Jimmy Higgins

You want to be afraid? Very afraid?

<a href="http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/102362941036241.xml" target="_blank">What is Ohio coming too? Are other states to follow?</a>

Check this out!
Of those polled:

"Darwinian Evolutionism" : 13%
"Intelligent Design" : 15% MORE THAN Evolutionists!!!
"Theistic Evolution" : 26% The only other realistic option from Darwinian
"Old-Earth" : 13%
"Young-Earth" : 29%

It gets worse!

15% of people polled thought that evolution was a "completely valid" account of human development.
23% said the same for ID.

59% of people polled thought that evolution was a "somewhat to completely valid" account.
71% same the same of ID.

Here is my question. How can those two numbers be both greater than 50%?

To show how stupid Ohio is, 51% said that "at home or in a religious setting" is where other options to evolution should be taught. Yet 59% said that schools should teach both. That is contradicting! An additional 8% said to teach only ID in school!

Here is the funny part. 85% said they were "very to somewhat familiar" with evolution. Only 55% said the same of ID. Houston, we have a problem!

pseudobug

Unfortunately, the same thing that is afflicting Ohioans is endemic all over the US--Xianity and an appalling scientific illiteracy rate.

The later is the fault of scientists and the education system.

What I find interesting is the concept that what is and is not science can be decided by polls and that "fairplay" enters the picture at all as a means of assessing scientific validity. The mere fact that these types of comments are being broached with regard to science education is sickening and demonstrates the scientific ignorance of the authors of the article and the respondents that made those types of comments.

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]</p>

Nic Tamzek

Criminey. Although really this isn't very surprising -- Ohio is perhaps a bit more religious/conservative than the national average, which is probably about 1/3 conservative Christian...

Good thing truth isn't determined by polls -- something conservatives usually avow, BTW.

Looks like YEC should get about 1/3 of the time in biology class, if polls are to determine science education.
[/sarcasm]

nic

Blinn

I pretty much agree with pseudobug, in that, the problem is with scientific illiteracy, although I would blame that much more on the educational system than scientists. The scientists that teach are university professors, so they are educating people that CHOOSE to be educated. Those that don't want to be educated (or can't afford to be) attend public secondary education (I did - no choice - but I got beyond that...)
And let's face it... understanding evolution well enough to know that no god is involved, is well, hard to do. It's not something that the layman is going to be able to completely grasp in most instances. How many people attend church, versus how many take an upper level course in evolutionary biology? And since they don't know what we know, but still assume they know enough, that is going to be their final say, even though it's wrong.

pseudobug

Good point Zetek. I think that scientists could do a better job by making science more accessible and understandble to the general population. That's a tough, time-consuming job that view are in a position to devote the time to doing well.

You are right about the educational system--particularly in the secondary schools--being mostly at fault. Most secondary teachers haven't had the equivalent number of upper division biology classes that a biology major has had. When you consider the fact that even most biology majors have little more than a cursory familiarity with their area of concentration, it is little wonder that many teachers are ill-prepared to teach the subject well.

I would really like to see general biology at the high school and even the introductory level in college taught with a heavy emphasis on evolutionary theory. It can and should be done as it is the most fundamental concept of the life sciences and crosses practically every sub-discipline of the biological sciences.

I also agree with Eugenie Scott---there is no debate as to whether ID should be presented as there is no evidence supporting it. Until there is (and there never will be), their shouldn't be a single minute wasted on the issue in a science class anywhere.

Indifference

On a related note, I just found out that my hometown school is planning on adding an evolution/creation course. I'm not up on the particulars, but it sure does smell fishy. From what I understand, the class is intended to merely compare and contrast without drawing conclusions... but regardless...

A couple of fundies must have infiltrated the school board