Climate change Evolution Intelligent Design

What exactly is National Center for Science Education doing these days?

Spread the love

Readers will remember NCSE as the Darwin in the Schools lobby. Currently hallooing about climate change as well as evolution if you go by their current website:

“National surveys show that 40% to 60% of U.S. public school science teachers hedge, equivocate, or send a mixed message when they teach evolution or climate change. NCSE aims to help all of them improve their teaching practices.”

Also:

“NCSE vigilantly monitors efforts to interfere with the accurate teaching of climate change and evolution and strategically mobilizes local communities and educators to respond effectively when problems arise.”

So even if every U prof was questioning Darwinism (and that will happen, the way things are going), nobody who works in the U.S. tax-funded school system is allowed to.

Nice gig.

15 Replies to “What exactly is National Center for Science Education doing these days?

  1. 1
    BobRyan says:

    The US Constitution does not allow for the federal government to spend anything on education. All the bureaucracies that stand in the way of innovation, not just education but across the board, should be done away with. The United States is broke and can no longer afford to spend the money. The investment of improved education has not returned any dividends as education continues to get worse.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    I notice another big motto on their website: “We block threats to education”. That’s funny, I don’t see any complaints about the year-long TOTAL FUCKING SHUTDOWN of schools. Apparently shutting down education is not a “threat to education”.

    It’s also strange that they haven’t already included TRUMPTARD ANTI-VAX DENIALISM along with the other Denialismismists.

    Maybe they recognize that the original and most serious anti-vaxers are the SAME people who support Gaia and Darwin and Lockdowns. Bear in mind that RFK Jr, who heads a major Gaian organization, is also leading the anti-vax movement.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    BobRyan states, “The investment of improved education has not returned any dividends as education continues to get worse.”

    That education has declined fairly drastically in America’s public schools, despite a massive increase in spending on public schools, should not be a surprise for anyone.

    Just google “America’s Failing Public Schools” and several pages of articles will turn up lamenting the failure of America’s public schools.
    https://lmgtfy.app/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=America's%20Failing%20Public%20Schools

    Various reasons have been given for why America’s public schools are failing, yet, despite a massive uptick in spending, and despite the fact that various solutions have been tried, no solution to the problem of failing public schools has been found.

    I think the correct solution is sitting right under our noses.

    It might interest some people to know exactly when education in the public schools of America started to decline.

    As the following graph highlights, after staying stable for years, In 1963 the verbal and math SAT scores ‘mysteriously’ started to decline for 17 straight years after 1963 until 1980.

    Historical average SAT scores of college bound seniors. – 1950 to the 2020
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Historical_Average_SAT_Scores_%28Vector%29.svg

    And this, of course, prompts us to ask, exactly what happened in public schools in 1963 that could possibly explain this decline in SAT scores for 17 straight years?

    Well, 1962-1963 happens to be the year(s) that prayer was removed from public schools by the Supreme Court.

    Education Expert: Removing Bible, Prayer from Public Schools Has Caused Decline
    By Penny Starr | August 15, 2014
    Excerpt: Education expert William Jeynes said on Wednesday that there is a correlation between the decline of U.S. public schools and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1962 and 1963 decision that school-sponsored Bible reading was unconstitutional.
    “One can argue, and some have, that the decision by the Supreme Court – in a series of three decisions back in 1962 and 1963 – to remove Bible and prayer from our public schools, may be the most spiritually significant event in our nation’s history over the course of the last 55 years,” Jeynes said.
    On June 25, 1962, the United States Supreme Court decided in Engel v. Vitale that a prayer approved by the New York Board of Regents for use in schools violated the First Amendment because it represented establishment of religion. In 1963, in Abington School District v. Schempp, the court decided against Bible readings in public schools along the same lines.
    Since 1963, Jeynes said there have been five negative developments in the nation’s public schools:
    • Academic achievement has plummeted, including SAT scores.
    • Increased rate of out-of-wedlock births
    • Increase in illegal drug use
    • Increase in juvenile crime
    • Deterioration of school behavior
    “So we need to realize that these actions do have consequences,” said Jeynes, professor at California State College in Long Beach and senior fellow at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J., “When we remove that moral fiber — that moral emphasis – this is what can result.”
    https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/education-expert-removing-bible-prayer-public-schools-has-caused-decline

    David Barton also has a video, graphs, and article, on the subject.

