Costs of hating science

Vance

New Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,265
Reaction score
1
We Americans have become quite comfortable with our relatively recent designation as the world's only superpower. That's a mistake, since we won't be alone at the top for long.

In a generation or so, the Chinese will be a superpower, too. Indeed, if the United States doesn't get a grip on science and math education, the Chinese will be standing alone astride the globe, while we will have fallen to a second-tier standing.

It's easy enough to see how that could happen. Chinese leaders (and parents) take science and math seriously. High school and college students work hard to master chemistry, physics, biology, engineering. For that matter, so do Indian students. American students, with precious few exceptions, don't.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that China is graduating four times as many engineers as the United States. (Japan, with less than half our population, graduates twice as many.) Yes, China has four times our population, but the United States supposedly has a far superior educational system.

Perhaps we did once, but we're busy destroying it now. Indeed, the extremist edge of America's religious right has instituted a war on science. The teaching of evolution, which most scientists accept as the foundation of modern biology, is under assault in classrooms from Kansas to Georgia to Pennsylvania.

President Bush has insisted on severe limits on stem cell research, which not only has the potential for treating several serious diseases but which also could eventually create thousands of high-paying jobs. Though the state of California is starting its own stem cell research initiative, much of that cutting-edge science will be developed in other countries.

The Bush administration routinely intimidates or silences its own scientists if their findings contradict administration policy or would anger Christian conservatives. A Web page of the National Cancer Institute used to state, correctly, that the best research shows "no association between abortion and breast cancer." Now, the Web site says the research is inconclusive. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been similarly hampered in efforts to give people the facts about condom use.

One thing that hasn't changed much is American consumer behavior. We still love a bargain; we're just paying the money to somebody else. It may appear, for example, that the Wal-Mart cashier is putting your twenty into the cash drawer, but actually it's flowing straight to Shanghai. And as Americans export their earnings to China in exchange for cheap TVs, plush toys and Hawaiian shirts, Beijing is lavishing all that extra cash on its military and on research and development.

Writing this month in The Wall Street Journal, Norman Augustine, a former CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp., and Burton Richter, a Nobel laureate in physics, said:

"As a percentage of GDP, federal investment in physical science research is half of what it was in 1970. . . . [By contrast], in China, R&D expenditures rose 350 percent between 1991 and 2001, and the number of science and engineering Ph.D.s soared 535 percent."

Speaking last month to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich cited significant challenges facing the country, including China's rise and the decline in science and math education here.

"If we don't really take seriously the rise of China and India . . . and what it is going to take for us to be competitive, you should assume that by the middle of the century your children and grandchildren will live in a country which is no longer the leading country in the world," he said.

What a difference a couple of decades makes. Back in 1957, the United States was startled when the Soviet Union beat us into space with the successful launch of Sputnik. Washington responded with a massive investment in math and science education. (Some problems can be solved by throwing money at them.) The result came in 1969: Apollo 11 landed on the moon and established a U.S. hegemony in science that has lasted until now.

But it probably won't last much longer. Just as the Chinese are learning the enormous benefit of pouring money into science education and research, our science infrastructure is under attack from religious extremists. And the rest of us are letting them get away with it.

Source: http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/2005/051505.html


Indeed. I had this conversation with Chinese native last Saturday when we met him at one of mountains where we were riding the mountain bike. He mentioned to me that America is going to make a biggest mistake by "shove" the science out while "force" the creationism down in our throat. I don't know if you people did keep up with news or not... I do and it worried me. China and Europe Union are getting stronger and stronger everyday due to their devotion to science and other things.
 
Magatsu said:
...Indeed. I had this conversation with Chinese native last Saturday when we met him at one of mountains where we were riding the mountain bike. He mentioned to me that America is going to make a biggest mistake by "shove" the science out while "force" the creationism down in our throat. I don't know if you people did keep up with news or not... I do and it worried me. China and Europe Union are getting stronger and stronger everyday due to their devotion to science and other things.
No one is "shoving" creationism into schools to the exclusion of evolution. Evolution has been taught in the public schools for decades while the U.S. continued its downward slide in science and math. Evolution teaching increased and science and math decreased. I think you need to look for a different excuse. Teaching creationism is not the reason for the decline in science and math scores.
 
Reba said:
No one is "shoving" creationism into schools to the exclusion of evolution.
Are you kidding? I suggest you to google "Intelligent Design" and see for yourself. Then google on "creationism bill" or similar. Gee, explain why several Republicans are trying to pass the bills to force the "creationism" in our classrooms? Think. Think. And think.

Reba said:
I think you need to look for a different excuse. Teaching creationism is not the reason for the decline in science and math scores.
*chuckle* as usual, you spinned my words. Where and when ever I say that teaching creationism is the reason for the decline in science and math scores? Where and when? So quit doing that while you're ahead.

