[Nebullis]

I disagree that this movement is a polital effort to change the direction of science inquiry. Political influence has that effect but it is not done by misrepresentation of already obtained scientific knowledge.

[Nebullis]

Just to expand on my last comment:

Funding and other political social or religious motivatian can and does change what scientists will study and so, in future, what knowledge will be obtained. However, suppression of knowledge already obtained at the elementary level will not influence the direction that scientists take; it will produce ignorant students, and where it influences funding, it will lead to less scientific inquiry.

[cornelis]

I disagree that this movement is a polital effort to change the direction of science inquiry.

The threads of influence and consequence are often many to count. But some of the larger strands entwined as part the movement should be clearly seen. One larger strand is the idea of neutrality in the public sphere. Another is the requisite autonomy of fields of study. A third is the misunderstanding of parties, a fourth is the purposeful disinformation of parties. None of these threads are unique to evolution debates. That they get tangled is obvious. The constant tension between content neutrality and theoretical autonomy seems to imply another larger strand.