Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
marshallz10

Polling Data, or why Johnny can't do science

marshallz10
19 years ago

Polling Data reported out from the Gallup organization:

Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwins theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by evidence; just one of many theories and one that has not been well supported by evidence; or donÂt you know enough about it to say?

Nov. 2004

Feb. 2001

Supported by evidence

Nov. 2004 35%

Feb. 2001 35%

Not supported by evidence

Nov. 2004 35%

Feb. 2001 39%

DonÂt know enough to say

Nov. 2004 29%

Feb. 2001 25%

No opinion

Nov. 2004 1%

Feb. 2001 1%

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process; 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process; 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?

Nov. 2004

Feb. 2001

Man developed, with God guiding

Nov. 2004 38%

Feb. 2001 37%

Man developed, but God had no part in process

Nov. 2004 13%

1Feb. 2001 2%

God created man in present form

Nov. 2004 45%

Feb. 2001 45%

Other / No opinion

Nov. 2004 4%

Feb. 2001 5%


Source: Gallup

Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,016 American adults, conducted from Nov. 7 to Nov. 10, 2004. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

Comments (69)

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Also cloudy here with rain. Will let you know about future moon/planet alignments. Saturn/rings w/moon Titan is also a good show when it oocurs. vgkg

  • althea_gw
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    While surfing for something unrelated this a.m., this site caught my attention. The Edge asked 120 scientists for their response to the question, "What do you beileve is true even though you cannot prove it?" There are some interesting responses, one which I'll post to try to justify adding the link to this thread.


    Nicolas Humphrey
    Psychologist, London School of Economics; Author, The Mind Made Flesh

    I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery. Who is the conjuror and why is s/he doing it? The conjuror is natural selection, and the purpose has been to bolster human self-confidence and self-importanceso as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives.

    If this is right, it provides a simple explanation for why we, as scientists or laymen, find the "hard problem" of consciousness just so hard. Nature has meant it to be hard. Indeed "mysterian" philosophersfrom Colin McGinn to the Popewho bow down before the apparent miracle and declare that it's impossible in principle to understand how consciousness could arise in a material brain, are responding exactly as Nature hoped they would, with shock and awe.

    Can I prove it? It's difficult to prove any adaptationist account of why humans experience things the way they do. But here there is an added catch. The Catch-22 is that, just to the extent that Nature has succeeded in putting consciousness beyond the reach of rational explanation, she must have undermined the very possibility of showing that this is what she's done.

    But nothing's perfect. There may be a loophole. While it may seemand even beimpossible for us to explain how a brain process could have the quality of consciousness, it may not be at all impossible to explain how a brain process could (be designed to) give rise to the impression of having this quality. (Consider: we could never explain why 2 + 2 = 5, but we might relatively easily be able to explain why someone should be under the illusion that 2 + 2 = 5).

    Do I want to prove it? That's a difficult one. If the belief that consciousness is a mystery is a source of human hope, there may be a real danger that exposing the trick could send us all to h*ll.

  • SeniorBalloon
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The only poll I found on what revolves around what had the number at 74 - 79% know that the earth revolves around the sun.

    This was asked in the US and Germany.

    jb

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Understanding a concept is a far cry from believing it. For example, I understand the premise of utilitarianism enough to recognize the legitimacy of the conclusions drawn by Peter Singer but I don't agree with him.

    The poll would have been more interesting if they had given people a multiple choice test, such as:

    Define evolution

    Who came up with evolution (trick question)

    Who first proposed a mechanism for evolution

    What mechanism drives evolution

    etc.

    followed by, preceded by or interspersed with:

    Approximately how old is the earth

    Approximately how old is the universe

    How did human life come about

    etc.

    Ryan

  • Organic_johnny
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Nifty website JB, thanks!

    I thought the age of the universe was still a matter for debate? Or maybe not...I remember a couple years ago the theory being trashed by some objects that seemed older than the universe was supposed to be.

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Organic Johnny,

    the second set of questions would not measure knowledge. One could reasonably conclude that those who gave right answers to the first set of questions and the "wrong" answers to the second set understood but didn't believe.

    Ignorance and disbelief are two very different problems.

    Ryan

  • Organic_johnny
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Believe what? Thought we were talking about scientific theories?

