Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science?

smooth wombat writes "As a follow-up to a recently posted Slashdot article, Reuters UK has an article which poses the question: is the U.S. becoming hostile to science? From the article: 'Among the most significant forces is the rising tide of anti-science sentiment that seems to have its nucleus in Washington but which extends throughout the nation,' said Stanford's Philip Pizzo in a letter posted on the school Web site on October 3. Cornell acting President Hunter Rawlings, in his state of the university address last week, spoke about the challenge to science represented by intelligent design which holds that the theory of evolution accepted by the vast majority of scientists is fatally flawed. Rawlings said the dispute was widening political, social, religious and philosophical rifts in U.S. society. 'When ideological division replaces informed exchange, dogma is the result and education suffers,' he said." What is your take?

Re:Well, I'm pro-science, but does that matter?

[Seumas]

The problem is that those who are pro-god, anti-science think schools should be used to promote their non-scientific views (theology) in science classes. The more that progresses, the further our country falls. The less we're eventually able to compete and progress. It's like saying "there are racists and non-racists and even if 95% of the country were racist, that doesn't affect me". Well, it does - because these sorts of things are ingrained and branded into children and young adults by the family they grow up in and the church they go to. So you end up with children who are so confrontational and unaccepting of science, because in their mind, everything is "god's will" and if they can't comprehend something, it must not exist or be true. To them, "belief" becomes a one-step "scientific-method".

Eventually, you end up with a country basing their laws (which DO affect you) on narrow-minded, sub-pseudo-science mythologies. It no longer remains an issue of liberties and self-determination, but one in which everything is based on the new majority's morality. No longer are you punished for something that is harmful to others or prevented from doing things that harm others, but you're prevented from doing anything even to yourself or among consenting people that uninvolved parties do not like. What's to stop that 95% of the religious-nut run country from deciding (for your own good, mind you) that you must kneel and pray daily, because when you stop kneeling and praying, god gets angry and sends hurricanes?

Seriously, in a country where there are churches picketing at the funerals of young military men (because of homosexuality) and religious leaders blaming natural disasters on lesbians - is there any limit?

Re:Another Intelligent Design theory

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design.

Correction: there are no theories of ID. ID is not falsifiable, nor is it repeatable, hence not a theory.

Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science?

[chimpo13]

No, we use that for RU-486. Sure, it's legal, but try getting it filled [dailystar.com].

Oh, for the 15 minutes

[druschc01]

I spent 1 class period in all of High School even touching on Evolution... I spent 4 drawing unit circles with chalk on the school sidewalk I spent 5 enlarging cartoon images to learn more about grid coordinates I spent 2 explaining to the Vice Principal that Smashing Pumpkins != Columbine I spent 6+ in assemblies to work on "student self esteem" I spent around 12 working on a kite for a math class I corrected my math teachers about 10 times I spent another 4 weeks learning how to use power-point to make a presentation that was about myself, I think that was a science course I've learned that contrary to what my science teacher spent a unit on, effects similiar to wind-chill are a researched part of thermodynamics and are present on all warm bodies, not just humans alone -Oh- I spent an entire course in grade school dealing with "feelings" including handing out Warm Fuzzies But that 15 minutes of that Evolution class might destroy my entire science education... Or could it be that as soon as people forget about that potential ID class they have to start wondering who is currently teaching science and what people are really taking with them out of their classes... Maybe we get the idea of schools as instituting social change through having all students graduate on the same plane with the same abilities as all others and start fingering our future scientists and giving them electronics/math/science courses that will create a science economy.

Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science?

[UserGoogol]

Except no. There's tons of evidence for natural selection. Natural selection does not need to explain absolutely everything any more than gravity does, that's not how science works. However, the theory of natural selection has made various claims which have followed testability. (I'm lazy, so I'll just point at Talk Origins. [talkorigins.org]) That's how science works. Furthermore, the theory of natural selection does not say that intelligent design could not have played a role in the origin of species. The theory merely states that the forces of natural selection have played a role on the evolution of life on earth.

The problem with intelligent design is not that it is implausible, but that it is completely untestable. An intelligent entity could have done anything it wanted to, so you can't apply tests to the theory. As a result, intelligent design becomes a "theory of the gaps," such that wherever we find something unexplainable you can say, "Well, maybe an intelligent being created it."

Another thing about irreducable complexity is that it's rather hard to actually prove something is irreducably complex. Darwin himself had trouble thinking of how the eye could have originated, but now I believe scientists have discovered a pretty good understanding of what sort of pathways it might take to get to the eye. Similarly, just checking Wikipedia shows that the evolution of the flagella [wikipedia.org] is a well studied concept. (Huge page of cites was moved onto the talk page.)

religion accepting evolution

[falconwolf]

Why does no one ever attempt to explain that God created man using evolution as a tool?

