Why Aren't US Citizens Interested in Science?
"The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations." [Obama’s 2011 State of the Union] Why?
Because of America’s foundational principles, only 33% of Americans agree with Darwinism [2009 Zogby poll], and tend to "turn off" when speculations contrary to core beliefs are promoted as truth. In fact, a Journal "Science" [1/28/11, p404] paper indicated that only 28% of high school biology teachers "consistently implement the major recommendations and conclusions" concerning Darwinism. Their recommendation is for those "who cannot accept evolution as a matter of faith to pursue other careers." Why should science be a matter of faith, instead of evidence-based? Why should those not adhering to the Darwinian faith be encouraged to leave science? These questions are extremely important as America attempts to regain scientific leadership. [The paper also notes that following this recommendation "would reduce the supply of teachers who are especially attractive to the most conservative school districts." See below a letter to the editor that was rejected.]
The Darwinian paradigm that is serving as the basis of science as presented today would not be a scientific problem if it were indeed unassailably substantiated. For over 20 years Programming of Life’s author believed, taught, and defended the "truth" of chemical and biological evolution, until confronted by the scientific realities. Thousands of scientists [pssiinternational.com/list.pdf & dissentfromdarwin.org] acknowledge that Darwinism CAN’T work, as shown in PoL. Presidential Medal of Science winner biologist Lynn Margulis writes, "this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric... No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation" ["Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species," 2003, p29].
Rather than advancing the cause of scientific progress, Darwinism stifles it by forcing scientists to dogmatically ignore known scientific information. Darwinists have repeatedly declared "undeniable proofs" (e.g. 98% of DNA is "junk" and numerous "proven transitional forms"), only to have those "proofs" debunked later by real science. Note that "micro-evolution," due to genetic changes within a species is accepted as verified fact by all scientists, but such changes have NEVER demonstrated a net increase in functional information that would be required to form a "higher" species. The title of Darwin’s book was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Although Darwin didn't cause racism, his writings provided perceived "scientific justification" (now debunked, thankfully) to believe non-Caucasians are less evolved [search "The Descent of Man," for "201 gorilla"] (so why is Darwin viewed favorably?).
Philosophical and religious (including both theistic and non-theistic religions, such as Atheism or Secular Humanism) presuppositions should not influence what is taught as science. Presenting only verifiable science (or both sides of controversial issues to promote critical thinking skills), avoiding unverified speculations, should lead to a much better education that many more people would willingly pursue. Good science reduces philosophical obstacles, leading to improved engineering, more innovation, better products, and more jobs.
The above text is from a flyer (printable version) that calls attention to a major reason that the US citizens are lacking in science knowledge, a major national security problem. This was included with letters (now public, with his response) written to President Obama addressing this subject. Are people interested in pursuing a field of study that consistently portrays as unassailable truth ideas that are believed to be wrong? Should they be interested in pursuing study in a field that belittles and downplays any dissenting views, with no discussion permitted? The constant barrage of unsubstantiated speculations portrayed as the truth for the origin of life and species has turned people off toward science. We are now seeing the results of that relentless barrage of pseudo-science of the past 50 years, with American's low interest in science. The USA is very susceptible to adverse effects from these unsubstantiated pronouncements because of our foundational principles. People in a predominately atheistic nation like China are not "bothered" by naturalistic claims. Certainly it would not be appropriate to twist science to be compatible with any theistic religion, but it is likewise not appropriate to twist science to attempt to rule out any reality beyond matter and energy. The PoL page has some of the specific problems that require explanation before propagating naturalistic speculations as science . There is an unprecedented Time-Critical Opportunity for Scientific Integrity.
The review from Professor Donald Mitchell (Amazon top 10 reviewer) notes, "Dr. Johnson concisely defines life in terms of its information content, citing many different scientific sources. Viewed from this more complete perspective, there's no chance that the current evolutionary theories are correct. I found it refreshing to see such an examination be conducted solely from a scientific perspective.... Clearly, a new theory for the origin of species is needed. Who will provide one?"The following is a letter to the editor of the Journal Science that was rejected.
Berkman/Plutzer’s 1/28/11 "Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom," expressed distress that only 28% of high school biology teachers adequately teach Darwinism. Their proposed pre-service course follow-up should raise scientific concern since they recommend that those "who cannot accept evolution as a matter of faith to pursue other careers." This sounds like religious dogma, not evidence-based science. They also acknowledge "This would reduce the supply of teachers who are especially attractive to the most conservative school districts" (the US needs more teachers, not fewer!).Since such dogmatism produces anti-science perceptions by the general public, science must be extremely well-documented, especially when presenting concepts that aren’t held by the public (only 33% accept evolution producing species [Zogby Poll, 2009]). Certainly it’s inappropriate to twist science for compatibility with any theistic religion, but it’s likewise inappropriate to twist science attempting to rule out any reality beyond matter and energy. Nearly everything presented on chemical evolution (ACS’s "From Molecules to Man") during education toward my first Ph.D. in chemistry has since been debunked. With Venter’s experimental confirmation of the reality of computer hardware and software in cells, science needs to ensure that any scenarios for the origin or life or species are compatible with information science (none are, to date). Biology isn’t a physical science like chemistry or physics, but is instead an information science (my second Ph.D. field), since life’s processes are controlled by information processing systems. There are multiple scientific challenges (see www.djpol.info) requiring scientific answers before promoting origins speculations as being worthy of consideration. Scenarios currently presented turn many people against science, rather than encouraging seeking scientific knowledge. Presenting only verifiable science, avoiding unverified speculations, would lead to better science education that many more people would willingly pursue.
Donald Johnson
Research scientist, Professor, and Author of best-seller (in molecular biology) "Programming of Life"