    The Devastating Effects When Prayer Was Removed From School in America in 1962-63 – David Barton
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1No–GpdqCY

    Results of Supreme Court (1962) Prayer Ban
    Statistical graphs posted below, shockingly reveal the damaging impact on America’s morality as a direct result of the Supreme Court prayer ban in 1962.
    http://www.watchmanbiblestudy......20Pray.htm

    What Happened When the Praying Stopped? April 6, 2008
    Excerpt: How did the removal of voluntary prayer from the schools of the United States (in 1963) affect our nation as a whole?,,,
    Figure 1 shows how drastically the actual knowledge of high school students began to drop at an accelerating rate after 1962. Barton notes in his report that the upturn in SAT scores since 1981 is due to the increase in private Christian educational facilities which began to flourish at that time. Statistics have proven that students from private Christian schools showed higher academic achievement and higher test scores.
    Figure 2: This graph shows the increase in sexual activity in unmarried teen-age girls after the 1962 Supreme Court decision. It is evident from the figures provided that in the years previous to the removal of prayer the rates remained stable and relatively unchanged. In the post- prayer years the numbers immediately began to soar. The sudden increase on the graph appears as if a great restraining force had suddenly been removed.
    Figure 3: Unwed women 15-19 years of age showed a phenomenal increase in the rate of pregnancies after the School Prayer decision. Note that the figure jumps drastically after the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision which made abortion legal in the U.S. The United States now has the highest incidence of teen-age motherhood in any Western country.
    Figure 4: For the 15-19 and 20-24 age group, the rates of youth suicide remained relatively unchanged during the years from 1946 to the School Prayer decision in 1962. But in the years since, suicides among the same group have increased 253 percent, or an average of 10.5 percent per year.
    Figure 5: Stability in the family has also been affected since the 1962 decision. Divorce, single parent families, couples living together but not married, and adultery are areas of family breakdown which have experienced radical growth in recent years. In the graph above, the increase in single parent families (households with only a mother and children) are detailed. Note the dotted line at the bottom, which shows the rate of growth prior to the 1962 decision.
    Figure 6: Crime, productivity, and national morality had been on a fairly stable level prior to the 1962 decision, but that is no longer the case. It is obvious that such a quantity of students praying for their nation had a very positive effect on the course that this nation had taken. The rate of violent crime, as shown above, has risen over 330 percent.
    http://www.forerunner.com/fore.....opped.html

    And as David Barton pointed out. the SAT scores for private Christian schools have not changed since 1962, but have remained remarkably stable.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    And if you are thinking about pulling your child from the failing public school system in America to enroll them in a private Christian school, might I suggest a private Christian school that teaches “Classical, Christian Education”

    Classical, Christian Education: Higher SAT Scores Than All Other School Types “Without Even Trying”
    – Tom Owens on Jan 17, 2020
    One of the distinguishing features of classical education is we refuse to “teach to the test.” Instead, we immerse students in the great conversation of Western, Christian Civilization, exposing them early and often to the best minds humanity has ever produced. We seek the intellectual, moral, and spiritual development of our students above all, but when it comes to the standardized tests obsessed over in conventional schools, we are content to “let the chips fall where they may.”
    Yet, in following the wisdom of the ancients in our approach, the results speak for themselves. Member schools of the Association of Christian & Classical Schools (ACCS) produce students whose SAT scores are, on average, 325 points higher than public schools, 191 points higher than conventional religious schools, and 138 points higher than secular private high schools.
    How does this happen when most classical schools don’t formally prep for the SAT as part of the curriculum? Why does it seem like ACCS students easily handle the SAT “without even trying?”
    https://www.dominionschool.com/dominion-blog/classical-christian-education-higher-sat-scores-than-all-other-school-types-without-even-trying

    Atheists claim that the supposed doctrine of ‘separation of church and state’ is the reason that prayer was removed from public schools. But leaving aside the fact that the doctrine of ‘separation of church and state’ is a work of fiction by the racist Supreme Court justice Hugo Black,,,

    Hugo Black and the real history of “the wall of separation between church and state” – 2011
    Excerpt: So how does this invocation of “wall of separation between church and state” become Supreme Court doctrine, extending from a casual phrase by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to an obscure comment in an 1878 Supreme Court ruling on bigamy to a pervasive doctrine of anti-religious censorship in the public square in the 21st century?
    http://egnorance.blogspot.com/.....ll-of.html

    ,,, leaving aside that fact, it is interesting to note that Darwinian evolution is itself dependent on theological presuppositions, and thus the teaching of only Darwinian evolution in public schools is itself equivalent to the United States government endorsing a specific religion over other religions, which is, ironically, a direct violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution that was (improperly) used to exclude Christianity from public schools in the first place!

    The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning – Paul A. Nelson – Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517
    Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00138329

    Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t – Steve Dilley- 2019-06-02
    The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks
    Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma.
    On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution.
    (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains.
    https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44

    In short, since Darwinian evolution has no real-time empirical evidence supporting its grandiose claims, (in fact many lines of real-time empirical evidence falsify Darwinian claims). it should not be surprising to see Darwinists using “bad theology’ in order for them to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution.

