They are dreadfully scared! For over twenty-five years, everything has gone “their way,” and they have been able to fill textbooks with their own beliefs and speculations. But “the times, they are a changing”! Evolutionists all around the country realize that the stronghold they once held over science departments and the public-in-general is slowly losing its grip.
The March 23, 2005 issue of USA Today featured a piece titled “‘Call to Arms’ on Evolution” (see Vergano and Toppo, 2005). The article informed readers that just days earlier, Bruce Alberts, head of the National Academy of Science [NAS], had written to all academy members, urging them to alert him if they detected any threats to evolution. He called on academy members to “confront the increasing challenges to the teaching of evolution in public schools” (Vergano and Toppo). In his letter to academy members, he wrote:
I write to you now because of a growing threat to the teaching of science through the inclusion of non-scientifically based “alternatives” in science courses throughout the country. A recent article in the Washington Post pointed out that there are challenges to the teaching of evolution in 40 states or local school districts around the country today.... If these challenges have not yet reached where you live or work, they are likely to do so in time.... These challenges continue unabated across our nation (Alberts).
The conclusion of his letter stated:
We stand ready to help others in addressing the increasingly strident attempts to limit the teaching of evolution or to introduce non-scientific “alternatives” into science courses and curricula. If this controversy arrives at your doorstep, I hope that you will both alert us to the specific issues in your state or school district and be willing to use your position and prestige as a member of the NAS in helping us to work locally (emp. in orig.).
But Bruce Alberts is not the only one writing such letters. Alan Leshner, CEO of the world’s largest organization of scientists—the American Association for the Advancement of Science—wrote a letter in response to an article that appeared in the New York Times. The background on Leshner’s letter revolves around a few Imax theaters that were not supporting evolutionary theory. On March 19, 2005, Cornelia Dean penned an article in the Post, pointing out that some Imax theaters were choosing not to show films that “contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of the Earth and its creatures” (2005). She wrote: “People who follow trend at commercial and industrial Imax theaters say that in recent years, religious controversy has adversely affected the distribution of a number of films....” One of the films in question is titled “Volcanoes of the Deep Sea,” and suggests that life may have originated from hot vents in the ocean floor. Dean noted:
Carol Murray, director of marketing for the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, said the museum decided not to offer the movie after showing it to a sample audience, a practice often followed by managers of Imax theaters. Ms. Murray said 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, “some people said it was blasphemous.” In their written comments, she explained, they made statements like “I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact,” or “I don’t agree with their presentation of human existence” (2005).
She continued:
In interviews, officials at other Imax theaters said they had similarly decided against the film for fear of offending some audiences. “We have definitely a lot more creation public than evolution public,” said Lisa Buzzelli, who directs the Charleston Imax Theater in South Carolina, a commercial theater next to the Charleston Aquarium (emp. added).
More “creation public” than “evolution public”? That’s not exactly news to anyone, since despite evolutionists’ best efforts, the majority of Americans believe in some form of creation—which may be one reason that evolutionists have sounded their “call to arms.” Even after more than fifty years of evolutionary propaganda, many people still see the problems and weaknesses associated with their pet theory.
Dean’s article mentioned Hyman Field, who played a role in financing the “Volcanoes” film. He was “furious” that museums had chosen not to show it, and went on to comment: “It’s very alarming, all of this pressure being put on a lot of the public institutions by the fundamentalists” (emp. added). Alarming? Yes! Pressure? From whom? As Mark Looy, from the creationists’ group “Answers in Genesis” noted, “No pressure is being directed by any denomination, political action group or creation organization” (2005). While we would all love to take credit for these theaters choosing not to show such films, there is no campaign or organized boycott. As Looy correctly pointed out, this appears to be simply a “grassroots” effort that is happening in many different communities.
James Cameron (filmmaker of the movie Titanic) was a producer on the Imax film “Volcanoes” and said he was “surprised and somewhat offended.” He went on to lament: “It seems to be a new phenomenon, obviously symptomatic of our shift away from empiricism in science to faith-based science” (Dean, 2005). The article goes on to mention that some in the industry will likely steer clear of science topics likely to offend religious people. This gets into the real bottom line—evolution is no longer being viewed as profitable.
And so, now Alan Leshner has fired off a letter to the 410 members of the Association of Science-Technology Centers. Leshner wrote:
We are writing now to express strong concerns about increasing threats to science that endanger our shared missions and to offer our support and partnership in dealing with them. A March 19, 2005 New York Times article—“A New Test for Imax: The Bible vs. the Volcano,” by Cornelia Dean—raised serious issues about the future of science and scientific freedom in America. The article, which detailed the growing trend of science museums declining to show Imax films that mention the process of evolution, explains that fear of protests has prompted some museum managers to scrub such offerings from play lists (see “AAAS CEO Alan I. Leshner...,” 2005).
He continued: “AAAS is eager to provide assistance to museum leaders facing evolution-related conflicts. Toward that end, we invite your feedback regarding the support strategies that would prove most useful to your institutions.”
The most important message from this entire episode is the one that was written between the lines. Evolutionists are running scared. People are questioning not only the evolutionists’ biased agendas, but also their science and logic. Many individuals are beginning to realize that, at times, the evolutionists’ beliefs are held in place by a stiff-necked desire not to yield to a Creator, rather than by the actual evidence itself.
REFERENCES
Alberts, Bruce (2005), “Evolution Controversy in Our Schools,” National Academy of Sciences, [On-line], URL: http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf/urllinks/NAS-6AQJS4? OpenDocument.
Dean, Cornelia (2005), “A New Test for Imax: The Bible vs. the Volcano,” New York Times, [On-line], URL: http://query.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F60C11F8 3A580C7A8DDDAA0894DD404482.
“AAAS CEO Alan I. Leshner Registers ‘Strong Concerns’ Over Suppression of Science Films” (2005), [On-Line], URL: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/gmu-aca032905.php.
Looy, Mark (2005), “Credit Where Credit is Not Due,” Answers in Genesis, [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0322imax.asp.
Vergano, Dan and Greg Toppo (2005), “‘Call to Arms’ on Evolution,” USA Today, [On-line], URL: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-03-23-evolution_x.htm.
Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "In the News" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