Pope John Paul II did accept that "God" made man using evolution. Here's his Magisterium [cin.org] Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man. He delivered the Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996. Of course other Christians don't have a good opinion of Catholism or the Pope, some even believing they're devil worshippers.

Falcon

You don't know Darwin's work.

[khasim]

Actually, Darwin did - that, as we found more fossils, we would start to find the transition forms between species. That didn't happen.

Yet evolution allows predictions that are testable. Such as the fact that chimps and humans share 96% of their DNA.

And we have found fossils of transitional forms.
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm [origins.tv]

Re:More than Anti-Science

[nazgul000]

America has been anti-intellectual for a long time, though. Really, look at the residents we've had in the Oval Office. Woodrow Wilson was the last "intellectual" elected to the White House. I'm not sure that American anti-intellectualism alone can explain the recent rise of an evangelical approach to the apprehension of the natural world.

Re:How Ironic

[Fulcrum of Evil]

One of the actions of the US that is declared "anti-science" is the refusal to ratify Kyoto.

Or, that could be a result of Kyoto itself being politically motivated and not giving us a fair shake as regards our contribution to the global climate by disregarding such things as our large forests and speaking only in regards to incremental change rather than our qunatitative impact.

I read your first link - I don't see what's so disturbing:

The thought that there might be a central question, whose resolution would settle matters, is, of course, inviting, and there might, in fact, be some basis for optimism. While determining whether temperature has increased or not is not such a question, the determination of climate sensitivity might be. Rather little serious attention has been given to this matter (though I will mention some in the course of this testimony). However, even ignoring this central question, there actually is much that can be learned simply by sticking to matters where there is widespread agreement. For example, there is widespread agreement

• that the increase in global mean temperature over the past century is about 1F which is smaller than the normal interannual variability for smaller regions like North America and Europe, and comparable to the interannual variability for the globe. Which is to say that temperature is always changing, which is why it has proven so difficult to demonstrate human agency.
• that doubling CO2 alone will only lead to about a 2F increase in global mean temperature. Predictions of greater warming due to doubling CO2 are based on positive feedbacks from poorly handled water vapor and clouds (the atmosphere's main greenhouse substances) in current computer models. Such positive feedbacks have neither empirical nor theoretical foundations. Their existence, however, suggests a poorly designed earth which responds to perturbations by making things worse.
• that Kyoto, fully implemented, will have little detectable impact on climate regardless of what one expects for warming. This is partly due to the fact that Kyoto will apply only to developed nations. However, if one expected large global warming, even the extension of Kyoto to developing nations would still leave one with large warming.

Re:He doesn't make a testable statement.

[abigor]

You are wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h tml [talkorigins.org]

What else would a transitional form look like?

[geekotourist]

"Species" are actual lifeforms, everything else is just a clade- a grouping. So if you have a an animal species that becomes another species, what else could the transitional form be but a species?

Evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so its not like modern scientists or Darwin were ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species. Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.

Oh, and How many missing links do you want [slashdot.org]? How many more well-referenced testable and falsifiable evidences for macroevolution [talkorigins.org] can scientists put together while we all wait for IDers to put together one? How many times will creationists in this Slashdot thread say that scientist are ignoring a creationist claim when in fact its been answered so many times they made a FAQ [talkorigins.org] (or sometimes Slashdotters'll use something from the list of claims that a major creationist group asks people to stop using [answersingenesis.org])? It'll be interesting to watch this thread and see the last question being answered.

Re:Animal Rights Movement

[hawkeesk8]

I am puzzled by your thinking that animal rights advocates are anti-science. On the contrary, much of what motivates them is based on science. It is the right wing religious nutters who believe that animals were put on this earth solely for our benefit. Then along came Darwin with his crazy theory of evolution, which, in an indirect manner, suggested that we are all (lesser primates such as President Bush included) here for our own reasons and that there is no ultimate being that controls the others. Science throughout this century has further disproved notions put forth by religious dogma that animals have no feeling (and as such could be slaughtered in any heinous manner without the tiniest feelings of remorse.) In fact science has proven that animals have feelings, complex emotions, and many other traits that were previously reserved for humans. As such, shouldn't we be treating animals more like humans (unless of course you believe humans should be shut in cages and tortured under the guise of science?) Compassion and science are two different things. However, a compassionate scientist would use science and technology to good use and use computer models and rigourous research to prove whether a chemical is dangerous rather than taking the most expedient route of squirting it in some unsuspecting rat's eye. Which of course only tells us whether it is dangerous to a rat's eye and very little about what it would do to a human's.

Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science?

[TexasDex]

Sorry but I have to corrent this misinformation:

RU-486 is a drug that will induce a chemical abortion any time during the first trimester, after the fetus has already implanted in the womb. It is an abortion.

Emergency contraception, also called the "morning after pill" or "plan B", is taken withing 5 days of unprotected sex (rape, failure of contraceptives, drunken one-night-stand, etc) to prevent the fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus. This is in fact a form of contraception, albeit not one that should be used on a regular basis, because it is only partly reliable, and has rather heavy side effects from the large doses of hormones it contains.

They are not the same thing! Practically no pharmacy in the U.S. stocks RU-486 (it is supplied directly by abortion clinics), but it should be entirely reasonable to expect them to have the morning after pill. Should. Plan B is even considered safe enough for over-the-counter sale in many countries (in the U.S. it's OTC sale was blocked by the FDA solely for political reasons; after all, this is Bush's FDA we're talking about).

Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science?

[pjrc]

I believe you have seriously misunderstood what science really is. Talk about proving science using science, providing "The Truth" and such, comparisons to proving the existance of God and "the truth" of science just doesn't communicate an understand of what "science" is.

A common definition for "science" (from the dictionary) is:

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

There are other definitions pertaining to the everyday use of the word "science" (eg, "got something down to a science"), but ceraintly the field of study called "science" is what these 3 definitions describe.

Talk of "proving" god exists and "proving" science (presumably is "The Truth") is rather silly. First, it equates "theoretical explanation of phenomena" with "The Truth".

I believe it's quite safe to say that scientists do persue theoretical explanations of phenomena. The process is not infallible, and in fact quite often new data or finding come to light which cause these theories to be rethought, modified, or discarded and rewritten. Absent these definitions are some finer points about how science deals with error and adjusts theoretical explanations as necessary when new, credible observations must be taken into account. The most important aspect there is peer review and community consensus/acceptance.

I suppose one could "use science" to study wether scientists actually do persue theoretical explanations of phenomena, by doing observation, identification, description, experimental investigation. In fact, there are been recent studies into wether science is being influenced by political interests.

But your rant is really "that science is becoming anti-anything-else", and an implication that supporters of science "are proclaiming science is God/The Truth, and anything else is blasphemy".

Well, that's a load of crap.

If science were "anti-anything-else", where is all the rage against schools teaching gymnastics, english and other language, music and arts, history and other subjects that aren't science? Even study of theology. Perhaps there are some people who mistake science for a religion, but they are very, very few.

The current contversy is not about science versues something else. It's about science that is "good science" (peer reviewed, near 100% agreement from all scientists) and "bad science" (little or no peer review, rejected by virtually all scientists, no consensus... has not gone through the well established process that rejects theoretical explanation of phenomena that aren't well supported by observations).

Scientists aren't saying "that's anything else". They're saying "that isn't accepted an accepted theoretical explanation of phenomena" according to the very well established rules and process that is used.

This whole contraversy is about what is taught in a science class. It's about science. It's about teaching well established science, those theoretical explanation of phenomena that have passed the difficult process of peer review. Those theories that have almost universal acceptance among the scientific community.

A similar analogy would be teaching wacky sentence structure and spelling in an "english" class, rather than the same well established rules of grammar and spelling used by everybody else. Or teaching different conventions and symbols in a math class, rather than the ones used by everybody else in the world. Or a different scale of music notes in music class. In all of these cases, perhaps some small group feels an alternate approach might be superior. But among all US english speakers, all mathematicians, all musicians, there is a widespead, nearly universal consensus. The same is true in science.

It's not about "The Truth". It's not about "proving" something. I

Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority

[hyperquantization]

Wow, I honestly can say that my opinion of the slashdot mods and, most unfortunately, slashdot crowd has dropped significantly. This was in NO way meant as a trolling post. It is an earnest question to know the ideas of others, and would kindly ask the meta-mods that are assigned with this to consider this reconcilatory post as a part of the context behind my reasoning. Thank You.

Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority

[queef_latina]

You're getting science mixed up with "technology."

Science is generally defined study of nature, through observation- which most certainly includes 'studying past events'- and reasoning. Technology lives separately as the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. There is no 'purpose' to science beyond providing a body of knowledge with sound logical footing.

Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science?

[devnulljapan]

When I look at the molecular biological paradoxes inherent in the evolution of the bacterial cilia into a flagellum, I think evolutionary biology involves more faith than belief in a god, even if that god is a "flying spaghetti monster".

