U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

I wouldn't ignore spendiouse... I don't read what he writes, just read the replies, you then know what he's written, in one sentence or two.

You are making a big mistake.

Do you think there's a connection between the US lagging the world in the grasp of the words mentioned and it being the only superpower and the richest country ever known?

It really takes only a few carefully chosen words to close a shady deal. A freight train of words will almost always sour the deal.

You really ought to try to avoid repetions of that sort LW. The second "deal" is not unlike the clang a clanger makes when dropped on a concrete floor in an empty industrial unit to a fine-tuned literary ear.

I'm not too keen on the freight train image either. It is redolent of clanging and clunking and squeaking and puffing and it hardly does justice to a skein of mellifluous expressions crafted by a master hand such as M.Proust brought to bear for our entertainment and edification regarding matters which are not so obviously "shady" to the unsuspecting glance. And a freight train is useful. It helps make things sweet--not sour. One may even have transported pecans to a store of convenience close to where you are quartered.

If you would just have the patience to stop and think about the first image that comes into your head and meditate upon its qualities and make sure they are not incongruous with the object the image is intended to highlight you might, with practice, which we all know makes perfect, enable your adoring fans to avoid having their teeth set vibrating at high frequencies in that manner we all remember from our schoolday camping trips when, for a jest, a cheap fork was scraped abrasively across a tin-plate to get girl guides to shriek and beg for one to stop.

spendius wrote :



it may have been at one time ...

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-richest-countries-map.html

World Top 10 - Richest Countries
Country - GDP Per Capita ($)

Luxembourg 80,800
Qatar 75,900
Bermuda 69,900
Norway 55,600
Kuwait 55,300
UAE 55,200
Singapore 48,900
USA 46,000
Ireland 45,600
Equatorial Guinea 44,100


see also :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_s_richest_countries

http://www.all-rankings.com/rank.php?r=4fd0be4784

and for a change : the world's richest people (a/t FORBES) :

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/Middle_East_&_Africa_Rank_1.html

and more of the biggest and the best from FORBES (the best champagne , anyone ? )

http://www.forbes.com/lists/

Just when you think Spendi has picked his last nit, he starts pulling them out of his beard. There is more effective medication for that infestation.

You never thought for one moment that I have picked my last nit. You're joshing us.

Annual US budget is nearly 3 trillion $s. That's 3,000 $billions. All those other countries put together are way short of that hbg.

So isn't that 3,000 $billion... what it costs to run the joint and aren't they heavily in debt to China for one? looks to me they are going towards having to borrow 3,000 $billion. to keep their heads above water.

I read that NASA is planning a holiday camp on the moon for 2020. That's rich in my book.

We suck.

I think it's because it hasn't been that newsworthy until the Creationuts and IDiots started roiling the pot in the school systems. I think the result will be that the majority who just don't really care will start looking more seriously into genetics and evolution. They're getting doses of genetics and DNA science in several TV series and in the movies and though much of it is sci-fi, it could direct a lot of minds into searching the Internet and watching shows on the National Geographic channel or PBS, for instance, on the subject. I don't believe they will be inspired to go into the scientific data in great detail which is what Stephen Hawking advocated -- that's the world of the specialists. I think it will open up new vistas for the general public and when they actually find out at least the rudimentary workings of evolution, they're going to turn the tide away from Creationism for sure and, depending on how constricted the IDers want to frame their belief in a dubious quasi-science like the silly Panda book, the polls will revert to favoring evolution over an instantly created animal and plant world, not to mention Adam and Eve.

There is a TV sitcom titled The Big Bang Theory. While the characters are a bunch of idiots, the opening theme portrays a popularized spread of evolution. I don't know if something that casual helps, but I believe it does.

But it's so wooly LW. I don't know you have said anything in any scientific sense. You have got something off your chest I agree and it might well make an impression on anybody who can't read properly but essentially your post is meaningless which is fair enough to those who think that the universe is meaningless and, as a necessary logical consequence, everything in it is also.

But then your are preaching to the converted and the post can be likened to a coyote's howl in its meaningless noise.

Can you not understand this point? Is it really too difficult to grasp? You can't say the universe is meaningless and then claim your part in it has meaning. That's just intellectual flouncing.

I don't think that. It's a fact.

The only thing meaningless in this forum is you.

I do watch the show -- actually the cast is a clique of science research nerds and the comedy is they aren't any less clueless than general society when it comes to social contact. It's a sitcom and it's not that exagerrated -- I knew a lot of those nerds at Cal Tech and the writers have the characterizations right even if the stories are tailored for a sitcom. Very funny show. I wonder if they ever will touch the subject of evolution, even those the opening credits are how you described them.

That's just another empty assertion. Look through the post of your's with care. It is full of qualifiers. It even starts with an "I think".

What's "newsworthy"? Headlines or page 8 Items in Brief? Another "I think".

And what does the thought "the majority who just don't really care will start looking more seriously into genetics and evolution" actually mean? What does " don't really care" actually mean? What does " looking more seriously" actually mean? Once a day--once a year?

Who is the "they're" who are getting the dose? The ones watching the TV series I suppose. Fancy that.

And it only "could" direct a lot of minds. What's a " lot" of minds?

Then "I don't believe" relating to details of scientific data is daft. They haven't the mental capacity.

Then another "I think" to introduce a pie-in-the-sky fantasy sentence to finish off with.

It was pure bullshit LW. Not a shred of meaning just like the quote on top of this post. It's about time you took more care in estimating the intelligence of A2Kers. Posting bullshit is insulting. Do the people you socialise with accept conversation like that from you?

Perhaps Evelyn Waugh was right. He said, advising someone, about Californians-



I presume that social gatherings are for people who talk for their own pleasure with nobody being required to listen so that it doesn't attract the attention of the men in white coats. No wonder they are keen on meetings.

Thanks for confirming your meaningless.

the US lags period.

Personally, I am SHOCKED to see the way evolution is addressed in this context--on a philosophy forum section, especially. "Gosh, it's a shame to see all that red space, innit? You'd think people would be smarter, more civilized, more willing to see reason! I'm ashamed to live in a country where so few people know the truth! Because, you know, evolution is just...true, you know? Duh!"

The phrasing "U.S. lags world" implies some lack of progress in the U.S. As if evolution, being, "you know, the truth," is not being as unconditionally accepted as it should be.

I'm smiling at the bottom of the chart--the places where more people are willing to contest what is being proposed by such prominent figures as truth. I'm glad the U.S. is down there. It shows that the ideology of universal tolerance (many tenets of which I support) has made headway.

Evolution and Intelligent Design are both reasonable conclusions based on the evidence. But the random chance implicit in the beginning of the evolutionary process automatically makes Evolution less reasonable to accept; it automatically requires loads more evidence for support. Individuals must decide whether they accept that additional evidence, and sadly, it seems that in many cases, the presence of popular science automatically creates what very well may be an illusion of truth. "It's science, therefore it has to be true."

It all seems to support the assertion that science, under human construct, has two faces: the face of a curious adventurer, and the face of a controlling dictator. Let us try to pursue the more respectable of the two.

Well said Klope. I've been trying to tell them that for 6 long years. But they do like controlling and dictatorial methods.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. It has nothing to do with careers, making a fuss, selling books or political agendas. Nothing.

Except that a scientist might study how science can be used for careers, making a fuss, selling books or political agendas.