I'll repeat the question: who is responsible for for recent schoolboard meetings about the teaching of evolutionary science. Scientists?
The academic world looks to scientists as a source of reliable information about the universe.
No, it doesn't--the universe is larger than science. However, the academic world does think, as a matter of ordinary, uncontroversial common sense, that science classes should teach children what scientists think.
It should. But when those same scientists make a priori assumptions that inhibit an understanding of the universe, they should be challenged, along with their teachings.
It is not routinely observed that scientists are terribly delinquent in policing their own a priori assumptions, incompentent opinions of non-scientists, with a painfully obvious ax to grind, to the contrary notwithstanding.
Yes, namely people who are capable of observing, testing, and critically assessing evidence about the universe, whether it is preached to them by evolutionists, or self-evident as revelaed by the so-called laws of nature.
. . . the universe is larger than science.
Of course it is. but science does not have anything to observe but the known universe, which operates in a meanful enough way to be observed, comprehended, described, and assimilated to a small degree by the human mind, all of which is decent evidence that the universe is a designed entity.
It is not routinely observed that scientists are terribly delinquent in policing their own a priori assumptions. . .
Am I to conclude from this that science is incapable of bias? Is it incumbent upon science to declare that only "natural" explanations are qualified as explanatory of the universe when the word "natural" only means what is commonly known and observed? Is that not like choking a horse while urging it to run? You have demonstrated well that you fail to police your own a-priori assumptions. As I said, I hope you are not a professional scientist or a teacher.