When the Public Actually Does Get Interested in Science
A Christian Science Monitor story this weeks provides more evidence that Darwinian evolution is not in any sense a normal science.
Science teacher lobbies who — to listen to them — have always wanted the public to get interested in science, now face the reality of a public that is very interested indeed. And what’s the response?
In this climate, science teachers say they must find new methods to defuse what has become a politically and emotionally charged atmosphere in the classroom. But in some cases doing so also means learning to handle well- organized efforts to raise doubts about Darwin's theory.
But to many teachers, "teaching the controversy" means letting ideologues manufacture controversy where there is none. And that, they say, could set a disastrous precedent in education.
Oh, I see ... so when the hillbillies do get interested, and bone up on the subjects, and are critical of the legends students are told in order to prop up strict Darwinian evolution when the actual evidence fails, they are merely the tools of ideologues.
Thanks for clarifying that, Sir.
Here’s a matchless quotation from a teacher, in the Christian Science Monitor’s story on the Kansas evolution hearings,
"I don't want to ever be in a confrontational mode with those kids ... I find it disheartening as a teacher."
Oh my precious little teacherkins, I just cannot imagine anything worse than being in a confrontational mode with those kids. Do hurry and get a law passed that makes it a felony for their parents, the media, or any other adult, to convey to them information that results in questions you don't feel like answering. Contact your teachers union rep today. This must be sorted out at once!!!
Seriously, the teachers fondly remember from my own brathood welcomed confrontation over ideas. Indeed, as I recall, we argued over Darwinian evolution in my Grade Eight class in London, Ontario (Canada), in 1963. I wonder who we should all sue for not protecting us from "a confrontational mode"? My only regret is that we didn’t have a Jonathan Wellsback then to stir the pot. (Wells was probably writing lines in those days for some offence unrelated to questioning Darwinism.)