Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The partisan corruption of science in the USA
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 1 of 14 (305511)
04-20-2006 4:11 PM


An interesting article, both disturbing and encouraging. Some exerpts:
quote:
. in a 2005 survey measuring the proportion of adults who accept evolution in 34 European countries and Japan, the United States ranked 33rd, just above Turkey. No other country has so many people who are absolutely committed to rejecting the concept of evolution, Miller says. “We are truly out on a limb by ourselves.”
quote:
. longstanding conflicts between personal religious beliefs and selected life-science issues has been exploited to an unprecedented degree by the right-wing fundamentalist faction of the Republican Party.
quote:
In the 1990s, the state Republican platforms in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Missouri, and Texas all included demands for teaching creation science. Such platforms wouldn't pass muster in the election, Miller says, but in the activist-dominated primaries, they drive out moderate Republicans, making evolution a political litmus test. Come November, the Republican candidate represents a fundamentalist agenda without making it an explicit part of the campaign.
quote:
The United States is the only country in the world where a political party has taken a position on evolution.
(although to be fair, I understand it is simply not taught at all in many Islamic countries like Pakistan.)
quote:
more anti-evolution legislation was introduced in just the first six weeks of 2006”12 bills in nine states”than in any year in history.
It is not a 'live and let live' situation any more.
It is not as though we are trying to teach evolution to kids in church Sunday schools as though it were a religion.
Rather, it is the religious fanatics who want creationism or its equivalent taught as if it were science in the science classrooms.
So the question is, how can we possibly decouple politics from religious influence in this country at least to the extent that science education can be protected from corruption?
Can the public-science disconnect problem be solved through education at all?
Are there ways we can increase respect for science and scientists without improving the public's understanding of science?
Should scientists become more politically active, as suggested in the article, and would it make a difference given the low level of respect we have now compared to 50 years ago?
Education section?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Trixie, posted 04-20-2006 5:56 PM EZscience has replied
 Message 5 by RickJB, posted 04-21-2006 4:37 AM EZscience has not replied
 Message 7 by jar, posted 04-21-2006 10:04 AM EZscience has replied
 Message 8 by ThingsChange, posted 04-21-2006 10:43 AM EZscience has replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 14 (305518)
04-20-2006 5:24 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 3 of 14 (305521)
04-20-2006 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EZscience
04-20-2006 4:11 PM


No easy answers
I don't think that it is possible to decouple politics from religious issues as they pertain to science education until we have solved the problem which you mention next, namely the problem of public-science disconnect.
The problem then becomes one of how to reconnect the public with science and that can only be done through education which is being influenced by the meddling of religious politicos. Bit of a chicken and egg situation.
In the short term, public education in science should be targetted at the adult population, after all they're the voters who put the politicians in power in the first place. Science should go to great lengths to ensure that science is not oversimplified to the point where it becomes pap (something which the media excel at) and they should ensure that science programmes and reporting are accurate with regards to the science in question.
I do see a glimmer of hope in the USA with the scathing Dover judgement putting the ID crowd in their place, so to speak, with regards to the constitutional position of teaching religion.
I don't know that scientists becoming more politically active would solve much. After all, we're already accused of following the "evo agenda", of being partisan in our interpretation of data. Becoming more political may well just add grist to their mill.
In trying to increase respect for science and scientists, I think the only way is to show the public exactly how scientists go about their work. That does mean getting into the nitty gritty of experimental design, data collection, data analysis and interpretation of data within the framework of current thought. This would be a longer term solution and would need to begin in schools to educate children as to what science actually is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EZscience, posted 04-20-2006 4:11 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ReverendDG, posted 04-20-2006 11:53 PM Trixie has not replied
 Message 6 by EZscience, posted 04-21-2006 9:18 AM Trixie has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 4 of 14 (305580)
04-20-2006 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Trixie
04-20-2006 5:56 PM


