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."
*BZTTT!!!* Not true (but thanks for playing). ID and Creationism may be taught in religion,. philosophy, theology, etc.
Opposing theories such as ID have just as valid a place in the classroom as science's also unproven theories. They don't have to be taught in the same classroom if it makes scientist's queezy. But is has a right to be taught also.
ID is not an "opposing theory" -- it is a disguised Creation Myth, which only "opposes" other Creation Myths. As the article points out, the only "queasiness" scientists feel is seeing mythology taught as "science." It is the "queasiness" one feels when seeing someone teach children that "airplanes being held aloft by angels" is a valid "opposing theory" to physics.
No way could any one get me to load that hassle-ware on my machine :)
Hundreds of years ago maybe. Heard of the "scientific law" of gravity (now a theory)? Even the "laws" of thermodynamics are under challenge and in fact are now theories.
It's a minor subject in science, as well. Evolution is useful as a paradigm and a classificaion mechanism--but it's just a hatrack to keep track of genus and species. Physicians, most scientists, engineers--have no interest or use for it after that.
What I do suspect is that it is a political tool to try to chip off a few conservative Christian votes from the GOP. There is even a Soros-funded movie "documentarian" who is going to try to make some hay out of it. Wonder if he's here on FR doing some drumming-up of support? Not that there are any but the usual suspects and sufferers of Asberger's syndrome, but in places like Pennsylvania and candidates like Santorum (and a few of these regulars have shown an interest in going after Santorum)--it'd go a long way to throwing the Senate to the Democrats.
Try it on someone else's machine. I have the advanced features turned off, and in over a year of using it on a number of machines I have nothing but good things to say about it.
Scapegoating.
Shifting the focus to something as inconsequential as creationisism not only serves the purpose of justifying public ridicule of people of faith, but it also allows the obfiscation of the true curriculum deficits within public schools and even some private educational institutions, today.
Lousy, agenda-driven textbooks that focus on environmentalism and speciation at the expense of the scientific method and studies of basic chemistry and physics is just one example.
Good point.
Hey, that's pretty good--evo-freaks with evomania. How to diagnose? Just read back in posting history and look at these poor sad sacks, who go through elections, through wars, through political turmoil---and never comment on anything but evolution here on FR!
Maybe there should be an entry on Wikipedia for evomania, on their Asberger's Syndrome info page.
Some of us actually have to accomplish stuff during the day, and these threads tend to grow like triplet repeats. Regarding your mountain-out-of-a-molehill accusation about the hopeful monster theory vs. PE, I see that a bit of explanation is going to be necessary.
First, ask yourself why *either* of these theories came into existence. The answer should be quite obvious. When Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution, his mechanism for evolution was a gradualistic progression driven by natural selection. When Origin of the Species was first published, relatively little was known about the geologic record, and very little was known about genetics.
Now fast forward to the early 1900s. More is known about the fossil record, and still very little is known about genetics. Howeve, the fossil record poses a problem to evolutionists in that instead of providing a record of gradual progression of life, it is more consistent with the fossils that would by left by a "hopeful monster" hypothesis. In particular, transitional forms are absent - as they continue to be to this day.
By the late 1900s, far more is known about genetics - specifically genetic mutations - than was known when saltation was proposed and it is now clear that genetically, saltation is an untenable process...hence the rise of PE.
Both theories are attempts to explain evolution by "alternate routes" and deal with the inability of the fossil record to back up what Darwin had originally proposed.
Perhaps if you had an argument, rather than an ad-hominem, to support your claims, they would carry more credibility. And by "more credibility", I mean "any creadibility whatsoever".
Placemarker, shmacemarker--Gee, picker, this week I learned two new songs and have almost mastered a new chord while you've been stuck on the same old note.
You just can't help stepping in one pile after another.
Explain how Newton's Laws got replaced by Einstein's theory.
You also need to explain how observational facts are, in the long run, less reliable than theories.
Newton, in later printings of his works, "adjusted" his early observational data to conform to theoretical values.
This, of course, is now considered unethical, but in the practice of science, facts are corrected more often than theories.
The only ones using a "political tool" are the CRIDers. Scientists want to practice/teach science. ID is not science, but certain people want to "sledge" their religion into science.
How about this: instead of trying to scare rational people away from accepted science ("Drop evolution or else the dems win!!!"), why not try and scare the fundies away from science revisionism? Otherwise, the dems will win!
'How do you know. You weren't there' is a stock and much derided creationist response. How do you know George Washington was the first president?
If you want to avoid derision, stop posting risible arguments.
We don't in general require a full and complete knowledge of the history of a phenomenon in order to regard it as adequately explained. Requiring such for evolution is just a sign of tendentiousness.
Once again, the function of L-GLO is not an assumption. L-GLO is defined by its function.
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.