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."
Uh, huh...? I'm sure you just tremble at the thought of dems winning...trembling with joy.
Only if we don't know what theories and laws are. Hint: a law is not what a theory becomes when it grows up.
Your characterization of the fossil record is simply dishonest. Obviously not every creature that ever lived is present as a fossil. Fossilization is a rare event. What is true, however, is that creationists have consistently predicted that there are *no* transitional fossils, when in fact there are many thousands.
It boils down to this: one hypothesis predicts no transitional fossils and has no basis for predicting them. Evolution predicts transitional fossils, predicts their characteristics, and predicts the strata in which they are likely to be found. Even a single find falsifies the expectations of creationism.
Your posting "reply" number what to my post. I take that as a sneaky way to reply when you want to pretend you're not replying. As I have never been one of those namby-pambies who run to the mod saying "I must not be spoken to" , you can talk to my i-face.
I'm sure you're sure of a lot of things for which you have no logical or evidential basis.
Big surprise that you're a CRIDer... < /s>
I recommend consigning her to your ignore file. She has nothing to offer; her entire schtick is to accuse scientists of being closet liberals.
No, I don't. But you have conceded the principle that a theory can supersede a law in science. Laws are generally formulas used by engineers. Theories are explanatory.
You may also want to inform them that a theory is not brought home by the stork.
They also get the icky-willies when they have to share a table with a Baptist, and want badly for the GOP to cut religious conservatives loose so that they can bring about a principled DNC majority that they can complain about...while slurping lattes with their liberal soulmates.
I think the religious conservatives are far more valuable than chickenliver 'tarians--they mobilize, they vote, they donate. All 'tarians do is whine.
Not true. "Laws" can be wrong and still be a "law". For example "the law of gravity". However, the theory called "general relativity" has superseded it.
Theories do not become laws.
This statement reeks. Newton's and Einstein's universes imply two radically different, generally contradictory "reference frames". We hang onto Newton's laws because they are computationally cheap approximations that will serve in most low-cost earthbound circumstances, not because they constitute a proper subset of Einstein's laws.
ROFL!
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.