25% of high-school teachers indicated that they devoted at least one or two classroom hours to creationism or intelligent design.... Of the 25% of teachers who devoted time to creationism or intelligent design, nearly half agreed or strongly agreed that they teach creationism as a “valid scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species.We are largely a nation of imbeciles, taught partly by imbeciles who wouldn't recognize the scientific method if it stabbed them dead in the dark, and unfortunately led by imbeciles who think we should respect these other imbeciles and are too terrified to say otherwise because it might cost them a couple of votes. It is in no small part responsible for the direction our country is headed -- a wave rushing towards a lack of reason, intelligent and informed thought, and respect for the wonders and prizes that science has brought them over the last 400 years.
We are (most probably) screwed.
3 comments:
We are largely a nation of imbeciles, taught partly by imbeciles who wouldn't recognize the scientific method if it stabbed them dead in the dark, led by imbeciles who think who think we should respect these other imbeciles and are too terrified to say otherwise. It is in no small part responsible for the direction our country is headed -- characterized by a lack of reason, intelligent and informed thought, and respect for the wonders that science has brought them over the last 400 years.
Yes.
Best,
D
David -
I think it's important to recognize the best available data* suggest the current level of public understanding of science in the United States is, in broad terms, no worse or better today than it has been at any time over the last half century. By some empirical measures, in fact, broad public understanding of science seems to be better than it's ever been.
In other words, what you're describing here in terms of the public understanding of science is the way it's always been. Most Americans (in fact, most people period) have always been ignorant of science. To the extent that there is a lack of reason, etc., among our leadership, you've got to look elsewhere than the public understanding of science for an explanation. To the extent that we want reason and science to guide our decisions, we need approaches that are robust to this reality.
* Miller, Public Understand. Sci. 13 (2004) 273–294
The understanding may be no worse, but what's done with it might very well be. One can be ignorant of the scientific theories that win the Nobel prizes and still be willing to defer to them. I could well believe that increasingly that's not us. It's protestantism writ large.
Post a Comment