AAAS, Americans Do Not Accept Evolution

2006-09-02, Dov in Hyp Science Forums

(America Doesn’t Believe Evolution)

I.

Jon Miller, MSU, East Lansing, concludes in Science:

– “the percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005.”

– “The acceptance of evolution is lower in the United States than in Japan or Europe, largely because of widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States.”

– “The US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has been politicised. Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue.”

II.

I wish to place one specific critical “politicization of science in the USA” under a magnifying glass. I refer to the AAAS, the Antiscientism Evangelist in the USA.

AAAS = American Association for the Advancement of Science. Few samples of its stand on science and religion:

A) Here is a recent sample of the sad, hypocritical, pathetic, wishy-washy stand of our highest American “scientific” organization on humanity and science. On the positive side AAAS contributes to advancing of mostly technological and of some scientific knowledge, but concurrently it holds back scientific progress by carefully proclaiming anti-scientific concepts and stands, upholding politically correct stands, as it is actually a political-economic interests organ-guild of mostly technicians and of also some scientists.

AAAS News and Notes, Science, 28 Oct 2005:

” Science and Society, AAAS Fighting to Defend the Integrity of Science Education

With evolution on trial in Pennsylvania and under renewed attack by the Kansas State Board of Education, AAAS has stepped up its high-profile campaign to protect the integrity of science education by defending the scientific underpinnings of evolution and making clear that science and religion should not be pitted against each other.

With intelligent design on trial in Pennsylvania, the York (Pennsylvania) Dispatch published a column by AAAS CEO Alan I.Leshner. In a series of interviews, press briefings, and op-ed commentaries, AAAS Chief Executive Officer Alan I. Leshner and other AAAS officials have stressed that most religious leaders accept evolution and that many scientists are religious. But, they said, leaders of the intelligent design movement who claim scientific motives are actually trying to undermine science—at significant risk to U.S. students.

The world’s religions “bring great value to many people’s lives,” said AAAS President Gilbert S. Omenn. But “they do not prepare students for a world in which math, science, and empirically tested evidence are essential” for advancing human health, security, and economic progress….”

This goes on and on with repeat statements. I cut it off here, though, with the AAAS present explanation, so succinctly, of the division of labor between Science and religion…

B) The key sentences from: “Advances – The Monthly Newsletter For AAAS Members, May 2005, Message to Members, Separating Fact And Faith”, from Alan I. Leshner, CEO, AAAS.

” Science and religion are not in opposition; many scientists are deeply spiritual and most religious leaders accept evolution. However, the place for discussions of creationism and intelligent design—based on faith—should be churches, temples, religious schools, and perhaps even public schools, but only during nonscience classes.”

For me, the above sentences are The Symptom. The Diagnosis is Mental-Emotional Blind Confusion:

– What is the plain meaning of “deeply spiritual scientists”?

– In what way are “religious leaders” different from plain non-leaders religious persons?

– How, in plain language, do religious persons accept evolution?

– What makes Faith non-discussable scientifically?

– What makes anything non-discussable scientifically?

– Why can’t we and shouldn’t we discuss EVERYTHING scientifically, ESPECIALLY religion?

C) From “Science and Society”, AAAS News and Notes, Science, 28 Oct 2005:

” He (AAAS CEO Alan I. Leshner) also was quoted by New York Times Magazine columnist William Safire. “Whether or not there is or was an intelligent designer is not a scientific question,” he told Safire. “It’s not an alternative to evolution. What they are trying to do is get religion in the science classroom.”

I suggest that Mr. Leshner’s and the AAAS’ above position and attitude are wrong both conceptually and socially.

I posit that “Whether or not there is or was an intelligent designer” is definitely a most significant existential, cultural and social SCIENTIFIC question and that this question does indeed belong in science classrooms and warrants extensive consideration and discussion.

Furthermore, I suggest to fellow-humanists and scientists that this issue is one of the most important and most practical-results-fraught issues facing us and all human society.

Dov

——————-

III.

2006-09-04

Somewhat exasperated.

I aimed, in this thread, to develop a discussion about the absurdly strange role that our ( I’m both a USA & Israel citizen ) supposedly most forward a scientific organization plays in accepting/rejecting evolution. However, so far the discussion is side-tracked to the listed AAAS malcondition symptoms that I observe in the message of AIL, CEO, AAAS ( II.B. above).

