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."
My all-time favorite is the "Battle of the Jay-Walking All-Stars" segment where one contestant identified a picture of the Iwo Jima memorial as a picture of the first moon landing.
There is at least at much for ID as Evolution, neither can be proved is my point so why should science take a position, when the arguments are flying inside the scientific community on the meaing of the evidence?
The anti-Republican (and implicitly anti-conservative slant) should be of concern, not just for the future of conservatism and the Republican party (something which I, and nearly else here, has rehashed a hundred times before), but for the future of scientific literacy. Unlike the rest of you, I'm not a scientist nor do I have any formal scientific training. I'm just a rhetorician. But my particular academic training plus my layman's status may give me a unique perspective on this issue. The way I see it, part of the problem isn't just that the Republican party or conservatism are increasingly seen as anti-science; it's also that too many laypeople see science as hostile to their traditions and values, and for this reason, increasingly find themselves alienated from it. It's bad enough that blacks and other minorities are discouraged from pursuing science because it is perceived as being "white", but now, those groups are further discouraged, along with the majority, because science is perceived as "anti-religious" (something the article fails to mention is that blacks, Hispanics, and other visible minorities are also among the most devoutly religious groups in America), and for a large part of the population, because it is perceived as being "liberal". This is the impression I have received from many of many debates with creationists on FR, who grumble about "liberal scientists" in the public eye (as on this thread here). Although it is both the right and responsibility of scientists, as citizens, to speak out on politics, I fear that the public backlash on science may be a consequence of such outspokenness. Worse yet, instead of simply expressing politically liberal viewpoints, many scientists engage in ad homneim attacks against conservatives in general, declaring that conservatives are "too stupid" to be scientists or to even understand science, which only makes things drives the general public further away. What can be done, then? Well, first of all, scientists in the public eye need to recognize the consequences of their speaking out, to know their audiences, and that what they say will have multiple meanings to different audience members. While they should be prevented from expressing their political views, they should recognize the consequences of voicing them. Secondly, there has been a widely expressed question in the past two years: Where are all the conservative scientists? They don't exist, smugly say the liberals, who predominate among politically vocal scientists, including scientists who blog. But they do exist, as FR demonstrates, and they need to speak louder-much louder than they have so far. They need to let the public know that science is objective and universal and independent of any political belief system, and that it can be appreciated and understood by everyone. We hear so much about the need for women and minority scientists to serve as "role models" to encourage underrepresented groups; conservative and Republican scientists need to do the same (they may also be underrepresented, but how underrepresented is unknown to me). More conservative scientists need to organize themselves into coherent political organizations in order to provide strategies to educate politicians and the public, to start blogging more(nearly all scientists who blog are liberal, but there are exceptions, such as Razib at Gene Expression, Lubos Motl at the world's best physics blog, and a certain chemist), and basically let their voices be heard more in the mainstream of both the news media and scientific community. This won't solve the problem, but it may encourage greater public curiosity and appreciation for the importance of science in political understanding and decision-making.
The human sense of sight is not acute enough to directly observe genetic changes...
That is the truth...
Other nations have "compulsory attendance, compulsory tax payer funded government schools," without getting all worked out about evolution.
If the US is the exception, then there is something about the US causing it- maybe it's the lack of a Established Church. I mean if the Governemnt declares it's not important to have a Religion, then maybe people become uneasy and insecure.
What does "ERV" stand for?
Or, as the same concept has been expressed by others:
Johnny Cochran: I have yet to see the prosecution offer an "evidence" in this court that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "physical traces and previous actions are sufficient evidence of my client's guilt."
Mayor Nagin: I have yet to see the pundits offer an "evidence" in their stories that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "snafus in the evacuation are sufficient evidence of my incompetence."
Iraqi Information Minister: I have yet to see the media offer an "evidence" in this court that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "the pictures of American troops in Baghdad are sufficient evidence that I am lying my ass off."
Far be it for me to add to the vitriolic fervor. I guess I'll just join the mob and storm Dr. Frankenstein's castle - butn, pillage, rape.
Better than to bandy words with someone as agnostic as F dot.
That's what I meant to say! Sorry too, about the crappy formatting!
No evidence for genetic change placemarker.
It's a paltry belief in nothingness that masquearades as faith in Science.
If creationists believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, then the religionists of Evolutionism believe in a Boiling Primordial Spaghetti Sauce...
I believe you've missed the point.
I don't think it's the state of the schools. I think its more along the lines of elemntary and high school students just don't have a sufficient background to understand science. Science isn't easy and it isn't simple. On your other point. Science and the religious right both hold crystal reading, astrology and other such stuff in contempt, but for opposite reasons. Science thinks it's quakery, but some Christians believe those things really work, but are the product of Satanic powers. I've seen sermons where a fiery pastor condemns these things for being evil, but never condemns them for being false.
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.