Here's a nice discussion debunking the watchmaker/flagellin arguement [don-lindsay-archive.org]

Re:result of social & true patriotism decay

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon the Ignorant(religious) will battle the Enlightened(scientific) with the victor either copying 1979 Iran or 1776 America; New Civil War either way is rapidly coming.

Can you vote intelligently this time to avoid that? Or will you continue to support liars, murderers, and corrupt thieves because you are too stupid to know one of the historical factual reasons America was founded? Or will you blindly support somebody because they promise to be a bigot and subjugate fellow human beings to second or sub class citizens exclusively due to their sexual preferences? Is your personal crusade to take away liberties and freedoms and force your religion/beleifs upon everybody more important than the essence of what America was founded on?

Stem Cells - Brink of wholesale cures of disease and paralysis [RELIGIOUS BAN]
Cloning Organs - Save lives and eliminate the need for donor lists and years of suffering. [RELIGIOUS BAN]
Parental Failures - Parents are not held responsible for failing to be parents, instead movies, video games and anything but the person(s) responsible are blamed and liberties and freedoms removed. [RELIGIOUS PROPAGANDA]
Forced prayer - In violation the Founding Father's wishes, christianity is pushed as it was inserted into the Pledge and money in 1954 under the guise of the cold war then pushed as the long time "nation was founded on christianity" pure lie. [RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION/PROPAGANDA]
Blind to American/World matters - Americans vote as to what their clergy tell them, instead of researching the issue themselves to see how it will impact them and the world which in turn impacts everybody's children. [RELIGIOUS ARROGANCE/PERSECUTION]

The list goes on and on.

In the meantime, China has no issues like this and steams ahead in science and math posed to overtake the US within a decade or maybe two all across the board in all areas. We no longer see ourselves as Americans, we see ourselves labelled by our imaginary friend and the book of ancient fairy tales we think is as airtight as a time honored and prooven mathematical formula. That is what we focus our time, energy and money on because that is what is obviously important to most people who live in America and think they are American. Well if you mix religion and politics and seek to take away liberty and freedoms because of your personal beliefs then you are no American rather you are Un-American like Mohammed Atta (9/11 hijacker) yet worse as you keep pushing your agenda rather than doing us real Americans a favor and dying. Personal beliefs belong to yourself personally and in your place of worship, no place else.

Americans for Americans, Math & Science for our future and survival.

http://www.lp.org/ [lp.org]

P.S.
Know your enemy - I thought it was gambling and not selling that started the temper tantrum?

Re:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II

[deaddrunk]

Will they really? How? We don't have a single Islamic fundamentalist leader in Europe and are very unlikely ever to have one. Whereas the US does have a Christian fundamentalist in the White House and the separation of church and state seems to be being eroded there. Are you a British Daily Mail reader by any chance?

science and religion

[falconwolf]

If you notice the Catholic folk hasn't spoke out against science in a LONG LONG time.

Actually the Catholic Church, in the person of Pope John Paul II, has said "God" used evolution to create life on earth. Magisterium [cin.org] Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man.

Falcon

Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science?

[c_forq]

Read C.S. Lewis. try "A Grief Observed". C.S. Lewis was a atheist, and great intellectual, who eventually became a Christian, and if you look at this writings he didn't seem to find much joy or happyness in it, he just felt he found truth in it.

Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority

[Xeriar]

To answer your question, evolutionary science has brought us at least the following (partial list):

1: Partial linguistic reconstruction of dead languages by examining genetic data.
2: The yearly flu vaccine. This would be utterly impossible without evolutionary theory.
3: Genetic algorithms for computing. For many problems, they are the fastest way of finding and appropriate solution.
4: Gene therapy.
5: Radiation therapy.
6: Cancer research and cures.
7: Bacterial synthesis.
8: Nanotechnology.

Just off the top of my head. Evolutionary theory (it's a theory, not a hypothesis, because it has indeed been proven), is of great import in a vast quantity of fields. Creationism and intelligent design teach no more than astrology, alchemy, and phrenology teach. They are useless, and in some cases even damaging.

Re:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II

[Straker Skunk]

There are simply somethings you cannot have without Religion, Morality being the biggest. True morality cannot exist without religion.

Actually, this is untrue. The Golden Rule in itself already goes a long way to establish a code of morality without implying a deity or cosmogony. A strong rationale for humans to form societies (out of the archetypal "state of nature") is mutual self-interest, e.g. "I don't like being killed, so I'll get together with a bunch of folks who also don't like getting killed, and we'll defend each other from bad guys who want to kill us," etc.

Besides, I don't see too many atheist/agnostic serial killers out there, so something's gotta be keeping them straight :-)

Here are somethings that cannot be proven:
1)Gays are born the way they are.

