I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Crazy pro-Darwinist op-ed

A recent Boston Globe op-ed titled "Understanding evolution is crucial to debate" says,
.
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.
.

3 Comments:

Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

The only interesting thing about his absurd op-ed is that it shows that the Darwinists are getting nervous, and are thus trying to increase their propaganda. As Darwin B. Leaver says:

I'm told, so believe, as I ought'er,
That life all evolved by mere slaughter:
Since that "science" is slumping,
My rump will be jumping
To preach out that notion. I got ter."

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:57:00 AM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

Actually, I made an error (although maybe not such a bad one, at that.)
What Darwin B. Leaver should have said is:

I'm told, so believe, as I ought'er,
That life all evolved by mere slaughter:
Since that "science" is slumping,
My rump will be jumping
As I preach out that notion. I got ter.

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:31:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

Fred Hoyle said something about the craziness of Darwinists. He compared the "new believers" (in Darwinism) to the "old believers" (creationists:)

"So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology..."

(Hoyle, The Mathematics of Evolution, 1999, p. 3-4. The quote is easy to Google.)

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 1:50:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home