Edit: Reba, I think you need to reread this article. Obviously. Addition: It is your third time or whatever, to try and spin my words. It is getting old. While it may work on others, it does not work on me. So don't even try and spin my words.
 
Last edited:
Reba said:
Evolution teaching increased and science and math decreased.
Wait, wait.. I reread your post. Unlike someone else, I am not going to spin your words but I think that comment needs to be clarify a bit. My question is: you were saying that teaching math and science decreased because of this Evolution teaching increased? If yes, I think you are the one who need to look for a different excuse. Because you know as well as I do that is not source of "cause". To replug my previous post: I did not say that teaching creationism is the reason for the decline in science and math scores. Thus, it is non-spinnable.

Ok, time for massive sarcasm. [sarcasm] Now I want to discuss a bit about this new article: according to their um... "Intelligent Design" that I can claim that offworld aliens created us through DNA or rather, "rat lab"? I can easily collect the numbers of "evidences" (not really but again, based on this Intelligent Design, any form of evidences included baseless evidences can be used in the classrooms anyway. After all, the Bible is not a book of science, it is a book of faith) from these conspiracy sites. Also based on certain bills by conservatives which "grant" the students the rights to sue the professors if they won't discuss about certain topics in their classrooms (especially science). As we may know as well that these conservative professors have thin tolerance level (some Liberals have that problem) and I guess I can bring up several "really, really" ridiculous topics like... Alien created us in "rat lab". Or... we were born from the "love-making" between our ancestors and wild animals. Even better, Draconions (Reptilians) breed us. Etc etc... If one of conservative professors decide to howl or even try to dismiss these ridiculous ideas and I have a "power" to sue them. Can you even imagine what I will do with vaccination topic in my university? There are three conservative professors who dismissed the hard fact of the link between vaccinations and numbers of diseases even though there are plenty of evidences support that. What goes around comes around ;)

Before you can jump and "ridicule" me for what I said, according to the article, "The current definition is "not innocuous," Meyer said. "It's not neutral. It's actually taking sides." - "Sides" can be more than just two "sides" of our origins. Before you can jump and use the excuse that Intelligent Design is creationism-related education, not others as I mentioned above... then here are many conspiracy-related articles which indicated that Bible does contain the evidences that aliens created us. Example: Was Adam An Alien Half-Breed? (remember that Bible verses are open for ANY kind of interpretations).

In other words, I can use many topic or can I use this topic to irritate conservative professors to get in order of sue them for dismissing my topics? If answer is yes, it does mean that there is a possibility that aliens do breed us in ancient times. If no then I guess you don't support the "Intelligent Design" idea. For me, it is win-win situation. [/sarcasm]

Ok, enough with sarcasms. Intelligent Design is a truly ridiculous idea to start with anyway. Yes, my arguments are ridiuclous but as much as Intelligent Design to many of us. According to many well-known philosophers, religion is the bestest tool to control how people think and what people do. History proved that at least one hundred times.

Back to topic, I honestly think that we, Americans, need to do something about our science (not creationism) and math... I must admit that I have to wonder what kind of consequences if we didn't do something about it in several years later.
 
Last edited:
Reba said:
No one is "shoving" creationism into schools to the exclusion of evolution. Evolution has been taught in the public schools for decades while the U.S. continued its downward slide in science and math. Evolution teaching increased and science and math decreased. I think you need to look for a different excuse. Teaching creationism is not the reason for the decline in science and math scores.


We need to learn to master what God created for us or we will be like monkeys waiting for disaster. :P
 
Miss*Pinocchio said:
why some people hate God, he didn't do anything?

exactly...he didnt do anything.... :)


BTW its very true that if evolution was no longer taught then science would decrase. i dont know about math, but science definetly.

anybody with common sense would know that.

the "ban" on evolution tells people not to believe in science, but rather...to beleive in the bible, which has been used to argue that science (astronomy,archiology, chemistry, etc etc) is wrong. thefeore less and less people will study science.

this isnt just evolution they are banning...they are destroying science in general.
 
Why not give choices in education, rather than banning things all over the place? If a kid wanted to learn about evolution, s/he should have the choice. If one kid wanted to learn about creationism.. then s/he should have that choice as well. If another wanted to learn about both evolution and creationism (theological perspective), that choice should also be given. Why limit it? :twisted:
 
Liza said:
Why not give choices in education, rather than banning things all over the place? If a kid wanted to learn about evolution, s/he should have the choice. If one kid wanted to learn about creationism.. then s/he should have that choice as well. If another wanted to learn about both evolution and creationism (theological perspective), that choice should also be given. Why limit it? :twisted:
:gpost:
 
Magatsu said:
...
*chuckle* as usual, you spinned my words. Where and when ever I say that teaching creationism is the reason for the decline in science and math scores?
That was the implied meaning from your posting. I wasn't "spinning" your words.

