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."
This has already happened. The AIG folks are already talking about "kinds" as opposed to species, and admitting that there had to be some rapid speciation after Noah.
But no one has seen a squirrel evolve into a toaster. Or a raven into a writing desk.
The science that gives us new medicines, treatments--the science that holds the bridges up as we drive over them--the science that flicks a comet going 100K miles/hr with a craft going 18K miles/hr--the science that is accountable--the science that provides.
The science that really matters.
Evo is just a reasonable story of what may have happened. It accomplishes nothing--nothing important depends on its veracity or its BS.
Groups 3 and 4 also own Europe, as long as we can keep it out of the hands of the Muslim fundies. :(
I guess under your scheme the citizens of Western USA will be have to hire burger flippers and maids/cleaners from the East and South or face a dramatic decline in living standards. ;)
The only reason I responded to this evo thread (there are so many of them, and they're always the same) is that it is moving out into the "who gets elected" partisan realm rather than the same usual obsessive feedback loop of the Grand Master and his hapless high-fiving legion.
If teachers are really worried about their autonomy (and I don't buy that at all), they can teach evo as a model and not lose a scintilla of their prestige.
Microevolution is nothing more than variation, with or without natural selection. We can see variation, but does natural selection really explain all outcomes? The old Greeks disputed over what is changeable and what is constant (if anything). If life is defined as motion, then what remains from one minute to another?
OM: Certainly there is. It is called a "scientific law", and is defined as "a statement describing an observed regularity."
No, that's not true.
For example, there are Boyles' and Charles' Laws describing how gases react to changes in temperature, pressure, and volume.
These are explained by the Kinetic Theory of Gases.
Actually on these threads we frequently see "arguments" (bald assertions) similar to the following:
Not all the creationists have received the microgood/macrobad songsheet. Curiously many of these arguments come from people who believe in Noah's Ark and cannot see the inconsistency of their position.
Everyone loves a story. Cosmologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, evolutionists--tell great stories. Some are plausible, many are entertaining, a few provoke insight.
None are scientists.
If they are not ultimately responsible for what they posit, they are only spinning tales.
Look what happens when an evolutionary notion is debunked after a better notions comes along--nobody dies from a bad reaction, no bridge falls down, no piece of shuttle garbage explodes. The notion just goes to some sort of purgatory.
So...was my re-phrasing an accurate statement of your position or not?
I am an optimist. I have seen some of the old firebreathers fall away, and I have to believe it is because they just got exhausted from being mowed down every day. On the other hand, most of the evolutionists from five years ago are still here.
Even the arguments supporting ID represent an advancement, and you can easily detect the horror that the YEC crowd feels toward ID.
There is no alternative hypothesis except poofism.
_______________
Are you demeaning poofists again?
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.
Thank you for sharing your ignorance of science with us. You should go back to wherever you got your scientific education and demand a refund. Ample explanations of the relative status and significance of scientific Law and scientific Theory are available on the internet.
What you're describing is technology, which is driven off of scientific discovery. There is no such distinction between 'real' science and (presumably) 'unreal' science. We have 'science that has resulted in technological applications' and 'that has not yet resulted in technological applications'. As we invest more and more research into studying the genetic makeup of organisms (man in particular) we will certainly get more and more technical applications. Some of this research is motivated by understanding the evolutionary history on man, some isn't.
OK, good.
It's just that the moral superiority lies with science over superstition.
Also sounds good at first...but, wait...I'd rather say that "the moral superiority lies with TRUTH over superstition." I don't equate science with truth - after all, science seems to change. I think that there are eternal "truths" not dependent on man's observational abilities.
I don't know what a materialist would say about "eternal truths". Can you help me out?
There are a number of possible answers. The question of what kind of designer makes a number of different species with the same damaged gene, assumes that the gene sequence has no function, which as I've tried to say, is unknown at the present time, and which is a claim that assumes full knowledge of the organisms history. How can one be certain that an apparently functionless structure is really functionless? It may be that we lack the knowledge necessary to appreciate its function. Alternatively, if the gene really is a psuedogene, it still says nothing about about whether it descended from a universal common ancestor, or not. It could have just as easily descended from one of many independently created organisms which had the same propensity for as a yet unknown reason for this defect.
Why is the gene there at all? I don't know. That's like asking how you get anything as fantastic as genes in the first place. Why must God fulfill my expectations of universal, optimal engineering design? Or, how do I know that these defective genes are not remmants of some earlier optimal Design that has been damaged? Why do some primates have the ability to synthesize ascorbic acid and some birds, bats and fish don't? Why doesn't the fact the some species can and some can't mitigate against the hypothesis of universal common descent? Darwinian explanation of common ancestry does not really depend on this line of evidence because it can accommodative either the evidence or the lack of it. It is therefore not, imho, conclusive proof of universal common descent.
Cordially,
But evolution is hypothetically disproveable. What would ever disprove ID?
I've never heard anyone but Pythons use the word poofter, and they were referring to one of their own. I guess I haven't gotten out enough. Maybe I should knock someone up.
But technological usefulness aside, would Mamzelle genuinely prefer us to remain ignorant of the natural world except where it gives her convenient gadgets to play with? Isn't study of the natural world a noble calling? Understanding God's creation?
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.