I hope the discussion returns to the intended thread track because most matters raised so far have, undoubtedly, been discussed and over-discussed already in this forum. Yet in the present course of the discussion I feel obliged to elaborate shortly on each of the listed items:

1- What is the plain meaning of “deeply spiritual scientists”?

2- In what way are “religious leaders” different from plain non-leaders religious persons?

3- How, in plain language, do religious persons accept evolution?

4- What makes Faith non-discussable scientifically?

5- What makes anything non-discussable scientifically?

6- Why can’t we and shouldn’t we discuss EVERYTHING scientifically, ESPECIALLY religion?

(1) My interpretation is that AIL coined this phrase ambiguously simply because he was bent on connecting science with religion (politically correct) and used ‘spiritual’ as the synonym of religion without saying religion thus pre-satisfying objections…

(2) Obviously high politics. We top leaders of the top organs of the nation, especially church leaders with their political effects… we get along OK and understand each other…

(3) Evolution is evolution is evolution. There are no several varieties of evolution. A scientist might live in peace with a vague indefinite idea and feeling that his existence is purposed towards something of which it will somehow sometime become a part (I have my own idea, but you wouldn’t like it and this is another thread…). A scientist’s scientism is definitely absurd if he is a devout member of a specific religion. One definitely cannot be a principled member of a specific religion and also accept evolution.

(4) The abstract general term Faith, as well as a specific faith, like every human artifact, is discussable scientifically: why and how it arises and how it functions and what and how it affects individuals and communities etc., etc.,

(5) Of course, everything is discussable scientifically, like faith above…

(6) “Especially religion” because its constellations have an immense effect on our individual and community and worldwide matters. ( Another separate extensive thread…)

Dov

——————————

IV.

09-27-2006, Forum Hypo

Posted by cwes99_03:

Dov is this a boo hoo sidestep to get away from answering the question…

Dov:

In this thread I aimed to place one specific critical “politicization of science in the USA” under a magnifying glass, the AAAS, the Antiscientism Evangelist in the USA, pointing to its role in the relatively low acceptance of Evolution in the USA vs in many other countries.

The ensuing discussion of the reasons for the low extent of acceptance of evolution in the USA revealed the major role that religious thinking and attitudes in the USA play in non-acceptance of evolution. I tried to explain why and how religion evolved, as follows:

1) In my opinion as an amateur biologist-evolutionist, religion is a religion is religion as far as biological evolution is concerned, and as far as we now know the earliest known evidence of human religion by Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis goes back around 100,000 years ago.

2) Religions have evolved in the minds of human communities/groups as means for the survival (survival = proliferation) of those specific groups, by means of instructed-adopted individual and social regimes that contribute to and advance the survival of the group. Simple obvious Darwinian evolution process.

Again, obviously, you do not accept Darwinian evolution nor the scientific grounds for it. Therefore you will not accept any explanation of why and how religion evolved. This is your privilege and it probably helps you live with satisfaction. Good for you.

A “discussion” between persons thinking-speaking religious land and science long is pointless; it is like trying to carry on a ping-pong game in which each of the two players plays on a different table. This is Absurd.

I think.

Respectfully,

Dov

_____________________

PS 09-30-2006, Forum Hypo.

Originally Posted by Paul H:

– scientific ‘cracks’ in the theory of Evolution?

– evolution… the biggest idea in History….

Dov:

– Not any single idea is the biggest idea in History. All ideas intertwine to constitute together the body of human comprehension.

– There is no crack in Darwin’s evolution comprehension. It was a great illumination at its human history time. However, today there is a further comprehension of the fractal nature of the universe so that the evolution of life is realized to be a small local component of the total Cosmic evolution., as I wrote elsewhere:

” Everything in the cosmos is fractal, rehappens on many scales, and is continuously evolving. Each and every system in the universe continuously evolves within the total universal evolution and all the systems’ evolutions are intertwined. This holds for the universe composition and for its processes, for its energy forms and mass constituents and also for the very rare bubbles of energy which we call Earth Life.”

Dov

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *