"That's the problem. Most Americans are so scientifically illiterate that what they think is scientific controversy is really scientific ignorance against current scientific understanding. To teach the controversies in evolution, or in any branch of science (because they all have controversies in their repsective frontiers) would require a graduate-level background in the respective subject. With respect to evolution, ther are no rational explanations that fit all of the observed facts. Science is not a democracy. You can't vote or mandate by law a scientific result. Science is morally neutral. To inject morality into science means taking science and turning it into something that it isn't. Science deals with the material universe and is hence, materialistic. Science is not equipped to deal with questions of morality. On that basis, these anti-evolution attacks really are undermining the future scientific capabilities of the United States. We are already graduating more foreigners than Americans with advanced degrees in science and engineering and this type of anti-science hyperbole isn't helping." I was going to edit out the superfluous parts of your post, but found that each and every word was critical to pointing out the elitism and disdain for 'those not like one's self' that it represents.
Sadly, I've known all too many who believed themselves to be scientists who shared that attitude.
So far I've been content to assign it to people who have so much invested in a single bit of knowledge that they must give it special status over the efforts of lesser beings.
I was going to edit out the superfluous parts of your post, but found that each and every word was critical to pointing out the elitism and disdain for 'those not like one's self' that it represents. The problem is that if you want to argue science, you need to become versed in the subject. When non-scientists try to attack science, they often fall short because they do not know what they are talking about. Yes, it does sound arrogant and scientists need to be more eloquent, but it does not change the facts on the ground. In order to argue against evolution, you need to study and understand the current state of evolution and biological sciences. There are a lot of people who try to 'arm-caheir quarterback' science, but that does not mean they know what they are doing.
I work in industrial R&D, where knowing science makes or breaks the company. If you don't know what you are talking about and cannot perform basic science, you will be chewed up and spat out in the unforgiving business world where results matter.