Re: No easy answers
I agree we need to show how science gets to the conclusion, theres a lot of folks even on here who have no clue how science works.
Every post filled with some argument on why this or that isn't science makes me wonder if the poster thinks that scientists just dream crap up instead of looking at data, and framing a theory around it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Trixie, posted 04-20-2006 5:56 PM Trixie has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 5 of 14 (305604)
04-21-2006 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by EZscience
04-20-2006 4:11 PM


Teach the Scientific method over and over...
How many times has one heard otherwise educated adults say of science, "it's a theory not a fact"?
They'll tap it out on a computer blithely unaware that its operation is based on theories of electromagetism.
They'll declare it from a chair on a stage, seemingly unaware that the downward force they exert on both is entirely predictable due to a theory of gravitation.
One way to start would be to clearly teach the scientific method to kids...
This message has been edited by rjb, 04-21-2006 04:48 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EZscience, posted 04-20-2006 4:11 PM EZscience has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 6 of 14 (305641)
04-21-2006 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Trixie
04-20-2006 5:56 PM


Re: No easy answers
Thanks for getting this rolling Trixie.
Trixie writes:
Bit of a chicken and egg situation.
Yes. One possibly constructive idea that came out of the article was that federally=mandated science standards (ironically, now more enforcable because of 'No child left behind') could be used to pressure states into proper science education. The real erosion of science education seems to be at the state level. Maybe we should start linking federal education funding to adoption of real science standards in all the backward states like Kansas and Arkansas ?
Trixie writes:
In the short term, public education in science should be targetted at the adult population
I agree the problem starts at home with ignorant adults, but I think adults are both harder to reach with real scientific info, and more set in their ways. Like trying to teach new tricks to the old dogs instead of the puppies.
Trixie writes:
I don't know that scientists becoming more politically active would solve much.
Not without recovering some public respect for them. The real problem is that it's quite unlikely. Scientists are mostly not the 'political activist' sort. Their lives are pretty much consumed with research and they don't have the time for it.
Trixie writes:
I think the only way is to show the public exactly how scientists go about their work.
Better media coverage of science in action, scientists at work, insights from research that impact everyone, etc. Yes. But how to keep the American public from changing to another news channel? The advertising profit motive in the media is largely responsible for the erosion of progamming quality. It seems to get worse every year, not better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Trixie, posted 04-20-2006 5:56 PM Trixie has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 14 (305654)
04-21-2006 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by EZscience
04-20-2006 4:11 PM


Point out that Biblical Creationism is bad Theology
IMHO one key thing needed is to point out that Biblical Creationism is not just stupid, it's bad Theology. Creationism and its clone ID have been sold on theological as opposed to scientific grounds. They cannot stand on scientific merit and so have been sold using classic marketing techniques.
To counter that we must speak out in the pews, in the churches, online in the forums, school board meetings, PTA and in daily relationships, and keep pointing out why Biblical Creationism is bad theology. We need to stop worrying if we are going to offend someones sensibilities by criticizing their religious beliefs, and go ahead and say that they are wilfully ignorant, forcing continued ignorance on innocent children and perverting the message of Christianity, denying GODs will by not using the capability She gave us for critical thinking, and ignoring the one record actually written by GOD, the world around us.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EZscience, posted 04-20-2006 4:11 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by EZscience, posted 04-21-2006 11:25 AM jar has not replied

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 8 of 14 (305663)
04-21-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by EZscience
04-20-2006 4:11 PM


