HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Religious belief interfer...

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:02 AM

Religious belief interferes with people's understanding of evolution (NPR)

Last edited Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:26 AM - Edit history (3)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/01/18/145338804/why-do-so-many-have-trouble-with-evolution?sc=fb&cc=fp

21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education.

Another variable investigated by the same poll was how belief in evolution correlates with church attendance. Of those who believe in evolution, 24 percent go to church weekly, 30 percent go nearly weekly/monthly, and 55 percent seldom or never go

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It's in the fossil record, carefully dated using radioactivity, the release of particles from radioactive isotopic decay, which works like a very precise clock. Rocks from volcanic eruptions (igneous rocks) buried near a fossil carry certain amounts of radioactive material, unstable atomic nuclei that emit different kinds of radiation, like tiny bullets. The most common is Uranium-235, which decays into Lead-207. Analyzing the ratio of Uranium-235 to Lead-207 in a sample, and knowing how frequently Uranium-235 emits particles (its half-life is 704 million years, the amount half a sample decays into Lead), scientists can get a very accurate measure of the age of a fossil.

But evidence for evolution is also much more palpable, for example in the risks of overprescribing antibiotics: the more we (and farm animals) take antibiotics, the higher the chance that a microbe will mutate into one resistant to the drug. This is in-your-face evolution, species mutating at the genetic level and adapting to a new environment (in this case, an environment contaminated with antibiotics). The proof of this can be easily achieved in the laboratory (see link above), by comparing original strands of bacteria with those subjected to different doses of antibiotics. It's simple and conclusive, since the changes in the genetic code of the resistant mutant can be identified and studied.


From this article I learned that creationists deny microbial mutation!!! I didn't know they went this far out into the realms of utter stupidity, but they do!

Of course, the person making this claim has NO EVIDENCE to back up her hypothesis - just a desire to maintain an unsupportable belief.

And this reality - the denial of reality, my fellow DUers, is why we can't have good govt.

Support for evolution based upon religious body



edit to add this graph - which is only Christian religious groups, not others mentioned - but others are minorities.



and a graph of the 2008 presidential election - corrected



Importance of religion by state





The percentages of high school graduates.

Political Ideology and Religion:





Income level and religious belief:


(Edited to add other graphs/info in this thread)

Acceptance of Evolutionary Theory by Nation



This link comes from this interesting article excerpted below: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom07/bloom07_index.html

The nations that think religion has a positive impact are also the nations with the most people who do not accept evolutionary theory in the original link in this post - I don't think Indonesia was included, however, but the U.S., South Korea, South Africa, Brazil and India are all nations with the most people who deny evolution is real.



WHY DO SOME PEOPLE RESIST SCIENCE?

...there are cultural factors that need to be explained. Americans are not more resistant to science in general. For instance, 1 in 5 American adults believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, which is somewhat shocking—but the same proportion holds for Germany and Great Britain. But Americans really are special when it comes to certain scientific ideas—and, in particular, with regard to evolutionary theory. The relevant data are shown below, from a 2006 survey published in Science. What explains this culture-specific resistance to evolution?

When faced with this kind of asserted information, one can occasionally evaluate its truth directly. But in some domains, including much of science, direct evaluation is difficult or impossible. Few of us are qualified to assess claims about the merits of string theory, the role in mercury in the etiology of autism, or the existence of repressed memories. So rather than evaluating the asserted claim itself, we instead evaluate the claim's source. If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it. As our colleague Frank Keil has discussed, this sort of division of cognitive labor is essential in any complex society, where any single individuals will lack the resources to evaluate all the claims that he or she hears.

This deference to authority isn't limited to science; the same process holds for certain religious, moral, and political beliefs as well. In an illustrative recent study, subjects were asked their opinion about a social welfare policy, which was described as being endorsed either by Democrats or by Republicans. Although the subjects sincerely believed that their responses were based on the objective merits of the policy, the major determinant of what they thought of the policy was in fact whether or not their favored political party was said to endorse it. More generally, many of the specific moral intuitions held by members of a society appear to be the consequence, not of personal moral contemplation, but of deference to the views of the community.

Adults thus rely on the trustworthiness of the source when deciding which asserted claims to believe. Do children do the same? Recent studies suggest that they do; children, like adults, have at least some capacity to assess the trustworthiness of their information sources. Four- and five-year-olds, for instance, know that adults know things that other children do not (like the meaning of the word "hypochondriac", and when given conflicting information about a word's meaning from a child and from an adult, they prefer to learn from the adult. They know that adults have different areas of expertise, that doctors know about fixing broken arms and mechanics know about fixing flat tires. They prefer to learn from a knowledgeable speaker than from an ignorant one, and they prefer a confident source to a tentative one. Finally, when five year-olds hear about a competition whose outcome was unclear, they are more likely to believe a character who claimed that he had lost the race (a statement that goes against his self-interest) than a character who claimed that he had won the race (a statement that goes with his self-interest). In a limited sense, then, they are capable of cynicism.

