UD’s Immodest Proposal mentioned in Worldnet Daily
| July 8, 2008 | Posted by scordova under Constitution, Courts, Creationism, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Laws, Legal |
Congratulations to Roddy Bullock for having his first column, Judge says creationism for the birds, published in Worldnet Daily. Roddy is head of the Intelligent Design Network in Ohio.
Roddy references Bill Dembski’s Immodest Proposal
But there is another option, a brilliant solution if evolution’s defenders have any integrity. Put forth by author William Dembski, “Teaching the Non-Controversy – An Immodest Proposal” sets out an ACLU-proof way to teach evolution honestly. Because the AAAS, the NCSE and other champions of Darwin-only education claim there is no scientific controversy (evolution, they claim, is as well established as gravity!), why not let students simply explain why evolutionary theory is one of the few areas in science where no controversy exists? To further help students gain total understanding of the non-controversy, Dembski recommends further science standards like the following:
Explain in detail how evolutionary theory explains the Cambrian Explosion.
Describe in detail how evolution made complex biological structures such as the human eye.
Explain how evolutionary theory solves the problem that DNA cannot exist without protein and protein cannot exist without DNA.
Teach the Non-Controversy!
31 Responses to UD’s Immodest Proposal mentioned in Worldnet Daily
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Examples of typical talking points of Darwinists:
“We’ve made so much progress that Darwinism hardly even exists anymore, so anyone who focuses on Darwinists is probably an ignorant creationist. Ummm, but Darwinism still explains a lot…”
This talking point can be woven into the myth of Progress and wound back in with Darwinian creation myth.
For example:
Like Dr. Dembski, Mr. Cordova is obviously very intelligent and well informed. Why does he make so much of Bullock’s ignorant equation of modern evolutionary theory and Darwinism? The notion of “Darwin-only education” is bizarre….
Despite this bit of propaganda modern evolutionary theory can be and is still often referred to as “Darwinism” and Darwin is still featured prominently in most highschool texts. Proponents of “Darwinism” have even stated:
Apparently critics of Darwinism have been successful that it might be said that they do not want to believe a theory that is hardly relevant: “There are people in the world who desperately want not to have to believe in Darwinism.” (Ib. :250)
Another talking point, “There is no such thing as Darwinism because there’s dissent among evolutionists. … but let me be quick to add that this dissent doesn’t mean that we don’t already know the facts of evolution!”
Example:It amazes me to see how UDers collectively shift from citing dissent among evolutionists to show that evolutionary theory is in disarray to claiming that the establishment is monolithic in its support of “Darwinism” (a total red herring — there are no Darwinists in 2008). You can’t have it both ways.
But both are true because the same people that may debate evolution among themselves have a history of trying to represent an “overwhelming” type of consensus when it comes to matters of public policy.
What is happening to Darwinists and biologists is typical to every field of expert in an age of communication and information, more information/knowledge dissolves charlatanism. If there isn’t much charlatanism to Darwinism then you have little to worry about.