UPDATED!: Hold the revolution without me ... but save me a beer

The International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology wants to talk about “Teaching the Darwinian Revolution.”

Blog Service Note 1: Came here looking for a different story? See the Blog Service Note below. Don't mistake it for the Blog Policy Note, which merely points out that I plan to borf all completely anonymous comments.

Well ... there are uproars in around 20 states in the United States AGAINST the "Darwinian Revolution" and in many other countries as well.

Part II. Co-sponsored by the Education Committee and organized by John Lynch: a companion workshop session specifically looking at the impact for teaching. Many faculty members teach “Darwinian Revolution” courses. What do they teach, and how and why? And what difference does the discussion about whether there was such a revolution and what it involved make pedagogically? Should the latest scholarship matter to the teaching, or are there different and overriding pedagogical values?

Panelists: John M. Lynch, Gar Allen, Sandra Herbert, Mark Largent, Mark Borello, Kim Kleinman, and Betty Smocovitis

I wonder if they ever ask themselves why almost no one participates in the “Darwinian Revolution” except them?

I have a few other questions as well: Do some Darwinists really think they will win all the court cases and that winning those cases will settle the issue? If so, they lack a sense of history. The Darwinists in fact WON all the court cases decades ago. Still, polls show that few people participate in the Darwinian Revolution.

Most human beings have good reasons for believing that they are not just meat puppets or monkeys with big brains.

And no judge can order people to believe something that they really know is not true, and get serious compliance. That is true by definition.

Prediction: Court orders to teach Darwinism as an immutable truth - for which there can be no questions, cautions, qualifiers, or honest doubt - in publicly funded school systems will simply diminish the perceived authority of the court and the school system.

UPDATED:

Just when I had concluded that it was too hot to garden, I got this comment from J. Lynch,

So what - if anything - is the “Darwinian Revolution”? Simply put, it is usually seen as a radical change in biology and ideas that occured some time after the publication of Origin of Species in 1859. It is an historical event, not a claim about the correctness of anything Darwin wrote and is certainly not a claim about “meat puppets or monkeys with big brains”. In fact, one can accept the occurance of a Darwinian Revolution and be anti-Darwinist; most historically informed anti-evolutionists (of which O’Leary is not one) accept that something radically changed in the period between 1859 and the 1940’s and often work to undo the percieved damage

Essentially, I do not know why Dr. Lynch feels he needs to insult my ability to understand what Darwinism meant in the 20th century, or this one. I certainly cannot imagine why he thinks that gentle readers will not suspect that his conference largely features people who assume that Darwin was right. But let me test that. See below.

Not only do I understand Darwinism pretty well (I was raised on it, and believed it implicitly until I started to examine it critically), but so do most people: From goo to zoo to you, in a zillion easy steps.

It was never widely accepted because most people find it inherently unbelievable, despite huge amounts of state-funded propaganda by any number of bloviating boffins.

If Darwinism is not the biggest public relations disaster in history, it is certainly in the running.

How about this: Is anyone who is speaking at the conference prepared to say that they disagree with Darwinian evolution in a substantive way?

For example:

- "I think that the human being has a spiritual nature that is not simply the result of random mutations acted on by natural selection. I believe that science evidence for this can be made available."

or

- "I think that the universe and life forms show SCIENTIFIC evidence of a purpose that is not simply an illusion generated by ranhdom electrons in the human brain."

or any similar statement that would actually sever their ties with naturalism?

As it happens, I'll be on the road soon, but even if I check in at an Internet cafe in a remote province, it'll be more than I can reasonably hope for if I hear that.

So no need to revise my opinion - and also no need to run to protect some hapless scientist from the fury of the Darwinists.

Blog service note 2: Please note that I will shortly be heading to Saskatchewan (the Canadian province where I was born) for a few days, to help celebrate its centennial at the O’Leary Cousin Reunion. For best blog service, I will disable Comments on recent posts during that period, and re-enable them when I get back. (Why should gentle blog readers have to put up with drive-by shootings from Mr. Advisedly Anonymous?) During that period -and generally - I commend the interesting blogs on the side panel, where much fun stuff is happening. Or you can go to Panda’s Thumb, if you really must. - cheers, Denyse

Blog Policy Note: Was your recent comment borfed? Was it completely anonymous? This blog is not a fan of drive-by shootings. After a recent period of grace, I am starting to try to be consistent about borfing completely anonymous comments.