July 8, 2013 | David F. Coppedge

Evolutionists Two-Faced About Academic Freedom

Compare two countries: in one, when their hegemony is threatened, evolutionists plead for academic freedom.  In another, they deny it to those who want a chance to debate evolution.

Turkey, with its somewhat secular government but largely Islamic population, has doubts about Darwin.  Leaders there are reluctant to promote evolution, which they consider controversial, as the “glue of all biological sciences,” according to Science Now.  Moreover, the government has (at times) blocked certain educational evolution websites, and thrown roadblocks in the way of evolutionary conferences, on the grounds that “Since evolution is still a debated issue, the degree to which the organizers represent the community/country is very questionable.”  This has angered certain Darwinist academics who were expecting the Turkish government to fund a recent pro-evolution conference for students.   They appealed to freedom of speech and inquiry (similar to academic freedom) in their protest:

“It sets a very dangerous precedent,” Akçay says. “Today it might be a summer school that is fairly cheap … but tomorrow it could be a young researcher coming up for tenure. … And this on top of the very worrying and worsening trend in academia and the broader society towards curtailing freedom of speech and inquiry.

But in America, Darwinists are delighted when academic freedom is denied to critics of their theory (see commentary on Evolution News & Views).   Nature breathed a “Whew!” along with the National Center for Science Education when five states adopted science standards that will teach climate science and evolution dogmatically, prohibiting efforts to grant academic freedom to skeptics of those theories.  New science guidelines supported by evolutionists begin the one-sided indoctrination “well before high school.”  They “recommend teaching evolution before students reach high-school biology classes, the point at which many states tackle concepts such as natural selection and adaptation.”

In the past two months, education officials in Rhode Island, Kentucky, Kansas, Maryland and Vermont have all approved the standards by overwhelming margins. At least five more states — California, Florida, Maine, Michigan and Washington — may take up the standards in the next few months.

“Whew,” says Minda Berbeco, programmes and policy director at the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California. “So far, so good.” Swift adoption of the guidelines has been surprising but welcome news for many supporters. Evolution has been a controversial topic in US education for decades, stretching back to the 1925 ‘monkey trial’ in Tennessee, where the state prosecuted high-school teacher John Scopes for violating a statute that barred the teaching of evolution. In the past decade, those who oppose evolution have sought to enact ‘academic freedom’ laws that would allow creationism to be taught alongside evolution.

The reference to creationism is a bald lie, since none of the bills prescribe teaching creationism.  Instead, they ask for honest teaching of evolutionary theory, including its strengths and weaknesses, or they forbid schools from punishing teachers who do so, such as Eric Hedin, now in hot water at Ball State (see Evolution News & Views).  In any case, evolution is the only theory allowed in the curriculum.  Not even the Discovery Institute recommends bills requiring the teaching of intelligent design.

Such hypocrites.  Evolutionists are like Marxists who cry out for freedom until they get power, then they deny it to everyone else.  They’re not even good Darwinists.  They ignore the words of their Prophet Charlie, who taught in his scriptures, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question”  (See AcademicFreedomDay.com).  Until and unless we rid science of the Darwin bigots, and require them to debate the evidence, they will continue to behave like the People of Froth, foaming at the mouth against anyone who wishes to break their filibuster and discuss the issues honestly.  What are they afraid of?  Scientific evidence?

 

(Visited 63 times, 1 visits today)

Comments

  • txpiper says:

    “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question”

    I was recently banned from posting on PZ Myers site for my ongoing objections to the idea of complexity arising from DNA replication errors. Prior to that, the professor spanked me with this amazing dismissal…the only thing he ever countered with:

    “…you’re an idiot. Stop blaring it in every thread you join. Complexity is a subject with a known mathematical foundation, and no, human minds are not particularly good at producing it.”

    So that’s it. That is the penetrating analysis of such things as metamorphosis, or the rings in the mimic octopus lining up to form stripes when it assumes the form of a flatfish. I’ve given up on the evidenced approach. Evolutionists are not looking for evidence. They only believe what they like. If they were able to process evidence, they’d be stirred by hundreds of prophecies that Jesus Christ fulfilled.

  • Jon Saboe says:

    5 steps to being a good liberal:

    1: Observe an intuititve fact or sentiment of common sense.
    2: Brazenly and with pseudo-authority declare the exact opposite.
    3: Gloat about your superior, counter-intuitive genius.
    4: Denigrate all those who disagree with you as being backward, stupid, or perhaps even wicked.
    5: Get govt funding to “study” your brilliant assertions.

    The cool thing about this is that it works with politics, science, economics, and even sociology.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.