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."
Ok...
Now what???
"Bigger again" -- 'again' on sample A, commencing the series?
Your glosses on the diagram appear to be running backward; perhaps that is why you have utterly misunderstood (and thereby misrepresented) this diagram.
I know, I know, it's a waste of time pointing this out to you. But you run the risk of confusing someone who actually reads these threads for information.
To make it hard for you beady-eyed Evo's to SEE them! ;^)
Hold down your CTRL key, and spin your scrolling mouse wheel. This will change the size of the text for you.
You mean, "lead us not into spamation, but deliver us from Elsie..."
You mean we are supposed to start at the BOTTOM and go UP?????
"Yes or NO?"
Ask God.
Elsie's here!
Let's pile on and tickle 'im 'til he pees his pants!
Thanks for posting that wonderful, utterly crushing evidence again. Not only is it a beautiful series, but you helpfully highlight for us how easy microevolution is too with your commentary on the less significant changes.
Only if you are interested in looking at the data--which you clearly are not.
As you aren't interested in the evidence--nor interested, apparently, in anything beyond spamming-- you are perfectly free to use this chart for wrapping fish, as a decorative placemat, or as a Halloween decoration.
I might suggest that, printed off, the chart's optimal use in your case would be as a permanent dustcover for your keyboard.
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity consists of two postulates:The definition of "relativity theory" is:
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.
"the theory that space and time are relative concepts rather than absolute concepts".As you can see from the example, the definition of a scientific theory is not the same as a clear concise scientific statement of a scientific theory.
"Rather than seeking a definition, which is readily available, I have asked them to state the "Theory of Evolution"."
And we asked you first to back up your silly claim that evolution is too *broad* to be a scientific theory.
You have studiously avoided doing so. Instead, you throw insults at anybody who has the audacity to actually request you back up your claims.
Pretty pathetic.
That's approximate date I had in mind, js1138. 1725 is considered to be in "modern times."
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.