That is still the subject of ongoing research, but the recounted experiences of many gay men and women do seem to back that point. (Kids raised in completely "normal" circumstances who turn out to be gay, people in gay-unfriendly nations who turn out gay and don't revert despite extreme humiliation and violence, etc.)

The scary thing...

[Grendel Drago]

... is that you got modded Funny for this. I'm guessing someone actually didn't know that the Khmer Rouge really did that. Managed to send their whole damned civilization back to the stone age, pretty much. Not very hilarious for the folks who lived through it.

Re:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II

[nicklott]

I remind you that if you get rid of me, you wont live very long. Because unlike me, and people like me, Muslims are not so tolorant of those who practice Homosexuality, Abortion, Drinking, Partying, and other such things I am sure you find perfectly reasonable and normal. Marginalize Christianity in the US and like France, Holland, Germany, and Britain we will fall into the control of Islam. (yes, I know they arent quite there yet, but they will be in 10 years)

Have you actually been to a muslim country? or any of the ones you list above? or in fact out of your state? The muslim countries you see on TV (Iran, Saudi, Kuwait) are not typical in any respect whatsoever. I know from experience that the Indonesians (the most populous muslim country on earth) have no problems partying, drinking, etc and I believe the Turks, the Malaysians and swathes of central asia have a similar outlook on life. No, the countries you hear about on TV all have fundamentalist governments or clergy. Now the strange thing about fundamentalists is that whatever creed they follow they all end up believing the same thing, so your christian fundamentalist gubment would not be very long in banning abortion, homosexuality, drinking and partying (in that order). (In fact that would make a good "fundmentalist test" for any government: US gets 1 point, Western Europe gets 0, Saudi Arabia gets 3, the old Afghanistan got 4).

Christianity is already marginalised in most western european nations (Italy being the exception. Britain in particular is full of empty and abandoned churchs), but strangely they are not currently under the control of, or about to fall to Islam. That is beacuse it's not christianity per se that has been marginalised, but the whole idea of religion. Most British people would consider anyone who went to church regularly a fanatic. Simple common-sense tells you that Islam is not about to sweep across Europe.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This phrase clearly does TWO things
1)It says the US Congress cannot setup a national Religion.

That phrase says no such thing. Do you recall the reason that your nation exists? In large part it was because England wanted rid of their fundamentalists and other religous agitators who were banned (lucky for them they weren't catholic, they were usually simply killed and were banned from travelling to the colonies). That phrase is part of the constitution as a direct response to the banning of new religions in England; essentially the founding fathers thumbing their nose at their former mother country.

Re:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II

[bsiggers]

Modded as funny? This is actually true, guys. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Re:Education in general is suffering

[jiawen]

Taiwan's not doing too well at fighting anti-intellectualism, either. There's a generally higher respect for teachers in Taiwan, and a bit more understanding that learning is both necessary and lifelong. But education in Taiwan is still largely something ypu pursue for monetary gain -- there's not much understanding that education is about making better people and better citizens.

All the statistics you see about how Taiwanese high school students know geography (or whatever subject) so much better than American kids the same age? BS. Taiwanese kids are taught to take tests, and little else. Rote memorization and regurgitation are the norm. I'd like to see stats on how well 30-year olds in the US and Taiwan know their geography. I'm almost certain Americans would do better, though marginally.

Taiwan's media is also about as anti-intellectual as you can get. The number of idiotic gameshows and celebrity gossip shows in Taiwan, and their viewership, is almost certainly far higher than in the US. Women on these shows get to laugh and titter and be cute, but little else. Men get to make fun of women. No displays of intellectual prowess here, please. There are debate shows, but they're no smarter than Crossfire and its ilk.

That's not to say that Taiwan is an intellectual wasteland. Far from it. Students do still value learning pretty highly, and saying someone is "smart" doesn't automatically mean they're arrogant, uppity or abstruse. But Taiwan is also the land of "You think too much" as a common admonishment. It's not horrible, but it's not perfect, either.

Mod parent +5 funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

...for the linked references alone!

But, in all seriousness, your argument just doesn't hold up. Have you ever actually read Gen 1:29? It doesn't even mention fruit. Actually, it says that any product of a seed-producing plant can be eaten by humans. Ooooo... Look at those pretty red berries. [munch...munch...munch]

Once you have finished with (Gen 1:29), perhaps you should continue and read (Gen 1:30). I sincerely hope you are a vegetarian.

The bible is not a good starting point for an argument (Exodus 20:4). Neither are links to questionable websites showing pictures of IBM engineers accompanied with a bunch of invented fluff dialog (Numbers 8).