    Small problem, and to repeat, it is, ironically, a direct violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution that was (improperly) used to exclude Christianity from public schools in the first place!

    Matthew 19:14
    Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

  5. 5
    ET says:

    The NCSE has always been just a propaganda center. I am sure they still serve that function.

  6. 6
    johnnyb says:

    It seems to me that the thought police, generally, only have so many resources. With the thought police enforcing wokeness, they haven’t had too much time to fight Darwin critics, and, indeed, have had to look the other way on occasion.

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    The NCSE has done its bit trying to fend off creationist crackpots trying to sneak Christian creationism into the science classroom. It hasn’t been totally successful, unfortunately. The survey of high school biology teachers back in 2011 I’ve mentioned before found that around 13% of them openly advocated creationism in the science class, something that is both unconstitutional and an outrageous breach of their professional ethics.

  8. 8
    Jack says:

    Seversky: The survey of high school biology teachers back in 2011 I’ve mentioned before found that around 13% of them openly advocated creationism in the science class

    What do you mean exactly?

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky is all for teaching religion in science classrooms. It is just that he wants his own personal, (science destroying), religion of Darwinian evolution taught in science classrooms. And doesn’t want any mention of Christianity in the science classrooms., (which happens to be the worldview and/or religion that gave us science in the first place),

    “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
    – Michael Ruse – Prominent Atheistic Philosopher

    In fact, It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than (the religion of) Darwinian materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    April 2021 – Detailed Defense of each claim
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727327

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist, i.e. Seversky, may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    Again, it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    In fact, as much as it may irk Seversky to know this, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on his presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.

    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    Science simply is not possible without people, (especially including atheists themselves), assuming
    certain basic Judeo-Christian presuppositions to be true.

    Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995
    Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons?IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.theistic.net/papers.....cience.pdf

    Verse

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

  10. 10
    ET says:

    The NCSE has succeeded in allowing for materialist crackpots to preach their unscientific materialistic dogma in science classrooms. The NCSE doesn’t care about ethics. The NCSE doesn’t care about science.

  11. 11
    Seversky says:

    Jack/8

    Seversky: The survey of high school biology teachers back in 2011 I’ve mentioned before found that around 13% of them openly advocated creationism in the science class

    What do you mean exactly?

    First, let me correct an error. The survey I was referring to was actually conducted in 2007.

    There was also a later survey carried out in 2019. This paper gives a detailed explanation of both and compares the results. Here are a few extracts:

    Creationism in the classroom

    We now turn to creationism in the classroom. Following the question wording used in the 2007 survey, we asked teachers to report on the number of class sessions they devote to “creationism or intelligent design.”Footnote2 Table 3 shows that fewer teachers report discussing creationism and intelligent design in high school biology classes, down from 23 to 14% (the 95% margin of error for each percentage, accounting for design effects, is under?±?3%). As in 2007, the modal teacher who reported covering creationism or intelligent design devoted 1–2 class sessions to the topic.

    But simply devoting time to creationism might not imply a rejection of modern science. That is because some teachers may raise the topic of creationism in the context of explaining why it is not scientific (Nelson et al. 2019). To see the full range of messages conveyed to students, we turn to two questions asking about creationist perspectives.

    These questions overlap, with the first posing the statement “I emphasize that intelligent design is a valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species,” and the second “I emphasize that many reputable scientists view creationism or intelligent design as valid alternatives to Darwinian theory.”Footnote3 That is, they ask about the teacher making assertions without and with appeals to scientific authority.

    Overall, we find that 18% of high school biology teachers agreed with at least one of the two statements, down slightly from 21% in 2007—while this difference might hint at a subtle change, the drop does not achieve conventional levels of statistical significance. It is notable that the number of teachers disagreeing with the first statement has increased markedly, from 32 to 58%, with the change largely driven by a sharp drop in the number of teachers who declined to answer this question, from 53 to 29%. Also notable is the sharp increase in the percentage of teachers strongly disagreeing with each statement. This result reinforces the conclusion that more teachers are confident in their acceptance of evolution and rejection of creationism. Taken together with the decline in the percentage of teachers devoting class hours to creationism, it is likely that the topic is being raised outside of formal lesson plans or as part of teaching the nature of science rather than as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution.

