Am-Iraq-A

According to today's New York Times, many teachers in America are afraid to present evolution in the classroom, and are afraid to even discuss the issue in public, because of potential backlash from fundamentalist Christians. In school districts around the country, even when evolution is in the curriculum, it may not be taught in the classroom. Superintendents or principals have been discouraging teachers from discussing the subject, or teachers themselves avoid the topic, fearing protests from fundamentalists in their communities. In fact, this fear has made it impossible to say precisely how many teachers are avoiding the topic.

In some classrooms, the teaching of evolution has been hampered by the beliefs of the teachers themselves, who are creationists or supporters of the teaching of creationism. Data from various studies in various states over an extended period of time indicate that about one-third of biology teachers support the teaching of creationism or "intelligent design."

Although 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, the National Science Foundation found in a 2001 survey that only 53 percent of Americans agreed with the statement "human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." And that was an increase from previous polls.

This attitude sets the United States apart from all other industrialized nations. In other industrialized countries, 80 percent or more typically accept evolution, most of the others say they are not sure, and very few people reject the idea outright. In Japan, something like 96 percent accept evolution. Even in socially conservative, predominantly Catholic countries like Poland, perhaps 75 percent of people surveyed accept evolution. In fact, two popes, Pius XII in 1950 and John Paul II in 1996, have endorsed the idea that evolution and religion can coexist.

Americans have been evenly divided for years on the question of evolution, traditionally with about 45 percent accepting it, 45 percent rejecting it, and the rest undecided. 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.

Further, 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 also has to be wrong, and are insisting that the Big Bang be called only a theory, without any supporting evidence.

So what we're facing here is the suppression of science by religious zealots, at the expense of our own children's education. To me, America is becoming more and more a fundamentalist state, different from Taliban-era Afghanistan only in the particular religion being endorsed and in the degree of enforcement. This state of fear not only inhibits teaching the science of evolution, but also of global warming, another concept not popular with the American conservative movement but widely recognized across the rest of the industrialized world.

More and more, Michael Crichton's case against the science of global warming is sounding like the tactics of the creationists - instead of supplying a credible scientific alternative, the Crichtonists and the creationists cite random studies, often of questionable scientific merit, and isolated data that they claim "refute" the science, and then claim that their "alternative" must be correct (when in fact, no credible alternative was ever offered).

The Crichtonists and the creationists also accuse the scientific community of advancing their ideas for purely self-serving reasons. The teaching of evolution is often portrayed by religious groups not as scientific instruction but as an assault by the secular elite on the values of God-fearing people. Again, according to the Times, the great variety of religious groups in the United States leads to competition for congregants. This marketplace environment contributes to the politicization of issues like evolution among religious groups.

The motives for those denying the existence of global warming are a little harder to discern. Crichton has repeatedly proposed that environmentalists have been advancing completely unfounded fears and creating false concerns in order to advance their own political agenda and to obtain power and authority. But why does this peculiar view resonate with the neo-cons?

It is possible that their position stems from a reaction to the realization that unchecked energy consumption cannot go on forever without having a consequence. In the "religion" of the Crichtonists, America has the right, if not the duty, to a higher standard of living than the rest of the world, and Americans should be free to consume as much energy and fossil fuels as they wish. The fact that there's a price, a consequence, to this consumption is upsetting to them, and they seem to feel that it's better to kill the messenger than to accept the truth.

But meanwhile, here on the home front, January was a good month for this little blog. Since I started this blog last May, I received very, very few hits each day until around November of last year. Then, for some reason, traffic strated to pick up. By December, I started getting still more hits, many related to the tsunami disaster in Asia, plus the link over on Mumon's site, and finally, due to Wampum's Koufax award nomination.

So I entered the year averaging about 50 hits a day, much, much better than the 10 or so I was averaging, and during the month of January 2005, the hits have doubled to over 100 per day, with a peak of over 200 on January 27!


Thanks, everyone, for your support, even if you were coming here only for the pictures of Courtney Love, Norah Jones, Jimi Hendrix and David Bowie. . . .