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."
How long were you lurking, just waiting to pounce on that prime?
Yes, indeed he did that, very early on. It's not really what he's known for, though.
"If you can hear this whispering you are dying..."
I'm starting to think PatrickHenry's merciless and bloodthirsty pouncing on primes has moved beyond playfulness...
"But they are... incorrect."
Really? Well they were taught to me in college as being correct. In fact, alot of the engineering design that goes on is based on classical Newtonian physics (I'm sure you are well aware of this).
They are incomplete, but they are still correct -- within limitations.
" Maybe physicists aren't as arrogant as doctors? :)"
Alright, now you really are trying to be funny!
I don't have to lurk. I use PrimeWatchtm
I never really got into the George is dead school of listening, but I assumed the title was a joke.
Two of Robert Frost's most famous quotations: "Good fences make good neighbors," and "I took the road less traveled by," are spoken in sarcasm. The second is almost always misconstrued.
The erstwhile "War on Science libertarians" is yet another one of these, a phony issue to diguise an irrational antipathy.
There. Fixed it for you.
"But they are ... incorrect."
You must get nervous every time you walk into a building, then. You realize the basis for the load calculations which were used to size the beams and check the structural layout is what you are saying is incorrect, right?
PH is definitely a puppet of the Grand Master.
"It's not really what he's known for, though."
Agreed.
But IIRC his greatest distinction came about much later, too, after his ideas had been tested.
"You must get nervous every time you walk into a building, then. You realize the basis for the load calculations which were used to size the beams and check the structural layout is what you are saying is incorrect, right?"
I didn't say they aren't close enough for engineering purposes, but they are technically...incorrect. Space and time are not constants. Newton was wrong.
So what experiment was done to show that the planets obeyed Newton's law of Universal Gravitation.
Apples and oranges, really.... the "play your record backwards to hear some enigmatic secret message" stuff was a Beatle's shtik; the stuff on DSoTM isn't hidden, it's just faint in some places, and represents comments various people made regarding the theme of the album. plus assorted other odds and ends.... ("he was cruisin' for a bruisin'" was apparently uttered by Roger Water's girlfriend at the time, regarding some guys he beat up in a barfight!)
"I didn't say they aren't close enough for engineering purposes, but they are technically...incorrect. "
The old joke about the difference between the engineer and the mathematician comes to mind.
You know the one, with the punchline:
" . . . . but I'll be there for all practical purposes."
"So what experiment was done to show that the planets obeyed Newton's law of Universal Gravitation."
None that I know of. Is this a trick question?
Obviously experiments on much smaller scale have been done.
Are you saying that it doesn't hold true for planets?
Experiments showing evolution on a much smaller scale have been done.
Are you saying that it doesn't hold true for planets?
Are you saying evolution doesn't hold true for large biological changes?
"Experiments showing evolution on a much smaller scale have been done."
You and others here have educated people on these experiments. That's the stuff that can be tested and reproduced.
"Are you saying evolution doesn't hold true for large biological changes?"
I don't know. It has never been observed and can't be reproduced. And the fossil record is not definitive in its answer.
Oh, evolution has been observed, for sure. Besides the fossil record, you have the genomic evidence of common descent.
The point is, you have never seen a planet fall or be pulled by the gravitational force of another body, but you believe the orbits of planets are a result of gravitation, because you've extrapolated from a smaller scale. But you are unwilling to make the same extrapolation for evolution. That tells me you are not applying the same rules for both.
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.