Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Laws

Another reason not to teach Darwinism in the public school system

Spread the love

Think about it:

Editor’s note: Recently, Scientific American viciously smeared all critics of Darwinian theory with an article titled, “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy,” by Allison Hopper. As promised, we are presenting some of our extensive past coverage of the tight links between racism and evolution. This article was originally published on January 10, 2020.

A glance at the Wikipedia article on “scientific racism” makes it sound like the phenomenon is basically something out of the past: “Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific.” But four African American high school students in Suffolk County, NY, might beg to differ.

They are suing their school district for $12 million after the teacher of their advanced zoology class showed slides of them juxtaposed with a gorilla with the caption “Monkey see, monkey do.” The photo of the four was taken on a field trip with their class to the Bronx Zoo, a place with a dismal history. There, in 1906, the African pygmy Ota Benga was displayed in a cage in the zoo’s Monkey House to educate the public about the insights of Darwinian theory. …

Let’s be fair. The instructor likely did not act from a specific intent to hurt black students.

David Klinghoffer, “Students Sue School District for $12 Million Over “Monkey See” Photos” at Evolution News and Science Today (July 28, 2021)

One rather hopes the students’ suit is settled by now and they can get on with their lives. Unfortunately, Benga never really got over his own experience and ended up committing suicide.

But we’ve been saying this practically forever: Quit teaching Darwinism in the public school system. There are ways of addressing evolution sensitively that don’t include teaching Darwinism.

Maybe insurance companies should quit insuring schools where Darwinism is taught against these specific types of incidents.

If I (O’Leary for News) were an insurance actuary, I’d be looking at that story with an eagle eye… I’d be thinking, we cost out our premiums based on stuff like: What happens if gym equipment collapses and a bunch of students are injured… What are we on the hook for? We can cost that out… there’s a big medical database on that kind of thing…

But now this stuff…? Look, it raises lots of issues and most of them are not even actuarial… Maybe a number of our insured school systems are charter schools that don’t even teach Darwinism. Why should every institutional policyholder be on the hook for raised costs due to this type of thing?

Possibly, Darwinism is becoming more vulnerable now.

See also: At Scientific American: “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy” Wow. Has the Darwin lobby hired itself a PR firm that recommended getting someone on board to accuse everyone who doubts Darwin of being a “white supremacist”? Quite simply, Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man is surely by far the most racist iconic document ever to be lauded by all the Right People! And getting someone to holler about “white supremacy” among Darwin doubters is, ahem, just a cheap shot, not a response to the stark raving racism in print of the actual document. Guys, try another one.

6 Replies to “Another reason not to teach Darwinism in the public school system

  1. 1
    Bob O'H says:

    But we’ve been saying this practically forever: Quit teaching Darwinism in the public school system.

    Eh? I thought the Disco Institute’s line was “Teach the Controversy”.

  2. 2
    AaronS1978 says:

    Hmm. You gonna revel in that split hair because it’s shows a hypocrisy? Victory is yours this day?

    I mean I guess you can ignore the years and years and years of total refusal to teach anything that sounds like intelligent design.

    But hey you got them!

    And also let’s not forget that the raging racism that is scientific Darwinism that never is mentioned in schools, so teach the controversy? Oh wait you can’t teach that either, you’re lucky to hear a mention of it when discussing WWll and the Nazi’s eugenics policies

  3. 3
    BobRyan says:

    Darwin based science was proven wrong at great cost in an out of the United States. It should be taught for the results it led to and leading to today under CRT. Anything dealing with race is eugenics based, which is rooted in Darwinism. The rebirth of a dying Klan and segregation of the military are two examples of many that shows what happens when race trumps real science.

  4. 4

    The problem in teaching darwinism, is that natural selection theory is the only theory in science which is based on subjective terminology. The entire life cycle of organisms is explained using subjective terminology in regards to reproductive “success”.

    That confuses people on what the distinction is between matters of opinion and matters of fact. And soon they will be asserting as fact that one is superior, and the other inferior, as a quasi scientific judgement on worth.

    Solely creationism explains the difference between matters of opinion and matters of fact, but creationism is expressly denied by evolutionists.

    So then a darwinist is forced to conclude that worth is a matter of fact, and therefore Darwinists are also racists.

  5. 5
    harry says:

    How about insisting they stop teaching asininity in public schools?

    Science was thoroughly and completely wrong about the Universe being eternal with no beginning. It was just as wrong about a biological cell being a simple, homogeneous blob of protoplasm.

    We now know that space, time, matter and energy — the natural Universe — once didn’t exist. Whatever brought it into being wasn’t a natural cause as the natural is what began to exist. Nature’s cause must have been a reality that transcends the natural, i.e., a supernatural cause.

    Was that necessarily supernatural reality a someOne or a something? A “Who” or a “what”? The discovery that even the simplest biological cell isn’t a simple homogeneous blob at all, but rather consists of massively functionally complex nanotechnology driven by immense quantities of extremely precise digital information, provides us with the answer: Unless a fully automated, self-replicating factory run by programmed robotic equipment could come about mindlessly and accidentally, it is irrational to just assume life on Earth, which is far more complex than an automated factory, emerged that way. Inttelligent agency was required.

    Since there is no evidence whatsoever that significant functional complexity driven by huge quantities of precise digital information ever arises mindlessly and accidentally, there is no basis for science to assume that life arose that way. That assumption is based solely on an intense desire that that be the case. That’s it. That’s all they’ve got.

    Besides that, every instance of significant functional complexity driven by a large quantity of precise digital information known to us is also known to have been the result of intelligent agency.

    And life, the digital information driven nanotechnology of which far exceeds man-made technology in functional complexity, came about mindlessly and accidentally? We teach hogwash like that to kids in public school?

    Kids are being taught asinine hogwash in public schools and in many private schools. Teaching asininity to children must be banned.

  6. 6
    harry says:

    “Intelligent agency was required.”

    I never see my typos in time. ;o)

Leave a Reply