The partisan corruption of science in the USA

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?

Thanks for getting this rolling Trixie. 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 ? 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. 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. 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.

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...

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. ...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. 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.

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.

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.