NationStates Jolt Archive

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051024100409990019&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Kind of gives us an idea of why a vast majority of Americans think gay marriage is more dangerous than Bin Ladin running around free too.

Take my faith in humanity down another notch.

Ignorance is Strength I guess.

Wow, endless hectoring and junk science do work.

Take my faith in humanity down another notch.


I've never had much faith....

I've got some advice for people who may be disturbed with this poll's findings: just lower your eyelids about halfway, flatten your mouth, and grunt.

Welcome to America.

As a (hopefully) future scientist, I am tempted to begin looking for jobs in Europe, Canada, Asia...anywhere but here. This is honestly frightening. I think some third-world countries have better rates of acceptance of evolution than the US at this point.

As a (hopefully) future scientist, I am tempted to begin looking for jobs in Europe, Canada, Asia...anywhere but here. This is honestly frightening. I think some third-world countries have better rates of acceptance of evolution than the US at this point.
wait wait wait...what kind of scientists? that does play a part and also don't get to dismayed, from what is said in the article, it really points that this survey was taken in the south. Just stay out of a the bible belt and I'm sure you'll be fine.

Honestly, we do have some smart people in the US. It's just we can't keep the dumbest and more radical amongst us out of power. I am speaking of both dems and repubs here.

Don't look at me; I believe in evolution...though I am engaged to a creationist. We pretty much agree to disagree.

wait wait wait...what kind of scientists? that does play a part and also don't get to dismayed, from what is said in the article, it really points that this survey was taken in the south. Just stay out of a the bible belt and I'm sure you'll be fine.
I want to be a physicist, but this just reveals a general ignorance and anti-science attitude among Americans. I mean, how many hard-core Creationists would devote a lot of their tax money to building particle accelerators and paying the scientists who staff them?

Don't look at me; I believe in evolution...though I am engaged to a creationist. We pretty much agree to disagree.
As do most Americans, judging by the poll results. That’s what really matters. As long as people aren’t going to force what they believe on others, is there really any point in being “disturbed” by it?

Hmm, perhaps I'm not qualified to respond to this post due to my stance on things about General.

However, I would like to say that just because many a person does not accept a certian view, so long as there is no violence in the process, I believe that there is no reason to worry.

At the same time I can look at many person point of view and worry. Understandably some are concerned with the lack of open thought and acceptance of the matter, in which case revolves around many a issue. It is definitly disturbing to see these poll results. Looking at many a person POV of course.

I would dare say that in the view of the person believeing in Evolution, that this nation is Turning fanatical and underserving of correct thought. In the view of the person believing in something different, science is intruding on their domain and they believe that science has no right to. Its basically the same both ways, actually.

One side hates the other for seeing things differently, even if one side is right and the other wrong. Whats the use of America if it can't believe in one thing and stay that way? Correct? Well, I have no absolute answer for that. America is America, and if we didn't go through our stages we wouldn't learn from what happens when and where.

But, in the end, I really have no concern over this poll. People believe and do what they want to do, and no one person can surely control that. If they want to believe in a God, or don't want to, let them. If they make different life choices, or no life choices, let them. Its basically how things go these days, and admittingly it does become violent.

This is America, what happens happens. Polls are polls, and people believe what they want. To call it Jesusland is an overstatement in this situation, because Jesus accepted everyone no matter their views. Think about that.

Anywho, not to seem like a religious wacko, I'll stop here and place a certian view on the poll, my view, now that my two-cents is over.

In my opinion this poll shows the growing intensity of a certian group, and the extent at which many a person will go to become a part of it. I wouldn't be too concerned with the results, because of the recent happenings in America and the like, and many other matters. As usual I predict its just a stage, just to calm you worryworts out there whom think America's current condition is an absolute armageddon.

But, then again, this poll could actually be what it is, a true poll on the many opinions of the people whom were polled. If such is the case, then just let it go. America will grow older, and change. It always has. Remember the days of World War II? Changed a lot from then, haven't we? So just shrug it off for now.

On a very personal note, I'd like to comment on something.

Kind of gives us an idea of why a vast majority of Americans think gay marriage is more dangerous than Bin Ladin running around free too.

I understand that this perhaps isn't directed at me, but for the voice of the "perhaps it is" people, I'd like to say that even us Spiritual folks, the very few that have, have grown acceptance in our spirit to our fellow man. My view, personally, is that we all bleed the same blood when hurt. There is no difference, for we are all human. Why hate someone else, even for their view ON religion or life in general? Lol.

Anywho, that was basically off-topic, sorry for that. But I felt on commenting on many a thing here.

I'm going to bed, g'night.

OMG!!! 51% of USians totally reject evolution! Either this country has the worst funded education system, USians being educated by mentally retarded jesus-freaks, brainwashed by Pat Robertson's 700 club propaganda, or smoked too much pot.:eek: :eek: :eek: :rolleyes:

Hmm, perhaps I'm not qualified to respond to this post due to my stance on things about General.

However, I would like to say that just because many a person does not accept a certian view, so long as there is no violence in the process, I believe that there is no reason to worry.
I'm sick of hearing this. Can we finally get some "Moral Authority" to finally reject the use of both force and violence? There are a few differences between the two in certain situations, but that doesn't make the use of force any more legitimate by virtue of its potentially diminished instensity alone.

I'll worry plenty if I think these people are going to keep electing jackasses like Bush who get elected simply because they prattle about Jesus and have a nice looking tie and rich family.

I want to be a physicist, but this just reveals a general ignorance and anti-science attitude among Americans. I mean, how many hard-core Creationists would devote a lot of their tax money to building particle accelerators and paying the scientists who staff them?
You hit the crux of the whole matter. In the short term, it's bad that some religious extremists are trying to force their views on others, but in the long term, this narrow majority will just starve the sciences to death unless the pretty frickin big minority stands up for itself.

But if I were you, I'd be looking at emigrating. Didn't South Korea just announce a "stem cell research hub"? The rest of the world is leaving this country behind. A good brain drain, plus academics, arts, and labor drains, should speed up the process, ensuring that the medievalists will starve themselves back into the past, where they belong.

The most ironic part of the whole thing is that Americans think they were made in god's image. Somehow, if I imagine a supreme deity, he just isn't 400 lbs, pimply, dressed in tight sweats, eating junk food, never learning anything, producing mostly garbage every day of his life, and bragging about how superior he is.

I don't really care if people believe god guided evolution or evolution happened because of natural processes. The idiots who reject evolution out-of-hand are simply denying overwhelming physical evidence.

I don't really care if people believe god guided evolution or evolution happened because of natural processes. The idiots who reject evolution out-of-hand are simply denying overwhelming physical evidence.
agreed

I don't really care if people believe god guided evolution or evolution happened because of natural processes. The idiots who reject evolution out-of-hand are simply denying overwhelming physical evidence.

Bingo. God-guided evolution is perfectly legitimate; the problem comes when proponents try to have this idea jammed into a biology classroom, rather than a philosophy classroom.

Even taking into account the fact that polls like this tend to be rather unrepresentative of the people's beliefs as a whole, the number of pure Creationists there is indeed disturbing. Assuming these are the Young-Earth kind, not only are they attacking biology, they're attacking geology, cosmology, and astronomy, all of which support a 15 billion-year-old universe and a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth. These also tend to be the most amusing people to argue with, watching them slip and bumble over their own illogical, discredited claims.

