Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?

I came across an article today that (in the spirit of satchmo) I wanted
to share. The article in its entirety can be found here:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/28/science.debate.reut/index.html

For those of you without the time or energy to read the (rather short)
article, here are a few excerpts that I thought could engender some
discussion.

I've also posed some questions, but by all means don't limit yourself
in your responses. These questions are only a springboard for
discussion, and I broke them up into seperate issues to keep things
organized.

Issue #1:

<div class="quote"><div class="quotetitle">? quoting CNN.com:</div><div class="quotetext">
Polls for many years have shown that a majority of Americans are at
odds with key scientific theory. For example, as CBS poll this month
found that 51 percent of respondents believed humans were created in
their present form by God. A further 30 percent said their creation was
guided by God. Only 15 percent thought humans evolved from less
advanced life forms over millions of years.

</div></div>

Did these figures surprise you? Why or why not? What would you have voted? Why?

Issue #2:

<div class="quote"><div class="quotetitle">? quoting CNN.com:</div><div class="quotetext">
U.S. school students perform relatively poorly in international tests
of mathematics and science. For example, in 2003 U.S. students placed
24th in an international test that measured the mathematical literacy
of 15-year-olds, below many European and Asian countries.

</div></div>

Is this information surprising/shocking/unsettling/humorous? Why
is it that one of the world's most developed countries is only 24th on
this list?

Issue #3:

Is the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate stirring up anti-science sentiments in the United States?

Issue #4:

Do you think Intelligent Design should be taught in schools? Or at least mentioned?

My country is all up for science, so we are actually very advanced here :biggrin:

Anyway, Im all for evolution. There is SO much proof, that you could
literally drag someone to a lab and show it to them, live! TB germ
evolves all the time, preventing ammunity to it. I dont know why people
dont believe in evolution, since what about it offends relegious
people? I have a VERY relegious friend, and he believes in evolution.

---

I would love to change the world, But they would'nt give me the source code.

1. I guess to start this off I'll say that I was truly shocked by the
poll results. I truly expected more people to vote for the
evolution option, which is what I would have done if I had been
polled. Evolution is something that I was taught in school, but
this isn't a new issue for debate... and I remember reading National
Geographic last year where they decried the forsaking of evolutions or
its dismissal as "just" a theory. Their main point was that
theory = truth. It's not just a wild guess, its an accepted truth
based on scientific proof.

2. As for the US's low global rankings, I think this is simply
disgraceful. As a wealthy well-developed country that supposedly
puts a high standard on education (especially at the collegiate and
university levels), we sure as hell don't live up to the hype.
I'm not sure why we scored so low... but we really need to bring
ourselves up to speed.

3. Not sure.

4. Personally, I think not. On both counts. It would be like
presenting a different explanation for gravity, or energy transfer...
we already have the scientific truth, so why confuse the issue with
guesswork frivolous ideas?

I expect to be thoroughly disagreed with on a few points, so feel free
to voice your opinions. I'll be interested in hearing what others
have to say.

I have seen a survey that revealed most Americans aren't sure whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the other way around.

I wonder how many Americans know that water is a polar molecule. I have lost faith in humanity when it comes to intellect. The average person is grossly ignorant, and only every now and then I get surprised by some slim trace of intelligence in a person.

That's why I like hanging out with geeks (and we don't have a dearth of them here at the SnarkPit). Because geeks, by default, are a whole lot smarter than the average joe/jane.

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

For some reason or another I can't believe that those things came to you as a surprise. <span style="color: lightblue;">It's the american way of thinking that other cultures are inferior to them that makes them sloppy at school.

<span style="color: white;">Seriously. I was quite astonished when we
had this nurse student from Utah on one of our english classes and she
didn't even know where Finland was... When a friend of mine asked if
they thaught any geography in US she answered that they were, but it
came so early that she had forgotten it all... That class told me very
clearly that something wan't right in the education system of the US.

Forgive me for not using enough Sarcasm and if you don't like the way I write you can go f yourselves...

