Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
ENLARGE
By Ed Iverson
Henceforth, there will be no funny business about evolution in Idaho schools.
Henceforth, there will be no funny business about evolution in Idaho schools.
Parents can rest easy now that the Idaho Science Teachers Association officially banned any challenge to Charles Darwin's theory of biological evolution. Last week, the ISTA president said teachers in the government schools could teach only things that had been "approved by the scientific community."
ISTA now has an official position on intelligent design: It's not science, and it doesn't belong in the classroom. Neither creationism nor intelligent design can be mentioned as alternatives to Darwinism. The ISTA is following the national organization by claiming that doing so might confuse young minds, giving them the impression that evolution is a controversial theory.
One might conclude from this that the government schools are reluctant to introduce perplexing alternatives. That would be a wrong conclusion. Indeed, children are blithely introduced to all manners of alternatives. For example, they are taught that while some families have a mommy and a daddy, others have two mommies and some have two daddies. This is called alternative lifestyles, you see. And alternatives are good, aren't they, kids?
ISTA now has an official position on intelligent design: It's not science, and it doesn't belong in the classroom. Neither creationism nor intelligent design can be mentioned as alternatives to Darwinism. The ISTA is following the national organization by claiming that doing so might confuse young minds, giving them the impression that evolution is a controversial theory.
One might conclude from this that the government schools are reluctant to introduce perplexing alternatives. That would be a wrong conclusion. Indeed, children are blithely introduced to all manners of alternatives. For example, they are taught that while some families have a mommy and a daddy, others have two mommies and some have two daddies. This is called alternative lifestyles, you see. And alternatives are good, aren't they, kids?
The Mandarins that govern the public schools are not at all shy about the possibility of confusing children in many other areas. Muslim traditions are introduced as normal. Alternative history is also popular with educrats. America is vilified both in its founding and its development. One looks in vain for any acknowledgment that Christianity played any part in the early history of America. The entire edifice of education as monopolized by the state leans heavily upon the pillars of multiculturalism and diversity. As a result, kids don't know the history of Western civilization. They don't study the great literature, analyze the complex music or scrutinize the great art of the West. They are given alternatives.
But our government schools will suffer no alternative to the doctrine of evolutionary Darwinism. This is because evolutionary Darwinism effectively functions as the educrats' approved religion. Questioning Darwinism affects the National Science Teachers Association in the same way that drawing cartoons of Mohammed affects militant Islam. KABOOM!
In handing down the official ruling, ISTA President Rick Alm said it was "basically unethical to teach creation science or intelligent design because it is not science, and it does not belong in a science classroom." He went on to say "religion has its place, and it's not in our science classroom."
But our government schools will suffer no alternative to the doctrine of evolutionary Darwinism. This is because evolutionary Darwinism effectively functions as the educrats' approved religion. Questioning Darwinism affects the National Science Teachers Association in the same way that drawing cartoons of Mohammed affects militant Islam. KABOOM!
In handing down the official ruling, ISTA President Rick Alm said it was "basically unethical to teach creation science or intelligent design because it is not science, and it does not belong in a science classroom." He went on to say "religion has its place, and it's not in our science classroom."
Mr. Alm has defined terms without giving notice of having done so. Any interpretation of the data that casts doubt upon Darwinism is defined as "religion." Darwinism is "science" by definition, even though it rests heavily upon layers of faith. Darwinists must begin with faith in "chance" as the engine of life. Prominent evolutionists say their system rests, not upon chance, but upon "survival of the fittest." But that's a shell game more suited for the carnival than for the lab. "Watch here," they say. "Don't focus on the foundation of random (chance) mutations required for change. Instead, look over here at how nature preserves beneficial mutations to create new species. No! No! Ignore that little man behind the curtain. Focus instead upon this spectacular superstructure produced by adaptive mutations."
The faith of the evolutionist doesn't stop there. Even though there are almost no actual instances of beneficial mutations, the evolutionist has faith that there have been gadzillions of them. According to evolutionary dogma, for example, the eye developed by way of thousands of mutations, each of which was random, each of which was beneficial and each of which was preserved due to some adaptive advantage. Forgive my incredulity. Without the whole eye where was the survival advantage? Perhaps a genie kind of "stored up" beneficial mutations? Then, "WHAM," the eye! But this is science, see. It's not faith. Huh!
Evolutionists don't own the facts. What they own is a "story." Any facts not fitting their story are ignored or defined away. Any investigator putting together a different story is defined as a religionist and cast out of the fraternity. By the use of these and many other stratagems, science is kept pure and kids aren't confused by controversial alternatives.
The faith of the evolutionist doesn't stop there. Even though there are almost no actual instances of beneficial mutations, the evolutionist has faith that there have been gadzillions of them. According to evolutionary dogma, for example, the eye developed by way of thousands of mutations, each of which was random, each of which was beneficial and each of which was preserved due to some adaptive advantage. Forgive my incredulity. Without the whole eye where was the survival advantage? Perhaps a genie kind of "stored up" beneficial mutations? Then, "WHAM," the eye! But this is science, see. It's not faith. Huh!
Evolutionists don't own the facts. What they own is a "story." Any facts not fitting their story are ignored or defined away. Any investigator putting together a different story is defined as a religionist and cast out of the fraternity. By the use of these and many other stratagems, science is kept pure and kids aren't confused by controversial alternatives.
