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?
But why on earth did she think that such a strategy would ever be an aid to effective communication? Wasn’t she, at bottom, just trying to put the supposedly stupid mid-Western rubes on display for the supposedly sophisticated Brits? That stuff is wearing thinner all the time though the targeted Brit demographic might be the last to know.
In the real world, this is not the time to be buying into “consensus” but to be advocating reform.
Jay L. Wile: The progress of science depends on questioning the scientific consensus. Whether or not it was intentional, Brazil’s government decided to appoint someone who is skeptical of the consensus in a position of influence when it comes to science education.
Is the stuff she identifies designed to insulate students from the ferment going on in biology or is just the outcome of educrats’ self-insulation…? Maybe both?
There is no discussion of the guy’s admin skills or anything else that would be directly relevant to his new position. One thing the anti-Neto noise will do is make a great many Brazilians and others aware of ID who weren’t before.
Jonathan Wells: I have consistently found that these two groups [home-schooled students or students from private Christian schools] are among the brightest and most interested of attendees, and they raise most of the best questions.
That is, Darwinians argue that similar structures in life forms are powerful evidence of common ancestry. Is that so? It’s part of an occasional series called Long Story Short.