Intelligent Design

Back to School: Do You Know What Your Child is Learning?

Spread the love
Another school year is set to begin at high schools and colleges where the next round of biology students will be filled with evolutionary misinformation. At the center of this propaganda campaign are the many biology textbooks used to indoctrinate young minds with old dogma. These textbooks contain the latest evolutionary newspeak, but the underlying lies are no different.  Read more

7 Replies to “Back to School: Do You Know What Your Child is Learning?

  1. 1
    ellazimm says:

    The phrase “If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected” doesn’t rule out the possibility of orderly change under another paradigm; it just points out that according to evolutionary theory there MUST be orderly change.

    I’m not sure why you find the statement so inflammatory?

  2. 2
    Paul Giem says:

    ellazimm (#1),

    Do you have troouble with comprehending English? The statement you quote says that
    the theory of evolution is not correct,
    such orderly change is not expected.

    If the theory of evolution is not correct, then presumably some other theory is. Thus what is being said is logically equivalent to
    If some other theory (or paradigm if you wish) is correct, then such orderly change is not expected. Thus the other paradigm must not predict such orderly change, or otherwise it would have been expected. Thus the statement does rule out the possibility of another theory predicting change. The statement, as printed, says nothing about what change might be expected under evolutionary theory, except as you read it into “on the other hand”. The statement is about competing theories.

    Cornelius’ whole point is that the reason evolutionists believe in evolution (as an unguided process) does not have so much to do with the explanatory power of evolution as it has to do with the ability to eliminate the alternatives. That, and the frequent statements by (unguided) evolutionists that evolution is a “fact”, which implies a certainty that is not warranted in science, and particularly in historical science. Cornelius argues (IMO rightly) that this certainty is because of metaphysical arguments, not scientific ones. Particularly, one of the metaphysical arguments is the one you quoted.

    In order to demonstrate the truth of the assertion Cornelius is criticizing, one would have to have an exhaustive list of alternative theories, and show that each theory or group of theories does not expect “such orderly change”. The textbook in all probability does not do this. Correct me if I am wrong, but I strongly suspect that such alternatives as ecological zonation and differential taphonomy are not even discussed, nor a discussion cited, let alone the obvious alternative of guided evolution, which should expect a roughly similar fossil record to unguided evolution, with the additional proviso that sudden change followed by stasis is more easily explained by guided evolution.

    The statement appears to be false on its face, and to be in the text primarily to support unguided evolution against its competitors. A false statement against one’s adversaries could be regarded as inflammatory. Does that help you to understand any better?

  3. 3
    DonaldM says:

    ellazimm – the main problem with the statement Dr. Hunter quotes from the book is that it carries with it a hidden assumption…that assumption is that ONLY evolution would predict orderly change. How do they know this? No one has EVER established scientifically that that is the case, which is why Hunter cajoles them to “tell us more”.

    The point here is that it might be the case that evolution predicts some sort of orderly change to be represented in the fossil record. However, it is not the case that such orderly change would be the case if…and ONLY if evolution is true. There simply is no science to back that up…its all hand waving assertion…bluster and bluff!

  4. 4
    DonaldM says:

    One of the worries we often hear about is that public school science classrooms (and thus public school science text books as well) must remain pure and free from any “religious” worldview influence. But, as is amply demonstrated in Dr. Hunter’s post, it doesn’t appear to be the case that Science is free of worldview influence. Another question I’ve posed time and again to Darwinists is this: what does a worldview free Science classroom look like? (By the same token a worldview free Science textbook) As with the other question, I have to receive an adequate answer to the question.

    There simply is no way to keep Science worldview free. The only question is which worldview ought to be adhered to and why. But that just opens up a Pandora’s box of problems for Darwinsts, because they would be forced to admit their philosophical biases.

  5. 5
    Berceuse says:

    I hope that by the time I have children and they are old enough to start learning about this kind of thing–so let’s say 15-20 years from now–we have made progress on this matter.

  6. 6
    CannuckianYankee says:


    Sadly, that isn’t the trend. But we can always hope.

  7. 7
    Ernie Bubublio says:

    I think that if orderly change is not expected, we should not find orderly change, and the worldview that predicts orderly change, if there is such change,might not be correct in other ways. It could be a different order than what was expected, yet still orderly. Thus the Darwinist posisition is, as expected, disorderly and dependent on circular reasoning.

Leave a Reply