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."
####Why the sticker? Because some people's faith is so fragile that they need such an affirmation? Sounds awfully liberal to me...####
Why not the sticker? You've agreed that the sticker would be truthful and scientifically accurate. Yet, you don't want to place them on the textbooks.
####Also, you are speculating on what WOULD happen. I could make plenty of "wouldn't" assertions, but you would (rightly) call me on it.####
We're all speculating to a degree. But here's why I think I'm correct in my speculation on this. You've agreed that it's true to state that science can say nothing about the existence or non-existence of God. Yet, any proposal to forcefully make that clear to kids in science class suddenly becomes controversial. You start questioning the motives of anyone wanting to provide the kids with this info. Why not just provide it to them? It's true, isn't it?
At the risk of belaboring abortion analogies, evolutionists are similar to those people who say they're personally opposed to abortion, but are "pro-choice". If you say to those people, "Okay, we'll leave abortion legal, but find ways to discourage it", they seem to have an excuse for opposing every means of discouragement. Suggest that we stop using tax money to pay for abortions, and they'll say it discriminates against the poor. Suggest that we fund crisis pregnancy centers that provide abortion alternatives, and they'll say such centers are "religious" and can't be funded. Suggest that teen girls need parental consent for an abortion (just as they do to get an aspirin or go on a field trip), and they'll say it would violate teen's "privacy" to require such consent.
In other words, they SAY they personally oppose abortion, but find some reason to be against any effort to curtail the practice.
Likewise, evolutionists agree that science says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, but any suggesting I come up with for telling that fact to school kids (a sticker, a brief discussion of that issue, etc.) meets with disdain, and in fact would be blocked by the usual suspects (ACLU, federal judges, etc.).
Not all do. Some indeed claim that science disproves god.
Science certainly narrows down the range of possible gods. Science, for example, disproves a god who created the world in 6 days 6000 years ago. In fact, since science rules out particular divine possibilities, one could say science favors distant, noninterventionist deities.
So you sticker should properly read 'Science neither proves nor disproves the existence of some gods, but it does disprove the existence of others.'
Totally off topic, but:
I was on a backpacking forum once, and somebody asked if anybody knew where to get "fanny pack suspenders". That one got quite a few giggles from the Aussies and Brits as they tried to envision the possible function of such a dastardly device...
(In case you didn't know this, a fanny pack is a small, zippered purse-sized pouch attached to a belt around the waist, with the pack carried in the back. "Fanny pack suspenders" are basically a clip-on shoulder harness to support the belt). ;-)
One imagines a 'dastardly device' indeed, probably appearing in Swedish XXX films!
Thanks for stating clearly what I tried (but failed) to state in my post 542 in this thread.
Everyone would agree there are thousands of cases in which man has clearly created a God or gods. Many further maintain there is one instance (and one instance only) in which a God or gods created man--but they don't agree on which one or ones.
I can understand, in a world transformed by science, how a 'God of the Gaps' can arise, and I can further understand how some may feel that God of the Gaps is diminished as each advance of science reduces the 'gap' in which such a diety could dwell. It's not my conception of God, but never mind.
What is harder to understand is how a very much older and simpler concept of God persists (an anthropomorphic grey-bearded old guy, generally), though not hard to see why some fundamentalists, whether Islamic, Christian or whatever, do indeed feel threatened by science. They are.
You made some excellent points! I agree that God is far more sophisticated than our concepts of Him.
You are correct that biology is singled out by people of faith for questioning to a degree not found in physics, chemistry, geology, or other sciences. You suggest that this is because of a political agenda by a small group of sectarians, and in a sense you are correct. However, I would add a few things! :-)
The fact that Christians rarely, if ever, question most scientific disciplines should be taken as evidence that Christians, even fundamentalists, aren't anti-science. Evolution, however, touches upon the essential spiritual nature of human life. Were we created in the Image of God, or are we just the result of chemical processes which just happen to work the way they do, without God having anything to do with it?
Teaching evolution is fine with me, and with most people. It may be true, though it can never be proven, and I have doubts about it. But it's a fine theory as theories go. I just don't think it's dogma.
