Posted on 04/12/2010 8:35:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A section describing survey results about the American public's beliefs about evolution and the Big Bang was removed from the 2010 edition of Science and Engineering Indicators. According to a post on the AAAS's Science Insider blog (April 8, 2010) and a subsequent report in Science (April 9, 2010; subscription required), although survey results about evolution and the Big Bang have regularly appeared in the National Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators, its biennial compilation of global data about science, engineering, and technology, they were absent from the 2010 edition.
NCSE's Joshua Rosenau decried the decision, saying, "Discussing American science literacy without mentioning evolution is intellectual malpractice ... It downplays the controversy." Also reportedly dismayed by the decision was the White House. "The Administration counts on the National Science Board to provide the fairest and most complete reporting of the facts they track," Rick Weiss, a spokesperson and analyst at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, told Science.
Previous editions of the Indicators reported the data about the public's beliefs about evolution and the Big Bang, and moreover highlighted the discrepancy between the overwhelming acceptance of evolution by the scientific community and the prevalence of doubt among the general public.
The 2008 edition of the Indicators featured a sidebar on "Evolution and the Schools," for example, and the 2006 edition similarly featured a sidebar entitled "More Than a Century After Darwin, Evolution Still Under Attack in Science Classrooms."
The lead reviewer of the chapter, John Bruer, told Science that he recommended deleting the section because the questions seemed like "blunt instruments" for assessing public understanding. When asked whether people who reject evolution and the Big Bang could be considered to be scientifically literate, he replied, "There are many biologists and philosophers of science who are highly scientifically literate who question certain aspects of the theory of evolution," but conceded that they would not be likely to regard the statement about humans having evolved from earlier species as false.
Officials at the National Science Board defended the decision. Louis Lanzerrotti, chair of the board's Science and Engineering Indicators committee, told Science that the questions were "flawed indicators of science knowledge because the responses conflated knowledge and beliefs." George Bishop, a political scientist at the University of Cincinnati who is familiar with the difficulties of polling about evolution, regarded that position as defensible, explaining, "Because of biblical traditions in American culture, that question is really a measure of belief, not knowledge."
Jon Miller, a science literacy researcher at Michigan State University who originally devised the question about evolution, disagreed, however, asking, "If a person says that the earth really is at the center of the universe, even if scientists think it is not, how in the world would you call that person scientifically literate?" According to Science, "Miller believes that removing the entire section was a clumsy attempt to hide a national embarrassment. 'Nobody likes our infant death rate,' he says by way of comparison, 'but it doesn't go away if you quit talking about it.'"
The text deleted from the report is available (PDF) on Science's website. It observes that 45% of Americans in 2008 regarded the statement "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals" as true, whereas 78% of Japanese, 70% of Europeans, 69% of Chinese, and 64% of South Koreans regarded it as true. It also includes a sidebar entitled "How Schools Teach Evolution," summarizing the results of Berkman, Pacheco, and Plutzer's important paper "Evolution and Creationism in America's Classrooms: A National Portrait."
>>“There are many biologists and philosophers of science who are highly scientifically literate who question certain aspects of the theory of evolution.” <<
They don’t question the Theory as a whole. They do (properly) probe at aspects which are worthy of further scientific examination.
The moment science stops probing ALL theories, it becomes moribund and useless.
These same scientists will be the first to tell you that any alternate Scientific Theory replacement must account for all data explained by the original.
ID, of course, meets none of these criteria.
Plenty of working scientists are Bible believing Christians. Many of the greatest scientists of history believed in six day creation. It does not seem to interfere with their work, nor do I see why it should.
As for the difference between our evolution belief rates over and against Japan and Korea and whatnot, there are more Christians here. Many Christians take the Genesis account just as seriously as the rest of the Bible.
Myself among them.
I could do molecular biology all day. My belief about our universe’s beginnings would not affect my work.
>>
Plenty of working scientists are Bible believing Christians. Many of the greatest scientists of history believed in six day creation. It does not seem to interfere with their work, nor do I see why it should.<<
By “plenty” you mean a handful.
>>As for the difference between our evolution belief rates over and against Japan and Korea and whatnot, there are more Christians here. Many Christians take the Genesis account just as seriously as the rest of the Bible.<<
That has no scientific weight. Belief is belief. Ignorance is ignorance. The Bible is a theological text, wherein God tells us, His Children our relationship with Him. It is not a scientific text, nor does it purport to be one.
>>Myself among them.<<
Yay?
>>I could do molecular biology all day. My belief about our universe’s beginnings would not affect my work.<<
Abiogenesis is a corner (but important if it can track down the true physical origins) of the Life Sciences. It has nothing to do with TToE, TToG, TToP or any other theoretical framework based on scientific principles.
And you are a molecular biologist? Wow — can you explain stochastic degradation effects on long term linear sets? That would help a lot of us.
I wonder if you can explain bacterial immunity without using TToE as a foundation. Another interesting post we can all enjoy, I am sure.
>>Plenty of working scientists are Bible believing Christians. <<
*Doh* I misread this statement. I thought you were saying they were Literal Bible YECers.
It is late and I am a bit tired. Of course, working life science and Christianity are not at odds. Scientists are slightly underrepresented in the physical sciences, but not to the degree that would influence the professions.
I apologize for my misinterpretation on Scientists who are Christians.
As for the rest, I stand by my post.
“Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll “
I guess “handful” is subjective. They are definitely a minority. The point is, they seem to be working without hurting anything. Presumably they are advancing scientific knowledge in a positive way.
No, I am not a molecular biologist. My point is, I could be one and do an effective job and still believe that the world was created in six days.
Can you explain to me why, if I believe that God made the universe in six days, I can’t perform molecular biology, or any other scientific endeavor? It didn’t seem to hamper Newton, Humphrey, Baumgardener, Damadian. . . well known and very well respected scientists from the past and present.
Prejudice is an ugly thing.
If you have no relationship with God just say so. It’s your prerogative.
>>No, I am not a molecular biologist. My point is, I could be one and do an effective job and still believe that the world was created in six days.
Can you explain to me why, if I believe that God made the universe in six days, I can’t perform molecular biology, or any other scientific endeavor? It didn’t seem to hamper Newton, Humphrey, Baumgardener, Damadian. . . well known and very well respected scientists from the past and present.<<
That is like saying a physicist can do his job without understanding mathematics (all your citations did understand it). TToE is the basis for all biologic science research and understanding.
None of your scientists were Biological Scientists.
>>Prejudice is an ugly thing.<<
Willful ignorance is the ugliest prejudice there is. It has the potential to do great harm, like a leech on the Body Science.
>>If you have no relationship with God just say so. It’s your prerogative.<<
Please reread my post. My relationship with God (and His Son, Jesus Christ who died for mine and your sins) is quite secure.
And God wants me to ensure that willful ignorance is banished from the eyes of His Children, a task which I take very seriously.
I did and stand somewhat corrected. In order to use italics on other posts please make it visible. <”p> <”i>.......<”/i> <”/p>
Drop the “
And, of course, you can indicate HTML by using real HTML tags:
<i>Hello World</i><p> becomes Hello World
(with the line break after) Your examples would lead to something like
<"p>This is what I meant to have italicized
Since the " in your tags would confuse the browser.
Which would be <i>This is what I meant to have italicized</i;>
Which in HTML ends up being This is what I meant to have italicized
I STRONGLY suggest you not berate people on HTML skills until yours exceed those of a child of 10.
'<"p>' indeed... give me a break...
Can someone who believe in the resurrection of Christ be a scientist? Or are they scientifically illiterate too?
>>Can someone who believe in the resurrection of Christ be a scientist? Or are they scientifically illiterate too?<<
Purposely misreading my posts doesn’t advance whatever your agenda is, my Friend in Christ.
The understanding (beyond mere belief IMHO) that Christ died for my and all mankind’s sins (including yours) does not obviate an understanding of the rules His (and our) Father put in place when He created the Universe.
You posit a false dichotomy, my friend.
John Ray, the founder of Biology, was a six day creationist.
Scientifically literate? Not by today’s standards, apparently.
“Ray saw no conflict between his Christian beliefs and his scientific work. In fact, he believed that scientific investigation ‘was a proper exercise of man’s faculties and a legitimate field of Christian inquiry.’ (McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of World Biography, 9:118, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA, 1973.)
Ray adamantly believed that all things—the heavens, the earth, and living organisms—were created by an infinitely wise and loving God. He believed that the infinite detail of the structure and function of living organisms was clear evidence of Divine wisdom. He expressed this in two widely read books. The second of these, entitled The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation, became a classic. He also wrote a theological book entitled Persuasive to a Holy Life.
Ray wrote a paper for the Royal Society completely opposing spontaneous generation—the idea that life can arise spontaneously from non-living matter. (J.G. Crowther, Founders of British Science: John Wilkins, Robert Boyle, John Ray, Christopher Wren, Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton, Cresset Press, London, p. 94, 1960.)
Ray quoted experiments by Francesco Redi which contradicted spontaneous generation. Ray said that ‘My observation and affirmation is that there is no such thing in nature’ and he referred to spontaneous generation as ‘the atheist’s fictitious and ridiculous account of the first production of mankind and other animals.’(previous reference)
Ray never doubted that the plants and animals were created by God in distinct kinds, but at one stage he questioned whether one species could change into another. However, after extensive scientific investigation of plants and animals, he concluded that species had remained distinct. Ray concluded that the plants and animals were ‘the works created by God at first, and by Him conserved to this day in the same state and condition in which they were first made.’(J. Ray, quoted in: H.M. Morris, Men of Science, Men of God, Master Books, El Cajon, CA., USA, p. 18, 1982.)
I am not misreading your posts. The article beginning this thread states that those who believe in six day creation are scientifically illiterate. I find that ludicrous.
I’d like to know, since resurrection is scientifically impossible, can one believe in that and still be scientifically literate? Creation ex nihilo is scientifically impossible, as is ascending into the heavens in a chariot of fire, appearing in an upper room out of nowhere, having a finger spontaneously write on a wall. . .the Bible is full of scientifically impossible events.
Can we believe in those scientifically impossible events and still be scientists? Or is the world of science open only to those who do not believe the Bible is literally true?
Mr. Rosenau dry up your tears, after the man created hoax of globull warming using that most worshiped 'scientific methodology' scientists are less credible than the lying king BamBamKennedy.
I’d like to know, since resurrection is scientifically impossible, can one believe in that and still be scientifically literate? Creation ex nihilo is scientifically impossible, as is ascending into the heavens in a chariot of fire, appearing in an upper room out of nowhere, having a finger spontaneously write on a wall. . .the Bible is full of scientifically impossible events.
You make the mistake of suggesting that since the world exists in a physical world, that God cannot intervene as he sees fit. Of course, you bring up the concept of "miracles" -- the Virgin Birth, Healing the infirmed, His Resurrection.
The point is that these miracles are not subject to scientific scrutiny. No one asks for the Ob/Gyn report of Mary. And we see miracles in today's ultra-scientific world, which science has no answer for.
Your mistake (please do not take that as an attack) is to suggest that somehow undermines the scientific milieu. Of course miracles do not undermine science since they can not be reproduced nor reduced to understandable rules. They may, can and do have significance to us as people, but for science they add no knowledge.
Can we believe in those scientifically impossible events and still be scientists? Or is the world of science open only to those who do not believe the Bible is literally true?
Unless and until you can cross the chasm of data presented by billions, or (in the case of the earth itself) hundreds of billions of data and come up with a scientific explanation that properly addresses all of them (which the combined life sciences do), you have a problem with an Earth that is 6,000 years old (or so) and a universe built in 144 terrestrial hours immediately preceding that.
You can't wish those artifacts away.
But I want to emphasize that many of us see God as the Maker of All and, yes, he decided to break His Rules because His Children needed to really understand His Ultimate Love -- and that Love came with a very real price that we, as fragile and fallible humans cannot repay, but can at least comprehend, appreciate and venerate.
>>Mr. Rosenau dry up your tears, after the man created hoax of globull warming using that most worshiped ‘scientific methodology’ scientists are less credible than the lying king BamBamKennedy. <<
The fact AGW is and was a scam makes no dent into any long-term scientific pursuit. TToE is over 200 years old supported by billions of very real artifacts — which you can see, touch, feel and analyze.
AGW was built in the minds of opportunists who saw federal dollars to see and work backwards to the conclusions that will be subsidized.
And science (belatedly) is finally stepping forward to expose the lack of scientific rigor in AGW.
All is not lost, but the AGW scam doesn’t undermine TToE any more than Piltdown man did.
Toe began at the 'garden party' when the serpent whispered into the woman's ear. Wait until BamBamKennedy and his administration get finished administering upon US that 'scientific methodology'.
Some creationists know evolutionary theory better than some scientists do.
The one American non-scientist demographic group most likely to believe in creationism of some kind (old earth or young earth), namely the homeschooled, is most likely to ace a test of questions of scientific literacy such as what a molecule is, what various kinds of radioactive emissions are, the speed of light, the properties of gravity, etc.
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.