114 replies, 29154 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 114 replies Author Time Post
Reply Religious belief interferes with people's understanding of evolution (NPR) (Original post)
RainDog Jan 2012 OP
Ichingcarpenter Jan 2012 #1
limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #3
Ichingcarpenter Jan 2012 #12
mr blur Jan 2012 #100
Son of Gob Jan 2012 #103
WhoIsNumberNone Jan 2012 #18
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #21
RainDog Jan 2012 #23
Ichingcarpenter Jan 2012 #24
zipplewrath Jan 2012 #53
surrealAmerican Jan 2012 #78
Fumesucker Jan 2012 #2
Possumpoint Jan 2012 #5
Fumesucker Jan 2012 #8
RainDog Jan 2012 #9
Fumesucker Jan 2012 #13
RainDog Jan 2012 #6
RainDog Jan 2012 #4
limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #7
RainDog Jan 2012 #10
RainDog Jan 2012 #29
WhoIsNumberNone Jan 2012 #16
RainDog Jan 2012 #19
Arugula Latte Jan 2012 #45
RainDog Jan 2012 #52
Arugula Latte Jan 2012 #89
RainDog Jan 2012 #93
dixiegrrrrl Jan 2012 #83
Marrah_G Jan 2012 #99
RainDog Jan 2012 #11
RainDog Jan 2012 #15
WhoIsNumberNone Jan 2012 #14
RainDog Jan 2012 #17
Tesha Jan 2012 #76
bklyncowgirl Jan 2012 #109
Are_grits_groceries Jan 2012 #20
RainDog Jan 2012 #22
mmonk Jan 2012 #25
RainDog Jan 2012 #27
dixiegrrrrl Jan 2012 #84
RainDog Jan 2012 #28
mmonk Jan 2012 #32
RainDog Jan 2012 #33
mmonk Jan 2012 #34
RainDog Jan 2012 #35
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
mmonk Jan 2012 #39
RainDog Jan 2012 #26
hobbit709 Jan 2012 #30
RainDog Jan 2012 #36
RainDog Jan 2012 #31
LeftinOH Jan 2012 #37
snooper2 Jan 2012 #38
mike_c Jan 2012 #40
HappyMe Jan 2012 #41
mike_c Jan 2012 #42
HappyMe Jan 2012 #43
RainDog Jan 2012 #44
mike_c Jan 2012 #46
HappyMe Jan 2012 #47
mike_c Jan 2012 #49
BillStein Jan 2012 #80
RainDog Jan 2012 #48
mike_c Jan 2012 #50
RainDog Jan 2012 #51
RainDog Jan 2012 #57
MNBrewer Jan 2012 #54
RainDog Jan 2012 #56
RainDog Jan 2012 #111
Dawson Leery Jan 2012 #55
sarcasmo Jan 2012 #58
BrendaBrick Jan 2012 #59
RainDog Jan 2012 #64
BrendaBrick Jan 2012 #79
RainDog Jan 2012 #81
RainDog Jan 2012 #74
BrendaBrick Jan 2012 #82
RainDog Jan 2012 #94
RainDog Jan 2012 #106
Post removed Jan 2012 #60
RainDog Jan 2012 #62
Lost-in-FL Jan 2012 #65
Solly Mack Jan 2012 #66
RainDog Jan 2012 #67
Solly Mack Jan 2012 #68
RainDog Jan 2012 #69
Solly Mack Jan 2012 #70
Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #73
MisterP Jan 2012 #61
RainDog Jan 2012 #63
RainDog Jan 2012 #71
hyphenate Jan 2012 #72
RainDog Jan 2012 #75
Tesha Jan 2012 #77
dixiegrrrrl Jan 2012 #85
RainDog Jan 2012 #87
Moostache Jan 2012 #86
RainDog Jan 2012 #88
RainDog Jan 2012 #90
BrendaBrick Jan 2012 #92
RainDog Jan 2012 #95
BrendaBrick Jan 2012 #96
RainDog Jan 2012 #97
BrendaBrick Jan 2012 #102
RainDog Jan 2012 #107
riderinthestorm Jan 2012 #101
okieinpain Jan 2012 #91
RainDog Jan 2012 #98
arely staircase Jan 2012 #110
Ilsa Jan 2012 #104
RainDog Jan 2012 #105
B Calm Jan 2012 #108
Dawson Leery Jun 2012 #112
RainDog Jun 2012 #113
yardwork Nov 2012 #114

Response to RainDog (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:19 AM

1. Evolution is just a theory

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:27 AM

3. Then how do you explain this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:44 AM

12. They ended up being all smokers after that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 07:33 PM

100. That's not a real photograph -

 

it's been Photoshopped. Jesus would never ride side-saddle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #100)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 08:46 PM

103. I'm not so sure Mr Blur

I recently saw a History Channel biography on Jesus and supposedly he once told followers that he 'Can't buy underwear, Balls don't fit'. I would imagine riding side saddle might be further evidence of this fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:53 AM

18. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:02 AM

21. 'hypothesis' is a bit generous for creationism

"Wild ass guess made thousands of years ago that contradicts history, archaeology, geology, palaeontology and biology" is closer, if not quite so concise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:11 AM

23. I'd call it pigheadedness

but someone might accuse me of being a Lamarckian...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:35 AM

24. I thought the word is pass their understanding too

but I liked the meme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:40 PM

53. Technically

even a hypothosis should be "testable". Not sure how one would test creationism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #53)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 08:42 AM

78. Exactly.

It's not a hypothesis, it's mythology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:23 AM

2. An alternative theory..

Understanding evolution interferes with religious belief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:29 AM

5. Disagree

A belief in one does not preclude a belief in the other. In my case, belief in God reinforces evolution and vice a versa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Possumpoint (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:31 AM

8. Do you also disagree with the theory in the OP? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:39 AM

9. The OP notes there are many people with religious belief that understand and accept evolution

There are some groups that have fewer people who accept evolution in them, but even among those groups there are people who understand and accept evolution.

Religion and evolution do not have to be separated - someone can hold a belief in god and a belief in evolution.

Someone cannot, however, claim to understand science and not accept evolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:45 AM

13. "Religious belief interferes with people's understanding of evolution"

That's the explanation given in the title of the OP, is my explanation more or less likely than than the one above?

I think it's a given that the more religious you are the less likely you are to understand and accept evolution, it's certainly not universally true as you point out but there's a strong trend in that direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:29 AM

6. it also appears to interfere with a govt that cares about the poor and the middle class

if you look at the chart, below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)


Response to RainDog (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:31 AM

7. just wow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:40 AM

10. more graphs to come!

Last edited Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:43 AM - Edit history (1)



EDIT TO NOTE: the graphs that were included later in this thread were incorporated into the OP and deleted from this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #7)


Response to RainDog (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:51 AM

16. So of the nations surveyed, we come in next to last?

Depressing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhoIsNumberNone (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:59 AM

19. And notice how the top nations all have social democracies

universal health care, a strong social safety net, strong universal funding for education.

maybe the rich like to keep Americans dumb for a reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:32 PM

45. That is PATHETIC

 

I weep for my stupid-ass religiously insane country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:28 PM

52. yeah. and people around here don't like to see uncomfortable truths

but if you want to know why our govt is so bassawkward - there ya go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #52)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:25 PM

89. Yep. A big reason our country is in so much trouble is because of religion-bred ignorance/delusion

 

But we're not supposed to say jack about religion, even on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #89)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:50 PM

93. well, I do think there's a difference b/t specific issues

and all religion.

