Why is evolution controversial only in the US?

[don_Durandal]

I don't think it has anything to do with the colour of the skin. Creationism tends to thrive with under-educated and highly religious communities, which often also goes in hand with economic difficulties. This targets both blacks and whites. Since black population tend to be less rural than whites, they are generally less at a risk though. (if someone had hard data though it'd help, as this is mostly speculation on my part)

The reason why we picture creationists as white is because those who write and propagate its rhetoric tend to be wealthy organisation sponsored by ultra-conservative and fundamentalist organisations with an agenda. They don't belong to the same social strata as the people they indoctrinate. I'm pretty sure a good chunk of those aren't actually ardent creationists themselves; they are just in it for the money. You can make an easy buck selling books and DVDs to gullible people too ignorant and credulous to realise every single of your arguments have been debunked decades ago.

The reason this doesn't happen in other Western countries is because those organisations didn't get a foothold (yet), and education tends to remain strong.

[Kitsunegari]

I know they tend to be the blackest states,

Then why do you propose the influence of "white Evangelical Christians" in the unimpressive statistics of these states when blacks (who have higher church attendance rates) make up such a substantial portion of their populations? Obviously you're pinning it on the most popular/acceptable scapegoat.

[IronBrig4]

I never said that there's a correlation between church attendance and popularity of Creationism. But Evangelical churches in the Bible Belt tend to produce the most active and vocal Creationists. Evangelical Christians tend to be white. Ergo, Creationists in the Bible Belt are mostly white Evangelical Christians.

There's a huge difference between churches in the Bible Belt attended predominately by whites and those with mostly black membership. For example, white churchgoers in the South overwhelmingly vote Republican. Blacks, not so much.

[Kitsunegari]

I never said that there's a correlation between church attendance and popularity of Creationism. But Evangelical churches in the Bible Belt tend to produce the most active and vocal Creationists. Evangelical Christians tend to be white. Ergo, Creationists in the Bible Belt are mostly white Evangelical Christians.

I don't dispute that, only your insinuation that there is a relationship between these "Evangelicals" and the poor statistical performance of "Bible Belt" states when they are only one segment of the population. Also creationism is popular across the board in this area, but we shouldn't lump all creationist groups together.

There's a huge difference between churches in the Bible Belt attended predominately by whites and those with mostly black membership. For example, white churchgoers in the South overwhelmingly vote Republican. Blacks, not so much.

Regardless of who their congregations vote for, there is broad agreement on certain social issues.

[Col. Tartleton]

I never said that there's a correlation between church attendance and popularity of Creationism. But Evangelical churches in the Bible Belt tend to produce the most active and vocal Creationists. Evangelical Christians tend to be white. Ergo, Creationists in the Bible Belt are mostly white Evangelical Christians.

There's a huge difference between churches in the Bible Belt attended predominately by whites and those with mostly black membership. For example, white churchgoers in the South overwhelmingly vote Republican. Blacks, not so much.

Black churchgoers in the south are just conservative. They vote overwhelmingly democrat for the same reasons whites vote Republican. Religious conservatism isn't a Republican-Democrat divide. It's a conservative-liberal divide. I think most African Americans are more aligned with Republican values than they think. The conservative democrats were anti black. But the more liberal democrats purged their ranks and the racist types gravitated to the new conservative republicans. But the Republicans have never been a party of racism. That's always been the democrats and in some ways is still the democrats. The Republicans sell one platform for everyone which tends to be mostly white because of the historic demographics in this country, while the Democrats spend so much energy greasing each ethnic group for maximum votes. I don't even think in those terms. I'm not going to try to appeal to a black or hispanic voter block. I don't believe they exist, and if they do I wish they didn't. People shouldn't be voting because of their skin color or religion. Well, religion to an extent of values and stuff, but even then people shouldn't not vote for a Mormon or a Jew because they are not Mormons or Jews.

[IronBrig4]

I don't dispute that, only your insinuation that there is a relationship between these "Evangelicals" and the poor statistical performance of "Bible Belt" states when they are only one segment of the population. Also creationism is popular across the board in this area, but we shouldn't lump all creationist groups together.

Fair enough, I see what you're saying. But consider for example that Deep Southern states - which are the most likely to teach abstinence-only sex ed - have the highest teen pregnancy rates. One could make an intelligent argument that excessive religiosity has contributed to the Bible Belt's low social rankings. As another example, their poor science education scores might be due to creationism's popularity in the public (not just private) sphere.

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Fair enough, I see what you're saying. But consider for example that Deep Southern states - which are the most likely to teach abstinence-only sex ed - have the highest teen pregnancy rates. One could make an intelligent argument that excessive religiosity has contributed to the Bible Belt's low social rankings. As another example, their poor science education scores might be due to creationism's popularity in the public (not just private) sphere.

How could teaching creationism possibly make people less intelligent?

[Vagn]

How could teaching creationism possibly make people less intelligent?

A disregard of statistical analysis and scientific evidence.

[CELTICEMPIRE]

A disregard of statistical analysis and scientific evidence.

right, because teaching an alternative will automatically make people dumb.

[Himster]

How could teaching creationism possibly make people less intelligent?

Teaching religion in science class at the very least will confuse people and at worst mis-lead people and stop the possibility of their education in all of biology. The effects of this form of "education" can be seen in the scientific out-put in hyper-religious areas in america, it's a form of intellectual retardation that is seriously affecting America's ranking in the international scientific world.

[IronBrig4]

Creationism is as much an "alternative" to biology as astrology is an alternative to astronomy. One leans on mysticism and faith in supernatural phenomena while the other uses scientific analysis and utilizes the best data we have.

