There's
a term used often on the internet called Poe's Law. It basically
means that it's impossible to distinguish extremists' comments from
parodies of extremists' comments. Let me give you an example. Phil
Plait is a self-described “science evangelizer” and blogger for
Slate.com. A while back, he wrote an article titled, Give
Me An “F!” Creationists Fail a Fourth Grade Science Test,
where he lamented elementary students being taught creationism. In
the article he said:
My
complaint is one of simple reality. Young-Earth
creationism is wrong, and it’s certainly
not
science. For
that reason alone, ideally it shouldn’t be taught as truth
anywhere, let alone a science class.... In fact, all
of
science shows creationism is wrong, because creationism goes against
pretty much every founding principle of and every basic fact
uncovered by science. If creationism were true, then essentially no
modern invention would work. Since you’re
reading this on a computer,
that
right there is proof enough.
[Italics
and bold in original]
Really,
Mr. Plait? “All of science shows creationism is
wrong”? “No modern invention would work” if creation were
true? Computers are proof that evolution is correct? His comments
are hilarious and he means them! No exaggeration I could make
about his comments could be any more extreme than what Plait is
actually saying. It's a perfect example of Poe's Law.
I
shouldn't have to rebut any of these outrageous claims because they
are absurd on their face. It makes no sense to say that things like
computers or satellites or rockets wouldn't work if God created the
universe. I'm fairly certain that Plait is unaware that Charles
Babbage, the man credited with inventing modern computing, was a
creationist. However, the point of my blog, today, isn't to detail
the contributions creationists have made to science. Rather, it's
something else that Plait said that piqued my interest.
What
really makes my heart sink is the reality that this
is actually being taught to young children. Kids
are natural scientists; they want to see and explore and categorize
and ask “why?” until they understand everything. And we, as
adults, as caretakers, have a solemn responsibility to nurture that
impulse and to answer them in as honest a way as possible,
encouraging them to seek more answers—and more
questions—themselves. That’s how we learn. ¶But this? This
isn’t learning. It’s indoctrination.
[bold added]
Indoctrination
is a strong word to use. The ordinary definition of “indoctrinate”
is to teach someone to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. Yet
there is a pejorative connotation to the word. I taught my children
to speak English; does that mean I indoctrinated them to speak
English? Is it indoctrination to teach our kids right and wrong? To
be nice? To pick up their things, to get good grades, and to work
hard? Teaching our children our values isn't indoctrination – it's
called raising them. We also tend to raise our children to
share our religious beliefs. I'm sure the parents who send their
kids to the private school Plait is ridiculing, are Christians who
believe in creation. That wanted to send their kids to a Christian
school that reinforces the same values the kids learn at home. To
accuse the parents of “indoctrinating” their kids is a type of ad
hominem.
What
I find most curious about militant evolutionists is how angry they
become whenever someone doesn't believe in evolution. In the
introduction to his article, immediately following the photo of the
4th grade quiz, Plait assumes the reader would be,
“screaming
in rage and/or pounding your head against the desk.”
Why? Because some people actually believe in creation and neither
Plait nor his cohorts can stand it. He says later, “I
am deeply saddened that there are places teaching this to children.”
Worshipers
of scientism
virtually froth at the mouth over the simple fact that people exist
who doubt evolution. They obsess over it. They stay up at night
worrying about it. They wring their hands and plot about ways to
stamp out science
deniers.
Yet they can't see their hypocrisy through their blinding contempt.
They
are the ones interested in indoctrination! Do you think I'm
exaggerating? Let's look at some facts.
THEY
LIE
Think
about the things Plait said in this article:
- all of science contradicts creationism.
- no modern invention would work if creation were true.
- Creationism goes against every founding principle and every basic fact of science.
If
he made just one statement like this, I might dismiss it as
hyperbole. To repeat it over and over shows he's being very
deliberate. It's rather ordinary for evolutionists to lie to bolster
their theory. I've even written a series about 10
lies evolutionists tell but there are many more than 10. I've
been thinking of doing a sequel, adding another 10. When people
tells lies to advance an agenda, that's the very definition of
propaganda.
THEY
SQUELCH
Several
years ago, the Cobb
County Board of Education placed a sticker in school science
books that said, “This
textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a
fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be
approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically
considered.”
Note that the stickers didn't mention creation or even religion.
