Such understatement.
Meanwhile...
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."
Blah Blah Blah.... government schools suck.... blah blah blah...
You're on the wrong thread. You're a one trick pony, and that pony's one trick is getting tiresome. And there is NO WAY you support evolution. That's just silly for you to even pretend. :)
They still laugh at Rosie Ruiz. She's actually a good model for ID, dashing out of nowhere to the finish line, and trying to claim a victory she hadn't earned.
You ain't no evolutionist. You may claim to be, but then you could also claim to be a Martian; the evidence in either case shows otherwise.
Please, don't be so casual with your close relatives.
Perhaps the point is not clear:
"Perhaps" you're dodging again, instead of getting down to the business of supporting your false claim, or retracting it.
And that point *IS* entirely clear.
The Theory of Evolution is too broad a concept and too loosely defined to be a legitimate scientific theory.
Yeah, so you keep saying, like over a dozen times now, and keep failing to support when challenged to do so.
The lack of clarification from those who support the "Theory of Evolution" is one indicator that this is true.
Congratulations, you're an idiot. The fact that no one wants to play your time-wasting evasion games is NOT "one indicator that this is true".
On the other hand, your utter failure to even *begin* to support your own claim, while trying to dishonestly put the ball in *our* court, is very much an "indicator" that you really can't support your claim.
Furthermore, the fact that YOU keep asking US to do YOUR homework for you shows that you aren't even equipped to do so. You claim that, "evolution is too broad a concept and too loosely defined", and yet you have to ask *US* to describe it to you, which clearly shows that you haven't a clue yourself what it actually is in the first place. You make ludicrous and and wrong claims about how "broad" it is, yet can't even state from your *OWN* knowledge exactly how broad or non-broad it really is. You have to stop and go, "um, guys, if you'll describe it to me, *then* I'll finally be able to measure how broad it is"...
Pathetic.
We're not going to do YOUR homework for you. *YOU* need to support your claims about how broad or non-broad evolutionary theory is, and how "loosely" or non-loosely it is "defined", so that *YOU* can support *YOUR* claims about the degree of "broadness" and "looseness". But obviously, you're entirely unable to do so, so instead you just keep playing these stupid games, which aren't fooling anyone at all.
Do you realize what a fool you're making of yourself?
Furthermore, even if you *did* manage to actually get around to substantiating your vague notions about how "broad" or "loose" evolutionary theory is (and you haven't even got a clue on *that*), you'd STILL not have yet established any level of support for your claim, because next you'd have to demonstrate what exactly the alleged cut-off point is for when something is "too broad to be a legitimate scientific theory", and/or "too loosely defined to be a legitimate scientific theory".
Do get back to us when you actually have all the components of your argument in line and can substantiate them, won't you?
Until then, it's obvious to absolutely everyone that you're just flailing, because you're too ill-equipped to actually support your silly claim, and too dishonest to retract it.
Perhaps you'd prefer to discuss a more concrete theory?
Perhaps I'd prefer that you support your bogus claim, or retract it. Or at least stop playing these puerile games in your desperate but transparent attempts to "hide" the fact that you're incapable of doing either.
Nah, just start yelling about how geography classes must start teaching the controversy... :-)
The attack thread! They even eat their own if they fail to fall into line. Each of them has attacked "wintertime" now because he dares to defy the politically correct line.
He *has* made his point, whether he knows it or not, even though it's not the one he *meant* to make. The point he has made is that he is unable to substantiate his false accusation, and unwilling to retract it.
This comes as no surprise.
No-kin-to-monkeys bump
The attack thread! They even eat their own if they fail to fall into line. Each of them has attacked "wintertime" now because he dares to defy the politically correct line.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My fellow evolutionists are bullies.
One-trick placemarker.
Such understatement.
Meanwhile...
That's because unlike the anti-evolutionists, who will cheerfully support each other's lies, evolutionists actually are capable of independent thought and will disagree with each other if they think someone has said something that doesn't hold up to examination.
But only anti-evolutionists would be so simple-minded as to mistake this for "eating their own".
No, we're not, but thanks for making false, insulting slanders against your "fellows", while you kiss up to anti-evolutionists who make the most vile of posts and do violence to the truth.
You're a strange sort of "fellow evolutionist", buddy.
No-kin-to-monkeys, [clack][clack]
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.