Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Science education: Where “hypothetical deer mice” demonstrate Darwinism to passive degree seekers …

arroba Email

In Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters (2010), Expelled’s Caroline Crocker (p. xv) explains what you are getting for your overpriced science education, Darwin Catechism division – brand new icons of (Darwinian) evolution, and just as shoddy as the old ones:

In the fall of 2008 students taking Animal Biology, Genetics, Ecology ad General Biology at George Mason University, a state school in Virginia, reported fascinating classroom incidents to me that clearly demonstrate this entrenchment. First, the Peppered Moth story, an “icon of evolution” challenged by writer and scientist Jonathan Wells (PhD, Molecular and Cellular Biology, Berkeley” has now been replaced by the evolution of “hypothetical deer mice.” Similarly, the “evolution” of E. Coli, which was a favorite example for evolutionists but has stubbornly remained the same species despite over 100 years of experimentation, has now been replaced by evolution of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Of course, the fact that HIV is a virus and that there is much discussion about whether viruses even qualify as being alive, was not mentioned. Then again, the definition of life also seems to have changed somewhat so that it too bows to evolutionary dogma: it is now “a self-replicating system of organic molecules that can evolve”! Only a few years prior life was more accurately defined by its characteristics and actions: cellular basis, reproduction, growth, usage and transformation of energy, responsiveness to the environment, etc.The college textbooks have also responded to the controversy in an unhelpful manner … Even the Campbell Biology Testbank v. 6.0 (standard biology test questions) has been altered to guarantee that students are properly indoctrinated. There are questions on micro and macroevolution, making sure that students agree that they are the same thing really, when it is obvious that they are not. (Microevolution is change within a species over time, such as occrs in the breeding of dogs. It is agreed by all and is demonstrable. On the other hand, macroevolution is more controversial, encompassing transition of one type of organism to another, requiring brand new information, such as would be required for the evolution of people from a bacterial common ancestor.) Other questions one-sidedly address irreducible complexity, the origin of life, and even religion. Since these tests use multiple-choice questions, if a student fails to answer with wholehearted agreement with the theory of naturalistic evolution, their answers are marked wrong. The popular Campbell and Reece’s Biology is used in high schools as well as colleges, thereby making textbook-supported enforcement of consensus science easy.

[Earsplitting noise] We, your moral and intellectual superiors are now speaking: Shut up, you losers, and pay – or else.

I've read several studies on REAL* deer mice, but never hypothetical ones. Anyone want to clue me in on what this post is referring to? *http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/08/evolution-of-pigmentation-in-deer-mice.php Is the argument on HIV that HIV is not living, and life evolves, therefore sub-living genetic elements cannot evolve? I really don't think that definition of life excludes non-life (viruses, computer programs) from evolving. Hence the other part of the definition: "self-replicating system," which viruses are not. DrREC
Surely it's easier to evolve hypothetical deer mice than real dear mice.
On the other hand, macroevolution is more controversial, encompassing transition of one type of organism to another, requiring brand new information...
Is she assuming what it is she's trying to prove? Mung

Leave a Reply