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."
[ToryHeartland replied:] 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.
Oh, it's worse than that. She made the *same* bone-headed "error" two years ago, and I already pointed out the idiocy of her "math" back then. Now, apparently having learned nothing from getting caught at it before -- or being dishonest enough to try it again after *knowing* it's wrong -- here she is again parroting the same mindless nonsense.
In short, she's acting like a typical anti-evolution creationist. Big surprise.
What *is* funny is that she states this "non-fact" she already *knows* won't fly here in the same post that she tries to sarcastically claim that it's *scientists* who have a slippery notion of what "facts" are... In truth, it's the *anti-evolutionists* who have more than a little "trouble" with sticking to facts, as her blatantly false "3%" claim makes very, very clear.
Here's the post I wrote to her the *first* time she tried to pull this crap on this forum:
Posted by Ichneumon to MissAmericanPie[MissAmericanPie wrote:] There are so many black boxes in their theory, that the veiwing of it on film, well lets just say that it is very revealing.
On News/Activism 06/15/2004 6:53:00 PM CDT · 746 of 1,009
Yet more "creationist math" (as opposed to the real kind):However, we find that Maize (corn) and people share 66.7% of our chain, where horses only share 63.7% of their chain with corn, a difference of 3%. [...] So the next time you hear someone talk about your closest genetic cousin, pull a piece of dried corn out of your pocket and introduce them to another close genetic cousin.
This is... mindbogglingly stupid.
It's like saying that since Miami Florida is 1360 miles from Portland Maine, and Miami is 1244 miles away from Kansas City Missouri, "a difference of 116 miles", that Miami and Kansas City are 116 miles apart, and "So the next time you hear someone in Miami talk about the closest city, pull a brochure of Kansas City out of your pocket and introduce them to another close geographic city."
Yes friends, creationists really do argue crap like this -- and then try to ridicule *science*. The mind boggles.
So if we consider this data we find that primates common ancestor must have sprouted from corn (no pun intended) where the common ancestor of the horse/donkey is closer to fungus then to corn.
No, "we" don't "find" that at all. Not unless "we" are an idiot creationist.
Do we take this seriously? If human and chimp share 98% of our full DNA then we must take a 3% difference between humans / corn and horses / corn with some seriousness.
No, actually, we don't.
My point is that by utilizing the same creative accounting used by anti-creationists we can also draw some weird conclusions about our heritage.
No, the point is that by utilizing weird "creative accounting" which is dishonestly (or cluelessly) *DIFFERENT* from the analyses actually used by scientists (here called "anti-cerationists"), one can *fallaciously* try to ridicule science in a classic case of a "straw man" attack, because it's like beating up a scarecrow version of the real thing, not the real thing itself.
This is very common among creationists, probably because most of them haven't a farking(tm) clue about the science they're trying to attack. But they keep trying anyway.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies
No, what's "very revealing" is how often the anti-evolution creationists get caught posting blatant falsehoods in a dishonest attempt to have a cheap excuse to attack science, and how they KEEP doing it even after they've already gotten caught at it, because all they have is their script of misrepresentations, distortions, and lies. Deprive them of that, and they wouldn't have anything to say at all, so they just keep reading from it even after having already been previously caught using the same false material. They *know* the material is false, they don't *care* -- lying in order to attack science is just fine by them. So remember, "by their fruits shall ye know them".
Why do you anti-evolution nuts keep trying? You're just making fools of yourselves, *and* making all conservatives look bad by association. Or is that your actual goal?
Question for the lurkers: Does *anyone* think the anti-evolutionists on this thread are coming off as fine, upstanding, honest, competent, knowledgeable folks? Let's have a show of hands...
As it appears you are struggling with the definition of a theory, here is some additional information for you:
From an NSF abstract:
As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
Is the relationship between Evangelical Christians and Right-of-center politics a uniquely American phenomenon? Would this be an issue in Europe, Australia or Latin America?
I support every word of his post #864 -- you know, the part where he pointed out that YOU made a claim, and YOU have run away from all attempts to get you to actually support it. Instead, you have played stupid evasion and diversion games, like asking other folks to give you definitions and descriptions.
Sorry, son, but no one's buying it. YOU made a claim, YOU back it up. We'll wait. If past experience is any indication, we'll wait a VERY long time while you continue to play childish games (typical of all anti-evolutionists) wherein you do everything BUT actually support the false claim YOU flung into the conversation like a sack of flaming dung onto a front porch.
Put up or shut up. (Of course, anti-evolutionists are never willing to do *either*).
Great! You go play with this in the philosophy classes and leave scientists alone. Then we'll all be happy.
I'm not exactly a lurker, but I'll speak up for Miss Pie. I think she's honestly doing the very best she can, using all the talents God has given her.
If you dont like my 'rants', then just ignore them...I generally ignore your little tirades, unless they are posted to me personally...you post nothing of substance or interest, so I dont wast my time reading what you write...you should do the same, if you dont like what I write...
That would be fine if it were not true that every individual is committed to a phislophy first, and science second. As it stands, you are no less subject to errors of perception and enunciation than anyone else, so climb down off that high horse of yours and enjoy a dose of another reality you are inclined to deny: you are a philosopher first, and a scientist second.
Hi! Do you know anyone who can state the "Theory of Evolution"?
I have made the observation that "Evolution is too broad a concept and too loosely defined to be a legitimate scientific theory."
And I am a phislopher first, a speller second.
wast=waste in my post #930..
Perhaps the point is not clear:
The Theory of Evolution is too broad a concept and too loosely defined to be a legitimate scientific theory.
The lack of clarification from those who support the "Theory of Evolution" is one indicator that this is true.
Perhaps you'd prefer to discuss a more concrete theory?
He's not high! He's a short, solid little guy, and he's pretty good in the hills.
Who?
I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US, it's a very new phenomenon. For nearly a century, after Reconstruction, that group voted reliably Democrat. They were what was called the "Solid South." They were an important part of Franklin Roosevelt's coalition (creeping socialism nationally, Jim Crow locally), and the same kind of people were early supporters of Lyndon Johnson. These people were generally known as "Progressives," and they were wild supporters of William Jennings Bryant. Bryant, aside from his fame from the Scopes trial, favored the income tax, the popular election of US Senators, and debased currency. He wasn't what we'd consider a conservative, but he was a hero to the group we're speaking about.
Johnson broke the covenant with these people by pushing his civil rights legislation, so they migrated to the Republicans, and we've got them now. They fit well with the Republicans in some ways, in that they're wonderfully patriotic, and great supporters of and participants in the military.
But many of them are still Progressives, so they don't always fit with Republican positions on low taxes and free enterprise. Some do embrace these things, but certainly not all, so this group is an odd mix of issues, especially their unfortunate tendency to favor what can only be described as a cluster of theocratic social issues, which aren't traditionally core Republican values, and which aren't even Constitutional.
They might easily swing back to the other party, and be just as comfortable there as they used to be. That's actually likely, because opposition to civil rights legislation is a dying issue. The South has grown up quite a bit.
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.