Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology
National Center for Science Education ^ | 18 April 2006 | Staff

Posted on 04/19/2006 3:57:51 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

A new article in PLoS Biology (April 18, 2006) discusses the state of scientific literacy in the United States, with especial attention to the survey research of Jon D. Miller, who directs the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University Medical School.

To measure public acceptance of the concept of evolution, Miller has been asking adults if "human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals" since 1985. He and his colleagues purposefully avoid using the now politically charged word "evolution" in order to determine whether people accept the basics of evolutionary theory. Over the past 20 years, the proportion of Americans who reject this concept has declined (from 48% to 39%), as has the proportion who accept it (45% to 40%). Confusion, on the other hand, has increased considerably, with those expressing uncertainty increasing from 7% in 1985 to 21% in 2005.
In international surveys, the article reports, "[n]o other country has so many people who are absolutely committed to rejecting the concept of evolution," quoting Miller as saying, "We are truly out on a limb by ourselves."

The "partisan takeover" of the title refers to the embrace of antievolutionism by what the article describes as "the right-wing fundamentalist faction of the Republican Party," noting, "In the 1990s, the state Republican platforms in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Missouri, and Texas all included demands for teaching creation science." NCSE is currently aware of eight state Republican parties that have antievolutionism embedded in their official platforms or policies: those of Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas. Four of them -- those of Alaska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas -- call for teaching forms of creationism in addition to evolution; the remaining three call only for referring the decision whether to teach such "alternatives" to local school districts.

A sidebar to the article, entitled "Evolution under Attack," discusses the role of NCSE and its executive director Eugenie C. Scott in defending the teaching of evolution. Scott explained the current spate of antievolution activity as due in part to the rise of state science standards: "for the first time in many states, school districts are faced with the prospect of needing to teach evolution. ... If you don't want evolution to be taught, you need to attack the standards." Commenting on the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover [Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.], Scott told PLoS Biology, "Intelligent design may be dead as a legal strategy but that does not mean it is dead as a popular social movement," urging and educators to continue to resist to the onslaught of the antievolution movement. "It's got legs," she quipped. "It will evolve."


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: biology; creationuts; crevolist; evomania; religiousevos; science; scienceeducation; scientificliteracy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 1,281-1,290 next last
To: colorado tanker

I somewhat agree with you. I think American education is being rent by the extreme right and the extreme left. But if you follow these threads enough, it's clear that the issue has nothing to do with evolution. It's more a case of "science is threatening my fragile religious beliefs". It's happened before; it'll happen again.


201 posted on 04/19/2006 10:58:37 AM PDT by LibertarianSchmoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
How do you know this? Were you there at the time?

ROFL!

Sorry, you just entered the self-parody domain. My work here is done!

202 posted on 04/19/2006 10:58:45 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil
But, as an agnostic, I am very, very disturbed by the vitriolic fervor with which anyone who believes otherwise is attacked. I never see the pro-evolutionists reasoning calmly with the evidence on their side, but rather, storming around like the villagers in Young Frankenstein, relying on inflamed passions and demagoguery.

Excellent observation.

It can't be an "observation" is it has never been "observed." This is an unfounded allegation. Evos (much more than CRIDers IMHO) are patient and do argue with the facts on our side. CRIDers, by definition, have no "facts" on their side -- just belief.

203 posted on 04/19/2006 10:59:54 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Don't call them "Illegal Aliens." Call them what they are: CRIMINAL INVADERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianSchmoe
Science isn't my field, but the more I learn the more awe-inspiring I find the universe.

BTW, it isn't just conservatives who sometimes have a taste for junk science - how about the population bomb, silent spring (DDT), global warming and junk science for the litigation lottery?

204 posted on 04/19/2006 11:07:19 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
My contention is that a film or videotape (call it what you will) constitutes a satisfactory demonstration of motion. Similarly, I contend that the fossil record constitutes a satisfactory demonstration of common descent.

I have no quarrel with the contention that a film demonstrates motion, not by mere definition, but because the definition comprehends what is taking place with the still pictures. If a film is to be seen motion itself is necessary. Motion is one of the properties of a film, at least one that is being seen.

