Darwinism science education

The Darwinist prediction that comes true time and time again

Spread the love

No small rumpus is building over the National Science Foundation’s attempt to change the questions used to measure public adherence to Darwin dogma: Can you be “science literate” about the dogma without actually believing it? In most fields, that would not be an issue; it is routine for political scientists to be knowledgable about movements and policies that they personally oppose. But Darwinism is the creation story of atheism, so its apostles and evangelists demand that you to believe it, either PZ Myers-style or BioLogos-style.

Thus, Yudhijit Bhattacharjee reports “New NSF Survey Tries to Separate Knowledge and Belief” (Science 22 July 2011):

Can a person be scientifically literate without accepting the concepts of evolution and the big bang? To many scientists and educators, the answer to that question is an unqualified “no.”

How this came about?:

For 2 decades, the survey has included two true-false statements: “Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,” and “The universe began with a huge explosion.” Two expert panels assembled last year by NSF have suggested qualifying those statements with the phrases “According to evolutionary theory” and “According to astronomers.” The board has decided to ask NSF to give the new versions of the questions to half the respondents on its next survey and to analyze the results.

Which “infuriates” the Darwin lobby. Their position is easy to comprehend: Once a statement is sourced to someone or some group in particular, it can be evaluated in the light of reason and argument.

Consider the difference between:

Capital punishment cuts the murder rate.

and

According to criminologists, capital punishment cuts the murder rate.

The first formulation invites assent; the second, discussion. For example, on what evidence have the criminologists drawn their conclusions? Might there be other evidence they have chosen not to consider? Why was that?

The Darwinist argument against any change is

Joshua Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which has fought to keep creationism out of the science classroom, also finds the reports disheartening. “Whatever the cultural context or reasons for it, rejection of evolution has profound consequences for a person’s ability to fully integrate new and existing science into their own lives, to participate in their own medical care and in the 21st century economy,” he says. “If NSF’s surveys downplay that fundamental concept, they will be measuring science literacy in name only.”

The utter lack of evidence for Rosenau’s position that “rejection of evolution has profound consequences for a person’s ability to … to participate in their own medical care … ” makes it consistent with a great many statements by convinced evangelical Darwinists.

There’s a streak of dark humor in there too: The non-Darwinists who have been unable to participate “in the 21st century economy” were usually capable workers hounded out of their jobs by Darwinists. Just think: That’s one of the very few Darwinist predictions that comes true time and time again

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip Creation-Evolution Headlines.

14 Replies to “The Darwinist prediction that comes true time and time again

  1. 1
    jjcassidy says:

    Since when has “literacy” implied practice? That’s like judging literacy rates with knowledge of Strunk’s rules or Lord Fowler’s usage, or saying that people who txt r suddenly illiterate or don’t no English.

    If I’m literate, I don’t have to even agree that reading and writing are good things, I just have to demonstrate the skill. If I’m mathematically literate I can believe that “3 is a lucky number” or has a special vibration. As long as I can compute sums products and solve differential equations, I am not “functionally math illiterate”.

    It’s odd that they want to use the word “literacy” when they really want to test assent. They are almost literacy illiterate.

  2. 2
    Mung says:

    Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief.

  3. 3
    GilDodgen says:

    …rejection of evolution has profound consequences for a person’s ability to fully integrate new and existing science into their own lives, to participate in their own medical care and in the 21st century economy…

    A an ID advocate who does not believe that random errors can produce sophisticated computer programs and Mozart, I’m sure I would qualify as “rejecting evolution” and being scientifically illiterate. However, I just came back from Livermore, California after taking a course in arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian fluid structure interaction finite element analysis theory and technique for use in my work in aerospace R&D. My scientific illiteracy appears to have had no effect on my ability to integrate new and existing science into to my life, and I’m certainly participating quite nicely in the 21st century economy.

    And just how does not swallowing Darwinian storytelling without question or dissent affect my ability to participate in my own medical care? This sounds like scientific illiteracy to me.

    Then there are people like Philip Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has stated that “the theory of evolution is worse than useless.”

    I guess Phil was scientifically illiterate as well.

  4. 4
    Elizabeth Liddle says:

    Mung:

    Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief.

    This is true.

    However, science does require provisional assent to the proposition that the universe is predictable, at least in the aggregate.