Great shining evidence that if everything was created by God as-is, he must have be one incompetent engineer: Rudimentary whale hip bones (http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/rudiments05.html). Really, what point is there at all in creating whales with these things? They're not connected to anything; they're essentially just hanging there, suspended in the flesh, greatly complicating attempts to set up a whale-skeleton display. Fine evidence for evolution if I ever saw it.

What gets me about the whole evolution/creation debate is the lack of vested interest on both sides. Unless you are making a living in the biological sciences or are being persecuted by the biological science industry, it makes not one bit of difference in life if something was created or evolved. It is the way it is today.

Wow. In spite of all the money the US government has spent trying to indoctrinate children into evolutionism, the majority of Americans still believe the Bible. Imagine what the creationists could have done had the government not been deliberately working against them.

Wow. In spite of all the money the US government has spent trying to indoctrinate children into evolutionism, the majority of Americans still believe the Bible. Imagine what the creationists could have done had the government not been deliberately working against them.
Yeah too bad the government found it nessisary to you know teach stuff that has facts backing it up ... specialy with how important this "evolutionism" is to things like biomedical research and such

:rolleyes:

Wow. In spite of all the money the US government has spent trying to indoctrinate children into evolutionism, the majority of Americans still believe the Bible. Imagine what the creationists could have done had the government not been deliberately working against them.

I'd imagine doctors would still be extracting your blood to remove evil spirits from your body when you got sick.

I'd imagine doctors would still be extracting your blood to remove evil spirits from your body when you got sick.
Not evil spirits, but bad or excess humours.

I guess then that I'm one of those people lowering your hopes for humanity. I'd normally say that I'm sorry, but I enjoy where I am in my faith so I can't nor won't.

However, before you want to jump the gun on me, I'm not in support of replacing evolution in school. Side by side teaching? Sure, why not? But evolution is still a valid theory and kids have the right to know the different approaches to science and faith.

I was brought up with both takes and took the road requiring faith. I don't see anything wrong with that, as I don't see myself harming anyone.

However, before you want to jump the gun on me, I'm not in support of replacing evolution in school. Side by side teaching? Sure, why not? But evolution is still a valid theory and kids have the right to know the different approaches to science and faith.I'm okay with people who want to teach religion in schools, I don't think it's appropriate to only teach one, but if the local people really want Christianity taught then I don't have any serious issues...

However, what I really oppose is people wanting to teach religion (or religion derived) AS science. Keep them separate and we don't have a problem.

I guess then that I'm one of those people lowering your hopes for humanity. I'd normally say that I'm sorry, but I enjoy where I am in my faith so I can't nor won't.

However, before you want to jump the gun on me, I'm not in support of replacing evolution in school. Side by side teaching? Sure, why not? But evolution is still a valid theory and kids have the right to know the different approaches to science and faith.

I was brought up with both takes and took the road requiring faith. I don't see anything wrong with that, as I don't see myself harming anyone.

The road requiring faith does not mean you have to reject plain old physical evidence. Believe in and love God as deeply and thoroughly as you feel you need to, but do not let that blind you to simple straightforward truth.

Evolution is not trying to kill God, and the very fact that you think God and Evolution takes you down seperate paths shows that you are, ultimately, ignorant of Evolution.

It would be akin to someone rejecting Relativity because they feel it contradicts Mormonism. The 2 have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

It's hard to believe that this used to be the most technically advanced nation on the planet. Still, we are seeing the logicial outcome of "diversity" and "multiculturalism." I wish we could just go back to the old days, when if someone held stupid superstitious ideas, everyone else could tell them to shut the fuck up and that they were dumbasses; instead of this pathetic rule about "respecting" thier backwards beliefs.

(The worst part is, I live in NYC, and I can see how this poll is completely true).

The Liberated Ones']I'm okay with people who want to teach religion in schools, I don't think it's appropriate to only teach one, but if the local people really want Christianity taught then I don't have any serious issues...

However, what I really oppose is people wanting to teach religion (or religion derived) AS science. Keep them separate and we don't have a problem.

I have no problem with people teaching religion in schools...as long as it's not on the taxpayer's dime. That would be unconstitutional. If you want religion in school, then choose private school.

It's hard to believe that this used to be the most technically advanced nation on the planet. Still, we are seeing the logicial outcome of "diversity" and "multiculturalism." I wish we could just go back to the old days, when if someone held stupid superstitious ideas, everyone else could tell them to shut the fuck up and that they were dumbasses; instead of this pathetic rule about "respecting" thier backwards beliefs.

(The worst part is, I live in NYC, and I can see how this poll is completely true).

Actually, I'd think you find that those who oppose evolution diproportionately oppose diversity and multiculturalism as well...

God bless ignorance...

Actually, I'd think you find that those who oppose evolution diproportionately oppose diversity and multiculturalism as well...

The people who benefit from multicultralism always depise it. Nothing new there. The point is, it is the basis for the silly attitude that society has to "respect" peoples beliefs and take them seriously, no matter how foolish they are, instead of just tolerating them.

Seriously dude, do you think this would be such an issue if we didn't have to run around pretending that whacky religious beliefs are just as legitimate and valid as science?

The people who benefit from multicultralism always depise it. Nothing new there. The point is, it is the basis for the silly attitude that society has to "respect" peoples beliefs and take them seriously, no matter how foolish they are, instead of just tolerating them.

Seriously dude, do you think this would be such an issue if we didn't have to run around pretending that whacky religious beliefs are just as legitimate and valid as science?

I agree with you there. On the flip side, exposing and opening one's mind to alternate viewpoints at least gives one a solid basis for rejecting them, instead of rejecting them out of hand.

I agree with you there. On the flip side, exposing and opening one's mind to alternate viewpoints at least gives one a solid basis for rejecting them, instead of rejecting them out of hand.

Up to a point that's true. But sometimes the set of human knowledge leads to a paradigm shift, which discredits much of what has gone before it, and I don't think that it is necessary to learn about every anachronistic viewpoint in detail in order to dismiss them.

Well thought out fresh perspectives in line with modern knowledge do deserve a full hearing. But that's not really what we are talking about here though is it?

Up to a point that's true. But sometimes the set of human knowledge leads to a paradigm shift, which discredits much of what has gone before it, and I don't think that it is necessary to learn about every anachronistic viewpoint in detail in order to dismiss them.

Well thought out fresh perspectives in line with modern knowledge do deserve a full hearing. But that's not really what we are talking about here though is it?

One is also unjustified in saying that all multiculturalism and diversity is based on outmoded beliefs. Sometimes one finds great ideas in unlikely places.

God bless ignorance...
Evidently, he already does.

so most Americans believe something.....your point? and I think its safe to say most of the world doesn’t believe in evolution

and why should it matter? sounds like the ignorant finger isn't pointing at most Americans

I have no problem with people teaching religion in schools...as long as it's not on the taxpayer's dime. That would be unconstitutional. If you want religion in school, then choose private school.

In the UK, high-schools are required to have a 'religious education' class until they are 16. But instead of indoctrinating kids into one particular religion, it teaches them a little bit about all the cultures and traditions of the major faiths. Fortunately my high school found a loophole in that particular mandate so I didn't have to bother with it after I was 14, but most schools do it. Do they have anything like that in America?

It's hard to believe that this used to be the most technically advanced nation on the planet. Still, we are seeing the logicial outcome of "diversity" and "multiculturalism." I wish we could just go back to the old days, when if someone held stupid superstitious ideas, everyone else could tell them to shut the fuck up and that they were dumbasses; instead of this pathetic rule about "respecting" thier backwards beliefs.

(The worst part is, I live in NYC, and I can see how this poll is completely true).

I pressume with "the old days" you are referring to such brilliant instances of enlightenment as the Salem Witch Trials? Or do you mean an even less diverse and tolerant society?

You do realise, however, that according to the poll, you are in fact belonging to the minority, and therefore the majority ought to be able to shut up about your stupid, ungodly believes? That you in fact would have no right to voice the opinion that their belief is the backward one?

As do most Americans, judging by the poll results. That’s what really matters. As long as people aren’t going to force what they believe on others, is there really any point in being “disturbed” by it?
Well, we could look at the implications it has for the state of education in this country.

It is possible to hold two mutually exclusive statements as true. That's Turing's definition of intelligence, IIRC. But for people to reject fact as falsehood in favor of faith, rather than holding both faith and fact dear, shows a great weakness of thinking that our education system is supposed to vaccinate against.

so most Americans believe something.....your point? and I think its safe to say most of the world doesn’t believe in evolution

and why should it matter? sounds like the ignorant finger isn't pointing at most Americans

Actually, the very idea of rejecting evolution on religious beliefs seems to be rather American. But I'm sure that some fanatic Islamists may agree with it as well.

In any case, I haven't ever encountered creationism before, neither in Europe nor in Canada. First time I heard about it was on this very forum... and it made for a brilliant joke for some time, telling people here that in the US, they actually had created a word that sounded somewhat scientific in order to cling to the medieval belief that every living thing was created by god as it is today...

As a side note: I wonder if the people who don't believe in evolution have an explanation for Culex molestus or for Flavobacterium Sp. K172, both of which are organisms that would not exist without human heavy industry.

As a side note: I wonder if the people who don't believe in evolution have an explanation for Culex molestus or for Flavobacterium Sp. K172, both of which are organisms that would not exist without human heavy industry.

God blessing heavy human industry with a miracle, no doubt...

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051024100409990019&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Kind of gives us an idea of why a vast majority of Americans think gay marriage is more dangerous than Bin Ladin running around free too.
That's great! Here we are, facing a critical shortage of vaccine for the Bird Flu, and 51% of Americans just announced that they will not be using the vaccine anyhow! At least, that's what I assume they will do, because they say they don't believe in evolution...evolutionary theory was essential in the making of the vaccine, so clearly all these principled Creationists will refuse to be treated with medical technology that was developed using "Darwinism."

God blessing heavy human industry with a miracle, no doubt...
If only I weren't on a public terminal, I would make an offensive religious parody Photoshop. But I am. Pity. :(

They probably stood outside churches to do that research. They didn't ask everyone in America so they can't really say it's 51%.

They probably stood outside churches to do that research. They didn't ask everyone in America so they can't really say it's 51%.
You can do representative sampling with a surprisingly small segment of the population, as long as you're careful to keep it truly random.

They probably stood outside churches to do that research. They didn't ask everyone in America so they can't really say it's 51%.
Dude, something like 25% of Americans believe the Sun orbits the Earth. We're a country of dingbats.

Dude, something like 25% of Americans believe the Sun orbits the Earth. We're a country of dingbats.

So I guess it should be higher then 51% :D

You can do representative sampling with a surprisingly small segment of the population, as long as you're careful to keep it truly random.

Over here in the UK, ASH (An anti-smoking lobby group) went to one school asking the students if they smoked and decided that was proof that seeing cigarette advertising on Formula One cars made children more likely to smoke. It's easy to make up stats to show people what you want them to think.

They probably stood outside churches to do that research. They didn't ask everyone in America so they can't really say it's 51%.

It's called a representative survey. If you read the article, you'll find that they did take people's background into consideration...
You don't have to ask every single person in a large enough group to be able to get an overall percentage regarding their opinions...

It's called a representative survey. If you read the article, you'll find that they did take people's background into consideration...
You don't have to ask every single person in a large enough group to be able to get an overall percentage regarding their opinions...
In fact with a servey population of the whole unitedstates
40 -100 people should be plenty as long as it is a truly random sampling of the ENTIRE population

I'm sick of hearing this. Can we finally get some "Moral Authority" to finally reject the use of both force and violence? There are a few differences between the two in certain situations, but that doesn't make the use of force any more legitimate by virtue of its potentially diminished instensity alone.

I'll worry plenty if I think these people are going to keep electing jackasses like Bush who get elected simply because they prattle about Jesus and have a nice looking tie and rich family.

Whew!

I'm officially defeated per my subject, and now understand a better view of things. I submit to you, Melkor, and express this is specifically the reason I have tried to stay away from religious talk. I don't understand enough to comment.

Anywho,

Officially OWNED by Melkor

I'm outta here...

In fact with a servey population of the whole unitedstates
40 -100 people should be plenty as long as it is a truly random sampling of the ENTIRE population

Looking at the data regarding the surveyed individuals' education, and considering the area, I'd guess they questioned around 1500 - 2000 people at least.

Hey, where'd all those high tech jobs and advanced technology for export go? Oh, right, over there in the smart countries. Well at least we can rent ourselves out as a mercenary force if all else fails.

Isn't there something Un-American about chastising/judging people based solely on what they believe?

Hey, where'd all those high tech jobs and advanced technology for export go? Oh, right, over there in the smart countries. Well at least we can rent ourselves out as a mercenary force if all else fails.
I find myself doubling over with laughter as I read about how Florida is simultaneously trying to replace evolution with Creationism in its public schools while also trying to expand its biotech industries. I'll bet the South Koreans are laughing even harder.

Isn't there something Un-American about chastising/judging people based solely on what they believe?

Un-American? The Americans do that all the time.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051024100409990019&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Kind of gives us an idea of why a vast majority of Americans think gay marriage is more dangerous than Bin Ladin running around free too.
*laughs at the evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent)*

Isn't there something Un-American about chastising/judging people based solely on what they believe?
i don't know about un-american, but its certainly not fair.
people can believe whatever they want to, and i personally won't chastise them for that belief. however i do think their beliefs are pretty fucking stupid and can laugh my ass off at that :p ;)

Isn't there something Un-American about chastising/judging people based solely on what they believe?
Nope. America was founded by pragmatists. If somebody believes the Sun orbits the Earth, the American thing to do would be to offer them access to better education, and then point and laugh if they turn it down. Ditto for Creationism. The problem is that we are currently being overrun by religious fundamentalists who want to install theocracy in place of the American way of life.

Isn't there something Un-American about chastising/judging people based solely on what they believe?

AHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh man thats a good one.

Who gives a crap if someone doesn't believe in evolution? Everyone is entitled to his views, no matter how smart or stupid those views may be.

Who gives a crap if someone doesn't believe in evolution? Everyone is entitled to his views, no matter how smart or stupid those views may be.

Yea while were at it who gives a crap if someone doesn't think the world is round. If they want to think its flat let them think its flat.:rolleyes:

Yea while were at it who gives a crap if someone doesn't think the world is round. If they want to think its flat let them think its flat.:rolleyes:

Hey, if someone wants to be stupid, who am I to stop them? You can't force yours views on someone else. You can present evidence proving them wrong, but that's still not guaranteed to change their thinking.

Who gives a crap if someone doesn't believe in evolution? Everyone is entitled to his views, no matter how smart or stupid those views may be.
I give a crap when they attempt to force their stupidity onto public policy and public education. But I suppose you would be fine with it if the dingbats required that all federally-funded medical schools teach their doctors-to-be that leeches are the best cure for cancer, right? Because hey, they're entitled to their views!

Hey, if someone wants to be stupid, who am I to stop them? You can't force yours views on someone else. You can present evidence proving them wrong, but that's still not guaranteed to change their thinking.
i think the poll is more a basis of attack on the american education system and power of the church, rather than an attack on the intelligence or beliefs of individual americans

It would be funny if it were not so scary.

If you had told me ten years ago that in a only a single decade the President of the US would be a man who would consider it reasonable to go to war based on the advice personally given to him by God, I wouldnt have believed it.

Somehow I cant help but percieve a connection between a society in which the majority refuse to believe in evolution because of religious beliefs, and that society's electing a President who thinks God instructs him to start wars.

Hey, if someone wants to be stupid, who am I to stop them? You can't force yours views on someone else. You can present evidence proving them wrong, but that's still not guaranteed to change their thinking.

When it deals with things that don't effect others I agree with you. But there is the growing movement to introduce ID into the science classroom and that frankly disturbs me. You make it sound like these people are just sitting back and not acting on their belief but thats not the case.

When it deals with things that don't effect others I agree with you. But there is the growing movement to introduce ID into the science classroom and that frankly disturbs me. You make it sound like these people are just sitting back and not acting on their belief but thats not the case.
Indeed. If the Creationists were content to quietly pursue their own idiocy then I would have no beef with them. However, they aren't. They are determined to reap all the benefits that science provides while simultaneously insulting, undermining, and dismantling science at every opportunity. They are determined to make sure that nobody knows anything, ever, and that we instead simply "believe" whatever fairy story the majority votes most popular.

The Amish still use leeches don't they?

When it deals with things that don't effect others I agree with you. But there is the growing movement to introduce ID into the science classroom and that frankly disturbs me. You make it sound like these people are just sitting back and not acting on their belief but thats not the case.

Agreed. I feel the same way as you. However, many Darwinists I met (but not all) are highly disrespectful toward those who don't accept evolution, whether they act on their beliefs or not.

i've always thought that america probably shouldn't be allowed to come out and play till its grown up a bit

(note this is not a dig at the sensible americans just the fact that the average isn't all that great)

I want to be a physicist, but this just reveals a general ignorance and anti-science attitude among Americans. I mean, how many hard-core Creationists would devote a lot of their tax money to building particle accelerators and paying the scientists who staff them?
Well right now my University is in the running with one other site to get a particle accelerator (no joke its Michigan State). So if you really are wondering about that come on up north. Christians up here don't tend to be literalists.

A lot of people nowadays who complain they aren't being respected seem to feel no need to return the courtesy. Christian fundamentalists demand that their religious beliefs be respected, but they do not respect other people's preference for science. Instead, they want their beliefs to be taught instead of science. I would say to them, respect is a 2-way street. You've got to give it in order to get it. The US public school system is secular; it teaches science; it does not teach any particular religious views. If you don't like it, you are not required to participate in it. You can homeschool or use parochial schools. That's how the US respects your views, by letting you follow them. Kindly show the same respect to the rest of us by letting us follow our views. Keep your religion out of our science classes.

There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Let's look at this ditty.

Majority of Americans Reject Theory of Evolution

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 808 adults, interviewed by telephone

What does this tell me? Several things.

1) The US has a population of 808.
2) It is adequately represented by those people who answer random AOL poll people on the phone.

Now, I'm not going to dispute 1) since that's obviously true and no one can dispute it reasonably.

But as for 2), let me ask: do YOU answer phone surveys? Some asshole calls you up at dinner wanting to ask about your opinions? I don't. I don't have time. Do you? Furthermore, I don't cough up my beliefs just cuz someone on a phone demands to know them. Do you?

Fuck AOL news, and fuck these stupid statistics that try to show America is a bunch of bumbling retards using LESS THAN 0.0003 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION!

I give a crap when they attempt to force their stupidity onto public policy and public education. But I suppose you would be fine with it if the dingbats required that all federally-funded medical schools teach their doctors-to-be that leeches are the best cure for cancer, right? Because hey, they're entitled to their views!Leeches are good for some medical practices. Let's not slander these noble creatures...:D

Yea while were at it who gives a crap if someone doesn't think the world is round. If they want to think its flat let them think its flat.:rolleyes:

Actually, someone beat you (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm) to it. Even I find this sad.

The Amish still use leeches don't they? They're actually quite beneficial, and do work. However, that's not the point.

Really, America is getting seriously weird these days. I mean… majority not accepting the Theory of Evolution? That… would beggar belief, but sadly it doesn't. Somehow, melding of church and state is being achieved without a national church.

They're actually quite beneficial, and do work.

Depends on what you use them for. For instance, the last thing an anemic patient needs is to have a blood sucking parasite stuck on their skin :P.

However, that's not the point.
Whoops, my bad.


Really, America is getting seriously weird these days. I mean… majority not accepting the Theory of Evolution? That… would beggar belief, but sadly it doesn't. Somehow, melding of church and state is being achieved without a national church.
Hey kids, I've got your Fun Trivia For The Day!

Can you guess which ultra-religious former US president said the following?:

"Like every other man of intelligence and education, I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised."




Give up?




It was Woodrow Wilson. In 1922.

Hey kids, I've got your Fun Trivia For The Day!

Can you guess which ultra-religious former US president said the following?:

"Like every other man of intelligence and education, I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised."




Give up?




It was Woodrow Wilson. In 1922.

That woodrow Wilson quote is going in my personal list of awesome quotes.

<snip>Hey kids, I've got your Fun Trivia For The Day!

Can you guess which ultra-religious former US president said the following?:

"Like every other man of intelligence and education, I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised."

Give up?

It was Woodrow Wilson. In 1922.
Cool. Thanks. I'll use that at parties. :)

Don't look at me; I believe in evolution...though I am engaged to a creationist. We pretty much agree to disagree.

That must be hard.

My mom's a creationist (young Earth creationist even!) and it's so hard to keep biting my tongue. I love her but it drives me crazy. Good thing she picked up on this young earth thing after I left home; I don't know what I would have done if I had to live with her talking about it all the time.

I should add: she's a nurse. She knows full well that bacteria evolve to be tolerant of antibiotics. But she calls that "changing to suit their environment" and refuses to understand that that is essentially what evolution is!

Did I mention this drives me nuts?

I wish she could reconcile God and evolution. :( I could accept a belief in God guiding evolution, no problem. -- oh and for you people who think this is an American-only problem think again. Mom has lived in Canada for her entire life. However, Rev Dobson and Focus on the Family has a lot of influence over what she believes. It's like he's eaten her brain or something...

That must be hard.

My mom's a creationist (young Earth creationist even!) and it's so hard to keep biting my tongue. I love her but it drives me crazy. Good thing she picked up on this young earth thing after I left home; I don't know what I would have done if I had to live with her talking about it all the time.

I should add: she's a nurse. She knows full well that bacteria evolve to be tolerant of antibiotics. But she calls that "changing to suit their environment" and refuses to understand that that is essentially what evolution is!

Did I mention this drives me nuts?

I wish she could reconcile God and evolution. :( I could accept a belief in God guiding evolution, no problem. -- oh and for you people who think this is an American-only problem think again. Mom has lived in Canada for her entire life. However, Rev Dobson and Focus on the Family has a lot of influence over what she believes. It's like he's eaten her brain or something...
It's supposed to be the kids who scare their parents by joining cults, not the other way around.

