Camaban

Got this from a thread on another forum

<a href="http://boards.swirve.com/board.cgi?boardset=utopia&boardid=politics&thread= 11&spec=4551300" target="_blank">http://boards.swirve.com/board.cgi?boardset=utopia&boardid=politics&thread= 11&spec=4551300</a> (forum thread link)

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/06/15/not.rocket.scientists.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/06/15/not.rocket.scientists.ap/index.html</a> (Site explaining creationism link)

E equals MC-wha?
Americans don't know much about science, and that's cause for concern


NEW YORK (AP) -- Can a nation debate the merits of cloning when fewer than half its adults can give a decent definition of DNA?

Can it render good judgment on genetically engineered food when only a quarter can define a molecule?

And can Americans assess competing medical claims when only a third show a good understanding of the scientific process?

Experts see cause for concern in the latest report card on American scientific understanding. But they aren't surprised.

Like many people, Shirley M. Malcom, head of education for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has seen "The Tonight Show" host Jay Leno's quizzes of people on the street.

Leno: "Where would you find chlorophyll?"

Dante from Michigan: "Probably in your toilet."

(Correct answer: In plants)

Leno broke the news about the new study to his audience last month:

"Here's something shocking. According to a study by the National Science Foundation, 70 percent of Americans do not understand science. Here's the sad part: 30 percent don't even know what 70 percent means."

That second statistic is only a joke. But the foundation did report that a survey of American adults turned up low numbers like these:

· 45 percent could define "DNA," the substance carrying the inherited genetic code.

· 22 percent could define "molecule," the basic unit of a chemical compound.

· 48 percent knew electrons are smaller than atoms.

Only about one-third showed a good understanding of the scientific process, including ideas about probability and how to do an experiment.

Americans did better on some other questions. Ninety-four percent knew cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, for example, and about three-quarters knew that some radioactivity is naturally produced, that continents are moving and that light travels faster than sound.

The survey's margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

In its current form, the survey has been given every two years since 1979 and overall the results haven't changed much, said Melissa Pollak, senior analyst at the science foundation.

"It's discouraging," she said. "We'd hope people would know more than they seem to know about some basic science facts and concepts."

If it's any consolation, the United States did slightly better than 14 other industrialized countries in the early 1990s, ranking about equal to Denmark and the Netherlands, Pollak said. Her quick look at new survey data suggests this country is still somewhat ahead, she said.

But some see reason for hope in survey results over the years. Jon Miller of Northwestern University, who directed the survey from 1979 to '99, has his own index of scientific literacy. It includes an understanding of scientific process plus vocabulary.

By that gauge, "the trend in the last decade has been very encouraging," he said, with science literacy growing from 10 percent in 1988 to 17 percent in 1999. He hasn't calculated the number for the new survey.

Leno: "What keeps the Earth orbiting around the sun?"

Sarah from Cleveland, Ohio: "The gravitational pull ... of the moon."

(Correct answer: The gravitational pull of the sun)

What bothers Pollak the most is the finding that only about a third of adults showed a good understanding of the scientific process.

"This is where science can benefit people in their daily lives," Pollak said. People get bombarded with claims by psychics and medical quacks, she said, and if they don't understand about critical thinking and scientific evidence, they can waste time and money.

That understanding also helps citizens confront scientific political issues where the media are often content to present both sides of an argument, no matter which side has better evidence, said Malcom of the AAAS.

There's another, related concern. How will the United States provide a sufficient supply of qualified workers for careers in science and technology? Nowadays, the nation is leaning heavily on foreigners.

"We could not function in our government laboratories, in our academic laboratories and in our industrial laboratories without these workers," says William Haseltine, chief executive officer of Human Genome Sciences Inc. "I would guess we would drop in productivity by about 50 percent or more... We simply don't train enough [American] people."

The science foundation reports that as of 1999, about a quarter of all U.S. workers holding a doctorate in science or engineering were foreign-born. For computer science and engineering doctorates, about 45 percent were foreign-born, and for biological sciences, 27 percent.

Some observers are queasy about the future supply of foreign expertise.

"You can't depend on it," Haseltine says. "As economic conditions improve abroad, it's less likely these foreign workers will come to the United States... We've already seen some reverse brain drain, back to China, back to Europe, back to Germany in particular," by people who've gotten years of training in the United States.

The obvious response, Haseltine and others say, is to produce more Americans with science and engineering expertise.

So, if it's up to this country, how does it increase Americans' understanding of science? The real engine, experts say, is the schoolroom.

Leno: "Who invented pasteurization?"

Kerry from Denver, Colorado: "Um, some agriculture person ... [from] Nebraska."

(Correct answer: French scientist Louis Pasteur)

Nancy Ridenour, science department leader at Ithaca High School in Ithaca, New York, tells the story of two kindergarten teachers she visited. Each presented the class with a large water pool that contained a toy boat.