But you called universal common descent "evidence", and I maintain that it is not evidence, but an an attempt to explain the evidence you refer to here, i.e., the fossil record. If universal common descent is true simply by definition then there is no conceivable fact of the fossil record that could possibly persuade you otherwise.

Cordially,

205 posted on 04/19/2006 11:09:58 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
CRIDers, by definition, have no "facts" on their side -- just belief.

Old-Mil hasn't had much to say since he was called out for equating the "hopeful Monster" with punctuated equilibrium. It's one thing for the quote miners to do this, quite another for some who knows better.

206 posted on 04/19/2006 11:10:48 AM PDT by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
CRIDers, by definition, have no "facts" on their side -- just belief.

Old-Mil hasn't had much to say since he was called out for equating the "hopeful Monster" with punctuated equilibrium. It's one thing for the quote miners to do this, quite another for some who knows better.

207 posted on 04/19/2006 11:10:48 AM PDT by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
#4 can live here in the Rockies.

I like Texas and I ain't moving!

208 posted on 04/19/2006 11:11:18 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie

Scientific theories are in, of course.

Notions, hypotheses (do you know the difference from theories?), propaganda and religion are out.


209 posted on 04/19/2006 11:11:21 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; Diamond

Let me just add that the L-GLO is an abbreviation for L gulonolactone oxidase. Like most enzymes, it's named for its function, which is to oxidize L-gulonolactone. To claim its original function is unknown is therefore bizarre. It has a common function all across the animal kingdom.


210 posted on 04/19/2006 11:13:00 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

Well, then you can join our Libertarian friend and be a minority of 2.

Nobody wants to tackle the question, though.


211 posted on 04/19/2006 11:14:36 AM PDT by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Dreaded double post :)

Yep, slowly but surely people are being hoisted on their patards. I am still waiting for links that show evos are impatient.


212 posted on 04/19/2006 11:15:43 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Don't call them "Illegal Aliens." Call them what they are: CRIMINAL INVADERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie

Miss Pie,
You appear to have missed the boat on democracy as well as science.

The system in place is precisely what the majority wants until it votes otherwise.

A patriotic American scientist


213 posted on 04/19/2006 11:16:46 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Dreaded double post :)

I'm just starting to use the google toolbar spell checker. It does strange things if you try to post while it's displaying the results of the check.

214 posted on 04/19/2006 11:18:47 AM PDT by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Ridicule and dismisal will not be persuasive in lieu of a demonstration of full and complete human knowledge of the history of a subject organism and all relevant mechanisms of mutation and probabilities of same. Absent such a demonstration, said assumptions are a necessary part of Darwinian theory, but assumptions nonetheless.

Cordially,

215 posted on 04/19/2006 11:20:40 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Science isn't my field, but the more I learn the more awe-inspiring I find the universe.

I couldn't agree more, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a scientist who doesn't share that sentiment.

it isn't just conservatives who sometimes have a taste for junk science

Without a doubt! That was the rending of which I spoke in my previous post. Pseudo-science and political correctness are wreaking havoc on the young minds of this country.

216 posted on 04/19/2006 11:21:45 AM PDT by LibertarianSchmoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

You are assuming, of course, that anything outside your personal consciousness actually exists.


217 posted on 04/19/2006 11:22:53 AM PDT by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Actually, the term "evomaniacs" refers not to true scientists, but rather to the self-educated, cult-like followers of "evomania".


218 posted on 04/19/2006 11:24:11 AM PDT by TaxRelief (Wal-Mart: Keeping my family on-budget since 1993.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
There is no higher category for a theory to go in science.

Certainly there is. It is called a "scientific law", and is defined as "a statement describing an observed regularity." It is only when a statement of science reaches such a level that it represents scientific fact.
219 posted on 04/19/2006 11:24:13 AM PDT by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
"Ridicule and dismisal will not be persuasive in lieu of a demonstration of full and complete human knowledge of the history of a subject organism and all relevant mechanisms of mutation and probabilities of same. Absent such a demonstration, said assumptions are a necessary part of Darwinian theory, but assumptions nonetheless."

Essentially, *Were you there??!* but with more words.
220 posted on 04/19/2006 11:24:16 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 1,281-1,290 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson