Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Incurious America

When I was growing up in the Jet Age, America saw itself on the cutting edge of science. Remember the Sputnik challenge? The Russians got satellites into space before us, and we were shocked. Immediately the US increased funding for science, improved engineering training (this is whre the "New Math" came from), and otherwise put on pressure to get ahead again.

It hurt our feelings and challenged us, coming in second.

Now we see that, at least in biological science, our knowledge as an industrialized country ranks last except for Turkey.

Next to last.

How did that happen? New Scientist considers the question.
Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false? This simple question is splitting America apart, with a growing proportion thinking that we did not descend from an ancestral ape. A survey of 32 European countries, the US and Japan has revealed that only Turkey is less willing than the US to accept evolution as fact.

Religious fundamentalism, bitter partisan politics and poor science education have all contributed to this denial of evolution in the US, says Jon Miller of Michigan State University in East Lansing, who conducted the survey with his colleagues. "The US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has been politicised," he says. "Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue."

Miller's report makes for grim reading for adherents of evolutionary theory. Even though the average American has more years of education than when Miller began his surveys 20 years ago, the percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005 (Science, vol 313, p 765). That's despite a series of widely publicised advances in genetics, including genetic sequencing, which shows strong overlap of the human genome with those of chimpanzees and mice. "We don't seem to be going in the right direction," Miller says. Why doesn't America believe in evolution?

It is bizarre to see this change in a lifetime. The public has been turned away from science. America has lost interest in leading the world intellectually.

The nastiest thing that is often said about President Bush is that he is "incurious."

It is a sign of intellectual poverty. And the fact that millions of Americans voted for the guy tells you that millions of Americans have lost their curiosity, their desire for knowledge, millions of Americans have abandoned their sense of wonder.
There is some cause for hope. Team member Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, finds solace in the finding that the percentage of adults overtly rejecting evolution has dropped from 48 to 39 in the same time. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared, from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year. "That is a group of people that can be reached," says Scott.

The main opposition to evolution comes from fundamentalist Christians, who are much more abundant in the US than in Europe. While Catholics, European Protestants and so-called mainstream US Protestants consider the biblical account of creation as a metaphor, fundamentalists take the Bible literally, leading them to believe that the Earth and humans were created only 6000 years ago.

Ironically, the separation of church and state laid down in the US constitution contributes to the tension. In Catholic schools, both evolution and the strict biblical version of human beginnings can be taught. A court ban on teaching creationism in public schools, however, means pupils can only be taught evolution, which angers fundamentalists, and triggers local battles over evolution.

Well, yeah, we have this system: churches for religion, schools for secular teaching. All bases are covered. It works.
These battles can take place because the US lacks a national curriculum of the sort common in European countries. However, the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind act is instituting standards for science teaching, and the battles of what they should be has now spread to the state level.

Miller thinks more genetics should be on the syllabus to reinforce the idea of evolution. American adults may be harder to reach: nearly two-thirds don't agree that more than half of human genes are common to chimpanzees. How would these people respond when told that humans and chimps share 99 per cent of their genes?

The country has arrived at this tipping point because some of us got too comfortable thinking that people would do the right thing, on their own. The excitement of the Space Race, the constant stream of breakthroughs in science and technology, gave us the warm feeling that our country was energized and engaged in the pursuit of knowledge and innovation. But while we were basking in the glow of post-Enlightenment discovery, some found all that innovation unbearable; new knowledge means new ways of doing things, it means seeing things in a new light, knowledge is upsetting and challenging, and lots of people don't like that. And, unbelievably, Incurious America is in danger of falling back into a new Dark Age, unless we, the curious, speak up and speak out for reason.

16 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't know what this means, Jim, but I read a report last night that George Bush is reading "The Stranger" on vacation. Maybe you two should start a book club.

News flash: Saddam Hussein is currently on trial for using weapons of mass destruction. Since he never had any, according to TTF, the whole trial must be a sham. The Saddam sham.

Maybe he just passed out his stockpile to all his terrorist buddies. If not, where did the stuff go? Have there been any witnesses, among all of his Iraqi friends, who saw them destroyed? Did he exhaust his whole supply on the Kurds and Iraqis? If you'll read the Duelfer report, you'll find that this wonderful and jolly Saddam fellow actually retained the infrastructure to produce more weapons.

August 23, 2006 2:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well, yeah, we have this system: churches for religion, schools for secular teaching. All bases are covered. It works."

Actually, the whole point of the article is that it doesn't work. America is a leader in innovation because no ideas are sacred and academic freedom is honored. Even if you assume that evolutionary theory of speciation is correct, the reaction of the scientific establishment which tries to eliminate any criticism raises suspicion.

"Miller thinks more genetics should be on the syllabus to reinforce the idea of evolution. American adults may be harder to reach: nearly two-thirds don't agree that more than half of human genes are common to chimpanzees. How would these people respond when told that humans and chimps share 99 per cent of their genes?"

Here's a perfect example of how the scientific establishment has turned evolution into a religion. The similarity of the design and building blocks of all living things is portrayed as somehow establishing evolution. But, really, it's more indicative of a common designer. If we encounter two cars with similar engines and other components, we'd assume they had a commmon producer. As we have learned in recent years, the human body is many degrees more complicated than a car. Why, then, don't we draw the same conclusion? Why doesn't the status quo want the issue discussed?

signed,

ADAM (A Designed Alert Mind)

August 23, 2006 2:32 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon 1:

Since he never had any, according to TTF...

No, Anon, TTF doesn't say that, I don't say that. Saddam is being tried for genocide in 1988, when the US was supplying him with weapons and funds, and turning our eyes away while he gassed hundreds of thousands of people.

No WMD functioning in 2003, the year we first attacked the Iraqi people, have been found. Even Bush admitted it again two days ago.

ADAM:

The scientific establishment is churning with criticism over every detail of every theory ever proposed, it is not afraid of criticism. "Peer review" is a term that means, exactly, submitting your ideas to criticism by experts. What they are afraid of is that ancient myths will be re-told as fact, even when actual facts have been empirically established. The result will be, as we are seeing, the deterioration and loss of America's position as an intellectual leader in the world, and of our ability to lead technologically.

Evolution doesn't mean you have to abandon your sense of wonder and spiritual connection with creation, it just means you have to realize that the Genesis creation myth is just that: a myth.

JimK

August 23, 2006 3:28 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

I think Bush might be meeting a stranger rather than reading the book. Incurious America- of course! People are too busy watching bad TV and reading Star magazine. What happens to Brad and Angelina or American Idol is more important than the real world to many people.

August 23, 2006 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No, Anon, TTF doesn't say that, I don't say that. Saddam is being tried for genocide in 1988, when the US was supplying him with weapons and funds, and turning our eyes away while he gassed hundreds of thousands of people."

He's being tried currently for using WMD. After we surrounded him in Gulf War I, he agreed, if left in power, to destroy them and allow inspection and verification. When he repeatedly refused to allow the inspectors to inspect and made repeated threats against the U.S., it was reasonable to assume he still had them. Most intelligence services worldwide did.

"No WMD functioning in 2003, the year we first attacked the Iraqi people, have been found."

It's hard to know what to say about this slander against America. We deposed a ruthless and cruel dictator who caused suffering and hopelessness among the Iraqi people. We did not attack the Iraqi people. The only "Iraqi people" that want a return of this miscreant are his fellow perpetrators.

August 23, 2006 4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The scientific establishment is churning with criticism over every detail of every theory ever proposed, it is not afraid of criticism."

Well, in Kansas, only a mention of the problems was mandated and the scientific establishment went ballistic. Science is willing to question most theories but evolution has attained sacred status among the status quo.

""Peer review" is a term that means, exactly, submitting your ideas to criticism by experts."

Peer reviews can be skewed by editors who submit articles to those who agree with them. Scientific journals are too numerous and diverse to deserve the generic reverence you give to peer review.

"What they are afraid of is that ancient myths will be re-told as fact, even when actual facts have been empirically established."