Instead, they said that evolution should be examined carefully,
critically, and with an open mind. Critical thinking should be a
staple in educating our kids. Questioning
everything is supposed to be a fundamental principle of science –
except when it comes to evolution. No
one is
allowed to question evolution! In the matter of Cobb County, the
case ended up in court where a judge ordered the stickers be removed.
Such is always the case when any criticism of evolution is suggested
in the public classroom. Any policy that might treat evolution as
anything less than an absolute fact is challenged in court. Any
teacher who seems sympathetic to creation or intelligent design risks
losing his job.
Groups
have been organized, like the National Center for Science Education,
whose sole mission is to insure that the teaching of evolution is not
diminished in any way. They recently took up arms against the School
Superintendent in Arizona who was rewriting science standards for the
state. On their website, NCSE
bragged, “NCSE,
of course, is constantly on guard for threats to the integrity of
science education, including in
Arizona.”
By “science education” they mean “teaching evolution.” What
was their complaint? One example from the article says, “First,
although evolution is still listed in the edited standards as a core
concept, the description of the concept was changed for the worse.
The writing committee explained it by saying, correctly, “The unity
and diversity of organisms, living and extinct, is the result of
evolution.” This was then edited to say, ‘The theory of evolution
seeks to make clear the unity of living and extinct organisms.” The
difference, of course, is that the writing committee’s version
clearly says that evolution is correct, while the edited version is
studiously agnostic.”
It
seems the edited version didn't seem to state evolution was a fact.
Oh the horror! I'm not sure if evolution is the only scientific
theory with its own political lobby but I'm certain it is the only
scientific theory that is protected by law.
THEY
PROSELYTIZE
Education
is supposed to be about imparting knowledge. It's supposed to make
kids “critical thinkers.” We make sure kids understand the
material but teachers are not supposed to take sides. Right? I have
a degree in business. Part of my studies in college included
learning about different economic philosophies: capitalism,
socialism, communism, etc. Do you think it's possible to understand
an economic theory without endorsing it? Of course it is. I can
learn about – and understand – socialism while remaining a
capitalist. Likewise, a person could learn about and understand
evolution while still being a creationist. When it comes to teaching
evolution, though, it's not enough for these people to make sure
every student understands the theory. They won't stop until every
student utterly rejects creation and wholly embraces evolution.
Remember
in Plait's bio, he is described as a “science
evangelizer.”
What do you think he means by that? I think it's obvious. And he's
not alone in his zeal. In a NY Times interview, Bill Nye was asked,
“do
you imagine a child in a creationist-friendly household managing to
get his hands on the book [you've written about evolution] and
stealing away with it?”
Nye's answer is very telling:
A
man can dream! It would be great if the book is that influential. My
biggest concern about creationist kids is that they’re compelled to
suppress their common sense, to suppress their critical thinking
skills at a time in human history when we need them more than ever.
By the time you’re 18, you’ve made up your mind. It’s going to
be really hard for you, as they say in the Mormon tradition, to “lose
your testimony.” But if you’re 7 or 8, we got a shot.
“We
got a shot”? We should be
concerned that someone with such poor grammar wants to teach our kids
but I'm more alarmed by his obvious intentions – reach the kids
young enough, and we can convince them evolution is true.
I
came across an article in The
Conversation that says, “The
best way to get children to understand evolution is to teach genetics
first.”
That paper was a little more candid than many about the motive to
teaching evolution. In the following except, pay attention to the
parts I've highlighted in bold:
An
understanding of evolution and acceptance of the idea of evolution
are two different things. Acceptance is the belief that the
scientific view of evolution is the correct version: you can
understand evolution but not accept it and you can accept it but not
understand it. We found that students typically accepted
evolution to a greater degree after taking the genetics class.....
We
also set up a series of focus groups to find out why the
understanding and acceptance of evolution are not more strongly
coupled. Evidence from these suggests that what is more important for
evolution acceptance is not what is taught, but who
provides the endorsement. For some students, being told that key
authority figures such as parents or teachers approve of scientific
evidence for evolution made a big difference to their ability to
accept it.....
Whatever
the underlying cause, the data suggest a really simple, minimally
disruptive and cost-free modification to teaching practice: teach
genetics first. This will at least increase evolution understanding,
if not acceptance. As with many emotive subjects, it
takes more than teaching the facts to shift hearts as well as minds.
So
there you have it. They are not coy about their intentions – they
want to indoctrinate our kids. They are just angry that parents and
religious liberty keeps getting in their way!
Related
articles
