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."

[jennyp]

MissAmericanPie's reading comprehension is somewhat suspect, the "3%" would appear to be her own scrambling of an already twisted source--unless she would like to offer another source for her astounding claim.

Wait, I got a better one:

1. Detroit is 1155 miles away from Denver, CO.
2. Detroit is 1157 miles away from Miami, FL.
3. THEREFORE: Denver is 2 miles away from Miami. QED.

[andysandmikesmom]

According to that type of logic, my son, who lives in Seattle, could be in Los Angeles in less than one hours driving time...should I inform him of this fact, and give him the figures to back me up, I am sure he will rush right over, and commit me somewhere where they can look after me, in my deranged state of mind...

[RunningWolf]

Yes, I know you have said you are an evolutionist.

However, you do not approach these threads in the manner and tactics of the other evos and so that allows much greater opportunities. I thank you for the opportunity to have some dialog and make a statement here.

And to this I believe we have found a common ground as to forcing a theory/any theory (that has inferences) toward concerning the origin of man on children and their families in the public school classrooms.

I will make a guess here based on your posts that while your are an evolutionist, you wish to distance yourself from the most prolific of the evos on the FR threads.

I will also make a guess that you acknowledge the large theoretical and deductive elements of the whole theory. IMO that is a more realistic and honest place to come from and it allows for dialog and common ground that can be reached along with debate.

If I am wrong on these things or did not say that very well let me know.

Thanks

Wolf

[185JHP]

BTTT

[andysandmikesmom]

It was way back in your post #767, that you stated "Evolution is too broad a concept and too loosely defined to be a legitimate scientific theory."...

I am with the rest of those asking, please elaborate...and no, your response, should in no way depend on what someone else states as the 'theory of evolution'....

You made the statement, all you are being asked to do, is explain your statement...and so far, you have failed to do so...and no doubt, other posters and the lurkers are wondering why...

[TaxRelief]

Simply put, if you read through the posts of the most passionate evolution supporters, you will observe that-- while they frequently refer to a theory--they don't actually define a single "Theory of Evolution". Hence, the "Theory of Evolution", a al FR, is simply too broad to be considered a legitimate scientific theory.

BTW, Can you state the "Theory of Evolution"?

[andysandmikesmom]

You know what...I dont think anyone is going to state the 'Theory of evolution' for you...because you are the one that made the initial statement...it really is up to you, to define what you think the theory of evolution states, and why that is too broad to be a legitimate scientific theory, in your opinion...

Your explanation, really makes no sense to me at all, and I have to wonder exactly why you are so reluctant to explain your initial statement...that is all you are being asked to do...

[Coyoteman]

BTW, Can you state the "Theory of Evolution"?

Since you are tolling:

In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next.In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution

Have at it; drop your killer bombshell which will blow this out of the water for all time. Your nobel prize awaits.

In the meantime, here is a chart showing a recent summary of current findings:

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[ToryHeartland]

THEREFORE: Seattle is 46 miles from Los Angeles. QED.

Nice one. How about:

[1] 24 Hours from Tulsa

[2] Rolex 24 Hours From Daytona

THEREFORE: TULSA = DAYTONA

[andysandmikesmom]

OK...you did give him a definition for the TOE, which I thought no one would do...so let us see how and why Tax-Relief can tell us why this definition is declared to be too broad...

[betty boop]

Philosophy is a natural extension of science. A good scientist needs to be a bit of a philosopher.

Well pre-Enlightenment, science was called "natural philosophy." The word "science" never surfaced until the 18th century.

Both science and philosophy are basically analytical processes, "extracting meaning from what we see, and projecting meaning out beyond what we can see."

Still to the extent that science depends on observables, it cannot account all by itself for everything that is, which realistically includes "non-observables" such as logic and physical laws. In short, it relies for the prosecution of its own business on entities that its own method cannot explain or account for.

Then there is the small matter of whether reality reduces to the observable. Human beings are strongly visually-oriented. Which I gather is why such a premium is placed on "observability." But this is not the same thing as saying that all of reality reduces to the observable; merely that human beings will tend to focus on it, to the exclusion of anything else that might exist, though not in a physically observable state.

Then there is that saying, "in the mind's eye." The human mind can "see" non-observables. Which tells us that reality does not finally reduce to what the physical eye can tell us.

Thanks so much for your excellent post, marron!

[Coyoteman]

OK...you did give him a definition for the TOE, which I thought no one would do...so let us see how and why Tax-Relief can tell us why this definition is declared to be too broad...

He was getting too boring. I just want to see his "gotcha," as with all of the buildup it must be a nobel prizer.

[andysandmikesmom]

I know, it was boring seeing the same old, same old argument...now we can await the response, and see if it was worth the trouble...

[ToryHeartland]

888 posted on 04/23/2006 3:21:23 PM PDT by Coyoteman

Just noting the timestamp on your concise posting. I'm timing it to see how long the Nobel-prize winning bombshell takes to prepare. :-)

[betty boop]

That was, I believe, more or less Einstein's attitude on the matter.

Yep. And I do believe that Niels Bohr saw it that way, too. But Bohr added a fascinating fillip: If a scientific discovery could not be articulated in common language such that even a non-scientist could understand it, then science has not fulfilled its obligation to society, with the implication that quite possibly the final test of the worthiness of a scientific theory has not been met.

Bohr's ideas are so worthy of further study. I mean to pursue that, in due course, with a little help from my friends. :^)

Thanks so much for writing, YHAOS!

[furball4paws]

"Maybe you're in the National Academy?"

Those National Academy people always were a group of elitists.

[andysandmikesmom]

That is a most excellent idea...I too, am wondering how long the response will take...

[betty boop]

Those issues belong in the family, not in government. Isn't that what all the provisions of the first ammendment are all about?

Well, sure. No question about that. But you know as well as I do that the Progressive Left -- which is important in American culture today, if only as the source of the Kultursmog -- detests the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights; and (regardless of their pieties to the contrary) ever seeks to undermine it.

The Bill of Rights fortifies the just claims of human beings against the claims of government. But for the political Left, the state is everything, and the human person essentially nothing but a cog in the wheel of State. The individual is but a feeble, paltry, passing thing, fit only to be "ruled" by his betters, who are more intelligent and better educated than he is. The rule by experts is what the Left recommends.

But I have to say, if these epigones of Left Progressivism are any indication of the quality of expert opinion, then it would be far, far better for the rest of us to trust in our own common-sensical judgment. For those folks will not rest content until they have utterly destroyed American philosophy, culture, and way of life.

Well, I guess it gives them something to do. I gather they cannot find a better outlet for their passions, so inimicable to the thriving of human life and by extension, to any just, good order of society.

Such folks, wittingly or not, are engaged in the death business.

Thanks so much for writing, Editor-Surveyor!

[js1138]

I sense someone frantically looking up "allele".

[Doctor Stochastic]

The word "science" never surfaced until the 18th century.

The word seems to have entered into English between 1300 and 1350.