Science entertains ideas all the time that would be forbidden if the rules used to exclude ID were applied across the board. The ACLU wouldn't go roaring into court to ban discussion of life in other galaxies or parallel universes in science class. Can you falsify the assertion that there are parallel universes? Can you subject a claim that life exists in a galaxy 30,000,000 light years away to the scientific method? Heck, the ACLU wouldn't object if they brought a witch into class to explain the science of casting spells.
In addition, scientific facts that liberals find upsetting are routinely exorcised from science curricula. I've mentioned many times here that there's a large body of scientific evidence indicating that men are on average better at math than women. Yet, that fact won't ever make it into any textbook. If a teacher told his class about this fact he'd be fired, with the ACLU among those demanding his scalp. What about homosexuality? Is it normal? No school system today would dare say it isn't, no matter what biology may tell us.
I'm not for censoring science. I'm just noting that it's often done by the left with no outcry from the science organizations that claim there's a "war against science" if someone merely suggests that the theory of evolution isn't a proven fact.
I don't particularly care if the Behe ID idea is taught in schools or not, though it's none of the federal courts' business if it is. Most Americans would, I think, be satisfied if science would just abide by its own rules, rather than playing lip service to them. It really wouldn't hurt anything to have a discussion about science's limitations in science class. It wouldn't involve censorship, as the demands of feminists, gays, and egalitarians often do. Spend a little time discussing the fact that science says nothing, one way or the other, about the existence of God. It's true, isn't it? But it won't happen, because it would hamper the agenda of the ACLU and others who see science, particularly evolution, as a tool to be used against religion. And that's where the real political agenda lies.
So, we create a LAW to put a STICKER on science textbooks? That's a nice liberal touch. How about we do it in multiple languages, to accomodate our multi-cultural society? How about we NOT insitute any more affirmative-action plans instead? I know, I know: it's for the children....
While we're at it, let's put a sticker disclaiming (individually, of course, lest we offend) ALL philosophical questions that science can't answer.
But that still won't help the case for ID: stickers and abortion comparisons are not evidence.
#####Science certainly narrows down the range of possible gods. Science, for example, disproves a god who created the world in 6 days 6000 years ago. In fact, since science rules out particular divine possibilities, one could say science favors distant, noninterventionist deities.#####
Miracles don't leave traces, so science can't disprove the existence of any God, including one who created the world 6,000 years ago. I'm not a YEC, but either God exists or He doesn't. If He exists, He isn't limited by Dawkins' imagined rules about how God would have to operate.
And there's always the question of which sciences get the sticker.
Geology? Physics? Astronomy?
If not, why not?
Sure it can.
I'm not referring to a mathematical standard of proof here; just the same proof we'd use in a legal case or otherwise in everyday life: proof beyond reasonable doubt. I don't need purity - 99.44% will do fine.
In that case there is massive evidence from astronomy, geochemistry, biology, and so on that the earth is more than 6000 years old. In fact, only Omphalism could possibly reconcile the evidence with the science. Since reasonable people discard Omphalism, the earth is far older than 6000 years, beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the specific god that allegedly created the earth at that time is disproven. QED.
Should have been 'reconcile the evidence with that particular creation story'.
I'm not for censoring science. I'm just noting that it's often done by the left with no outcry from the science organizations that claim there's a "war against science" if someone merely suggests that the theory of evolution isn't a proven fact.
I believe you ARE for censoring science. Censorship is not only the removal of information; it also includes selectively distorting information. Oh, and a scientific theory is never a fact. None of them are.
Spend a little time discussing the fact that science says nothing, one way or the other, about the existence of God. It's true, isn't it? But it won't happen, because it would hamper the agenda of the ACLU and others who see science, particularly evolution, as a tool to be used against religion. And that's where the real political agenda lies.
Evolution has not been a political tool used against religion. It's been used by religion. And a small segment, at that.
We're at a stalemate on this one then, because God can do whatever He wants and we have no way of refuting it or tracing it. So nothing we can do, including 99.44%, is good enough.
Now, you may say that to a person of faith, God is an explanation that can be invoked for anything. That's true, but it's also true for happenstance.
Why does light behave as it does? A person of faith says it's because God made it to behave that way. An atheist says it just happens to behave that way.
