Home » Biology, Comp. Sci. / Eng., Culture, Darwinism, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Science » US Leads in ID Belief, Trails in Astrology Belief

US Leads in ID Belief, Trails in Astrology Belief

I read this Huffington post which notes that the U.S. leads Europe by quite a margin in those who reject orthodox evolution as scientific fact. They go on to an unsupported conclusion that this means the U.S. must be trailing in scientific and engineering accomplishments. Au contraire, mon ami, au contraire!

Curious, I did a little research and found this interesting tidbit. Twice the percentage of Europeans believe astrology is scientific (55%) as Americans (25%).

Furthermore, Americans score essentially equal or much higher than Eurupeans in answering questions about science correctly with the sole exception of “humans evolved from animals”. The funny thing is that Americans might be right and the test is wrong in that regard as it’s nowhere near proven that humans evolved by chance from animals – after all, Americans get more right answers everywhere else.

Even more interesting is that Americans by a huge margin consider science more important than Europeans.

More Americans than Europeans support basic research.

More Americans than Europeans are optimistic about biotechnology improving their lives.

Americans are more interested in science and technology issues than Europeans.

America has the highest score in the world for science & technology leading indicators.

Since 1995 America has gone from 25% of global high tech GDP to 43% while Europe declined from 27% to 19%. Good golly Miss Molly, that’s the same time frame time ID has been blossoming in America too. :smile:

I could go on and on and on but I think you get the drift by now. This is an object lesson that you should never ever take anything you find on the Huffington Post at face value. Darwinists and their left-liberal supporters seldom let facts get in the way of their arguments.

So much for the supposed better judgement of Europeans on what’s science and what isn’t, eh? :roll:

And so much for the increasing belief in ID working against science and technology in the United States.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

16 Responses to US Leads in ID Belief, Trails in Astrology Belief

  1. Thank you very much for that post.

  2. Dave, you hit a home run with this one! This is an intriguing comparison of statistics. The simple conclusion reached by the Dawkinites is clearly in error.

  3. I was in Hungary recently. They make some good kolbas!…

    Anyway, I sometimes like to talk origins & evolutuion with people. Even with strangers under certain circumstances. But I do so casual & civil manner (I think).

    …I didn’t meet any hardcore evolutionists until Amsterdam. This person worked in a restaurant and was studying molecular biology. She told me she never met a person that didn’t believe in evolution. Wow – I thought.

    Makes me wonder how often other commenters on this board – obviously intersted in the controversy – bring this topic up in discussions with friends, colleagues… etc…

  4. “Makes me wonder how often other commenters on this board – obviously intersted in the controversy – bring this topic up in discussions with friends, colleagues… etc…”

    A couple of times I brought up the subject on a forum for airline professionals. It’s a quick way to (unintentionally) flush out the atheists and people uncomfortable with traditional religion since they always turn it into an argument about religion!

  5. “Twice the percentage of Europeans believe astrology is scientific (55%) as Americans (25%).”

    Mr. Dawkins, which is less logical, believing that astrology is scientific, or believing that ID is scientific? C’mon, sir, be honest.

  6. “Makes me wonder how often other commenters on this board – obviously interested in the controversy – bring this topic up in discussions with friends, colleagues… etc…”

    I used to discuss it with friends/acquaintances quite often. With a few exceptions, most people did not know that NDE equals “unguided”, “non-telic”, “blind watchmaker” or whatever. I remember one friend saying, “What about DNA? They’re saying that DNA came about through an unguided process? Are you kidding me? How do they know that?” One of my former friends, who happens to be a biologist, and also a militant Darwinist, was actually the least knowledgeable of NDE. To her, everything she learned was just a “given”, and I was insane for even questioning the “great” Darwin. I would question her and she had no answers, and could provide no answers upon researching it. I clearly remember her not being able to distinguish between micro and macroevolution – they were the same process as far as she was concerned. A change in beak size was the same thing as a new body plan. And after all, her professors had already told her NDE was a “fact”. Oh yeah, I would never bring up religion, but for good measure she would always insist with fervent elitism that the Bible was just a “book of fairy tales” written by old men to “control women”. Her freshman year professor gave her that gem; nothing like good ole’ indoctrination.