  5. 5
    SpitfireIXA says:

    The NCSE missed a serious typo in their statement. It should have read:

    …rejection of evolution has profound consequences for a person’s ability to fully integrate new and existing science into their own lives, to participate in their own medical care and in the 19th century economy…

  6. 6
    es58 says:

    Gil @ 3:
    and, while there are no doubt folks more scientifically literate than you, by this set of rules, your less literate in this area than a person with no science education whatsoever, but who “accepts” these views. Every person screaming that side of the argument on topix is *more* literate than you.
    If this is not warped, then warped doesn’t mean what it once did.

  7. 7
    Elizabeth Liddle says:

    I’d be interested in knowing which part of evolutionary theory people here think is self-evidently wrong.

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    Elizabeth Liddle:

    I’d be interested in knowing which part of evolutionary theory people here think is self-evidently wrong.

    Let’s start with the most basic of all, which is that all organisms at all times and everywhere produce more offspring than there are resources available to support those offspring, thus requiring that they compete for scarce resources in order to survive.

  9. 9
    TaslemGuy says:

    Science isn’t about belief.

    It’s about explaining the natural world.

    Evolution is a perfect explanation of the natural world, at least as far as it explains. There is no real scientific opposition to the theory. There are virtually no scientific, peer-reviewed papers that support intelligent design.

    In court, under oath, several proponents of intelligent design stated that under their definition of “science,” astrology would also be considered “science” with intelligent design.

  10. 10
    Ilion says:

    Mung [echoing one of the constant drumbeat of the DarwinDefenders, who seek thereby to sidestep the moral and rational obligation to support their assertions about the truth of the matter]:Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief.

    EL [not realizing, or not caring, what he has said]:This is true.
    However, science does require provisional assent to the proposition that the universe is predictable, at least in the aggregate.

    Translation: ‘Science!‘ requires that I (and you!) assert as truth that which I (nor you) do not believe to be truth.

  11. 11
    Ilion says:

    … and do not have rational warrant for believing to be truth.

  12. 12
    Elizabeth Liddle says:

    Ilion:

    Mung [echoing one of the constant drumbeat of the DarwinDefenders, who seek thereby to sidestep the moral and rational obligation to support their assertions about the truth of the matter]: “Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief.”

    EL [not realizing, or not caring, what he has said]: “This is true.
    However, science does require provisional assent to the proposition that the universe is predictable, at least in the aggregate.”

    Translation: ‘Science!‘ requires that I (and you!) assert as truth that which I (nor you) do not believe to be truth.

    Ilion, you misunderstood.

    Yes, I know that Mung was “echoing one of the constant drumbeat of the DarwinDefenders”.

    Nonetheless, I consider the statement in question to be correct.

    As for your “translation”: something got lost.

    Me:

    “However, science does require provisional assent to the proposition that the universe is predictable, at least in the aggregate.”

    Your translation, corrected by me:

    “Science!‘ requires that I (and you!) assert as truth make the provisional assumption that which I (nor you) do not believe to be truth most people broadly assume in order to function effectively, namely that the universe is at least statistically predictable.

    Note that “assert as truth” is not equivalent to “make the provisional assumption” and that most people (including you, I’d guess) consider that the universe is indeed predictable, at least statistically.

    In other words, science is predicated on the predictability of the world (sometimes called “regularities”). Dealing with irregularities is beyond its methodology, hence the requirement to make the provisional assumption that regularities exist.

    But there is nothing that requires scientists to relinquish the personal belief that some things may be essentially unexplainable, and it was the suspension of assumption of predictability that allowed quantum mechanics to be developed, and is why the assumption is now modified by the words “at least statistically”.

    I have to say, Ilion, and you are not the only person who does this, it’s more than a little annoying to have people paraphrase my posts so that they misrepresent my original, which, in itself, could be forgiven as a misunderstanding, but then for that person to accuse me of dishonesty for saying something I did not say!

  13. 13
    Ilion says:

    EL [not realizing, or not caring, what he has said]:

    typo

    “EL [not realizing, or not caring, what she has said]: “

  14. 14
    Mung says:

    … science is predicated on the predictability of the world (sometimes called “regularities”). Dealing with irregularities is beyond its methodology, hence the requirement to make the provisional assumption that regularities exist.

    And therefore, modern evolutionary theory is not science. QED.

    “Science!‘ requires the provisional assumption most people broadly assume in order to function effectively, namely that the universe is at least statistically predictable.”

    Science is merely a human endeavor, no different from any other in it’s provisional assent (it could change!) that in order for us to function effectively the universe is at least statistically predictable.

    Science has no methodology to deal with the statistically unpredictable, therefore science requires the provisional assumption (it could change tomorrow!) that regularities exist.

Leave a Reply