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."
Before I was seriously into conservatism and politics, I was reading everything related to scientific skepticism. I remember the worst vitriol among the skeptics was reserved for Art Bell, and not for any political reasons.
I for one appreciate your posts and links.
Thanks, Fess. Everytime I learn something, I feel renewed and refreshed. It's like the intellectual equivalent of a nice hot shower.
What makes you think that's where I was going?
Thank you very much!
Dear Sir Patric,
Evolution is one of the biggest political movements of the century. Just ask those scientists looking for government funding over the past 40 decades.
I am pleased to inform you that evolution is a scientific theory not and a political movement. You may wish have correctly evaluated your sources of information.
Evolution is too broad a concept and too loosely defined to be a legitimate scientific theory.
I prefer the term "shirt-lifter"...
Why is one science and the other not? Which theory has been denied government funding for the past 40 decades? Which perfumed prince theory has been promoted and funded?
40 decades?!
Ah, I see you are still here with your tinfoil-hat comments. Goverment funding of biological research for the last 400 years? Wow! As you are still here perhaps you can produce a source for that 3% difference between ears of corn and people statistic. Or are you going to admit that you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar?
"40 decades?!"
Can't believe I missed that one.
Just ask those scientists looking for government funding over the past 40 decades.
Did Noah look for government funding on what to bring onto the ark?
Dear Miss Pie:
I know what the democrats are all about -- socialism, surrender, and sodomy. And I know what the republicans are all about -- defense, free enterprise, lower taxes, etc. But I can't remember hearing an evolution candidate tell what his political program might be. Can you help us out here?
OK, good one MissAmericanPie, I fell for it, and took you at face value for quite a few posts. I thought you were sincere but ill-educated. But the "40 decades" stretched that personna beyond credibility, you should have quit while still ahead.
All the same, hats off to you: I thought I was pretty good at spotting pranksters, but I guess I'm losing my touch.
In the immortal words of Don McLean: bye bye!
"Evolution is too broad a concept and too loosely defined to be a legitimate scientific theory."
How is it too broad?
Just as astrophysics and evolution are slowly beginning to be studied together in some instances, so should ID and evolution and physics. As time passes I suspect at least two of the sciences to merge. Depends on whether ID is left out or not, if it's three. I wonder how much time could be saved using Genesis as the template?
I like science and think the study of evolution is necessary, as well as the study of physics, all the sciences, especially the science of the Bible.
I have faith in Miss Pie. I believe her to be sincere.
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.