International Aspects of Creationism/ID

When I moved to America from good 'ol Airstrip one, I was amazed that Americans actually reject evolutionary theory to the extent that they do. I mean, back home, most people couldn't tell you what a "Creationist" is, and even some of my religious nutter relatives are shocked at creationism in America.Does anybody know why this is the case in the US and nowhere else in the industrialised world?

Sorry Brad, but I'm not sure what that rant (I think it was a rant, correct me if I'm wrong) was all about...So I'm going to have a look at that ICR article ICR says:

quote:

---

One. Provide one bona-fide piece of evidence that indicates it is possible to transform one creature into a fundamentally different kind of creature.

---

Chlorella V:

quote:

---

Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

​

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

---

(I "stole" this from Crashfrog in a thread relating to this.ICR:

quote:

---

Two. Demonstrate a single convincing succession that documents steps by which one fossil creature has changed into one of a fundamentally different kind.

---

Talk Origins:

quote:

---

---

ICR:

quote:

---

Three. Please, please, deal with the origin of information.

---

Abiogenesis isn't part of evolutionary theory. And so far, just because it's still being worked on doesn't invalidate evolution in any way. (I'm sure somebody can provide a better answer )All in all, I'd say that those aren't the REAL reasons that 44% of Yanks reject evolutionary theory This message has been edited by AdminJar, 05-13-2005 10:01 PM

Hello again, Brad! To tell the truth, quite a bit of what you're saying is going right over my head...but I'll try and deal with it.

quote:

---

Tell me then, please my man, what ARE the "real" reasons?

---

I'd guess ignorance, from talking to my peers.

quote:

---

I do not use the word "rant".

---

Sorry about that, I just saw a lot of capital letters and exclamation marks and jumped to conclusions [quote]I had said that things would have to CHANGE in US if the %skeptical was to no longer DOUBT evolution. I still hold to the position that if one can change ICR type minds then the rest of US will follow.You dont agree?[quote] Oh, gotcha. Sorry. I agree completely that it'll do it for most of the US, but you'll always have fringe loonies.

quote:

---

You think that placing a series of morphologies in a series explains the "transition"(Gould is well aware this is not suffient).ICR is concerned not as much with this kind of response but with a demonstration from a rock facie of the same, not one pieced together from different places.

---

Why? And apart from evolution, what other explanation is there that if you arrange the fossils in order of age, they just happen to show an evolutionary sequence?

quote:

---

If you only want to "debate" within creation and evolution, I can oblige you elsewhere. I merely provided the link for balance. Please try to address what I, BSM, wrote. Even if only to ask a question. I regret that it appears that to be a "good evcer" one has to sound like one is "answering" another poster's questions. I wish that wasnt a general take home message but it appears that way. I did say at one place, "I dont know". You can take advantage of that dont forget.

---

I'll remember that, thanks