Europe is not as enlightened as some think
article from OP writes:
The United States is the only country in the world where a political party has taken a position on evolution.
Not entirely true. Italy has political stances.
From Italy Keeps Darwin in its Classrooms | Europe | News and current affairs from around the continent | DW | 03.05.2004 :
quote:
Italy's creationists were jubilant until Italian Education Minister Letizia Moratti flip-flopped on cutting the theory of evolution from national school curricula last week. ... But, as in the United States, creation and evolution are political issues in Italy. In February, Alleanza Nazionale, one of parties in Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's governing coalition, held a week long series of events to dispute the theory of evolution. In the course of a conference entitled "Teaching Evolution: a Fairytale for the Schools," parliamentarian Pietro Cerullo linked Darwin's theory to leftist thought.
Italy was in an uproar for weeks after the education ministry released reworked national curricula that left the theory of evolution out of secondary schools. "Pupils aged 10 to 13 are much too young to be confronted with such complicated material," Director General Silvio Criscuoli, who was responsible for the teaching plans, explained. Only older pupils who specialized in natural science would have learned about the theory of evolution.
And, the Brits are split on the issue as well, as seen from:
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Britons unconvinced on evolution
quote:
Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons. ...
Andrew Cohen, editor of Horizon, commented: "I think that this poll represents our first introduction to the British public's views on this issue.
"Most people would have expected the public to go for evolution theory, but it seems there are lots of people who appear to believe in an alternative theory for life's origins."
When given a choice of three descriptions for the development of life on Earth, people were asked which one or ones they would like to see taught in science lessons in British schools:
44% said creationism should be included
41% intelligent design
69% wanted evolution as part of the science curriculum.
EZ: the answer is in your name "Easy science". Understanding evolution and science is not easy. That's the problem. Creation and ID are easy to understand to the layman.
Forget politics as the problem, until better "knowledge communication" preparation is ready for the layman. We don't have the votes.
Evolution needs to have a convincing, simple to understand one-page document that does not get misunderstood, like the continued myth of "man from apes" that I would say most Creationists believe Evolution teaches.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EZscience, posted 04-20-2006 4:11 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by EZscience, posted 04-21-2006 11:35 AM ThingsChange has not replied
 Message 11 by anglagard, posted 04-22-2006 5:19 AM ThingsChange has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 9 of 14 (305669)
04-21-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
04-21-2006 10:04 AM


Re: Point out that Biblical Creationism is bad Theology
I agree of course, and I like your idea of convincing Christians to speak out against fundamentalism *within their community* so we can restore sanity within the greater religious population. Kind of like divide and conquer. Preach that literal creationism isn't just bad science - its bad religion. If the fundies feel isolated enough from the rest of moderate Christians, maybe they will re-evaluate their tactics. But this requires getting a lot of outspoken Christians to speak out against their extremist counterparts - and to get them to do it in the churches for it to have this effect. Could be tough, but I like the idea of trying to improve the information being dissimenated by churches - this is probably the best place to try and 'educate' our opponents. Now all we've got to do is recruit the high profile Christians who might be able to accomplish this...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 04-21-2006 10:04 AM jar has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 10 of 14 (305672)
04-21-2006 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ThingsChange
04-21-2006 10:43 AM


Re: Europe is not as enlightened as some think
TC writes:
Not entirely true. Italy has political stances.
Yes. Good find on the article. In fact, it is probably the Islamic countries that are most anti-evolution of all. It's just that we don't hear about controversy in countries like Pakistan because evolution isn't even taught AT ALL.
TC writes:
the answer is in your name "Easy science".
...the very reason I chose it when I joined the forum. It was the primary goal of my participation here, although I'm not always sure how successful I am in achieving it.
TC writes:
Forget politics as the problem, until better "knowledge communication" preparation is ready for the layman. We don't have the votes
Well I think you are right about finding better ways to simplify the ideas and convey them more effectively, but as Trixie points out, it is a 'chicken and egg' problem with politics so we can't ignore the political component. We can't get the votes to protect science education without better education of the population, but this is proving difficult because of current political influences on education, exerted mostly at state level, that must be countered first. Maybe a federal, 'top-down' approach is needed to whip these rogue states into line with the rest of the country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ThingsChange, posted 04-21-2006 10:43 AM ThingsChange has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 11 of 14 (305854)
04-22-2006 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ThingsChange
04-21-2006 10:43 AM


