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."

[wintertime]

You think it's wrong to force people to pay for the war in Iraq if they object to it?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Your ignorance of the role of government is showing. We specifically have government to provide for national defense. That some might object to how that force is applied, in this case Iraq, our U.S. Constitution specifically permits use of an army even though it impinges on the freedom of conscience of some citizens.

We also have state and federal constitutions that outline our rights.

The government does not have the right to restrict free speech, free press, free expression of religion, or free assembly. Government schools do this every day!

The government does NOT have the right to establish a religion. The liberals apply this broadly to the mere mention of God. If this is so, then government schools ESTABLISH, every day, the worldview of some ( with religious consequences)and actively undermines the religious traditions of others every day.

[wintertime]

It is evident you are so ignorant about the educational system in the US that you are unaware that per-pupil expenditures vary widely by state and district:

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

That the average cost of educating a government K-12 child in the U.S remains MORE than $10,870 per year, per child. This is more than 1/3 the cost of the cost of the military.

This continues to be true. That various state expenditures vary has never been disputed by me.

[wintertime]

We also 'force' math on the poor dears. You don't object to that.

Nobody is forcing high school kids to take biology, They can take shop, if they prefer. What they can't do is neglect to learn about the central paradigm in biology and still claim they've taken biology.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%



Even math has political, cultural, and religious consequences, and is NOT neutral. Even math establishes the worldview of some while undermining that of others and it does have religious consequences.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ravitch/20050620.htm

While no one is specifically forced to take biology, they ARE forced to assembly with those who do. A child can not exempt himself from the entire culture of the school. This social environment of other students and teachers will have political, cultural, and religious consequences.

[dmz]

I wrote to you: You state, as though it were fact, that teaching evolution in science class in a public school destroys the political, cultural, and religious belief systems of some of the students

You replied: I did NOT say that. You are creating your own strawman and then arguing against it.

_____________

Really? I quote you here:

"There is NO way that the government school can approach the topic of the origins of mankind without ESTABLISHING the worldview of some ( with political, cultural, and religious consequences) without actively working against and deliberately destroying the political, cultural, and religious belief systems of others."

The bolding is my addition to your post 14 in this thread.

You used the word "destroy" and now you are trying to disavow its use, even denying that you used it at all. It's a shame that you will not even own up to your own words. It makes it challenging to address your other points, the upshot of which seems to be your distaste for paying taxes.

[Right Wing Professor]

Even math has political, cultural, and religious consequences, and is NOT neutral. Even math establishes the worldview of some while undermining that of others and it does have religious consequences.

BWAHAHAHA!. You cited a link critical of ethnomathematics, the postmodernist leftist idea that mathematics is socially constructed. But you don't realize it's the article is critical of ethnomathematics, and so you're taking the multiculturalist left position the article is attacking.

What on earth gave you the idea you were a conservative?

While no one is specifically forced to take biology, they ARE forced to assembly with those who do. A child can not exempt himself from the entire culture of the school. This social environment of other students and teachers will have political, cultural, and religious consequences.

LOL! So we should forgo teaching anything that might offend anyone in the school, even if they themselves don't take the offending course, for fear we contaminate the 'culture.'

Even the crazier pomo lefties on my campus would be hesitant to advance this theory. You can't be for real.

[ToryHeartland]

A child can not exempt himself from the entire culture of the school. This social environment of other students and teachers will have political, cultural, and religious consequences.

In other words, no one can exempt themselves from the culture in which they live.

Well, some do try. But Muslims living in the West cannot actually exempt themselves from a culture that tolerates satire about things they might feel are holy. And my view of that inability is: tough.

I have seen that our government is selling off some old Cold War-era nuclear bunkers. They aren't too expensive, and sound like something you might find a perfect environment for your approach to raising kids.

No offense, but that's one hell of a weird bee in your bonnet.

[ml1954]

Even math has political, cultural, and religious consequences, and is NOT neutral. Even math establishes the worldview of some while undermining that of others and it does have religious consequences.

You think math IS NOT politically, culturally, and religiously neutral? What fields of study do you think ARE politically, culturally, and religiously neutral

[Right Wing Professor]

That the average cost of educating a government K-12 child in the U.S remains MORE than $10,870 per year, per child

The bar chart says $8K for 2003. You do know how to read a bar chart, right? Your numbers are from a back of the envelope estimate by some unknown activist. Mine are from the National Science Foundation.

That various state expenditures vary has never been disputed by me.

Untrue. When I posted Nebraska stats (which are very close to the national average) you disputed them.

