Crazy pro-Darwinist op-ed
RESIDENTS of Massachusetts might feel safe from the clashes over teaching evolution in school districts across the country. In this state, home to so many great universities, one wouldn't expect anything less than a top-notch science curriculum.
Well, the universities in states where there have been big clashes over teaching evolution in the public schools -- e.g., Pennsylvania, Kansas, Ohio, Georgia, and Michigan -- aren't bad. Anyway, none of those clashes over teaching evolution have concerned the issue of whether evolution should be taught -- they have all concerned the issue of whether evolution should be taught dogmatically.
In fact, Massachusetts students are supposed to begin learning about evolution and have access to impressive materials before they even reach second grade.
Egads -- they start brainwashing them that young in Massachusetts?
But that doesn't let parents or anyone else off the hook. A well-thought-out curriculum in science does not guarantee that evolution will be taught in all its glory -- or even coherently.
"In all its glory"? Evolution? LOL What "glory"? No scientific theory is more mickey mouse than evolution. All evolution theory tells us is that random mutations occur (duh) and that fitter organisms are more likely to survive than less fit organisms (duh again).
The op-ed says,
Darwin's brilliant theory, a powerful and central concept in biology, offers a path toward understanding everything else: the history of our universe, the world we inhabit, and ourselves.
There we go again with that "grand overarching unifying theory of biology" crap again. And here is a new wild claim -- that Darwinism "offers a path toward understanding everything else: the history of our universe, the world we inhabit, and ourselves."
Even Massachusetts teachers licensed for biology don't have to take a course in evolution, although they must pass a test that includes questions on the topic.
Are courses specifically about evolution required even for biology majors in college?
As evolutionary science accelerates, however, antievolutionists are pushing back -- and exploiting the questions that recent discoveries have raised.
Well, if the questions are there, why shouldn't they be exploited?
Some teachers assign their evolution module a slot at the end of the year, then run out of time. Some speed right through it.
Why spend a lot of time on something that most people don't need to know? Only biologists need to have a good understanding of Darwinism, in order to understand cladistic taxonomy.
When confronted with students' probing questions, the AAAS discovered, teachers find themselves at a loss.
Of course the teachers find themselves at a loss -- often there are no answers.
As one of their complaints, intelligent design proponents claim that schools should do a better job of explaining evolution. They may very well be right. While people who believe in the scientific method do not accept the antievolution lobby's claim of "irreducible complexity," are they prepared with a coherent response? They might say "survival of the fittest" with conviction but only have a hazy recollection of terms like "descent with modification," "natural selection," and even "mutation."
None of those terms is a coherent response to the "the antievolution lobby's claim of 'irreducible complexity'."
It is evident that the op-ed's author does not understand evolution herself.