Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology

National Center for Science Education ^ | 18 April 2006 | Staff

[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."

[ToryHeartland]

The word seems to have entered into English between 1300 and 1350. // Can I get a cite here, Doc? Meanwhile, I'll track down mine. :^)

I think you may all be speaking a little bit at cross-purposes.

If the real question is, "When did the word 'science' enter the English language?" then the answer is even earlier than 1300, for by Chaucer's day it was current, as in his Troilus and Criseyde (circa 1385); see verses I:64-70, as follows:

Now fel it so that in the town ther was

Dwellynge a lord of gret auctorite

A gret devyn, that clepid was Calkas

That in science so expert was that he

Knew wel that Troie sholde destroied be,

By answere of his god, that highte thus,

Daun Phebus or Appollo Delphicus.

[my emphasis]. As the above shows, however, this clearly isn't quite the same as the modern usage of the word 'science,' so I suspect the actual question intended was, "when did the word science take on its modern meaning?"

The full-fat Oxford English Dictionary is the most authoritative source I think you will find, giving earliest printed references to each occurance of each variant of meaning--of which there are dozens. The entry in the full OED runs to two and half pages of tiny print, I can't hope to copy it here. It is available on-line, but it is a subscription-only service, I believe.

It's a question of first stating which meaning of science is intended, and then running down the first recorded instance of 'science' used in that sense.

[ml1954]

Actually, the point is that to wintertime, the science doesn't matter at all. Thus the widespread skepticism he's the "evolutionist" he claims he is.

Along these lines....consider the following statement ...

By forcing children to study evolution and forcing them to associate with those studying evolution, the government is actively undermining the traditions ( with religious consequences) of some while establishing the worldview ( with religious consequences ) of others.

Now if the writer of this statement were to claim he's an 'evolutionist', would anyone believe him? This statament was made by wintertime Here.

[PatrickHenry]

I think BB meant "scientist," which is a relatively recent coinage. Before that the term was "natural philosopher." Jefferson, for example, kept his telescope, scales, etc. in a box labeled "philosophical instruments."

[TaxRelief]

Nice Graphic. It would be a good starting place for lurkers if one of you could simply state the "Theory of Evolution"?

[ml1954]

It would be a good starting place for lurkers if one of you could simply state the "Theory of Evolution"?

It would be nice for lurkers if you would finally, at last, after being asked dozens of times, support your assertion that evolution too broad to be a scientific theory.

[webstersII]

I'm referring to criticisms of some of his early work.

But you should know that, being a "Doctor" -- you know, piled higher and deeper.

[ToryHeartland]

I think BB meant "scientist," which is a relatively recent coinage.

Indeed it is. The OED cites William Whewell (1794-1866) in his work The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (1840):

"We need very much a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a Scientist." [Intro., p. 113]

In the same year, Blackwell's Magazine is also using the term, here at Vol XLVIII, p. 273:

Leonardo was mentally a seeker after truth -- a scientist; Corregio was an assertor of truth -- an artist.

The OED endeavours to give the earlist recorded occurance of a word; generally, words have been in at least limited spoken circulation for a time before making it into print. The first appearance in print is simply a measure of the point at which the term would generally have been understood, although in some instances (as perhaps in this current example, though the appearance in ~Blackwell's suggests the term was in more general circulation by 1840) it is indeed a proposal by an individual to introduce a new word.

[betty boop]

I think BB meant "scientist," which is a relatively recent coinage. Before that the term was "natural philosopher."

Yes Patrick, thank you!

[ToryHeartland]

There's a follow-on from my post #1027, which might be of interest but which I am reluctant to post without a strict caveat: what follows is not an argument for the biological ToE--which is well served by arguments from the data, not analogy--but an illustration of some analogous processes in a different field: linguistics. The value of the analogy, IMHO, is as a corrective to the recurring "argument from incredulity" and the even more persistent--but flat-out wrong--assertion that evolutionary selection is "random."

Natural languages (excluding deliberately-crafted artifacts such as Esperanto) undergo constant evolution in words, meanings and structures which may be analogous, in many particulars, to the processes described by biological evolution. The OED, cited in my previous post, gathers up something like the 'fossil record' of a language, the earlier variants of a word's orthography and semantics. From this record, it is clear that the meanings of words vary over time, often gradually, generally by small, incremental changes which are favoured by selective pressures.

