Evolution Back on Federal Funding List

Boy, that was a close call.  Evolution research almost got dropped from federal funding.  Turns out it was an accidental oversight.  Science Daily reported that the oversight “sparked heated protests from academics and evolution supporters” who “expressed fears that the omission might have been part of an attack on Darwinian evolution by religious groups.”
    The U.S. Department of Education quickly acted to reinstate evolutionary biology to the list eligible for federal grants for undergraduate research.  Evolutionists welcomed the quick response: “If (the omission) was deliberate, it is certainly the case that when it came to light, wiser heads prevailed,” said Becky Timmons of the American Council on Education.  Laurence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University used the occasion to point out the danger: “There are well-funded efforts in this country that have been inappropriately attempting to attack the teaching of evolutionary biology on what appear to be religious grounds.”

Need we point out to Dr. Krauss that the funding for these “attacks” (note the fear-mongering in the militaristic terminology) is from private sources?  And that these “attacks” are only concerned with allowing fair and honest investigation of the truth claims of Darwinism, which, under the DODO monopoly (i.e., Darwin-Only-Darwin-Only), are immune from scrutiny?  This is quite unlike the plunder of taxpayers’ pockets to support something they do not agree with.  And the private funding for “teaching the controversy” is not well.  It is a shoestring compared to the river of dollars flowing down the drain into Darwinian pork barrels (see quote on top right of this page).
    This paranoia by the Darwinists begs the question of whether evolutionary theory actually produces anything useful to the taxpayers who have to pay for it (see the important quote in the 08/30/2006 entry, and the 08/04/2006 revelation), or whether its fruits are beneficial to society (see yesterday’s entry).  This is a good occasion to remember David Berlinski’s comment a year ago (see Evolution News):

For scientists forever banging their crutches against the trough of public funding, any form of criticism represents an alarming turn of events, the more so when it affects their traditional claims to speak with authority on matters of culture, faith and morals.  They are right to be alarmed.  A great many people have come to regard Darwinism as tedious, illiterate, uninformed and tendentious.  Darwin’s theories seem destined to disappear by negative selection, an interesting but rare example of a Darwinian process reaching a sound conclusion.

If Darwinian pseudoscientific research is so essential, according to all those “wiser heads,” let it be self-supporting, the way all science had to operate before World War II.  Surely there are enough reliable supporters in the country to keep the Darwin Party in bright lights.  Look at all the glazed-eyed zombies at the slot machines in Las Vegas, for instance.