(no subject)

[theweaselking]

New Poll: 51% of Americans say that 51% of Americans are functionally illiterate and mindnumbingly ignorant.

On the same topic, from here, "Virtually every American adult has had high school biology, and in high school biology they were taught as a fact that human beings evolved from simple life forms according to the Darwinian theory of evolution, [. . .] This [poll] must make high school biology teachers really depressed. Duh, I eat poop!"

Comments

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

I love how Dembski (which I keep reading as Dumbski, can't imagine why) points to "the beauty and extravagance of creation" as proof of a creator.

Clearly, the ugly and efficient parts are the devil's handiwork.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

Why does it look like God is trying to pick Darwin's nose in that graphic?

-- Steve so wants to photoshop a chimpanzee into that very same pose... then again, that was done better when touched by His Noodly Appendage.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

At least the pair of polls shows that people have gotten smarter in the last year, eh?

[torrain.livejournal.com]

I was noticing that. Yay, education...

[semi-sweet.livejournal.com]

My high school taught evolution, creation, and some other theories as just that - theories, not facts - to explain the beginning of life. I'm sure there are other high schools that do the same. It seems kind of ridiculous to teach evolution as a fact, even if it's a well supported theory, it's just that - a theory.

[ryusen.livejournal.com]

well, everything in science is a theory. it is even refered to as "The Theory of Evolution" in the text books i remember. In science, "Fact" is simply a theory that has enough evidence and cannot be conclusively disproven. When we talk about "facts" in science, we need to keep aware of this, or else all is lost in semantics.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

In science, "Fact" is simply a theory that has enough evidence and cannot be conclusively disproven.

No. Fact and theory are not related in that way.

[cmseward.livejournal.com]

No, the facts are the (observable) evidence, the theory is devised to fit/explain the facts.
e.g.:
Fact - if you drop an apple, it falls to the ground with an observable, repeatable, and measurable acceleration of 9.8m/s².
Theory - gravity, the force of attraction between all matter, is causing the apple to fall to the surface of the earth.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Actually, there is evolution, the fact, which is that allele frequency in animals change over time, and then there's the theory of evolution, which does its best to explain why that happens. Abiogensis is a different theory than the theory of evolution, which doesn't directly deal with the origins of life, just what life-forms do once they exist.
If creationism isn't falsifiable (which as far as I know, it isn't), then it isn't a theory in the scientific sense of the word and shouldn't be taught as such. It is, at best, a theo-philosophical thesis.

[semi-sweet.livejournal.com]

No, creationism shouldn't be taught that way, but in some high schools (like mine) it was taught on the same level as evolution and some other "theories" as ways to explain how the universe was formed. We were taught that none of these explanations could be proved and it was just a matter of belief which one you chose to accept. I think that's about as far into it was we got (probably to avoid controversy).

Do you have any recommendations for reading about alleles changing over time, or should I just I google the subject? This sounds very interesting but I've never heard it before so I'd like to read more about it.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

All science is a theory. that's the idea behind science. Science takes the best theory and runs with it. And as soon as someone provides real scientific evidence for a better of different theory it will gladly accept that.

Creationists seem to be saying that science is some unmoving onolith. Not true. Religion is hte unmoving monolith who won't change their mind in light of actual facts. Science will gladly change it's opinion if new facts are presented. They just haven't been, so it's irresponsible to teach such "alternative" theories in a science classroom for the same reason that it's irresponsible to teach that the earth is flat. Not because it's not a real theory that some peope have, but because there's not only no evidence to back it up but evidence to the contrary.

[semi-sweet.livejournal.com]

I' m not trying to say creationism should be taught as a theory. I'm saying this is how my high school (right or wrong) handled the topic.

It bothers me that high schools would teach evolution as fact (or at least teaching the theory of evolution as fact). As you have said, all science is theory, and this is concept that science students should grasp earlier rather than later.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Well, actually, I'd draw the distinction between a hypothesis and a theory, scientifically speaking. A theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly confirmed and has never been falsified.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It seems kind of ridiculous to teach evolution as a fact, even if it's a well supported theory, it's just that - a theory.

