Let the tap-dancing begin.
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."
Well said.. a fully trained "scientist" should then be a philosopher scientist or science philosopher.. being merely a "scientist" negates fully half the spectrum of the questions.. if that.. makeing in essence a "scientist" a poorly trained technician..
"After all, philosophy is basically analysis, extracting meaning from what we see, and projecting meaning out beyond what we can see. If science gathers the data, it is philosophy that analyses it and formulates the new questions for further investigation."
"Its a natural part of the process, and a really good scientist, the ones who go for the big questions, have to walk on the wild side."
That was, I believe, more or less Einstein's attitude on the matter.
There is no way to answer your question without understanding YOUR "Theory of Evolution". How would YOU state the Theory of Evolution?
You said that evolution was too broad to be a scientific theory. I asked you in what way is it too broad. You do not need to know what my understanding of evolution is to answer that question. What you need to do is tell me what YOUR understanding, if any, of evolution is that would make you claim confidently that it's too broad to be a scientific theory. I am assuming you didn't just say that without reason, and that you have some explanation for why you think evolution is too broad to be a scientific theory.
Balls in your court. Do you have an answer?
I would tweak the argument a bit ... a grounding in philosophy isn't necessary to be a good or competent scientist. Most of the questions scientists deal with on a daily basis are narrow and specific enough that they don't have vast philosophical implications.
But you have to be a philosopher to be a great scientist -- one of the fraction of scientists who assemble the narrow, specific findings into a broader view. Like Sagan, Hawking, Gould, and no doubt scores or hundreds of others who don't have their PR skills but are well known within their fields.
By way of analogy, I don't need the guy who installs my kitchen cabinets to have an eye for interior design -- his focus is on making sure the cabinets go in straight and level, according to the plans he is given, and all the doors and drawers work smoothly. But I do need at least one person involved in the process who does know design, both aesthetic and ergonomic.
Most fields of endeavor are like that. Plenty of people can do their jobs well and skillfully without thinking much about the big picture, but they will generally be, and really must be, guided by someone who sees things in context.
Which is why some sort of introductory course in philosophy ought to be taught in high school much more broadly than it is now. Not just memorization of what various philosophers wrote, but how to structure a complex argument and how to spot a flawed one. It would have the side effect of helping make students less susceptible to ad pitches and political spin.
You are proving my point. The "Theory of Evolution" has become a personal thing, and as such, it is too broad to be considered a legitimate scientific theory.
Those issues belong in the family, not in government. Isn't that what all the provisions of the first ammendment are all about?
Preaching to the choir again? ;o)
Thatcherite: The theory of relativity is too broad to be considered a legitimate scientific theory.
Carolina Guitarman: What do you mean by that? Please justify your statement by telling me what your understanding of the theory of relativity is.
Thatcherite: You are proving my point. The "Theory of Relativity" has become a personal thing, and as such, it is too broad to be considered a legitimate scientific theory.
As usual creationist attitudes are almost beyond parody.
Let the tap-dancing begin.
You forgot the step where I am asked by you to tell you MY understanding of the theory of relativity as a precondition for YOU explaining to me why relativity is too broad to be a scientific theory. Apparently it is necessary for you to know what I think before you can explain what you think. After I tell you why I don't need to do so, THEN you tell me I proved your point.
Can't forget the important details.
I was just trying to strip the insanity to its essentials. But you are right, I ommitted some of the true fruitloopiness.
You're correct, it is indeed Dr. Joseph Priestly (1733-1804), the British chemist. I believe he was a Unitarian, and a member of the celebrated 'Lunar Society' (which included Josiah Wedgewood, James Watt and Erasmus Darwin) -- beyond that, for me it's a google. Interesting bio info at http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/ci/1992/Priestley.html
Whether or not you personally endorse (say) the Nicene creed, or what have you, it still represents a pretty good baseline for most Christians...even if some don't recognize it.
Whole-hearted agreement with you here. I'm an Anglican, the Nicene creed is acknowledged in one of the 39 articles of my church (please don't ask me which one, I'd have to look it up!). I'm not unaware of the history of that text, and the politicking that went into it, but that's not really an issue.
But I do understand that a number of very worthy folk (sola scriptura Evangelicals, Mormons, and no doubt others) either don't care for the Creed or reject it altogether; I would never wish to challenge any such as not being Christian! It simply isn't my brand of Christianity, it's not something to argue about.
Can you not state the "theory of evolution"?
How would you know? You'd have to know who your father was to know who your grandfather was...
;^)>
I can, but there's no need to. Can you not back up your claim? I asked you first.
Why is evolution too broad to be a scientific theory. You do not need to know what my understanding of evolution is to answer this question.
Put up or shut up. Or admit you made it up and have no idea what you're talking about.
Why does he need to? You are the one who made a claim about it that he has asked you to justify. Your ducking, diving, dodging, weaving, shimmying, shaking, evading, and misdirecting since your original unwise statement that evidently you cannot back up has been a wonder to behold.
Right. Thus, my quest for the missing link.
Oh wow. It's amazing what you can prove with MissAmericanPie's logic:
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.