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Johnny,

    By believe I mean agree with.

    In a nutshell, my first post essentially stated many people who gave the wrong answers on the poll actually knew the right answers and disagreed with them. I suggested a poll which could distinguish between those who didn't know the theory and those who disagreed with the theory.

    Ryan

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Now that is a challenge. Do you know of the theory but disagree on faith or do you not know of the theory and reject it out of hand on the basis of a priori beliefs? :)

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Marshall,

    Where would Antony Flew fit in those two options?

    Ryan

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hard to say, he being so flighty.

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    lol

  • joepyeweed
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    the answers to those questions do change as knowledge of the universe increases.

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Joe,

    of course they do, but you could get by with only two answers to those questions. For example:

    Most scientists believe the earth is about:

    a.)4.5 billion years old

    b.)6-10 thousand years old

    I would be willing to bet that at least 80% of people would answer that in the expected manner but only 50% or less would do so if the question were stated more emphatically:

    The earth is about:

    a.)4.5 billion years old

    b.)6-10 thousand years old

    Ryan

  • althea_gw
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "A" for both versions of the question. Who could possibly think the Earth is 6-10,000 years old?

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Perhaps 10 million Christian fundamentalist for whom the Bible is correct in all matters, including the age of the earth as determined from Genesis. For goodness sakes, the Great Flood was only about 3000 years ago!

  • althea_gw
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I think that points to a problem with literalist interpretation. But, this isn't a religious discussion, so the problem must be rooted in language.

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Althea, the problem is rooted in (as Marshall noted) a priori assumptions. There are two contradictory stories and people are being asked to abandon the one they learned from their parents and clergy (this will tend to generate a fairly strong emotional response) in favor of that promoted by another group who also claims to speak authoritatively.

    One also must keep in mind that very few people have actually studied the data itself to come to their conclusions (nor is there anything wrong with this: paleontologists generally defer to biologists and vice versa for obvious reasons) but rely on the word of experts. Ask any young child, and you will discover that they typically believe the word of their parents over anyone else. This doesn't really change that much later on in spite of the child's professed hostility toward the beliefs of his or her parents (note that most teenagers have the same polical affiliation as their parents).

    Ryan

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I thought some of you might be interested (I posted the entire article because I am sure there are many who don't have a free online subscription, here is the link for those who do)

    New York Times
    OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
    Design for Living
    By MICHAEL J. BEHE

    Published: February 7, 2005

    Bethlehem, Pa. IN the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design. As one of the scientists who have proposed design as an explanation for biological systems, I have found widespread confusion about what intelligent design is and what it is not.
    Advertisement

    First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments. For example, a critic recently caricatured intelligent design as the belief that if evolution occurred at all it could never be explained by Darwinian natural selection and could only have been directed at every stage by an omniscient creator. That's misleading. Intelligent design proponents do question whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution occurred. And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.

    Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic. The argument for it consists of four linked claims. The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.

    Of course, we know who is responsible for Mount Rushmore, but even someone who had never heard of the monument could recognize it as designed. Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too. The 18th-century clergyman William Paley likened living things to a watch, arguing that the workings of both point to intelligent design. Modern Darwinists disagree with Paley that the perceived design is real, but they do agree that life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.

    For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved. (Imagine a scientist repeating through clenched teeth: "It wasn't really designed. Not really.")

    The resemblance of parts of life to engineered mechanisms like a watch is enormously stronger than what Reverend Paley imagined. In the past 50 years modern science has shown that the cell, the very foundation of life, is run by machines made of molecules. There are little molecular trucks in the cell to ferry supplies, little outboard motors to push a cell through liquid.

    In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular machines, with articles like "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" and "Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs and Things." Referring to his student days in the 1960's, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote that "the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered." In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. He emphasized that the term machine was not some fuzzy analogy; it was meant literally.

    The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence. Here is where thoughtful people part company. Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection acting over immense stretches of time. Some scientists, however, think the Darwinists' confidence is unjustified. They note that although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell.

    Scientists skeptical of Darwinian claims include many who have no truck with ideas of intelligent design, like those who advocate an idea called complexity theory, which envisions life self-organizing in roughly the same way that a hurricane does, and ones who think organisms in some sense can design themselves.