[conon394]

Let me be clear I don't think type of creationism has a place in a science class (and as somebody noted above that's what Sunday [or whatever day] school is for).

However Himster...

can be seen in the scientific out-put in hyper-religious areas in america, it's a form of intellectual retardation that is seriously affecting America's ranking in the international scientific world.

That seems a little farfetched and hysterical. I would be interested if you can show for example the US lagging in Genetics PhDs (or Plant Breeding or Statistics etc) or similar degree biotech type degrees per capita vs any other major nation or those you think don't have this problem. Or for example that the supposed issue impacts technology fields more generally - and please no pointing to the vast swarm of non engineers that China and India supposedly produce but would never pass a PE exam in the US (I most familiar with he issue in engineering but China looks like it does the same with PhDs many perhaps most of its programs look to fall short of what would be a MS program in the US)

On the whole I rather like the US education system with all its local county, city and state warts. Does it supposedly fail compared to some cram or elite or tracked systems [in Europe or Asia] sure; does get skewed results like producing to many lawyers, sure; does it produce a certain bias because the National government does not do enough to deal with funding inequality, yep; but at the end of the day I think it does the job better than you might expect in such a large diverse nation with so many levels of government and such an expectation of local control.

[Himster]

I may be hysterical, I had pre-ground coffee this morning, grrr.

I may be reading into correlations a bit far, but it is rather stricking. America is 12th now when it comes to college degrees amongst 25-34 year olds, not so long ago america was first.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/ed...lege.html?_r=1

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Sphere]

right, because teaching an alternative will automatically make people dumb.

Letting kid's indulge in the idea that the natural world conforms to what they would prefer to be true, and that their provincial prejudices of culture are on par with objective evidence when it comes to scientific investigation is no small problem.

These 'alternatives' are ways that allow kids to avoid critical thinking and objective analysis of evidence, and lets them think science is no different than politics; that opinions are all based on agenda's and that the evidence supporting them is selective.

Science is different than politics, all opinions are not equally valid as nature does not bend to our egos or popular opinion, but rather operates independently. Despite it's longevity in the world of politics, Creationism has not been reconcilable with scientific evidence for over a century now and teaching a kid anything else in a biology class is to deprive them of a scientific education in favor of something else.

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Teaching religion in science class at the very least will confuse people and at worst mis-lead people and stop the possibility of their education in all of biology. The effects of this form of "education" can be seen in the scientific out-put in hyper-religious areas in america, it's a form of intellectual retardation that is seriously affecting America's ranking in the international scientific world.

Prove, I love how whenever I argue about evolution, the evolutionists yell "science", yet they never prove how science agrees with their views.

[Condottiere 40K]

For most of us, who just have a passing acquaintance with pure science, it's a matter of faith based on observed phenomenon. We are taught the fundamentals of science and get practical demonstrations showcasing the various laws that the universe appears to operate under.

God seems very selective to who he tweets.

[intel]

Prove, I love how whenever I argue about evolution, the evolutionists yell "science", yet they never prove how science agrees with their views.

I love how people compare retarded beliefs in magic with actual science.

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

Prove, I love how whenever I argue about evolution, the evolutionists yell "science", yet they never prove how science agrees with their views.

According to Pew Research Center, 97% of scientists in all fields believe in evolution. If you only count those in relevant fields, the percentage that believe in evolution is much, much higher. The National Academy of Sciences also publicly endorses evolution.

[Kitsunegari]

Fair enough, I see what you're saying. But consider for example that Deep Southern states - which are the most likely to teach abstinence-only sex ed - have the highest teen pregnancy rates. One could make an intelligent argument that excessive religiosity has contributed to the Bible Belt's low social rankings. As another example, their poor science education scores might be due to creationism's popularity in the public (not just private) sphere.

Well we have to differentiate between forms of creationism IMO. "Young Earthers" are, unfortunately, more common in the Bible Belt. For people not from the area it would probably be quite a shock to have a conversation with someone who actually believes the Earth is 6,000 years old. I'm from the area (although i did not have a religious upbringing) and i was kind of taken aback when the topic was brought up in a group that included some "Young Earthers."

[Squiggle]

Fair enough, I see what you're saying. But consider for example that Deep Southern states - which are the most likely to teach abstinence-only sex ed - have the highest teen pregnancy rates. One could make an intelligent argument that excessive religiosity has contributed to the Bible Belt's low social rankings. As another example, their poor science education scores might be due to creationism's popularity in the public (not just private) sphere.

Are you kidding me? Pre marital pregnancies are rising across the board, self evidently in the past abstinence education had a lot more force. Why? Because the people being taught it were genuinely and fervently religious themselves, so they complied for the most part. No sincere Christian spends their nights sucking their bf's dick. The actual issue with teen pregnancy rates is a disconnect between the values of the young [secular, "modern" etc] and the values of the establishment which attempt to eschew condoms etc for moral purposes. If, in any direction there was general uniformity, one could reasonably expect success.

As to fundamentalism, it was a theological movement in the 1920's, one thats fairly exclusive to America. Theres no great unique story to tell like a lack of education or any nonsense to explain why religious fundamentalism is popular in America, its a well known and traceable history. The 1920's on saw increasing secularism in Universities and so forth, the leaders of the fundamentalist movement in effect were people who decided to separate themselves from the greater society, as they deemed it too corrupt. They abandoned the secular colleges and Universities and established their own, they didnt even vote in elections until the 1970's. They became incredibly insular. It was a sub culture, one that was and is breaking down increasingly due to the growth of evangelicalism. Not synonymous terms.