Endless examples abound. To pick a personal hobby-horse, disinterested previously meant--and in the British Isles still primary means--"impartial, fair-minded, not having a personal stake in the outcome." In the United States, a colloquial usage arose whereby it was used as a synonym for "uninterested," which colloquial usage is becoming more widespread and it seems likely the use of 'disinterested' to mean 'impartial' will become extinct. This is descent with modification--but it is not random. It is not the case that on one particular date, the meaning of the word 'disinterested' suddenly mutated, far less 'randomly' mutated into a wholly unrelated meaning such as 'purple' or 'duct tape.' No one decided to change it, it changed through its changed usage being accepted by a growing number of speakers of English. It was 'selected,' in effect, without anyone doing the conscious selection.

That there are 'selective' processes on words does not mean that all words change meanings at the same rate. The verb "to be" has been under no evolutionary pressure to change in a thousand years--until your Mr. Clinton tried (and mercifully failed!) to challenge the meaning of the word "is"!

Linguistics, like biology, has nothing to say on abiogenesis, simply because we have no data at all on how language ever got started. But once started, the evolution of existing languages from earlier ones can be documented.

The analogy can be extended, but cutting to the chase: It would be easy to suppose, on casual examination, that a language--with its extensive vocabulary, shades of semantic nuance, extended rules of grammar--was too 'irreducibly complex' to be anything other than a designed artifact. But this is demonstrably false!

I'm wandering too far away from the topic here--I'll shut up now!

[js1138]

My reference, with specific citation, makes it ckear that the word science was used in its modern sense in 1725. That could imply the word was in common use by then.

[PatrickHenry]

I agree, linguistics is an excellent analogy. There are probably other examples of the ... what shall I call it ... the branching effect that could likewise be the subject of similar analysis:

Technology: Something gets developed, then numerous improvements are added on, etc., often with various categories of devices that go on to serve different purposes. Example: steam engines, electric motors.

Free enterprise: same as above.

Religion: consider the current state of Protestantism in the US.

All of the foregoing are examples of unguided descent with modification. "Unguided" in the sense that although each little step was someone's plan, there was never any grand plan to take things to their present state.

[ToryHeartland]

I agree, linguistics is an excellent analogy....[snip]..."Unguided" in the sense that although each little step was someone's plan, there was never any grand plan to take things to their present state.

If Darwin, Wallace nor anyone else had ever developed the ToE and there was no modern biology, but there was modern linguistics, you would be pinging folks to "Lingo Threads." I can even imagine the objections the opposing "Babelists" would be making: how could adjectives evolve unless there were already nouns? What use would only half a set of tenses be?

Of course, without Darwin and modern biology, we'd still be bleeding patients to cure pneumonia and I, for one, wouldn't be here to participate in the 'Lingo-Threads.'

[RunningWolf]

They cant/wont define what it is after being asked many times. So they attempt to change the subject.

I say they are your proof the Theory of Evolution is too broad a concept and too loosely defined to be a legitimate scientific theory.

W.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"They cant/wont define what it is after being asked many times. So they attempt to change the subject."

BS. He has already been given a number of definitions of what evolution is. What he won't do, because he can't, is explain how evolution is too broad to be a scientific theory. HE'S the one trying to change the subject. He made the claim, but he's too much a whiner to back it up. And you're his little lap dog.

"I say they are your proof the Theory of Evolution is too broad a concept and too loosely defined to be a legitimate scientific theory."

I say you are proof that some people have no shame whatsoever, and will attach their names to the most dishonest claims in order to further their fantasies.

[Elsie]

With one party embracing creationism, and the other embracing surrender and treason, it should be an interesting election cycle we're going to live through.

But only ONE of them gets us overrun in the World of Tomorrow!

[Elsie]

 

"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.

---

---

---

.... Anti-semitism was the overwhelming topic in every school curriculum. Indeed, the propaganda picture books published by Der Stürmer, the organ responsible for the dissemination of many of the anti-semitic publications during the Hitler years, demonstrate that anti-semitism was taught before children "were six or seven or eight."