God can do whatever He wants, however He wants, and leave no trace, or traces that we don't understand.
You don't believe that, and I understand that. I'm just noting that we come from two very different worldviews!
####I believe you ARE for censoring science. Censorship is not only the removal of information; it also includes selectively distorting information.####
Well, I disagree! I really don't think we're that far apart. How would anything I have proposed distort scientific information?
####Oh, and a scientific theory is never a fact. None of them are.####
Agreed!
(On the other hand, so do home invasions and dinner parties. What about a guest who steals your silverware?)
Again, here you deal with the pre-existence of a complex cell establishing endosymbiotic relationships and this gets us no closer to the origin of membrane bound organelles than the symbiotic relationship between a crocodile and Trochilos.
Please identify the step you claim is impossible.
All these steps are seen, sometimes separately, sometimes all together, in symbiotic relationships.You have posted no good reason why they could not have occured in the evolution of eukaryotes. In fact, the only missing element is that AFAIK we haven't yet identified a clearly mutualistic relationship between a prokaryotic endosymbiont and a prokaryotic host. And of course we also have the genomic evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts evolved from distinct free living organsims, such as the fact that they have prokaryotic ribosomes.
To refresh your memory, that has to do with the evolution of eukaryotes from a single celled organism without membrane bound organelles through endocytosis that leads to symbiosis.
And I gave you a series of examples in the first link I posted. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Bacteria are known to engage in endosymbiotic relationships with other bacteria. All the handwaving in the world won't wave that away.
So then I presume you could never vote to convict on a jury, because however convincing the evidence and the prosecution's theory of the crime, the alternative theory of miraculous intervention would always exist.
Or you would vote to convict, in which case you're willing to take the risk of unjustly ruining another human being's life, based on the presumption a miracle didn't occur, but you're not willing to accept a scientific origin of species, based on the same presumption. Strange priorities you have.
You don't believe that, and I understand that. I'm just noting that we come from two very different worldviews
Mine appears to be self-consistent.
I don't share the nightmares of the left-wingers regarding Justice Thomas.
"Senator, as I indicated yesterday, my comments there were not taken to in any way reflect on the legal rulings on the establishment clause or the free exercise clause. As I indicated yesterday, that from my standpoint, as a citizen of this country and as a judge, that the metaphor of the Jeffersonian wall of separation is an important metaphor. The Court has established the Lemon test to analyze the establishment clause cases, and I have no quarrel with that test.-- Judge Clarence Thomas, Senate Confirmation Hearings Sep 12
The Court, of course, has had difficulty in applying the Lemon test and is grappling with that as we sit here, I would assume, and over the past few years, but the concept itself, the Jeffersonian wall of separation, the Lemon test, neither of those do I quarrel with.
" ... as well as Justice Kennedy I think has applied a coercion test. I think the judges are grappling at, when church and the government are inexorably in contact with each other, how much separation can there be and how do you draw the line."
You might want to read the opinion in Van Orden v. Perry and the dissents in McCreary County v. ACLU , Santa Fe ISD.
While Justice Thomas seems unconcerned with the 'secular purpose' prong of the Lemon rule, he's quite aware of the problem of advancing a sectarian viewpoint. Particularly when there is government compulsion such as mandatory school attendance.
If (and when) a case challenging Lemon gets to the court, I suspect the fundamentalist fantasies of Justice Thomas are going be disappointed.
Something about enumerating your barnyard fowl comes to mind...
God gives us reason so that we can make judgments. That's true in a jury trial. If someone asserted that a miracle was involved, a person of faith would have to use judgment to determine if it was true, and render a verdict accordingly.
Just because one believes in miracles doesn't obligate one to believe in every miracle that is claimed. I told you, I'm not a YEC, but there are a few here (Fester Chugabrew, for example) who would make the case for a young earth, and I respect that, just as I respect you.
As for evolution, I think it's a fine theory. It may be true, but I hardly think the evidence is conclusive that we're the product of a lineage that goes back to a single cell. This ain't the O.J. trial. Maybe the theory of evolution is true. Maybe it's God's method of creation. Or maybe it just happened. Or maybe there are things deep in the mists of history that we don't understand.
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.