One teacher asked, "What do you think would make this boat move?" Students suggested they could blow on it, squirt water on it or simply push it. Then the teacher said, "Show me."

When the other teacher presented the same basic setup to her class, she simply said, "Here are some straws. Blow on the boat and see if it moves."

The first approach, which invited children to think rather than just follow instructions, teaches critical thinking through the process of inquiry, Ridenour said. That's one way she and others recommend to help kids learn more about science.

It has to start early. Around fourth or fifth grade, "you go into the valley of the shadow," where pupils turn off to science and math unless they've experienced good classroom material, chances to explore the topic and "teachers who love the subject," said Judith Ramaley, with the science foundation's education and human resources section.

The foundation plans to spend about $1 billion over the next five years for its third generation of efforts over the past decade to improve science and math teaching, Ramaley said.

Among its priorities is better training in those subjects for teachers. "It's very clear that teachers matter, and their knowledge of subject matter content is critical," Ramaley said.

Currently, many who teach math or science don't have backgrounds in those subjects, she said. The science foundation reported in 2000 that 31 percent of math teachers and 20 percent of science teachers in grades 7-12 lack a major or minor in their subjects.

But better training before teaching doesn't solve another problem. Within five years of starting a teaching career, nearly half of urban math and science teachers leave the classroom, said Harold Pratt, immediate past president of the National Science Teachers Association. They'd stick around more if they had inducements like more mentoring, better teaching assignments and chances to take classes and seminars, he said.

Ramaley emphasized that teachers also need to be paid more and "treated as professionals" with more say in what and how they teach.

Malcom and others say people certainly are capable of learning about science. Her office develops science materials for people with poor general literacy. "Our experience has been if you help them understand the significance of the topic and provide the information at a level they can engage with it, that they are very engaged," she said.

Miller, at Northwestern, says that people who get a good foundation in the classroom are poised to learn even more through the Internet. And the same technology should let a growing class of scientifically literate citizens take more control of science-related government debates by bombarding legislators with e-mail, he said.

If science literacy rises to 25 percent of adults in the next decade, Miller said, that means about 50 million people even by today's population.

And that, he says, will catch the attention of Capitol Hill.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Camaban ]</p>

Jimmy Higgins

If I may, the title should be young earth creationism explained. Many intelligent people still believe in god. There is no shame in this. They don't steal money from victims like so many YEC organizations. They don't have an agenda. They just believe that the universe had to have a creator.

Some of it is related to environmental coersion that there is a god. And some of it is related to the fact that there are two options. And the god one seems just as reasonable as the no-god one.

Both my parents believe there is a god. That doesn't mean they are unintelligent. They belive evolution is the origins of man. They believe that the universe is very old. They don't think there was a global flood. What their faith means is that is how they were raised and it means that is their conclusion to a rather unconclusionable question. I give them no fault to that. Their faith helps them. I would be a fool to want to take that away from them just to apease my own beliefs.

The ones we must be weary of are those that think the earth is 6000 to 10000 (that good ole 67% error built-in) years old. That the holocaust never happened. That blacks are inferior to whites. These are the "stupid ones". These are the ones that need a lease. More important, it is the people that take advantage of those people that we must keep in line. They are the most dangerous.

Camaban

apologies for the title.

*thinks it's a pity you can't edit in this forum*

tgamble

I thought you could.

Camaban

*looks again and notices the icons at the top*

Well bugger me and call me lucy

*edits title*

Huginn

The MSNBC version of the same article has a short test with some sample questions, <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/660614.asp" target="_blank">here</a>.

I would be if anyone here didn't get 100% (except for misreading questions) as it is pretty straightforward.

Camaban

got the last 2 wrong, but to be fair, I dropped out halfway through grade 11.

himynameisPwn

Lol, i got a 4th grade question wrong about the energy in beans and coal. I really didn't know the suns light gave them their stored energy.

Cogito

5. Which of the following best explains why the pressure inside a high-flying airplane must be controlled?
Correct:
b. At high altitudes there is lower atmospheric pressure than on the surface of the Earth.
30 percent of students answered correctly.

What dumbasses! Look at the other choices! LMAO!!!

and yes, I did get 100 and am halfway through Gr. 11

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Cogito ]</p>

trunks2k

Actually I think that question is wrong. B/C I really don't see how the sun gives coal it's stored energy. I might just be really tired, but the anser to that question seems wrong. Someone care to explain? I can see why they say the sun gives beans their stored energy (if you trace the process back far enough)Am I just not thinking back far enough or something when it comes to coal?

Eddited to add:

I got the question on the Moon orbitign the Earth wrong because I read the question incorrectly. I thought the answer I chose read "The moon is sometimes closer to the Sun than the Earth is to the Sun" but instead it read "The moon is somethimes closer to the Sun than to the Earth". Sometimes I swear I have dyslexia.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: trunks2k ]</p>