> Nancy Davies asked:
>Has anyone other than me noticed that the discussion
>of Darwin, Creationism, and Intelligent Design is
>largely an American phenomenon?
The 3 are not identical. I think the differences are rather important.
Discussion of Darwinism has never let up, as there have
always been philosophers and even scientists who realise evolution is
not nearly explained by mere physical processes (random mutations
followed by natural selection narrowing the variance among the
mutants). Top biologists have regularly pointed out there's more to
explaining evolution. For instance, Sir A Hardy - zoology prof
Oxon - 'The Living Stream' (Collins 1965).
Creationism arose in the USA, less than a century ago, and
doubtless has its main following among fundamentalists there. But it
is also an active fanatical commercial phenomenon in Australasia -
mainly thru 'Answers In Genesis'. I can assure you this burden is
not confined to the USA.
IDT on the other hand is an almost entirely USA phenomenon.
The only rationalisation I've found for this is that it's intended to
get around the past half-century of illogical rulings from the USA
supeme court pretending that to discuss religion in schools is
tantamount to establishment of a particular religion i.e. giving it
legal privileges over others.
> Due to the USA's
>omnidominance over the news media, the Pope had to go
>on record to say it's not a worthwhile discussion,
>evolution happened, case closed. I guess everybody but
>The USA is the most relgious fundamentalist nation of
>the Western World. I don't see anybody in other
>countries much concerned with our (non)scientific
>debates, from which I conclude that the issue has
>nothing to do with Darwin or science and everything to
>do with social control and the exercise of power.
The scientific objections to neoDarwinism as a purported
thorough explanation of evolution are widely held and by no means
confined to the USA.