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.”
What Klymkowsky takes to be demonstrable fact is mostly a series of naturalist statements of belief in the first paragraph and flatly contradicted by mathematical facts in the second.
No wonder people don’t want this stuff in the schools.
In 2008, Reiss ended up resigning from a Royal Society post because of an earlier effort to make Darwinism sound reasonable.
“We noticed the trend about three years ago, but it really accelerated over the past few months,” an EPA representative told reporters. “After controlling for solar activity and weather patterns, we determined that the biggest factor is the exponential growth in Bill Nye’s self-admiration. His expansive, pretentious hubris now casts a shadow large enough to […]
Most of Novella’s piece has to do with people who seriously espouse a flat earth as opposed to people who check the box and go back to their Twitter feed, surely the vast majority. It won’t be fun when those people have responsible positions, imparting their knowledge of the world.
Karsten Pultz: Kristian Østergård and I have both been involved in the translation and publishing of Douglas Axe’s book Undeniable, and it was very satisfying to be able to provide the teachers who attended the course with copies of this important work.
Some scientists hope to influence society by running for office: On the verge of Election Day in the U.S. a political movement focused on getting scientists into public office is hoping that results at the polls will lead to more scenes like this one at state houses, city councils and school boards across the country, […]
From an interview with J. P. Moreland, author of Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology (2018): RC: How does science differ from scientism and why does it matter? JPM: Claims of science—water is H20, electro-magnetic fields behave in such and such a manner—what science is limited to. But scientism is a […]