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 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 1,281-1,290 next last
To: MissAmericanPie

"Regarding man vs corn do your own homework and study nucleotides."

Sorry, you're not even close to being correct. Humans and corn are not 3% different genetically. It's more like 33%. Just admit you made a mistake. Be an adult about it.

"Just as astrophysics and evolution are slowly beginning to be studied together in some instances, so should ID and evolution and physics."

But ID isn't science. It's central claim, the designer, is untestable as are the designer's alleged actions. ID is an old philosophical claim that was dropped by scientists about 150 years ago.

"I wonder how much time could be saved using Genesis as the template?"

None. Genesis was a horrible dead end for science.

"I like science and think the study of evolution is necessary, as well as the study of physics, all the sciences, especially the science of the Bible."

The Bible is not a science text. The less that a scientist relies on the Bible for their work, the better.


781 posted on 04/22/2006 4:29:40 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
Considering the grief he got over some of his ideas when he was alive ...

Which grief? The Nobel Prize? Professor of physics at Prague? Head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute? Professor at the University of Berlin? Professor of theoretical physics at Princeton?

782 posted on 04/22/2006 4:36:06 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie

Just as astrophysics and evolution are slowly beginning to be studied together in some instances, so should ID and evolution and physics. As time passes I suspect at least two of the sciences to merge. Depends on whether ID is left out or not, if it's three. I wonder how much time could be saved using Genesis as the template?

Astrophysics, evolution, ID, and physics? And at least two of these sciences will merge? Genesis as a template to save time?

In which is your expertise?.

783 posted on 04/22/2006 4:36:24 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: wintertime; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; Baraonda; BereanBrain; ...
"Government must get out of the education business."

They've done such a wonderful job of it, after all...

Teaching cultural/philosophical issues like evolution is not education; it's indoctrination.

784 posted on 04/22/2006 4:36:35 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
The Bible is not a science text. The less that a scientist relies on the Bible for their work, the better.

Other than archeology, I don't think any science has ever used the text of the bible as a source of scientific information. Well, I suppose Flood geologists do, but that's a classic dead end.

785 posted on 04/22/2006 4:36:36 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"Teaching cultural/philosophical issues like evolution ID/creationism is not education; it's indoctrination."

Fixed that for you. :)

786 posted on 04/22/2006 4:38:10 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Evolution doesn't drive climate change.

Indirectly it does. Much (if not most) of the greenhouse gasses are produced by rotting trees (rotting due to bacteria) that were flooded by dams created by beavers.

787 posted on 04/22/2006 4:43:13 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I believe her to be sincere.

Sincerely something, no doubt.

788 posted on 04/22/2006 4:43:32 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; CarolinaGuitarman
"The Bible is not a science text."

I believe that to be an absolute fact. Human science is utterly irrelevant to the purpose of the Bible.

"The less that a scientist relies on the Bible for their work, the better."

I would in general say that use of the Bible for physical research is without basis, except for one possible exception: The (successful) use of Biblical geographic information to locate the oil deposits in northern Israel, and even in this case, the information was in no way technological.

789 posted on 04/22/2006 4:47:12 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
What science has pr oven, is that Genesis stands as a very reliable template so far. From, "Let there be light" to the order of species development. And most likely to the eventual discovery that life's building blocks are to be found in the molecules in the dust of the earth.

And I am not wrong about nucleotides, used to determine the difference between corn vs man vs chimp, nor am I wrong about the percentage difference between the two vs man, or how the scientific community dishonestly attempted to impress the masses with that 2% difference.

790 posted on 04/22/2006 4:56:30 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie

"What science has pr oven, is that Genesis stands as a very reliable template so far."

What science has demonstrated is that Genesis is a lousy source for scientific research.

"From, "Let there be light" to the order of species development."

The order of species development is wrong in Genesis.

"And most likely to the eventual discovery that life's building blocks are to be found in the molecules in the dust of the earth."

Not likely to be found in the *dust*.

"And I am not wrong about nucleotides, used to determine the difference between corn vs man vs chimp, nor am I wrong about the percentage difference between the two vs man, or how the scientific community dishonestly attempted to impress the masses with that 2% difference."

Yes you are; you are outstandingly wrong. The difference genetically between a human and corn is FAR greater than 3%. I am still waiting for you to provide ANY cites for that 3% figure. The real number is actually over 30%.


791 posted on 04/22/2006 5:03:36 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; CarolinaGuitarman; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe
Teaching cultural/philosophical issues like evolution is not education; it's indoctrination.

Actually editor-surveyor, I don't think the teaching of evolution is the problem here.

In other words, in my view the problem consists of what sort of evolution is being taught, not so much the teaching of evolution per se.

People who think evolution is a material, random process; and people who think evolution is the presently-existing partial fulfillment of God's Will for His Creation, not yet complete, are bound to differ about the foundations, or the Truth, of reality.

I gather that's what the current "public dialogue" is all about. (At least I hope so; we face such grave challenges at the present time it seems....)

BTW, do you really have a beef WRT the teaching of "philosophical/cultural issues" in the secondary schools and institutions of higher learning, in principle??? If so, WHY???

Thank you ever so much for writing, editor-surveyor, and for the ping!

792 posted on 04/22/2006 5:11:19 PM PDT by betty boop (The world of Appearance is Reality’s cloak -- "Nature loves to hide.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; betty boop
[ "Government must get out of the education business." ]

Exactly, because its become a scam.. it ceased being a "business" ages ago.. Even as a business it was lacking business principles... but as a scam.. its parasitic.. and maleficent..

793 posted on 04/22/2006 5:18:59 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"People who think evolution is a material, random process;"

Scientists don't believe it is random.

"and people who think evolution is the presently-existing partial fulfillment of God's Will for His Creation, not yet complete,"

While the above may be true, it's outside of the scope of science. It's philosophy/theology.

"I gather that's what the current "public dialogue" is all about."

It's between those who want science to remain science and those who want to make it into a new-age, epistemologically relativistic, anything goes postmodern wordlview.

"BTW, do you really have a beef WRT the teaching of "philosophical/cultural issues" in the secondary schools and institutions of higher learning, in principle??? If so, WHY???"

I was fixing his sentence. I have no problem with discussing philosophy in school; teaching untestable philosophical claims like ID in a science class as science is where I draw the line.
794 posted on 04/22/2006 5:19:27 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
They've done such a wonderful job of it, after all...

Interesting article here, in this regard ... I recommend following the link in the article to Gatto's stuff too.

ML/NJ

795 posted on 04/22/2006 5:24:36 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Letting kids know science's limitations would end a lot of rancor, but you know who it would be who would object to it.

I have no problem with it, and my view is hardly unique among evolutionists.

The only people I see objecting to the "science is limited" meme is CRIDers. I try to tell that to them all the time, but they believe if it's not accepted as science, then it's not legitimate or true.

796 posted on 04/22/2006 5:26:56 PM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
First off, the ACLU != science. The ACLU has a known leftist agenda, so of course it will serve the left.

I'm just noting that it's often done by the left with no outcry from the science organizations

This is not true at all. In fact, it was through scientific skeptic journals that I learned what the left was doing to science. Those journals helped push me to the right.

797 posted on 04/22/2006 5:47:52 PM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: ToryHeartland
I don't think Hindus or Buddhists or anyone else would claim to hold the beliefs they do on the strength of their explanatory power about the physical world, but of their 'spiritual'--and social-- significance.

Well, Buddha did teach one truth about the nature of the physical universe that is considered a bedrock of the religion-- the fact that nothing in the physical universe is static. And unless the steady-state theory has been reinstated while I wasn't paying attention, I'd say Buddha was correct.

798 posted on 04/22/2006 6:09:36 PM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Evo is not education, it is indoctrination. The science classroom has become the beachhead.

The religion of evolution takes on the cloak of hard science (its mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection) and under the cloak of hard science it attempts to make the science classroom its sacrosanct temple where no other concepts will be broached

W.
799 posted on 04/22/2006 6:15:37 PM PDT by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: demoRat watcher
Why do you evomaniacs always fall back to insulting advanced concepts that you cannot comprehend?

evomaniacs ... insulting

evomaniacs ... insulting

kettle ... black

800 posted on 04/22/2006 6:18:05 PM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 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