    The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life. To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.

    The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.

    Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore. Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.

    Michael J. Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University and a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, is the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Creationism wrought modern in spite assertions to the contrary. Some time back I spent much time looking into ID, the Discovery Institute, and the on-going debates between pros and cons. Simplistic is the word that comes to my mind. As an organizing principle, ID is as useful as belief in soul as the spark of intelligent life. Best to stop before I evoke the wrath of Khan, our webmaster of Intelligent Diversions.

  • althea_gw
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Marshall's opinion agrees with that of many science teachers who believe ID is part of an attempt to discredit a whole body of rational thought. The following link to an article in yesterday's Guardian explains more. I am in agreement with those who advocate rational thinking on this issue.

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I'm more interested in the generalized discussion of the topic, I really could care less what is taught in government schools. My children are privately educated.

    Ryan

  • Dibbit
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Ryan, your kids may be privately educated, but the vast majority of people's kids aren't. Since that means that the vast majority of adults in the US aren't, the votes that are cast for politicians, and thus many of the laws they promulgate, and the rules they create, are all a result of what the "people" believe in and vote for. If they only believe in what their religion tells them to, as well as in what they have been taught in school, and what their parents tell them, then they will vote for politicians who will pass laws accordingly. Unless you and your kids plan to leave the country any time soon, the state of the public education in all the states makes a difference to your life and to your kids' lives, whether now or in the future.

    There's a trilogy (Native Tongue, The Judas Rose, Earthsong, published 1984-1994,) of science fiction books by Suzette Haden Elgin, who is a linguist by profession (also has books on language usage and meanings [for example, "The Gentle Art of Self Defense"]), concerning what life is like after the Nineteenth Amendment is repealed and women have NO rights. While this is speculative fiction, it is speculating what would happen if a certain mind-set gained power and was able to impose itself on the rest of us. Since you aren't a woman, it may not resonate with you as strongly as it did with me, but it is a chilling picture of a possible future, even moreso now than when she wrote them, as the religious right makes more and more political advances.

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Dibbit,

    The quality of government funded education has been steadily declining in this country for many years with no turn-around in sight. I anticipate my children will have a competitive advantage because of it.

    Whenever the "religious right" goes through the State to impose their will from the top down, they shoot themselves in the foot. They make the State the mediator between God and man and cut themselves out of the loop. It won't be long before the powers thus given will be used against them (for example: Protestants were originally sold on public schools in part as a way to subvert Roman Catholic children, I'm sure Dewey and Mann are laughing in their graves).

    Why must we look at what life would be like after the 19th amendment was lifted, why not before the amendment was ratified? The reason is because Elgin's dystopias were never realized even in the middle ages. Women's rights were significantly restricted by our standards, but never nonexistent. For example, a man could not kill his wife with impunity (her fears resemble ancient Rome where wives and children were no more than property, slightly more valuable than slaves, comparable to a good horse.)

    Ryan

  • althea_gw
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "I anticipate my children will have a competitive advantage because of it."

    Why does that sound familiar?

    It was Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest". He believed competion between individual members of society was responsible for advancing society.

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Althea,

    Acknowledging that people compete and some people will be paid more than others does not imply social darwinism or a proto-eugenic mindset. Those philosophies assumed that innate differences were responsible for the haves and the have nots. They were apologias for elitism. People have differing interests, abilities and drives. All things being equal, the most intelligent will wind up on top. The problem with social darwinism is that all things are not equal; ambition, hard work and a good education are important factors in a person's success, but cannot be inherited like eye or hair color.

    I was angry far beyond any potential insult found in your post earlier this morning because my younger son (who turned 1 on Jan. 30th) was born with a rare congenital abnormality known as Macroencephaly-Cutis Marmorata Telangiectasia Congenita. In addition to several physical problems, he will likely have moderate to severe learning disabilities and may be retarded. I don't expect him to do as well as others, but my wife and I hope and pray that he is able to marry and have children, a mindset that would be anathema to Spencer (or Darwin as illustrated in his lesser known but, in his opinion, more important work "The Descent of Man").

