But why is a clever young fellow attracted to Darwinism anyway?

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 23, 2013

Darwinism, Education}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Current Rice U student Zack Kopplin is the front man for getting the “outrage” of Darwin doubt done away with. We tracked him here and here.

This in an age of information theory, the Cambrian explosion, and admitted large-scale stasis in evolution …?

Apparently, the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008 (which protects teachers from Darwinists, who want you to know that Haeckel’s embryos are real and design in the universe isn’t) stands.

So Slate is in a dither, which means we all have to care. Send sobs, flowers, chocolates, and heart-shaped tissue paper via the Internet immediately.

But none of this addresses the big question: Young Zack has a choice before him. He can continue to be a progressive celeb (cough!) or consider the reasons for doubting Darwin. Way harder life, but much better facts.

Question: Why would a clever young person want to spend his life fronting Darwin when nature has never co-operated? Isn’t there a better life out there?

Comments

If he's doing the wrong thing then why is he clever?? Its more likely the clever people, to use that word, gets things right!! You know the tree by the fruit!Robert Byers_{May 25, 2013
May
05
May
25
25
2013
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}

Current Rice U student Zack Kopplin
Rice U non-science student Zack Kopplin. A pro-science activist with not even rudimentry formal training in science nor much evidence that he wants to learn science.scordova_{May 24, 2013
May
05
May
24
24
2013
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

In the magazine American Laboratory a biochemist wrote this about his children’s schooling: “The child is not presented with evolution as a theory. Subtle statements are made in science texts as early as the second grade (based on my reading of my children’s textbooks). Evolution is presented as reality, not as a concept that can be questioned. The authority of the educational system then compels belief.” Regarding evolutionary teaching in higher grades, he said: “A student is not permitted to hold personal beliefs or to state them: if the student does so, he or she is subjected to ridicule and criticism by the instructor. Often the student risks academic loss because his or her views are not ‘correct’ and the grade is lowered." An example typical of views that often intimidate laymen is this assertion by Richard Dawkins: “Darwin’s theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist.” But is this actually the case? Not at all. A little research will reveal that many scientists, including ‘serious modern biologists,’ not only doubt evolution but do not believe it. They believe that the evidence for creation is far, far stronger. Thus, sweeping statements like that of Dawkins are in error. But they are typical of attempts to bury opposition by means of such language. Noting this, an observer wrote in New Scientist: “Does Richard Dawkins have so little faith in the evidence for evolution that he has to make sweeping generalisations in order to dismiss opponents to his beliefs?” similar fashion the book A View of Life, by evolutionists Luria, Gould and Singer, states that “evolution is a fact,” and asserts: “We might as well doubt that the earth revolves about the sun, or that hydrogen and oxygen make water.” It also declares that evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity. But it can be proved experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun, that hydrogen and oxygen make water, and that gravity exists. Evolution cannot be proved experimentally. Indeed, these same evolutionists admit that “debate rages about theories of evolution.” But do debates still rage about the earth revolving around the sun, about hydrogen and oxygen making water, and about the existence of gravity? No. How reasonable is it, then, to say that evolution is as much a fact as these things are?Barb_{May 24, 2013
May
05
May
24
24
2013
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Cleary Zack wants his 15 minutes of fame, and he's found the path of least resistance to get it. He's become the poster boy of the pro Darwinist agenda for overturning LSEA. If he had to stop and consider tough questions, all the cameras, glitz and glitter would go away. The delusion, as Dr. Ford alludes above, lies in Zack believing that because the cameras and reporters are there to record what he says and does, he think what he says and does is actually profound and right. Turn off the cameras, dim the lights, and stop the presses, and let reality take over, and the vacuousness of Zack's "arguments" will become readily apparent. Why would a 20 year old want to give up the illusion for the reality, when the illusion is so much more fun!DonaldM_{May 24, 2013
May
05
May
24
24
2013
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

"Why would a clever young person want to spend his life fronting Darwin. . .?" Because Darwin allows one to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist." Why is being an atheist so great? It allows one to live one's life without being judged or held accountable for one's choices. You also get to feel smarter than theists. Win win. "Isn't there a better life out there?" Not if you don't mind being deluded.Dr.Ford_{May 23, 2013
May
05
May
23
23
2013
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply