Why is evolution such a big issue in America?

[FabuVinny]

I've looked upon denial of global warming with cynicism but the controversy over evolution is something else entirely.

If anything in science is fact, it's evolution. A wide range of evidence has been collected that supports it and in all this time nothing that casts doubt on it has ever come up.

Europe got over it a century ago. A good example is an encyclical (an offical letter sent by the Pope to Catholic bishops, usually about policy) in 1950 that accepted the truth of evolution. In the words of Pope John Paul II in 1981 "The Bible does not wish to teach how the heavens were made, but how one goes to heaven". Religion can interpret science all it wants, and has shown it can survive alongside scientific development in this way. But when religion trys to have an affect on science is where the trouble typically starts in history.

 

[Barb]

The problem is, as Nancy Pearcey stated, "You can have God or natural selection, but not both." There are many scientists who accept evolution and who believe in God; on the other hand, there are scientists like Richard Dawkins who categorically state that to accept evolution is to accept atheism as the only logical conclusion. That, in a nutshell, is what the real issue behind evolution is in America.

 

[the gadfly]

You have to remember one of the reasons the United States came into being as it exists is because of the refugees who fled other countries due to religious persecution. Here, they found a place where they could practice their religion as they wished. They may not have been happy about what was being taught in public schools, but it was a price they were willing to pay to continue worshipping as they wanted.

Then, one day, politicians discovered people who practice their religion regularly tended to vote more often than people who didn't.

Thus, politicians began to cater their positions more and more in favor of the people who actually voted.

And those people began to feel more and more empowered and started demanding schools teach what they believed in.

End of story.

 

[Zeta]

Generally speaking, I've found that science in general isn't taught well in the US compared to other countries. I've talked to a lot of people who tried to refute it, but not one of them actually understood the concept. Most people seem to think the theory of evolution in the real world is identical to the sort of evolutions seen in Pokemon - one day an animal magically glows and changes into another one in a few seconds.

 

[Habunake]

"Well, I tried to make my dogs fight other dogs in hopes it would start to shoot fire and grow bigger...but I only got arrested!!"

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Generally speaking, I've found that science in general isn't taught well in the US compared to other countries. I've talked to a lot of people who tried to refute it, but not one of them actually understood the concept. Most people seem to think the theory of evolution in the real world is identical to the sort of evolutions seen in Pokemon - one day an animal magically glows and changes into another one in a few seconds.

The problem with schools, in general, in the US is that the government is too keen on "ensuring a high quality of education." This is basically an altruistic way of saying "we're going to screw you all." You get any ten people in a room, and ask them what they think kids should learn. You'll get, to a certain degree, ten different answers. Now, let a government with over 400 Congressmen try to iron out school policy. What you get is the crap taught in American schools.

Evolution is but the tip of the iceberg (the one iceberg that global warming won't melt), and the only reason it gets so much attention is because it's resulted in this divide between people of religion, and those who choose to go without (it's not a clear divide, but this is predominantly where the divide lies). WHY evolution is so controversial in America goes back to the very origin of Darwin's theory. Look at the history. People of religion have, since the beginning, viewed this as an "assault" on their beliefs. Why? Because of, more or less, one line: "God created man in His image." To say that man evolved from something else is seen, by many, as an assault on that line in the Bible. And, if these "heathens" (to use a fun word) get a foothold, who knows WHAT they'll tear away from the Bible next. Now, this is NOT true of all religious people. Some (most?) have managed to draw this theory into their faith and (in some cases) used to it STRENGTHEN their beliefs.

The problem is that when people feel cornered, they tend to yell. People who are loud get attention. Many of these people who don't believe in evolution feel backed into a corner (for...various reasons). So they yell. Then, they get heard. And, when you see two people in an alley, who are you more likely to feel sympathy towards? The big guy, or the little guy who's screaming "bloody murder"? Thus, evolution becomes a big deal because the little guy views the switchblade comb as a switchblade knife.

And...now I wonder if I got my point across.

 

[Lil Brother]

I think it's because people like to throw hissy fits and start fights just for the heck of it.

That and most Americans are naturally stupid.

 

[the gadfly]

I think I posted the reasons somewhat more succinctly and more to the point earlier, but whatever...

