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."
I somewhat agree with you. I think American education is being rent by the extreme right and the extreme left. But if you follow these threads enough, it's clear that the issue has nothing to do with evolution. It's more a case of "science is threatening my fragile religious beliefs". It's happened before; it'll happen again.
ROFL!
Sorry, you just entered the self-parody domain. My work here is done!
Excellent observation.
It can't be an "observation" is it has never been "observed." This is an unfounded allegation. Evos (much more than CRIDers IMHO) are patient and do argue with the facts on our side. CRIDers, by definition, have no "facts" on their side -- just belief.
BTW, it isn't just conservatives who sometimes have a taste for junk science - how about the population bomb, silent spring (DDT), global warming and junk science for the litigation lottery?
I have no quarrel with the contention that a film demonstrates motion, not by mere definition, but because the definition comprehends what is taking place with the still pictures. If a film is to be seen motion itself is necessary. Motion is one of the properties of a film, at least one that is being seen.
But you called universal common descent "evidence", and I maintain that it is not evidence, but an an attempt to explain the evidence you refer to here, i.e., the fossil record. If universal common descent is true simply by definition then there is no conceivable fact of the fossil record that could possibly persuade you otherwise.
Cordially,
Old-Mil hasn't had much to say since he was called out for equating the "hopeful Monster" with punctuated equilibrium. It's one thing for the quote miners to do this, quite another for some who knows better.
Old-Mil hasn't had much to say since he was called out for equating the "hopeful Monster" with punctuated equilibrium. It's one thing for the quote miners to do this, quite another for some who knows better.
I like Texas and I ain't moving!
Scientific theories are in, of course.
Notions, hypotheses (do you know the difference from theories?), propaganda and religion are out.
Let me just add that the L-GLO is an abbreviation for L gulonolactone oxidase. Like most enzymes, it's named for its function, which is to oxidize L-gulonolactone. To claim its original function is unknown is therefore bizarre. It has a common function all across the animal kingdom.
Well, then you can join our Libertarian friend and be a minority of 2.
Nobody wants to tackle the question, though.
Dreaded double post :)
Yep, slowly but surely people are being hoisted on their patards. I am still waiting for links that show evos are impatient.
Miss Pie,
You appear to have missed the boat on democracy as well as science.
The system in place is precisely what the majority wants until it votes otherwise.
A patriotic American scientist
I'm just starting to use the google toolbar spell checker. It does strange things if you try to post while it's displaying the results of the check.
Cordially,
I couldn't agree more, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a scientist who doesn't share that sentiment.
it isn't just conservatives who sometimes have a taste for junk science
Without a doubt! That was the rending of which I spoke in my previous post. Pseudo-science and political correctness are wreaking havoc on the young minds of this country.
You are assuming, of course, that anything outside your personal consciousness actually exists.
Actually, the term "evomaniacs" refers not to true scientists, but rather to the self-educated, cult-like followers of "evomania".
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.