Luke, I am your father! Feel the force!
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."
You have got to be kidding me, tell me you know this. Go do your own homework.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Placemarker.
Your failure to back up your assertions is noted. (Clue for the clueless, don't expect me to research YOUR claim for you). If you cannot back it up then you made it up.
Once again. Any chance of a citation for your 3% genetic difference between men and ears of corn, or are you going to admit that you just made it up?
I think I may have found the source for this bizarre man/maize genetic claim:
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/accounting.htm
Among other splendours, the following may be found therein:
We have all heard that Chimpanzees and Humans share 98% of our DNA. In some instances this percentage is said to be more than 99% and at the low end of the spectrum the some argue for slightly below 97%. If you watch the Discovery channel, often you will hear this 1% difference between man and chimp, reminding us almost weekly of our closest evolutionary cousins. Is there only a 1% difference between man and chimp? Yes, however this difference can be as low as 0.4% (99.6% similarity) or as high as 2% (98% similarity). ...[snip]...Did you know that Tetrahymena thermophila a unicellular, ciliated freshwater protozoan, shares 42.6% of the same DNA amino acid chain that Maize (corn) has! 1 We as humans become quite relieved to find that we share 47.5% of our amino acid chain with that same protozoan. This means that there are more similarities between people and a unicellular protozoan then corn and that same protozoan. 1 However, we find that Maize (corn) and people share 66.7% of our chain, where horses only share 63.7% of their chain with corn, a difference of 3%. Looking further into cytochrome C connections we find that the horse shares 65.7% of the chain with Neurospora (fungi) whereas humans only share 63.7% of the chain with that same fungi. So if we consider this data we find that primates common ancestor must have sprouted from corn (no pun intended) where the common ancestor of the horse/donkey is closer to fungus then to corn. 1 Do we take this seriously? If human and chimp share 98% of our full DNA then we must take a 3% difference between humans / corn and horses / corn with some seriousness. A troubling puzzle indeed when one considers that the ears of corn are more similar in appearance to the ear of a horse then any primate.
MissAmericanPie's reading comprehension is somewhat suspect, the "3%" would appear to be her own scrambling of an already twisted source--unless she would like to offer another source for her astounding claim.
It's clear that a 'film' made quite an impact here; she never responded to my point that films arent't really a scholarly source, far more often used as propaganda (just look at what Michael Moore gets away with on film). But they do have a lot of weight if reading comprehension ain't your strong suit.
And isn't it remarkable, on a thread about an article entitled "Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology" that so many living illustrations of the problem present themselves!
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/
My own advice here: make sure to don your tin-foil hats first. :-)
Ping to my post 745, wherein is a link to many similar splendours!
Evolution doesn't drive climate change.
My granddaddy weren't no ear of corn!
Maybe not.
But was your Pop corn?
A 'fact' is a data point. This is what observations provide. It is not synonymous with 'truth'. Absolute certainty is nothing more than wishful thinking.
"Just like the scientific communities flim flam pointing to the 2% difference between men and chimps, and not pointing out that there is only a 3% difference between a man and an ear of corn.
Let's see, humans have a genome of 3,400,000 base pairs, 46 chromosomes and from 25,000 to 30,000 genes. Maize (corn) has 2,500,000 base pairs, 10 chromosomes and ~50,000 genes. How is that in any way within 3%?
I'm afraid the sources you have been reading are more interested in refuting evolution than they are in truthful accuracy.
It seems the flim flam is coming from your side of the argument.
It appears you are the one in need of homework. Everything I have read from you indicates you have a very poor grasp of science and evolution in particular. So far all you have done is regurgitate information you have read on creationist sites without comparing it to what those in the know - scientists - have to say.
On top of your obvious lack of knowledge you proclaim a large conspiracy within the science community is responsible for purposely misrepresenting evolution. This is quite humorous considering the sources used and abused by your favourite creationist sites all come from those very same scientists. Your creationists do no research on their own, they simply cherry pick, misinterpret, and most tellingly prevaricate when presenting their 'facts'.
MissAmericanPie: The numbers in that little blurb do not say that humans and maize share 97% of of genome but 66.7% which would be a 33.3% difference not 3%.
Just as a point of interest, the 3% difference of a difference stated in the blurb actually says nothing about the similarity between horses and humans (or their common ancestor).
Thanks very much for giving me the greatest laugh of my day...3% difference between a man and an ear of corn? Its going to be hard, for anyone to beat that whacky notion...
Evolution isn't a partisan take over of biology? It's like listening to CBS vs Fox News, which ever way you want to slant it. Evolution slants things it's way, ID slants things their way. Both should have equal access.
"Evolution isn't a partisan take over of biology?"
No, evolution IS biology.
"It's like listening to CBS vs Fox News, which ever way you want to slant it."
Are you saying that CBS and Fox are equally slanted, and that there is no logical way to tell which is more accurate?
"Evolution slants things it's way, ID slants things their way. Both should have equal access."
But not in a science classroom, because ID isn't science, and evolution is.
Dear Miss Pie:
I am pleased to inform you that evolution is a scientific theory, not a political movement. You may wish to re-evaluate your sources of information.
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.