WHY evolution is so controversial in America goes back to the very origin of Darwin's theory. Look at the history. People of religion have, since the beginning, viewed this as an "assault" on their beliefs. Why? Because of, more or less, one line: "God created man in His image." To say that man evolved from something else is seen, by many, as an assault on that line in the Bible. And, if these "heathens" (to use a fun word) get a foothold, who knows WHAT they'll tear away from the Bible next.

Let us not forget Charles Darwin was English and the "Origin of Species" was first published in England. There was a tremendous uproar following the book's publication, but somehow after all that, evolution isn't an issue there as far as I know. I hope somebody living in the U.K. will tell me if it is.

So, why are the English more receptive to evolution than people in the U.S.? It isn't because the English are less religious, though that may have changed in the last few decades. God knows they've fought more than a few wars because of religion, including a civil war.

I think it's because the British government goes out of its way to avoid playing favorites between the Anglicans, Catholics, other Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc.

Their approach is to remain neutral and teach science in public schools. If I'm not mistaken, the curriculum in public schools is set at the national level. Again, I would welcome corrections.

Here, in the U.S., government is local and school curricula reflect that governance. Unfortunately, federal judges are sworn to uphold national laws and that's where conflict enters. Local officials may curry favor with the local voters, but federal judges are immune from local voters. Hence, conflict arises because of the separation of church and state.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The English were hardly more tolerant to religions than America; even now Elizabeth II is head of the Anglican Church and Roman Catholics can't hold the throne.

Now it sounds like you're trying to get full federal control of education in America, which is not only unconstitutional but problematic. The US is too large to have one standard curriculum for all students.

 

[the gadfly]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The English were hardly more tolerant to religions than America; even now Elizabeth II is head of the Anglican Church and Roman Catholics can't hold the throne.

My point as you've admitted yourself, "the English were hardly more tolerant to religions than America" and the titular head of the Anglican Church--the officially sanctioned church of Britain--is Elizabeth II, IS THAT EVOLUTION DOESN'T SEEM TO BE AN ISSUE in the public schools of Britain.

With all those religious obstacles, both official and otherwise, to overcome, somehow, evolution is a non-issue in the U.K. but is here.

Why is that? What is so different between them and us? Answer me that if you believe the reason is something other than what I stated earlier in this thread.

Now it sounds like you're trying to get full federal control of education in America, which is not only unconstitutional but problematic. The US is too large to have one standard curriculum for all students.

I guess you've never heard of the No Child Left Behind Act which establishes national standards on education through testing. While it's true the act doesn't specify what each public school teaches, it pretty much forces each school to teach the same curriculum to pass the national testing standards or lose federal funding.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

My point as you've admitted yourself, "the English were hardly more tolerant to religions than America" and the titular head of the Anglican Church--the officially sanctioned church of Britain--is Elizabeth II, IS THAT EVOLUTION DOESN'T SEEM TO BE AN ISSUE in the public schools of Britain.

With all those religious obstacles, both official and otherwise, to overcome, somehow, evolution is a non-issue in the U.K. but is here.

Why is that? What is so different between them and us? Answer me that if you believe the reason is something other than what I stated earlier in this thread.

Well, it's not like evolution opposition is a new thing. After all, we had the Scopes Trial in 1924 (which the anti-evolutionists won).

I guess you've never heard of the No Child Left Behind Act which establishes national standards on education through testing. While it's true the act doesn't specify what each public school teaches, it pretty much forces each school to teach the same curriculum to pass the national testing standards or lose federal funding.

Until we find that NCLB is actually being used as an instrument to enforce one national curriculum, it's probably not going to be challenged.

 

[Mozz]

I think it's because people like to throw hissy fits and start fights just for the heck of it.

That and most Americans are naturally stupid.

Enjoy your banning.

 

[bell02+]

^Wow, that's kind of a hefty punishment for such a brief juvenile comment.. ^^;

Anyways, I'm not completely convinced the topic is on evolutions acceptance exclusively but on the desire to teach creationism in public schools. Personally, I feel that, fact or not, creationism is a religious view and should not be taught in schools. There is no religion associated with evolution that I can think of (at least one I'd consider valid).

I'm not certain this is an American issue, I'd like to think this is an issue for other western countries also.. Though on a personal level if someone was to approach me and say they don't believe in evolution I'd be completely open to their opinion (even though I probably won't believe what they say, I'd at least listen to their argument), however I think my blood might start boiling if some one seriously told me they don't believe in global warming.

