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."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Thatcherite]

It's absolutely fascinating watching you all pounce on the young lady over a small typo: Why not just stick to the substance of the discussion?

Taxrelief, which of MAPs claims do you believe was a typo, and why? MAP hasn't disavowed any of them; so why are you trying to disavow a claim for her? Are your mind-reading skills unusually strong today?

[Thatcherite]

I've always taken "evothink" as a compliment. Its practitioners perform rational assessment of the physical evidence and draw the conclusions that the evidence implies, without prejudice. Come to think of it, I can see why some in these debates would see the word as an insult. ;)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Good question."

Now please answer it, as I directed it to you.

[demoRat watcher]

Do you believe in evolution or creation?

[TaxRelief]

Can you not answer the question? Fascinating.

Again, I ask you: "If you were teaching the 'Theory of Evolution', in the year 2006, how would you state the Theory based on today's knowledge?"

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Can you not answer the question? Fascinating."

What's fascinating is your obfuscation. I asked you how is evolution too broad, and you have answered... nothing. Trying to deflect that by asking me what evolution is only make you look less than capable.

"Again, I ask you: "If you were teaching the 'Theory of Evolution', in the year 2006, how would you state the Theory based on today's knowledge?"

You answer my question first. I asked first, remember. :)

[Right Wing Professor]

In the immortal words of Don McLean: bye bye!

'Fess up, you were just dying to use that.

[wintertime]

Teaching cultural/philosophical issues like evolution is not education; it's indoctrination. ( editor-surveyor)

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

Editor-surveyor and CaroinaGuitarman,

There is NO way that any government school can satisfy both of your educational demands. No matter what the government school decides it will support the religious worldview of one of you and undermine the religious worldview of the other.

Evolution is merely one example of hundreds that prove the illegitimacy of government schools.

The solution is to begin the privatization of universal K-12 education. We can as a society provide for the education of all our children in private settings.

However....it does seem that the pro-evolutionists are the most vigorous supporters of government schools and the most vocal against vouchers, tax credits, and freedom of choice for students and parents. ( This is my anecdotal observation). I wonder why that is? Is it because they wish to impose their anointed will upon other parents' children?

[MissAmericanPie]

Hey honey, go prove I'm wrong, then I will bother with you. When I was new I use to let you pack animals run me around providing evidence when you provide none. I like it because the people that read this see through it easily enough and my impact is better on the reader.

Afer all that is what we are all doing here, impacting the reader.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

[wintertime]

BTW, do you really have a beef WRT the teaching of "philosophical/cultural issues" in the secondary schools and institutions of higher learning, in principle??? If so, WHY???

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

I have a problem with government K-12 schools.

The education of the young can NOT be politically, culturally, or religiously neutral. Education of youth IS the transfer of cultural traditions, the accumulated Knowles acquired by the society, the political structure of the culture, and the ethics and morals of the society.

Since time and resources are finite the government school must make choices as to what to cover in depth, what to merely mention, and what to completely ignore. These choices are NOT neutral, and will favor the worldview of some while undermining that of others. A child or adult's worldview WILL have profound political, cultural, and religious consequences.

Evolution is merely one of hundreds of curriculum and policy issues bitterly disputed among our citizens. Is it any wonder? Evolution contributes to one's worldview, and as previously argued, worldview has political, cultural, and religious consequences.

The solution is to begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. We can provide excellent opportunities for all our nation's children in private settings.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Hey honey, go prove I'm wrong, then I will bother with you."

Why don't you instead provide evidence you are right? Like, say, even ONE citation that says that we share 97% genetic similarity with corn? Just ONE. Go for it.

"When I was new I use to let you pack animals run me around providing evidence when you provide none."

Sorry, you made the claim of a 3% difference. It's YOUR obligation to back that up, not mine. Put up or shut up. So far you have provided nothing.


"I like it because the people that read this see through it easily enough and my impact is better on the reader."

True. Lurkers will see that you made a silly claim (3% similarity with corn, genetically speaking) and have yet to provide even one citation to back it up. They will see you for what you are. It won't take them 40 decades either. :)

"Afer all that is what we are all doing here, impacting the reader."

Teeth get impacted. I'm trying to convince.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"3% similarity with corn, genetically speaking"

Obviously I meant 3% difference. My bad.

[wintertime]

The religion of evolution takes on the cloak of hard science (its mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection) and under the cloak of hard science it attempts to make the science classroom its sacrosanct temple where no other concepts will be broached

^^^^^^^^^^

It does seem that the evolutionists are the most vigorous defenders of compulsory government owned, government run schools. ( This is my anecdotal observation).

I am an evolutionist, but I do NOT advocate forcing this on resistant children and their families. I do NOT advocate threatening them with police action if they refuse to subject their children to the subject of evolution itself or to force them to associate with children who have been exposed to it. I do NOT advocate threatening my fellow citizens with the sale of their home or business if they refuse to fund government schools that promote it.

I do NOT favor having the government run price-fixed monopoly schools that create a very hostile environment for the creation of private schools. Then when private schools are scarce and both parents are working to support burdensome taxes, I do NOT advocate threatening them with police action if they refuse to use the only government school alternative artificially created by the government.

[wintertime]

Read the Dover decision. Then you'll know who tried to impose what on whom: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Patrick Henry,

If universal education were privatized, then you could send your children to private schools that supported your educational philosophy, and other parents could send their children to private schools that upheld their family traditions.

It is my anecdotal observation that it is the pro-evolutionist who are the staunches supporters of price-fixed monopoly government schools.

By the way,,,,since I am an evolutionists, in a system of private schools, it is likely my kids would have been sitting next to yours.

[ToryHeartland]

'Fess up, you were just dying to use that.

It's a fair cop, Guv'nor. You've got me bang to rights!

I had the itch from the moment I arrived at the quayside in my Chevrolet automobile, only to find the watercourse was missing...

[wintertime]

Judicial activism is when judges make up law that doesn't exist. Judge Jones followed precedent every step of the way in his jurisprudence; in point of fact he had no choice;

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

Longshaddow,

I completely agree with you as far as the Dover case is concerned. However,,,,,That the judge was legally correct in this case, does NOT resolve the tension among the various competing groups.

The essential problem is that government schools are illegitimate precisely because they are a violation of freedom of conscience.

The point is that evolution is merely one of HUNDREDS of issues that can not be fairly and evenhandedly presented by the government schools. No matter what decisions the government school makes, it will establish and uphold the worldview of some while undermining that of others.

[wintertime]

Fret of fret, people don't like things crammed down their throats. One day Darwinists will evolve enough to figure that one out.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And,,,,they don't like paying for it either.

It does seem that evolutionists are the most fervent worshipers of price-fixed, monopoly government schools and the least likely to support freedom of choice in the form of vouchers or tax credits. I wonder why that is?

By the way,,,I am an evolutionist but believe in freedom of conscience and think government schools are illegitimate violators of that freedom.

[wintertime]

Yet you want science censored to fit your religious beliefs? "You can study this, but you can't study that because I don't like it!"

Is this really what you are telling us?

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

Why is it so hard for evolutionists to hear?

People do NOT want evolution shoved down their children's throats!

Government schools are illegitimate because they are violators of our human right to freedom of conscience!

Why is it that evolutionists are the staunchest supporters of government schools and the least likely to advocate vouchers or tax credits? ( an anecdotal observation on my part).

By the way,,,I am an evolutionists but advocate educational freedom of choice for parents and children.