</span></span>

---

''Everyone wades in s**t until they're competent enough to walk on it. Jesus style.''
Dystopia - Empires

i think youve actually answered the question already....

being the richest country in the world has set us up for the fall....its complacency, mixed with laziness to the nth degree, due to being the richest, the actual street scrap for survival becomes the norm, and capitolism at its finest, has nothing to do with science. make as much money as you can, f**k everyone else, and we'll clean up the messes later.....somehow. its inevitable....may be pessimistic, but its true.....history always repeats itself. and empires fall.

god and science have always bothered me in the same debate. there is no logical meeting of the minds here othere than "live and let live"....people need religion in their lives just to get thru the day. life sucks, then you die, and they try to make it as easy and justified as they can. if its not religion, its drugs, or alchohol, or sex addict (always wanted to try that one... :smile: ) or whatever it takes. so...back to live and let live. i personally think that something had to start all of this, it was much biggerthan any of us mere mortals could ever imagine, be it a no-s**t god or what, but whatever it was, if its gonna kick my ass, im supposing i'd bow to it.....kinda goofy.

need a coffee....to,be continued...

Dr Brasso.. :dodgy:

ISSUE 1: Actually, Creation science IS NOT anti-science. Creation science is proven by lots of evidence of sudden apprearances of things where there was previously nothing. e.g. the big bang, and the cambrian explosion.

ISSUE 2: This country was founded on people's rights. People here get too caught up with what they should be able to do (within their rights), and not enough attention to what they should do. It's a lack of morals and values with an overabundance of selfishness that is going to bring this country down.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

China will become the next Superpower, after the fall of the U.S. supremacy. Eventually, just like the Roman Empire, U.S. will crumble under its own weight, suffering from beauracracy, inefficiency, and complacency.

Oh, and I forgot to mention obesity. The country will literally crumble under its weight. Americans will die from complications of obesity, and it will be a painful, slow death.

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

I think something that should be pointed out is that the poll they asked was probably skewed, as most polls are.

I'm sure the options were ones that did not allows a combination of creationism and evolution. You can easily believe in both. People don't realize that creationism could have happened back to the creation of our Galaxy and not specifically just our planet.

While, it's commonly believed that it's just us, aren't we special, it could very well not be the case. (If you look at the two planets next to ours, they're very similar in size and amount of elements, the only difference is temperature)

Then again, people always want to pit science against religion, which is ludicrous. Religion requires faith and belief and as they learn more the religion adapts to new found relics or whatever (At the very least the high ups in the religion, who're also scientists usually... not in title of course ... do this most often).

Science, takes a similar amount of faith. Until you find a contradiction, of course. But that's going by the entire idea that, "If there's a contradiction, the whole thing is false" Which is usually true for small things, but you can't adapt that to large ideas.

Doc has good points as well.

As for the credibility of CNN ... that's another discussion. Let's just say, I don't trust news corporations that put up articles without authors.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Religion was absolutely essential for people in the Middle Ages. Imagine yourself as a peasant, and you lead a pretty miserable life, doing menial labor until you die. If there's no consolation prize at the end (in heaven), life would be unbearable.

But in the modern day, most of us are fortunate enough to be relatively comfortable. We don't have to haul bricks for a living. In fact, most of us are lucky enough to be mappers. Religion consequently becomes less crucial in our daily lives.

We still have our own share of misery to deal with, so there will always be a need for religion. It just became less significant compared to the ancient times. Even though I am not religious, I wholely support it, as long as it doesn't become a tool for abuses or atrocity.

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

if you examine US culture fifty years ago it is surprising to see how it has changed. sure back then more people were religous but politics across the pond seemed less gung-ho and people seemed to have more of a 'european' style attitude. i personally think that the US has gone downhill over the years but it is quite a scary thought to think of what will happen if america 'falls' like the roman empire. the world would be a lot different. just think how much the US has influeneced your life (if you dont live there) and what it would be like if that had never happened.
i, too, believe that Eastern powers, such as China and Japan, will be the next superpowers.

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

Charming (edit: directed at satch's last line).

Religion infuriates me. Have we really achieved nothing in the last few thousand years? Some people seem to think so, or 'want so'. I'd like to see them live without anything manufactured by scientists. How long before Americans 'advance' to ritual sacrifices? In our local bookshop, the science books were all moved for 'new-age' books telling people that they'll live forever if they stroke quartz blobs whenever the moon is full. It's disgraceful that people will so hideously take advantage of the gullibility others to such appauling detriment to humanity.

Science may not, at present, be able to explain everything, but so what? Does that mean we should just make stuff up? "Intelligent" design is most certainly unworthy of science lessons. I personally passionately believe that first aid should be taught in schools over religion, in fact; that's influenced by a description of a military doctor of somebody lying dying whilst onlookers stood completely ignorant of the simplest ways to help.