    Ryan

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Ryan, very sorry to learn of your son's congenital condition and likely prognosis for a "normal" life. You are right: never give up hope nor pass up any opportunities to enhance your son's life (and those those of your wife and you.) God bless.

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Althea,

    I'm sorry, I meant to follow "I was angry..." with the caveat that any anger on my part was inappropriate given the nature of the discussion up to this point. How could you have known?

    God bless

  • althea_gw
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Ryan, I feel certain your son will lead a happy and fulfilling life.

    Although Darwin didn't use the specific phrase noted above, it's easy to see how the idea was extrapolated from the text of "Origin". The point is, it is fairly common to hear people who reject scientific Darwinism accept basic tenets Social Darwinism, (non sequitors aside), it having become part of the fabric of our society. However, considering the fact that Social Darwinism is a pseudo science, this isn't a contradictory position.

    Ryan, if you wish to interptet the preceeding paragraph as a personal insult, there's not much I can do about that. Again, as in my last post, this isn't the intent of bringing it up. I think about 95% of the people on Earth would think some of my beliefs are just plain goofy. I usually welcome discussion of said beliefs as an opportunity for re-evaluation and re-examination.

    There are parts of Darwin I disagree with. The idea of the value of competition is one. Another is the importance of cataclysmic events. I sure I'm could find others.

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Althea,

    you are conflating the concept of competition and social darwinism. Let me say for the record that I believe that competition has absolutely no societal building power. It happens in most cultures, but a culture could exist without it.

    Ryan

  • althea_gw
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "you are conflating the concept of competition and social darwinism."

    Yes, because the value placed on competition is integral to the theory & practice of Social Darwinism.

    "Herbert Spencer based his concept of social evolution, popularly known as "Social Darwinism," on individual competition. Spencer believed that competition was "the law of life" and resulted in the "survival of the fittest.""
    (http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria19_2b.htm)

    I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with competition. Competition can encourage new ideas and challenges. My objection is that competition is considered (by Social Darwinists) to be the most valuable mode of inducing change. It has been used to justify all sorts of what I consider anti-social behavior.

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Here's a scientist's viewpoint on the matter :

    Teach Evolution: Leave No Child Behind

    By Edna Devore
    Director of Education and Public Outreach, SETI Institute
    posted: 10 February 2005
    06:31 am ET
    As I write this column, Im flying from San Francisco to New York City for three days of meetings at the American Museum of Natural History on bringing the latest scientific data to the public via museums and planetariums. I look forward to working with my colleagues. Im also eager to gaze again at their stunning collection of fossils and to travel to distant locations in our universe at the Rose Center and the Hayden Planetarium, the museums digital planetarium. Both the fossil dinosaurs and the immersive planetarium environment present concrete evidence that evolution is pervasive throughout the natural world.

    The universe evolved from the Big Bang to systems of galaxies, stars, and planets; these, including Earth, continue to evolve. Astronomers are teasing out the role of dark matter and dark energy. Life on Earth goes back at least 3.5 billion years as evidenced by fossilized stromatolites from Australia. Over that vast span of time, theres evidence that life evolved from small single celled-organisms to the incredible diversity we see today. Scientific research continues to discover additional evidence that supports evolution as the fundamental description for how the physical universe and life developed in the past and will continue to change in the future.

    Yet, teaching evolution remains controversial in America.

    Just now, Im cruising at 35,000 feet above the snow-laced landscape. The texture of the ground below reveals the power of geologic forces. In California, Los Angeles moves inexorably toward San Francisco at 3.5 cm per year. Anyone who has experienced an earthquake has a personal understanding of the forces that drive geological evolution. At that altitude, the folds, rifts and fault lines reveal an evolving planet. In whats called the range and basin region, the western mountain chains thrust upward and great valleys drop between them. The vast central plains stretch slowly downhill toward the East Coast from the heights of the Rockies. Over time, the ancient inland ocean receded, revealing most of what is now the center of our continent. More than erosion and weathering shaped this land. As the tectonic plates push and grind together, our planet evolves. It takes a long time, but it makes sense when seen from an airplane window.

    Teaching the age and history of our planet takes us back about 4.6 billion years; it is included in only 55% of our 50 States science education standards.

