Egnor: “Notably, Swamidass completely leaves out the one criterion that is the cornerstone of accreditation of educational institutions: outcome metrics… don’t know (and Swamidass has nothing to say about it) how students from Christian colleges compare, but is it well established that homeschooled kids (who are disproportionately taught by conservative Christian families) score almost 100 points higher on the SAT and score correspondingly higher on the ACT than the national average.” Okay, but no one sponsoring the war on math is concerned about outcomes because educators have the power to jimmy marks to reward whatever they want to reward and then pass the problem on to others who must then do the same.
Whatever the courts decide, if the goal is “liberation, transformation, decolonization,” the Woke can’t avoid a war on science. While science today is a global enterprise, the European origin of the modern version is a historical fact, one they are finding harder all the time to live with.
Note that the authors of the paper are quite clear that they want Brazilian scientists not just to embrace Darwinism whole hog but to give up their belief in God. So much for rot about “theistic evolution.” That’s for suckers.
Daily Mail reports on a class assignment for seven year olds that happened to be set for the daughter of a Mathematics Lecturer at Oxford. Maths lecturer is left baffled by his seven-year-old daughter’s geometry homework and turns to Twitter for help – so can YOU work out if it’s true or false? Dr Kit Read More…
Example: In response to a question re space aliens, ““The question presumes that aliens do exist. And again, because we haven’t found any yet, we don’t know if they do. It is possible they may exist, for one simple reason: we exist. Whatever made the likes of bacteria evolve into complex bodies with intelligent brains on Earth may have also occurred on another planet.”
They may or may not be able to get away with it. But I don’t think we should delude ourselves that it has anything to do with science.
Because stories don’t need to be real, only comprehensible and entertaining, they would naturally work to inculcate Darwinism. Or magic. Better than facts would. But so?
Mike Behe’s new A Mousetrap for Darwin is available today and that’s the position he takes. That’s our sense too. What about New Scientist’s thirteen reasons for moving past Darwin and the doubts about speciation? Whatever else maybe said of these folk, they are not currently suffering from Darwinbrain. We need to distinguish between rubbish dropkicked from one edition to the next of a public school textbook and what alert minds are really thinking. And they’re really thinking that it’s time to move on.
The fascinating thing about Haeckel’s embryos, which do take the crown for long running fakes that actually matter, is that they were well known for a long time to be fake and even defended. But upholding Darwinism so conveniently for so long gave the faked drawings their legitimacy.
Well, the New Atheists, however tattered and fragmented their movement is now, can boast at least that one success. They’ve made quite clear to alert persons that Darwinism (referred to here as “evolution”) is atheistic.
Science is the kind of thing that thrives on being questioned. All sciences have been built up on the foundations of questioned and discarded science. That’s just how it works. Check the history. Banning questioning science is how we get dead zones.
Eventually, the Woke had to discover that Darwin is not a co-belligerent. Will Darwinians become as unpopular as they made ID types?
It really doesn’t matter all that much what the accusations are. Right now, Darwinism is a fat living for people who don’t like challenges or thinking too hard. They will do their best to undermine Aguiar Neto, no matter what he does for the average Brazilian science student.
And no wonder there is a growing number of populist revolutions in the world.
Independent journalist Suzan Mazur followed up with the College Board testing on evolution knowledge among U.S. students, which seems to test mainly for familiarity with the Darwin sect’s interpretation.
Well, we can spare you the suspense, dear readers, by revealing that they weren’t thrilled to hear a critical question.
It goes on and gets way better. You’ll be amazed at the idiocracy that the testing establishment takes for granted and promotes. Read at her site about how one testcrat even administered the same test twice, a fact advertised on the internet… and more. By the way, why don’t we hear much about this from other science writers?