I have to question the validity of this poll. They phoned 808 people at home to get these results. As a rule, I think certain types of people live a certain way. What I mean is, I personally think that using this phone method they are much more likely to get one of the bible thumping, earth is 10,000 years old and evolution didn't happen type of people than those of us that understand evolution. Reason being is thatnot beliening in evolution you tend to live a certain way of life, not nearly as progressive as the 'minority'. Where did they get the phone list to call people (and what source did they get it from, the subscriber list of christianity world magazine? we don't know) and were these all land lines? Most peolpe I know and hang out with may have a land line, but it is only used for broadband. Did they call cell phone numbers? Are the progressive types (and I believe this to be true) less likely to even answer the phone from a number they don't know, much less even waste the time to stay on the line? Using 808 people that have land lines they not only answer, but will answer an unknown number AND stay on the line with someone trying to ask them questions does not seem to me like a random poll. I 'believe' and understand evolution and I know I would never be the recipient of this poll. As with anything like this, take it with a grain of salt.

I have to question the validity of this poll. They phoned 808 people at home to get these results. As a rule, I think certain types of people live a certain way. What I mean is, I personally think that using this phone method they are much more likely to get one of the bible thumping, earth is 10,000 years old and evolution didn't happen type of people than those of us that understand evolution. Reason being is thatnot beliening in evolution you tend to live a certain way of life, not nearly as progressive as the 'minority'. Where did they get the phone list to call people (and what source did they get it from, the subscriber list of christianity world magazine? we don't know) and were these all land lines? Most peolpe I know and hang out with may have a land line, but it is only used for broadband. Did they call cell phone numbers? Are the progressive types (and I believe this to be true) less likely to even answer the phone from a number they don't know, much less even waste the time to stay on the line? Using 808 people that have land lines they not only answer, but will answer an unknown number AND stay on the line with someone trying to ask them questions does not seem to me like a random poll. I 'believe' and understand evolution and I know I would never be the recipient of this poll. As with anything like this, take it with a grain of salt.


As far as I can tell for standard survey practices phone is an acceptable contact method sense 1970 (with an alpha of .01) which is figured into the end error of the survey

(that does not necessarily mean this is a good survey) but phone contact throws very little variation into the regression

For some reason that Bill Hicks routine about rednecks being irked at seeing people with opposable thumbs on the telly springs to mind...

As far as I can tell for standard survey practices phone is an acceptable contact method sense 1970 (with an alpha of .01) which is figured into the end error of the survey

(that does not necessarily mean this is a good survey) but phone contact throws very little variation into the regression

The problem is that in the 1970's, everyone was using a land line. Now, lots and lots of people don't even use one, so it is biased right there as you are splitting the poulation in a LARGE way. The number of people that have and use a land line gets bigger the older the person is, and it is those people that are more likely to hold the view of strict creationism instead of evolution. Just because polls have been using the same method for 40 years does not mean they are inherently valid. Times change as does the way we communicate. I personally think this poll is off much more than the 4% it says is the margin.

Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all, corralling all the fans of Baby Jesus™ into South Carolina (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450859) and letting 'em secede.

I want to be a physicist, but this just reveals a general ignorance and anti-science attitude among Americans. I mean, how many hard-core Creationists would devote a lot of their tax money to building particle accelerators and paying the scientists who staff them?

I believe in God, believe he created the universe and all the laws that govern it, and I love particle accelerators and big science. Always wanted to be an astronaut, too.

Let's break some quarks!

And let's go back to the moon already!:D

It would be funny if it were not so scary.

If you had told me ten years ago that in a only a single decade the President of the US would be a man who would consider it reasonable to go to war based on the advice personally given to him by God, I wouldnt have believed it.

Somehow I cant help but percieve a connection between a society in which the majority refuse to believe in evolution because of religious beliefs, and that society's electing a President who thinks God instructs him to start wars.

And what is the credibility of the person who claimed that Bush said God told him to?

Anybody got Bush on tape?

Or is this claim just in the realm of, "everyone on this forum has a purple tail, prove me wrong!"

That must be hard.

My mom's a creationist (young Earth creationist even!) and it's so hard to keep biting my tongue. I love her but it drives me crazy. Good thing she picked up on this young earth thing after I left home; I don't know what I would have done if I had to live with her talking about it all the time.

I should add: she's a nurse. She knows full well that bacteria evolve to be tolerant of antibiotics. But she calls that "changing to suit their environment" and refuses to understand that that is essentially what evolution is!

Did I mention this drives me nuts?

I wish she could reconcile God and evolution. :( I could accept a belief in God guiding evolution, no problem. -- oh and for you people who think this is an American-only problem think again. Mom has lived in Canada for her entire life. However, Rev Dobson and Focus on the Family has a lot of influence over what she believes. It's like he's eaten her brain or something...

I don't know if I'm a young-earther or old-earther. It doesn't matter much to me in the end. I recognize that God created us and made us in His image.

I feel that I should also state that I completely accept microevolution. Adaptation is key to survival, and one can notice the change in appearance of birds (feather color) after a few generations as well as the looks of a dog after interbreeding it with a different kind.

However, I don't believe in macroevolution. A bird can change its colors but it cannot, after a million years or so, become an entirely different bird, much less a different species altogether. That's the bit I find hard to accept.

So, there are creationists who accept evolution, just not in the way you might think.

It's supposed to be the kids who scare their parents by joining cults, not the other way around.
Not any more...why do you think the wingnuts are so determined to stop their own children from learning? Because we're getting to the point where some kids know better than their parents!

In many cases, kids are getting to be far more educated and clued-in than their own parents, and lots of parents find that deeply threatening. It's like how, back in the day, racist parents all over America were terrified that Little Billy would go off to a mixed-race college and find out that black people aren't all drug-abusing criminals. Bigotted parents HATE the idea that their children might reject bigotry, and willfully-stupid parents HATE the idea that their children might embrace knowledge and reason.

Not any more...why do you think the wingnuts are so determined to stop their own children from learning? Because we're getting to the point where some kids know better than their parents!

In many cases, kids are getting to be far more educated and clued-in than their own parents, and lots of parents find that deeply threatening. It's like how, back in the day, racist parents all over America were terrified that Little Billy would go off to a mixed-race college and find out that black people aren't all drug-abusing criminals. Bigotted parents HATE the idea that their children might reject bigotry, and willfully-stupid parents HATE the idea that their children might embrace knowledge and reason.
Yep. God forbid (;) ) Little Billy should actually start to think about how and why things are the way they are instead of just blindly accepting and obeying some ill-defined, arbitrary, outside authority. I mean, if he has the nerve to take that attitude with god, how will we ever get him to bend over meekly for the government?

Not any more...why do you think the wingnuts are so determined to stop their own children from learning? Because we're getting to the point where kids know better than their parents! Kids are getting to be far more educated and clued-in than their own parents, and lots of parents find that deeply threatening. It's like how, back in the day, racist parents all over America were terrified that Little Billy would go off to a mixed-race college and find out that black people aren't all drug-abusing criminals. Bigotted parents HATE the idea that their children might reject bigotry, and willfully-stupid parents HATE the idea that their children might embrace knowledge and reason.

