Readers may recall that yesterday we noted that Darwin’s darling Zack Kopplin didn’t want to talk about epigenetics (the way in which interactions with the environment affect our genetic instructions).
A friend writes to say that soon-to-retire “Darwin in the schools” lobbyist Eugenie Scott thinks it’s fine not to teach students about epigenetics because
It was almost a relief when an antievolutionist contended that the books should be rejected because they don’t include epigenetics. At least the epigenetics argument is relatively recent (perhaps only 5-8 years old). In creation-think, including epigenetics in biology textbooks will weaken evolution because epigenetics is evidence against evolution. Yeah, I know it isn’t, but to creationists, any process that isn’t natural selection weakens natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism, and if natural selection isn’t strong enough to produce evolution, that means that evolution didn’t take place, and…and…You get the picture. Never mind that epigenetics isn’t in the TEKS, the state science education standards, and generally isn’t a topic for beginning biology learners. [colour emphasis added]
What’s really interesting here is how important Darwin’s hot 19th century theory about natural selection acting on random mutation seems to her. To doubt its near—or actual (I don’t have the script in front of me)—divine power is to doubt that any kind of evolution occurs.
In short, the best-known Darwin lobbyist thinks the evidence for evolution in general is so weak that doubts about the power of natural selection to randomly produce intricate new equipment must mean that evolution never happens. Good thing she said it herself.
By the way, here’s more evidence that some media sources were floating the story that “Texas law bans teaching about evolution in books” as of late yesterday. Who are these airheads, and why do you rely on them for news, if you do?