Why are there so many creationists and intelligent design advocates in the US ?
400932
none of the above.  The US seems to attracts all kinds of people from all walks of life.  Its still a melting pot and all kinds of weirdos exist.  Some we like some we hate.  It's all a part of life.
925235
Because we have a PRANKSTER GOD!!!\nHe put the bones in the ground to test our faith in him....\n\nGOD: "HAHAHAHAHAHA, I'm killing me, I'm so funny!\n\nSimple truths: there is a mountain of scientific, verifiable, measurable evidence to support the theory of evolution...and the research continues and discovers new things all the time.\nThere IS NOT A SHRED of evidence for creationism.\n\nLook at the issue from a balance of probabilities...masses of scientific evidence...or a man made book (often changed/edited/translated) of fairy stories and a bunch of crack pots...now which is more likely?
44398
No. In fact, the whole point of Intelligent Design is merely to cause a public debate on evolution. The fact is that Intelligent Design starts with a conclusion (Creationism), then works out a package which was designed to be school-friendly, and provide "evidence" which might trick people who are unfamiliar with the real science of the situation. The ID movement's claims that ID is intended to be non-specific in its creator is revealed by the Wedge document to be a lie.
344303
Politically, evolution is winning, despite the fact that we have a freakin crazy religious Republican party (don't get me wrong, the freakin crazy atheist wing of the Democratic party is no better). "Intelligent design" is not whats being taught in schools... science classes are meant to teach science, not pseudo-religious nonsense.\n\nI was never taught "intelligent design" or "creationism" in my science classes in Texas and Louisiana, two of the most conservative places in the country, so I'd say evolution is winning politically.
824483
How about Darwinism vs Creationism taught in schools, or stem cell research, or legalizing illegal immigrants who have been here for over 25 years? All of these issues are currently not answerable for lawyers and there is not a law that is consistant in all 50 states for any of them.
806400
Ignorance is bliss. The increase in the number of "uneducated" immigrants and hardlined Muslim immigrants (Islam does not accept evolution science) will increase the support for creationism & intelligent design...very sad indeed.
509868
I never heard that story, it strikes me as contrived bollox anyway, but no, it makes no difference.   Anyone that thinks it matters is searching desperately for something to substantiate that anti-intellectual horror: creationism.  Science works because it outlasts every individual scientist, to be tested and refined again by the next generation of open minded clever people.  Evolution has, er, evolved quite a lot since Darwin's time, and many of the puzzles left by him have been solved.   If Newton had recanted, apples would still fall to the ground.
630426
First off, creationism is not a scientific theory.  Please don't elevate it to that level with the term "scientific creationism."  Creationism is religion, not science.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n
343469
"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory."\n\n"Intelligent Cause" can ONLY be interpreted as "A Creator."\nHence, it is simply creationism with a fancy new name.  Their claim of "scientific disagreement" is, at best, laughable.\n\nIt's all a big steaming pile of poo....
476036
well since the govenment likes to keep the separation of church and state in our faces and creationism is relgious I think you need to look at who is paying for the education...If you want creationism go to a religous school otherwise, teach accepted science and math and english in america and keep the self actualization out of the public schools.
249247
Well... I know I'm gonna get a lot more hate mail than usual for this. \n\nFrom the Catholic Chruch rising to power, by the Romans (and I'm not saying just the Catholic Church, it's an example) To about the late 1900s, they have banded books, movies, msuic, etc. and in early times, even killed people, which is against one of the commandments for speaking against the Bible.  What they said is of basic fact today.  More people are except science, because it make more since, there is PROOF it is there.  Like creation.\n\nIt is hard for some to believe that some being created a whole planet in just 6 days, and that 6 billion people stemmed from just two.   It makes much more sense that it took two billion years to create the earth, and we evolved from our closest genetic ancestor, apes. \n\nThere for more people are converting to science, not religion.
162206
In the UK there is no interference from religious fundamentalism in our Science classrooms.\nWhen I taught Biology, every syllabus did consider Lamarkism, Creationism & Darwinian Evolution. But the emphasis was upon considering the evidence and the reasons for prefering evolution as the more likely.\n\nAs previous answerers have concluded, there is a failure of both the general public and of fundamentalist Christians to appreciate the concept of evolution (and the greater proportion of science for that matter).\n\nI am deeply concerned by the inroads that Creationism is making into Biology teaching in the USA. It is a scary thought that any religion could specify how we must think.\n\nI have every sympathy with your plight. Please do not give in to bigotry.\n\nADDITIONAL: I've just had a look at the website mentioned in the previous answer. I am appalled - it is nonsense. Very worrying.
46862
To dismiss it because of its religious origin would be the same as dropping American history because the founders believed the Bible to be true.\nhttp://www.schneblin.com/studies/pdfs/our_founding_fathers.pdf\n\nYou do not have to bring in the Bible to teach Intelligent Design. You can postulate the possibility as "another view" which can be used as a counterpoint to evolution. You can even postulate the ET theory with aliens dropping off life on an inhabitable planet--anything. But to forbid its teaching is just as much a crime as the Roman Catholic Church condemning Galileo for saying the earth orbits the sun.\n\nI will repeat my argument here:\n\nImagine you are a secular scientist. A meteor falls to the earth and you go to examine it. Upon scraping the crust away, you find that it is a ball of pure, mirrored metal. Back at the lab, you find that you can open an airtight access door. Inside are extremely complex gyros, camera systems, computer processors and propulsion system. \nNow what would you, a secular scientist, be your first scientific conclusion? A.) Imagine how many years this must have been in space to evolve? or B.) This is far beyond our abilities to create, it must be from an extraterrestial source!! \nWith only the evidence of a complex machine, with no way of knowing or testing its origin, of course, no contest, B would be the secular scientist's response. \nBecause some people have "faith" that there is life on other planets, they are not catagorized as "religious" so are free from ridicule. But because we see the complexities of the human machine and proclaim "designer" we are thrown out of schools by the judges, demeaned by scores of people on this forum and others, and debased as mindless lemmings.\n\nDNA is a very complex organic computer program that could never evolve. So either you believe in the ET seed theory, or in a Designer. Evolution requires billions of years to even get to the simple cell. Sorry, the sun would have been too hot only a million years ago to sustain life. So why do fundamentalists oppose it? Because it is not science, it's theory with very little evidence. I have not even gone into the fact that the human body is an intrigate closed-system with a fantastic balance system, ability to heal, think, imagine, love and reproduce.\nSo, as a scientist who cannot go back in time and document the origin of such complex lifeform, what are you to think?
147170
The Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that teaching creationism in science classes violated the establishment clause (Edwards v. Aguillard, ruling on a Louisiana law requiring the teaching of both evolution and creationism in science classrooms). \n\nTherefore, the right-wing religious community changed tactics, and is now frantically pushing "intelligent design" where there is no God mentioned (nudge nudge... wink wink). But in Kansas, the state curriculum board wanted to alter the definition of science to include supernatural processes. \n\nDoes not sound a lot like science to me...
1154330
Yes you are correct-and most people think that ID is a christian plan to get creation in the public schools. Its really funny that ID is a scientific theory and most evolutionist scoff at it. The leaders have ran off and left the followers.
186914
Ugh, Why do so many creationists answer questions in the science section when they don't know what they're talking about?\n\nYou will find an excellent explaination of this in "Finding Darwin's God," by Ken Miller.  Also look at his homepage.\n\nThis idea of irreducible complexity from Michael Behe has been thorughly debunked.  The ones that have been illustrated are either not IC or could have resulted from a REDUCTION of redundant systems.  Or have resulted by using parts adapted for OTHER functions.\n\nRead what Calimecita wrote, at least she bothered to understand what she's talking about.  I am so worried about the education system in this country.
269359
90% of the general public believes in God.\n40% of scientist in general\n40% mathmeticians\n30% biologist\n20% physicist\n\nIt seems the more highly educated tend to not believe in God. Also, I am a proud Southern gal, but statistics don't lie! The Bible Belt harbors some of the most intellectually inferior school systems in the country and some of the most ignorant ideals.