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."

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's a long fish that generates electricity.

[RunningWolf]

TaxRelief

I think I can accurately predict here that your question to the evos will never be answered. //"If you were teaching the 'Theory of Evolution', in the year 2006, how would you state the Theory based on today's knowledge?"//

After reading the threads it becomes very apparent how an independent observer could determine Theory of Evolution", ala FR, is simply too broad to be considered a legitimate scientific theory.

Just how many logical contortions and contradictions must there be? Based on these threads just about anyone can advocate evo and be considered a serious legitimate scientist. But on the other side, not even Noble prize winners in various sciences including physics can say anything against evo because they are not a biologist therefore not qualified, and if they are a renowned biologist then they are the odd crackball out in left field. Of coures even this will be indirect inference and use sarcasm ,so if you ever pin them down they really did not mean what you thought they meant LOLOL.

Do not expect the evos to own up to anything though, for the fog of inference is the name of their game. That and the incessant demands that you meet their terms to their satisfaction in their language, and not be distracted with all the taunts mocks smears gang up attacks ad infinitum

Wolf

[TaxRelief]

This is a definition, not a theory, and you have referenced a blog as your source.

A scientific theory is built on reliable knowledge--built from scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. It is self-collaborating. A scientific theory is the most honest explanation of how something natural works or how something natural came to be.

For example:

The Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity consists of two postulates:

1. The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
2. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial, non-accelerated frame of reference. The laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I think I can accurately predict here that your question to the evos will never be answered."

1) It's already been answered.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617533/posts?page=888#888
2) He has not answered MY question to him, which was asked first. He can't answer, because he has no idea; he threw out a silly insult and hasn't the guts to back it up.

Once again, you go for the silliest anti-evo posts to hang your hat on. At least you're consistent. Some anti-evo recently claimed that we share 97% genetic similarity with corn; how on earth did you miss that one? You're slipping. :)

[andysandmikesmom]

I find the idea that a scientific discovery may not have fulfilled its obligation to society, unless it can be stated in a language understandable by even non-scientists to be an interesting statment...but I am not certain that I would actually agree with it....

There is so much in science, which I am sure, that I do not understand, and probably will never understand...I dont have the scientific training, nor the scientific education, to be able to understand most of what is involved in scientific discoveries...

I make attempts, to understand certain things within science, by reading books and articles related to a particular scientific subject, and sometimes I come away, not really understanding much of what I read...and I am not sure, that there is a requirement for me to necessarily understand something scientific, tho I can appreciate the outcomes of many scientific discoveries without understanding the underlying mechanisms...

For instance, I am currently interested in studying the changes of treatments in a particular type of leukemia, and how and why this change has occured, due to scientific discoveries concerning this leukemia...I have endeavored to read as much as I can about this, and tho I do not understand all the mechanisms that are in play, concerning, this discovery, still, what I appreciate are the positive results that have occurred, to those who suffer with this particular type of leukemia...and I am sure, that most of these ill people, care not one whit, about understanding the mechanisms of how this scientific discovery work, but rather are just glad that they have a greater chance of being cured...to me, the worthiness of this particular scientific discovery, is not in understanding it, but rather in how it has a positive result on society...and thus it would fullfill its obligation to a society, by providing better medical care...

It would be wonderful if we all could understand all scientific discoveries and theories, but I do wonder, if that is realistic...I mean, can all scientific discoveries, and theories be put into language so that even non-scientists can understand?....I really dont know...but I am more concerned on the impact of a scientific discovery, or scientific theory, as opposed to necessarily understanding completely all the mechanisms involved...

[TaxRelief]

This whole question is probably coming as a shock to them--as they Google frantically and await rescue.

Hint to all TOE seekers: Confine your search to .edu websites, and put "-berkeley" in the search criteria.

[TaxRelief]

You support Coyoteman's "Theory of Evolution"?

[Old Landmarks]

Good observation, it is hard to miss isn't it. Well stated.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You support Coyoteman's "Theory of Evolution"?"

What's wrong with it?

But before you answer that, answer the question that started this all:

How is evolution too broad to be a scientific theory?

Put up or shut up.

[TaxRelief]

... he threw out a silly insult and hasn't the guts to back it up.

You were insulted by the statement that "The 'Theory of Evolution' ...is too broad to be considered a legitimate scientific theory."?

Why?

[Coyoteman]

evolution

Evolution (evolve - v.), simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). For a more detailed explanation, see our resource on evolution in Evolution 101.

This better? http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/glossary/glossary.php

[Ichneumon]

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.

Neither does anyone else, false accusations by the anti-evolutionists notwitshstanding.

[RunningWolf]

You convert a hypothetical on a degree genetic difference to a distance calculation?

Well that is certainly some absurd sort of logic/NOT. It does not come from MissAmericanPie, but it does fit you like a glove.

Now I guess its time for another aamm rant, lightweight as rants go.

Oh and BTW, neither I nor any other mortal can condemn you to h%%%, even if they quote scripture, so lets drop all those ridiculous insinuations that a threat was made. Capiche?? Good good glad that’s out of the way.

Wolf

[Ichneumon]

After reading the threads it becomes very apparent how an independent observer could determine Theory of Evolution", ala FR, is simply too broad to be considered a legitimate scientific theory.

...if he were, in fact, too stupid to actually understand the material.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I don't see you working hard to back up your claim that evolution is too broad to be a scientific theory. Focus. :)

[Ichneumon]

You convert a hypothetical on a degree genetic difference to a distance calculation? Well that is certainly some absurd sort of logic/NOT. It does not come from MissAmericanPie, but it does fit you like a glove.

Are you a) joking, b) too dense to understand the elementary and laughable nature of MissAmericanPie's "error", or c) so dishonest that you'll say something blatantly false like this in a desperate attempt to "rescue" a fellow evolution-hater, in the hopes that someone will be stupid enough to fall for it?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

The answer is C.

[Ichneumon]

This whole question is probably coming as a shock to them

Yes, persistant ignorance *is* shocking to us, because it is so easily cured (but see my tagline).

as they Google frantically and await rescue.

You have a rich fantasy life.

Hint to all TOE seekers: Confine your search to .edu websites, and put "-berkeley" in the search criteria.

Now you're just being obnoxious, and too cowardly to state clearly the slander you seek to issue by coy implication.

How pathetic.

[Ichneumon]

The answer is C.

I knew that, I just wanted to see how lamely he ran away from giving the honest answer.

[TaxRelief]

Read post #903.
Read post #864.

Do you support Coyoteman's TOE?