I got this from another list and thought I'd pass it along.
Susan
-----------
From: Science-Week <prismx@scienceweek.com>
To: <prismx@scienceweek.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 1:26 PM
Subject: SCIENCE-WEEK June 30, 2000
> 1. SCIENCE POLICY:
> A CALL FOR MORE OPPOSITION TO CREATIONIST ACTIVISM
> No matter how firm its evidentiary basis, any scientific
> conclusion that contradicts strong popular notions may face an
> intense public campaign aimed at discrediting that conclusion.
> Such was the case with the scientific conclusion that the Earth
> is an oblate sphere and not as flat as a pancake, that the Sun
> and not the Earth is the focal point of planetary orbits, and
> that mental illness is not the result of possession by the Devil.
> And such is also the case with the scientific conclusion
> concerning the evolutionary origins of life, and in particular,
> the evolutionary origins of the human species. Fortunately,
> evidence is usually ultimately victorious in the arena of ideas,
> but the battle can last for some time and it may also damage the
> social fabric.
> Recent years have seen an intensification of the battle of
> evolution vs. creationism, the latter an idea of divine origins,
> the intensification in part due to a resurgence of politicized
> fundamentalist religious views in the US. Of particular concern
> to many scientists are the current campaigns by various
> creationist groups to corrupt the teaching of evolutionary
> biology by politically mandated associated teaching of anti-
> evolutionism, or to do away with the teaching of evolutionary
> biology altogether. Central to all of this is the fact that, in
> the US, public education from kindergarten through high school is
> controlled by local school boards that are often more interested
> in perpetuating dogma than in educating children in a spirit of
> enlightenment. This battle of creationist dogma vs. science is
> one that apparently will be with us for some time, and there is a
> growing consensus that the science community must accept the
> confrontation and resist the corruption of the teaching of
> science with as much vigor as possible.
> ... ... Eugenie C. Scott (National Center for Science Education,
> US), who is a physical anthropologist, presents an essay on the
> current evolution vs. creationism controversy in the US, the
> author making the following points:
> 1) The US stands out among developed countries in its low
> acceptance of one of the major organizing principles of science
> -- evolution. The author suggests this reflects the unique
> settlement and religious history of the US, in which frontier
> communities set up their own school systems largely independent
> of state and federal influence, much less control.
> 2) The author suggests that US religious history reflects an
> equally decentralized "frontier" orientation. The US was
> initially settled by religious dissidents, who formed
> congregations, rather than hierarchical religious systems, in
> which decisions largely were made locally. The US also has been
> the nursery for a wide variety of spontaneously generated
> independent sects, often inspired by charismatic leaders: Seventh
> Day Adventists, the Church of Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's
> Witnesses, Christian Science, and extinct sects such as Shakers
> and Millerites -- all founded reflecting a decentralized
> nonhierarchical religious past. But perhaps the most important
> reason modern anti-evolutionism developed in the US rather than
> in, for example, Europe, was the founding in 1910 to 1915 of
> Fundamentalism, a Protestant view that stresses the inerrancy of
> the Bible. Fundamentalism was not successfully exported to Europe
> or Great Britain, but it formed the basis in the US for the anti-
> evolutionism of the 1920s Scopes trial era, as well as for the
> anti-evolutionism of the present day.
> 3) Although the US Supreme Court has ruled that teaching
> creationism and creation "science" are unconstitutional,
> creationists are using various methods to sidestep this obstacle:
> ... ... a) Various teachers give equal time to creationism and
> evolution, even though their school districts do not (and cannot)
> require them to do so.
> ... ... b) At school assemblies, in the name of "fairness", a
> creationist is invited to tell students that the scientifically
> well-accepted idea that living things shared common ancestry is a
> "theory in crisis" with many "serious flaws", and also that the
> world is only 10,000 years old. Given the requirement of the US
> Constitution that schools be religiously neutral, such assemblies
> provide an unconstitutional forum for a speaker who openly
> proselytizes students to reject evolution in favor of a literal
> Biblical interpretation of history.
> ... ... c) Certain school districts are considering leaving out
> the teaching of evolution altogether, or limiting or separating
> out evolution as somehow different from other scientific fields.
> ... ... d) Disclaimers that teachers must read to students or
> paste into textbooks are becoming more popular. Typically, such
> disclaimers declare that evolution is "only a theory" (in other
> words, a guess, hunch, or half-baked idea) and therefore by
> implication nothing that students should take seriously.
> Oklahoma and Alabama textbooks contain a disclaimer which states
> that evolution is a theory, not fact, because "no one was present
> when life first appeared on Earth." No other subject in the
> science curriculum is so disclaimed.
> ... ... e) Since the US Supreme Court struck down laws requiring
> equal time for creation and evolution, the neocreationist
> approach is to balance evolution with "evidence against
> evolution", but such evidence is revealed as simply a euphemism
> for creation science. Currently, a law is in progress in the
> Arizona state legislature that would require that "evidence
> against evolution" be taught along with evolution. Similar
> legislation is in progress in certain other states.
> 4) The author concludes: "If scientists do not oppose anti-
> evolutionism, it will reach more people with the mistaken idea
> that evolution is scientifically weak, and further, that
> scientists are clinging to it only because of previous commitment
> to atheism -- and perhaps a selfish desire to keep the grant
> money flowing. The subsequent further reduction of scientific
> literacy (to say nothing of a decline of confidence in the
> scientific community) is not something we should passively let
> happen."
> -----------
> Eugenie C. Scott: Not (just) in Kansas anymore.
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 28 2000 - 13:04:22 EDT