From Evolution News:
Moreover, the article by Rachel Gross spills the beans about something we knew already: that the real goal of most evolution educators isn’t simply to start a conversation about evolution. Rather, the aim is conversion, that is, convincing the public to “accept” evolution. Note these unusually candid admissions about the true goals of Darwin educators:
“Acceptance is my goal,” says Jamie Jensen, an associate professor who teaches undergraduate biology at Brigham Young University. Nearly all Jensen’s students identify as Mormon. “By the end of Biology 101, they can answer all the questions really well, but they don’t believe a word I say,” she says. “If they don’t accept it as being real, then they’re not willing to make important decisions based on evolution — like whether or not to vaccinate their child or give them antibiotics.”
These groups recognize that cultural barriers, not a lack of education, are what’s preventing more Americans from accepting evolution. “I never want to downplay the importance of teaching our students evolution, I think it’s the most important thing we do,” says Elizabeth Barnes, one of the co-authors of the biology education paper. “But it’s not enough if we want students to actually accept evolution.” More.
Chances are, your taxes pay for this. And we all know perfectly well that social elites would rush to defend Darwin’s religion at the taxpayer’s expense. As long as they are allowed to.
But then, as Michael Ruse makes clear, Darwinism is a rival religion to Christianity (or perhaps elsewhere, other religions?). And it is part of the fundamental creed of most science writers. Science writing is not the better for that.
See also: Michael Ruse: Christianity and Darwinism as rival religions Ruse has always been honest about the fact that, for is serious adherents, Darwinism is a religion.
Is the term Darwinism a “scientific slur”?