"Why doesn't America believe in evolution?" - NewScientist.com

[MODU]

I think it is a bit more involved than that.  I'm sure most of Americans believe in Micro-evolution, which the article kind of ignores.  True, we do have a very close genetic match with chimps, but we also have the same number of chromosomes as oak trees, so did we descend from them too?  Yes, I know, it's a ridiculous example, but it is fair none the less.  Just because they are close in number/make-up doesn't mean that they have a historical link.  That is just scientific reasoning.  To believe in macro-evolution (which requires faith since it hasn't been proven) is the same as in believing in creationism (which requires faith since it hasn't been proven).  I'm sure once one or the other has been proven; you'll see a measurable switch in public opinion one way or another.

(And yes, we've had this discussion ad nauseum before, so I'm not going to repeat prior thoughts/comments on it.)

[MODU]

3. A similar number of chromosomes as another species does not equate similarity; people with Down's Syndrome for example have an extra chromosome 21, one more than other humans or an oak tree, yet they are still human.

True, but in general (we're not talking mutations), humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs), while chimps have 48 (24 pairs).  Additionally, the chromosome matching among bands are not same (sometimes significantly different) between the two sets, as well as with other apes/monkeys. 

(And I was just using it as an example, and not the foundation of a debate.) 

[MODU]

3.  science isn't religion.  ever since thales of miletus first asked nearly 3000 years ago whether there might be a rational explanation for the behavior of things, as opposed to say volcanoes exploding becausing something is mad at us, science has been evolving.  Of course, until a couple of hundred years ago there was no real distinction between philisophy and science and you could call it faith-based till then.

In some context, it is.  For example, it is taken by faith that there was a big bang, with the galaxy expanding outwards from a single point.  However, there are some galaxies which appear to be moving in towards this point rather than away.  Additionally, some galaxies appear to be traveling along a particular ribbon in space; something not expected from a central explosion.  However, you accept that by all the scientific evidence to date that it was a great explosion which created what we have today, and that acceptance requires faith.

[MODU]

No it requires logic.  Just like any THEORY in science requires.  Some hypotheses might require faith to believe, but theories only require logic.

When you grow up and take logic in college, you're going to look back at your statement and laugh.

[MODU]

I just love the fact that people will throw away evolution as a theory simply because, at worst there is annecdotal evidence for evolution (and it does make sense) - whereas there is not one scrap of evidence for biblical creation outside of the bible. All I can say is if we are going back to the old testament for how to run our world - get your arses inside on Sundays, and don't wear poly/cotton blends - because the stoning party will be around.

What would you recommend to be the basis to test for creation?  What evidence would you look for?  A pile of dust in the Middle East somewhere that is missing approximately 140lbs of mass which was used to create Adam?

[MODU]

No it requires logic.  Just like any THEORY in science requires.  Some hypotheses might require faith to believe, but theories only require logic.

When you grow up and take logic in college, you're going to look back at your statement and laugh.

Oh?  How so?  (By the way, I've already taken logic, but thanks.)

Something can be logically correct, yet factually wrong.  That would be one of the chapters in your book.

[MODU]

It's one of those cases - for those who believe, no proof is necessary. 

Which is one of the underlying issues on the debate.  How can you prove (or disprove) that creation occurred if you cannot test for it? 

[MODU]

That's why I say it should be taught in English/History courses in its proper context.  After all, you don't learn about Zeus or Ra in Biology classes.

[MODU]

Well, most schools in Australia offer an junior/senior year elective in Religious studies so you study a variety of religions and beliefs including creation.

That's not a bad option.  In the US, foreign religions and myths are taught in English and History classes due to their literary context and global cultural influences.  However, Christianity tends to be left out since "everyone should already know it" or "we must have a separation of church and state."  Basically, it's discrimination.