Why Darwinism is Protected by the First Amendment
|September 8, 2018||Posted by Granville Sewell under Intelligent Design|
Everyone understands that the only conceivable alternative to Darwinism is intelligent design, and everyone understands that ID is a religious idea. Thus if you criticize Darwinism on any minor point you are promoting ID, and promoting religion in the classroom is forbidden by the “freedom from religion” amendment. That is why, no matter how many scientific problems you see with Darwin’s explanation for the causes of evolution, it is unconstitutional to criticize his theory in the classroom.
Nevertheless, in case any of you biology teachers want to try this, I have an idea on how you might be able to point out some problems with Darwinism in your classroom without violating the U.S. Constitution, by sharing the following New York Times report on a 1980 meeting at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History. Of course if you share this article with your class, be very careful to:
- Point out that while the article admits that more and more scientists doubt that natural selection can explain “macroevolution,” it still calls evolution a “fact,” and says that jettisoning Darwinism actually “reflects significant progress toward a much deeper understanding of the history of life on Earth.” (Well, it does.)
- Point out that while the article concludes that in the fossil record, “there are very few examples—some say none—of one species shading gradually into another,” it includes an obligatory jab at “fundamentalists” who misunderstand this as a weakness in the theory evolution itself.
If you follow these simple guidelines, maybe the courts will be reluctant to rule that introducing a New York Times article into your class is unconstitutional, and uphold your right to admit you don’t have a clue as to the causes of evolution. Probably not, but someone should try it to be sure.