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."
Obviously your are incapable if backing up and supporting your assertion that evolution is too broad to be a scientific theory.
Apparently, you have no idea what you are talking about.
All you have done is state the two main postulates of general relativity. You have not "stated the special theory of relativity" as you are asking others to do with evolutionary theory. Others have already directed you to links containing the definition and main postulates of evolutionary theory.
As you have made the claim evolution is too broad, the burden is on you to describe the theory and demonstrate how it is too broad.
You have to understand, anti-evolutionists have a very unique idea about burden of proof. In their world, if they make a claim, it is up to YOU to provide evidence for it.
Perhaps I exaggerated, but not by much. I see no room for modern medicine in editor's posts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1588489/posts?page=91#91
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1597207/posts?page=109#109
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1597207/posts?page=17#17
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1602230/posts?page=73#73
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1597207/posts?page=223#223
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1597207/posts?page=173#173
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1597207/posts?page=172#172
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1597207/posts?page=168#168
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1597207/posts?page=166#166
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1597207/posts?page=164#164
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1597207/posts?page=155#155
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1597207/posts?page=138#138
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1597207/posts?page=116#116
So the modern use of the word is approximately as old as its object. Astronomy is a bit older, but experimental science as an institution is not much older. Certainly there were no university degrees in physical science prior to this.
I got the Norman Prime.
Thanks for listing those posts of editors...I just read one post, the one marked post #166, and there he does state, in bold letters, that "Western medicine is unable to cure anything"...The post marked as #168, was a direct reply, to actually me, when I questioned him about my having my appendix removed in my post #163 on the same thread...
It does seem from these posts that editor does not have any high regard for modern medicine....
Creationism and new-ageism seem to be strongly correlated.
On the plus side, in this day and age, that meme is inherently self-removing...
Nah, it just produces a sub-population of relatively sturdy, stupid people.
I asked him if Western soldiers on duty in Iraq should have field hospitals offering the best care modern medicine can summon up for those injured in battle?
Or should we bring the field hospitals home and rely on the power of prayer and God's manifest will for our brave fighting men's welfare?
He never did answer.
Quite amusing to those of us who know what the term "illiteracy" means!
An excellent description but I would have tried to place "puerile" and "bizarre" in there somewhere.
Did I miss something? Why have you stopped calling the crapping cur by his previous Freeper name, "Mordo"?
Perhaps wintertime supports TaxRelief's definition of the Theory of Evolution. You know, the one that goes "".
I am reminded of another frequent crevo debate poster. The one who claims to be an atheist, but who appears to despise atheism and whose arguments consist of a row of creationist talking-points.
Isn't there some kind of commandment prohibiting "bearing false witness" or some such? Ah, but then, "commandment" is too broad a term to teach to CRIDers.
But for some, the practice of Taqqiya keeps the spirit of The Law.
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.