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."
Barbara Dahl isn't the only one finding math tough.
He opposes the forced indoctrination of students with government money.
Or is there some error in wintertime's science?
It's statements such as this one that make me doubt your sincerity with regards to evolution. The "evolution is irrelevant" argument is a tired creationist canard. This, combined with the silly notion that science class is compelled speech tends to convince me of the opposite.
I've got news for you: The anti-evolutionists will continue to have "deep resentment" about science whether schools are privatized or not.
Why bring societal pressure to bear against the study of evolution? What point is there in doing this?
I don't know, you'll have to ask the AECreationists/IDers, they're the ones "bringing societal pressure to bear against the study of evolution". Actually, I *know* why they do it...
For the most part, only a very tiny, tiny minority of scientists are directly involved in evolution. The vast majority of scientists are working on projects that require that NO thought be given to the matter of evolution.
Perhaps you'd care to quantify "a very tiny tiny minority" and "vast majority" as you're using them in these sentences, so as to turn your statements into something other than vague hand-waving.
If societal pressure regarding evolution were eliminated,
Good luck with *that* one... The anti-evolutionists will hate the findings of evolutionary biology, and many other fields of science, no matter whether it's taught in "government schools" or not. If they succeed in destroying public schools, they'll still rail against science being promoted *anywhere*, including on TV, in magazines, in various private schools, etc.
by eliminating government schools,
Not really the core issue, no matter how much you think it is.
then that tiny number of scientists doing the break through work in evolution could go about their work in anonymity, free of political pressure.
With all due respect, you're very naive on this topic.
Regarding "one trick pony": This is a personal insult.
Would you prefer, "tunnel-visioned"?
Note that the Creationists continue to make a simple arithmetic error. None of them will ever admit that. The benefits of a public school education.
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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Examination? Examination?
OK....Let's examine the last 1/2 of the lead post.
Should government be in the business of shoving either evolution or ID down the throats of resistant children?
Should Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas even be voting on matters that offend freedom of conscience or that will have non-neutral religious consequences for many of the students?
If you examine this, you will need to conclude that government schools must be abolished and that the only solution to these continuing curriculum wars is vouchers, tax credits, and eventual complete separation of school and state.
He has only spoken out against evolution
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please post even one example of my slandering the theory of evolution.
However, I do not support bullies who would use the threat of police action to force either evolution or ID on resistant K-12 children, their parents, or threaten fellow citizens with the sheriff's auction of their homes or businesses if they refuse to support government schools doing this.
And,,,yes,,,,I do consider my evolutionists, who do not speak out against this abuse, bullies.
I suppose that would make him more of a blasphemer than a heretic.
Perhaps I will make similar assumptions about those "Christian Evolutionists" who remain strangely silent on those Flying Spaghetti Monster threads.
wintertime is to the evolutionists what John McCain is to the Republican Party...
No, it would make him less than honest.
Somehow 'one who serially repeats frequently repeated errors' does not seem an adequate description in this case. In this case, only l**r is truly fully descriptive.
These guys:
Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
Arranged this way:
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
Any more questions?
If only you would post some skull pics, then mock a few Creationists..
They just might love you again.
They just might love you again.
I have a lot more. I like bones:
Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)
Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)
Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)
Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)
Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)
Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38
Antonio Carlos Jobim
Portuguese lyrics by Antonio Carlos Jobim
Dbm7 C7 B7/4 Bb7/-5
This is just a little samba, Built upon a single note
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.