I think that those of us who think that CERTAIN religious beliefs are problematic for good govt. would do ourselves and our nation a favor to distinguish between those who choose to believe in a god and those who choose to believe in a god and expect us to alter our science curriculum to match their beliefs.

there's a BIG difference between those two positions - and if the goal is to reach a point at which we can defeat the most conservative religious and political views, it's better to recognize those differences.

I've been guilty of broad brushing religious belief - but my reaction is to SPECIFIC beliefs and how they impact my life in terms of govt. etc. Otherwise, why shouldn't people have the right to believe in god or gods or goddesses.

It only concerns me when it translates to issues like creationism and human rights for groups targeted by those with certain beliefs and preachers who tell their congregants that taxes on the wealthy are against god's divine plan...and how in the fuck they came up with that one... I assume it's like Upton Sinclair's quote that when someone's salary depends upon them not understanding something... like the teachings of all religions about compassion for the poor and helping out one another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:14 PM

83. Fascinating chart.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 07:31 PM

99. wow... that is scary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)


Response to RainDog (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:50 AM

15. 2008 Electoral College Results - 3 Maps

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:08 AM - Edit history (1)

by U.S. map as we draw it, by population density and, by electoral college votes





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:49 AM

14. Boy, it really drops sharply when you get to the Christian denominations, doesn't it?

And of all the Christains, the Catholics are the most open minded? Probably not what most of us would have expected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhoIsNumberNone (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:52 AM

17. I would - Catholics and liturgical Christians - i.e. Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc.

If I ever decided to attend a church, it would be one of those three b/c in spite of the Pope and folks like Santorum, Catholics have a long tradition of social theology and, after a few misfires, science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhoIsNumberNone (Reply #14)


Response to WhoIsNumberNone (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 06:53 AM

109. Catholic theologians have long accepted evolution

I learned evolutionary theory in a Catholic high school in the 1970s. However nutty they may seem regarding anything having to do with sex, Catholics of all stripes strenuously reject fundamentalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:59 AM

20. I have never had a problem reconciling the two.

I think a lot of the resistance is among people who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you take time frames and the stories literally,it is hard to reconcile both sides.

I don't think it is any less miraculous if God set up a system as intricate as that in nature than the belief that he magically intervenes.

One of my own beliefs is that God is a mathematician. I worship at the Temple of Pi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Are_grits_groceries (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:09 AM

22. I respect that some people have a belief in god

what I don't respect is people whose belief in god means they have to refuse to accept reality.

this isn't just in the realm of evolution, either. here's another graph

Opinion on global warming and religious belief



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:55 AM

25. Your election graph is inaccurate.

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:03 AM

27. I got it from huffpo. can you find an accurate one, snookums? :)

apologies for that moment of affection...

I am persona non grata here for my aggravation with the south these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #27)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:18 PM

84. You are aggravated with a map direction?

Seems ....irrational.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:08 AM

28. got the correct one

posted in haste...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:45 AM

32. No problem.

I didn't mean to be a pain in the butt. Just noticed an irrregularity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:54 AM

33. I'm glad you pointed it out

I have correct ones for the two maps in the later post but... I don't know what that other one was doing as the first google hit. But, yeah, I realized, when you said it, that at least two states went for Obama that weren't in that map - but posted in haste.

thanks for letting me know!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:58 AM

34. Thanks for the thread.

Interesting stats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:04 AM

35. go for it, mr. economist guy! :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:30 AM

39. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:18 AM

30. "Belief gets in the way of thinking"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:06 AM

36. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:13 AM

37. The interpretation of religion interferes with understanding

evolution. Personally, I have no problem with the process of evolution being the creator's design. Too many religious people (in this country) are only familiar with "store front" churches in which critical analysis of the Bible is unwelcome. Too bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:17 AM

38. Well no shit, when you fill a persons brain with stupid from a young age

 

It's kind of hard to get the smart in don't ya think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:16 PM

40. religion = insanity....

Delusional, willful ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:57 PM

41. Intolerance = delusional, willful ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:17 PM

42. I don't "tolerate" delusion....

I work to help its sufferers. I'm an educator.

I'm really tired of religious folk demanding "tolerance" for ignorance and delusion. Improving the human condition means doing exactly the opposite-- shining a bright light on delusional beliefs that harm human societies. Tolerate them? No thank you. I can no more "tolerate" religious delusion than I can tolerate reactionary conservatism, racism, or genocide (all three of which are regular tools for maintaining religious hegemony).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:28 PM

43. Stating that religion = insanity educates no one,

nor will it change any believers minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:32 PM

44. what's interesting about these stats

is the correlation between education levels (and, thus, scientific understanding) and voting patterns. those areas of the nation that teach literalist religious beliefs are the same areas that vote for republicans.

how do you reach someone when, as noted above in the second article about why people deny science, their respected sources are obviously wrong but those same sources use fear to motivate others' beliefs?

to me, putting money into education that does not allow religious indoctrination is a large part of the answer. but that doesn't deal with adult voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:47 PM

46. that's why, by definition, they are not sane....

They are unable to adjust their beliefs or their behaviors to accommodate new information. Even when their delusions are pointed out to them and clearly explained, they reject rational thinking in favor of delusion. That's willful ignorance, and no, I don't feel any need to be tolerant of that sort of behavior. It is a curse and a scourge on human nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:54 PM

47. Thank goodness we have people like you to point out the insane!




You are not going to change my mind. I am not going to change yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:02 PM

49. actually, you can change my mind in an instant....

I'm a scientist by training and trade. Show me any data that demonstrates the truth of any religious belief in deities, supernatural causes, mythical histories, whatever. Gods, angels, immortality, omnipotence-- any of it. I can examine the evidence and judge its merits, and if it undermines my conviction that the universe is governed entirely by natural law and has no need for religious interpretation of natural events, well then, I'll be wrong and I'll be the first to line up to join your church.

