Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffy
....Its actually mostly *not* because of deeply held religious beliefs: that's only a small--and shrinking--minority (sorry folks!). The real problem is a combination of "science isn't cool" and the "no child left behind" emphasis on "the basics" where science is considered as much of a luxury as art or music (ask any teacher or parent with a kid in school right now!).....
|
Ah, Buff. Long time no talk. I have been away from the Forums since late 2006. Great to see you (all) have kept the momentum. I would have said "kept the faith," but I suspect someone in this thread might have regarded that notion as insulting.
I would like to mention (as we are picking on the rank-and-file American folks that generally misunderstand science issues) that we in this thread have done a pretty poor job of identifying the "science" topics of dispute.
"Evolution" per se includes a number of different hypotheses, many of which are internally inconsistent. The different hypotheses include:
1) Gradualism, with the core speciation method being speciation-by-mutation (I am going to ignore genetic drift in this context)
2) Punctuated equilibrium, where the speciation method is unknown, but related to the accelerated speed of speciation (presumably related to expression of recessive alleles) when small cohorts of specific species are sequestered in small groups, and
3) Intelligent Design, where the speciation method is unknown.
Yes, ID is a subset of "evolution". Those folks that claim ID equals Creationism don't really understand the terminology of either.
The fact that most Americans are not well science-educated is, unfortunately, a microcosm of the fact that most Americans are not well educated. In one survey, less than a third of high-school seniors could correctly sequence the Revolutionary war, the Civil War and WWII.
If you query the Biblically conservative folks who are science-educated, a majority of them accept the major elements of evolutionary theory. Among my conservative friends, for example, most accept common descent. The evidence for common descent is extraordinarily strong. In contrast, many conservative folks (including me) have some significant misgivings about speciation-by-mutation, since the evidence is far less compelling. Importantly, I have no spiritual/Biblical preclusion against speciation-by-mutation. I am just naturally a skeptic (as is the Scientific Method) and think that the support for this model is more of a default than a proof case.
Further, "Intelligent Design" includes some elements that many science-minded folks accept. There are indeed some biological structures that are difficult to assert as the endpoints of speciation-by-mutation. Some compulsive skeptics (such as me) are troubled by those who automatically accept a reigning theory that poorly explains some observed facts.
Some who are emotionally wedded to speciation-by-mutation dismiss any of the credible information in support of Irreducible Complexity. These folks contend that ID is "not science". These folks also tend to automatically refute the evidence in support of Punctuated Equilbrium as an erroneous set of data. Characterizing ID as "not science" is an odd view, since the original authors of Intelligent Design (particularly Michael Behe) regard ID as a subordinate/additive position to other items within evolutionary theory. Further, some elements of ID are readily falsifiable. Ergo, ID can stand as a legitimate hypothesis until refuted.
Creationism, also has several sub-flavors (which I will not bore you with). Some of them are remarkably consistent with evolutionary theory.
Could someone tell me which item we are debating? Are we debating whether people that are uninformed can effect change on the political process (Really???). Or are we debating the merits and/or internal inconsistencies in evolutionary theory? Or are we surprised that folks that are poorly educated will advocate political solutions consistent with their uninformed biases? I am pretty sure we call that "democracy."
----------------
Few problems are so complex that they cannot be substantially clarified by one more cup of coffee
(or a nice cabernet if it is after 5:00)
Moderator in absentia. Return anticipated. Timing somewhat vague.
)