If that was wasn't your implication in the post, then what was your point? Please state. I don't want to spin your words, but I thought it was permissable to respond with a different opinion.

It is your third time or whatever, to try and spin my words. It is getting old. While it may work on others, it does not work on me. So don't even try and spin my words.
Huh? "Third time"? I made only one reply to your post in this thread. :confused:
 
Magatsu said:
Wait, wait.. I reread your post. Unlike someone else, I am not going to spin your words but I think that comment needs to be clarify a bit. My question is: you were saying that teaching math and science decreased because of this Evolution teaching increased?
On the timeline, yes, that happened. But I am not saying that is the reason. I was trying to point out that teaching creation did not cause the decline of science and math scores. The decline was already there.


Ok, time for massive sarcasm. [sarcasm]
Whatever floats your boat.
 
Liza said:
Why not give choices in education, rather than banning things all over the place? If a kid wanted to learn about evolution, s/he should have the choice. If one kid wanted to learn about creationism.. then s/he should have that choice as well. If another wanted to learn about both evolution and creationism (theological perspective), that choice should also be given. Why limit it? :twisted:
I am sorry but I have to disagree with you. Yes, choice should be given but I don't think that will be permanent in the future. After all, these anti-choice conservative christians are the ones who are working their ass off to take women's rights away, not us. I somehow know that they will take our choice away about learning science or creationism in the future. As proof, Bush Admin stopped funding many sciences that they don't agree with. As example, environment protection, pollution results, etc etc... Only because these does not comply with their policies. If one of them speaks up about environment consequences, they will either fired him/her on the spot or send him/her to remote area (it already happened several times under Bush's Admin). I also already sent the evidences of environment issue to one member about Religious Right and their anti-environment movement/plans and I haven't hear anything from that person, I guess I hit the "right" spot. Liza, they are the ones who wants to limit our choices (women's rights, sodomy, gay marriage, etc etc..), not us. Hypocrisy, is it?

Liza, I am not slamming on you at all but only want to say that I disagree with you at one point... however I do agree with you that the choice should be given but unfortunately that they didn't practice what they preach. Perhaps I need to ask them a question as you brought up, "why limit these choices (gay marriage, sodomy, women's rights, etc)?" [I am preparing for them to spin my words ;)]

Back to the topic: Thank to that chinese native who gave me the link to the blog which another person will write bit more information about China & America and their education system: http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/

I am looking forward to read his/her works about this issue.
 
Reba said:
On the timeline, yes, that happened. But I am not saying that is the reason. I was trying to point out that teaching creation did not cause the decline of science and math scores. The decline was already there.
Uh hu. I think I need to use your own words:
Whatever floats your boat.
 
Interesting OP, Magatsu.

I recommend this book on the history of fundamentalism, The Battle for God, by Karen Armstrong. She records the rise of fundamentalism in the 3 major monotheistic religions, Islam, Judaism and Christianity within the last several centuries. It is very sad that fundamentalism is now the main representative of religion and, because of its anti-scientific sentiments, religion is now considered as competing field of discourse among sciences.

It wasn't always the case, if you read a book on the history of ideas.
 
The Heretic said:
Interesting OP, Magatsu.

I recommend this book on the history of fundamentalism, The Battle for God, by Karen Armstrong. She records the rise of fundamentalism in the 3 major monotheistic religions, Islam, Judaism and Christianity within the last several centuries. It is very sad that fundamentalism is now the main representative of religion and, because of its anti-scientific sentiments, religion is now considered as competing field of discourse among sciences.

It wasn't always the case, if you read a book on the history of ideas.
Thanks for recommending! That book is definitely next on my list to order.
 
Reba said:
No one is "shoving" creationism into schools to the exclusion of evolution.

I thought there were people who wanted to do that. Magatsu said how to find out about that. If they want to teach creationism in school, they should teach the creation stories from each and every religion too. If the kids are to be taught about creationism and evolution for them to decide for themselves, they'd need to be taught every religion's creation story as well for them to have all of the options to decide on.

Reba said:
Evolution has been taught in the public schools for decades while the U.S. continued its downward slide in science and math. Evolution teaching increased and science and math decreased.

I thought evolution was science. And addition and subtraction had been taught during the downward slide of science and math too. It doesn't mean that teaching those is bad.

Reba said:
Teaching creationism is not the reason for the decline in science and math scores.

Saying that god did this and that for mysterious unknowable reasons doesn't encourage one to think about how and why things happen, which is what science asks. One could say that evolution was god's way of doing things and decide to inventisgate it, but not everybody says that.

The United States can't stay on the top forever. Things change. The Roman empire was on the top of the European world by containing most of it. But things changed and the empire was no more. Before, the Soviet Union was one of the superpowers and now Russia's current status may be what the United States may become as compared to China and India.
 
Back
Top