Brown
1st February 2005, 09:15 AM
A story in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/science/01evo.html) (registration required; available for a limited time) mentions Amazing Meeting Speakers Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins:Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said she heard "all the time" from teachers who did not teach evolution "because it's just too much trouble."
"Or their principals tell them, 'We just don't have time to teach everything so let's leave out the things that will cause us problems,' " she said.
Sometimes, Dr. Scott said, parents will ask that their children be allowed to "opt out" of any discussion of evolution and principals lean on teachers to agree.
...
There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that all living things evolved from common ancestors, that evolution on earth has been going on for billions of years and that evolution can be and has been tested and confirmed by the methods of science. But in a 2001 survey, the National Science Foundation found that only 53 percent of Americans agreed with the statement "human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals."
And this was good news to the foundation. It was the first time one of its regular surveys showed a majority of Americans had accepted the idea. According to the foundation report, polls consistently show that a plurality of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago, and about two-thirds believe that this belief should be taught along with evolution in public schools. It is unfortunate that so many people in the USA adopt an anti-science stance. There are plenty of Christians who hold that any interpretation of scripture that is at odds with scientific evidence is probably a wrong interpretation; but Biblical literalists start with the assumption that a literal interpretation is always correct, and therefore any evidence that conflicts with such an interpretation must be flawed.
The conclusion to the article mentions that literalists are not only aiming at the teaching of evolution, but at the teaching of other scientific fields as well:But several experts say scientists are feeling increasing pressure to make their case, in part, Dr. [Jon] Miller said, because scriptural literalists are moving beyond evolution to challenge the teaching of geology and physics on issues like the age of the earth and the origin of the universe.
"They have now decided the Big Bang has to be wrong," he said. "There are now a lot of people who are insisting that that be called only a theory without evidence and so on, and now the physicists are getting mad about this."
"Or their principals tell them, 'We just don't have time to teach everything so let's leave out the things that will cause us problems,' " she said.
Sometimes, Dr. Scott said, parents will ask that their children be allowed to "opt out" of any discussion of evolution and principals lean on teachers to agree.
...
There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that all living things evolved from common ancestors, that evolution on earth has been going on for billions of years and that evolution can be and has been tested and confirmed by the methods of science. But in a 2001 survey, the National Science Foundation found that only 53 percent of Americans agreed with the statement "human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals."
And this was good news to the foundation. It was the first time one of its regular surveys showed a majority of Americans had accepted the idea. According to the foundation report, polls consistently show that a plurality of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago, and about two-thirds believe that this belief should be taught along with evolution in public schools. It is unfortunate that so many people in the USA adopt an anti-science stance. There are plenty of Christians who hold that any interpretation of scripture that is at odds with scientific evidence is probably a wrong interpretation; but Biblical literalists start with the assumption that a literal interpretation is always correct, and therefore any evidence that conflicts with such an interpretation must be flawed.
The conclusion to the article mentions that literalists are not only aiming at the teaching of evolution, but at the teaching of other scientific fields as well:But several experts say scientists are feeling increasing pressure to make their case, in part, Dr. [Jon] Miller said, because scriptural literalists are moving beyond evolution to challenge the teaching of geology and physics on issues like the age of the earth and the origin of the universe.
"They have now decided the Big Bang has to be wrong," he said. "There are now a lot of people who are insisting that that be called only a theory without evidence and so on, and now the physicists are getting mad about this."