You are a victim of the propaganda, and you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. The phrase "just a theory" is entirely misleading.

Let's break this down:

The definition of the word "theory" in science is: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses"

The Theory Of Evolution, which describes how and why living creatures change, is a scientific theory. It is, in fact *the* scientific theory, one that makes more predictions that can be tested and has borne up under more scrutiny (pass with flying colours, in fact) than any other. There is more evidence to support natural selection than there is to support quantum mechanics, gravity, or any other scientific theory that you can name. All of this evidence is easily available, supported, and reproducible in a lab.

Creationism is *not* a scientific theory. It is a hypothesis. This hypothesis makes no predictions, so it's not useful for science, and it makes no predictions, so it can't be investigated. Most importantly, it is absolutely *not* "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses", since it cannot be substantiated, incorporates no verifiable facts, and cannot be tested.

"Intelligent Design" is creationism. Google "wedge strategy".

Now, let's address the FACTS. The FACT of evolution has nothing to do with the why and the how of evolution, it has to do with the indisputable FACT that organisms have generations, that the generations are not identical, and that mutation over time introduces new traits, refines and discards old traits and eventually causes speciation.

Maybe what you're looking for is "proof". SCIENCE DOES NOT DEAL IN PROOF. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html) Nothing in the real world does. "Proof" is only possible in artificial realms, like mathematics.


So, you're right, "evolution is just a theory". It's a ridiculously well-supported theory whose precepts are demonstrable in a lab and that fits all the evidence so far perfectly. Using this theory, millions of predictions ("If evolution is true, given fact A we should find X by looking at Y") have been made and proven to match the theory. It's "just a theory" - and using that phrase shows that you're phenomenally ignorant about the writing, the evidence, and even the meaning of the word "theory".

But, hey, I feel generous. Take your best shot, show me *anything* that you think is a good argument against evolution, in favour of creation, or both, and I'll happily address it for you. While you're at it, look at the facts, and note that pro-creation arguments and websites are always, invariably, verifiably intellectually dishonest. *They cannot make points by addressing the facts or by addressing what anyone actually says*. They never do.

[cmseward.livejournal.com]

You missed the obligatory "Duh, we eat poop".

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Did not. You can't prove anything.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Historical revisionist.

[larabeaton.livejournal.com]

I disagree with the assumption that "virtually every American adult has had high school biology". Biology isn't a required course for a high school degree in many states. In New York, for example, you only need one science credit for a diploma, so many students don't go beyond Earth Science.

[larabeaton.livejournal.com]

I stand corrected.

this was the requirement when I was in high school in mumblemumble87mumblemumble. They increased it for students entering the 9th grade in 1985 to two credits, then increased it again to three credits in 2001.

[jsbowden.livejournal.com]

I never took earth science. I took bio. in ninth, skipped a year in tenth, chem. in 11th, and took physics my senior year. We digs us some science classes. Of course, I was in the last class year in VA that you were allowed to acquire credits towards graduation in 7th and 8th grades, so I had algebra, gemoetry, art, and two years of a foreign language covered before I even got to my freshman year.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

Though I think it's safe to say that not cirtually every adult understood or even remembers high school biology. The graduation rate is something like 70% wasn't it? Of those 70% how many passed high school biology? I believe we're safe with 75%. leaving us with somehting like 57%. And I'm sure that at least 10% of those people don't remember a thing about it.

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

Biology isn't a required course for a high school degree in many states.

Hence, the dumbing down of America.

[argaive.livejournal.com]

I don't think this is so much a failure of the education system as it is the success of the "religious" right's propaganda machine.

In essence they have been very successful in framing the debate and calling white "black" and black "white". And their recent tag line "Life Is Too Complex To Have Come About By Pure Chance" is frankly a very inviting argument to those that are unsatisfied with the notion that life just happened; it eliminates the need for understanding fairly complex and even counter-intuitive ideas and it is very comforting in that it also says that there is some sort of plan and a reason for things.

...that is basically how it works out from a layman's perspective.