With apologies for drifting slightly off-topic, I think the worst thing I've ever heard about Americans is that some call out firemen, etc., on hoax calls, and then attack them. It's... beyond my powers of speech.

I'm pretty sure there were news stories in the past year about that happening in the UK actually :sad:

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

Sp00L sees Seventh-Monkey. Anyway, I totaly agree with you, seventh!

---

I would love to change the world, But they would'nt give me the source code.

Issue #1:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting CNN.com:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Only 15 percent thought humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.
</DIV></DIV>Only 15% ? this day and age, that should be around 95% for crying out loud

Issue #2:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting CNN.com:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>U.S. school students perform relatively poorly in international tests of mathematics and science. For example, in 2003 U.S. students placed 24th in an international test that measured the mathematical literacy of 15-year-olds, below many European and Asian countries.
</DIV></DIV>
Europe has almost always been better in science. This is not necessarely a requirement for development. US is far better in investing and using new knowledge in (new) industry. Examples for this collaboration between science and industry are Silicon Valley and M.I.T.

Issue #3:

i dont know. i will say 2 things on the subject though:

1) science and religion speak a different language, they can never claim "victory" over one another. They can complement one another.

2) CONTRA-evolution. The "hobbit" human bones found on the indonesian island Flores give an interesting insight into evolution. Like homo sapiens, they stem from common ancestors, but have evolved totally different: their brain shrunk and they started walking on both arms and legs again. Wether this is contra-evolution or not i leave to you. for me it is what they required for the island with the steep hills.

Issue #4:

I think it should be discussed as a topic in a religion course, certainly not be treated as a science.

---

These words are my diaries screaming out loud

I'm sure if you were to take that same poll in another country like Italy, Greece, Spain, Saudi Arabia, etc, you'd get the same results and most likely an even higher number of people voting for the 1st option.

Just because a group of people is religious doesn't mean they are stupid. Most scientists are religious, even Albert Einstein was relgious.

I get tired of seeing these types of threads on forums that try to make people in the U.S. or people who don't necessarily believe the same thing sound stupid.

Yeah, believing in science most certainly does not stop you from being religious. Science takes observable phemenon and translates it into testable theories. However, science cannot give a deeper explanation of why those theories are true beyond the trivial answer "because the data fits". Thats where religion fits in.

Consider an example from physics:
By using some tricky math, you can show that every symmetry in nature implies a conservation law, and the combination of all conservation laws define essentially the entire physics of any situation.

For example, if you do an experiment now, and then do the exact same experiment 1 week from now, you would expect the results to be the same. This is a called a symmetry in time, and if you use math (calculus of variations), it is possible to show that it implies conservation of energy!

Likewise, invariance under spatial translation (you do the experiment in one location, and then go to another location and redo the experiment) implies conservation of momentum.

You can do this for many different symmetries (change in angle, etc) to deduce all those conservation laws that you learn in high-school physics, and more.

However, the question then becomes: why do we have some symmetries and not others? Why is it that there is symmetry in inertial reference frames, but not accelerating frames?

Its like "God" was sitting around at the beginning of the universe, and said, "Let there be this symmetry", "let there be that symmetry", etc, and then that defined the entire physics of the universe.

---

http://maze5.net

you have just been "maze"merized... :smile:

so....about those astros.... ////runs

Doc B.... :dodgy:

Issue 1: I'm not surprised by those poll results. Its a freakin internet poll. Most people who think their opinion is worth enough to vote on a CNN internet poll are probably dumb enough to ignore 150 years of scientific research.

Issue 2: This does not surprise me. As has been said before, being at the top breeds complacency.

Issue 3: Most definitely yes, but only among people who dont understand science.

Issue 4: In a perfect world, we could give all ideas equal time in a science class. Like it or not, ID is just as valid as the theory of natural selection. However, considering how kids think of science classes, opening that issue for debate is just going to cause problems. I'd rather have most people blindly following Darwin than the Bible.

To spartan, it's true that being religious doesnt mean you are stupid, however, Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus and others didn't allow it to get in the way of science. If you let religion get in the way of a scientific understanding of the universe, then you are stupid.