Intelligent design theorists are happy to talk about the facts. Evolutionists want to supress the very obvious empirical fact that life, and the universe itself, appear to be designed. Nobody in Kansas wanted to teach a myth as fact. They only wanted to point out certain flaws in a theory. The original formulator of this theory specifically said these flaws would be fatal to the theory if they were observed. They were observed.

"The result will be, as we are seeing, the deterioration and loss of America's position as an intellectual leader in the world, and of our ability to lead technologically."

We're still the leader by a long shot. The education system is failing in America because of a public educational monopoly.

"Evolution doesn't mean you have to abandon your sense of wonder and spiritual connection with creation,"

Neither does the observation that there appears to be an observer.

"it just means you have to realize that the Genesis creation myth is just that: a myth."

Which brings us to the problem. The scientific establishment wants to assert that it has proven that the Judeo-Christian story is a myth. It hasn't. There is no concern for truth in this area. The purpose of deferring special status on evolution is to attack religious belief.

ADAM

August 23, 2006 4:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No, Anon, TTF doesn't say that, I don't say that. Saddam is being tried for genocide in 1988, when the US was supplying him with weapons and funds, and turning our eyes away while he gassed hundreds of thousands of people.

No WMD functioning in 2003, ... have been found..."

And, yet, it's clear he had them and there is no evidence he destroyed them. Makes you wonder where the stuff is.

August 23, 2006 4:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Scientists create ‘ethical’ embryo stem cells

NEW YORK - A biotechnology company has developed a new way of creating stem cells without destroying human embryos, billing it as a potential solution to a contentious political and ethical debate.

“This will make it far more difficult to oppose this research,” said Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology, the Alameda, Calif., company that reported the new method.

Stem cell researchers were impressed by the new technique’s ability to produce two robust lines of stem cells without requiring the destruction of embryos, and a White House spokeswoman called it encouraging. However, few on either side believe the new procedure will end the long-running bitter impasse over the science.

Stem cells have become a sort of holy grail for advocates of patients with a wide variety of illnesses because of the cells’ potential to transform into any type of human tissue. But the Vatican, President Bush and others have argued that the promise of stem cells should not be realized at the expense of human life, even in its most nascent stages.


“The science is interesting and important,” said John Harris, a professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester in Great Britain, commenting on the biotech company’s efforts.


The new technique takes just a single cell from an early-stage embryo and uses it to seed a line of stem cells. The rest of the embryo retains the potential to develop into a healthy human.

A paper describing the method is being published online Wednesday by the British journal Nature. The journal published a similar paper by Advanced Cell Technology researchers last year demonstrating the technique’s viability in mice

Stem cell researchers complain that the new approach, though it may hold future promise, simply isn’t as efficient as their current method of creating stem cells. That procedure involves the destruction of embryos after about five days of development, when they consist of about 100 cells.

U.S. law currently bans federal funding of any research that harms human embryos. A White House spokeswoman said the new method’s eligibility for funding could not yet be determined, “but it is encouraging to see scientists at least making serious efforts to move away from research that involves the destruction of embryos.”ifically for the production of stem cells.

The fertility procedure, known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, is used when parents want to avoid having a child with a lethal or severely debilitating birth defect. About 1,000 such procedures are performed each year in the United States.

PGD begins with in vitro fertilization to produce numerous embryos. At a very early stage of development, when the embryos are no more than a ball of eight to 10 cells, a technician extracts a single cell from each one. The extracted cells are tested for genetic disorders, and those free of defect are then implanted in the mother in the hope that will develop.

The new stem cell production method takes a cell extracted during PGD and allows it to divide. One of the two resulting cells is genetically tested as in normal PGD; the other is cultured to encourage the development of stem cells.

Advanced Cell Technology was able to produce two viable stem cell lines from a total of 16 embryos. The lines appeared to exhibit the full potential of embryonic stem cells to develop into any type of human tissue, the researchers reported, but additional study is needed to verify that.

“I think this will become a standard way of producing stem cell lines,” said Ronald M. Green, a Dartmouth College professor of religion who is an unpaid bioethics adviser to Advanced Cell Technology.

© 2006 The Associated Press.

August 23, 2006 5:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon said, He's being tried currently for using WMD.

Jim replied, Saddam is being tried for genocide in 1988, when the US was supplying him with weapons and funds, and turning our eyes away while he gassed hundreds of thousands of people.

Here, read this story on FoxNews (a source I'm sure you trust) and learn.

"Defiant Saddam Refuses to Enter Plea at Opening of Second Trial
Monday, August 21, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A defiant Saddam Hussein shouted at prosecutors and refused to enter a plea Monday at the opening of his second trial, where he faces charges of genocide and war crimes connected to his scorched-earth offensive against Kurds nearly two decades ago..."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209523,00.html

August 23, 2006 10:46 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jeff Hecht (the writer of the New Scientist op-ed piece) writes,

Ironically, the separation of church and state laid down in the US constitution contributes to the tension.

Now where exactly does the US Constitution lay down a "separation of church and state"? I've read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights as well as all the rest of the Amendments and I can't find that anywhere. Odd...and I am quite curious about such matters.

OH! That's right...there are all of those US Supreme Court decisions that incorporated the opinion of a private American citizen (Thomas Jefferson) into First Amendment jurisprudence. Jefferson was, and probably remains to this day, without peer in intellectual terms. However, he had no official part in the composition of the Constitution that I am aware of at all. Also, while Jefferson was much brighter than many of us ever hope to attain, as to the possession of political rights we are all equals (well, at least that is the theory).

I suspect that this misunderstanding about the First Amendment is truly the "vampire" for which a cross, a silver bullet and a wooden stake are of no use. Sigh...

August 24, 2006 3:22 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Orin wrote "a private American citizen (Thomas Jefferson)"

Oh brother, Orin. What a lovely example of "spin."

"A private citizen." Is that all Thomas Jefferson was? No, and you know it.

Thomas Jefferson was the third President of this great nation and the author the Declaration of Independence. He is highly regarded (although not by Orin, apparently) as one of the most influential founding fathers of this great democratic experiment we call the United States of America.

This quote of Jefferson's seems appropriate to quote here:

"He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions."

August 24, 2006 7:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WMD don't kill people. People kill people.

August 24, 2006 9:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Thomas Jefferson was the third President of this great nation and the author the Declaration of Independence. He is highly regarded (although not by Orin, apparently) as one of the most influential founding fathers of this great democratic experiment we call the United States of America."

Jim,

Orin's right. Thomas Jefferson's personal views are not the primary source of our democracy. The documents agreed to by all the founding fathers are. We all know Jefferson was not an infallible "pope" of democracy but a slaveholding deist.

The reason for the establishment clause was to prevent the government from interferring in religious affairs by choosing the denomination it favors and outlawing or undermining the others, such as the government in England did to non-Anglican traditions. It was never meant to create an atheist state or to protect citizens from exposure to religious ideas. This is another kooky TTF notion.

August 24, 2006 9:19 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, if you thought Aunt Bea was me, you're wrong.

As for your comment about "kooky TTF ideas," well, we sure didn't make it up. Most people are shocked when they learn that people like you believe the government should promote religion -- the belief in separation of church and state runs very deep in America.

JimK

August 24, 2006 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the belief in separation of church and state runs very deep in America"

Not in the sense that liberals use it these days. Freedom of religion and conscience run deep but this current trend of trying to remove the mention of God from all public life began with the Warren court in the 1950s and is widely viewed as a gross misinterpretation by legal and historical scholars. In a country where the money says "In God We Trust", where the Senate opens with a prayer and where courtroom oaths are taken on a Bible, it's difficult to see how the TTF view runs deep.

Maybe it runs deep in certain parts of America. Let's leave it at that.

August 24, 2006 10:14 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

I am reading Jon Meachum's American Gospel this summer. I commend it to anyone who wants to learn not just the origins of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, but the wisdom of finding an appropriate balance between individual religious beliefs and the coercive power of the state.

August 24, 2006 5:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home