I will not reject evidence out of hand. I will not maintain my ignorance just for the sake of being ignorant if you can demonstrate to me that I'm not thinking rationally about religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #47)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 11:58 AM

80. Isn't the definition of insanity...

....doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:01 PM

48. I think it's more complicated than that

because, again, as in the post about why people deny science, there are people who tell others false information - who lie to them.

yet, these are the same people who tell them they know how to save their souls from eternal damnation - that's a powerful motivator to deny reality.

it's psychological abuse, in a way, when you consider these religious leaders use their claim of "special knowledge" to build a following and then feed them false information.

it's like a cult.

it's sort of like some people need to be deprogrammed b/c, even tho something may have a lot of believers, that doesn't mean it's not the exact same thing as a cult when it teaches people their very lives depend on believing false information.

I hold the religious teachers responsible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:06 PM

50. yes, but implicit in the argument that religious believers have been psychologically abused...

...is the outcome that prolonged psychological abuse often produces lasting psychological damage, i.e. mental illness. In the context of the conversation I was having with HappyMe, I don't feel any need to "tolerate" such psychological abuse, even when-- no, ESPECIALLY when the abused become the next generation of abusers and perpetuate the damage they've done to society.

on edit-- I was raised in a deeply religious, highly conservative protestant christian sect. I've seen mental illness first hand. And contrary to HappyMe's assertion, I was easily able to overcome that background through education. I think the correlation between education and religious belief is indeed the most important statistic presented in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:16 PM

51. in that case, people need help to come to terms with reality

lasting psychological damage does not mean worthless and mental illness does not mean incapable of learning or worthless either. It means that someone has been taken advantage of - in the case of certain religious beliefs - about something that humans find esp. bothersome - knowledge of their own mortality.

That's why I see education and, in line with that, moves to insure that such religious teachers are not funded by the govt nor given a platform to speak on reputable news outlets... that's how we treat people who spread lies - we don't ask them to host tv news shows or invite them to offer opinion.

we talk about the ways in which they're wrong - we discredit them.

however, we don't. at least not in the U.S. and some pols try to curry favor to win their votes.

we have religious freedom - people may believe what they like - but we don't give air time to extremists - even if they have large majorities of followers - when it is clear their beliefs are simply irrational.

that's what I don't get - why creation-teaching pastors get air time on american news shows like they have anything worthwhile to say. doing so validates them, as well. obviously someone benefits from perpetuating these beliefs. otherwise, these sort of "experts" would be treated like Kucinich at a democratic debate.

instead, they have their own news programs on Fox, etc.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:31 PM

57. in reply to your edit

I understand. people are up-in-arms here b/c of my remarks, in frustration, about the south. and I mean stalking me and cursing at me whacked out shit. what they don't see, or don't want to see, is that I am also southern - they see what I said as "us v. them" and I'm the "them." Which, sadly, reinforces the stereotypes about certain things, but anyway...

I was also raised as a southern baptist - in the south - so I understand what you're saying... and what you're saying is that EDUCATION IS THE KEY to creating a better nation.

Robert Kennedy recognized this when he went into the south with the goal of elevating white, black, latin american - everyone.

and what you CAN'T do, if you want to elevate this nation, is let the religious right have federal money to continue to propagate their lies. Since the wealthy in the states that are most in need of educational help don't seem to care about their own citizens in those states - it seems that someone needs to help people to get an education so that they'll simply vote for their best interests - not the best interests of someone making money off their low wages and lack of health care, etc.

anyway, as I said, I understand your anger b/c I feel it too many times. others only see this as an insult and don't know where you're coming from, however.

some people need more help than others getting an education b/c they have all sorts of barriers b/c of poverty or bad family situations or even a culture that glorifies the guy to have a beer with and not the guy who has the knowledge to solve big problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:50 PM

54. There are lots of other statistical maps that could be overlaid on those

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #54)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:20 PM

56. Also the states that receive federal taxes vs those who pay them

this is a paradox - well, only if you think that selfishness is the only motivator... but it's called a paradox.



Red states, on average, are also lower-income states. Because of the progressive federal income tax, states with higher incomes pay vastly higher federal taxes. These payments are unlikely to be matched by federal spending directed back into those states.

In “Rich State, Poor State, Red State, Blue State,” a 2007 paper for the Quarterly Journal of Political Science, four researchers—Andrew Gelman of Columbia, Boris Shor of the University of Chicago, Joseph Bafumi of Dartmouth, and David Park of George Washington University—explain that while richer voters are more likely to be Republican than poorer voters, this tendency is weaker in blue states. Take two equally wealthy people. One lives in a blue state and the other lives in a red state. The data show that the voter living in the richer blue state is more likely to be a Democrat than the one in the poorer red state, although both are more likely to be Republican than a poor resident of either state. Income plays a greater role in determining voter preference in red states than in blue ones. So while voters in red states are more motivated by their financial interests (or perceived financial interests), issues outside of income are more powerful motivators for blue voters. This pattern could help explain why some states vote Democratic despite their wealth and some states vote Republican despite their poverty.


http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-redblue-paradox

the paradox may also be that those states with religious beliefs that are not consistent with science also appear to worry that they may pay taxes to help out someone else.

something has gone seriously wrong with those beliefs, imo. even if you want to argue that you want charity to help others - that's saying you only want to help those who affiliate with your group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #54)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 09:52 AM

111. I don't have access to this article at this time

but this is an interesting abstract

Socioeconomic determinants of health : Health and social cohesion: why care about income inequality?

Throughout the world, wealth and income are becoming more concentrated. Growing evidence suggests that the distribution of income–in addition to the absolute standard of living enjoyed by the poor–is a key determinant of population health. A large gap between rich people and poor people leads to higher mortality through the breakdown of social cohesion. The recent surge in income inequality in many countries has been accompanied by a marked increase in the residential concentration of poverty and affluence. Residential segregation diminishes the opportunities for social cohesion. Income inequality has spillover effects on society at large, including increased rates of crime and violence, impeded productivity and economic growth, and the impaired functioning of representative democracy. The extent of inequality in society is often a consequence of explicit policies and public choice. Reducing income inequality offers the prospect of greater social cohesiveness and better population health.


http://www.bmj.com/content/314/7086/1037.full

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:52 PM

55. K/R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:35 PM

58. Religious belief interferes with people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:37 PM

59. 1925 - The Scopes "Monkey" Trial

From YouTube (about 3 minutes):

&feature=related

Also from YouTube, a segment from the movie: "Inherit The Wind" with the late, great Spencer Tracy: (about 3 minutes):

&feature=related

...and this is the year 2012!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrendaBrick (Reply #59)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:31 AM

64. Inherit the wind is a great movie!

Darrow: "Do you claim then that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?"
Bryan: "I believe that everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there; some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: 'Ye are the salt of the earth.' I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people."

