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."
Public schools are not indoctrination centers. The government can make time, place and manner restrictions on free speech; and to limit speech in a school is merely to prevent anarchy. A biology class is not a public forum. The biology curriculum is religiously neutral; if religious belief conflicts with science, that's not the school's problem, it's the religion's. Some religions teach women are not equal, and that the races are not equal. Should we prohibit government actions that contravene those beliefs?
Congratulations. You've turned science class into "compelled speech."
And you have made a general characterization of public schools, to which I sent my children, as ''mak[ing] children illiterate and innumerate". That is a direct insult to me and to the millions of other parents who send their kids to these schools, as well as to our kids.
If you can't take it, be careful what you dish out.
You have also said some mind-numbingly stupid things about how we can't teach evolution in schools because it might create a culture that offends people. You are the intellectual sister of Islamists and postmodernists, and I can't believe you have a significant scientific education. If you'd did, you'd know that young earth creationists object to most modern astronomy, geology, radiochemistry, etc. In order not to offend them, we'd have to eviscerate all the sciences, not merely biology.
They're making adults go to science class now?
"The point is, you have never seen a planet fall or be pulled by the gravitational force of another body, but you believe the orbits of planets are a result of gravitation, because you've extrapolated from a smaller scale. But you are unwilling to make the same extrapolation for evolution. That tells me you are not applying the same rules for both."
The key word in the paragraph above is "believe". Belief is required when you can't test a hypothesis.
As for extrapolation, if I extrapolate from the "small scale" up then I could conclude that since the observed changes observed in organisms are such that it remains the same organism (i.e., the new roaches are different in characteristics but they are still roaches) apparently large evolutionary changes don't take place. That would be a consistent application.
But no one knows what would happen over many generations and a very long time, so what I posited can't be tested. Therefore the extrapolation I made would result in a belief.
So the law of universal gravitation is merely a belief?
As for extrapolation, if I extrapolate from the "small scale" up then I could conclude that since the observed changes observed in organisms are such that it remains the same organism (i.e., the new roaches are different in characteristics but they are still roaches) apparently large evolutionary changes don't take place
A roach after small changes is still a roach, because we call it a roach. If the roach were longer, had larger back legs, were colored green, and developed the ability to chirp, we'd call it a cricket.
But no one knows what would happen over many generations and a very long time, so what I posited can't be tested.
"No one knows if the planet Jupiter obeys the law of Universal Gravitation, because we can't bring it to a laboratory and see if it's attracted to massive objects"
Outta here until Monday. Have a good weekend, y'all.
"So the law of universal gravitation is merely a belief?"
You said the LUG as it applies to planets. It's been proven on a smaller scale and one day may be verified on a planetary scale. I know next to nothing about cosmology but I seem to recall that there are cosmological data which show by inference that it still applies on a large scale. That makes it consistent from the small scale data points to the larger ones.
"A roach after small changes is still a roach, because we call it a roach."
But the point is that extrapolation is done using existing data points. The existing data points say that it's still a roach, and it still looks like a roach. Therefore, according to your "rules" the consistent approach based on actual data is to assume that it doesn't ever morph into a cricket.
"If the roach were longer, had larger back legs, were colored green, and developed the ability to chirp, we'd call it a cricket."
Your point makes no sense. This transform hasn't been observed.
Thanks. :-)
Hehe. :-)
True story: I took a friend into the main control room that was flying Voyager at JPL (after pulling a few strings). Someone asked my friend "what do you think"? The reply was "Ya seen one control room you have seem en all". I was so embarassed. Sigh.
Oh yes! I was sitting console monitoring the launch of Challenger on that fateful day. :-(
Holy cow! I was just thinking of Galileo.
Smiles.
That one worked out better than expected. A kind of unmanned Apollo 13.
You mean stuff like this isn't convervative?
I know what the scientific definition of "fact" is in the scientific community. Fact: does not mean with absolute certainty.
Just like the scientific communities flim flam pointing to the 2% difference between men and chimps, and not pointing out that there is only a 3% difference between a man and an ear of corn. Fact does not mean with absolute certainty in science. There are so many black boxes in their theory, that the veiwing of it on film, well lets just say that it is very revealing.
Citation please. (Admit it, you just made that up)
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.