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."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Look at what they sign up for given a choice between physical science and biology. Stereotype have their basis in fact."

I am not sure what the stats are, but I was just commenting on your statement that "...girls will not attempt physics"

[RadioAstronomer]

Nevertheless, none of this invalidates what Newton first observed.

Not true. Even using an Earth reference frame, I must take into accout relativity.

Also the theory of evolution is at least on par with (actually far exceeds) gravitational theory.

[Diamond]

The gene exists in other mammals. It is defective in apes, at the same spot.

Explain the significance of this fact then without relying on "ID'r" probability statistics.

Cordially,

[RobbyS]

They then go on to define complexity as an exclusive product of intelligence (unconvincingly I might add) so that genomic complexity must be the result of an intelligence. In effect what they have done is to perform 'research by definition' where their definition is both a premise and the conclusion.

Darwin did some of the same thing, although less in "origin of Species" and more in "The Descent of Man." There is something wrong with the very title, since he introduced natural selection as a Cause of something he had never observed, which is the change of one species into another, when what he really is talking about is variations in animal populations. It is this observable variation that makes plausible the notion of evolution, given that the fossil record shows an even more complex list of animal forms than our own observation.

[Dimensio]

You (and others) are attempting to make the point that since Newton's observations constituted a "law", and Einstein's constituded a "theory", that somehow Darwin's speculative story has equal weight at the table of scientific discourse as empiricism.

This is not true. The motive for referencing Newton's Laws and Einstein's Theories was to demonstrate that your claim that "laws" somehow supercede theories is incorrect. That Darwin's theory is at least on par with -- and in many cases on better footing than -- other scientific explanations such as relativity or atomics is a different discussion.

Nevertheless, none of this invalidates what Newton first observed.

On the contrary. Newton believed his observations to be universal, hence his "Law of Universal Gravitation". This is now known to be false.

[js1138]

Even the most strident creationists accept that what they call "microevolution" occurs...

This actually represents progress. Back in the 1960s, Herbert W. Armstrong's magazine, The Plain Truth denied that mutations ever occur.

In another 200 years, creationists will have moved on to something else.

[blowfish]

This evo-crevo nonsense (and it is nonsense. evo is not remotely important to science) is just an opportunity for libertarians to strut their contempt for the religious under the cover of a faux concern for science. If the evo namby-pambies here were really scientists, they'd be too busy for this obsession.

We find the spare minute here and there in our busy schedules to knock down the distortions, lies and foolishness that keeps popping up on these threads (like a punch-em clown, they keep bobbing back up).
And if the bible-thumpers didn't keep insisting on treating the bible as a science book, we'd have a lot better view of the religion the profess to champion. Where do they find the time? Don't they have jobs?

[RobbyS]

Notice I did not say that girls cannot DO physics. By and large the ones who do attempt physics are as good as the boys who do. I am sure those girls who do not attempt physics have the same motive as the boys who do not attempt cheerleading.

[Dimensio]

evo is not remotely important to science)

You continue to repeat this claim. You should know that your continued repetition has made it no less false now than it was the first time you stated it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Explain the significance of this fact then without relying on "ID'r" probability statistics."

What kind of designer makes a number of different species with the same damaged gene, damaged at the same spot? Why is the gene there at all? ID can't explain it without resorting to saying that that's the way God wanted it. Evolution and common descent make it easily explainable. It's what you would expect with common descent. And that's just one gene. There are hundreds of similar examples.

[Diamond]

To claim its original function is unknown is therefore bizarre

In Darwinian theory which came first, the functional gene, or some non-functional precursor of the gene, perhaps co-opted from something else? How does one know what was co-opted from what?

Cordially,

[balrog666]

You continue to repeat this claim. You should know that your continued repetition has made it no less false now than it was the first time you stated it.

Some people are incapable of learning even the simplest thing.

[Condorman]

ERVs are endogenous retroviruses.

Fabulous. Whether or not you accept them as evidence of common descent I trust I have now laid to rest your complaint that:

I have yet to see an evolutionist offer an "evidence" on FR that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "similarity in morphology is sufficient evidence for commonality of descent."

...the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle..." - Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate

Ignoring for the moment the dishonesty of this quote (exposed elsewhere on this thread), why do you think the method by which life first began affects the validity of the theory of evolution?

[Condorman]

Courtesy ping to 294

[Senator Bedfellow]

That is true. It can however be said definitively that they have lost the function they previously had, and as a result that humans and the great apes lack the ability to make vitamin C, but still carry the relic gene.

Well said. I would also point out that, IIRC, L-GLO is merely the last of a series of necessary steps to synthesizing ascorbic acid - in humans and other primates, all the other steps and ingredients necessary are still present, despite the fact that the process is broken due to the missing ingredient. So it's not as though we only have this one broken gene, held in isolation, which may or may not be related to functional genes in other organisms - in addition to the broken homolog in humans, we also have a set of other genes that are homologous to ascorbic acid-producing genes in other organisms.

It's not as though Alice simply has a bag of rotten flour, and we don't know how to begin interpreting that one odd ingredient. Alice also has eggs and butter and sugar and chocolate and shortening, and everything you need for the recipe. Except the flour, of course. Bob and Carol have all those things, plus functional flour, and they're happily baking away - why should we not infer that Alice was once capable of baking a cake too?

[Physicist]

Progress, indeed. For some time I've been predicting that the creationists will yield on speciation, but coin some term (e.g. "mesoevolution") to distinguish it from "macroevolution", which they will still decry.

Such is the evolution of the "God of the Gaps".

[Chiapet]

Religious conservates vote, mobilize, stuff envelopes, donate and knock on doors. They are worth far more to the GOP than libertarians. That's why this spin-generating evo machine--try to chip off religious votes by trying to get the GOP to alienate the religious.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

This is what I think you are saying:

(1) Religious conservatives are valuable to the GOP. (2) Religious conservatives are more valuable to the GOP than Libertarians. (3) Libertarians are the ones who are opposed to introducing creationism/ID into public school science classes. (4) Because religious conservatives are more valuable as a voting bloc than Libertarians, the GOP should get behind introducing creationism/ID into public school science classes.

Is that an accurate statement of your position?

[PatrickHenry]

Coming up ...

[PatrickHenry]

300