Darrow got to the heart of it - metaphorical language is the language of religion, not science texts.

Clarence Darrow was a really interesting figure in history. He also represented Eugene Debs in the Pullman Strike and Big Bill Haywood, founder of the IWW. Darrow was also instrumental in the formation of the American Civil Liberties Union. Some of his archives are available online - http://darrow.law.umn.edu/index.php?

there are also tons of sites with factual information available for people who want to learn about evolution and why creationism/intelligent design are not scientific ideas, but religious ones.

but, as far as evolution goes - we have actual video evidence!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #64)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 11:29 AM

79. Inherit The Wind is in my Top 10

for favorite movies. (I like a lot of the movies from that era...blunt & gritty and Tracy never failed to deliver!)

I did not know all that about Darrow (or about the IWW for that matter.) I'm learning so much from this thread!

And on the Simpson video

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrendaBrick (Reply #79)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:18 PM

81. I love that movie too

If you like old b&w movies, this site has a lot of things that are in the public domain.

http://www.archive.org/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrendaBrick (Reply #59)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:27 AM

74. William Jennings Byran, who defended creationism, was supported by the KKK

Before FDR created a new coalition in the Democratic Party, southern whites were courted by some politicians - the Klan endorsed Bryan in 1924 after he defended them at the convention when northern Catholic Democrats, led by Al Smith, denounced them (to discredit another democrat.)

But this was also a beginning of a realignment within the Democratic Party to empower Irish and German Catholics and the urban north within the party.

http://ncse.com/rncse/22/3/racism-publics-perception-evolution


In 1925, the Klan became the first national organization to urge that creationism and evolution be given equal time in public schools (see Wade 1987). In the same year, Bryan's participation in the Scopes trial turned it into a major event of international interest. When Bryan died five days after the Scopes trial, the Klan burned crosses in Bryan's memory, eulogizing him as "the greatest Klansman of our time" (Werner 1929). The Klan vowed to take up Bryan's anti-evolution cause, and a defrocked Klan official formed a short-lived rival group called the Supreme Kingdom, "whose primary purpose was carrying on Bryan's crusade against teaching evolution" (Larson 1997).

Although there was no formal connection between fundamentalism and the Klan, both movements appealed to similar people. According to McIver (1994), perhaps as many as 40,000 fundamentalist preachers joined and were active in the Klan. As Mecklin observed, "a fundamentalist would have found himself thoroughly at home in the atmosphere of Klan ceremonies" (1924: 100). Moreover, many of the leading evangelists of the early 20th century were fervent creationists who supported, and were supported by, the Klan (Moore 2001; Wade 1987). William Bell Riley - who founded the World Christian Fundamentals Association and sent Bryan to Dayton to prosecute Scopes - advocated white supremacy as well as a ban on the teaching of evolution. Similarly, evangelist Billy Sunday endorsed the Klan Kreed of white supremacy and bitterly attacked evolution. Bob Jones Sr's revivals were supported financially by the Klan (de Camp 1968). And J Frank Norris linked his attacks on evolution with assertions of the importance of white supremacy, warning his followers that white children would have to attend schools with and be taught by blacks.

Later in the 20th century, as most religious denominations in the US denounced the Klan, Southern Baptists - whose denomination was organized in 1845 as a haven for pro-slavery Baptists - were "unanimously silent on the question of the Klan" (Moore 2002a; Rosenberg 1989). "[A] silent but powerful accessory to the segregation pattern in the South" ([Anonymous] 1958: 1128; see also Rosenberg 1989), the Southern Baptists opposed not only integration and other antiracist efforts, but also the teaching of evolution (Ammerman 1990), denouncing Darwinism as "a soul-destroying, Bible-destroying, and God-dishonoring theory".

A favorite strategy of creationists has been to vilify evolution. At the Scopes trial, prosecutor William Jennings Bryan warned that "All the ills from which America suffers can be traced back to the teaching of evolution." More recently, Judge Braswell Dean of the Georgia State Court of Appeals stated in 1981 that "This monkey mythology of Darwin is the cause of permissiveness, promiscuity, pills, prophylactics, perversions, pregnancies, abortions, pornotherapy, pollution, poisoning, and the proliferation of crimes of all types" (quoted in Toumey 1994: 94) and in 1999, US House of Representatives Republican Whip Tom DeLay claimed that the teaching of evolution is linked to school violence, birth control, and abortion (Anonymous 1999). As part of this vilification, many creationists blame evolution for racism. For example, Henry Morris - the most influential creationist of the late 20th century - claims that "evolutionism" is satanic and responsible for racism, abortion, and a decline in morality (Morris 1989). Today, creationist organizations such as the Creation Research Science Education Foundation sell posters claiming that evolution leads to racism, Nazism, adultery, infanticide, stealing, murder, drunkenness, and homosexuality. Despite this late-20th-century spin associating evolution to racism, the links between creationism and racism have often been explicit in the fight to integrate public schools. Not all anti-evolutionists in the South opposed integration, but many did; for these people, banning the teaching of evolution was part of a heroic campaign to save "The Southern Way of Life" from race-mixers and atheists, who were equally evil in Dixie demonology (Irons 1988). These links were obvious when Susan Epperson challenged the Arkansas anti-evolution statute in the 1960s (Epperson v Arkansas; see Moore 2002a).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #74)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:28 PM

82. On the nces link

all I can say is

"Although a federal court had ordered the integration of the school, Arkansas governor Orval Faubus became a white-supremacist folk-hero when he ordered 1200 armed troops to block the black students from entering the school. In response, President Dwight Eisenhower reluctantly sent in the 101st Airborne to escort the students to class and protect them from the mobs of angry, spitting, rock-throwing whites that had surrounded the school. The students, who became known as "The Little Rock Nine", received Congressional Gold Medals in 1999 in recognition of their courage (Lawrence 2000)."

