Most Florida Parents Don't Believe in Science?
The science of evolution, that is. Can that be true? Well, not exactly.
The Times survey - which included questions about evolution and a host of other education issues was administered to 702 registered voters Feb. 6-10, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
It revealed a huge gulf between scientists and the public.
While the vast majority of scientists consider evolution to be backed by strong evidence, nearly two-thirds of those polled were skeptical.
Twenty-nine percent said evolution is one of several valid theories. Another 16 percent said evolution is not backed up by enough evidence. And 19 percent said evolution is not valid because it is at odds with the Bible.
Yep, you would think Floridians were the most backward of thinkers, especially with the following:
Sue Sams of Spring Hill, a retired English teacher who describes herself as Protestant, said schools should teach creationism only."
I don't disagree with the theory of evolution," said Sams, 65. "I'm just not sure it's 100 percent right."
Responses such as Sams' fly in the face of endorsements from thousands of scientists and scores of scientific societies, including the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science."
There is no justification for singling out evolution for special skepticism or critical analysis," wrote Richard T. O'Grady, executive director of the American Institute of Biological Sciences in a Feb. 8 letter to the Board of Education. "Its strength as a scientific theory matches that of the theory of gravitation, atomic theory and the germ theory."
Well, not exactly.
Here's this Floridian's opinion as a non-churchgoing laymen who nevertheless was graduated from college and had several science courses: I think that evolution exists and that it accounts for almost all of today's physical world. It is however a theory that today encompasses much more than science. I think a very large share of scientists are members and believers of a pseudo religion call "Science."
In my 50+ years I've seen how the theory of the creation of the universe, including its size and composition, has constantly evolved so that the current received wisdom had significantly departed from its earlier dogma. Hell, that's been true of geologists, paleontologist and medical scientists. Things change, new things are learned, the old beliefs pass away...welcome to the new kingdom of science. Until the next iteration.
I think it's understandable that many of my fellow Floridians may have doubts of the all encompassing accuracy of the present scientific religion. And I think we know that it takes a lot of faith to believe in, for example, the 'big bang' theory as just an accident that happened to a clump (don't know how large really) of atomic material just standing around, doing nothing until something (maybe some thing?) jump started the process.
Besides, religion and science have mostly peacefully co-existed for many centuries. And will continue to do so until the point that scientists start being stoned and beheaded for heresy. And I bet Christians won't be doing that.
The Times survey - which included questions about evolution and a host of other education issues was administered to 702 registered voters Feb. 6-10, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
It revealed a huge gulf between scientists and the public.
While the vast majority of scientists consider evolution to be backed by strong evidence, nearly two-thirds of those polled were skeptical.
Twenty-nine percent said evolution is one of several valid theories. Another 16 percent said evolution is not backed up by enough evidence. And 19 percent said evolution is not valid because it is at odds with the Bible.
Yep, you would think Floridians were the most backward of thinkers, especially with the following:
Sue Sams of Spring Hill, a retired English teacher who describes herself as Protestant, said schools should teach creationism only."
I don't disagree with the theory of evolution," said Sams, 65. "I'm just not sure it's 100 percent right."
Responses such as Sams' fly in the face of endorsements from thousands of scientists and scores of scientific societies, including the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science."
There is no justification for singling out evolution for special skepticism or critical analysis," wrote Richard T. O'Grady, executive director of the American Institute of Biological Sciences in a Feb. 8 letter to the Board of Education. "Its strength as a scientific theory matches that of the theory of gravitation, atomic theory and the germ theory."
Well, not exactly.
Here's this Floridian's opinion as a non-churchgoing laymen who nevertheless was graduated from college and had several science courses: I think that evolution exists and that it accounts for almost all of today's physical world. It is however a theory that today encompasses much more than science. I think a very large share of scientists are members and believers of a pseudo religion call "Science."
In my 50+ years I've seen how the theory of the creation of the universe, including its size and composition, has constantly evolved so that the current received wisdom had significantly departed from its earlier dogma. Hell, that's been true of geologists, paleontologist and medical scientists. Things change, new things are learned, the old beliefs pass away...welcome to the new kingdom of science. Until the next iteration.
I think it's understandable that many of my fellow Floridians may have doubts of the all encompassing accuracy of the present scientific religion. And I think we know that it takes a lot of faith to believe in, for example, the 'big bang' theory as just an accident that happened to a clump (don't know how large really) of atomic material just standing around, doing nothing until something (maybe some thing?) jump started the process.
Besides, religion and science have mostly peacefully co-existed for many centuries. And will continue to do so until the point that scientists start being stoned and beheaded for heresy. And I bet Christians won't be doing that.
posted by RightinFlorida | 1:51 PM
2 Comments:
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NEEDS A WHOLE REVISION.
Today almost the whole world could admit this diagnosis. But I’m sorry to say this, as I understand that some people believe in Darwin at the same measure others believe in God!!
If you say that evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology, and that it is supported in multiple forms of scientific evidence, I must agree. But I have to say that the most important thing is to avoid the present confusion between “the fact of evolution” and “the theory of evolution through natural selection”. Thus, creationism (or ID) vs. evolution is a false dilemma, to which unfortunately too many people have been dragged. Believers in God should not be against science (in this case the fact of evolution), but against the materialistic core of the Darwinian theory of evolution.
As I can see, today increases the number of American School Board’s resolutions urging the wording be changed to allow for balanced, objective and intellectually open instruction in regard to evolution, teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwin’s theory, rather than teaching it as dogmatic fact. I agree as well with that, because a true scientist will always allow any theory to be undermined by further scientific findings.
But the alternative to Darwin is not creationism, as many biologists hurry to say when they feel weak in their arguments. The alternative is to begin to recognize the real state of our ignorance, as the first step in the search for a new interpretative scheme. I show only one example: the bigger problems of the fossil record. Where are the millions of missing transitional fossils?
We should learn from the great scientists of the past. Did they follow one way of thinking on a problem? No. They looked at all sides of a problem and all possible iterations and developed their own well-reasoned solutions.
Following this same idea I have developed my own well-reasoned solutions. As a conclusion, I affirm that Darwin’s theory of evolution is at a very critical point. Thus, I’m one of the scientists who think that natural selection is an inadequate theory to explain the emergence and the evolution of the living beings
So, I personally think that a new scientific theory of evolution is needed, a real third route to tackle resolutely the enigmas that we drag for more than a century and a half.
If you are interested on the foundations of a new theory of evolution and ready to rethink some of the laws of physics and of biology, you are invited to visit the blog:
http://www.cosmosandgaia.blogspot.com (and the Spanish web linked with it)
There you can find some excerpts from the book “Cosmos y Gea. Fundamentos de una nueva teoría de la evolución” (Cosmos and Gaia. Foundations of a new theory of evolution). This book is not yet translated into English, but many people have already found it as an essential scientific issue, beyond the fundamentalist and sterile controversy between Darwinism and creationism.
Thanks for all the information. I will follow your links to get more. I agree that scientists-and religionists-should be open to alternatives an/or challenges to their beliefs and theories. That's a great way to ensure the basis for what is believed and that the science or religion does not stagnate.
Post a Comment
<< Home