Darwin lobbyist Eugenie Scott on why you can’t teach evidence against evolution
|July 12, 2011||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, science education|
Here. According to a source, round the 45 minute mark, she says U.S. courts have ruled that teachers cannot teach creationism or intelligent design. Then she says:
46:29 Okay, what else can you not do? I have a little asterisk here. You cannot teach evidence against evolution. There have been some court decisions that have talked about this including Kitzmiller, but there has not been a really clean test of this idea of teaching evidence against evolution. …
[Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent: ‘The people of Louisiana…are quite entitled… to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools’]….Critically analyze doesn’t mean critically analyze. Critically analyze means
58:30 There is no evidence against evolution. There is no evidence against the idea that livings things shared common ancestry. All of the evidence that we have from biogeography, from comparative anatomy, from genetics, from the fossil record, from any number of different sources, that all is very compatible and pointing very clearly to the inference that living things had common ancestors. Nothing out there is running a big neon light saying, ‘Whoa! Evolution fails here! We have to toss it out!’
But if you ask the proponents of the teaching of evidence against evolution, the proponents of these academic freedom acts, you know, where’s the list of stuff we can teach? Well, miraculously enough, you are led right back to intelligent design and creation science. So really what we’re dealing with is the effort to bring creationism back into the curriculum without calling it creationism, just changing its name. Just leaving the content without the title, and it’s surprisingly successful. 59:37
Follow UD News at Twitter!