WELCOME TO THE DARK AGES

From Brian Urquhart's "Extreme Makeover" in The New York Review of Books:

In his recent book on the Scottish Enlightenment James Buchan writes of Edinburgh in the early eighteenth century, "Men and women were coming to suspect that knowledge acquired through skepticism might be more useful in this world below than knowledge 'revealed' by scripture." It is a painful thought that in the United States in the twenty-first century we might be turning away from the world of the Enlightenment which inspired the Founding Fathers. Of all the thoughts provoked by [Anatol] Lieven's book ["America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism"] this is the most disturbing, both for America and for the world. Since religious freedom and popular elections are both sacrosanct rights of the American people, it is a particularly delicate one. Is it possible that America could eventually vote to go back on the Enlightenment?

Might be turning away? Is it possible? Eventually? So politely put. How about, with Georgie Boy elected to the White House last November, is it a done deal?

It sure seems so. Look no further than "Evolution Takes A Back Seat in U.S. Classes," which appeared earlier this week in the Science section of The New York Times.

In [school] districts around the country, even when evolution is in the curriculum it may not be in the classroom, according to researchers who follow the issue.

Teaching guides and textbooks may meet the approval of biologists, but superintendents or principals discourage teachers from discussing it. Or teachers themselves avoid the topic, fearing protests from fundamentalists in their communities.

Dr. John Frandsen, a retired zoologist and former chairman of the committee on science and public policy of the Alabama Academy of Science, told reporter Cornelia Dean this fear made it impossible to say precisely how many teachers avoid the topic. But he believed the practice of avoiding the topic was widespread, particularly in districts where many people adhere to fundamentalist faiths.

"You can imagine how difficult it would be to teach evolution as the standards prescribe in ever so many little towns, not only in Alabama but in the rest of the South, the Midwest -- all over," Dr. Frandsen told her.

Dean points out that a 2001 survey by the National Science Foundation found that just 53 percent of Americans agreed with the statement "human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals," despite the fact that 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."

Believe it or not, this was regarded as "good news to the foundation" because "it was the first time one of its regular surveys showed a majority of Americans had accepted the idea."

According to the foundation report, 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.

If that doesn't astonish you, how about this?

These findings set the United States apart from all other industrialized nations, said Dr. Jon Miller, director of the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University, who has studied public attitudes toward science. ... In other industrialized countries, Dr. Miller said, 80 percent or more typically accept evolution, most of the others say they are not sure and very few people reject the idea outright.

Or this, in this morning's Times editorial about Dean's report, "Afraid to Discuss Evolution":

In some areas of the country, many biology teachers are themselves believers in creationism. A 1998 doctoral dissertation found that 24 percent of the biology teachers sampled in Louisiana said that creationism had a scientific foundation and that 17 percent were not sure. Several surveys have shown that many teachers give at least some instructional time to creationism or intelligent design out of a sense of fairness.

And the news only gets worse. Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, told Dean that the teaching of evolution was portrayed not as scientific instruction but as "an assault of the secular elite on the values of God-fearing people." Consequently, the politicians are afraid to touch the issue.

Furthermore, Dean reports, "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," according to Dr. Miller, and "they have now decided the Big Bang has to be wrong. There are now a lot of people who are insisting that that be called only a theory without evidence and so on ...."

Who said you can't turn back the clock?

February 4, 2005 11:07 AM |

Categories:

Me Elsewhere

'WILD SIDE' STILL ROCKS 

Nelson Algren was one of the great American authors of the 20th century, it is no exaggeration to say, and among the most neglected. Consider his underrated classic, "A Walk on the Wild Side." The title -- popularized and co-opted as an idiomatic phrase by Hollywood and Madison Avenue (institutions Algren loathed) -- is familiar to most anyone who speaks English or knows Lou Reed's lyrics. But the novel itself? Hardly.

BUSTER KEATON REVISITED 
Buster Keaton: Tempest in a Flat Hat is not a biography. "This book is merely a fan's notes," Edward McPherson writes in the introduction, although his publisher ignores the disclaimer and calls it a biography on the cover. In fact, the book is a bit of both, a difficult combination to bring off unless you're David Thomson, who set the standard with Rosebud, his penetrating rumination on the life and career of Orson Welles, which was nothing if not a distillation of every obsessive thought he ever had about the myth and the man and all his movies.
LAUREN BACALL, STILL SALTY AT 80 
When Lauren Bacall writes that her singing voice ranges "somewhere between B minus sharp and outer space," she's being candid and funny. It's not every stage star with two Tony Awards for best actress in a musical whose vocal talent offers so little promise. (OK, Harvey Fierstein excepted.) Still less would one admit it.
THE STARS ACCORDING TO BOGDANOVICH 
Peter Bogdanovich's superb collection of movie-star profiles and interviews -- a sequel to Who the Devil Made It, his interviews of top film directors -- begins with an affectionate tale about Orson Welles that reminds us just how intimate the author's connection to Hollywood's greatest has been. But contrary to what we've come to expect from dime-a-dozen celebrities and celebrity interviews not worth two cents, the tale avoids bromidic egotism and journalistic platitudes.
SAMMY'S WHITE DREAMS 
Four decades ago Lenny Bruce sentenced Sammy Davis Jr. to "30 years in Biloxi," stripping him of "his Jewish star" and "his religious statue of Elizabeth Taylor." Now we have two new biographies of Davis that spring him from ridicule, if not from doubts about his legacy, and restore a measure of dignity to a black entertainer whose huge fame and success never overcame his devout wish -- indeed his lifelong effort -- to be white.
more picks

Sites to See

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by CriticalMASS published on February 4, 2005 11:07 AM.

IN DEFENSE OF CAROL REED was the previous entry in this blog.

INCOMING is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.