is caused by "molecular variation of mitochondrial DNA throughout periods of 'statis and anastatis' in a multigenerational time scheme" (Conroy 51) would confuse and frustrate the general public. Perhaps the reason why creation scientists have so much influence is because the average American knows very little if any about science theories and thought. The public would much prefer emotional appeal over technical details. unfortunately for scientists, most of them don't know how to speak emotionally and get their information across at the same time. Simply throwing out facts and figures does not make a case. Mirsky has an example that may catch the attention of the creation scientists. He said, "these are strange times, when a controlled chain reaction of uranium 235 atoms can be used to convert water to steam in order to drive turbines to generate electricity used to provide power to a television set to that a Jimmy Swaggart can reach a fallow mind with the news that Earth is really only a few thousand years old"(11,42). Mirsky's clever quote can be spiritless to religious believers, but he does make a very good point. Yes, some scientists use clever slander to show false creation, but the majority stay well within the regions of what they know. Scientists generally behave differently when defending their theories to creationists. Instead of trying to disprove creation and interest the common people, evolutionary scientists try to piece together the past and explain why we evolve in the ways that we do. Although both sides of this issue present well thought out arguments, they are still spending too much of their time fighting against each other rather than furthering their own knowledge. For example, the Alabama Board of Education requires all textbooks that mention evolution to carry a disclaimer warning that evolution "should be considered as theory, not as fact" (Issues 395). The concept of evolution in textbooks ...