  7. Dave,

    One might look at the number of enrollments in biology curriculums and their correlation with the ascendancy of ID. My cursory look suggests a correlation. It demonstrates Brian Alters was wrong about ID’s effect on science.

    Sal

  8. Outstanding post, Dave! Enlightened people realize that ID makes good sense. It takes a hefty dose of indocrination to convince a person otherwise.

  9. The Catholic Church rejects the “intelligent design” movement and unequivocally supports the teaching of evolution. The National Council of Churches is a progressive association that represents 55 million American Christians, and it has taken a leadership role in resisting “ID” and other impositions of private belief onto the public sphere. (For some reason, the mainstream media have ignored this organization so thoroughly that I’ve described them as “America’s Secret Christians.”)

    This guy has no idea what he’s talking about. The Catholic Church has NOT rejected ID. The Pope has made it clear that evolution that is unguided is NOT acceptable to the Church. Even Pope John Paul II said that! You notice how he says the Church “unequivocally supports the teaching of evolution.” What he’s trying to claim is they support unguided, blind, accidental evolution. I assure you they DO NOT in any way support this.

    Also notice how ID is suddenly an “imposition of private belief” !!

    Only the Darwinists have the facts, we simpletons have merely our “private beliefs” that we should keep hidden from public view.

    Have to say it again- you look at this debate, and one side comes out acting childish, foolish, and downright hateful…and, it’s not the ID camp.

    If you can’t even get your facts straight as to what the Catholic Church supports- why should we trust anything else you say?

  10. Although I agree with the point of your post, that greater acceptance of ID can be considered an indicator of scientific literacy, your assessment of the NSF statistic was not quite right. (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/.....g07-07.htm)
    Excluding the case involving evolution, that puts the EU ahead of the US on 4 questions, behind the US on 3 questions, and essentially equal to the US on 1 question. 1 question was N/A with regard to the EU, for some reason.
    The reason why I excluded the one on evolution was that it asked whether or not it was true that humans are developed from earlier species. Well, this is a position that is compatible with several forms of ID, both front-loading and the “tinkering under the hood” form. I agree with common descent, personally.

    Anyway, the statistics that you cited in that case do not show that the US is “essentially equal or much higher,” rather, essentially equal but trailing.

    It would be interesting to see which parts about evolution the american public agrees with or disagrees with, because some are and are not compatible with ID.

  11. #9

    “The Pope has made it clear that evolution that is unguided is NOT acceptable to the Church.”

    That’s true. An explicit statement about was made on November 2005 during a general audience in St Peter:

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat.....09_en.html

    Let’s cite the citation:

    ———–
    3. Consequently, we rise from the works of creation to the greatness of God and to his loving mercy. This is what we are taught by the Fathers of the Church, in whose voices resound the constant Christian Tradition. Thus, St Basil the Great, in one of the initial pages of his first homily on the Hexaemeron, where he comments on the creation narrative in the first chapter of Genesis, pauses to consider God’s wise action and is brought to recognize God’s goodness as the dynamic centre of creation. The following are several sayings from the long reflection of the Holy Bishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia: “”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’. My words give way, overwhelmed by wonder at this thought” (1, 2, 1: Sulla Genesi [Omelie sull'Esamerone], Milan, 1990, pp. 9, 11).

    In fact, even if some, “deceived by the atheism they bore within them, imagined that the universe lacked guidance and order, at the mercy as it were of chance”, the sacred author instead “immediately enlightened our minds with the Name of God at the beginning of the account, saying: “In the beginning… God created…’. And what beauty there is in this order!” (1, 2, 3: ibid., p. 11).