And that's where the "religious" right has been most successful. The average Joe and Jane don't really understand what science is about, so it's easy for someone to mix the cards up (black is white and white is black) and label everything "theory". In the meantime Joe and Jane do like to have answers that are easy to hang on to and real science tends to create more questions than answers, and those answers are sometime a tad difficult to grasp.

Another problem is the way evolution is often described. We talk about species adapting and nature selecting, as if there's a real will behind such processes, that these are active processes. Some people know that this is just a convenient shorthand to describe what actually happens, but many take it at face value because it also fits with their general experience: that things happen because something or someone causes them to happen.

"Life Is Too Complex To Have Come About By Pure Chance" fits in very nicely with this world view and is easier to grasp/accept than the essentially passive and random processes of evolution which is, IMHO, counter-intuitive for the proverbial layman.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

"Life Is Too Complex To Have Come About By Pure Chance" is another of the clever lies that Creationists tell. True? Probably. Relevant? No, because evolution is not "pure chance". Chance is only one of the mechanisms involved.

The old "tornado in a junkyard" model is another variant on this lie. Yes, the odds of a tornado assembling a 747 are just short of completely impossible. So is the idea of one animal's children randomly being a completely different animal - but that's not something that evolution claims, at all. That's like arguing that Christ couldn't possibly be God because the oceans aren't completely composed of wine.

[argaive.livejournal.com]

...By Pure Chance" is another of the clever lies that Creationists tell.

Tut tut... it's a *hypothesis* which has yet to be confirmed through research (yes, it is largely refuted by all the evidence that suggests otherwise, but this is a mere technicality). Furthermore, remember that logically it is impossible to prove a negative, and I'm sure that creationists are aware of at least *that* principle and are making good use of it.


...So is the idea of one animal's children randomly being a completely different animal - but that's not something that evolution claims...

True, but it's a lot easier to grasp by the proverbial "layperson" than to explain that the rate of change is so slow as to be imperceptible over a normal lifetime in most cases, and the creationists allow a fudge factor to explain away variations in species with high generative rates, like virii and bacteria... "sure, some DNA changes can occur but these are mere adjustments and do not prove the principle of evolution"... The notion that complex life forms can come about one "adjustment" at a time are easily and casually waved away because the time span over which this happens is incomprehensible. And Joe and Jane like things to be comprehensible.

Another advantage creationists have is ego. The point of view they are pushing is that We Humans are God's chosen, and We Christians even more so; We Humans have dominion and everything else is meant to serve Us; We Humans are the center of Creation; We Humans are Far Superior to all other living things (so how dare you suggest a monkey is our uncle?); We are Special; God cares about *You*.

On the other hand, science tells us that we are the merest speck in a truly (incomprehensibly?) large universe, and the time humanity, nay, life on earth has existed is but the merest flash in time over universe's existence. Sure, science pushes it's own version of "We are Special" as in "We are Star Stuff", but it can still make one feel pretty insignificant.

Now, most everybody doesn't really think about such things on a day to day basis. We're all busy living our lives taking care of day to day stuff. But every now and again we wonder about these things. Now I don't know about you, but the notion that I am the merest spec in space and time doesn't really bother me because it doesn't change the fact of my existence and my enjoyment thereof, and neither does the notion that Bonzo the chimp and I are closely related biologically. Heck, the very eyes God gave me (whether by fiat or through evolution) tell me that. I don't need no stinkin' science for that.

But our proverbial Joe and Jane? Well, they don't much like feeling insignificant, and like even less the notion that we're just a type of monkey. No, Joe and Jane like to feel Special and Significant and good about themselves (don't we all?), and this the creationists and fundies and what not have been doing extremely well. Besides, religion is good, right?

Yeah, some of us know that they are really snake oil salesmen, some of them probably not even sincere christians. But they do now how to play a crowd; they are taking advantage of people's ignorance, and are doing their level best to continue promoting ignorance because it serves them so well.

This puts those of us who believe in science and reason in a pretty difficult position. If we tell Joe and Jane that someone is taking advantage of their ignorance, how will they take it? "Thank you for setting us straight"? Hell no! "How dare you call us ignorant?!" is more like it.

*sigh*... that was a rant, wasn't it? Sorry 'bout that.

:-)

A.