Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Teaching about evolution: Here are some people the Darwin lobby can talk to…


File:A small cup of coffee.JPG We fancy, for the following communications position, Zack Kopplin, that young guy who was freaked because Louisiana schoolteachers needn’t shout Darwindreck at their classes any more*. But as Adam Deen tells us:

When I organised evolution conference to debate the topic of Islam and evolution, there was an obscene backlash. We were labelled as deviants by a prominent Wahhabi preacher for merely having such a debate. One of the guest lecturers was even “excommunicated” for seeking to reconcile the scientific perspective with the faith. More.

These guys should be way easier to talk to than a Bayou teacher who has read Darwin’s Doubt.

And how about the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby’s “aren’t I good?” girls. We’ll draft them to go talk to these folks:

The Islamic State group has declared patriotic songs blasphemous and ordered that certain pictures be torn out of textbooks. …
The new curriculum even went so far as to explicitly ban Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution—although it was not previously taught in Iraqi schools.

Come to think of it, what’s Darwin’s friend, Nick “bookburner” Matzke, doing these days? Matzke could doubtless help. He’d get along with people who tear pages out of books.

Then, leaving all these people to get along with each other as only they know how, the rest of us can investigate the nature of reality.

See also: What the fossils told us in their own words

Follow UD News at Twitter!

It shows everyone believes in the power of words to influence peoples opinions and conclusions. Everyone is right. Every thinking person should have a list of people who by their words influenced so many other people ass to bring change. Whether good or evil as one sees it. churchill or Hitler. Luther or the counter revolutioin Roman catholics. Adam smith or Marx and so many more. therefore everyone is afraid of people who can use their words to influence people. So everyone, almost, agrees in the principle of censorship. IN Anglo american civilization we think we don't agree with censorship but our history shows otherwise. Our history also shows we , some, strive for fredom of speech. so in passionate matters censorship right away appears. what is to be done? Simple. the old case. The objective is truth to bring justice and happiness. So in order to bring truth we must be able to speak for it. so we must be free to speak. So we do and must have freedom of speech since its a natural right to have the truth. so we must put up with false and dangerous speech. No censorship is moral or legal regarding subjects of truth. Yes laws against pornography or obvious offensiveness etc but not speech. Simple. Robert Byers

Leave a Reply