The religious aspect of science (often referred to as ‘Scientism’) is captured once again in a recent piece on the highly informative CreationSafaris website. It requires very little commentary from me at this stage, as I think the point is well made.

Can you be called scientifically literate if you deny that humans evolved from lower animals?  What if you deny the universe began with an explosion?  American students have typically scored low on those questions, leading to charges that they are scientifically illiterate compared to other countries in Europe and Asia.  But now, the National Science Board (NSB) decided to drop those hot-button questions in the 2010 edition of Science and Engineering Indicators, a biennial compilation of the state of global science, on the grounds that they don’t accurately reflect students’ knowledge of science, but rather their beliefs.  The decision set off angry protests in certain quarters. …

… Joshua Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) [called] it “intellectual malpractice” to discuss scientific literacy without mentioning evolution.  “It downplays the controversy,” he said. … Yudhijit Bhattacharjee said, “those struggling to keep evolution in the classroom say the omission could hurt their efforts.”

… NSB officials counter that their decision to drop the survey questions on evolution and the big bang from the 2010 edition was based on concerns about accuracy.  The questions were “flawed indicators of scientific knowledge because the responses conflated knowledge and beliefs,” says Louis Lanzerotti, an astrophysicist at the New Jersey Institute of Technology in Newark and chair of the board’s Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI) committee. …

… Bruer noted that 72% of Americans answered the question about humans evolving from earlier species correctly when the question was prefaced with the phrase, according to the theory of evolution.  This shows that the questions “reflect factors beyond unfamiliarity with basic elements of science.”  The controversy over Indicators thus boils down to the question whether a student needs to believe, rather than simply know, the facts of a theory to be considered scientifically literate. …

And here’s the point;

… If students have to believe rather than understand a scientific theory, then science has become a religion.  According to the radical Darwinists, a scientist could have a PhD, earn international honors in science, publish hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals, and save millions of lives, and yet, if a Darwin doubter (roster), could be judged scientifically illiterate. Do you want radicals like that influencing education policy?  Do you want them requiring recitation of a pledge of allegiance to Darwin?  Do you want them forcing science curricula to say that to understand science, you must believe that nothing banged and became everything by an unguided process?

Indeed, hasn’t this kind of expectation (this commitment to materialism and scientism) already been exposed with the treatment of scientists such as Richard Sternberg and Guillermo Gonzalez, not to mention many others?