I'm not convinced that the number of Americans who reject the scientific evidence is that high nationwide. But it troubles me that so many, on the one hand believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, and on the other hand live such unchristian lives in their daily routine.

I think you hit the nail on the head there Bob. Our scientific understanding of the Universe and the way it works has become sufficiently advanced enough where the average person just can't understand the observations and study that goes into these theories, so they reject them rather than try to understand them.

This isn't to say there's still a lot about the Universe we don't understand or don't know, but there's good reason why the Big Bang theory is the leading theory proposed to explain the beginnings of our Universe. No one claims to know what came before, including possibilities that our own local Big Bang was the result of a star collapsing on the other side, but we have no evidence for such a hypothesis.

We'd best not bring religion into this Bob. Most people will reject what they don't or can't understand. The problem that we humans have is that we live in a finite world. Entities get born then die, occurrences have a beginning and an end. A book has three dimensions which you can see in it's entirety. The concept of in-finite or in-finity is totally alien to us. But in terms of the universe, that is what we are being asked to believe. No wonder then that it is a difficult concept to grasp.

I hesitated to open that can of worms but the statement that most Americans don't believe in the big bang theory or any scientific explanation for how things began begs the question, why? I saw on the NG channel last week a segment of a program about Noah's ark where a fellow conducts rafting tours of the Grand Canyon claiming it is evidence that the world is only 4600 yrs. old plus or minus. This kind of belief in this day and age truly mystifies me.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

This kind of belief in this day and age truly mystifies me.

We have seen that in these fourums. I say let them post on so we can see their idiocy.

---

... This kind of belief in this day and age truly mystifies me.

And the rest of the world!

Is USA "education" actually an extension of USA religion?!...


Most Americans doubt Big Bang, not too sure about evolution, climate change

Science no match for religion, politics, business interests...



Only in the USA?...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

that is what we are being asked to believe

I don't agree there. We can always choose what we believe and choose what we want to do with that believe although we have to live in harmony with nature and the universe which is hard in the society we're living in these days it seems. I I don't even 'want' to 'listen' to the news anymore...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I hesitated to open that can of worms but the statement that most Americans don't believe in the big bang theory or any scientific explanation for how things began begs the question, why? I saw on the NG channel last week a segment of a program about Noah's ark where a fellow conducts rafting tours of the Grand Canyon claiming it is evidence that the world is only 4600 yrs. old plus or minus. This kind of belief in this day and age truly mystifies me.

I have come to the conclusion that the real question is not whether the U.S. will make it to the end of the century, but rather how did we make it this far?

I hesitated to open that can of worms but the statement that most Americans don't believe in the big bang theory or any scientific explanation for how things began begs the question, why? I saw on the NG channel last week a segment of a program about Noah's ark where a fellow conducts rafting tours of the Grand Canyon claiming it is evidence that the world is only 4600 yrs. old plus or minus. This kind of belief in this day and age truly mystifies me.

I have come to the conclusion that the real question is not whether the U.S. will make it to the end of the century, but rather how did we make it this far?

+1

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

that is what we are being asked to believe

I don't agree there. We can always choose what we believe and choose what we want to do with that believe

The problem is that the facts are true regardless if we believe them. Things like the Big Bang theory and Evolution are facts, but too many people take a "belief" approach to science and think if they don't like it, they can simply reject it and replace it with their own unproven, non-peer reviewed idea. It's easy to be an arm-chair scientist and tell them all they've got it all figured out wrong, but it's another thing entirely to get out there and prove your claims and have others review your data.

That seems to be the crux of threads like this. It's not a matter of "do you believe..." but "why is this the leading theory?" We don't get to have an opinion on facts.

Proof of the Big Bang

Bicep2 (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarisation) telescope at the Amundsen-Scott polar base in Antarctica had found conclusive evidence for the existence of gravity waves, colossal ripples in space-time that pervade today’s universe and which were formed when the cosmos was just 10 to the minus 35 seconds old – a length of time shorter than it would take the Starship Enterprise to cross from one side of a grain of sand to another

But the fact that we have, in just a few short centuries, gone from knowing almost nothing about the immense vastness in which our planet sits to hearing the very echoes of the Big Bang is remarkable. Quite the most extraordinary thing about our universe is that we can begin to understand it at all.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Yes, but this result is to be confirmed by the analysis of the data from satellite Planck which cover a wider range of frequencies. They should be made public in October.
Tullio

---

It seems a recent poll on the acceptance of scientific theories like the Big Bang or Evolution shows Bob is likely correct when he points to religion:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/us-publics-acceptance-of-scientific-knowledge-erratic/

"John Timmer @ ArsTechnica" wrote:

The Associated Press has commissioned a poll that delves into the US public's acceptance of some extremely well-established scientific findings—so established that most scientists would consider them facts. Although some of these facts have clearly entered the public's consciousness, there are a number of issues where US citizens haven't accepted reality.

...