    Today, we find the fossil remains of extinct creatures that wandered the shores of the ancient American sea high in the Rockies and layered in the badlands of the US and Canada. The evolution of life on our planet is evident in these layers of rock and fossil. In Africa, fossil evidence of early hominids links us to ancestral species. Where did we come from? We six billion humans find our biological genesis in these African fossils.

    Human evolution is included in the National Science Education Standards and the Benchmarks for Science Literacy, our national statements of the fundamental science concepts for grades K-12. The Standards and Benchmarks describe the basics for scientifically literate citizens. At the state level, politics overtake science education. Human evolution is included in only 8% of the state science standards, and is therefore not required in almost all American elementary, middle or high school science courses. ("The Emphasis Given to Evolution in State Science Standards: A lever for Change in Evolution Education?" Gerald Skoog, Kimberly Bilica, 2002) The evolution of the universe, our solar system, and our planet fare somewhat better, but still do not appear in almost half of the states science standards. These standards drive the content of textbooks and state achievement tests, and learning about evolution is getting left out.

    Evolution is fundamental to modern biology, geology and astronomy. Ignoring or discarding fundamental scientific understandings of the natural world does not prepare our children well for the future. As America strives to "leave no child behind," its time that evolution is not left behind in our science classrooms.

    Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin

    Darwin was born February 12, 1809; he published Origin of the Species at age 50. Each year, Darwins birthday is celebrated around the world. To find an event in your area, check the "Darwin Day Celebration" web site: http://www.darwinday.org/home/index.html

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Nice essay; thanks, Vgkg. Our collective failure to teach "real" science to our children may well come back to haunt us. A nation ignorant of science and math is a third-world country in spirit if not in material wealth.

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Althea,

    you said:

    "I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with competition. Competition can encourage new ideas and challenges. My objection is that competition is considered (by Social Darwinists) to be the most valuable mode of inducing change. It has been used to justify all sorts of what I consider anti-social behavior."

    I agree with that statement, what I don't understand is why you have persisted in linking my use of "competition" to social darwinism after I clarified myself (twice). I'm not angry, only perplexed.

    Ryan

  • althea_gw
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Because of your stated belief that competion with others is a primary reason for providing private education for your children.

    I'll highlight these statements you have made concerning education Ryan.

    1."I really could care less what is taught in government schools. My children are privately educated."

    2."The quality of government funded education has been steadily declining in this country for many years with no turn-around in sight. I anticipate my children will have a competitive advantage because of it."

    I read what followed as an apology for your own brand of elitism, which I don't find atypical.

    Had you said something like "I believe children in a private school such as the one my children attend, who are given guidance in a challenging environment that encourages curiosity and exploration of ideas, will become free thinking, self-directed, creative members of a democratic society", the thought would have never occurrred to me.

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Althea,

    the competitive edge in my children's education is an incidental, along the lines of that last paragraph (except that I am adamantly opposed to "democracy"?).

    I disagree with much of what is taught in government schools (especially in the areas of economics, ethics and government) and I object to some of the methods used. Trying to get the schools to conform to my standards clearly isn't an answer because it is impractical and if I succeeded, I would be forcing my views upon the children of others. Private schooling means that I don't have to compromise my principles nothing more or less.

    I would not have objected as strongly if you had bothered to indicate that you distinguished between social darwinism and "my own brand of elitism" before that last paragraph. I think next time I'll ask for a clarification by e-mail. It will spare everyone else the spectacle of watching two people talking past each other.

    Ryan

  • althea_gw
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "... if you had bothered to indicate ...." I did from the first beginning. Note how I quoted you and then remarked in the form of a question that it sounded familiar. I used the forumla of addressing the post by quoting what you said, rather than addressing the poster, with the intention of placing this out of the personal sphere and into the topic under discussion. Then I went on to say in my next post that my comment was never directed at you personally but the idea.

    I would like to know where exactly I "persisted" in linking you with a body of thought. I re-read each comment before I last posted and interpreted that to mean "why did I come up with the idea in the first place". My post before last was an answer to a question, followed by a comment regarding of my personal opinion.

  • althea_gw
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Final proof after a posting...

    "first beginning" Strike "first".
    "regarding of my" Strike "of".

