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."
I agree...butting into a familys decision should always be discouraged, but when the family makes a decision, that places a seriously ill child in even graver danger, by denying medical help, well, that is something I cannot even fathom...
Which is more important?...preserving the family decision making ability when it comes to medical treatment, even if that decision will harm the child even more, or is the greater obligation to restore the child to health, so that the child can eventually become an adult, and make the decisions for himself?
Who determines the "need"? I certainly don't want the state or anyone else telling me my children must take the AIDS vaccine or Ritalin. You want something like that? Go to Red China and live there.
I am not really certain, why you are so angry....did I actually say anything about any AIDS vaccine or Ritalin...I dont think so...and for you to decide that is what I meant, you surely are mistaken..
What I am talking about, is if there is a child, who is in a serious accident, has severe internal bleeding, and needs a blood transfusion...that could be one scenario...should the child be allowed to die for lack of a transfusion?...
Or what about a child who has a strep infection, and the type of strep he has, is the dangerous one, proven with a culture swabbed from his throat...usually a course of antibiotics will knock that strep out...but if left untreated, such a strep could go on to further cause rheumatic fever or other severe complications...should the child be allowed to run the risk of having life threatening complications, due to the strep having further intrusion into the body?
There are many other examples that could be given...no need to jump all over Ritalin treatment, or an AIDS vaccine...
If you think the examples I have given above, kinds of cases which occur quite commonly, are justifiable cases where children should be denied medical treatment, because their parents object to the treatment, just say so...and I will take that to mean, that these children will be subjected to further declining health, due to their parents objections to the 'cure' for their medical condition, and that would be fine with you...
And the fact that you tell me to go to Red China to live, is something I will overlook...and wont say what I think of it...
I was simply trying to figure out what folks think on this subject, and unfortunately, you have some real problem with that...
Hey, you want to call me a closet socialist-marxist, do it to my face, and ping me via Freeper courtesy...
Angry? I am not angry. I am adamant about freedom and choice. I believe that you are the best person on earth to care for your children. No one else. You brought them to life(for the sake of argument). You cared for them. You live with them. You make the choices for them. That is my belief.(and yes, you can play Zeno's paradox with any situation).
As usual, your post contains nothing of substance, its nothing but insults and name calling...how typical of you...true to form...
OK...I am just trying to get things straight...I certainly believe I am as adamant about freedom and choice as anyone else here...I just get upset when children die, because of lack of medical care...I am not going to bust into someones house, and demand that they seek a particular medical treatment for their children...I dont have that right, as no one else has the right to do the same to me...
But the dilemma for me is, what about the lives of the children...I guess the question is, do parents have the right to allow their children to die, because of lack of medical care?...that is really all I am asking....
I dont know why this cannot be discussed in a civil manner...I dont like being called names, nor do I like being told to go live somewhere else...is this really what asking questions comes down to?...
The answer is yes. That is what a life and death decision is all about. But the only person that should make that decision for a child is the parent. Solomon proved that.
Sorry, you didn't like my Red China reference, but I like to make my points strong and not wishy-washy.
Well, then, you have honestly answered my question, and for that I do thank you....
And no, I dont like the Red China reference, regardless of your reason...you are completely in error, when thinking that I should go live there, because I want to enforce my will on other parents regarding their childrens health care...you could not be more mistaken...
I didn't say that. I presented an implied conditional. However, if you do think the state should decide those things, then my consequent is true.
I certainly don't want the state or anyone else telling me my children must take the AIDS vaccine or Ritalin. You want something like that? Go to Red China and live there.
Now that's really nice Mr. C but I read RWP's post again and I can't see where he said that a person can not treat her own body as she pleases.
Yes, he did say that the choice that lady made was insane from his point of view (as well as mine) but he didn't say that she shouldn't have been allowed (maybe by force?) to make it.
And as far as I know he's still free to voice his opinion.
So free choice is insanity to you.
Huh? How did you get that from his post?
Some choices can indeed be seen as stupid or insane but that doesn't mean that he thinks free choice in general is stupid or insane.
Ireland must be a wonderful place in which to grow up.
Never been there so I can't comment on that.
As you so easily pointed out, you can look at the 'data' EITHER way and STILL make the same Evo claim!
Is this how a typical Evo's mind works?
He never did answer....
So that means YOU can fill in the blank??
You folks DO realize that 'medicine' is thwarthing Evolutions grand design.
How can the future fight germs the good old way if we keep trying to kill them off artifically?
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.