Creationism as "Contamination"
Some evolutionists see anything less than 100% pure Darwinism as a kind of contamination, like unpasteurized milk, a threat to public health.
Andy Coghlan wrote for New Scientist, “Texas Creationism Showdown May ‘Contaminate’ Textbook.” It appears that the only changes proposed by the textbook committee are to “cast doubt on the scientific validity of evolution.” Coghlan is worried, however, that a decision by the 15-member Texas State Board of Education “may contain creationist arguments.” He did not provide any examples.
Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network originated the contamination metaphor: “Texas could contaminate the education products sold in the rest of the country,” he said. He threw in a wild-west metaphor speaking of the publishers: “Will they stick to their scientific guns or put the junk in, that’s the question.”
Coghlan’s only hope is that Texas will adopt the Next Generation Science Standards in time. As Evolution News & Views reported, the NGSS mandates teaching of evolution dogmatically, free of critical thinking and contrary facts. John West at Evolution News & Views tried to set the record straight about the Texas Board of Education standards.
Don’t fear the DODO‘s guns; the barrels are pointed backwards. So, what junk would they like to keep in the textbooks? The junk about Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings? The junk about the early-man march of progress? The junk about peppered moths and finch beaks? The junk about partridge chicks mimicking dinosaurs running up slopes and taking off like birds? The junk about junk DNA? The textbooks are already contaminated. Creationists would like to clean them up. Isn’t it just like the Saul Alinsky DODO radicals to call the clean-up crew the purveyors of contamination? Let’s give Darwinism a Dennett-brand acid bath and watch it eat itself.
“Will they stick to their scientific guns or put the junk in, that’s the question.”
We might see this as an unspoken admission that atheists are holding up the public, or the school system, at the point of a gun. i.e. that Darwinists are quite willing to use coercion to force people to conform to their metaphysical views.
– This isn’t a matter of holding onto ”scientific” guns… but a matter of political guns. People who have studied the issue, know how weak the case for molecules to man evolution is, and that the science is really against Darwinism. (Actually it’s closer to marbles to man evolution.)
– In addition to holding up the public, evolutionary advocates like Quinn hold up publishers as well. While they don’t actually shoot anyone, they certainly do ruin people with dissenting views. (see Bergman; Slaughter of the Dissidents)