Maybe its because creationism vs evolution is not a life threatening topic as much as global warming is. (Because that effects more than our children's generation, but our generation because we'll be around when life really, really starts sucking)

 

[Barb]

Personally, I feel that, fact or not, creationism is a religious view and should not be taught in schools. There is no religion associated with evolution that I can think of (at least one I'd consider valid).

I agree completely.

The only reason why it seems like it's an American issue is the separation of church and state. Scientific creationists and fundamentalists want America to be a "Christian nation" again, because that is how they believe it was originally founded. The problem they face is the first amendment, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another.

 

[inkysquid12]

Let us not forget Charles Darwin was English and the "Origin of Species" was first published in England. There was a tremendous uproar following the book's publication, but somehow after all that, evolution isn't an issue there as far as I know. I hope somebody living in the U.K. will tell me if it is.

So, why are the English more receptive to evolution than people in the U.S.? It isn't because the English are less religious, though that may have changed in the last few decades. God knows they've fought more than a few wars because of religion, including a civil war.

I think it's because the British government goes out of its way to avoid playing favorites between the Anglicans, Catholics, other Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc.

Their approach is to remain neutral and teach science in public schools. If I'm not mistaken, the curriculum in public schools is set at the national level. Again, I would welcome corrections.

Here, in the U.S., government is local and school curricula reflect that governance. Unfortunately, federal judges are sworn to uphold national laws and that's where conflict enters. Local officials may curry favor with the local voters, but federal judges are immune from local voters. Hence, conflict arises because of the separation of church and state.

You are right, evolution is not disputed in any way in the U.K and is an 'untouchable' subject (will not be taken off the curriculum). Also, Religious Studies is taught, but focuses on all religions equally. British government is politically neutral, but tries so hard to be so it has actually swung the other way and slightly favours minority religions, for examplehttp://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display.../theworld_January344.xml&section=theworld&col)
However, i believe that recent polls have shown British people are now significantly less religious than Americans.

Also, i saw a programme that said that in America there is a significant movement towards putting 'creation' on the curriculum along-side evolution, as equally plausible theories. I very much hope that it stays part of the study of belief, and not fact.

 

[the gadfly]

Also, i saw a programme that said that in America there is a significant movement towards putting 'creation' on the curriculum along-side evolution, as equally plausible theories. I very much hope that it stays part of the study of belief, and not fact.

This is true.

Fortunately, the state and federal courts keep swatting it down.

You might be asking why "Creation Science" is an issue about what is taught in schools. It all boils down to politics being local. Wherever there are significant numbers of voting--and I emphasize VOTING--people who want to see something take place, it WILL take place locally. Democracy, right?

The courts have stood in the way. The peril is that someday the highest court, the U.S. Supreme Court, will be taken over by religious fundamentalists.

 

[the gadfly]

Sorry to double post, but this thread isn't getting much action.

I really hate it when somebody embeds their comment within a quote.

Why is that? What is so different between them and us? Answer me that if you believe the reason is something other than what I stated earlier in this thread.

Well, it's not like evolution opposition is a new thing. After all, we had the Scopes Trial in 1924 (which the anti-evolutionists won).

No, it's not new. What is new that Genesis is being sneaked in as "science". Just so everyone reading this is clear about our positions, I believe in evolution. What do you believe in?

 

[Barb]

I believe in creation.

 

[Zeta]

That's the thing about science though. It happens if you believe in it or not. You can chose to disbelieve in medication and the evolution and mutation of various viruses and bacteria, but it still goes on. You can chose to disbelieve in physics, but airplanes fly and the world keeps on turning. You can chose to believe that the world is flat, but people cross it everday. And that's why children need to be taught it in schools.

 

[inkysquid12]

You might be asking why "Creation Science" is an issue about what is taught in schools. It all boils down to politics being local. Wherever there are significant numbers of voting--and I emphasize VOTING--people who want to see something take place, it WILL take place locally. Democracy, right?

The courts have stood in the way. The peril is that someday the highest court, the U.S. Supreme Court, will be taken over by religious fundamentalists.

Heh, you can almost imagine pockets of very religious people emerging who all vote for religious polititians who share their views and so have room for god in their political ideologies..