That the average cost of educating a government K-12 child in the U.S remains MORE than $10,870 per year, per child. This is more than 1/3 the cost of the cost of the military.

So its costs $30,000 a year to run the military?

Unreal.

[demoRat watcher]

These are the actual numbers, not your link's half-assed math.

Why do you evomaniacs always fall back to insulting advanced concepts that you cannot comprehend? It would really be helpful if you could find some real scientists and mathematicians to represent you in the great evo debate.

[wintertime]

DMZ

You are completely correct.

I consider it a compliment that you read my post.

[wintertime]

LOL! So we should forgo teaching anything that might offend anyone in the school, even if they themselves don't take the offending course, for fear we contaminate the 'culture.'

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. Parents, teachers, and principals, in private setting, should be the people deciding how the origins of life be presented to the children.

[RogueIsland]

Why do you evomaniacs always fall back to insulting advanced concepts that you cannot comprehend? It would really be helpful if you could find some real scientists and mathematicians to represent you in the great evo debate.

Umm, RWP is an honest-to-goodness real life scientist. He comprehends these subjects just fine.

[wintertime]

What fields of study do you think ARE politically, culturally, and religiously neutral

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Hm,,,,likely none. That is why government should get out of the K-12 education business.

Solution: We must begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. Let parents, teachers, and principals, in private settings, make these decisions.

[demoRat watcher]

So its costs $30,000 a year to run the military.

Hint No. 1:Stay focused on the subject. The subject of this side debate was education costs. Therefore the $30,000 refers to per pupil expenditures per year at American schools on military bases.

Hint No. 2: The National Science Foundation is a political organization and should not be considered a reliable source. Trust, but verify.

[wintertime]

Why do you evomaniacs always fall back to insulting advanced concepts that you cannot comprehend? It would really be helpful if you could find some real scientists and mathematicians to represent you in the great evo debate.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I have tried to avoid personal attack, but in this thread I have been called a chiropractor, and accused of having a bee in my bonnet.

Personally, I post so that I can share talking points with other conservatives. I do not try to convince the pro-evolutionist defenders of government schools who enjoying having the backing of police action to force their agenda on resistant children and families.

I am an evolutionist who believes in freedom of conscience.

[grey_whiskers]

He was a strong adherent to the ethical teachings of Jesus, but as a rationalist rejected the supernatural elements of the Biblical accounts (he edited a version of the NT from which miraculous elements were removed on the grounds they defied credibility). Whether one agrees or disagrees with this particular endeavour (it is, in any event, rather singular), it strikes me as at least a valid approach.

It is not a valid approact to Christianity, because Jesus Himself made His miracles a central component of His teachings. If you remove all the Supernatural from Christianity you don't have Christianity anymore.

The problem is too long to go into here in detail, but the difficulty is that "by definition" miracles are rare, AND "break the rules"; and since they are done by supernatural agents they are non-testable. This means that just when the empirical approach would be most useful, it is inapplicable.

And because of that, science cannot distinguish between competing supernatural claims using its own methods. So, in the interests of logical consistency (from the outside, no one creed can occupy a "favored status") the only thing to do is to reject them all.

And that's the problem. The scientific method is a way of minimizing errors--"false positives". But I see no way of correcting for the possibility of rejecting things which may happen to be true, but don't have tangible, TESTABLE evidence behind them. (BTW, the reason this doesn't matter for ordinary everyday events, is that the laws of nature 'guarantee' uniformity, even in those situations where you can't directly test the materials...but again, miracles by definition claim to be exceptions, so this approach is a bad fit.)

Cheers!

[demoRat watcher]

RWP is an honest-to-goodness real life scientist.

Really? Nutritional Science or Behavioral Science?

[dread78645]

So its costs $30,000 a year to run the military?

Which might be the reason for 25¢ beer night at the EM club.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

We're almost there! Okay, my comment about distorting information is really about the folks who want to discredit the theory of evolution. If you are not in that camp, then I apologize.

My issue with the stickers still stands however. Many of us who have faith aren't at odds with science. It's unfortunate but a historical fact that many agenda-driven forces have attacked science, sometimes religious in nature, sometimes otherwise. But the scientific community has a great track record (far better than, say, the political community), and I trust them to make corrections whenever presented with verifiable and peer-validated evidence.

If the small-but-vocal minority of fundamentalists would stop attacking evolution, it would no longer be available to anti-religious groups for pummeling religion. And the sooner that happens, the better off we'll ALL be.

[RogueIsland]

RWP, your post 543 is really interesting reading. Thanks.