    We applied this typology to both the original 2007 data and the 2019 survey to assess change over time, and the results are summarized in Fig. 1. We find several important shifts. First, we see a dramatic increase in teachers who reported emphasizing “the broad consensus that evolution is a fact, even as scientists disagree about the specific mechanisms,” while giving no credence to creationism as science. This group increased from 51 to 67%. We also see a drop in those reporting exclusively emphasizing creationism as a “valid scientific alternative”, from 8.6 to 5.6%. Although the 95% confidence intervals overlap slightly, the null hypothesis that the proportions are the same in a common population is rejected at the 0.05 level (t?=?2.35; or t?=?2.08 after accounting for design effects). Of perhaps more importance, the percentage of teachers reporting sending mixed messages dropped sharply from 23 to 12% and the number of teachers reporting as avoiders also declined (18 to 15%)

    These shifts are sizable. If extrapolated to the roughly 3.9 million students who will complete a general biology course in 9th or 10th grade each year,Footnote5 then 116,000 fewer children are being exposed to exclusively pro-creationist messages and 418,000 fewer to mixed messages than 12 years previously. Moreover, with teachers spending an average of 5 additional hours on human and general evolution than in 2007, the opportunities for students to learn the science of evolutionary biology in an unvarnished and unapologetic way have increased substantially.

    So the comparison of the two surveys actually reveals an encouraging picture. Students exposure to evolutionary theory is increasing and exposure to pro-creationist advocacy is declining, although the latter should not be happening at all in the science classroom. This does not preclude discussion of ID/creationism in the science classroom in the context of whether they qualify as scientific explanations by currently-accepted standards of science but it is clearly misleading to suggest that they are actually theories in biology of the same standing as evolution.

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/9

    Seversky is all for teaching religion in science classrooms. It is just that he wants his own personal, (science destroying), religion of Darwinian evolution taught in science classrooms. And doesn’t want any mention of Christianity in the science classrooms., (which happens to be the worldview and/or religion that gave us science in the first place),

    If evolution is a religion then so must quantum mechanics or relativity. In fact, your understanding of the term seems to be so broad that almost anything would qualify

    Another question is whether calling evolution a religion is a compliment or an insult? Is religion better or worse than science in your view? If religion is better then saying evolution is one must be a compliment.

    However, if we were to allow religion into the science classroom as you would like, I can easily imagine the outrage if we were also to introduce Islamic, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist beliefs or give equal time to the origins stories of Native Americans or Australian Aborigines.

    And while, as we have said before, modern science was definitely fostered in Christian Europe, the roots of the scientific enterprise can be traced back to well before the advent of Christianity and to other parts of the world than just Europe.

  13. 13
    jerry says:

    And while, as we have said before, modern science was definitely fostered in Christian Europe, the roots of the scientific enterprise can be traced back to well before the advent of Christianity and to other parts of the world than just Europe.

    Yes. knowledge originated in lots of places. But what was done with that knowledge was uniquely different in post Renaissance Europe.

    I have been going through a number of courses I just purchased from The Great Courses/Teaching Company. One is on the conquest of the Americas. The instructor pointed out that one of the four reasons Europe came to domination was its belief in an ever increasing future which was based on Christianity. Which led to scientific exploration and ever improving technology.

    Competition between small independent political entities also helped. The best example was Portugal which was the first nation state of Europe and maybe the world since ancient Mesopotamia. They were the first to really explore the world far beyond their boundaries. China and the Ottoman Empire were far better equipped financially but it was Europe that succeeded. China for a brief time did but then retreated.

    Example, China invented gun powder but used it for fire works. Europe for better or worse used it for firing projectiles. But gained more knowledge from its use.

    This does not point to Christianity’s truth value as a religion but definitely it’s cultural aspects helped lead to the modern world. What led to the modern world was religious conflicts amongst various Protestant denominations in England.

  14. 14
    OldArmy94 says:

    Notice how they sneak the climate change issue into their mission. Climate Change is celebrated with just as much religious fervor as Darwinism, because Climate Change provides the necessary moral justification for absolute government control of the means of production. To paraphrase Dawkins, Climate Change makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Marxist.

  15. 15
    Querius says:

    Seversky @12,

    If evolution is a religion then so must quantum mechanics or relativity. In fact, your understanding of the term seems to be so broad that almost anything would qualify

    Oh, please. You must not be familiar with either quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity.
    Both of of them have been extensively tested experimentally, quantum mechanics to as much as 10 parts in a billion.

    The theory of evolution has consistently failed to predict anything, except in retrospect. It may have been useful to nineteenth-century science in justifying European colonialism, promoting racism under what was called “white man’s burden,” and later genocidal eugenics, or what Hitler later claimed as “genetic hygiene,” but it has no predictive powers and has been demonstrated to hinder scientific progress by promoting the fallacious assumptions of “vestigial” organs and “junk” DNA to name just two.

    -Q

Leave a Reply