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."
Partially.
It's those partial deferentials you gotta watch out for - they'll turn on you the minute your back is turned...
Sumtimes.
That joke was just too derivative. Time to integrate some new material.
I've reached my limit on this thread.
But we haven't even gotten to the root of the problem...
Hmmm. If this is true (and I am very far from persuade that it is), is it not true of all educators, or true about the nature of education? In other words, do not Church schools (and my own daughters attend one, btw) also influence the 'political, cultural, and religious worldview' of their pupils? Your point really isn't clear to me.
Time and resources are finite. No school or teacher can give equal time to all that is know in every culture. Choices must be made as to what to cover, what to merely mention, and what to ignore completely. It is in those choices that cultural knowledge is passed from one generation to the next. These choices WILL favor the politics, culture, the morals and ethics ( ie. worldview) of some and ignore or even actively undermine that of others. No education can be all things to all people. It is impossible. For this reason the education of the young is never "neutral".
Evolution is merely one of hundreds of curriculum and policy issues that will establish the worldview of some ( with political, cultural, and religious consequences) and undermine that of others. If you do not believe this then I challenge you to describe a perfectly neutral school free of political, cultural, and religious consequences.
It does seem to me that it is the evolutionists who struggle with this point. Those who support ID "get it" immediately....Oh,,,and by the way,,,I personally support evolution so please don't lump me with the Neanderthals.
What "basics" do they lack, and how do they acquire them by simply growing older? I am struggling to understand your point here.
The very young child is incapable of critical thinking. They still view the world through magical eyes. For this reason they are incapable of applying scientific judgment. They are not developmentally able or ready.
The older child in the upper grades of high school is capable of critical thought, however,they do NOT have the chemistry, physics, basic biology, and math background needed to do any serious study of evolution or even any branch of science. I suppose there are exceptions, but for the most part this background is not acquired until college level. Even high schoolers are at the stage of merely acquiring "general knowledge of the natural world". They must accept the "general knowledge about the natural world" as fact because they have no skills with which to judge the information critically.
In other words, do not Church schools (and my own daughters attend one, btw) also influence the 'political, cultural, and religious worldview' of their pupils?
NO school, regardless of whether private or government, can be politically, culturally, or religiously neutral in content or consequences.
It is axiomatic. That is why government should get out of the K-12 education business. It is OK for parents, teachers, and principals to mutually agree upon a worldview to be presented to children. It is NOT OK for the government to compel children to attend government schools where they will be forced to endure a non-neutral political, cultural, and religious curriculum and policies. We are supposed to have state and federal constitutions to protect us from government establishment of a religious worldview.
If you still believe that government schools ( or any school) can be neutral, then please try to describe one to me. You will not be able to do this.
Remember that evolution is merely one of hundreds of issues that can not be presented in a manner that will not have political, cultural, and religious consequences.
You are completely correct. It is "differential" equations.
I think that the last sentence of your post #129, is one of the best, and truest definitions of ID I have ever seen or heard, or read anywhere....that is...'All ID says is that somewhere, some time ago, something happened, but whatever it was that happened wasn't evolution.'
Bravo, for that most excellent observation...
But we're approaching it.
By the way,,,,I consider it a compliment to have you take the time read my post.
Happens to the best of us ;)
You've been saying that forever now...
"Tally-Born-Again"
placemarker
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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mullahs? Let's do some comparisons here:
The madrassases of Iran are compulsory. For most parents in the U.S. government schools are compulsory.
The madrassases of Iran will imprison and punish those who refuse to send their children to their schools. The government schools in the U.S. will punish and imprison those who refuse to cooperate with government school officials.
In the U.S. if a citizen refuses to pay his taxes to support the NON-neutral political, cultural, and religious agenda of the government schools, the citizen will have his home or business sold at sheriff's auction. I don't know what they would do in Iran.
Oh....and please don't say that parents in the U.S. can choose a private school or home school.
The government is running a price-fixed monopoly. Then when private schools are scarce the government threatens parents with police and foster care action if the government schools aren't used.
Government K-12 schools are very expensive to the taxpayer. They cost 1/3 more than our military, even in a time of war. This pushes both parents into the workforce just to pay taxes and live, thus making homeschooling impossible.
Government schools have so ill-educated a generation that many parents are too illiterate and innumerate to homeschool. Hey,,,,maybe that was the entire point of having government schools.
It seems to me that those who are the most vocal about supporting evolution and the least likely to support vouchers or tax credits so that all children ( religious or non-religious, pro or anti-evolution) can choose a school that will support and uphold family values rather than undermining them.
If government schools were abolished tomorrow, the acrimony over evolution and ID would evaporate like dew on grass on a summer's day.
Oh....and before anyone accuses me of being a Neanderthal or a mullah....I SUPPORT the theory of evolution.
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.