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."
According to many of your compatriates, ID is not about religion.
According to many of your compatriates, ID is not about religion.
And scientists just ain't buying Creationism/ID.
So a number of proponents of ID appear to be demanding special price subsidies and trade barriers to hawk their goods to High School students....
Indeed, as "Doctor S" frequently points out, they even share a common epistemological defect: they both reject the rational inquiry of the scientific method in favor of "alternate means of knowing" ....
David Limbaugh, "The Left lies because it must," 2006-01-27 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1566019/posts)
No, it doesn't. This amounts to affirmative action for minority viewpoints.
Science class must teach the dominant paradigm. There are many reasons for this. The first thing to consider is that children spend precious few hours receiving science instruction as it is. There's not enough time as it is to discuss legitimate alternative theories and minority opinions, much less to go off on theological tangents. Secondly, curriculum must teach the basics. Students at this level are expected to learn the material, not question the material. It's like a math student questioning the teacher's derivation of the quadratic formula. Students need to learn to do the work. Thirdly, as must public schools are operated as college prep, science class must teach the subject as students will be expected to understand them when the continue on to college. If students arrive at university with thoughts of "Baramins" and "Kinds" when they get to biology class, they have been ill prepared for higher education. Finally, science class is one of the last bastions of critical thinking and problem solving left in the schools. Isn't there enough of this culturally sensitive crap in the schools already?
Science class must teach science.
You might benefit from studying a bit of science, particularly the scientific method. No theory is proved in science. Rather, as evidence builds up and predictions are made and confirmed, an idea may progress through hypothesis to theory. That is where the theory of evolution is now, a theory. There is no higher point in science for it to attain--it certainly cannot be proved, but in 150 years of scientific advances it has repeatedly been confirmed.
ID on the other hand is more of a political movement than a science. There are no research budgets, only PR budgets. The Discovery Institute is not out to make any new discoveries. Its goals are stated in the Wedge Strategy as:
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.That is a political and philosophical goal, not a scientific goal. ID cannot qualify as a "theory" as that term is defined in science, it may qualify as an "hypothesis" but even that would be a stretch.
I have included below some definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
Christophobia
Which post are you referring to?
As a foreigner, I appreciate that.
Our school system began teaching from the Bible, because of liberal whining, the Fed decided that it has the exclusive right to indoctrinate, inculcate, young minds.
Whoosh, that wasn't the promised slowly, that felt like about 200 years of the history of education in the United States blistering past me in one sentence. But never mind.
Now everything is being taught, from how to put a condom on a banana, to scientific theory, to the exclusion of the original system that was in place and one that the majority of Americans preferred.
Preferred a Bible-only education? You really are going way to fast for my comprehension here...
It is only right that we demand equal time and equal access to the students mind.
But the logic--such as it is--of your post would seem to be to demand (your term), not merely equal time, but a return to "the original system that was in place and one that the majority of Americans preferred."
Isn't that what you are actually advocating?
Technically speaking, you are moving from being misinformed to being the source of misinformation. This is pure propaganda, misrepresenting a technical argument and then knocking down the misrepresentation.
There's a Commandment devoted to this.
I have a question which boils down the evolution/creation debate. Do you believe the first human being literally was created from nothing (one minute no humans, the next minute humans)? Or do you believe the first humans were were born in the womb as other mammals are?
I have a question which boils down the evolution/creation debate.
___________
One question, and you can boil down the entire evo/crevo debate. Wow. Your Nobel is in the mail.
I found the post. So far you have started with dishonesty, been caught, then proceeced to argue it's just about sex, so it doesn't matter. It's a technical detail.
"One question, and you can boil down the entire evo/crevo debate. Wow. Your Nobel is in the mail."
I'm not saying it resolves the debate it just makes an artificial divider of the two major camps in this debate. Those who believe in direct divine intervention in the creation of man and those who believe that humans were born just like other mammals through naturalistic events.
And the CR/IDers do the same.
The conclusion of common descent is built into the bare assumption that the lack of the L-gulano-g-lactone oxidase gene is a "defect", or "nonfunctional" version of a gene that was purportedly functional at some point in human history. But even if that could be proven to be the case, it says nothing about nothing about whether it descended from a universal common ancestor or was a descendant of many independently created organisms or was itself created independently. In fact, the very (claimed) persistence and identifiability of these supposed pseudogenes millions of years after they supposedly ceased functioning could indicate that they have some as yet undiscovered function; (why else would they persist for so long?) It simply cannot be said definitively at this point that these types of genes have no function. In short, NDT can accommodate this evidence but it can also accommodate it's absence, which doesn't say very much for the utility of this alleged prediction of common descent.
Cordially,
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.