You're assuming students actually learn anything. Considering that you can now take a degree on Golf or David Beckham this isn't really true. I'm sure a survey of students taking real degrees at real universities would give more encouraging results.
U.S. population lags in accepting evolution
- Thread starter hgc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- evolution population
You're assuming students actually learn anything. Considering that you can now take a degree on Golf or David Beckham this isn't really true. I'm sure a survey of students taking real degrees at real universities would give more encouraging results.
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
Just because people are trained in weighing evidence doesn't men that they will come to the right conclusions, they need to be presented with evidence for them to weigh.
I suspect that the vast majority of the US population (and the world population for that mater) who do not work in the biological sciences, or are not involved in the political battle over evolution do not have enough interest in evolution to appraise themselves of the proper facts, especially as there are a number of large and well funded anti-evolution propaganda programmes in the US.
These groups are not wasting their money, I can even see the impact they are having on this side of the Atlantic (where well funded creationists are much less common, so they tend to plagiarize their propaganda from, US sources)
"he is not at the Smithsonian, due to his creationist bent." And that's the way science should operate, right? As Sternberg notes on his home page: "After Smithsonian officials determined that there was no wrong-doing in the publication process for the Meyer paper and that they therefore had no grounds to remove me from my position directly, they tried to create an intolerable working environment so that I would be forced to resign. As the OSC investigation concluded, “t is... clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI.” In addition, it was made clear to me that my current position at the Smithsonian will not be renewed despite my excellent record of research and publication."Ken- I followed Rodney's link- picked the Smithsonian guy, Googled , found he is not at the Smithsonian, due to his creationist bent. (Sternberg) has filed complaints against the S. for infringing on his rights to lunacy.....
I quit. It WAS a Rodney link, y'know!
You will also find that Sternberg holds two PhDs in the area of evolutionary biology, one in molecular (DNA) evolution and the other in systems theory and theoretical biology and has published more than 30 articles in peer-reviewed scientific books and publications. See -- http://www.rsternberg.net/
In Greece,
Oh, and for Rodney, and any readers who might be impressed by "600 doctoral scientists" signing a petition...Project Steve.
It's not so much that there is a big push for creationism or intelligent design, but rather that the Theory of Evolution simply is not taught.
Oh, and for Rodney, and any readers who might be impressed by "600 doctoral scientists" signing a petition...Project Steve.
Eh, it's all on the internet -no one needs to learn this stuff in a university any more, if they ever did. And there are tangible real world benefits for teaching onesself to think critically: it provides great social advantages from wealth accumulation to mate seduction. I think that a large portion of the brains on this planet simply aren't a suitable medium for this level of critical thinking memes. As such, rather than waste resources convincing them to adopt a rote belief in the less-intuitive-for-them theory of evolution, I think we should spend our society dollars in such a way that we get maximum (humane) utilitarian behavior out of this large subset of the population.
I'm not quite sure I follow this line of thought correctly, so feel free to correct me, but...
It seems that you're saying "people are too stupid to be eductated, as is obvious from the fact that they haven't been educated yet, so we shouldn't try to educate them on science. Rather we should just try to force them to adopt the policies that we think are right, because we're smart enough to educate ourselves, and thus clearly smarter than them."
My problem with this is that there are more issues that require scientific literacy to weight correctly than just stem cell research. In fact, it seems to me that in this modern world that is built upon science and technology, that is changing day to day due to environmental, cultural, and technological changes, scientific literacy is needed to analyze almost every political issue.
I don't think any society can function well these days if it's decision makers (and in a democracy that's the people to a large degree) don't have that necessary literacy. But maybe Carl Sagan has me a little brainwashed...
Anyway, I understand what you're saying. It's more effective to focus on the important issues that will actually make a difference than it is to try to convince an apathetic populace of a fact that there is a power group trying to suppress.
I don't think I agree, though. For instance, how do you intend to convince people that stem cell research is not evil without presenting them the with the science?
Just saying "tell them that they'll burn in hell" doesn't work. You'd need to convince the church to tell them that. And the church isn't about to do that. Nor am I convinced that people would necessarily listen (though if you could manage it, it might be worth a try). Also, I personally don't think I'd support lying to people, even if it was for a good cause. Mainly because of what happens when you inevitably are found out.
How can we inform people about the proper use of antibiotics, or pesticides or herbicides, if they don't understand evolution? How do we convince them to make that use without that understanding?
Without science and evidence to back up what we're saying, we're only left with propaganda. The problem is, the other side has that too, and they seem to be just as good or better at employing it.
The 600 doctoral scientists was not the point -- that was just background information. The point is that it is perfectly possible to be an outstanding biologist, such as Richard von Sternberg, and not be a Darwinist.
Possible...just vanishingly unlikely.
Just curious...what are your criteria for "outstanding biologist", and how many people on the Project Steve list would meet those criteria?
andyandy
anthropomorphic ape
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,377
I would think that two PhDs in evolutionary biology and more than 30 articles in peer-reviewed scientific books and publications would qualify one as an outstanding biologist. The Project Steve list is irrelevant to the issue at hand because I am not asserting that no one on that list is an outstanding biologist.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
God ment them to be garbage and garbage they shall be!
andyandy
anthropomorphic ape
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,377
right, so you're one of the "brights" are you? Elitist thinkers generally tend to think rather more of themselves than perhaps they should....in my humble opinion....
Modern research is based very much around publications. If you don't publish you are assumed not to be doing anything and will get no funding. 30 articles in 15 years would be near the minimum I would expect from someone constantly employed in scientific research. I would class this as a completely average biologist, not outstanding at all.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
And if his arguement had merit why can't he convince anyone in it? The PHD's and articles are not all that important because 1, there are people who religious institutions have put through school to get phd's in biology just so that they had more "accreditied scientists" on their side.
Also what where those articles about? How much are they referenced in a favorable manor?
Just getting a degree does not mean he is an outstanding biologist and publishing, well did they have anything to do with evolution?
Should we also except that a geologist who is in favor of young earth creationsism? Working on proving the flood and all that.
I'm not sure he would scale the lofty heights of "completely average."
Biologists tend to publish like mad. At a mediocre university, a biologist who publishes only two papers per year atop his teaching duties would be considered at best mediocre. Dr. Sternberg, as far as I can tell, is a full-time soft-money postdoc, and would be expected to have much better research productivity. Here's an example of a similar researcher -- competent, but hardly a superstar -- with an equivalent publication record and a full-time teaching job.
I'm willing to go on record that, judging from his c.v., Dr. Sternberg is in no sense "outstanding" as a biologist.
Overman
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 2,629
looks like (from the graph) that about 20% of Brits think evolution is false....
who are these people?!
From this post it appears your opinion is very humble indeed...
andyandy
anthropomorphic ape
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,377
From this post it appears your opinion is very humble indeed...
i was expressing surprise that there would be such high numbers who would believe in creationism/IT seeing as i've never met such a person in the UK....
i wasn't suggesting that this meant that these people weren't "a suitable medium for [a high] level of critical thinking," the distinction should be clear for a self confessed "bright."
According to Sternberg's curriculum vitae, he was the Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington during 2001-2004 and has received a number of honors. See -- http://www.rsternberg.net/CV.htm
I agree with you. Clearly they are less elite than nontransparent elitists, and I for one am glad you're making them aware of that fact. Transparently elitist thinkers should not think more of themselves than their lot deserves. As such I think they should change their names to penultimate elitists.