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."
um... I'm not sure I made my point clearly enough.
a long time ago, there were no photosynthetic organisms. photosynthetic organisms evolved from non-photosynthetic organisms 9probably from chemosynthetic organisms), and their propagation dramatically altered the Earth's atmosphere and, as a consequence, its climate.
That is one example of climate change resulting directly from biological evolution.
not quite so long ago, there were no trees on the land, only smaller plants. Trees evolved from these. trees colonized certain terrain and exploited specific ecological niches, and created forests. Unlike deserts or even grasslands, forests are rain-engines: they actually work to maintain a favorable local climate.
this is another example of climate change resulting from biological evolution.
The "fact of them being there" is a direct result of "how they change", so it is not clear to me whether you had a point to make.
Well, I think that linguistics as you have described it here is a poor analogy. Natural selection does not have a goal(supposedly). Language has a goal, namely communication.
No, but ignorance of science as Creation is.
How offensive to the God you claim to worship is rejecting His power, His knowledge, and His intent? By embracing such ignorance, how can you really claim to understand His Creation, you steaming troll?
I think you are missing the gist of the analogy. Natural selection is a mechanism that affects biological organisms. In the language analogy the analogues are biological organisms and languages not languages and natural selection.
If language has the goal of communication then biological organisms have the goal of reproduction. Language does not change through selection as much as drift but since drift also affects evolution then the analogy is accurate.
I have taken care of a number of women who refused any medical treatment, due to their religious beliefs...this all took place within the environment of the nursing home setting....we were not even allowed to take their temps, or pulse, or blood pressure, as I am assuming that they and their familes felt taking vital signs was of no use, as they were not going to do anything medical anyway, to counteract a rising temp, or too low or too high of a blood pressure...it was sometimes difficult for the nursing staff to care for them, as we could do nothing for them medically speaking, nothing to help them at the end of their lives...
I also have acquaintances who refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds...the woman I know, was diagnosed with cancer, and she refused medical treatment, not because she objected to the chemo which would have been involved, but because she knew she would probably need blood transfusions because of the side effects of the chemo, often lowering blood counts...so she willingly died, convinced that she was doing the correct thing, for her salvation...she left behind a husband(who believed as she did), and two young sons....I have often wondered how the sons felt about this...would their faith be weakened because they saw their mom die from lack of treatment, or would their faith have been strengthened, because they saw their mom stand firm in her beliefs...This was many years ago, today those young boys would be young men...I was more an acquaintance of the lady who died, her husband had no wish to speak to me, as I was not of his faith, and he was one, who believed that there should be a cutting off all ties with those he considered to be non-believers in his faith...so I have never been able to know how these two boys viewed this situation....
I do believe that all have the right to make medical decisions which are in agreement with their religious beliefs...thats a given right...I guess I really just question, whether ones salvation depends on receiving or not receiving medical treatment, and what kind of treatment...
Well, this is what he states.
but an illustration of some analogous processes in a different field: linguistics
Since this is hypothetical, weigh the consequences of the woman abandoning her faith to a futile attempt at cure, followed by a prolonged and lingering death. We cannot see the future, and a cancer cure is not guaranteed.
Assuming you're female, the difference between you and a man is 155 million base pairs (the size of an X chromosome)
You mean, a ridiculous delusion against an outside chance?
Easy choice.
What ridiculous delusion? A choice on how to die when faced with death?
No, it's evolution. The evolution of type II photosynthesis, which made plants far more efficient, decreased global CO2 levels and made the earth far colder.
No, the ridiculous delusion is faith in mythical entities.
If it's the CO2 levels that really cause global warming. There were some graphs posted recently on other threads that showed no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.
Well, more people think that you are ridiculously deluded for not seeing the obvious. And there it stands.
Photosynthesis means that the Earth becomes a net energy importer. The Sun's energy can be captured and held rather than immediately radiated away.
Perhaps you haven't fully read what I wrote. This is not really where I am headed; I fully respect the meticulous trauma care given accident victims, for example. What I reject is the destructive, fraudulent practices such as calling poisons that are found to be deadly during their trials 'cures' when all they do at best for the condition for which they are prescribed is mask the symptoms, all the while they deceitfully hide the deadly side effects that were observed. They even run TV commercials with actors falsly claiming restoration of their health, as the disclaimers are run at the bottom of the screen in fine print and at high speed.
The #1 cause of death is this country is "medical misadventure" but they even hide that obfuscatory term by allowing the person that caused the premature death to prepare the death certificate, blaming the death on some other cause, usually pnuemonia since that is the rapid result of destroying a persons immune system with drugs and/or radiation, and never confessing to the obvious.
As for your friend, and others like her, their premature deaths are unnecessary, since there so many effective, non-invasive therapies for cancer available. Any person with a computer and an internet connection can find all the information needed to get connected with a naturopathic practitioner (most of them MD's or DO's that have gone straight ) that can guide them.
I would think that almost everyone would be somewhat familiar with Dr. Stanislauw Brdzinsky's case. He wes attacked by the AMA and FDA in a criminal case and proved in court that he regularly cured cancer through diet and herbal therapy.
The goal of language isn't to change things like Latin into French.
'The obvious' is something that can't be seen, heard, felt or otherwise detected, and depends on 2000 year old testimony of dubious provenance. Yes, I can see why I'd choose that over modern medicine.
And, come to think of it, we're talking JW's here. So, unless you're a JW, you don't even believe their nonsense about blood. Yet, such is your odd attachment to 'faith', you're willing to approve something you believe to be wrong, over something that you concede might possibly be right, because one is 'religion', and the other is 'science', and you've bought into the former.
Truly and completely insane.
Quack quack quack.
Or you could decide you'd prefer to live out the year.
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.