Wait. What does this story remind us of? Oh yes, recently a writer at The Atlantic went so far as to express doubt about the claim of a Darwin-in-the-schools lobbyist that everyone needs to buy into their approach to evolution if we want to understand superbugs.
This wonderful news come on the heels of the just as wonderful news about the opening of the ID centre in Austria, Zentrum für Biokomplexität und NaturTeleologie.
Wells is the author of Zombie Science, about out-of-date Darwinian rubbish whacked from one edition of a given publicly funded textbook to another, often claiming the protection of law as if it were some kind of Holy Writ that founds a religious republic.
Relevant in more ways than one. Remember that recent Atlantic article where the writer was grousing that her school didn’t teach “evolution” (Darwinism)? And a Darwin lobbyist told her that as a result we wouldn’t understand superbugs? Darwinism is probably in the way, actually.
Some of us remember back to when only the arts disciplines were being ruined. But yes, math can be ruined too. That will make it hard to talk to people about a lot of science stuff, including science controversies. But hey, they’ll still have astrology.
The more sobbing, screaming teens are paraded in front of the public, the more reasonable climate skepticism begins to sound.
If Darwinists had been in charge of Khazan’s education, she would mainly have a bunch of stuff to unlearn. As it is, she can start with Suzan Mazur’s Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology and Michael Behe’s Darwin Devolves. Steve Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt is good on the Cambrian explosion…
Yes,but what hope is there that textbooks could start teaching reality when even the right to question the Darwinian [sheet] is still a big controversy in many places? Could science writers like Jabr and others agree that it is time to make textbooks about evolution sound like the reality and not like the 1925 Monkey Trial revisited?
Tradejah! Let’s have a ban on teaching Darwinism too. Oh wait — is that what’s supposed to be introduced early and often, because the “Wales Humanists coordinator” and “Humanists UK” want it? Darwinism is an obvious intrusion of religion into the school system. A different religion from what many people follow, but still a religion. Otherwise, why would humanists care so much?
The media can’t really help teaching nonsense about evolution and they will definitely resist correction, putting it down to some dark creationist plot. That is because so much of it supports their worldview. Which may well reflect on their worldview.
Well, an awful lot on climate change, for one thing. Wherever else the climate is changing, it is certainly changing around Darwinism. Perhaps this is a graceful exit for them.
One way of looking at the story: When Darwinian evolution became a secular religion, as Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse admits it is, an inevitable consequence followed: The usual assortment of puritans, pharisees, and timeservers who hang around other religions also hung around Darwinism.
Okay, but then Suzan Mazur, author of Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology, should be invited to speak. She would probably give a great rundown on the various streams of non-Darwinian (and some explicitly contra-Darwinian) research that doesn’t address any faith issues.
The purveyors of the course want to make acceptance of fact claims depend on their origin rather than their relationship with evidence. As for science, well, you can’t get there from here.
Why the textbook zombie can’t just die. Steve Dilley and Nicholas Trafacory “argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma.”