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."
Even a USPS donkey has its downs.
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
If you read this far, I am still awaiting the "gotcha" from your "define the theory of evolution" question earlier.
Good. One last question: What is the "Theory of Evolution"?
"Good. One last question: What is the "Theory of Evolution"?"
Better question:
Why is evolution "too broad" to be a scientific theory? :)
Good. One last question: What is the "Theory of Evolution"?
Sorry, I gave you two definitions already, one from a search at ".edu" and "Berkeley" as you requested.
Don't you think you have trolled enough, and that perhaps now is the time to make your point?
"You are so totally dishonest, that is what boggles the mind."
Sorry, that doesn't constitute any evidence that humans and corn share a 97% genetic similarity. Try again! :)
I have faith in you, Miss Pie.
This makes your agenda clear. You are a propagandist, and are using a site that the rest of us are supporting to propel your own sociopathic goals.
Lurkers, if any are foolish enough to be following this useless mind control experiment, are you enjoying the show?
Hi!
Hello yourself.
Do you know anyone who can state the "Theory of Evolution"?
I know many people who can, including myself.
I have made the observation that "Evolution is too broad a concept and too loosely defined to be a legitimate scientific theory."
Yes you have. And yet again, you keep running away from all attempts to get you to actually support your empty and false claim. Perhaps you'd care to do so now. Or perhaps you'll just play more childish cutesy evasion games, which aren't fooling anyone.
This makes your agenda clear. You are a propagandist, and are using a site that the rest of us are supporting to propel your own sociopathic goals.
I'll take that as a "no".
I'll also take it as the rambling non sequiturs of a person unable to actually grasp what I actually wrote, so he runs off making statements born of his own incoherent mental state.
Try again if you'd like to attempt a response that actually a) addresses something I actually said, or b) demonstrates that you have at least bothered to read it before going off on a bitter, frothing broadside.
Lurkers, if any are foolish enough to be following this useless mind control experiment, are you enjoying the show?
Well *I* am, I always find your rants hiliarious.
I'm not.
Yes, how *dare* we insist that something should actually meet the standards of science before it calls itself science or is taught in science class! How *dare* we ask the anti-evolutionists to stop using gross falsehoods to attack science! What intolerable bullies we are!
I also hold an open mind to ID and am curious to learn more about their mathematical models.
There aren't any. None which are both a) valid and b) actually provide positive support for "ID", anyway.
Remember, they laughed at Ignaz Semmelwiez.
They also laughed at Bozo the Clown. And they laugh at the claims of the "ID" movement for very good reasons.
"They also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
At least Bozo wasn't pretending to be something other than a clown.
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.