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]

" Christians and believers having read in Genesis that the world was created already old..."

Where does Genesis say the world was already old?

"see scientists as two dimensional creatures blindly feeling their way around attempting to understand a three dimensional world."

It's at least a four dimensional world.

" What evidence they have, should be presented with no preconceived theory, or opinion of where the evidence they possess leads."

ID has no evidence. None.

[DoctorMichael]

".......I never see the pro-evolutionists reasoning calmly with the evidence on their side, but rather, storming around like the villagers in Young Frankenstein, relying on inflamed passions and demagoguery......."

Surely you're either joking or grossly uninformed? I merely refer you any of the posts of Ichneumon(or others) who are extremely patient in their presentation of the facts. Come back and make statements like the above after you've read them.

For instance:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616059/posts?page=82#82

.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616059/posts?page=85#85

.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616059/posts?page=78#78

.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1615650/posts?page=350#350

.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614588/posts?page=343#343

.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614588/posts?page=120#120

.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1613407/posts?page=150#150

.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1610794/posts?page=46#46

.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1610794/posts?page=31#31

..........etc.

[Old_Mil]

But, as an agnostic, I am very, very disturbed by the vitriolic fervor with which anyone who believes otherwise is attacked. I never see the pro-evolutionists reasoning calmly with the evidence on their side, but rather, storming around like the villagers in Young Frankenstein, relying on inflamed passions and demagoguery.

Excellent observation.

[Gumlegs]

SFD: "There is no evidence that any species or any form of life originated exclusively from this planet..."

It doesn't matter because there is no evidence for intelligent life on this planet.

[dmz]

when those who are pro-evo have been either called or equated with Communists, Nazis,etc
________

The et cetera includes but is not limited to: atheist, liberal, antismoking JBTs who kick little poodles for fun and support public breastfeeding.

[Old_Mil]

I merely refer you any of the posts of Ichneumon(or others) who are extremely patient in their presentation of the facts.

Having read his posts, they are really no different than the posts of others - they're just longer and indicate that he has mastered the use of the CTRL-C/CTRL-V on his keyboard. 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." Of course, the existence of this template presupposes evolutionary theory to be true.

By the way, how're those laboratory experiments trying to induce endosymbiotic behavior in prokaryotes going?

[Junior]

I never see the pro-evolutionists reasoning calmly with the evidence on their side, but rather, storming around like the villagers in Young Frankenstein, relying on inflamed passions and demagoguery.

Ichneumon, it appears to be time for one of your "tip of the iceberg" posts. However, don't be surprised if, even after you post it, the claim is again made that we only engage in demagoguery rather than presenting evidence.

[DoctorMichael]

".....how're those laboratory experiments trying to induce endosymbiotic behavior in prokaryotes going?......."

Please explain.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"they're just longer and indicate that he has mastered the use of the CTRL-C/CTRL-V on his keyboard."

Actually, he writes the text of most of them himself.

"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."

Sure you have. Ichneumon's posts would be an example. You HAVE actually read them, right?

" By the way, how're those laboratory experiments trying to induce endosymbiotic behavior in prokaryotes going?"

Which experiments?

[Physicist]

It doesn't help when science says that when the earth was young, long before man arrived, that the earth was watered by a mist that rose from the ground,

It seems you meant to say something else there, as science doesn't say that.

It does no good to point out that man and cockroaches have a common enzyme therefore it should indicate some branching off from each other during some period of evolution, when it would be ridiculous for an Intelligent Designer not to use the same needed chemicals in more than one creature to make that creature function as the designer wants it to. Why would an Intelligent Designer need to keep reinventing the wheel, when He already has on hand what He needs to plug in to make a creation tick?

But you see, that's the problem with any form of creationism. Any circumstance can be made to fit with the notion. The power of evolution is that only the circumstance of related enzymes fits with evolution. If there were no relationship between the enzymes of various creatures, it would be a problem for the theory. But in fact, they are related.

[DoctorMichael]

".....extremely patient in their presentation of the facts......"

Might I add, "in the face of those that refuse to read them".

[Old_Mil]

Sure you have. Ichneumon's posts would be an example. You HAVE actually read them, right?

I have read them, and they fit that template exactly. They just go into more technical detail than most of the readers here are capable of understanding.

Which experiments?

Should have thrown in the /sarc tag. The point being that there are no such experiments, despite their existence being essential to proving the real world applicability of endosymbiotic theory.

[steve-b]

It isn't a matter of stupidity, it's a matter of valid polling techniques. The purpose of the phrasing is to rule out any immediate non-rational response to the word "evolution".

Precisely. Are we supposed to believe that the following two poll questions:

1. Do you think it would be a good idea for the government to give each American taxpayer a $300 refund?, and

2. Do you support President Bush's special $300 tax refund?

would get the same answers?

Of course not -- liberal Democrats would reflexively oppose the latter even if it were $300,000.

[Old_Mil]

But you see, that's the problem with any form of creationism. Any circumstance can be made to fit with the notion. The power of evolution is that only the circumstance of related enzymes fits with evolution. If there were no relationship between the enzymes of various creatures, it would be a problem for the theory. But in fact, they are related.

The problems you've cited here apply equally to evolution and creationism.

[TaxRelief]

...yet they try to argue science with scientists

Actually, from what I've observed, its quite the opposite. For the most part, the evomaniacs on FR are NOT scientists and are unwilling to scientifically discuss uncertain fossil evidence and other inconsistencies within the body of evidence in support of evolution.

[Physicist]

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." Of course, the existence of this template presupposes evolutionary theory to be true.

But it's not sufficient. Fortunately, the similarity of morphology is shown to develop over time (sometimes in stunning detail) by the time-ordered sequence of the fossil beds, and that is sufficient to establish common descent as a historical fact, without presupposing any theoretical template. But wait, there's an independent test: that entire structure is accurately mirrored by the analogous tree that can be constructed from gene sequences.

In short, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is nothing at all like your "simplistic template".

[Physicist]

The problems you've cited here apply equally to evolution and creationism.

How would dissimilar sets of enzymes pose a problem for creationism?

[steve-b]

Christians and believers having read in Genesis that the world was created already old

They must be reading it in the emanations from the penumbra, then, because they certainly aren't reading any such thing in the actual text.

that the chicken came first with the egg inside it, that the fruit tree was created mature with the fruit on the limbs and the seed inside the fruit

This is the quintessential case of an untestable hypothesis. One could assert that the world was created fifteen minutes ago, complete with memories and physical traces of fifteen billions years of nonexistent history, and no one could possibly prove the notion wrong (or right).

[stands2reason]

I guess you are not here to debate?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I have read them, and they fit that template exactly. They just go into more technical detail than most of the readers here are capable of understanding."

Including you apparently, because his posts do not say that "similarity in morphology is sufficient evidence for commonality of descent.".

"The point being that there are no such experiments, despite their existence being essential to proving the real world applicability of endosymbiotic theory."

Nobody who knew anything about the subject would make such a silly statement. You are expecting a series of events that took millions of years to be condensed into a lab experiment? Scientists do NOT have to demonstrate endosymbiosis in the lab for there to be sufficient evidence that it happened. The same way geologists don't have to demonstrate the formation of the Hawaiian islands in a lab to be able to provide lots of evidence about how they formed.