Exactly. One thing I notice is you don't see people outside the US (in the advanced countries anyway) denying evolution or global warming without being laughed at. Here they are taken seriously or are even the majority in some areas! Again, the awful lack of scientific understanding and critical thinking in this country makes me want to cry sometimes.

Part of the explanation  is no doubt to be found in the education system : Evolution and Creationism in America's Classrooms: A National Portrait biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/

The concluding par reads:

Much work to be done.

Simply put,creationists have better PR. I think evolution is fascianting stuff,but the average scientist is more concerned with making actual discoveries than making it more interesting to the public.I'm not complaining, that's their job.Since creationists don't actually do any discovering,they dominte the PR and propaganda sector. Go to any creationist site and you'll find a list of 'facts' that disprove evolution. Anyone with a average to good knowledge of evolution could debunk them, but I'm sure they look convincing to the absolute layman. They don't even have to be complicated. I know that because it is the theory of evolution, many people honestly thinks that means it's gueswork with no proof.

Probably the bigget factor is laziness.It's easier to say goddidit than read some evolution books.

Fear of giant sea creatures, dragons & unicorns. Fear of "spirits" and "demons". People's imaginations run wild when they are afraid.

I agree that we have a very long way to go in terms of USA classrooms. Not only are many schools STILL teaching creationism, America's public schools tend to be based on conforming to follow a leader of absolute authority (teacher, principals, etc), which leaves little room for freethinking in the classroom. This highly structured, "indoor voice" environment with limited play time and gym class only once a week (see obesity epidemic in children, very sad) produces kids who have a hard time looking outside of the box. They spend their time glued to computer and television screens, watching mindless garbage instead of playing outside and exploring nature with their families.

I feel bad for kids a lot of the time. They're spoon fed all this religious crap and then ignored when they have actually interesting questions. I think the best families are based on rigorous discussion and open minds. I love debating with my father and having philosophical discussions with my mother. I would hate if my family simply told me "God made everything" and got angry if I probed why.

Side note: I was at a Jewish friend's house recently, and their youngest daughter was making her Book of Why? Ironically, one of the questions is "How do we know God never lies?" I frankly felt put off by the whole thing...

is that people are brought up "religious" and there is a familial and social stigma that keeps them from going against the beliefs they were brought up with. I have made the mistake in my life of being with a woman who was brought up in a religious fanatic background, she never told me that when we first got together, and then we had kids, and one thing led to another. In "the god delusion" Dawkins says that only one out of twelve people who are brought up religious ever break away from that pattern. I know from experience that there is no reasoning with most of these nuts, there is nothing you can say that will sway them. The best advice I could possibly give to someone who is dealing with a religious nut is to just go away. If it is a girlfriend/boyfriend, and you don't have kids with them, just walk away, it's not that hard, you just put one foot in front of the other, change your email, your phone #, everything. I have done it before, I can't do it now, or at least I think I can't, but that doesn't mean that others can't.

...Just so we're clear:

You think that evolutionary science and achaelogical science are actually older, and thus more outdated, than the stories of the Bible?

I've got at home a thick book of archeology mistakes. It's something like an encyclopedia of misinterpreted archeologic findings, by prejudice, authority, rigid ways of thinking, laziness, fear from rewriting the history books, and so on.
It shows, that many archeologic experts makes mistakes, for example, when they find a "young" bone in much older layer of soil, they assume, that it fell there somehow by a geologic shift. When the discovery is too out of bookish version of history, they assume they moved something wrongly, and they will "adjust" it.
It's mostly just small things, but when there are thousands of them, it may create very different image of reality and prehistory. Evolution is a good idea, but it has it's flaws in practical realization, people pushes too hard, to make it all fit the books.

For example, I would like to know, from where do we humans have our aquatic traits. I mean, no fur (hairs yes, but fur is a different thing), we can't swallow and breathe at the same time (it's vital function for animals like crocodiles) and we can swim under water.
Monkeys and apes doesn't have it, as far as I know, we couldn't inherit it from our ancestors, living on savanna.
Certain clue is a book of Dr. Ernst Muldasev, who did a big research on intelligent ancestors of human race, known as Atlantians and Lemurians. Lemurians were definitely semi-aquatic beings, that's clear from the research. Now I'd want to know, where's the missing link between Muldasev's interesting discoveries, and a human evolution. The "correcting" of archeology probably makes it hard to find.

*groans*

Are you shitting me?  I'm familiar with the theory that human ancestors at one time went through an aquatic stage in recent evolutionary history and it has been thoroughly debunked.

A) Humans have more hair than Chimps. Our hair is just much smaller and more fine than Chimp hair.  But for as the reason why?  Because we did evolve to fit a Savanna environment.  We developed a very efficient cooling system.  Indeed the best cooling system of any mammal.  Obviously a thick mat of hair would hinder this cooling process.

B) Yes we can't breath and swallow at the same time.  That's because our larnyx had to move higher up in our throats to regulate speech.  An antelope can drink and breathe at the same time but it can't talk.

C) The reason why we can swim underwater is because we have such remarkable control of our breathing.  More so than most other mammals.  Why?  Again because we can talk.  We HAVE to have a very fine control over our breathing in order to talk.  This has actually been shown to not exist in Homo Erectus from studies of their spinal columns.  The space for the nerves in Homo Sapiens is much larger mid chest range than our recent ancestors.  We need that extra space for nerves that allow us to talk.  Being able to hold our breath so wonderfully is simply a by-product.

Do you always just latch onto an idea that sounds superficially plausable and not give it any more thought or investigation?

A mutation in the FOXP2 gene is believed to play a role in the development of our ability to create and process language. It has effects on the development of certain tissues, including the brain and lungs.

From wikipedia:

"Several cases of developmental verbal dyspraxia in humans have been linked to mutations in the FOXP2 gene. Individuals have little or no cognitive handicaps but are unable to correctly perform the coordinated movements required for speech."