Intelligent Design science education

But can politicians really afford to discuss the “evolution question” honestly?

Spread the love
Bio_Symposium_033.jpg
Credit Laszlo Bencze

In “Answering the Dreaded ‘Evolution’ Question” (The American Spectator 6.24.11), Jay Richards and David Klinghoffer explain how politicians can avoid the “speed trap” of the “evolution” question:

Though a president doesn’t have much influence over state and local science education policy, reporters lie in wait for the unwary candidate, ready to pounce with a question he’s poorly prepared to answer yet that is important to millions of voters. Fortunately, there’s a reply that not only avoids the trap but helps advance public understanding.

Oh yes? They suggest: 

Asked about evolution, here’s what Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, or Chris Christie could have said:

“Life has a very long history and things change over time. However, I don’t think living creatures are nothing but the product of a purposeless Darwinian process. I support teaching all about evolution, including the scientific evidence offered against it.”

Dogmatic neo-Darwinians won’t like that answer (they admit of no scientific arguments against their theory, unlike in any other area of scientific inquiry). But some other scientists will be fine with it, and, according to Zogby polling data, so will the 80 percent of Americans who favor allowing students and teachers to discuss evolutionary theory’s strengths and weaknesses.

Will that really work?

It lays bare the true politics of “evolution” that Christian Darwinists, for example, set up BioLogos to avoid: Easing a majority theist nation toward becoming a majority atheist nation, using the compulsory, tax-supported school system.

Everyone knows it and no one says it, and there is a good chance that most of the public is not willing to face it.

Instead, controversies revolve around protecting Darwin’s errors – with, for example, stuff like not mentioning self-organization theory in Texas schools because it might remind some of something Bill Dembski wrote, even though he doesn’t support the theory.

Doesn’t a politician face a serious risk in asking people to grow up, face up, and make a decision?

Thoughts?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O’Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

One Reply to “But can politicians really afford to discuss the “evolution question” honestly?

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    Doesn’t a politician face a serious risk in asking people to grow up, face up, and make a decision?

    Absolutely. But in the States we have much more pressing issues that politicians fail to face.

    And that’s why every two years we have the opportunity to fire a large portion of them.

    In the end, it’s our individual responsibility, and I’d have it no other way.

Leave a Reply