Nature.com: The Great Beyond Blog

PLoS Biology? What's that? Web says: A peer-reviewed open-access journal. Not comforting. Article: Evolution and Creationism in America's Classrooms: A National Portrait

In searching the news, I keep getting an origin of the too-frequently-wrong New Scientist, and that makes me uneasy. Beep! Beep! Backing up...

Are these numbers anywhere near reality?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Is that the same article suggest that nearly half of the US population is creationist? 150 million creationists in the US? I'd like to see a couple more polls on that topic before I believe it.

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

Sad but true:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in657083.shtml

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...-results_n.htm

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

"Half of the US population is below average intelligence?" Dwight David Eisenhower, POTUS

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

Ow! You are like a generation and a half behind much of the rest of the developed world.

Democracy does not promise enlightened rule, it promises self rule. It promises that we can each live according to our beliefs with a minimum of interference from government

Methinks you did not quite get that rather nice quote, Halcyon.

__________________
[Foot mouth in put]
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

But could this mean that while looking at their field, Biology, some are seeing things in the evolutionary scenario that to them, do not seem to add up, thus casting doubt in their minds on the evolutionary scenario.

I vaugely remember from a seminar I attended in Scotland in the 1980's reference to mutation rates not being sufficient to generate today's complexity and a reference to no known documentation of a beneficial genetic mutation in nature. (They did cover antibiotic resistance as being covered by plasmids not mutation). The way the presentation was done all those years ago was quite impressive and the guy delivering them was a food microbiologist.

I do have to admit my primary scientific discipline was physics, not biology

__________________
Fame, glory adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

Deep time is an impressively difficult concept for a lot of ephemeral humans.

__________________
(By the way, I hate it that so many papers in the areas of planetary science and geology are not easily avaiable to the dreaded "non-subscribers". It is like they are screaming at me: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH". Good, I feel better now.)

I know you are a person who takes his physics seriously, but isn't it said that most great discoveries aren't discovered with "Eureka!" but with, "Hmmm, that's funny." Big Don

Maybe, but it shouldn't be for science teachers. This is alarming.

Mutation rates are a fickle concept, though. First, they're not a constant. In times when Earth's atmosphere was thinner, more cosmic rays would probably have sped mutation up. Catastrophic events and the following climate changes might have as well. On the other hand though, the dinosaurs lived for such a huge time that it actually surprises me we don't see more change compared with what we see now. (Then, fossils are too rare to actually prove that. If we mostly see fossils of the huge species, we can't say much about the smaller ones - crocodiles have existed for an incredibly long time without changing much)
All in all it makes any conclusions about mutation rates and times look more like any conclusions from the Drake Equation to me.

I'm all for questioning though.

What I'm not all for is people teaching belief as science.

__________________
[Foot mouth in put]
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

I think it clearly means this, Sticks.

I've found Was Darwin Wrong? to be an excellent review and critique of evolutionary scenarios.

What comes to mind are scientists like Francis Collins who, after, or while, working on the genome project writes a book called The Language of God; A scientist presents evidence for belief.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I don't get the comment about it being misleading. If 1/6 have the personal belief, and 1/8 teach it in a positive light, then what is misleading?
If they bring it up as an alternative (rather than saying it exists), then that's giving credibility.
If they bring it up "to criticize it or in response to student inquiries", then how is that teaching it in a "positive light"?

I do think there is one unexplored factor. Is there a percentage who believe in evolution but maybe that it doesn't apply to humans?

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

The BA has blogged about this, too. (And I've put my foot in my mouth, but please take no notice of that...)

Have you got the numbers for the rest of the developed world?

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Unfortunately, in the US, a lot of pre-college "science" teachers are not scientists and many have little or no science training. They often get to teach the science classes because there is basically no one else to do it.

And people with science degrees do not go into elementary or high school education, because they make a heck of a lot more money in careers other than teaching.

For example, with my PhD in Chemistry, if I wanted to go teach high school chemistry, I would have to go back to school to get my certificate in Education (I believe that is about a year in school) and then, if I could find a job, I would make about half of what I do now.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009

Sorry Swift, but that seems to imply scientists are driven by the dollar as much as religionists are driven by faith...

Well, maybe the analogy isn't accurate but apparently Evolutionary Biologists would prefer to work at higher pay grades than to educate the masses properly.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

When it comes to one's profession, it's perfectly sensible to guide oneself by the dollar, though I do admire those with the stamina and the dedication to pursue a career they love (like music), or to work for charity.

But I would add something to what Smith wrote. Some people are not scientists, and never expected to be, but would still like to teach science -- if only the work conditions were attractive. Mind you, by "work conditions" I do not mean just pay, but also intangibles such as a certain guarantee that you won't be buried in bureaucracy, or that meddling IDers won't try to interfere with your job every step of the way.

When such guarantees do not exist, the school system is the main culprit for the lack of qualified teachers. Being a teacher is a job; it's not a charity, or much less a duty.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

I don't find it to be very sensible to become a doctor based on the money you'll make rather than a sincere desire to help and heal others.

I don't find it very sensible to become a teacher because you'll get every holiday, weekend and summer off rather than a sincere desire to teach and educate others.


And yet, I've several people in my family who have done just that, on both fronts.

Right.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Oh I got the quote alright, I'm just tired of the idea being put forward that somehow our democratic society should somehow evolve into an enlightened society; or that only "wise" people should be allowed to vote. No guarantees in such a democratic system except freedom of expression.

hence my post... {{sigh}}