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."

[js1138]

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.

All you have left is the requirement to be a good person, and heaven forbid that anyone would have to attempt that.

Obviously Jesus was mostly a hocus-pocus man, and made no demands on his followers to engage in good works.

[js1138]

I guess it doesn't take much knowledge of biology to stand in front of a blue screen, but if you wish to study climate change, you will need to learn about evolution.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Modern medicine laughs at medical theories and ideas from the 19th and 20th century."

Only the historically ignorant and arrogant medical researchers do.

"Of course, the exception to this will be those ideas which can be examined and tested in the lab -- just like any of the experiments Newton, et. al. performed are still being reproduced today."

What experiments did Newton perform? And, are you aware that Newton's theories have been shown to be inadequate?

[Right Wing Professor]

History will tell whether you, Darwin, and your colleagues will be held in high esteem or chuckled at for your own ignorance

No doubt. But Darwin's made it 150 years so far. And don't substitute yourself for history. The only people chuckling at Darwin here are chuckleheads.

Of course, the exception to this will be those ideas which can be examined and tested in the lab -- just like any of the experiments Newton, et. al. performed are still being reproduced today.

Name an experiment Newton did that's being reproduced today.

[js1138]

One could have worse memories of a launch.

[Mamzelle]

re: Yep. That's why these discussions are largely pointless for all parties involved. )))

A shame they can't go to the "Pointless Chat Room" or be routed there.

However, this thread includes partisan implications--and libertarians would love to uninvite conservative Christians from "their party"--like 'tarians even vote! This has been true for a long time--libertarians chiefly show up to gripe, gripe, gripe about how they don't like Baptists and are so terribly terrified about this looming theocracy.

"The Religious Right is going to destroy the GOP!" when the GOP would have been consigned to oblivion long ago without the RR or Mr. RR.

The erstwhile "War on Science" is yet another one of these, a phony issue to diguise an irrational antipathy.

[js1138]

Newton did experiments. He proved by experiment that light was waves and not particles.

:)

[ToryHeartland]

Name an experiment Newton did that's being reproduced today.

I sat for nearly an hour underneath an apple tree this very lunchtime, but was not struck on the head by a falling fruit.

Run for the hills, gravity isn't working!!!

...

Hang on, wrong season...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Oops, I forgot about his prisms.

Mostly he was a theoretical scientists though.

[js1138]

But that was before Einstein proved that light was particles and not waves.

[longshadow]

Newton did experiments.

Actually, he was just a graphics artist getting a head start on the cover art for Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" album....

[webstersII]

"Only the historically ignorant and arrogant medical researchers do."

Uhm, no, you know that's not true. Most people cringe and shake their heads when they think of doctors "bleeding" people many centuries ago (this hastened the ultimate demise of G. Washington, for example). Certainly they didn't know any better at the time but that doesn't mean people today don't laugh at it.

"What experiments did Newton perform? "

Are you asking a serious question? Heck, we reproduced the light through the prism experiment in Junior High.

"And, are you aware that Newton's theories have been shown to be inadequate?"

Absolutely. But they are not incorrect within certain constraints, which still makes them valid. I don't know of anyone who looks at Newton's theories like they do medical science of yesteryear.

[js1138]

I keep forgetting: which side is the dark side?

[ToryHeartland]

But that was before Einstein proved that light was particles and not waves.

And Feynman showed that Certs was a breath mint and and candy mint...nope, I haven't got that right, have I?

[webstersII]

" The only people chuckling at Darwin here are chuckleheads."

Now that's funny! I haven't seen you as a real witty guy on this board but that was a good one.

"Name an experiment Newton did that's being reproduced today."

As I mentioned above to CG, we reproduced the light through the prism thing in junior high.

[js1138]

Has anyone ever noticed the nearly absolute lack of joy and playfulness that certain people on these threads exhibit.

[webstersII]

"Has anyone ever noticed the nearly absolute lack of joy and playfulness that certain people on these threads exhibit."

Yeah. Most all of us are guilty of it from time to time, but some make it a full-time habit. It's life-and-death to most on both sides.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Uhm, no, you know that's not true. Most people cringe and shake their heads when they think of doctors "bleeding" people many centuries ago (this hastened the ultimate demise of G. Washington, for example). Certainly they didn't know any better at the time but that doesn't mean people today don't laugh at it."

I repeat, only the historically ignorant and the insufferably arrogant do that.

"Are you asking a serious question? Heck, we reproduced the light through the prism experiment in Junior High."

I already conceded that in an earlier post. It should be noted that Newton was not correct about the nature of light.

"Absolutely. But they are not incorrect within certain constraints, which still makes them valid."

But they are... incorrect.

"I don't know of anyone who looks at Newton's theories like they do medical science of yesteryear."

Maybe physicists aren't as arrogant as doctors? :)

[longshadow]

I keep forgetting: which side is the dark side?

Get the album, and listen VERY carefully to the faint comments at the end of one of the songs....

;-)

From wikipedia:

The words "there is no dark side of the Moon really ... matter of fact it's all dark" over the closing heartbeats come from the studio doorman at the time, Gerry Driscoll.

[PatrickHenry]

700