1200 ARMED TROOPS??????? WOW!!!!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a related note, here's something (in part) from wiki on 'Human vestigiality':

Human vestigiality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The muscles connected to the ears of a human do not develop enough to have the same mobility allowed to monkeys. Arrows show the vestigial structure called Darwin's tubercle.

In the context of human evolution, human vestigiality involves those characters (such as organs or behaviors) occurring in the human species that are considered vestigial—in other words having lost all or most of their original function through evolution. Although structures usually called "vestigial" often appear functionless, a vestigial structure may retain lesser functions or develop minor new ones.[1] In some cases, structures once identified as vestigal simply had an unrecognized function[2]

Vestigial characteristics occur throughout nature, one example being the vestigial hind limbs of whales and snakes. Many human characteristics are also vestigial in other primates and related animals. The following characteristics have been or still are considered vestigial in humans.


<snip>

Coccyx

The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis.[8] This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31–35 days old.[9] The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further.

In rare cases congenital defect results in a short tail-like structure being present at birth. Twenty-three cases of human babies born with such a structure have been reported in the medical literature since 1884.[10][11]


Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrendaBrick (Reply #82)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 05:24 PM

94. The Arkansas Nine









Some people seem to have to have decency forced upon them. Kudos to Eisenhower for standing up to bigotry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrendaBrick (Reply #82)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 06:09 AM

106. What's interesting is that the right wing has used the same fears for decades

Last edited Sat Jan 21, 2012, 07:58 AM - Edit history (1)

the photos of the bigots, above, include people with posters calling integration "Communist" and a sign of the "anti-christ." (part of that one is hidden.)

The same claims were made by these same bigots concerning JFK - his Catholicism was also "scary." Southerners made posters calling for people to kill him and said he was a traitor, etc.

...and on and on to the current era with the exact same bullshit regarding Obama - who is a moderate - yet to these people, who have been TAUGHT TO HATE, who have been TAUGHT that things that EISENHOWER supported are the equivalent of communism and the anti-christ, etc...

we see that the irrational belief systems that promote creationism also promote bigotry, homophobia, right-wing extremism in politics - I mean, if Eisenhower was too liberal, some folks just don't understand the difference between conservative and nutcase.

The current Republican Party has been co-opted by John Birchers and religious paranoids who, frankly, have a tenuous grasp on reality. Even Barry Goldwater remarked, more than two decades ago, that he would no longer be considered right wing in the current and then-current Republican Party.

The Republicans used to be the party that was against bigotry. Now they're the party that attempts to justify it in the name of god. shameful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:30 PM

62. LOL

Last edited Sat Jan 21, 2012, 08:04 AM - Edit history (1)

so, please produce your evidence for your claims.

science is theory. yes. that's the way science explains itself. this is diff. than your use of the word.

scientists are more truthful than literalist interpreters of religious texts when it comes to things like the age of the earth, humans, the origin of bacteria (which is observable in real time -and yet literalists lie about this?!)

having a degree isn't the issue - it's training and the ability to actually produce experiments, understand them and share them with others who can verify things for themselves.

So - proof.

I will be happy to explain to you why the gospels, for instance, were not written by the names given to them, and can point out that they have diff. genealogies for Jesus, which means at least one of them is wrong, again, for instance.

the problem with some religious folks is that they think the bible is a science text and it's not. and they have teachers who do not accept this either and they lie to people like you.

so, if your acceptance of Christianity relies upon belief in things that are obviously not even in the bible, other than metaphorically, I am telling you that your faith is based upon lies. If you can understand that the bible uses metaphorical language... as it does THROUGHOUT... then you'll understand that you don't have to defend lies to have a religious faith.

it's not enough for you to simply make a claim with no evidence. that's what hucksters do to suckers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #60)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:41 AM

65. You are so funny!!! Lol!!!

You forgot the thingy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #60)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:46 AM

66. Aspirin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #66)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:08 AM

67. that poster has evolved to another lifeform - a tombstone n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #67)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:09 AM

68. Good. I know stupid has to hurt so I offered up an aspirin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #68)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:19 AM

69. the first interaction I had with this person

was a TOS but he/she/it (I doubt this person is really a female Democrat) managed to hang on for a few more days.

I'm proud that DU stands up for HUMAN RIGHTS FOR GBLT Americans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #69)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:22 AM

70. Me, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #67)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:19 AM

73. Bout Fuckin Time.

You scientists... with your "degrees" and your "facts" and your "physical evidence" and your "logic" and your "critical thinking" and your "more physical evidence" and your "dna analysis" and your "oh did we mention the FUCKING MOUNTAINS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE"....

you think you're so smart!





...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:15 PM

61. a fab book on this is Larry Witham's "Where Darwin Meets the Bible"

focusing on creationism as a highly cultural, highly U.S. phenomenon, springing from 1910s Protestant countercultures

did they do any polls on evolution by denomination in other countries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:36 PM

63. the only one I saw was just by country

with no breakdown among groups within them - but it's probably possible to find some polls by individual countries. the original link mentions, as I did later, that the nations that have populations that deny evolution are the U.S., India, Brazil, South Africa and South Korea.

Apparently the American Discovery Institute has been influential across nations to spread lies - I don't know if that accounts for these nations or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #61)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 02:25 AM

71. speaking of the KKK

the second iteration of the KKK that spread across the midwest, as well as the south, and religious fundamentalism as a movement in opposition to Catholic Irish and German immigrants, alcohol and the teaching of evolution is, imo, the foundation of our current culture war problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 03:17 AM

72. It's amazing to see exactly what stupidity does to the brain.

Read the bibble literally, and you will end up stupider than the moment you were born.


I've often commented that we need a new law in this country. And it's a very important law:

If you don't believe in evolution, you should not benefit from the study of it. Therefore, you (as a fundie) should not have:

The right to take antibiotics;
The right to medications of any kind, as most were and are based in some way on biological research;
The right to receive fertility treatments;
The right to first aid, defibrillatators or any other kind of medical treatment at all, including pasteurization, sterilization of medical instruments, or anything that kills bacteria;
Any kind of goods which benefits in any way from development of better products conducted with the basis of evolutionary theory;


So when this idiot I know in passing had a staph infection in his eye, he should have been allowed to go blind, because unless there is a god willing to come to his aid and perform a miracle to heal his infection, it is all based in one way or another in science, biology and medicine derived from the "theory" of evolution, and when you don't believe, you shouldn't reap the rewards for something you hold in contempt.

