Prev:  If it's measurable, it's in “The Universe”.
Next: Pedophile Priests
From: HVAC on 12 Apr 2010 06:59
In an unusual last-minute edit that has drawn flak from the White
House and science educators, a federal advisory committee omitted data
on Americans' knowledge of evolution and the big bang from a key
report. The data shows that Americans are far less likely than the
rest of the world to accept that humans evolved from earlier species
and that the universe began with a big bang.

They're not surprising findings, but the National Science Board, which
oversees the National Science Foundation (NSF), says it chose to leave
the section out of the 2010 edition of the biennial Science and
Engineering Indicators because the survey questions used to measure
knowledge of the two topics force respondents to choose between
factual knowledge and religious beliefs.

"Discussing American science literacy without mentioning evolution is
intellectual malpractice" that "downplays the controversy" over
teaching evolution in schools, says Joshua Rosenau of the National
Center for Science Education, a nonprofit that has fought to keep
creationism out of the science classroom. The story appears in this
week's issue of Science.

Board members say the decision to drop the text was driven by a desire
for scientific accuracy. The survey questions that NSF has used for 25
years to measure knowledge of evolution and the big bang were "flawed
indicators of scientific knowledge because responses conflated
knowledge and beliefs," says Louis Lanzerotti, an astrophysicist at
the New Jersey Institute of Technology who chairs NSB's Science and
Engineering Indicators Committee.

The explanation doesn't appear to have soothed White House officials,
who say that the edit—made after the White House had reviewed a draft—
left them surprised and dismayed. "The Administration counts on the
National Science Board to provide the fairest and most complete
reporting of the facts they track," says Rick Weiss, a spokesperson
and analyst at the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy.

The deleted text, obtained by ScienceInsider, does not differ
radically from what has appeared in previous Indicators. The section,
which was part of the unedited chapter on public attitudes toward
science and technology, notes that 45% of Americans in 2008 answered
true to the statement, "Human beings, as we know them today, developed
from earlier species of animals." The figure is similar to previous
years and much lower than in Japan (78%), Europe (70%), China (69%),
and South Korea (64%). The same gap exists for the response to a
second statement, "The universe began with a big explosion," with
which only 33% of Americans agreed.

The board member who took the lead in removing the text was John
Bruer, a philosopher who heads the St. Louis, Missouri-based James S.
McDonnell Foundation. He told Science that his reservations about the
two survey questions dated back to 2007, when he was the lead reviewer
for the same chapter in the 2008 Indicators. He calls the survey
questions "very blunt instruments not designed to capture public
understanding" of the two topics.

"I think that is a nonsensical response" that reflects "the religious
right's point of view," says Jon Miller, a science literacy researcher
at Michigan State University in East Lansing who authored the survey 3
decades ago and conducted it for NSF until 2001. "Evolution and the
big bang are not a matter of opinion. If a person says that the earth
really is at the center of the universe, even if scientists think it
is not, how in the world would you call that person scientifically
literate? Part of being literate is to both understand and accept
scientific constructs."

When Science asked Bruer if individuals who did not accept evolution
or the big bang to be true could be described as scientifically
literate, he said: "There are many biologists and philosophers of
science who are highly scientifically literate who question certain
aspects of the theory of evolution," adding that such questioning has
led to improved understanding of evolutionary theory. When asked if he
expected those academics to answer "false" to the statement about
humans having evolved from earlier species, Bruer said: "On that
particular point, no."

Lanzerotti told Science that even though the board had been aware of
concerns about the two questions since before the 2008 survey was
conducted, officials had not had a chance to alter the questions
because the volume of work that goes into producing the Indicators is
"vast," unlike "writing a 2000-word news article." However, both
Lanzerotti and Lynda Carlson, director of NSF's statistical office
that manages the survey and produces Indicators, say that it is time
to take a fresh look at the survey. Last week, less than 48 hours
after his interview with Science, Lanzerotti asked the head of NSF's
Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences directorate to conduct a
"thorough examination" of the questions through "workshops with
experts."

Miller, the scientific literacy researcher, believes that removing the
entire section was a clumsy attempt to hide a national embarrassment.
"Nobody likes our infant death rate," he says by way of comparison,
"but it doesn't go away if you quit talking about it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Harlow Speaks Thusly: These are bad questions. If I was to answer
these
questions literally, I would say NO to each.
From: [SMF] on 12 Apr 2010 07:57
On 4/12/2010 5:59 AM, HVAC wrote:

<snip>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Harlow Speaks Thusly: These are bad questions. If I was to answer
> these
> questions literally, I would say NO to each.

Or, I don't know. Anyone that answers with certainty will most
likely do so based on faith, rather than knowledge.
From: HVAC on 12 Apr 2010 09:01

"[SMF]" <snbsmf(a)yahooligo.com> wrote in message
news:hpv1rq$89u$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> On 4/12/2010 5:59 AM, HVAC wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Harlow Speaks Thusly: These are bad questions. If I was to answer
>> these
>> questions literally, I would say NO to each.
>
> Or, I don't know. Anyone that answers with certainty will most
> likely do so based on faith, rather than knowledge.


To the question of did humans arise from lower forms of
animals, I would have to (strictly speaking) say 'no'. They
arose from lower forms of HUMANS.

The question regarding did the universe arise from
a big explosion (strictly speaking) I would have to say
'no', since there was no 'explosion' as we know them.



--
�Intelligent Design� Helping Stupid People Feel Smart Since 1987


From: Puppet_Sock on 12 Apr 2010 11:21
On Apr 12, 10:39 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote:
[snip]
>  All the
> claimed "support" for evolution and the Big Bang is scientific and
> therefore invalid.
[snap]

Al, you need to insert the <sarcasm> tag in there. Folks who
don't know you like we do might not know that you were not
being directly serious.
Socks
From: [SMF] on 12 Apr 2010 22:12
On 4/12/2010 10:21 AM, Puppet_Sock wrote:
> On Apr 12, 10:39 am, Uncle Al<Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>> All the
>> claimed "support" for evolution and the Big Bang is scientific and
>> therefore invalid.
> [snap]
>
> Al, you need to insert the<sarcasm> tag in there. Folks who
> don't know you like we do might not know that you were not
> being directly serious.
> Socks

Why take the fun out of it?
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev:  If it's measurable, it's in “The Universe”.
Next: Pedophile Priests