A country that doesn't believe in evolution doesn't respect rational
thought or the scientific process. It can't produce the scientists and
leaders it needs to face the problems of the 21st Century. This is even
a national security problem, since a nation that won't face and study
reality can't defend itself. It situation should be of concern to every
American.
Evolution is not a "theory" in the way that fundamentalists claim. It's
verified scientific fact, developed through a rigorous method of
observation, hypothesis, and confirmation. Some people believe things
that science can't prove. Others believe things that science has
disproved.
They can do that, but they should be prepared to be challenged in an
open society. (That's particularly true if there's an extensive
scientific record demonstrating that a belief - say, that the earth was
created 6,000 years ago - is false.)
As has been said often in the political debate: "You're entitled to
your own opinion, but not your own facts." A secular society must
rigorously teach facts to its children, so that it can have an educated
workforce and contribute to scientific advancement.
The Catholic Church rejects the "intelligent design" movement and unequivocally
supports the teaching of evolution.
The National Council of Churches is a progressive association that
represents 55 million American Christians, and it has taken a
leadership role in resisting "ID" and other impositions of private
belief onto the public sphere. (For some reason, the mainstream media
have ignored this organization so thoroughly that I've described them
as "
America's Secret Christians.")
Unfortunately, their efforts have been more than offset in this country
by an activist coalition of fundamentalists and conservative
politicians. The result is an all-out war on science that has caused
scientific fact to be banned from
IMAX theaters, and resulted in a museum exhibit
failing to find a corporate sponsor.
The impact on the scientific climate in the U.S. has been so extreme that one scientific journal,
Nature, unfavorably compared the U.S. attitude toward science with that of Islamic fundamentalists in Ahmadinejad's Iran.
It's true that literalist Islam doesn't challenge proven scientific
fact the way its Christian equivalent does. That should trouble
Christian conservatives like Gary Bauer who believe that fighting
something they call "Islamofascism" is "the defining cause of our
time." But don't expect to hear from them soon, despite the fact that
Al Qaeda's ranks include a number of engineers and doctors who spend
their time thinking of ways to use science to create terror.
The controversy continues, and was the subject of a
very effective Doonesbury series last week.
I support religious tolerance and respect religious expression and have
my own spiritual beliefs, but no group has the right to interfere with
the common good and our shared freedoms. Religious organizations such
as the Catholic Church and the NCC are on the right side of this
debate. Perhaps that's why heavily Catholic countries like Italy and
Spain perform so much better in this survey.
Americans who are concerned about the Constitution and our social
advancement should be concerned about any attempt by a religious group
to control the public discourse, or interfere with individual freedoms,
based on sectarian belief. That includes access to
medications in pharmacies or access to scientific knowledge in schools or homes.
One last thought: Science isn't just the truth, although it deserves a
vigorous defense for that reason alone. It's also beautiful. It's
tragic to deny schoolchildren and other Americans the right to
appreciate its wonders.
UPDATE: I removed reference to a story about the National Park Service
after a sharp-eyed commenter noted that one of the outlets that
publicized the story, Michael Shermer of Skeptic, did some first-hand
investigation, found some apparently contradictory evidence, and
issued a retraction.
As I've long said, those who claim to speak for science and rationality
should be willing to retract unproven or disproven claims.
And for those who point out that evolution is a theory, a clarification: I wrote "Evolution is not a "theory"
in the way that fundamentalists claim," meaning as a supposition that's just as untested as "ID."
As for evolution being "fact," there's a serious semantic discussion to
be conducted here. By one definition, "facts" are bits of information
that have been objectively processed and stored for shared use.
Otherwise, perhaps I could have said "facts - based on present
information and the most objective evaluation possible." But that's
unwieldy.
Maybe I should have said "conclusions that would be reached by unbiased
and informed observers given all relevant and currently available
information"? I didn't want to get all phenomenological on y'all or
anything ... so I used the word "fact." Alternate suggestions for
choice of wording are welcome.
The Sentinel Effect: A Healthcare Blog
A Night Light
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
