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."

[ToryHeartland]

scientific facts that liberals find upsetting are routinely exorcised from science curricula

I can't comment (because I don't know) the situation in the US, but we have plenty of tussles from leftists attempting (and too often managing) to introduce 'political correctness' into educational curricula over here. It is far more apparent in the humanities and 'soft' sciences (psych, sociology, &c) rather than the core sciences (biology, physics, earth sciences, &c). Darwin is no more 'controversial' here than Newton; the weight of evidence supporting the neo-Darwinian ToE is just too massive and compelling.

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 then why not 'spend a little time' discussing that science says nothing about which music you should prefer, or why Tristram Shandy is a great book, or why original Star Trek was superior to Next Generation (or is it the other way around), &c. &c.?

And/or: should there also be a matching 'disclaimer' in every philosophy class or comparative religion class stating that 'philosophy can state nothing, one way or another, about the actual age of the earth,' or 'religion can state nothing about the chemical processes involved in photosynthesis'. Gets silly pretty fast.

It's a whole lot easier to simply teach the scientific method, which is rational investigation of the material world--anything else is out of scope. And--judging by some of the postings even in this present thread--some folks have never been taught the absolute basics of that scientific method.

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.

As a foreigner, I'm reluctant to comment here as well, though your Dover case received quite a bit of press coverage here, and I've read the trial transcript. And the question must be: what political agenda "against religion"? It was the school board attempting to introduce elements the court determined were religious, not scientific, into the curriculum that (unfortunately) got the ACLU involved. It wasn't a case of anyone attempting to introduce science into churches! It really does look far more like an agenda by a religious group that is genuinely threatened by science; and it is an American phenomenon, just not an issue elsewhere.

[ToryHeartland]

What about a guest who steals your silverware?

That's when you should be particularly grateful for your constitutional right to bear arms--a right we are denied in the UK!

[puroresu]

You guys get the final word tonight. I'm at work and goofing off! :-)

But I have things to do, so I'll bid you farewell for the evening and likely for a few days. Tory, I thank you for your discussion and for your observations. Prof, I assume you'll read this, so thank you as well. And the same goes for all of you on both sides!

Have a great upcoming weekend, all of you!

[Right Wing Professor]

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

Surely, then, God does not want us to use a less stringent standard of judgment in a jury trial than he does in evaluating the nature of the universe?

[Right Wing Professor]

That's when you should be particularly grateful for your constitutional right to bear arms--a right we are denied in the UK!

Shooting a pilfering dinner guest seems a little harsh, even in Texas. Stabbing with a steak-knife, now, that's making the punishment fit the crime.

[ToryHeartland]

Bedtime here; thanks for your postings,have a good weekend &c.

[ToryHeartland]

Stabbing with a steak-knife, now, that's making the punishment fit the crime.

But if you're served escargot, what punishment could you inflict with the tongs?

No, wait, don't answer that!

[Hacksaw]

I've told you on several previous occasions never to post to me, here, at post 25. After that, you did it again, here at post 19. And here I had to warn you yet again. And now this time. Your stalking never ends, does it? The sooner you're banned, but better this website will be.

Trying to get someone banned again? You know, if you post these threads 3 times a day in news/activism, you should be mature enough to deal with negative comments. Quit cowering behind the moderators.

[longshadow]

Well, I see you are be baited..... by a master, no less.

This might be a good time to review the testimony of the defendants' Expert Witness in Kitz miller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..

Behe Cross-X Day 12 Dover ID Trial

Q. [plaintiffs' attorney]: And in fact there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A.[Prof. Behe, defendants' expert witness]: That is correct, yes.

source: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12AM.pdf p22 line 25

From Behe's lips to God's ears....

[PatrickHenry]

It's true that the ID gang has nothing going for it, but still ... teach the controversy!

[grey_whiskers]

Subduction leads to orogeny.

LOL!

I'm surprised though, that the US govt. didn't fund geophysicists during the cold war, in the effort to create a subduction zone under Moscow.

Full Disclosure: Seduction follows oenology ?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Why should it be one deity? Why are you favoring monotheism over polytheism on the one hand, and atheism on the other?

Reminds me of a classical atheistic debating tactic--answering Pascal's wager with a counter-dilemma of higher multiplicity. :-)

Cheers!

[b_sharp]

"Smart ass :)"

According to my wife it's my best feature. :P

[grey_whiskers]

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.

Nicely done! Oh, well played, sir!

Watch your significant figures! :-P

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

"...one single nested hierarchy of any complex invertebrate that appears to be a modification of earlier nested hierarchies."

The current crop of RINOs and spineless GOP leadership ("invertebrate") in the US Senate appears to qualify nicely :-)

Cheers!

[Right Wing Professor]

The current crop of RINOs and spineless GOP leadership ("invertebrate") in the US Senate appears to qualify nicely :-)

And if they're pals with Abramoff, they're nest-egged hierarchies.

[grey_whiskers]

In fact, since science rules out particular divine possibilities, one could say science favors distant, noninterventionist deities.

Details, please?

[b_sharp]

"'m saying that the "facts" that Science know as "facts", points as much, or more, to Intelligent Design than Evolution. That Science chooses to proffer a convoluted, and silly looking when put on film, theory. Is the problem."

And what I am saying is the 'facts' you believe support ID over evolution do so because you 1) Have a very poor understanding of the SToE. 2) You have a limited understanding of ID. 3) In your misunderstanding, ID fits in better with your personal belief system.

[grey_whiskers]

only Omphalism could possibly reconcile the evidence with the science.

You mean like rivers of chocolate?

...yes I know it's spelled differently.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

I don't need purity - 99.44% will do fine.

Did you have to bring up that urban legend?

Cheers!