“Evolution is the only scientific theory that needs laws to protect it!”
Those words were written in an ICR.org article back in 2007 after someone nominated “the brave biology teachers of this nation who teach evolution despite the opposition they encounter” for Time magazine’s Person of the Year. The Institute for Creation Research correctly noted back then that this was all grandstanding:
“But what is this opposition these teachers are so bravely withstanding? Almost no one in formal creation science organizations in America is trying to completely eradicate the teaching of Darwin’s theory of macroevolution in taxpayer-paid public schools. Instead, creationists and freethinkers seek a balanced science curriculum, in which the serious scientific flaws associated with evolutionary theory are included, and/or a non-atheism-based origins alternative is presented side-by-side with evolution.”
Of course, the truth of the matter is that it is the evolutionists who persecute creationists and freethinkers. Nevermind that Darwin himself said, speaking of his arguments in Origins, “I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”
Of course, the “sides” he refers to are special creation and evolution. Yet today’s “science advocacy” [read: evolution enforcement] groups are not content with a fair and balanced presentation of both sides of the origins argument. No, they want evolution alone taught in our publicly-funded schools – and they only want its strengths taught and none of its weaknesses! Meanwhile, the public isn’t convinced and a large number of them in both the US and the UK would like to see creation taught alongside evolution.
So how do the new evolutionists – or post-Darwinists, as I like to call them – go about convincing the public to teach evolution exclusively and uncritically in our public schools? They don’t. They don’t engage in debate with creationists under the pretense that such discourse would give creationists an undeserved air of credibility. Which is really weird, because their argument is supposed to be so ironclad that you’d think they’d actually be looking for chances to debate creationists and show the public how weak their opponents’ arguments were, right? But they rarely engage in debate because, well… The truth of the matter is that they just stink at debate. They stink at debate because they don’t actually know what creationists affirm; they’re used to bashing away at straw men from the safety of credulous fandom. So they don’t debate and they don’t really care to win over the public [that’s too hard], so they’ve resorted to indoctrinating our kids through public schools [and yes it is indoctrination when it’s taught exclusively and uncritically]. And they want laws to protect their exclusive ideological monopoly.
Take for example, the most recent efforts of the British Humanist Association and their Teach Evolution, Not Creationism campaign. They’ve got a petition signed by nearly 12,000 misotheists, a snazzy propaganda website, and a bold fallacious statement that reads as follows:
“Creationism and ‘intelligent design’
Creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories, but they are portrayed as scientific theories by some religious fundamentalists who attempt to have their views promoted in publicly-funded schools. There should be enforceable statutory guidance that they may not be presented as scientific theories in any publicly-funded school of whatever type.
Organisations like ‘Truth in Science’ are encouraging teachers to incorporate ‘intelligent design’ into their science teaching. ‘Truth in Science’ has sent free resources to all Secondary Heads of Science and to school librarians around the country that seek to undermine the theory of evolution and have ‘intelligent design’ ideas portrayed as credible scientific viewpoints. Speakers from Creation Ministries International are touring the UK, presenting themselves as scientists and their creationist views as science at a number of schools.
The current government guidance that creationism and ‘intelligent design’ should not be taught in school science should be made statutory and enforceable. It also needs to be made comprehensive so that it is clear that any portrayal of creationism and ‘intelligent design’ as science (whether it takes place in science lessons or not) is unacceptable.
An understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology. The teaching of evolution should be included at both primary and secondary levels in the National Curriculum and in all schools.
Currently, the study of evolution does not feature explicitly in the National Curriculum until year 10 (ages 14-15), but the government is overseeing a review of the whole curriculum with the revised National Curriculum for science being introduced in September 2012 to be made compulsory from 2013. Free Schools and Academies are not obliged to teach the National Curriculum and so are under no obligation to teach about evolution at all.”
You can view the statement at http://evolutionnotcreationism.org.uk/
In addition to the British Humanist Association itself, the statement is endorsed by the Association for Science Education, the British Science Association, the Campaign for Science & Engineering and Ekklesia. The latter is a post-Christian theological travesty calling itself a think-thank; they really just wish to reinvent Christianity according to modern humanist notions, which is why they’re such easy bedfellows with the BHA. In addition, about 30 individuals scientists have signed the petition as well, including Sir David Attenborough and misotheist Richard Dawkins.
Basically, this evolution enforcement coalition seeks to convince their “Government to make statutory and enforceable the current, non-statutory, guidance that creationism and ‘intelligent design’ should not be taught in school science, while at the same time calling for the teaching of evolution to be included at both primary and secondary levels in the National Curriculum and in all schools.” src: http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/895
Translation: They want evolution taught exclusively and uncritically, and they want our children indoctrinated in it at an earlier age so they can get rid of their opponents by attrition rather than by defending their claims.
Again, ICR said it best: “Evolution is the only “scientific theory” that needs laws to protect it.”
In my next post, I will address the fallacies contained in the BHA’s statement itself.