+Church of The Painful Truth+ wrote:

<snip>

Dr. DeWitt (...) is a member of the Society for Neuroscience, the

Research Society, and is currently chair of the biology section of the
Virginia Academy of Sciences.

Being the relatively curious person I am, I was struck by the oddity of
someone being a member of the Creation "Research" Society and the
Virginia Academy of Sciences.

So I checked. Anybody want to guess what I found? According to the VAS
Web site, while DeWitt is a member of the biology section, he's the
secretary, not the chair.

Another *terrific* page revealed VAS's *strong* position on evolution:
http://www.vacadsci.org/labres.htm#evolution

---------------------------------------------
STATEMENT OF THE POSITION OF
THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
ON THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION

(...)
The central organizing principle of biology is the theory of evolution.
It is consistent with the data of systematics, comparative anatomy and
biochemistry, genetics, embryo!ogy and paleontology. It has been tested
by the methods of population genetics and experimental breeding. Its
detailed interpretation is subject to revision by the normal methods of
science in the course of experimentation and peer review.

It is the duty of the scientific community to resist unwarranted
political and religious intrusion into the domain off science. The
Virginia Academy of Science, therefore, affirms the propriety of
teaching the theory of evolution in secondary schools, colleges, and
universities, and maintains that the curricula should conform to the
highest professional standards of the various scientific disciplines.
(...)
---------------------------------------------


I was quite happy to see this (being my home state). Thay also have a
link to the Iowa Academy of Science's position. *Wow!* Those Iowans
don't pull any punches!
http://www.iacad.org/positn.pap/creatn.evo/crea-evol%20ias.htm

---------------------------------------------
STATEMENT OF THE POSITION OF THE IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
ON THE STATUS OF CREATIONISM AS A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION
OF NATURAL PHENOMENA

Current attempts to introduce "scientific creationism" (...) or other
disguised forms of creationism into the science classroom along with or
instead of evolutionary science are strongly opposed by The Iowa Academy
of Science on the grounds that creationism, in whatever form, is a
religious doctrine and not science.
(...)
Creationist organizations that are advocating the teaching of
"scientific creationism" (...) include members purported to be
scientists who have examined the evidence (...) Much of this "evidence"
is inaccurate, out of date, and not accepted by recognized
paleontologists, geologist, astronomers, and biologists. (...) Most
"scientific creationists" are not trained in biology or geology (...)
These "scientific creationists" often misrepresent the positions of
respected scientists and quote them out of context to support their own
views before audiences and government bodies. They are driven by the
notion that all explanations of natural events must conform to their
preconceived views. (...) Not only are the arguments offered by
creationists misrepresentations, they also include distortions and
misconceptions of scientific facts and concepts. (...) Creationism is
not science and the Academy deplores and opposes any attempt to disguise
it as science.
(...)
The Iowa Academy of Science feels strongly that the distinction between
science and religion must be maintained. A state with one of the highest
literacy rates and with the highest scientific literacy scores in the
nation, and one which prides itself on the individuality of its
citizens, should discriminate in its public education system between
what is science and what is not science.
---------------------------------------------


Painful, thanks again for helping to illuminate us! :-D