The new face for teaching evolution in High Schools. After all the Dover pics, fair is fair.
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."
As for comparing the solar system's structure's testability to speciation-evolution, that's quite a stretch. We can flick comets millions of miles away due to knowing exactly where we are. We can "do" it, and it was tested in a lab before the awful, expensive real test. That's not quite the same as looking back millions of years and insisting on a progression that cannot be replicated in a laboratory.
Once turned off the retention of the inactive gene had no reproductive cost.
Ascorbic acid can be acquired through food. An inactive gene is not recognized by selection.
Why assume the more untenable stance, that it will mean something in the future?
Is it not more reasonable to conclude that its function matches that in other organisms where it is turned on?
The mullahs in Iran have a similar problem keeping western-thinking Iranians under their thumb. The more they squeeze, the more they engender resistance from people who resent being told how to think.
Any scientific theory too weak to stand on its own in the face of honest criticism is an abomination and deserves no protection from the state.
Damn! 2 more missing links.
No one is insisting on the infallibility of the ToE; that's the OTHER side. When and if sufficient evidence is brought forth, the theory will change (or evolve, if you will....but you won't) or be replaced.
And you have yet to offer any evidential support for ID. It's not as if the ENTIRE scientific community got together and said, "Hey, let's disparage/disprove the concept of design!". No, ma'am. A group of faith-shaky non-scientists decided that THEY couldn't reconcile science and their weak beliefs, so they "mobilized", "stuffed envelopes" and did all that other stuff that makes them so valuable to you as an armchair Carville-back. The problem is, none of what they did involved science. But what does THAT matter?
Not so. Talk to your friends Bed and js. I don't think the two should be compared at all--they think doubting heliocentrism is the same as doubting evo-speciation.
re: I told you a story about a paranoid woman. )))
OK, you told it. Twice now. It's a lame attempt to do a sandbox bit of personal provocation--and I've told you to start a chat thread or space program thread if you just HAVE to keep discussing it. I'm not in the least chagrined or reluctant, if that's what you're hoping for, it's just not relevant here. Elsewhere? Any time.
re: We flicked comet's in a lab somewhere? And why was it awful?)))
Lab models. And it was awful (the money shot) because it was wonderful--killing suspense. But that's an insider's view from what science "feels" like, agonizing, and you can BION as you please. You only win because you can lose so big. That's what makes it different from tale-spinning--there are stakes.
Do you see debate shut down here?
High school science classes are not the place for 'debate' between science and fringe religious beliefs.
Any scientific theory too weak to stand on its own in the face of honest criticism is an abomination and deserves no protection from the state.
Absolutely. So why are creationists continually trying to force sceince teachers to teach religious ideas?
"OK, you told it. Twice now. It's a lame attempt to do a sandbox bit of personal provocation--and I've told you to start a chat thread or space program thread if you just HAVE to keep discussing it. I'm not in the least chagrined or reluctant, if that's what you're hoping for, it's just not relevant here. Elsewhere? Any time."
Was it incorrect? If so, then that goes against your claim that stories are never wrong.
" Lab models."
Oh, so they didn't actually reproduce a comet in the lab.
"That's what makes it different from tale-spinning--there are stakes."
If there are no stakes in whether evolution is correct or not, why do you care?
Ah, yes...invoke the creationist mullahs in Iran, where the theocrats tell the scientists what science is...
Excellent... < /Mr. Burns voice>
??
No, well, they just hit one in real life after years of trying to model it any way they could. Deep Impact Avionics.
But they didn't know whether they were right until they blew $500M. Turns out they were right. But they could have been wrong.
Now they still have the craft moving, and hope to program some small mission as it goes farther into deep space. Still in communication. They didn't think it would survive (at least they didn't dare hope), so they were wrong about something, too.
Can you say American Taliban?
Sure! In-taliban Design...
Hopeless placemarker
You state, as though it were fact, that teaching evolution in science class in a public school destroys the political, cultural, and religious belief systems of some of the students ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I did NOT say that. You are creating your own strawman and then arguing against it.
I said that the teaching of evolution will have political, cultural, and religious consequences. The government WILL establish and uphold the worldview of some ( with political, cultural, and religious consequences) while actively undermining the worldview of others ( with political, cultural, and religious consequences).
Whether the religious or non-religious beliefs are "destroyed" ( your word not mine),undermined, or established would depend on the particular child and his unique circumstances. The government IS establishing the worldview of some while undermining that of others. Whether it succeeds in doing this or not depends on the particular child.
Were you exposed to evolution at any point during your education?
I have a doctorate in a highly respected and very academically competitive health profession. My education matches that of a physician both on the undergraduate and graduate levels.
I graduated from high school in the mid-60s. There was no discussion of evolution in high school. On the college level little attention was paid to it since it was far more important to understand the biochemical metabolic pathways, phyla, flora, and clasifications involved in biology. Even in the courses of histology (the study of tissues), pathology ( diseases tissues, biochemistry, microbiology, molecular biology, genetics, embryology, physiology, anatomy, pharmacology,,,,,very little attention was paid to evolution.
Why? Because it really doesn't have much to do with the practice of medicine and curing disease. In fact, except for a tiny number of highly specialized scientists, evolution has little to do with the day to day study and research involved in the health sciences.
I was not a biology major. My program required that I take the major's level courses in general and organic chemistry, physics, biology, and math through Calculus III and deferential equations. After that we could chose those sciences that interested us provided they were course for those in that major. If I had not been accepted to a health professional school in the field I now practice, my goal was to become a bio-engineer.
By the way,,,my husband is a Ph.D. biochemist. His undergraduate degree is the same as mine. His graduate work NEVER ( not even once) covered or had anything to do with evolution. He spent his adult life working in this profession and never ( not even once) had any reason to even give a minute's thought to evolution.
If this is the case for my husband and me, then evolution is even less important for the masses. It does NOT justify threatening children with police action if they refuse to participate or associate with those who do. Evolution does not justify threatening citizens with the sheriff's sale of their home or business if they refuse to fund it.
Remember, please, that this is what government is about. It is about using the threat of police force to make people behave a certain way. This threat of force must be used in a very limited manner if we are to remain a free people. Evolution does NOT rise to that level of importance in the lives of all but a tiny minority of scientists to justify the threat of police force.
Government schools are compulsory for many. The funding of them is compulsory also. Government schools can NOT be politically, culturally or religious neutral in content and or consequences. Evolution is merely one of HUNDREDS of issues.
The solution is to begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. Parents, teachers, and principals should be deciding how the origins of man are presented to children. It must be done privately, by mutual consent, in private settings.
Were you properly respectful towards these deferential equations, then?
Sadly, the spellchecker can't always save you from yourself :-/
400
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.