The good news is that more than 80 percent of those surveyed are strongly confident that smoking causes cancer; only four percent doubt it. Roughly 70 percent accepted that we have a genome and that mental illness is seated in the brain; about 20 percent were uncertain on these subjects, and the doubters were few. But things go downhill from there. Only about half of the people accepted that vaccines are safe and effective, with 15 percent doubting.

And that's one of the controversial topics where the public did well. As for humanity's role in climate change, 33 percent accepted, 28 percent were unsure, and 37 percent fell in the doubter category. For a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth and a 13.8-billion-year-old Big Bang, acceptance was below 30 percent. Fully half of the public doubted the Big Bang.

...

As usual, there were problems with evolution. Thirty-one percent accepted that life on Earth (including humans) evolved, while 43 percent doubted it. But there was what you might call micro-acceptance of some aspects of evolution: 65 percent of those polled accepted the idea that antibiotic overuse led to drug-resistant bacteria.

The accompanying evaluation suggests that part of the problem is simply that the age of the Earth and Universe seems very remote to people, who question whether we can say anything about them with confidence. In contrast, many people have personal experience with the harms of smoking, leading to widespread acceptance.

An analysis of the correlations within the data indicates that "confidence in evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the Earth, and climate change decline sharply as faith in a supreme being rises." The pollsters themselves, though, are part of the problem in this case. In the midst of a series of scientific statements, they inserted the following: "The Universe is so complex, there must be a supreme being guiding its creation." (Just over half agreed.) This would be enough to evoke many people's cultural affinities for religious beliefs and is likely to influence the answers to the remaining questions. Questions were randomized, so this won't be a problem for every participant, but it's still likely to have skewed the results.

(Refusal to accept climate change isn't an obviously religious issue, but it tends to be part of a package of conservative political and religious beliefs.)

It seems silly that we have people in this day and age still expressing doubts over the accuracy of scientific findings, but I suppose if you take into account that we are making new discoveries and deepening our understanding of the Universe at a break-neck pace compared to a short 50 years ago, I guess it's no wonder that the public isn't able to keep up and revert to their personal belief systems, including religious dogma when it comes to these findings.

It seems a recent poll on the acceptance of scientific theories like the Big Bang or Evolution shows Bob is likely correct when he points to religion:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/us-publics-acceptance-of-scientific-knowledge-erratic/

"John Timmer @ ArsTechnica" wrote:

The Associated Press has commissioned a poll that delves into the US public's acceptance of some extremely well-established scientific findings—so established that most scientists would consider them facts. Although some of these facts have clearly entered the public's consciousness, there are a number of issues where US citizens haven't accepted reality.

...

The good news is that more than 80 percent of those surveyed are strongly confident that smoking causes cancer; only four percent doubt it. Roughly 70 percent accepted that we have a genome and that mental illness is seated in the brain; about 20 percent were uncertain on these subjects, and the doubters were few. But things go downhill from there. Only about half of the people accepted that vaccines are safe and effective, with 15 percent doubting.

And that's one of the controversial topics where the public did well. As for humanity's role in climate change, 33 percent accepted, 28 percent were unsure, and 37 percent fell in the doubter category. For a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth and a 13.8-billion-year-old Big Bang, acceptance was below 30 percent. Fully half of the public doubted the Big Bang.

...

As usual, there were problems with evolution. Thirty-one percent accepted that life on Earth (including humans) evolved, while 43 percent doubted it. But there was what you might call micro-acceptance of some aspects of evolution: 65 percent of those polled accepted the idea that antibiotic overuse led to drug-resistant bacteria.

The accompanying evaluation suggests that part of the problem is simply that the age of the Earth and Universe seems very remote to people, who question whether we can say anything about them with confidence. In contrast, many people have personal experience with the harms of smoking, leading to widespread acceptance.

An analysis of the correlations within the data indicates that "confidence in evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the Earth, and climate change decline sharply as faith in a supreme being rises." The pollsters themselves, though, are part of the problem in this case. In the midst of a series of scientific statements, they inserted the following: "The Universe is so complex, there must be a supreme being guiding its creation." (Just over half agreed.) This would be enough to evoke many people's cultural affinities for religious beliefs and is likely to influence the answers to the remaining questions. Questions were randomized, so this won't be a problem for every participant, but it's still likely to have skewed the results.

(Refusal to accept climate change isn't an obviously religious issue, but it tends to be part of a package of conservative political and religious beliefs.)

It seems silly that we have people in this day and age still expressing doubts over the accuracy of scientific findings, but I suppose if you take into account that we are making new discoveries and deepening our understanding of the Universe at a break-neck pace compared to a short 50 years ago, I guess it's no wonder that the public isn't able to keep up and revert to their personal belief systems, including religious dogma when it comes to these findings.

It is that hard to grasp for the majority of the people that they indeed turn to religion, occultism or Humanities in general. Gives people some guidance where they can't find any in the empirical science, goes beyond comprehension at times because it's so real. Mankind is growing more and more conscious in Humanities and on the other hand more and more intelligent; This is 'helping' our knowledge to 'evolve'. Some day, the two will flow together and we finally get the big picture I hope, but sadly it won't be in our lifetime...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

The question is, why are the cerebrally challenged getting more challenged, while the elite are getting more adept?