On what you said about physics Maze, it is possible to show mathematically why you cant apply laws of symmetry in an accelerating frame, I just dont have the time or know how to do it right now. Talk to a physics professor, or read some of Einstein's work on the matter.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

Maze, something important to look at though is what our point of view is. Or our frame of reference. (Also, reproducibility is a more common term :wink: )

We've learned that at high levels (our plane) reproducibility is relatively easy. Obviously, as you implied, that doesn't work on a quantum level, because a lot of conservation laws go out the window. (It's weird though, you can gain energy back ... it's weird.)

On a related note, graph out light-years to time (years, seconds, whatever). Then graph on top of it the new axis that would happen by going the speed of light. You'll get some interesting results ... like things farther away happen closer and sooner ... then things that already happened. Weird stuff. (It's a cool graph though, I'll post one up if anyone wants to see it.)

Someone should invent perpetual motion and we'd be able to do some experiments ... on unmanned vessles of course ... 260 years from when we launch ... we'd get some data back ...

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Crono tried to explain this to me once... here's the graph he made for me:

Ha ha, I remember that.

I just noticed something that's wrong. I said light years then C/s ... wrong. Competley wrong. The units are suppose to be light-year to ... time ...

Doesn't matter though, it'd be the same graph no matter what time unit is there.

But, yeah ... notice event B, which normally happens far after event A and C suddenly occurs before event A and C and happens over a light-year closer. (Screw the seconds unit)

Like I said, weird stuff.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Sorry, I saw "Intelligent design" and "taught in schools" and just had
to link to the Flying Spaghetti Monster:
http://www.venganza.org

---

My site

Sp00L sees Seventh-Monkey. Anyway, I totaly agree with you, seventh!

I think the world and his mates hat got the point that you were banned
from TWHL Sp000l, and at this point I'm looking for people who care,
very good, PM system, btw....

Concerning the thread, to all such fundamentalist Christians I'd say
the same thing I say to the same idiots that dig up peoples
grandmothers because they work in some way for scientific tests
involving animals:

Believe what you want, but don't come running back to medical science
when you feel a lump. Either pray or cuddle a 'liberated' hamster.

And yes, there are many many 'scientists' who will argue that somehow medicine is god given [insert generic psuedo science].

As a priest once explained, a man sat upon the roof of his house as the
flooding waters came....first his neighbour came to help him, he turned
him away "God will save me", then boats came as they rose further "no,
God will save me". The waters rose round him a helicopter came to
airlift him "God will save me". The waters covered him and he drowned.
When he rose to heaven he shouted at god, "why did you not save me?" he
replied, "i send a neighbour boats and a helicopter what more do you
want me to do?"

lol :biggrin:

Crono said:
Someone should invent perpetual motion and we'd be able to do some experiments ...

i think you're joking, but just to clear it up: perpetual motion cannot happen as it goes against the laws of thermodynamics, i.e. the second law.

---

These words are my diaries screaming out loud

Evolution has always facinated me, and down at the end we do not even know how the universe came here. We can go a long way back, but the big bang is still oogelie boogelie for science.

I do not believe in any sort of god that created this. Neither do i hate religion, Though i cant stand it when religion try's to influence everyday science. Live and let live i'd say

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

I have seen a survey that revealed most Americans aren't sure whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the other way around.

I wonder how many Americans know that water is a polar molecule. I have lost faith in humanity when it comes to intellect. The average person is grossly ignorant, and only every now and then I get surprised by some slim trace of intelligence in a person.

That's why I like hanging out with geeks (and we don't have a dearth of them here at the SnarkPit). Because geeks, by default, are a whole lot smarter than the average joe/jane.

</DIV></DIV>

Quoted for truth. Though i cant understand why you americans think so low of themselves

---

RUST Gamedesign
pepper design

The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee.

On what you said about physics Maze, it is possible to show mathematically why you cant apply laws of symmetry in an accelerating frame, I just dont have the time or know how to do it right now. Talk to a physics professor, or read some of Einstein's work on the matter.

No... you can't (EDIT to remove ambiguity: you can't prove mathematically that there is no symmetry in accelerating frames). The symmetries in nature are fundamental. It is possible to imagine a universe in which there is symmetry under accelerating frames. The laws of physics would be pretty messed up there, but there would be no way to deduce which model of the universe is right without taking data.

