Consider, for instance, some of the topics covered at the annual conference of the Geological Society of America, held October 16-17 in Salt Lake City this year. This scientific organization normally focuses its attention on rocks, minerals, and the various geologic strata. Yet, at its annual meeting, these educated “rockhounds” devoted several “expansive sessions” and twenty-four separate presentations to strategies opposing intelligent design. In a press release titled “Geoscientists and Educators Take on Antievolutionists,” the Society offered scientists the following sessions as a part of the two-day itinerary:

• Evolution in Kansas: It’s the Politics, Stupid!
• Not Just for Biologists Anymore: The Evolution Controversy Impacts Geoscience and Space Science Education
• Intelligent (Incompetent?) Design Versus Evolution: New Tactics for Science (?)
• Multiple Levels of Antievolutionism (see Cairns, 2005, parenthetical items in orig.).

In the press release posted on the Society’s Web page, they describe individuals who question evolution as “trained attackers.” In suggesting tips for combating those who do not believe in evolution, Donald Wise asked: “How does a scientist or teacher defend evolution against trained attackers?” He answered the question by saying, “Don’t” He then went on to suggest they focus on flaws in the intelligent design (Cairns, 2005). Since when did one of the objectives of the Geological Society of America become “taking on antievolutionists?” Be assured that this is far from the last of the plotting that will occur at future scientific conferences.

University of Idaho president Timothy P. White has also weighed in on the subject. In articulating the university’s position regarding what would be taught in science classes, he affirmed that only evolution would enter his classrooms. His press release noted:

Because of recent national media attention to the issue, I write to articulate the University of Idaho’s position with respect to evolution: This is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our bio-physical sciences. As an academic scientific community and a research extensive land-grant institution, we affirm scientific principles that are testable and anchored in evidence. At the University of Idaho, teaching of views that differ from evolution may occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion, sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses. However, teaching of such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula (White, 2005, emp. added).

The only curriculum that is appropriate? I wonder if Dr. White has opened and evaluated the textbooks used in bio-physics classrooms before he dictated what would be allowed in classrooms. If so, then surely he noted the numerous instances in which evolutionary hoaxes—known to be untrue for decades—are still being recanted, merely because they present a good “teaching story.” Is that appropriate? I might also ask if White has critically evaluated the problems with the evolutionary theory—problems such as evolution overcoming the scientific law of biogenesis?

White clarified that the University of Idaho affirms the principles that are “testable and anchored in evidence.” I encourage Dr. White to produce the “anchored evidence” that proves creatures evolved from one kind into another—from a common ancestor. And exactly how was the evolutionary theory “tested?” As Nobel laureate Robert Millikan once noted: “The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientists can ever prove” (1925). Theodore Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist for the Atomic Energy Commission observed: “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.... It is a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure jaggling...” (1959). Oh, so true.

But the fight doesn’t stop within the classroom. Even museums have waded into the fray. Chicago Tribune staff writer Lisa Anderson remarked:

Natural history museums around the country are mounting new exhibits they hope will succeed where high school biology classes have faltered: convincing Americans that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is a rigorously tested cornerstone of modern science. At Chicago’s Field Museum, curators call their upcoming effort “Evolving Planet.” The University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln calls its program “Explore Evolution.” And here at the American Museum of Natural History, the exhibit that opens next month is called simply “Darwin” (2005).

Ironically, Anderson’s report admits that over half of American adults surveyed said “God created humans in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it” (2005). Anderson continued by noting that more than half of all Americans believe that both evolution and creationism should be taught in public school science classes. (Ironic, is it not, that Americans pay for the museums, and yet the majority voice is not represented.)

Robert Goop revealed what will surely be the next tactic from evolutionists in this ongoing fight He observed: “I think every business leader that wants to be competitive in the coming years should be quite concerned about this ID movement” (see Anderson, 2005). When all else fails, threaten their wallets. Goop’s between-the-lines statement is that in order to be competitive and continue making money we must teach (and indoctrinate) students with evolution. Anderson’s report also noted that “the National Academies, America’s top science advisors, issued a report last week warning the nation to sharpen its scientific competitive edge before it’s too late.” This scare tactic went on to warn: “In a world where advanced knowledge is widespread and low-cost labor readily available, U.S. advantages in the marketplace and in science and technology have begun to erode” (Anderson, 2005).