No small rumpus is building over the National Science Foundation’s attempt to change the questions used to measure public adherence to Darwin dogma: Can you be “science literate” about the dogma without actually believing it? In most fields, that would not be an issue; it is routine for political scientists to be knowledgable about movements and policies that they personally oppose. But Darwinism is the creation story of atheism, so its apostles and evangelists demand that you to believe it, either PZ Myers-style or BioLogos-style.
Thus, Yudhijit Bhattacharjee reports “New NSF Survey Tries to Separate Knowledge and Belief” (Science 22 July 2011):
Can a person be scientifically literate without accepting the concepts of evolution and the big bang? To many scientists and educators, the answer to that question is an unqualified “no.”
How this came about?:
For 2 decades, the survey has included two true-false statements: “Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,” and “The universe began with a huge explosion.” Two expert panels assembled last year by NSF have suggested qualifying those statements with the phrases “According to evolutionary theory” and “According to astronomers.” The board has decided to ask NSF to give the new versions of the questions to half the respondents on its next survey and to analyze the results.
Which “infuriates” the Darwin lobby. Their position is easy to comprehend: Once a statement is sourced to someone or some group in particular, it can be evaluated in the light of reason and argument.
Consider the difference between:
Capital punishment cuts the murder rate.
According to criminologists, capital punishment cuts the murder rate.
The first formulation invites assent; the second, discussion. For example, on what evidence have the criminologists drawn their conclusions? Might there be other evidence they have chosen not to consider? Why was that?
The Darwinist argument against any change is
Joshua Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which has fought to keep creationism out of the science classroom, also finds the reports disheartening. “Whatever the cultural context or reasons for it, rejection of evolution has profound consequences for a person’s ability to fully integrate new and existing science into their own lives, to participate in their own medical care and in the 21st century economy,” he says. “If NSF’s surveys downplay that fundamental concept, they will be measuring science literacy in name only.”
The utter lack of evidence for Rosenau’s position that “rejection of evolution has profound consequences for a person’s ability to … to participate in their own medical care … ” makes it consistent with a great many statements by convinced evangelical Darwinists.
There’s a streak of dark humor in there too: The non-Darwinists who have been unable to participate “in the 21st century economy” were usually capable workers hounded out of their jobs by Darwinists. Just think: That’s one of the very few Darwinist predictions that comes true time and time again
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Hat tip Creation-Evolution Headlines.