After all, as an atheist, I agree that I don't deserve a god to take care of me when I get sick, injured, or die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hyphenate (Reply #72)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:35 AM

75. I want to be better than that

I'd rather use education to help people overcome bigotry and the attendant ignorance.

However, I also know it's extremely frustrating to see the refusal to acknowledge the science that helps people live vilified by so many in this nation and to see this ignorance translate from the classroom to the voting booth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #75)


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:39 PM

85. Your graphs and links have made this one of the most informative posts

I have seen in a long time.
I very much appreciate it,
And glad we can now book mark.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #85)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 03:15 PM

87. Thanks!

that really means a lot to me coming from you! you always have informative posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:53 PM

86. I have zero use for religion in any form, but even less for the ones that intentionally deceive.

First of all, ALL religious people - unless they are pan-religious (meaning they simultaneously believe ALL religions...ie. NO-ONE!!!) are already atheists -1, meaning that they reject ALL other religions except for the one they have either chosen to follow or were born into and raised to believe in. When people ask me why I don't believe in their chosen deity, I always ask them why they reject Zeus and Jupiter and they have their answer.

Not a single human being is inherently religious, but ALL human beings are inherently curious and employ rudimentary scientific method techniques (trial and error mostly) to understand the world around them. It starts with the infant who cries for attention and help and nearly immediately determines that this action produces a reaction - help arrives in the form of the parent or care giver for the infant. From this early understanding of cause-and-effect, humans are inherently curious beings - UNLESS they are religiously abused.

I have a barely controllable fury regarding religion and its affects on people as it is starting to impact my children.

I have raised all of my children in a religion-free environment. We do NOT attend churches, or synagogues, or mosques, or temples. We do NOT pray to invisible men in the sky or to personal saviors or to nature itself. We do NOT condemn people for what they are or for who they choose to love or how they express that love. We do NOT care what other people eat, what they say in their homes or what they do in their bedrooms. We do NOT lie to our children with fairy tales and lies, instead giving the scientific reasons for things like thunder and death and life and all things in between.

We DO celebrate empathy and compassion and discuss the importance of generosity and caring about the people in our community and in our larger sphere of influence and interaction. We DO discuss love and family and the ties that bind us to each other and to our family but also to our fellow people of any color and any background. We DO discuss the need for money and the dangers of becoming obsessed with it above all else. We DO recognize that we are fortunate in many ways, and while we are not "rich" beyond measure, we acknowledge our good fortune to live a decent and comfortable life, free of privation and want. We DO discuss ways to help make a difference in the world and how to positively impact the world around us during out finite time in it.

For this, my daughter has started to become a target. She has kids at her middle school, a public school here in god-forsaken East Kansas (otherwise known as the state of Missouri) begin asking her why she doesn't believe in Jesus. They spit out the word atheist at her as if it is a contagious disease (which in reality and the light of open inquiry and education it IS, but not in the way these cretins think). They have begun excluding her in some circles and trying to sway her to their thinking in others.

This pains me, physically and emotionally.

I do not want to see my children in any kind of pain; but thankfully, the pain is more mine than my daughter's. She simply deflects the inquiries and pays no mind to the people obsessed with trying to make her like them, with those trying to define her instead of having her determine who she is on her own. Instead, she focuses on the things that she wants and does and how to keep getting better. She is a voracious reader and a constant Facebooker. She does jazz band and cheerleading. She is in student council and on the archery team. She is an honors student and tudor and mentor for younger students and also sings in the choir. In short, my daughter is everything I ever hoped for and more. She is what I had hoped for when I decided consciously to exclude religion and its teachings from my family life. She is the greatest example of morality without sacred texts that I know.

But the small minds and religiously motivated are persistent and unwilling to accept this. My daughter is an emerging threat to them and they are starting to react to this perceived threat. If a child can be all that my daughter is without the influence or interference of religion, well that does not sit too well with the Jeebus-worshipping crowd. There are actually young girls among those at her school who are spreading entirely false rumors about my daughter...things like she was promiscuous and a little too "hands-on" with some of the boys (entirely untrue accusations and rumors, but also 100% impossible to combat). There have been more than one in the last month that have told her she is "weird" and two that have asked her if she worships the devil (which she actually found amusing).

I am a scientist by trade (working for 20+ years with bacteria, antibiotics, protein purification and the like) and my daughter has a similar love of science, having been a three time school winner in the science fair with little to no direct help from me on her experiments beyond critiquing the experimental design and data presentation. She has performed the experiments herself and she has collected the data and she has defended the results in the science fair judging each year. The apple did not fall far from the tree and I love that, almost as much as I love my daughter. But I still cannot help but feel a certain amount of rage for those who would look at what she is and see something that is "wrong" or "abnormal" or "dangerous".

I know I am prejudiced beyond any semblance of partiality; but I wish the world was populated by MORE people like my daughter - bright, inquisitive, caring, sensitive, loving and kind.

BTW...one of her favorite songs happens to be one my favorites as well:

Imagine there's no heaven.
It's easy if you try.

No hell below us.
Above us only sky.

Imagine all the people
Living life in peace.

You may say I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one.

I hope some day you'll join us,
and the world will live as one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moostache (Reply #86)


Response to Moostache (Reply #86)


Response to RainDog (Reply #90)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:48 PM

92. On those *creepy feelings*

From an article via Science Daily I rec'd today:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120119133926.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29

When It Comes to Accepting Evolution, Gut Feelings Trump Facts

ScienceDaily (Jan. 19, 2012) — For students to accept the theory of evolution, an intuitive "gut feeling" may be just as important as understanding the facts, according to a new study.

In an analysis of the beliefs of biology teachers, researchers found that a quick intuitive notion of how right an idea feels was a powerful driver of whether or not students accepted evolution -- often trumping factors such as knowledge level or religion.

"The whole idea behind acceptance of evolution has been the assumption that if people understood it -- if they really knew it -- they would see the logic and accept it," said David Haury, co-author of the new study and associate professor of education at Ohio State University.

"But among all the scientific studies on the matter, the most consistent finding was inconsistency. One study would find a strong relationship between knowledge level and acceptance, and others would find no relationship. Some would find a strong relationship between religious identity and acceptance, and others would find less of a relationship."

"So our notion was, there is clearly some factor that we're not looking at," he continued. "We're assuming that people accept something or don't accept it on a completely rational basis. Or, they're part of a belief community that as a group accept or don't accept. But the findings just made those simple answers untenable."...(more at the link)

What I found most interesting is this: "In particular, the research shows that it may not be accurate to portray religion and science education as competing factors in determining beliefs about evolution. For the subjects of this study, belonging to a religion had almost no additional impact on beliefs about evolution, beyond subjects' feelings of certainty."

Hmmmm...interesting to ponder ~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrendaBrick (Reply #92)


Response to RainDog (Reply #95)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 06:00 PM

96. fraud vs fact

I was raised Catholic. I remember getting my First Communion (I forget how old I was) but the next step - The Confirmation was something I was not interested in doing (and wasn't forced to) because it just didn't *feel right* in my guts.

Time and time again, I kept giving the bible the benefit of the doubt because after all, it was so popular and maybe there was something I was just not *getting*?

But I can tell you that every time I pick up a bible with an open mind and give it another shot - I get this awful feeling in the pit of my stomach and tightness in my chest...and this feeling has not diminished over the decades.

That's just me and my experience. I have known others who are religious and are good people - folks I get really good vibes from and don't try to push their beliefs on me and we get along great.

I think where the problems arise are from those who take it literally and believe in it to the point of fanaticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrendaBrick (Reply #96)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 07:28 PM

97. I'm just not that interested in that book anymore

as a kid I attended church 3x/wk, choir, youth groups... had to memorize bible verses and still remember lots of them...

but, honestly, there are a lot of other books that I find are more interesting but it's no matter to me if someone likes to read the bible or not - I'm just glad I have other interests.

but I do have a particular problem with the insistence in inserting certain religious beliefs into people's lives when they don't want to have those things in their lives in areas where religion isn't particularly relevant for a lot of people.

funny thing is that, as a kid, I always liked people who were from other cultures - so I always liked Catholics a lot b/c they were so exotic. LOL. Even married one.

I have no idea why I was so interested in people whose lives were different than the one I knew but that's been a pretty much consistent thing throughout my life. I thought it was exciting to see the world from someone else's pov.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #97)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 07:53 PM

102. I don't know if this still applies

but *back in the day* when I was in Elementary school, I seem to remember various repeated lesson plans early on that would show say, an apple and an orange and the thrust was to define "what was different?"... instead of maybe...what was the same? I mean, after all, aren't they both fruits?

Thinking back, I believe that set an important precedent in place for being on the *lookout* sort of speak, about what was different rather than focus on the commonalities.

Probably a bit off topic...just something that sprang to mind ~

edited for spelling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrendaBrick (Reply #102)


Response to Moostache (Reply #86)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 07:50 PM

101. I lived 25 years in Wheaton, IL, the first question you were asked was what church did you go to?

 

I understand exactly how you feel. My 24 year old spent virtually all of her growing years in Wheaton and with some coaching she learned how to gracefully deflect the crowd's craziness for religion. We've since moved farther west in IL but it's no easier for my younger girl (15 years old), almost the same questions except they come along on the 3rd or 4th question in the conversation. Because she's just a tad bit strong willed and loves to get a rise out of anyone, she gets the predictable results. She however revels in the crowd's "shock" at her atheism and has found some true friends who love her even despite her unbelief.

So hopefully your kids can find their path. It's not easy. I know mine seem pretty happy to be true and honest to themselves without any religious guilt, or coercion.

Our family motto though is "weird is wonderful" so take if for what its worth!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:42 PM

91. I'm super religious and I believe in evolution.

this article cracks me up. people can be so freakin stupid that it's stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #91)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 07:30 PM

98. are you Christian?

I just wonder how people can reach out to those who were taught that evolution was "evil." Do you have any ideas? Anything from your experience?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #98)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 07:41 AM

110. i know you weren't asking me, but i am a christian and i believe in evolution

i do not consider the bible to be a science textbook, nor do i find much spirituality in a biology text. they are simply two different things to me. anyone who believes in biblical inerency will not be reached out to, they have already abandoned reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 08:55 PM

104. Funny but true explanation from a segment on The Big Bang Theory:

Sheldon's mother tells him he could work in Texas teaching school. He replies that he'd like to teach evolution to all the creationists. She snarls at him and tells him that evolution is an opinion. He tells her that it is fact, supported by evidence. She yells, "And yes, that's your opinion!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ilsa (Reply #104)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 04:27 AM

105. and that seems to get to the crux of the problem! :) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 06:46 AM

108. Evolution is Satan's religion!

 

That's what the right-wing nutcase down the road from me thinks. So much so, he put a huge sign in his yard facing the highway stating so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 03:33 PM

112. k/r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawson Leery (Reply #112)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 04:07 PM

113. interesting graphs, huh?

it appears that some religion also interferes with good govt - can't base policies on evidence because that would make the baby jesus cry.

Study: Most Americans want wealth distribution similar to Sweden

Americans generally underestimate the degree of income inequality in the United States, and if given a choice, would distribute wealth in a similar way to the social democracies of Scandinavia, a new study finds.

For decades, polls have shown that a plurality of Americans — around 40 percent — consider themselves conservative, while only around 20 percent self-identify as liberals. But a new study from two noted economists casts doubt on what values lie beneath those political labels.

According to research (PDF) carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden’s model over that of the US.

What’s more, the study’s authors say that this applies to people of all income levels and all political leanings: The poor and the rich, Democrats and Republicans are all equally likely to choose the Swedish model.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/25/poll-wealth-distribution-similar-sweden/

They just don't like the reality that the way to achieve a better society is to tax the wealthy - even though everyone would be better off.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:37 PM

114. The percents among Buddhists and Hindus explain why China and India are kicking our asses in science

Their people don't have a belief system that requires them to deny math and science. Unfortunately, a lot of people in the U.S. do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread