Posted on 12/03/2005 6:18:54 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
I’m afraid we live in loopy times. How else to account for the latest entries in America’s culture wars: science museum docents donning combat gloves against rival fundamentalist tour groups and evolution on trial in a Pennsylvania federal court. For those keeping score, so far this year it’s Monkeys: 0, Monkey Business: 82. That's 82 evolution versus creationism debates in school boards or towns nationwide—this year alone. [1]
This past summer, when most Americans were distracted by thoughts of beaches and vacations or the high price of gasoline (even before the twin hits of Katrina and Rita), 2 heavy-weight political figures joined the President of the United States to weigh in on a supposedly scientific issue. US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Arizona Senator John McCain, and President George W. Bush each endorsed the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution in the science classroom. Can anyone reasonably convince me that these pronouncements were not just cynical political punditry but, rather, were expressions of sincere beliefs?
So you have to ask yourself in light of all of these events, are we headed back to the past with no escape in the future? Are we trapped in a new period of history when science, once again, is in for the fight of its life?
In times like these, as inundated as we are by technical wizardry, one might conclude that American technological supremacy and know-how would lead, inevitably, to a deeper understanding or trust of science. Well, it doesn’t. Perhaps just the opposite is true. Technology and gee whiz gadgetry has led to more suspicion rather than less. And a typical American’s understanding of science is limited at best. As far as evolution is concerned, if you’re a believer in facts, scientific methods, and empirical data, the picture is even more depressing. A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Science found that 64 percent of respondents support teaching creationism side by side with evolution in the science curriculum of public schools. A near majority—48 percent—do not believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries. Thirty-three percent believe that a general agreement does not exist among scientists that humans evolved over time [2].
What if we become a nation that can’t chew gum, walk down the street, and transplant embryonic stem cells all at the same time? Does it matter?
New York Times journalist Cornelia Dean, who balances her time between science reporting for the Times and lecturing at Harvard, told me that she believes that science stands in a perilous position. “Science, as an institution, has largely ceded the microphone to people who do not necessarily always embrace the scientific method,” she says. “Unless scientists participate in the public life of our country, our discourse on a number of issues of great importance becomes debased” [3].
Others, such as journalist Chris Mooney, point to the increasing politicization of science as a pollutant seeping into our nation’s psyche. In his recent book, The Republican War on Science, Mooney spells out the danger of ignorance in public life when ideology trumps science.
Science politicization threatens not just our public health and the environment but the very integrity of American democracy, which relies heavily on scientific and technical expertise to function. At a time when more political choices than ever before hinge upon the scientific and technical competence of our elected leaders, the disregard for consensus and expertise—and the substitution of ideological allegiance for careful assessment—can have disastrous consequences [4].
Jon D. Miller, PhD, a political scientist on faculty at Northwestern University’s School of Medicine, believes that the sophisticated questions of biology that will confront each and every American in the 21st Century will require that they know the difference between a cell and a cell phone and are able to differentiate DNA from MTV. For decades, Miller has been surveying Americans about their scientific knowledge. “We are now entering a period where our ability to unravel previously understood or not understood questions is going to grow extraordinarily,” says Miller. “As long as you are looking at the physics of nuclear power plants or the physics of transistors [all 20th Century questions]…it doesn’t affect your short-term belief systems. You can still turn on a radio and say it sounds good but you don’t have to know why it works. As we get into genetic medicine, infectious diseases…if you don’t understand immunity, genetics, the principles of DNA, you’re going to have a hard time making sense of these things” [5].
These ideological battles aren’t likely to vanish any time soon. If anything, an organized and emboldened fundamentalist religious movement buttressed by political power in Washington will continue to challenge accepted scientific theory that collides with religious beliefs. So one must ask, is it too farfetched to see these ideological battles spilling over into areas of medical research and even into funding at the National Institutes of Health?
Now I am not asking for a world that doesn’t respect religious belief. My education as a Roman Catholic balanced creed and science. In the classroom of my youth, one nun taught creationism in religion class while another taught evolution in science, and never the twain did meet.
So what does one do? How can a medical student, a resident, or a physician just beginning to build a career become active in these larger public battles? Burt Humburg, MD, a resident in internal medicine at Penn State’s Hershey Medical Center, is one role model. He’s been manning the evolutionary ramparts since his medical school days in Kansas in the late 1990s when he became active in Kansas Citizens for Science. On a brief vacation from his residency volunteering as a citizen advocate for the federal trial in Pennsylvania, he said education is the key role for the physician. While he realizes that medical students, residents and physicians might not view themselves as scientists, per se, he sees himself and his colleagues as part of the larger scientific collective that can’t afford to shirk its duty. “The town scientist is the town doctor, so whether we want it or not, we have the mantle—the trappings—of a scientist” [7].
It is time for the medical community, through the initiative of individual physicians, to address not only how one can heal thy patient, but also how one can heal thy nation. There are many ways to get involved; from the most rudimentary—attending school board meetings, sending letters to the editor, and volunteering at the local science museum—to the more demanding—running for office, encouraging a spouse or partner to do so, or supporting candidates (especially financially) who are willing to speak out for science. As Tip O’Neill, the larger-than-life Speaker of the House of Representatives, famously declared, “All politics is local.” Speak out for science. Isn’t that a message that should be advanced in every physician’s office?
Northwestern’s Jon Miller concedes that speaking out may come with a price, “It won’t make…[physicians]...popular with many people but is important for any profession, particularly a profession based on science” to do so [5]. Consider this: shouldn’t civic leadership be embedded in the mind of every blooming physician? In the end, doesn’t combating this virulent campaign of anti-knowledge lead us back to that old adage of evolutionary leadership by example, “Monkey see, monkey do?” Seize the day, Doc.
PatrickHenry has contributed far more resources to these threads than I have seen from you or most other posters, including myself.
I am glad you acknowlege that.
And I rather doubt the authorities will, either, if it continues.
If you insist such an exchange did not take place, I'll provide links to the direct posts so that everyone can understand.
Funny thing is, PH hasn't posted here since last night. Why the *Oh so the great PH chimes in."? It's not like he was even posting anything then (post 250) *at* anybody either. These creationists really fear the Grand Master. :)
And, it just so happens that the government (regrettably) has a near monopoly on education, and that ID supporters are attempting to use the government and schools to promote their theory (instead of establishing their theory through scientific channels). The analogy holds.
Why aren't there dozens or hundreds of peer-reviewed articles in major journals that propound what ID predicts and what its mechanism is? Don't give me the old canard about scientists "keeping it out"... a physics luminary like Einstein worked very hard to disprove and discredit quantum mechanics, but the scientific community was persuaded by the arguments and usefulness of QM. Where are the arguments for ID? What is its fundamental usefulness as a theory?
There are no arguments for ID, no explanations for its mechanics, no usefulness as a theory, because it isn't science. Please tell me exactly what ID predicts will occur in the future, what mechanism it operates by, and how that enhances our knowledge of the way the universe works...
No wonder American children don't do well with science, even leaving religion out of it, if science teachers can't find away to show the students something of the history, applications, and moral influences in a positive manner, then America will continue to fall behind in its edge in science.
Most humans don't compartmentalize...what they learn in English may help them in math and vice versa. An understanding of history and philosophy may help a student with his geometry(when I understood what Pythagoras was trying to do with mathematics, ie. get closer to the gods, I began to understand the reasoning behind mathematican and geometric PROOFS).
Science has a bigger problem in this country, then some proposal to allow a little creationism into biology class...the entire issue regarding its teaching across all the realms of science(chemistry,physics, ect) needs to be re-examined.
Most of it of course, especially in public schools, has to do with NEA inteference with attempts to upgrade the quality and education of new teachers. I think you have more to fear from leftist politics and unions stifling the education of students then you would from a school board here or there allowing a little religious discussion into a biology class. It seems that the politics of sexual identity gets more funding in the public schools then a lot of science classes.
I think some of you science teachers and workers in the field need to step back and take an overall look at the public school systems and see just who the real enemies of science education are. What the religious folk may be proposing pales in destructiveness to what the liberal progressives and their PC, EMOTION AND GUILT LADEN proposals are doing to our schools.
Just who are the real enemies of science anyway? Step back from compartmentalized views of science and take a very good look.
Ahhh he just likes to see a good dust up...and yes I do acknowledge his contributions!
If it's my post you're talking about, be sure to quote it all.
I'm sure your "authorities" would be very upset at the idea of coopting democrats. :-)
This is a conservative website, not a RINO cheerleading club.
I was just saying Hello to Patrick...meant no insult at all!
Patrick should know by now I'm no enemy of real science, my interests are more philosophical and political anyway. I ask questions. I play the Devil's advocate and I want to see that those scientists advocating a more materialistic view of life be forthcoming about their own biases and how that view impacts their work when they criticise those who have more of a theistic view of life which may or may not color their scientific work.
I'm all in favor of an understanding of history and philosphy. That's why I support what used to be correctly called a liberal education.
Thus science majors took history, govermnent, economics, philosophy, music appreciation, Engish literature, foreign language etc classes along with non science majors.
Unfortunately, non science majors did not take science classes in the same way, it was one or two classes like "biology for non science majors."
Resulting in well rounded scientists and one sided everyone else, a trend which I understand is continuing.
No way am I going to dilute the science classes. If I had my druthers I'd increase the science requirements for everyone else instead.
Why should it when the fruits of science can be so easily turned against men?
WMDs and toxic environments are every bit as much a "legacy" of science as is modern medicine.
And if anyone complains that these powers are in the control of amoral practitioners, or that the general populace deserves a seat at the table, then they are knuckledragging luddites.
They need to be put in their place!
The child was dead. It was an attempt to save her life. She lasted twenty days. Christian Barnard's first heart transplant lasted......18 days.
dead = "dead"
Oh I wasn't calling for dilution....a DNA double helix doesn't change despite the politics of the land. Just asking that you take a good look at what is really damaging the quality of science teaching in America...and it isn't religious folks.
By the way, another thing to keep in mind is that there is a certain Islamic sect that would kill both you and me if they could get their hands on us. I don't think you have that to fear from the Kansas school board.
Guess who the Kansas School Board called as a witness.
Mustafa Akyol.
Yes, I have something to fear from the Kansas school board.
And don't forget, according to the Kansas school board science no longer looks for natural or even primarily natural causes.
The child was alive and could quite possibly have lived longer using a chimp rather than a baboon heart.
You seem to have an odd definition of dead, even in quotes.
subcategorical placemarker
I don't think the Kansas school board is going to shoot you nor most Christians for that matter. The Kansas School board called a lot of witnesses, evolutionary biologists too, unfortunately they never bothered to show up to defend their point of view.
You made the point that there are Islamic groups who would be happy to kill me.
I agree.
I pointed out that the Kansas school board called Mustafa Aykol as a witness and you seem to have jumped to their defense.
So, I will ask you if you know who he is?
Aykol=Akyol
Wrong. As with any group that refuses to play by the rules -- in this case that your views must first succeed, on merit, as science before they deserve a place in science curricula -- and instead pursues affirmative action, bar lowering, or other special dispensation; "diplomacy" and other forms of appeasement will only encourage them to pursue such illegitimate avenues more vigorously.
Surely you would agree with this principle if the focus were on appeals for affirmative inclusion of environmentalism (as opposed to scientific ecology), of identity group icons in history, or any of the numerous curricular emendations constantly sought, and too often obtained, by the political left.
The only appropriate and effective response to this is absolute, unapologetic and unbending INSISTENCE and high and hard-nosed academic standards; restricting curricula to covering material with objective academic merit.
When creationism, or ID, or any non- or extra- evolutionary view has earned such merit, I have no objection to teaching it, which in such case will happen as a matter of course anyway. In the meantime I'm not "shifting" one single, solitary inch.
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.