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."
That's at least four, isn't it?.
That is totally ditzy logic.
Which diety, though? Equal time for all the dieties? There aren't enough semesters. Or just the Abrahamic concepts of God--or G*d, if you are orthodox? These are all issues for philosophy, or comparative religion classes, not the matter of "a few minutes".
Or do you literally mean "a few minutes"? Maybe just use the school's public address system:
"Now here this, students of Springfield High. The Principal and faculty would like to remind you that, although the matter is one outside the scope of your science classes, there is a possibility that our cosmos may have been created and/or maintained by one or more dieties of your choice."
What purpose would be served by these "few minutes"? And I thought it was part of your constitution that the state stays out of matters of religion, leaving that sphere (rightly, in my view) entirely to the conscience of each individual citizan.
It just bears repeating. I'm amazed at how often "evos" (I still get a chuckle at that word....it's like saying "gravos" or "relativos"...but I digress) are accused of exactly what the CRIDers perpetrate:
- Blind Faith (No, WE have evidence)
- Fundamentalism (What?)
- Bringing the Feds into it (see longshadow's excellent point above: WHO started this thing anyway?)
- Changing terminology (these threads are replete with posts from people who don't understand the terms they are throwing around)
- Despotic comparisons (Hitler, a Christian; Stalin, an anit-"evo"; Iran, a theocracy)
Consider this a "living" list that will evolve as the "debate" does
Adequate engineering approximation would be a better way to characterize Newton's laws. They are not in any way a subset of Einstein's theory of general relativity.
I'm going to stop posting for a bit -- the number of my typos ("here" for "hear", "citizan" for "citizen") seem to be multiplying worse than a 'deferential equation.' No more de-caff for me, give me full-tilt coffee from now on, please!
The metabolic energy cost of manufacturing them. If most of your DNA is "filler" what is the selective advantage of excessive spreading of functionless replicators? You need to explain how such DNA arose in the first place and why it is not speedily eliminated, since it contributes little or nothing to the fitness of the organism.
Cordially,
Conservatively, I estimate you probably have to use two molecules of glucose to provide the energy and materials to make one nucleotide and insert it into DNA. The L-GLO pseudogene has about 1000 base pairs, or 2000 nucleotides. If there's one copy in every one of the 5 X 1013 cells of the body, to produce two L-GLO pseudogenes in every cell of the body, you need 2 X 2 X 2000 X 5 X 1013 = 4 X 1017molecules of glucose, or about 7 X 10 -7 moles. The molecular mass of glucose is 180 g/mol, so this corresponds to approximately 125 micrograms of glucose. So a human possessing the L-GLO pseudogene needs to eat 125 micrograms more glucose to synthesize all the L-GLO pseudogenes every cell in the body will ever have. Turnover times for human DNA vary from days to decades, depending on which cells we're discussing; but if we take a mean of 100 days, you require 1.25 micrograms of extra glucose a day to maintain the L-GLO pseudogene.
And that assumes degraded DNA is not recycled, which of course it is.
Deity or Deities. Fine with me.
What you guys don't understand is that you're killing yourselves with every court case you win. And, sure, you'll win them all until there's a constitutionalist majority on the Supreme Court. Right now there are only four good judges at most, depending on how Roberts & Alito pan out (I'm optimistic about them).
The problem you have is that your behavior makes your cause appear suspect. When people pick up the paper every other day, and read headlines about judges banning discussion of ID or other concepts questioning evolution, they wonder what all the fuss is about. You're like the pro-abortion advocates who insist that abortion doesn't take a human life, but then run around screaming that photos or graphic descriptions of abortion procedures be banned. People notice a huge disconnect between rhetoric and behavior.
You guys insist that evolution is the soundest of theories, yet you protect it from questioning as if it's the weakest.
You'd be better served to just allow a brief discussion as I've outlined. Admit that science can't answer everything, or even most things, and the soundness of current theories is always open the change.
It was once thought the sun orbits the earth because that's how it looks to the naked eye. To this day we still use terms such as sunrise and sunset, based on that appearance. Until fairly recently in history, science assumed "solid" rock was indeed solid. It sure looks and feels solid. But we now know rocks are composed of atoms which are mostly empty space.
You tell us that evolution fits the evidence, that life looks like it evolved. Maybe it does, but that doesn't mean for sure that it did.
I believe God exists and that He created and sustains the universe. Quite a few people share my belief. Quite a few don't. They believe the universe simply exists and simply happens to work as it does. But neither of those views are scientific. They're faith. And science is totally ignorant about that. Letting kids know science's limitations would end a lot of rancor, but you know who it would be who would object to it.
Please demonstrate, out of the 95% of the total fossil record, one single nested hierarchy of any complex invertebrate that appears to be a modification of earlier nested hierarchies.
Cordially,
Most people don't pick up the DI's press releases or read creationist websites, and that's the only place you'll hear it claimed 'discssion of ID' is banned. Sane media outlets will report that the judge found that ID is not a scientific theory but a religious one, and therefore doesn't belong in science class. And this doesn't happen 'every other day'.
Granted, you have moronic demogogues like O Reilly ranting on about 'The War against Christmas', etc., but this forms a minor part of most people's lives. Most people find it tiresome.
You guys insist that evolution is the soundest of theories, yet you protect it from questioning as if it's the weakest.
Protect it from questioning? I've been answering questions about it for years here. So you're claiming patience in continually rebutting ignorant attacks from dogmatic theocrats, time after time after time, is a sign of insecurity. If we just gave in to you, it would be a sign the theory is sound? LOL!
Why specify complex invertebrates? And what do you consider a complex invertebrate? An insect? An echinoderm?
The problem with your Supreme Court theory is that conservative judges are reluctant to overturn established percedent.
No one is going to sanction teaching religion in public schools.
Conversely, if there is no selective pressure on this not too harmful DNA, which by the way we're told constitutes most of your DNA, then why wouldn't ‘old’ pseudogenes be scrambled beyond recognition as a result of accumulated random mutations?
Cordially,
You're using the Arlen Specter definition of a conservative judge, which is a judge who conserves 50 years worth of unconstitutional liberal precedents.
I'm just trying to help you out a little!
Admitting science's limitations up front, and being truly neutral regarding religion, would serve you better in the long run, though it would take away the short-term thrill of an ACLU inspired lawsuit getting your rivals thrown out of class.
You are not going to find a majority of supreme court justices willing to support teaching religion in science classes.
Besides, I find it unlikely, after Dover, that any case will reach the appeals level. The facts have pretty well been established, and the Discovery Institute is finished as a legal force. Not only did they lose, but they also established themselves as cowards.
I don't advocate teaching religion in science class. I only ask, and I think most Americans would agree, that science admit up front that it's as clueless as a newborn puppy about God's existence or non-existence.
Your wish is granted. In fact, it was a wasted wish. Please take note:
Science can not, and does not, have the ability or the purpose of proving or disproving God. If it did, there would be far fewer Godly people involved in, much less supporting, science and evolution. But the CRIDer side can't seem to drop the strawman "Science hates God" arguement. They are ignoring evidence again, because it doesn't fit their agenda.
They constitute the vastly overwhelming portion of the entire fossil record. Complete body plans are preserved and can be compared by the millions. The comparison of just a bone here or there, or a few bones, or partial skeletons, or even a few full skeletons, etc., that constitute just a tiny porportion of the entire fossil record, is much more prone to highly subjective interpretation, and error. Any complex invertebrate will do.
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.