Well, in my mom's case, it's just that she automatically believes whichever religious authority figure makes the most noise. You see, they're Christians. That means that they would never lie and never knowingly mis-represent the truth. She went from accepting the scientific age of the earth and believing that God guided evolution to young Earth creationism shortly after being exposed to Rev. Dobson. Now socially conservative young earth creationists influence her positions on just about everything. For example, as a nurse who often dealt with terminally ill patients with chronic pain, she was pro-euthanasia up until a few years ago. Then some religious leader compared euthanasia to abortion, and bang! that was the end of that.

You'd think that as a nurse, she must have at least some biological sciences background and knowledge, but it's like she partitions that knowledge off with a great big firewall or something. Like considering "changing to suit their environment" as somehow different from evolution. Oh, and apparently, since carbon dating isn't accurate to the day and year it's not useful as a guide to something's age at all.

She hasn't tried to reconcile fossils with young earth creationism. I confronted her about that one day, asking if she accepted the claims that some make that "the Devil planted them there to confuse people about God and creationism". She said no, she didn't, but beyond that refused to address the issue.

On the other hand, she didn't stop me from taking my younger siblings (I'm 34, but have siblings that are 9-15 years old) on a camping trip to Royal Tyrrel Museum, which is an awesome museum of...paleontology. My youngest brother stared at the charts that showed dinosaurs and other creatures existing millions of years ago, and struggled to reconcile this with the young earth creationism home schooling that he has received. But the two older girls glibly shrugged it off, and didn't think about the contradictions at all. And the youngest of the bunch just liked the exhibits.

But what do you do? I can't tell them she's lying; it would be disrespectful and dishonest, given that Mom believes what she is saying. But I really want my younger siblings to learn some critical thinking skills so that they don't just blindly accept what an authority figure (religious or otherwise) tells them. Problem is, I live about 1500 miles away from them, and can't visit much.

Sigh. I hate arguing with my mom. And I hate doing it in front of the kids even more. But if these topics come up and I don't debate them, then I'm accepting that she's teaching them something I totally disagree with, and that may even be harmful to them in the future.

If you have suggestions, please, let me know.

If you have suggestions, please, let me know.

Well, instead of telling them that their mother is lying (as, for all we know, she could be telling the truth), simply show them, as the older loving brother, your point of view. Explain to them that there's more than one side of things and, in the end, it would be up to them to decide what's truth.

I think that would be pretty fair to everyone. Don't you?

If you have suggestions, please, let me know.


Best thing you can probably do is buy them books for christmas or their birthdays and stuff like that. If the youngest was interested in the dinosaur exhibits get him a book on disosaurs that has lots of pictures to keep his interest and will teach him a few facts about them. The older two though...if their both teenage girls there's nothing you'll be able to do to get let alone keep their attention and teach them something. But that's just my thinking.

Best thing you can probably do is buy them books for christmas or their birthdays and stuff like that. If the youngest was interested in the dinosaur exhibits get him a book on disosaurs that has lots of pictures to keep his interest and will teach him a few facts about them. The older two though...if their both teenage girls there's nothing you'll be able to do to get let alone keep their attention and teach them something. But that's just my thinking.
Pay to have an attractive young man tattooed with the cliff notes to whichever of Darwin's texts is the shortest?

Pay to have an attractive young man tattooed with the cliff notes to whichever of Darwin's texts is the shortest?
He also has to be the lead singer in a crappy band but that just may work.

They surveyed 800 people who were at home in the middle of the day. It's hardly damning evidence against a country of around 400 million. Survey, I dub thee Sir Crappy Survey

He also has to be the lead singer in a crappy band but that just may work.
Yeah, sorry. That's a cheap shot. I honestly have no idea what the hell I'd do about that situation. It sounds absolutely ghastly.

They surveyed 800 people who were at home in the middle of the day. It's hardly damning evidence against a country of around 400 million. Survey, I dub thee Sir Crappy Survey

I pointed that out earlier and people tried to kid themselves that it's perfectly fine to use that finding and claim it represents the entire nation. To me it says that Creationists are more likely to be at home during the day :D

If you have suggestions, please, let me know.
Here's the cool thing about kids: they're literally built to learn. They are specifically and beautifully designed to question, investigate, and inquire. In my experience, kids sometimes like fairy stories because of the entertainment value, but most of them prefer to know "the real stuff" in addition to the stories.

My little brother (14) loves a book we gave him, called "In The Beginning," which tells the creation myths from a variety of cultures. He likes these stories because they're fun and have lots of colorful characters. But this book has never stopped him from asking questions about how the world really works, because growing minds will never be satisfied with answers as dull and lifeless as "God did it."

Many Creationists are frantically trying to block their kids from learning anything about evolution, and I think they're doing so because somewhere deep down they know these things about their kids' minds. They know that evolutionary theory is more fascinating, substantial, and productive than Creationism, and they know their kids are smart enough to realize that. They know that kids reach a certain age when they begin losing patience with "God did it"...unless, of course, you deliberately and systematically trash every inquiring and intelligent impulse in them. So that's what the parents do.

It's sad that your mother is so terrified of reality, but the good news is that many young people start out in science-phobic families and still grow up to be solid and wonderful thinkers. I honestly believe that as long as you make sure your siblings have access to accurate information they will probably make good choices for themselves.

I pointed that out earlier and people tried to kid themselves that it's perfectly fine to use that finding and claim it represents the entire nation. To me it says that Creationists are more likely to be at home during the day :D

I would say it's likely that it's more likely that the more uneducated people are likely to be at home during the day. Assuming they are employed look at which jobs are more likely to require you to work at night. With the exception of a few emergency related jobs (doctors and nurses) most night or evening jobs require little or no education.

I would say it's likely that it's more likely that the more uneducated people are likely to be at home during the day. Assuming they are employed look at which jobs are more likely to require you to work at night. With the exception of a few emergency related jobs (doctors and nurses) most night or evening jobs require little or no education.

In which case they're likely to be cranky for being woken up.

In which case they're likely to be cranky for being woken up.

Whatever. When I was a waiter, I certainly didn't sleep all day simply because I didn't work until five. I think servers in college towns are the exception and are likely to not be home anyway, but still I think most people who work evenings are up by noon at the latest.

Whatever. When I was a waiter, I certainly didn't sleep all day simply because I didn't work until five. I think servers in college towns are the exception and are likely to not be home anyway, but still I think most people who work evenings are up by noon at the latest.

These people only ring when you are either asleep, sitting down for dinner or in the shower.

Do people still answer the phone from a number they don't recognize anymore? I haven't for years- if it's important, they'll call back a couple times or leave a message. And that's on my cell phone as I do have a land line, there just isn't a phone hooked up to it :P

As I have actually once been polled for a political survey, I can guarantee that they also call your home after working hours.

Those guys who call at dinner time aren't always telemarketers.

Oh, and thank you for the suggestions, everyone.

I should mention that I and my other adult siblings have won one battle: mom is no longer home schooling the younger kids. We framed it as a "you work too hard" argument (which was true - 2 nursing jobs plus farm wife plus homeschooling is far too much), but it means that they are now following the BC (Canada) science curriculum, which does not use young earth creationist materials. So at least they'll now be exposed to these ideas and, hopefully, start to question the discrepencies. And if they want to pass Science/Biology, they'll have to put the right answers on the test.

On the other hand, I'm sure mom has a box full of Jack Chick cartoons to fight the evolution classes.

I pointed that out earlier and people tried to kid themselves that it's perfectly fine to use that finding and claim it represents the entire nation. To me it says that Creationists are more likely to be at home during the day :D

I had the same thought myself when I read the article.

...or smoked too much pot.

Pot doesn't make you believe in fairy tales.