Re: Europe is not as enlightened as some think
I find this heading disconcerting. Hope Canada and Belize are still there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ThingsChange, posted 04-21-2006 10:43 AM ThingsChange has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 12 of 14 (306504)
04-25-2006 12:51 PM


New science standards in Kansas
Someone sent me this link today, apparently sponsored by the Discovery Institute members who testified for the State Shcool board hearings on evolution last May that were boycotted by all self-respecting biologists.
It contains many good examples of the kind of insidious erosion of scientific principles as they are currently being politically manipulated in our state.
Implicit equation of evolutionary 'naturalism' with a form of religion.
quote:
All religions, whether theistic or non-theistic, depend on some kind of an origins story.
Never heard of a 'non-theistic religion' myself, but its clear what they are implying.
Portrayal of evolutionary biology as non-objective.
quote:
our knowledge about origins is vastly incomplete and dependent on the subjective substitution of imagination for missing evidence
quote:
Many explanations about the origin of life and its diversity are in the nature of historical narratives - stories... Due to limitations on observation and experimentation, the narratives become very speculative.
Assertions of controversy where no controversy exists.
(under objectives of the new science standards)
quote:
Seek objective teaching of the scientific controversy over evolution.
Appeals for a more 'democratic' approach to teaching science.
quote:
Parents want evolution taught honestly. Most Polls conducted by highly regarded organizations show that more than 80% of the public oppose an “evolution only” curriculum
Allegations of conspiracy to suppress criticism of evolution on the part of critics of the new science standards.
quote:
Q: Did the Board remove evolution from the standards as stated by the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT)?
A: No. This is misinformation that seeks to suppress any critical analysis of evolution.
In short, all of the traditional 'Wedge' tactics we have come to expect from the Discovery Institute appear to have received political representation in Kansas under a disguise of 'teaching science honestly'. What hypocrisy.
The Kansas Alliance for Education is accepting donations to campaign against these political corruptors of science in the next election.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by DBlevins, posted 04-25-2006 2:29 PM EZscience has replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 13 of 14 (306517)
04-25-2006 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by EZscience
04-25-2006 12:51 PM


Re: New science standards in Kansas
I thought I'd read through the standards for Kansas and everything seemed to be pretty normal until I reached the standards for 8-12 grade Life sciences standards and sample curriculum.
From 'Additional Specificity' in the Life-sciences section pg 86,87:
The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recent years by:
i. Discrepancies in the molecular evidence (e.g., differences in
relatedness inferred from sequence studies of different proteins)
previously thought to support that view.
ii. A fossil record that shows sudden bursts of increased complexity
(the Cambrian Explosion), long periods of stasis and the absence of abundant transitional forms rather than steady gradual increases in complexity, and
iii. Studies that show animals follow different rather than identical
early stages of embryological development.
as well as:
d. Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be
extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new
complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which
appear irreducibly complex) is controversial. These kinds of
macroevolutionary explanations generally are not based on direct
observations and often reflect historical narratives based on inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence.
7. Some of the scientific criticisms include:
a A lack of empirical evidence for a “primordial soup” or a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere;
b. The lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, the sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems, and the formation of proto-cells; and
c. The sudden rather than gradual emergence of organisms near the time that the Earth first became habitable.
This is from the Science Education Standards for Kansas adopted on Nov. 9th.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by EZscience, posted 04-25-2006 12:51 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by EZscience, posted 04-25-2006 2:48 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 14 of 14 (306521)
04-25-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by DBlevins
04-25-2006 2:29 PM


Re: New science standards in Kansas
Yes. Their repeated efforts to characterize the scientific consensus of evolutionary history as merely a series of 'historical narratives' open to debate is especially charming.
Also, while claiming that they make no special case for inserting ID, the standards specifically refer to "biochemical systems that appear irreducibly complex" .
These are not standards for teaching science.
They are standards that intentionally sow seeds of doubt and confusion about what the scientific consensus really is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by DBlevins, posted 04-25-2006 2:29 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024