Culture Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design science education

More Tales of the Tone Deaf: How to Weed Creationism Out of Schools

Spread the love

From Brian Gallagher, Nautilus blog editor, at Nautilus: 

In 2008 in Louisiana, and then in 2012 in Tennessee, laws passed allowing teachers to discuss the supposed “weaknesses” of evolutionary theory—a loophole, some science-education advocates said, through which creationism would creep in. And there’s good reason to think that it is: A 2008 nationally representative survey of U.S. high school biology teachers found that nearly half of the responders agreed or strongly agreed that creationism or intelligent design was “a valid, scientific alternative” to evolution, just over 15 percent reported adhering to young-Earth creationism, and 18 percent said they either explicitly advocated creationism in class or endorsed it in passing.

How to fix this? They argue the U.S. needs its prospective biology teachers to take a course specifically on evolutionary theory—which, by the way, is “so elegant that it can be stated in five words,” writes Anne Campbell, an English ethnologist and psychologist, “random genetic variation, non-random selection.” Learning this still isn’t a requirement, perhaps because most biology teachers receive degrees from non-research institutions, Berkman and Plutzer suggest, which often don’t have the resources to provide a course on evolution. Requiring it though would, for one, provide teachers “with more confidence to teach evolution forthrightly,” they write, “even in communities where public opinion is sympathetic to creationism”; and two, it would help weed out creationists who want to teach high school biology by either converting them or encouraging them to “pursue other careers.” Reducing “the supply of teachers who are especially attractive to the most conservative school districts,” they conclude, will weaken “the cycle of ignorance.” [color emphasis added] More.

Gallagher strives to give absolutist power to elite Darwinists to crack down on dissent, something they did not entirely succeed in doing at the recent rethinking evolution meeting at the Royal Society, where most dissenters from Darwinism are not ID supporters.

But in his hunger for a war against nearly half of American biology teachers, he is certainly in keeping with progressive values.

The trouble is, he has missed the train. He should try converting Third Way researchers, of growing importance, to his “Five Easies” Darwinism.

Progressivism is slowly beginning to fail in any situation where it cannot resort to censorship and violence, partly because most people just don’t want to live with enforced lying and professional bullies. And sometimes we get a chance to keep them out or get rid of them. Like now maybe.

See also: Tales of the tone deaf: Doubt of science authorities as social deviance

and

More tone-deafness: How to force Darwinism down people’s throats

3 Replies to “More Tales of the Tone Deaf: How to Weed Creationism Out of Schools

  1. 1
    chris haynes says:

    A little question…..

    On the subject of the Origin of Life, all the peer reviewed empirical evidence has failed to support any naturalistic explanation? What explanation can be taught, that is consistent with the evidence, yet is not Against the Constitution like Creation is?,

  2. 2
    rvb8 says:

    Dean_from_Ohio,

    aha, got it.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    chris haynes @ 1

    A little question…..

    On the subject of the Origin of Life, all the peer reviewed empirical evidence has failed to support any naturalistic explanation? What explanation can be taught, that is consistent with the evidence, yet is not Against the Constitution like Creation is?,

    It’s quite simple. We can teach that there is, indeed, a Christian creation story but there are also many others from different cultures around the world. The evidence for any of them is flimsy at best and certainly not enough to determine which if any if them are closer to the truth than the others. If there was no Creator or designer then the only obvious alternative is some sort of naturalistic explanation. Science has been working on the problem but, as of now, doesn’t have a good explanation of origins either so, from a scientific perspective, the answer is still an unsatisfactory but accurate “We don’t know”.

Leave a Reply