Pot doesn't make you believe in fairy tales.
I dunno...it doesn't MAKE you believe them, but it sure makes me more willing to nod and smile when somebody else tells me there's a loving magical fairy in the sky. Of course, I also nod and smile when they tell me the bean dip is giving them stock tips.

I don't know if I'm a young-earther or old-earther. It doesn't matter much to me in the end. I recognize that God created us and made us in His image.

I feel that I should also state that I completely accept microevolution. Adaptation is key to survival, and one can notice the change in appearance of birds (feather color) after a few generations as well as the looks of a dog after interbreeding it with a different kind.

However, I don't believe in macroevolution. A bird can change its colors but it cannot, after a million years or so, become an entirely different bird, much less a different species altogether. That's the bit I find hard to accept.

So, there are creationists who accept evolution, just not in the way you might think.

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution. Macroevolution is what you get when elements of microevolution get stacked up, one on top of another, over thousands or millions of years.

Plus, there are some things in nature that indicate that God was something of an idiot if he created everything as-is. Whales with vestigial hip bones (http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/rudiments05.html), the fact that the nerves and blood vessels that support the retina poke through and cover it (thereby clouding our sight, causing those weird little lights you see when you press on your eyeballs, and creating a minute blind spot), and the fact that men have nipples, for example. What kind, intelligent, loving God would give humans items so useless and potentially harmful as tonsils, appendixes, and wisdom teeth?

It'd be a hell of a lot easier if you just asked God if we created everything.

Yep. God forbid (;) ) Little Billy should actually start to think about how and why things are the way they are instead of just blindly accepting and obeying some ill-defined, arbitrary, outside authority. I mean, if he has the nerve to take that attitude with god, how will we ever get him to bend over meekly for the government?
I don't know you too well, but Sir, I believe we may think somewhat alike. :D

This seemed to be the time to post this wonderfull diagram from landover
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0301/evolution1.gif

I don't know you too well, but Sir, I believe we may think somewhat alike. :D
Please, feel free to call me "milady". ;) I'm always glad to make the acquaintance of a fellow traveler (loose usage).

Fuck AOL news, and fuck these stupid statistics that try to show America is a bunch of bumbling retards using LESS THAN 0.0003 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION!
They surveyed 800 people who were at home in the middle of the day. It's hardly damning evidence against a country of around 400 million. Survey, I dub thee Sir Crappy Survey
A couple of points here:
1. Current population of the US is a tad under 300 million (according to the US Population clock http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html as I write this, it is 297,515,516)
2. 808 respondents, while sounding a very small proportion of the population is, surprisingly, a very decent amount to assess for statistical purposes. It would give a mean error rate of +/- 3.5%, meaning that the 51% quoted is actually a number most likely falling between 47.5% and 54.5%.
Because of the way error rates are calculated, most surveys try to have around 1000 replies to ensure accuracy of the statistics.
100 replies has a margin of error of =/-10%.
1000 replies would give a 3.16% margin of error.
If you were to ask 10 000 people, this would fall to 1%.
100 000 would give ayou 0.316%.
It just isn't economically feasible to ask so many people when the margin of error isn't going to drop significantly enough to make a difference to the findings. 1000 is a good number as it is easily attainable, cost effective and produces a reasonably low margin of error.
Remember these are just indicators of the general populace's opinions. Considering they've been fairly consistent at around 50% for the last few years, I can't see how they can be wrong.
As for faults in the survey - they're relatively minor. Only calling ppl during the day - what does that prove? Is there any study or statistics which show that only (or at least more than the average proportion of) evanglical christians stay at home during the day? That only die-hard anti-evolutionists answer phone surveys? That most evolutionists don't have land-lines anymore?
Minor factors, which are covered by the margin of error.

To be honest, the fact that I have to explain statistical research does speak volumes of the state of the US education system and goes some way methinks to vindicating this survey. ;)


This public service announcement has been issued by The Irrational ramblings of Demented Hamsters.



*for those who are interested and don't know - margin of error is found by taking the reciprocal of the square root of the number of people surveyed.
In this case: 1/√808 = 0.0352, or 3.52%

To be honest, the fact that I have to explain statistical research does speak volumes of the state of the US education system and goes some way methinks to vindicating this survey. ;)

In the US, you usually are never exposed to statistics (beyond concepts like median and mean) unless you go to college - and even then, only if you are a science or math major (in which case the course is required), or if you take it as an elective.

Perish forbid that I, as an English Literature major in my undergrad, should take two statistics courses and a demography course. I thought it would come in handy, and it did.

I find that statistics are more useful to me than most of the things I learned in college.

A couple of points here:
1. Current population of the US is a tad under 300 million (according to the US Population clock http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html as I write this, it is 297,515,516)
2. 808 respondents, while sounding a very small proportion of the population is, surprisingly, a very decent amount to assess for statistical purposes. It would give a mean error rate of +/- 3.5%, meaning that the 51% quoted is actually a number most likely falling between 47.5% and 54.5%.
Because of the way error rates are calculated, most surveys try to have around 1000 replies to ensure accuracy of the statistics.
100 replies has a margin of error of =/-10%.
1000 replies would give a 3.16% margin of error.
If you were to ask 10 000 people, this would fall to 1%.
100 000 would give ayou 0.316%.
It just isn't economically feasible to ask so many people when the margin of error isn't going to drop significantly enough to make a difference to the findings. 1000 is a good number as it is easily attainable, cost effective and produces a reasonably low margin of error.
Remember these are just indicators of the general populace's opinions. Considering they've been fairly consistent at around 50% for the last few years, I can't see how they can be wrong.
As for faults in the survey - they're relatively minor. Only calling ppl during the day - what does that prove? Is there any study or statistics which show that only (or at least more than the average proportion of) evanglical christians stay at home during the day? That only die-hard anti-evolutionists answer phone surveys? That most evolutionists don't have land-lines anymore?
Minor factors, which are covered by the margin of error.

To be honest, the fact that I have to explain statistical research does speak volumes of the state of the US education system and goes some way methinks to vindicating this survey. ;)


This public service announcement has been issued by The Irrational ramblings of Demented Hamsters.



*for those who are interested and don't know - margin of error is found by taking the reciprocal of the square root of the number of people surveyed.
In this case: 1/√808 = 0.0352, or 3.52%

The fact that you didn't mention at all the factor of how many people refused to respond to the survey speaks volumes about your knowledge of the subject. A basic part of an even remotely valid survey is noting how many phone calls were made in total. There is a significant difference between talking to 808 people and all answering and talking to 4000 people and 808 answering (in the latter, it ceases to be random). The fact that it's an unusual number suggests they sampled a certain number of people and just went with the ones that replied. This is of significant importance in statistics, but then you knew that, yes?

Also, to suggest that any study during the daytime would have an equal chance of accuracy is fairly spurious. What if the question was do you have a daytime job? Do you think it would likely to have the same accuracy to the general population as do you like pepsi or coke? The fact is there are many logical conclusions one could reach other than this study is representative of the current US population. Much like if I did a survey of 1000 people at a book store in Champaign-Urbana (a Big Ten College town in the top five in nearly every Engineering and physics discipline) to find out if they understand subatomic forces and then conducted the same survey in a Piggly Wiggly in rural Arkansas, I would likely get very different results well outside the statistical error rates. Your error rate is a statistic and like all statistics it makes sense when applied to a population like a population of studies but it offers little or no insight into an individual person or study. If a white person and a black person walk into a store and a person considers no other evidence other than which is statistically more likely to commit a crime to decide which to watch for shoplifting then that person is a moron. Anyone who does not consider the additional evidence available to them is blindly guessing. You've considered no logical evidence other than your own limited knowledge of statistics.

The fact that you didn't mention at all the factor of how many people refused to respond to the survey speaks volumes about your knowledge of the subject. A basic part of an even remotely valid survey is noting how many phone calls were made in total. There is a significant difference between talking to 808 people and all answering and talking to 4000 people and 808 answering (in the latter, it ceases to be random). The fact that it's an unusual number suggests they sampled a certain number of people and just went with the ones that replied. This is of significant importance in statistics, but then you knew that, yes?

Also, to suggest that any study during the daytime would have an equal chance of accuracy is fairly spurious. What if the question was do you have a daytime job? Do you think it would likely to have the same accuracy to the general population as do you like pepsi or coke? The fact is there are many logical conclusions one could reach other than this study is representative of the current US population. Much like if I did a survey of 1000 people at a book store in Champaign-Urbana (a Big Ten College town in the top five in nearly every Engineering and physics discipline) to find out if they understand subatomic forces and then conducted the same survey in a Piggly Wiggly in rural Arkansas, I would likely get very different results well outside the statistical error rates. Your error rate is a statistic and like all statistics it makes sense when applied to a population like a population of studies but it offers little or no insight into an individual person or study. If a white person and a black person walk into a store and a person considers no other evidence other than which is statistically more likely to commit a crime to decide which to watch for shoplifting then that person is a moron. Anyone who does not consider the additional evidence available to them is blindly guessing. You've considered no logical evidence other than your own limited knowledge of statistics.

You are so right! I don't know anything about statistics. I'm embarrassed that I was found out thus and so. Come tomorrow, I'll return my Bachelor's of Science degree where I minored in stats, along with my postgrad diploma in Stats. Because obviously, as you have uncovered through my simplistic and quick post, I have little understanding in this field.
Incidently, where did you get your qualifications from?

Why are you defending a survey that is obviously biased? The survey in question is using a dated medium that is not the norm for communications anymore. I know that neither I nor any of the other progressive people, the ones that would have been in the minority in that poll, would have even answered the poll even if they had a home line. Case in point, my grandmother, a staunch right wing catholic who does not believe in evolution, would have answered the phone and talked to the people. She has a lot of friends that are similar, who are in fact home all day with land lines and believe in the same thing. The population they are getting their sample from are the same ones that do most of the voting which is why we are in the predicament we are in right now.

Anyhow, disregarding the fact that the general populace is more savy to telephone 'polls' and telemarketing calls (which the elderly are notorious for not only answering but getting caught up in) and will not answer those types of calls is very short sighted. I don't care where you got your degree from if you are unable to see the basic facts staring you in the face.You forget where you are at maybe? A message board does not care what credentials you have as any moron can come on here and say they have a masters in XXX and just google any answers to sound intelligent.

The whole concept of evolution is movement from lesser to greater organization, from lesser to greater complexity. Unfortunately, Gauthier seems to be going in the wrong direction. :D

You are so right! I don't know anything about statistics. I'm embarrassed that I was found out thus and so. Come tomorrow, I'll return my Bachelor's of Science degree where I minored in stats, along with my postgrad diploma in Stats. Because obviously, as you have uncovered through my simplistic and quick post, I have little understanding in this field.
Incidently, where did you get your qualifications from?

Purdue managed to give me college credit for the statistics courses I took there in 1988 when I was 13 but I'm sure they were just goofing on me because I had such a weak understanding of the subject. My high school used to pull me from class to teach statistics and probability in our economics and biology courses. I took several courses at the University of Illinois before the university asked me to quit doing so since they didn't relate to my degree and I was attending for free. I'd give you more information about current interactions with a couple of universities but it would make it very easy to discover my actual identity which isn't in my interest, but suffice it to say that I've been offered degrees from several universities provided I become a part of their faculty (which, to be fair, says more about my ability to make money for the university than my education).

I have a lot of respect for abilities and little respect for documentation of abilities. You're welcome to demonstrate your knowledge rather than claim your degrees which no one here can verify anyway. For that matter, why not say I've received the nobel peace prize for my work in statistics and probability.

Now, back to the point... are you suggesting that all studies fall within the statistical accuracy derived from the equation you posted or do you accept that the margin of error is more accurately called the LIKELY margin of error and thus has little relevance on a study where are given little information on the way it was conducted? Are you suggesting that one can reach no logical conclusions about the people who were most likely to be reached by this survey? For example, I'm guessing, but in all likelihood this survey was conducted like many surveys during the week and during business hours. Now they didn't give us this information, but as already noted, they left A LOT of important information out of the article, as editorial articles are wont to do. One could easily logically come to the conclusion that during this time of day depending on the time of year (this study was done in October) and location of the calls (if there was any accuracy to the survey the location was randomly around the US) that people who would be most likely to be home at this time are either unemployed or employed in the evening or night. If one were to examine evening and night jobs, one would find that there are much less jobs by percentage that require education during the evening and night shifts. Thus one could easily reach the conclusion that people who take these surveys are less likely to be educated.

You tried to pretend we were claim that it was evangelists at home during this time, but we made no such claim. A more accurate description of our claim is that the people at home during such times are more likely to be of less education than average and the less educated you are the less likely you are to understand evolution.

This is supported in the article itself when it says those with college education are most likely to support evolution.

So if anything this survey shows that the people who were most likely to be home when they conducted the survey are more likely to believe in a more strict version of Creation.

As far as your other comments, you glazed over a lot of important points and in doing so showed exactly why so many people ignorantly say you can find statistics to support anything. You can find statistics that support anything but not statistics that are valid in their conclusions.

This study just based on what was in the article had glaring problems. Look at the wording of the answers. Does the "God guided evolution" answer refer to ID or to, as I believe, God created the laws under which evolution works. Look at the number of participants, 808. An unusual number that suggest that there were those that could not be reached or would not answer but we are not given that information.

EDIT: I failed to note the elderly and am hesitant to speculate on their views. Let's just say they are generally more likely to be conservative on certain points.

I talk of the elderly because, to me, of the elderly people I know, and I know more than my fair share, most have similar views as the era they grew up in was more prone to religious views than even today.

Ah, nice try at a cheap shot Forrest and always trying to hide the insults behind the Grinning Face. But at least it's nice to hear you spew something besides the usual Bushevik-pretending-to-be-a-Centerist propaganda like "Cindy Sheehan is a traitor" and "Liberals This Liberals That."

Let's give him an applause ladies and gentlemen!

And pray for that Agent Orange cancer to move faster.

See, now that was more than uncalled for.

Ah, nice try at a cheap shot Forrest and always trying to hide the insults behind the Grinning Face. But at least it's nice to hear you spew something besides the usual Bushevik-pretending-to-be-a-Centerist propaganda like "Cindy Sheehan is a traitor" and "Liberals This Liberals That."

Let's give him an applause ladies and gentlemen!

-insult removed- for rather obvious reasons. Situation was resolved, no need for anyone to see it.

Ultimately, this comes out as a death threat, wishing that someone would die earlier. We DO NOT TOLERATE THIS.

Gauthier: 1-week Forum Ban

Perhaps you'll learn to not wish death upon others in the first place.

No need to repeat the crap he said!

You effing little http://www.spacespider.net/emo/common009.gif!

EDIT: I see Euro already acted. Go Euro!