    Ryan, I have no expectation that you will respond to my previous post since I'm assuming by your last post with the accusation that I have not been reading ("talking past") what you have written, and your comment about your plans for the future mean you are calling for an end to this branch of the discussion. I've seen that type of argument before.

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Peace, tranquility and papaya juice, my Children.

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Althea,

    that wasn't my meaning at all. I only meant that we both seem to have misunderstood each other and that if I need clarification of a point I will do so by e-mail from now on.

    Rereading the above posts I figured out where I went wrong in my thinking. I may be mistaken, but I think we can drop the social darwinist angle. I used the competition argument as somewhat of a red herring. In short, I was too lazy to get into a detailed discussion as to why I have such a laid back attitude toward the disaster that we call "public" schools.

    Ryan

  • Organic_johnny
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I've been following this conversation for a while, and have been tempted several times to wax philosophical (something I try to avoid doing, being the philosophy-grad-student dropout that I am). I hereby give in to temptation:

    A thoughtful french dude (Foucault) suggested that a lot of politics and history can be explained by the equation: "Power = Knowledge" and that everything good/bad to be said about power/knowledge also applies to knowledge/power.

    So if you say "this is true" ("this" meaining either evolution/creationism or absolute-equality/triumph-of-the-socially-fit), you are either (a) "right because that's how our society is shaped", or (b) "right because the truth is patently obvious no matter what our society says". "Person (a)" is, of course, the one who is actually/presently/acceptedly right, but "Person (b)" is right among crowds of like-minded people, and if their crowd speaks loudly and persistently enough might end up causing a "paradigm shift" and end up being of the actually/presently/acceptedly right opinion, leaving "Person (b)" to become a disgruntled luddite complaining about how we're all going to hell in a handbasket.

    [The problem with writing about postmodern(/poststructuralist) "philosophy" is that there are entirely too many quotation marks ([""]), slashes ([/]), and parentheses ([()]), and it starts looking like computer code (i.e., an "inventive language"/"code"/"private language"), which is a big part of my personal motivation to be a farmer, rather than an academic philosopher]

    [":-)"]

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Lifescience.com posted this summary of history's top ten list of creationalism beliefs at site below. Intro:

    The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)
    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently filed a lawsuit against a Pennsylvania school district that added the controversial theory of "intelligent design" to its curricullum. Unlike the theory of evolution which is taught at most schools as a fact-based science, "intelligent design" -- as argued by the ACLU -- is nothing more than a philosophy predicated on the Judeo-Christian belief that the logical sequences found in nature are not random happenings or surprising mutations, but deftly managed events created by a greater omniscient and omnipresent intelligence with a specific plan. In short, the work of God.
    But therein lies the rub: Which god? When the founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States, they chose to include the separation of church and state. This was to ensure that the state-sanctioned religious persecutions that plagued much of Europe during the 16th century would not despoil the young, yet grand experiment in democracy that was to become this Republic.

    Scientific research has come along way since Charles Darwin first posited the concept of "natural selection", an idea as controversial now as it was back in 1859 when it was first published. In the intervening years, humanity has learned much about how we became the dominant species on the planet, how the Earth and the solar system were formed and the ever-changing development of the Universe. Over that time, how we understand the theory of evolution has also changed.

    Scientists now believe that there is an intrinsic logic to our reality, that there are absolutes, laws of nature. Much remains a mystery, and as one question is answered, many others arise. The question now facing Pennsylvania's Dover School District is whether or not the imposition of one creation belief on a multi-ethnic, secular student body is in keeping with the law that prohibits the creation of a state religion. If they allow one belief system to be taught, surely they must also teach others?

    To help out with this dilemma, LiveScience presents a list of those Creation Myths that helped define civilizations both past and present... -- Tom X. Chao and Anthony Duignan-Cabrera

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Here's a follow-up to Edna DeVore's column ~6-7 posts back :

    Evolution: It's Only a Theory, But One Worth Teaching
    By Edna DeVore
    Director of Education and Public Outreach
    posted: 03 March 2005
    06:13 am ET

    My prior column was composed at 35,000 feet above North America as I surveyed the landscape from the air. The patterns etched by geological evolution are visible at altitude. Closer up, fossils tell the story of earlier life upon our continent. Gazing to the heavens, astronomers gather evidence of the evolution of planets, stars, galaxiesthe whole universe evolves. Natural history museums host large collections of extant and extinct life that document biological evolution. Yet, as I noted, teaching evolution remains controversial in America.