A question I have been pondering about as well, you get cerebrally challenged in harsh situations, 'elite' don't know any harsh situations so they have nothing to challenge their mind and spirit. (I wouldn't call them elite though, elite has a different meaning imo;)

Are you suggesting a Star Child like Dave Bowman?

No.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

That future sounds just as scary as a financial distopia of have and have-nots. I think it is very important that we protect everyone's rights equally and not allow such a thing to come to fruition. It's also a bit concerning that there's such a distrust of so-called "intelligent" people as if all of them lack any respect or care for their common man, even if they are not in the same IQ range (which really shouldn't matter).

The question is, why are the cerebrally challenged getting more challenged, while the elite are getting more adept?

A question I have been pondering about as well, you get cerebrally challenged in harsh situations, 'elite' don't know any harsh situations so they have nothing to challenge their mind and spirit. (I wouldn't call them elite though, elite has a different meaning imo;)

So we're talking about a pampered group. I don't know that this is necessarily the case with all highly intelligent people as Chris suggests in his future distopia.

That future sounds just as scary as a financial distopia of have and have-nots. I think it is very important that we protect everyone's rights equally and not allow such a thing to come to fruition. It's also a bit concerning that there's such a distrust of so-called "intelligent" people as if all of them lack any respect or care for their common man, even if they are not in the same IQ range (which really shouldn't matter).

That's not what we mean Ozzfan, no way, you know, I'll tell you something. My BF's IQ was tested a while ago, you know what they said? LOL!!!!! 50! I wouldn't have been with him for over a year if that were his IQ, no offense to anyone with that but what I mean is, you shouldn't trust another to define your IQ. We have an EQ as well, something totally different...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

That future sounds just as scary as a financial distopia of have and have-nots. I think it is very important that we protect everyone's rights equally and not allow such a thing to come to fruition. It's also a bit concerning that there's such a distrust of so-called "intelligent" people as if all of them lack any respect or care for their common man, even if they are not in the same IQ range (which really shouldn't matter).

That's not what we mean Ozzfan, no way, you know, I'll tell you something. My BF's IQ was tested a while ago, you know what they said? LOL!!!!! 50! I wouldn't have been with him for over a year if that were his IQ, no offense to anyone with that but what I mean is, you shouldn't trust another to define your IQ. We have an EQ as well, something totally different...

But Chris did mention a future where an IQ test is required to have a license to pro-create. Chris also stated that he feels the haves and have-nots will be in the form of intelligence (whether intelligence is measured by an IQ test or otherwise is non-relevant to the concern Chris is indicating). If this is not what Chris meant (and my post was in reply to his post), then I'm confused as to what he means by a separation between groups by intelligence.

Hello all :) Ok, going to be tricky keeping on topic here, given the path we have veered down. :)

In political and sociological theory, an elite is a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth or political power.

The advantage this gives them, opens pathways to better nutrition, quality education, private tutors etc, which perhaps allows them to develop intellectually to a level above the oik Chris refers to :) at least on paper anyway.

It also gives them the means to employ PR companies and speech writers too - which all helps them shine.

Our elite also include professional footballers, the children of rock stars, "celebrities" etc etc - not exactly rampant with IQ when averaged as a group, but many an oik there too... it's just that they tend to be oiks in first class, or whilst crashing their porsche's, rather than on the pavements and buses. :)

I would also include all members (past present and future) of the Bullingdon Club as oiks, A* pick of the bunch ones, and corrupt bankers and exploitative businessmen, but that is just my opinion :)

Hi IQ's procreating do not beget high IQ's in their progeny with any degree of certainty. It works the other way too. In short, I don't think limiting the gene pool to one sector of breeders is a good idea at all.

If we ever get to the point where levelling the playing field on education and nutrition actually raises it and allows every young person to fully develop their talents to reach their full potential intellectually (no matter what their "IQ") instead of consigning generations to the scrapheap as we do... just imagine what we could achieve!

I will add too that watching local children walk to school cloaked in fumes beside heavy rush hour traffic... when once they walked through a park (now yet another gated community) might not be conducive to grasping basic concepts... let alone retaining complex ones like big bang theories and gravitational waves. :/

This is meant to be the Big bang thread.

EQ

Don't forget the "...or big blooper??" bit :) (heh heh heh) :) so a nice wide topic in fact :) Nice link though Chris, thank you :)

Hi Annie,

Well it does show you that Dolphins are pretty close behind us, and that cats are smarter than dogs. But then again we all knew that anyway. Also shows why birds cam navigate thousands of miles to their breeding ground, and gives some credence to the saying "are you a man or a mouse?".

squeak squeak ....

Well I don't know about cats or dogs but agree dolphins and pigs and octopus are up there on the smart chain. For years I would watch geese fly into the US and never miss a lick, I seen that they think they have magnetic sensing and others say they fly IFR (I follow roads) who knows who is right.

Octopus live only 3 years and pigs is until dinner time.

---

Cheers everybody
Life is short so don't sip
Beer speaks, people mumble