Who is The Enemy of Science Education?

According to one of the icons of Paleontology, Robert Bakker, the answer is “elitist anti-creationists“.


  • [Switek] Finally, as someone who works with the “bones of contention” and the fossil record, what do you think about the current controversy surrounding evolution in the United States? How can we do a better job of communicating science to the public?

[Bakker] We dino-scientists have a great responsibility: our subject matter attracts kids better than any other, except rocket-science. What’s the greatest enemy of science education in the U.S.?

Militant Creationism?

No way. It’s the loud, strident, elitist anti-creationists. The likes of Richard Dawkins and his colleagues.

These shrill uber-Darwinists come across as insultingly dismissive of any and all religious traditions. If you’re not an atheist, then you must be illiterate or stupid and, possibly, a danger to yourself and others.

As many commentators have noted, in televised debates, these Darwinists seem devoid of joy or humor, except a haughty delight in looking down their noses. Dawkinsian screeds are sermons to the choir; the message pleases only those already convinced. Dawkins wins no converts from the majority of U.S. parents who still honor a Biblical tradition.

Source: Paleontological Profiles: Robert Bakker

As an aside, after reading Brian Switek’s complete interview with Robert Bakker, be sure to read the comments being posted about the interview.

I wonder if Mr. Bakker’s challenge to evolutionary orthopraxy will cause him to be Expelled as a troublemaker? I hope not.


3 Responses to Who is The Enemy of Science Education?

  1. […] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt […]

  2. Laelaps says:

    Just to clarify the last bit, Bakker was not doubting evolution. He said uber-Darwinists, which would be similar to those S.J. Gould called the “adaptationists” or “ultra-Darwinians.” Both “sides” agree that evolution certainly took place, but the adaptationist school is much more reductionistic, and Richard Dawkins has lately become more concerned with atheism than with science, it seems. Unfortunately evolution, religion, and atheism have become so intertwined in the present debate that such phrases are easily misunderstood and there seems to be much more invective than worthwhile discourse.

  3. wanderer7 says:

    science is good for technology. and that is all

    there is more to thinkng and human experience than mere science

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: