This is why Futurama is one of the best shows on TV.

The National Science Foundation released its annual report of scientific literacy among Americans. Not surprisingly America as a whole received a failing grade. As reported in Science News:

The section, which was part of the unedited chapter on public attitudes toward science and technology, notes that 45% of Americans in 2008 answered true to the statement, “Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.” The figure is similar to previous years and much lower than in Japan (78%), Europe (70%), China (69%), and South Korea (64%). The same gap exists for the response to a second statement, “The universe began with a big explosion,” with which only 33% of Americans agreed.

The current furor isn’t over that the numbers are pitifully low – rather that this section was omitted from the final report. Why was it removed?

The board member who took the lead in removing the text was John Bruer, a philosopher who heads the St. Louis, Missouri-based James S. McDonnell Foundation. He told Science that his reservations about the two survey questions dated back to 2007, when he was the lead reviewer for the same chapter in the 2008 Indicators. He calls the survey questions “very blunt instruments not designed to capture public understanding” of the two topics.

I think Jon Miller has a quote appropriate response:

“I think that is a nonsensical response” that reflects “the religious right’s point of view,” says Jon Miller, a science literacy researcher at Michigan State University in East Lansing who authored the survey 3 decades ago and conducted it for NSF until 2001. “Evolution and the big bang are not a matter of opinion. If a person says that the earth really is at the center of the universe, even if scientists think it is not, how in the world would you call that person scientifically literate? Part of being literate is to both understand and accept scientific constructs.”

Miller, the scientific literacy researcher, believes that removing the entire section was a clumsy attempt to hide a national embarrassment. “Nobody likes our infant death rate,” he says by way of comparison, “but it doesn’t go away if you quit talking about it.”

I think this is very reflective of the current push by evangelical Christians in this country to conflate science and religion  - which is demeaning and undermining to both. The results are a populace that understand neither which is clearly reflected in this poll.

Countries and cultures that succeed and progress  are forward-looking, scientifically literate (for that time period) and able to critically think and examine issues.

When we, as a country, score this low on questions that form the foundations for almost every single scientific field in existence in which direction do you think we are headed?

A little while back Discover Magazine ran a contest to create a video that explained evolution in 120 seconds. It’s a tough challenge given the depth and breadth of the topic, but a good parameter given people’s attention spans.

The winner was  “Evolution: The Song,” by teacher Scott Hatfield and student Brianna Christoffersen, from Bullard High School in Fresno, California.

However, I think the runner-up by Stephen Anderson, which also garnered the popular choice vote was my favorite. Watch the video and get some education, hell, it’s only 120 seconds.

One of the larger embarrassments to the young earth creationist movement is bringing his special brand of anti-intellectualism to the Johns Hopkins campus on November 19th. You guessed it, Ray Comfort, the infamous banana-man, is at it again – this time with a ploy so ridiculous it’d be laughable if it wasn’t so dishonest.

Ray’s latest ploy at deceiving people involves taking Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species and adding his own 50 page introduction. This special addition is basically Ray’s attempt to disprove and bring into disrepute Darwin’s work.

US News and World Report has a four part article where Ray Comfort defends his decision to republish Darwin’s work (it’s legal as it is now in the public domain, yet at the same time dishonest as Ray edits out parts of the book…). Firing back on Ray in this series of articles is Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. To get a good picture of what’s going on and to see Eugenie tear Ray’s weak suppositions apart read: Ray leads off, Genie responds,Ray Retorts, Genie wins.

Ray continues to fall down against the usual canards that his ilk always stumble over. Create a conclusion (“my interpretation of the bible is correct, literal, and inerrant”) and then back-fill with as much junk as possible. Thus we have the basis for the anti-intellectual movement that has been building up in America and in its cross hairs is science. Why?

Science is a tool, moreover a set of tools for exploring and discovering certain natural truths or laws. Things like the speed of light is roughly 300,000 kps. The Earth revolves around the Sun. That E=mc^2. Science is not the conclusion, it’s a way to reach a conclusion with supporting evidence and reproducible results. It’s science’s ability to separate false claims from fact that make it reviled in the circles that Ray Comfort travels – and that makes about as much sense as hating a hammer or any other tool.

Ray Comfort is genuinely and purposely intellectually dishonest in an effort to deceive people into believing his pablum because his claims can’t hold water when run through any sort of logical process. He has since dropped his banana charade due to the overwhelming evidence against him. Had no one spoken out he’d still be using it to push his deceptive message – and this is why his latest ploy is so disgusting.

What can be done? His errors and fallacies have already been pointed out. Ray obviously doesn’t care. He plans to push his lies regardless (oh, the thick irony of a man pushing beliefs wherein one of the commandments in said beliefs is ‘Thou shalt not lie’).

It’s rather simple. If you have the time, travel to one of the many campuses where this book is being distributed. Ask for a copy. Ask for several copies. Remove the fallacious 50 page introduction and either keep the rest of the book for yourself or donate it to charity.