> but my very strong impression of most
> teaching about evolution is that it is not taught in this way,
> but as truth which has been revealed by authority, and for
> which a confession of faith will be required on examination.
As so many biologists have so tirelessly pointed out: there is the fact of evolution, on the one hand, which is no more controversial than the facts explained by gravity and special relativity, and on the other hand there are the various theories (still debatable as the works of, e.g., Gould and Dawkins show) that explain the mechanism of evolution.
"Authority" in the quotation above is close to being a bad pun. I never studied differential equations and therefore there is no way I can explore for myself the truth of the laws of thermodynamics or theories of gravity or relativity. But it would be incredibly stupid of me not to accept those facts/theories on the authority of those who have studied mathematics and physics. I have also never been to Evansville Indiana, but if I need to drive there I will accept the authority of the company that makes the maps I will use.
I also don't read Greek, and I don't necessarily accept that a given translation of Herodotus catches the prose rhythms of the original, but I do accept the authority of the translator as to the number of generations (according to Herodotus) that separated him from Homer. Human thought simply ceases if we do not accept a huge amount of information (and even theory) on authority, and it is stupid to rant against "authority in general."
And incidentally, theories of what "scientific method" are far more controversial than either the fact or the basic theory of evolution. I don't accept any explanation of "scientific method" on authority, and neither should anyone else. One could even argue that one of the weaknesses of contemporary teaching of science is that it too easily suggests that the proper "scientific method" is known.
Carrol