---

http://maze5.net

BlisTer, that's not entirely true. There is no proof that perpetual motion can or can't happen. No proof either way. Although, the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't do that. The entire idea of a perpetual motion machine is that it's a perfect engine, meaning 0 change in Entropy ... which does no violate the second law of thermodynamics. (No loss in heat due to friction and whatnot)

Also, depends on the system, if it's closed or not, you can have negative change in entropy as long as the system is reversible. Perpetual motion, of course, I would assume isn't reversible, but that's okay, entropy will stay the same. It'd be a 100% efficient machine, which is unlikely, but you can't disprove it.

If I remember my physics, that's how it'd work ... the second law doesn't say anything against it. I could be remembering wrong, but I'm pretty sure on this.

By the way, Yes, I was joking. If you didn't notice I also didn't do any calculations to figure out how many years it would actually take for the ship to get to the speed of light, then how long it would take to gather information and again, how long it would take that information to get back, based on the distance. Pulled that number out of the air, but I would imagine it'd be something like that, or longer.

Maze, right, that's Special Relativity. Or is it General Relativity? I'm sure General is the one where there is no acceleration (You know that whole, can't go faster than the speed of light thing, there not being enough energy in the universe to power anything that has any rest mass larger than 0. Which is why I mentioned perpetual motion) ... in any case, I get them confused sometimes, but one has acceleration, the other doesn't.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Special relativity doesn't deal with gravity, whereas general relativity does. So, special relativity is a special case of general relativity. I havent taken G. Rel yet, but the fundamental theory is that gravity field == curved spacetime. G. Rel is the one that deals with acceleration.

---

http://maze5.net

I said was opposite then. Special Relativity doesn't deal with acceleration (which includes gravity). General relativity does. :smile:

Like I said, I get them mixed up, sometimes.

I haven't had a physics class that deals much with relativity yet though ... doubt I will anytime soon.

Interesting stuff though.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

So... back to the origional subject, why are Americans hostile to science?

I think it's because most people don't actually know what science is. They hear science, and they think people in laboratories wearing white coats and telling everyone else what to believe.

They think of the memorize-based high-school science classes where they were told "here is how you solve this physics problem", "here is what you get when you react chemical A with chemical B", "here are the parts of the cell".

They think of highschool labs where they follow a cookbook of instructions without needing to understand what they are doing. That's really only tangential to what science is all about.

I would bet that most people have a better intuitive feel for the scientific method then we give them credit for - even if they do not recognize it as science. The classic example (I've heard this somewhere before) is the guy who tries pickup lines at a bar, tries variations, and keeps track of what works and what doesn't work. That is science even if the guy doesn't see it as such - conducting experiments (using the pickup lines), methodically varying a parameter (trying new pickup lines), tracking results, drawing conclusions (these lines work better than those lines), and applying the conclusions to make predictions or improve his world (using lines that work more often).

---

http://maze5.net

On perpetual motion, Crono is right as far as I know. Theres no theory contradicting the possibility of a 100% efficient engine, but its not really an infinite source of energy. In any system, energy in = energy out, and a 100% efficient engine just puts all the energy into what you want, rather than losing some as heat.

I agree with the above post - most people dont understand what science is enough to comment on it.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

well ofcourse you cannot prove it mathematically, the laws of thermodynamics are starter points, just like the axiomas in mathematics. They are based on experience, and are accepted to be right untill a credible counter-example is given (which hasnt been the case untill now). If you accept the second law to be correct, then you cannot believe in perpetual motion. 100% ideal processes just don't happen in the real world ...untill a counter example is given, so in that aspect you are right. But then the 2nd thermodynamic law has to be re-written. I still believe in it :wink:

---

These words are my diaries screaming out loud

Ahhh yes once again , a good topic morphs into the butterfly of physics
, lets just hope that we stay tethered a little bit to the main idea
;p. i'm really curious as to what other snarkpitters views are to this
topic. such as whether religion should be taught as an optional in
school. and should intelligent design be accepted as an alternative
theory to evolution as neither are proven.

I personally believe in classes that specialize in each religion *the
most popular ones at least* and then an ethics class as an alternative
. I also believe that on tangents teachers should bring up ALL the
possible theories to an issue , for all unproven theories. *to keep
future minds clear of bias incase of a false theory*.

Oh and science and religion is like comparing Pie to a Famous football player. ;P

SOooo .. which one is better.. pie - no response

Pie.

I have no problem if there are courses that discuss and analyze religions. However, what would the educational value be of a class that simply preached? Also, if you use the argument that they can be educational and preach, then why wouldn't it just be analytical? Since, that would include anyone who would ever take that class and not just people who're of that faith.

You also have to be specific with the level of education this would happen at.

Blister, taking that the entire idea of absolute experimental reproducibility went out the window with quantum mechanics, I, personally, have no problem tweaking the laws of thermodynamics. The entire point is to get it as close as possible, right? Not make it suit what we want it to be. But, I did mention a few times that, for our reality, perpetual motion seems really, really, unlikely. But, maybe it's outside our scope and frame of reference. Who knows?

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Pi.

Let me just clarify that I've not read anytihng in this thread that is after my last post...

I dunno if anyone's really interested, but Leonardo Da Vinci did some work with perpetual motion and has some neat drawings and concepts if you woud care enough to google them.

Just on the side of MY very professional theory: Perpetual motion is not possible because no machine is 100% efficient, there is always energy loss in other forms besides the intended output. Just like all the energy of an engine does not go straight to the wheels because of friction in the parts escaping as heat energy rather than centrifugal and kinetic energy.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

very briefly read this one, got to the subject of religion and thought that i would say:

God is an awnser for the unknown

i back up my saying with: As soon as science figured it out, the "God" of thunder dissapeared didn't he?

---

I agree with you saying that God is an answer for the unknown, but you say it like theres something wrong with that.

Science doesnt "figure out" anything. It just rearranges unknowns in terms of other more obscure unknowns.

You say, "why is there thunder"?

A scientist would answer that it is because of the physical laws that govern electricity. But why are the laws that govern electricity true? That's the new more obscure unknown.

Maybe scientists can explain that the laws of electricity come from quantum mechanics, and maybe quantum mechanics comes from something else (String theory perhaps?), but if you keep asking "why", in the end you are always left with an unknown.

The only why science can give to that unknown is "because it fits the data", but thats basically equivalent to answering the question "why is there thunder" with the answer "because we observe there to be thunder".

---

http://maze5.net

Good points, Maze.

It fits until we find something else to contradict it.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

What age was this poll based on? I say this because a teacher yesterday say be reading about evolution in study and said evolution wasn't real. She said there was no proof of it. Although she and another teacher thought this no students thought this, and I have found that probably a percentage of 5% people believe in god in our school (this is a public school though and not a private religious school). Even after we (about 4 people study) stated many points trying to prove eveolution she still wouldn't believe it.

Personally I don't believe in God but if he does exist I still wouldnt follow him; he could solve all our energy problems and stop famine and everything but he(or she) just won't (if he/she existed).

If God exists he is a mean kid with a magnifying glass and we are all ants.

But what do I know? I'm only 16.

---

Reckless disregard for childrens well being, women and nothing but utter contempt for other cultures.

So, the biggest problems in the world are ones that we have brought upon ourselves. War, famine, destruction of the enviornment, etc.

That means a god would have to remove free will in order to solve our problems. Would you rather live in this world, or a world where things are all-good but you have no free will?

---

http://maze5.net

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I agree with you saying that God is an answer for the unknown, but you say it like theres something wrong with that. </DIV></DIV>

Im not implying anything that says that i think there is something wrong with that. if you havnt gathered by now im atheist. (but not to an extreme that i do anything serious about it) i just believe that god doesnt exist.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>So, the biggest problems in the world are ones that we have brought upon ourselves. War, famine, destruction of the environment, etc.

That means a god would have to remove free will in order to solve our problems. Would you rather live in this world, or a world where things are all-good but you have no free will?</DIV></DIV>

i think basically saying if god exists, why does "bad" happen. why do random idiots kill the innocent. its a belief anyway, and asking if you want to live in a world with no free will isn't going to happen anyway. and "good / bad" is an opinion anyway (free will?) something good to one person could be bad to another.

And allways coming to a unkown is allways going to happen. because once science discovers how "1" made, people then want to know how the thing that made "1" is made.

The existance of things is just mear chance imo, like the big bang. how did it go from "nothing" to the existance of stars etc etc..

[Edit]

[color=white]Science explains things using facts, that are seen or proved with some kind of proof. Rather than total guesswork. They can display the movement of power or electricity in a visual form, and show how it moves to create sound like thunder[/color]

---