This type of juvenile generalization hardly supports your “tolerance” reference. Although crime rates are very high in large cities and despite what we know of the statistis pertaining to very silly, primitive beliefs, I find that outside of government and media, a large number (majority?) of Americans happens to be smart, open minded, receptive to criticism and much more tolerant than the tone of your post makes you appear yourself. As a Canadian myself I agree that we should be proud of having better statistics in many of the areas you mention, but I refuse to use such generalizations myself in characterizing an entire nation of millions. I must say that I would prefer the United States’ population in general to beome more like us, than the other way around, but seriously, relax! (Also, I know several fine individuals who are very well adjusted and are a joy to frequent, know and love, and who don’t own a corkscrew). Ramen.

And I have to say that despite the fact that it has been going on for at least 20 years now, I find the onslaught against theory of evolution astonishing: I still don’t understand how it happened, that a theory that seemed to me to be universally accepted by pretty much anybody with a smidgen of education (even if they didn’t understand more than the very basic ideas) came to become one of the most controversial ideas in social (if not scientific) discourse.

I actually, until few years ago recently, didn’t realise that there were, genuinely, in the so-called “civilised” world, large groups of people who not only reject the idea of evolution, but also think that the world is 10,000 years old (or something like that). I am still amazed by that fact.

But in this whole discussion one thing seems to be quite obvious: that in the minds of the creationists, there seems to be an allmost ideal correspondence between supporting the theory of evolution and atheism or anti-theism.

But of course it isn’t true: even such an organisation as Catholic Church accepts evolution (admittedly, theistic evolution with a god included somewhere as a power behind the scenes and a soul-creator). The previous pope, quite famously, claimed that “new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis” while Ratzinger (before election) accepts Big Bang, universe that’s 15 billion years old and emergence of life 4bn years ago: “Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.”

I also found the Catheism’s page on evolution (http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp) quite illuminating: full of rather Jesuit sophistry, but generally rather rational (as much as it’s possible while advocating a theistic worldview, of course).

The last section on science and religion is particularly wonderful. I can’t think of anything better to show to those creationist Christians then:

“no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . *it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’*; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people”. Leo XIII, d. 1903.

Although I am not certain whether being a Pope is much of a credential amongst the creationists. It might be possible worse than being a Shermer.

I hasten to say that I am neither a Catholic, a Christian or a theist of any description, but for once I find the pronouncements of the Holy See somehow refreshing. Wouldn’t it be ironic if evolution was more populary accepted in strongly Catholic countries like Poland, Italy or Ireland than in this bedrock of modernity, freedom of thought and the most technologically advanced democracy on Earth that is the US?

Hold on, here we are:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/060810-evolution_big.jpg

on another tack:-
i find abundant good evidence for natural selection.
i have no problem with that part of darwinian ism.

im not convinced about the various theories about how the stuff arose to get selected from ….

it would seem that intellectual honesty would require acceptance of that (if i was web savvy i could drop names and examples here) – folks, surely you know wot i wot of?

kindly,

frank

And- The women in YOUR life (if any) may just have an epiphany! (nudge-nudge)

Godspeed, lad! Go forth and procreate!
(if this isn’t a discussion of Darwinism, then what is?)

-Tony (aqk) http://www.tonyking.tk