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."

[MissAmericanPie]

I guess I will retract it when you admit that using the enzyme rather than the nucleotide number is very dishonest in accessing the difference between man and chimp.

Or perhaps when scientist learn the definition of fact to the rest of us means "absolute certainty" rather than, "NOT with absolute certainty".

When the word "fact" is thrown out regarding the workings of evolution, what is meant is that, if you have a quarter and flip it 50 times the chance of tails coming up is 20 in 50, but "Not with absolute certainty".

I suppose there were more than a few guys who flew out to Vegas this weekend who had the same idea. "If I play 50 hands of black jack, the chances of me winning X number of games is .....".

No wonder you guys feel there is a revolution against evolution with all the word and number games being played by the proponents of the evolution only theory.

One thing is an "absolute certainty", the question won't be settled here.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Or perhaps when scientist learn the definition of fact to the rest of us means "absolute certainty" rather than, "NOT with absolute certainty"."

It's not our problem if you don't know anything about science.

Now, have even ONE cite that we share a 97% similarity with corn? Just ONE?

We don't have 40 decades to wait.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

Fascinating! So, I can be immoral and then just "plead the Taq"? How convenient!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Only if your immorality is in the service of The Cause. (WTMB)

[LibertarianSchmoe]

...and how could it not be?

[MissAmericanPie]

It's almost funny. If tomorrow science dropped the word "Evolution" from their vocabulary and substituted..say.."The Study of Species Development", all researcher's IQ's would drop 20 points and so much less would be discovered.

Most likely what would be discovered is that Globalists, Liberals and the International powers that be, would find their pockets less deep for research projects given the important agenda involved in using the word "Evolution".

But to say there is a 2% or less difference between man and chimp is so dishonest when each percent equals the difference of 40,000,000 nucleotides. Especially given there is a 0% difference in DNA in any animal, including us, between it's skin and it's liver. There is a difference in protein, but that difference should be smaller given the completely different functions and appearance of the skin vs the liver.

Like I said, lots of flim flam, and this thread is neck deep in it. I'm wading off to find dinner. Maybe gnaw on some corn.;o)

[editor-surveyor]

"I asked him if Western soldiers on duty in Iraq should have field hospitals offering the best care modern medicine can summon up for those injured in battle?"

And I answered that I have no objection to trauma surgery, but that was not the answer that you desired. It's the witchcraft to which I object; the prescription of deadly poisons to mask symptoms, thus accelerating death, when effective natural substances without side effects are available (of course you can't make money off of natural substances).

"He never did answer"

I've never met an honest evolutionist; you're no exception.

[js1138]

The truth is that deaths from apendicitus have always been rare, and the surgery cannot be credited with saving a life. 'Operable cancer' is nonsense. Cancer surgery is a big money maker for the surgeon, but is is a bad choice for the patient. Cancer is best cured by natural means, and those means should be guided by prayer, not the PDR. Western medicine is unable to cure anything. Diabetes is a good example; they just get rich pumping them full of dangerous drugs, rather than correcting their diet and using the very effective herbal treatments.

Was this you?

[editor-surveyor]

Most likely what would be discovered is that Globalists, Liberals and the International powers that be, would find their pockets less deep for research projects given the important agenda involved in using the word "Evolution".

Without question, because they wish to imagine themselves evolving into gods, thus evading the payment for sin altogether, but the reality that men are losing intelligence at a steady rate haunts them constantly.

[editor-surveyor]

You Bet !!!

Truth is totally offensive to you, isn't it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"but the reality that men are losing intelligence at a steady rate haunts them constantly."

Speak for yourself. :)

[js1138]

"If you got into a car accident, and had internal bleeding, you would rather die than be cut open?"
That is indeed a difficult question, as are many questions of obedience, but your assumption of imminent death is not a given either.
"Where does it say in the Bible that surgery is forbidden?"
I would first counter with the question "where is it advised? or permitted?"

My question is, why would you favor something for our soldiers that you think would separate them from God?

[ml1954]

Without question, because they wish to imagine themselves evolving into gods, thus evading the payment for sin altogether, but the reality that men are losing intelligence at a steady rate haunts them constantly.

Do you actually expect anyone to take such blithering babbling nonsense seriously?

[Junior]

So, you're saying the same surgeons and doctors that are competent in treating trauma cases turn into witchdoctors when dealing with other problems? In your mind the two types of medicine are separate and have absolutely nothing to do with one another?

[blowfish]

It's the witchcraft to which I object; the prescription of deadly poisons to mask symptoms, thus accelerating death, when effective natural substances without side effects are available (of course you can't make money off of natural substances).

Your natural alternative to inhalation anesthetics would be...?

[King Prout]

Evolution doesn't drive climate change.

well, it could, and seems to have done so dramatically in the distant past - the rise of photosynthetic organisms appears to have radically altered the atmosphere's chemical composition by liberating molecular oxygen and binding carbon into biomass. These alterations certainly could (and apparently did) contribute to massive climate shifting.

Additionally, forests are rain-engines. No forests, no land-based rain-engines. When trees came to be and formed forests *poof!* we had land-based rain-engines. Does this not qualify as climate change driven by evolution?

[ml1954]

Globalists, Liberals and the International powers that be

I've seen this phrase before in history books.

[js1138]

I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking of evolution as having left evidence of past climate changes.

[King Prout]

we of B.O.D. are pleased to serve

[metmom]

That's life forms affecting climate not evolution. While plant life can make an effect on local climates, as appears to have happened in the Sahara, how they change would not be nearly as significant as the fact of them being there.