|Evolution in the News - September 2009|
|by Do-While Jones|
Eugenie Scott tells evolutionists how to promote the theory of evolution.
Eugenie C. Scott is the director of an organization dedicated to censoring the public school science curriculum (ironically called the National Center for Science Education). Last month Science News interviewed her, asking her about how the theory of evolution should be presented to the public.
Significantly, she DIDN’T say, “Since evolution is such a strong scientific theory, the best way to get people to accept it is to have an open and honest debate about it. When people have been given the chance to see all the evidence for and against evolution, they will clearly see that evolution is true.” She didn’t say that because that’s the last thing she wants. The NCSE is just a political pressure group, so she gave a political answer.
What should scientists and people who care about science do?
I’m calling on scientists to be citizens. American education is decentralized. Which means it’s politicized. To make a change ... you have to be a citizen who pays attention to local elections and votes [for] the right people. You can’t just sit back and expect that the magnificence of science will reveal itself and everybody will ... accept the science. 1 [The inserted word “for” and both ellipses are part of the quote from Science News.]
When she says to vote for “the right people” in local school board elections, she means you should vote for people who will censor the science curriculum to prevent any honest discussion of evolution. She knows people won’t “accept the science” because the science is against evolution.
Scott says, “American education is decentralized.” That’s only partly true. It isn’t completely centralized, but it isn’t completely decentralized, either. She regrets the fact that the Federal Government does not have absolute power to mandate the teaching of evolution without question all over the United States. But Federal courts certainly are telling local school districts that they can’t even mention Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution.
What makes this an important political issue is that if the Federal Government can mandate the teaching of only one side of a scientific issue, it sets an important precedent. If the Federal Government can determine what can be taught in public schools regarding evolution, then it can also determine what can be taught regarding global warming, homosexuality, premarital sex, abortion, racism, religion, and who knows what else. Depending upon who the president is, children will be taught to believe (without question) that global warming is an impending danger that can only be thwarted by reducing energy usage or a hoax to gain power; homosexuality is normal or a disgusting perversion; et cetera.
If the controversy over evolution were really a scientific debate, then it would be decided on the basis of scientific evidence (and the theory of evolution would be rejected). But the theory of evolution is being used as a means to give the Federal Government the authority to determine what must be taught to school children. There is a lot at stake politically, which makes the controversy even more passionate.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month
Scott, Science News, August 1, 2009, “Accept it: Talk about evolution needs to evolve”, page 32