     No single target of nazification took higher priority than Germany's young. By 1937, 97% of all teachers belonged to the National Socialist Teachers' Union. Every member of this union had to submit an ancestry table in triplicate with official documents of proof. Courses and textbooks in Nazi schools reflected the aims of Hitler. Of the topics that teachers were required to treat, the most important was racial theory and, by extention, the Jewish problem. In The National Socialist Essence of Education, a German educator wrote that mathematics was "Aryan spiritual property; .. an expression of the nordic fighting spirit, of the nordic struggle for the supremacy of the world..."[1] An example of racial propaganda in a math problem is the following: "The Jews are aliens in Germany--in 1933 there were 66,060,000 inhabitants in the German Reich, of whom 499,682 were Jews. What is the per cent of aliens?"[2]

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/m/mills-mary/mills-00.html

---

 

Quotes of Adolf Hitler

"I begin with the young. We older ones are used up. We are rotten to the marrow. We are cowardly and sentimental. We are bearing the burden of a humiliating past, and have in our blood the dull recollection of serfdom and servility. But my magnificent youngsters! Are there any finer ones in the world? Look at these young men and boys! What material! With them, I can make a new world. This is the heroic stage of youth. Out of it will come the creative man, the man-god."

"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I say calmly, 'Your child belongs to us already...What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community'."

"...Knowledge would spoil my young people. I prefer that they learn only what they pick up by following their own play instinct. But they must learn self-control. I will have them master the fear of death through the most difficult trials. That is the heroic stage of youth. Out of it will grow the stage of the free man, a human being who is the measure and center of the world."

"The German youth must be slender and supple, fast as a greyhound, tough as leather, and hard as Krupp steel. He must learn to do without, to endure criticism and injustice, to be reliable, discreet, decent, and loyal."

 

 

"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.

---

---

---

"Government must get out of the education business."

[Elsie]

Be specific, or retract your false slander.

Is there such a thing as TRUE slander??

[Elsie]

 

//If only you would post some skull pics, then mock a few Creationists.. They just might love you again//

LMAO!! because its so true, maybe toss in a few fsm graphic for good effect too.

Wolf

 

Are you READY??!?!?!?

 

---

Mammal-Like Reptiles

As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).  

M. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           ?        Teeth incisors = ?       K. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           pointy    Teeth incisors = small       J. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           stubby        Teeth incisors = BIG       I. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           less stubby    Teeth incisors = big       H. Eyes =           smaller    Nose =           more blunt    Teeth incisors = smaller         G. Eyes =           SMALL    Nose =           Pointer    Teeth incisors = Skinny           F. Eyes =           BIG    Nose =           Blunt    Teeth incisors = Thin         E. Eyes =           HUGE!    Nose =           pointy, again    Teeth incisors = Bigger         D. Eyes =           Smaller    Nose =           Getting wider    Teeth incisors = Bigger: two!         C. Eyes =           Huge, again!    Nose =           broader    Teeth incisors = very small         B. Eyes =           less huge    Nose =           less broad    Teeth incisors = ??         A. Eyes =           bigger again    Nose =           rounded    Teeth incisors = small

Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic. .

 

 

 

---

---

 

Are you convinced yet?

 

Oscillating eye sizes,

head shapes that shift back and forth,

teeth that are large, then small, then large again.

 

Yeah; I believe this stuff!

---

---

(The chart is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. It is on part 5 of a multipart article. The beginning of the article is here.  )

There are some Evo's who think... "It effectively demolishes the entire creationist argument. Excellent reading!"

After seeing these pix; do you?

[Elsie]

 

 

Being a libertarian nut-job (TM), I'm highly supportive of homeschooling and private schools, and open to ideas such as voucher plans, public schools charging tuition, and even privatization. When it comes to the public policy issue of privatizing public education, the makeup of life science and earth science curricula is not even on the radar. The "compelled speech" argument against the teaching of evolution in the schools goes far beyond any multi-cultural sensitivity argument I have ever heard from the political left.

I plan to homeschool my children. In fact, I may have to do so for a period of time, if my wife and I adopt from overseas as we are planning. When I do, I intent to teach them as much science and math as they can stand, and that includes evolutionary theory.

 

Good for you!  

 

At least you see the Creo position that Gummint schools are cramming THEIR agenda as the youth!

 

I support you fully in what YOU want to teach YOUR kids. 

 

I'm sure they'll turn out much better than an average GS attender.

[Elsie]

This coming from someone who denounces medicine and surgery as the work of Satan.

Oh?

Where can I find this??