|Evolution in the News - March 2002|
|by Do-While Jones|
|The price of evolution is eternal vigilance, as they're discovering in Ohio. Last month, state legislators introduced a bill calling on teachers to "disclose the historical nature" of evolutionary theory and to help students "understand why origins science may generate controversy." 1|
Of course, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (El Cerrito, California), is throwing a tizzy fit about this. She is embarrassed about the historical nature of evolutionary theory, as well she should be. She doesn’t want anything about the history of the theory of evolution taught in the public schools.
We suppose that many more people are embarrassed about the historical nature of slavery in the United States, but there isn’t widespread support for keeping historical information about slavery out of the classrooms. Nor do we try to suppress information about the treatment of native Americans during the westward expansion of the United States.
In spite of a few unfortunate aberrations like these, Americans have good reason to be proud of American history. Our nation has done some things wrong, but we’ve done a lot more things right. So, when we teach American history, we teach all of American history. We don’t censor the bad parts. We aren’t afraid that our school children will become “confused” if they are taught the whole truth.
On the other hand, all that is holding the theory of evolution together is ignorance. That’s why evolutionists have been trying so hard to keep scientific arguments against the theory of evolution out of the classroom. Now, evolutionists are not only anti-science, they are anti-history.
Imagine the public outcry if a special interest group from outside the state tried to prevent certain distasteful American history facts from being taught in public schools. The people of Ohio want their children to be taught the history of the theory of evolution, and some woman from El Cerrito, California, is doing everything she can to stop them.
Who is on the side of freedom of information, and who is on the side of censorship? There is a reason why we call our newsletter, “Disclosure of things evolutionists don’t want you to know”, and Ms. Scott does an excellent job of proving our newsletter’s title.
|The National Science Foundation funded the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in the late 1950's which was instrumental in emphasizing the theory of evolution in high school biology textbooks. In the 1960's, in response to the wide-spread perception that the Soviet Union had gained the upper hand in science and technology, evolution gained prominence in American public schools. Instruction in biology was now framed explicitly in evolutionary terms. 2|
Evolutionists have carefully controlled the science curriculum for about 40 years. Now that modern science is so strongly against the theory of evolution, more and more scientists are speaking out against it. Real scientists don’t want their children taught evolutionary fairy tales. They don’t want the study of genetics to be hobbled by futile efforts to show that all things had a common ancestor. They want geneticists to be able to study molecular biology with unbiased minds. They don’t want incorrect notions about geologic time to prevent geologists from being able to understand rock formations correctly. They don’t want future astronomers misled by a Big Bang theory that says more than 90% of the matter in the universe must be invisible.
|"At this rate, Ohio could be the next Kansas," says Scott … 3|
We hope so, because Kansas and Ohio are destined to go down in history as the places that first realized that the evolutionary emperor has no clothes. Perhaps, in a few years, the place that will be associated with stubborn resistance against the advancement of science will be El Cerrito.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month
Science, Volume 295, 8 February 2002, “Ohio, the Next Kansas?” p. 963, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.295.5557.963c
Science, Volume 295, 8 February 2002, “Ohio, the Next Kansas?” p. 963, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.295.5557.963c (Ev+)