well, Mr O'Brien, since you're apparently a linguistic genius, you do, I presume, have the capability to determine what name Arab Muslims use to refer to god, and what name Arab Christians use to refer to god . . . .

Ever wonder why they're, uh, the same?

It always amazes me how completely utterly crashingly pig-ignorant the fundies are about the history of their own religion . . . . (sigh)

And if our new fundie friend disagrees with that, then I ask him to pleaseplease please pretty please by all means, go ahead and SHOW us this scientific theory of ID. (And TRY to do better than "something intelligent did ... um ... something intelligent").

Well, Mr O'Brien, since you're apparently a linguistic genius, you do, I presume, have the capability to determine what name Arab Muslims use to refer to god, and what name Arab Christians use to refer to god .... Ever wonder why they're, uh, the same?

Alas, our fundie friend seems to have done what *every* IDer does when asked to put up or shut up ---- they shut up.

So, is that like one of those cryptoquote puzzles in the newspaper?

Henry

Are these spambots or a very bored creationist?

yeah turkey!