The Anti-Evolution Gang is at it Again – Focal Point is Texas

Opponents of teaching evolution are formulating new tactics after multiple defeats in court.

Over the last decade, creationism has morphed into “creation science,” then later “intelligent design.” All of these curriculum have been banned. The latest defeat was in 2005, when a federal judge in Pennsylvania banned “intelligent design.”

But, the battle is far from over. The new fight will be in Texas, over science textbooks that teach evolution. The new tactic is a change in the curriculum language. The words “creationism,” “intelligent design,” or “creator” will not appear. Instead, the words are “strengths and weaknesses.”

This summer, the Texas state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution should be taught.

These people don’t hang it up too easily do they?

The phrases may sound harmless, but this new strategy is taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, and its being driven by Christian fundamentalists. These people insist on having religious content written into scientific curriculum. They just can’t seem to accept the  fact that a science class is no place for Jesus, and vice versa. Deal with it. These are different conversations for different forums. Do evolutionists carry their argument into Church? Do they petition to get the bible edited???

If you want your children to learn creationism, take them to one of your brain-wash mega-churches and leave the rest of us alone!

Come on already.

Legislators in a half-dozen states have tried to require that classrooms be open to “views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory,” according to a petition from the Discovery Institute. 

The “strengths and weaknesses” language was slipped into the curriculum standards in Texas to appease creationists when the State Board of Education first mandated the teaching of evolution in the late 1980s. However, it has had little effect because evolution skeptics have not had enough power on the education board to win the argument that textbooks do not adequately cover the weaknesses of evolution.

The Texas Board of Education is flying in the face of national legal trends, as their rougue majority (seven of fifteen members) subscribe to the notion of intelligent design, backed by by Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican.

If Texas is allowed to set and use this type of curriculum, these materials will spread to other states as textbook manufacturers distribute books nationwide. Lawmakers across the country have tried to require that classrooms be open to all views. The Discovery Institute for instance, has provided a template for legislators to file “academic freedom” bills that have surfaced everywhere from Georgia to Washington. 

Dr. McLeroy, the Texas board chairman, sees the debate as being between “two systems of science.”

“You’ve got a creationist system and a naturalist system,” he said.

Naturalist system? Isn’t evolution a “naturalist” approach? As I see it, evolution is the scientific approach explained through the ‘naturalist perspective’, and creationism is the ‘fairy tale’ approach explained through the biblical perspective.

Read full New York Times article here

  Like this post? Share it with others…

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl



Filed under Christian Fundamentalists, Culture, Education, Politics, Religion

7 responses to “The Anti-Evolution Gang is at it Again – Focal Point is Texas


    The reason is elementary: the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents leave out the Triune God, Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, Richard Dawkins can make the case for “aliens” seeding the earth.

    The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

    “I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation – scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth – and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience.” ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

    The Quest for Right series of books, based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, has effectively dismantled the quantum additions to the true architecture of the atom. Gone are the nonexistent particles once thought to be complementary to the electron and proton (examples: neutrons, neutrinos, photons, mesons, quarks, Z’s, bosons, etc.) and a host of other pseudo particles.

    To the curious, scientists sought to explain Atomic theory by introducing fantastic particles that supposedly came tumbling out of the impact between two particles, when in fact, the supposed finds were simply particulate debris. There are only two elementary particles which make up the whole of the universe: the proton and electron. All other particles were added via quantum magic and mathematical elucidation in an attempt to explain earthly phenomena without God.

    Introducing the scheme of coincidence, which by definition, “is the systematic ploy of obstructionists who, in lieu of any divine intervention, state that any coincidental grouping or chance union of electrons and protons (and neutrons), regardless of the configuration, always produces a chemical element. This is the mischievous tenet of electron interpretation which states that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.

    The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

    The Quest for Right.

  2. C. David Parsons,

    Your comments are well documented and lucid, however they have nothing to do with this post.

    I am not advocating the evolutionist position, nor am I pretending to know the answer to the origin of all human existence.

    I make three basic points here.

    First, the theory of evolution is grounded within the scientific approach via a naturalistic framework.

    Secondly, I think Genesis is great fiction, written by people thousands of years ago, who also didn’t know the answer to the origin of all human existence.

    Third, I think creationism should be kept in church, and science in school.

    That’s it.

    The rest of your comment is interesting reading, but entirely debatable (especially the parts about quantum theory). Thanks for the comment though.

  3. I almost spit out my drink when read C. David Parsons comment. First of all it’s really nothing but comment spam to sell books to people who don’t know better. Matt, I can’t believe you were so easy on him in your reply.

    When have more time I will reply again directly to the comment to highlight the various ignorant statements Mr. Parsons has made.

  4. I was a bit pressed for time this afternoon unfortunately.

  5. Sigh …

    I’m a Creationist.

    I’m tired of the Intelligent Design movement.

    I don’t need every textbook to tell people my version of creation. If you’re not a religious believer, it won’t make any sense to you. You can’t have Creation without a Creator, and I sure as all get-out don’t want schools teaching religion as such. (Religion as culture, on the other hand, would be very useful … but that’s a different issue for a different day.)

    At the same time, I think that even Creationists should know about evolution. Even though I more or less reject it as a means of having created the diversity of life, I should know what the theory is, and how it works.

    In other words, I agree with your premise … schools should teach science. Having said that, it’s okay to explore legitimate weaknesses in the theory, but the problem is that other people (and I admit, they’re people who have a lot in common with me) want to stretch out those weaknesses into more than they are.

    I suppose I should write about this on my own blog … it really comes down to a question of whether people have faith or need validation.

  6. Your comment is right on mark. I am not a rank and file creationist – I admit that. But I certainly do not support denying others their beliefs. I just disagree with a policy that says creation should propagated through high school textbooks. I was taught during Catholic religious instruction on Sundays.

  7. wickle said,

    “You can’t have Creation without a Creator…”

    While I could argue that I won’t but would like to point out that evolution has nothing do with how life originated. God (the creator) is not incompatible with biological evolution. In fact the Bible does not contradict it since in Genesis we are told God created the seas, then the animals on the land, and lastly man. Seems to like follow evolution, think? Never could understand why some religious people hate evolution so much.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s