    “So if the world has a beginning and has been created, it seeks the One who gave it being and is its Creator…. Moses prepared you with his teaching, impressing in our souls as a seal and amulet the Most Holy Name of God, when he says: “In the beginning God created’. Blessed nature, goodness exempt from envy, the one who is the object of love to all reasonable beings, beauty in addition to everything else that is desirable, the principle of beings, the source of life, the light of the mind, inaccessible wisdom, in brief, it is he who “in the beginning created the heavens and the earth’” (1, 2, 6-7: ibid., p. 13).

    I find the words of this fourth-century Father surprisingly up to date when he says: Some people, “deceived by the atheism they bore within them, imagined that the universe lacked guidance and order, at the mercy as it were of chance”. How many these “some people” are today! Deceived by atheism they consider and seek to prove that it is scientific to think that all things lack guidance and order as though they were at the mercy of chance. The Lord through Sacred Scripture reawakens our reason which has fallen asleep and tells us: in the beginning was the creative Word. In the beginning the creative Word – this Word that created all things, that created this intelligent design which is the cosmos – is also love.

    Therefore, let us allow this Word of God to awaken us; let us pray that it will additionally illumine our minds so that we can perceive the message of creation – also written in our hearts – that the beginning of all things is creative wisdom, and this wisdom is love, it is goodness: “his mercy endures for ever”.
    ———–

  12. Addendum.

    One comment about tha last part of the speech:

    “The Lord through Sacred Scripture reawakens our reason which has fallen asleep and tells us: in the beginning was the creative Word. In the beginning the creative Word – this Word that created all things, that created this intelligent design which is the cosmos – is also love.”

    Here the Pope explicitly says that only for a sleeping reason the man doesn’t recognize the intelligent design of the cosmos.
    Very, very important.

  13. El Klone

    Although I agree with the point of your post, that greater acceptance of ID can be considered an indicator of scientific literacy, your assessment of the NSF statistic was not quite right.

    Point taken. However, if you add up the percentages for the US for each of the 9 literacy questions excluding evolution then take the average, and do the same for EU, the U.S. comes out slightly higher.

    So it IS essentially equal with a slight U.S. lead if all 9 questions are given equal weight. Keep in mind if we consider the opener a valid question and add that into the equation “Is astrology science?” then the U.S. gets a wider lead in the average.

    I would guess I unconsciously weighted the questions differently such that being way more right about Astrology not being science is better than being a little more right about continental drift. Or that being way more right about the nature of radioactivity and antibiotics is more important than being a little more right about sperm determining the sex of a child or the center of the earth being very hot. The relative importance of the questions biased my conclusion.

  14. DaveScot, El Klone, as the YEC position is rather strong in the US, I think that it needs to be factored in as well. In addition to the question of common descent, this is a factor in the “continental drift” question and the “big bang” question (no eu results).

  15. DaveScot, how did you add up the percentages of 9 questions? One of the points of EU data was NA, and no bar graph to go with it. It seems that there are only 8 that you could add up there.

  16. Ej Klone

    I discounted the question on the big bang when tallying up EU vs. US scores. The “correct” answer to that is wrong in any case. The “big bang” is a misnomer. It wasn’t an explosion. In one instant there was absolutely nothing then in the next instant all the energy in the universe today just appeared everywhere at once. Nothing exploded in the sense that matter/energy was accelerated outward from anywhere in particular. It just silently appeared everywhere at once. It became diluted by the expansion of space not by inertial forces as in an explosion.

    If you’re interested in further reading go to this article which I’ve cited here at UD in the past:

    Scientific American Magazine – March, 2005

    Misconceptions about the Big Bang
    Baffled by the expansion of the universe? You’re not alone. Even astronomers frequently get it wrong
    By Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis

    The National Science Foundation flunky who assembled those questions deserves three lashes with a wet noodly appendage from the Flying Spaghetti Monster for giving the wrong answer.

Leave a Reply