    A flood of email ensued. Many were supportive; some asked questions. Several negative and hostile emails were openly critical of my assertion that American schools should teach evolution in science classrooms to "leave no child behind". In addition to rejecting evolution for religious reasons, several people claimed that there was not sufficient evidence, that scientists could not all agree, or that evolution is "only a theory" which they equate with an unfounded idea.

    Evolution is supported by evidence. There are several thousand peer-reviewed scientific journals where the evidence is presented in article after article. Natural history museums house large collections of fossils that document the history of life. Geologists and astronomers have a massive amount of observational evidence of the long-term change in physical systems: stars, galaxies, planets, interstellar dust, asteroids, etc. Biologists observe and document the patterns of the evolution of life: for example, the fossil record, DNA, and the observation of evolution in action such as the adaptive evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that now pose a serious threat to human health. Selective breeding in agriculture generated our crops and domestic animals over thousands of years; agriculture is evolution in action.

    Certainly, there are continuing debates among scientists about the particulars of cosmic, planetary, and biological evolution. The nature of science requires continual questioning of ideas, evidence and theories. Theoretical scientists consider what we know, and pose new ideas and models to explain the natural world. New models and ideas generate new scientific tests of theory: observational experiments at Earth and space-based observatories, high-energy collisions of particle physics, deep-sea dives at the plate boundaries, and lab experiments in molecular biology to cite a few. Science is based upon observational and experimental evidence. Concepts that dont match observations are altered or tossed out. Its an iterative cycle. Likewise, if a scientist makes an observation or does an experiment that cannot be replicated, the results are suspect. Scientific explanations of the natural world are tested against nature, and discarded if they do not work. Consider cold fusion. Science is a self-correcting system that provides humans with powerful descriptions that allow us to understand and predict how the natural world works.

    Consider Johannes Kepler, a mathematician who is often cited as one of the first modern astronomers. He took observational data collected by Tycho Brahe who was a terrific observer and had mounds of measurements for Mars. Brahe challenged Kepler to make sense of these Mars data. Tycho had his own ideas, but he didnt have Keplers mathematical skills. Kepler spent months trying to fit the Mars data to the circular epicycles and deferents that explained planetary orbits in the astronomical tradition of his day. The data just didnt fit. Unlike his predecessors, Kepler took a leap toward modern science. He elected to trust the data, and abandoned the ancient model of circles upon circles for a new description of planetary motion. His ideas can be condensed into three statements which we call Keplers laws. In their simplest form, they are: planets orbit on elliptical paths with the Sun at one focus; the period of a planets orbit is proportional to its distance from the Sun; and a planets speed in orbit is proportional to its distance from the Sun (equal areas are swept out in equal time). Kepler didnt know why the planets orbited as they did, but he could describe their orbits and make accurate predictions about future positions. The next big step came with Isaac Newton who explained that why planets orbit the Sun: gravity. Only Mercury didnt behave as predicted by Newtons physics. Einstein remodeled physics once again with special and general relativity, and was able to explain Mercurys motion.

    The theory of gravitation is a powerful explanation of how objects interact in space-time. Its heritage goes back to Keplers description of planetary motion based upon Brahes observational data. Its funny how no one argues that gravity is "only a theory," yet many dismiss evolution as "only a theory."

    At a fundamental level, popular English and scientific usage are at odds here. In popular culture, a "theory" is understood to be a guess or speculation that may or may not be based upon evidence and analysis. In science, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." (Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science,National Academy of Sciences, 1998: 7). A scientific theory is the larger explanation of how the well-tested "laws" fit together to describe the natural world.

    Dismissing evolution as "only a theory" is, at the simplest level, a misunderstanding of the meaning of "theory" in science. But, in the current controversy, discounting evolution as "only a theory" is more than a semantic debate. Its a political statement at the heart of the attack upon teaching evolution in science classrooms in America.

    Science is a powerful tool for understanding the natural world, and has a dominant role in modern economics and culture. Scientific theories are at the heart of the enterprise. In the science classroom, children should learn about major scientific theories such as gravitation and evolution.

    Science is a way of knowing, but not the only way of knowing. There are things that science does not address. For example, music, art, emotion, and religious beliefs are all outside the domain of what science can address. I find it unfortunate that the controversy over the theory of evolution continues as science offers all humans a way to know about the natural world and how it works.

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Very nice little essay on the subject; not at all defensive nor condescending. I used to follow the logic from "hypothesis" to "theorem" (theory) to "law" to distinguish between the initial working explanation to be tested by continued research and analysis and the theorem, or theory, that is proven by most evidence but still is a work in progress, so to speak. Given enough evidence, a theorem may prove to be valid to such a high degree of certitude that science with establish a Law (e.g. Law of Gravity).

  • joepyeweed
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    actually the science of string theory may soon change the "law of gravity"... as gravity may not be as universal as we think...

    and...if you are the infamous harvard professor this thread would probably be titled "why jane cant do science"

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    That's hardly fair to the professor Joe. To paraphrase a comment generally applied to marriage: If both sexes are essentially the same, then one of them is unnecessary. Clearly there are some physical differences, is it impossible that there may be some mental (not intellectual) differences?

    The question above is something that should be answered by honest inquiry, not hot air.

    I can hardly stand reading newspapers any more (to say nothing of television news) for all the commentary that goes by the name of news these days.

    Ryan

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    More censorship for Johnny's sake...

    IMAX theaters Reject Science Shows under Religious Pressure
    By LiveScience Staff

    posted: 19 March 2005
    01:00 pm ET

    Some IMAX theatres are refusing to show movies that mention evolution or the Big Bang because of protests by religious groups who say the ideas contradict the Bible.

    While the number of protests is small -- perhaps a dozen or fewer IMAX theaters -- the effect could be significant because only a few dozen IMAX theatres exhibit science documentaries, according to an article Saturday in The New York Times.

    The bans, occurring mostly in the South, could affect decisions about whether to even produce some science documentaries in the first place, the article states.

    Religious concerns have already affected the distribution of at least two IMAX films. The film "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea" discusses the possibility of life on Earth having started around subsea hydrothermal vents. It has been turned down at several science centers, according to Richard Lutz, a Rutgers University researcher who was the film's chief scientist.

    Likewise, the Times reports, two other films have suffered in distribution: "Galapagos," about the islands where Charles Darwin pondered evolution; and "Cosmic Voyage," which examines everything from the subatomic world to galactic development.

    The director of one museum said it chose not to show "Volcanoes" after some people in a previewing audience called it blasphemous.

    The bans mirror a broader argument over evolution versus creationism that has become heated in recent years. A recently developed alternative, called intelligent design, has emerged to muddy the argument.

    The fight is being waged partly in school districts, where intelligent design proponents say evolution is just a theory and should not be presented as fact. Humans and the rest of nature are too intricate, the argument goes, to have come about without some sort of intelligent intervention.

    Scientists agree that evolution is just a theory, but they argue that its a theory that best fits the evidence, which shows creatures change over time to adapt to their environments. Evolution holds that humans, like all plants and animals on Earth, evolved from lesser species that existed millions and billions of years ago.

  • althea_gw
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I'm shaking my head over that one. Producers who are reconsidering making any more films of this genre should be persuaded by intelligent intervention to understand that appeasing a small group, while sacrificing a greater principle is of no benefit, intellectually or financially.

    New poll: Who has heard of Ernst Mayr? Not me. His passing last month was without headline or mention on any media I usually follow. I stumbled across this obit.

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Yes, it is amazing how someone as highly esteemed and significant could be overlooked by most people. There were many obits scattered through major media, especially the science journals. Mayr was a hero of mine too through college and graduate school. Mayr was eclipse by Gould and a few others as purveyors of such science to the public later in his life.

    The material published by New Scientist is not a discussion of science or value of scientific education but of the politics of religious fundamentalism.

  • althea_gw
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Marshall did you mean the link I posted (The Scientist)? I'm not at all familiar with the publication. The link was posted by a blogger on znet, whose topics are political almost all of the time. This stood out because it wasn't necessarily political. There was a somewhat interesting discussion. Midway through the discussion, someone called for a return to political arguments. :~)