June 22, 2016 | David F. Coppedge

Darwinians Gloat Over Political Power

With media behind them, they can spout their talking points without controversy, while weak politicians only appease their critics.

If David Johnson is right, politicians put up with conservative efforts to put up anti-evolution bills only to appease their religious constituents. Johnson, a postdoc at Rice University, looked into the outcomes of  “anti-evolution curricular challenges” in various states. According to PhysOrg, only 25% of bills under consideration passed out of committee, and only two states–Louisiana and Tennessee—succeeded in getting laws passed.

Johnson added that while increased conservative Protestant adherence does lead to increased anti-evolution attitudes and activity among creation science interest groups, these outcomes are statistically unrelated to consideration of anti-evolution bills in state legislatures. This led him and his co-authors to theorize that the low rate of success in turning anti-evolution education bills into laws suggests that legislators may continue to push these reforms not because they expect success, but to mollify religious constituents.

Johnson’s own biases are clear from his statement:

There is no scientific debate about the fundamentals of evolution,” he said. “And the best social scientific research shows that religious and nonreligious individuals are, overall, quite similar in their orientation to science. There are better ways to represent the values of religious communities: These bills create a misleading impression of conflict between science and religion and threaten the quality of education in public schools.

Sound familiar? Those are some of the same arguments made by Bill Nye when he debated Ken Ham. No debate exists, he said, and creation threatens education.

This is why you never let totalitarians gain control of anything. They offer you “one man, one vote, one time.” When the Darwinazis gain control of scientific societies, legislatures and school boards, they lock the doors behind them. Of course there is no scientific debate in their wholly-dominated institutions; you have to be a Darwinazi wearing a D-Merit Badge to get in. Who was for teaching both sides? The despised creationists!

Here’s how to understand Johnson’s statement, “There is no scientific debate about the fundamentals of evolution.” What are the fundamentals of evolution? Mutation and natural selection. Mutation is chance, a word equivalent to “stuff happens.” Natural selection is chance, a phrase equivalent to “stuff happens” – because neither the environment nor “selection pressures” (whatever they are) have any direction, purpose, or plan. Let SH stand for “stuff happens.” According to the math for chance, SH + SH does not equal 2SH, it equals SH. Johnson’s statement reduces to this: “There is no scientific debate that stuff happens.” Of course that is true; nobody disagrees that stuff happens. But is that science? Is that a logical explanation for wings, eyes and brains? Is that what schools should teach? Of course not. His statement is a clear example of a meaningless talking point. If Johnson were concerned with the quality of science education, he would advocate ditching Darwin (see 10/03/15) and seeking true causes for phenomena that look designed.

What about the “misleading impression of conflict between science and religion” he spoke of? It wasn’t Christians, Protestants, or interest groups that created the impression: it was Darwinazis like Andrew White and John Draper who started that meme. The Christian founders of science viewed their work as seeking the mind of God; no conflict at all. Posing “science” vs “religion” is a false dichotomy. To creationists, the conflict is between good science (intelligent design) and bad science (Darwin’s Stuff Happens Law that builds minds out of hydrogen). And it’s a conflict between good religion (trust in a Designer intelligent enough and powerful enough to bring the world into being) and bad religion (big-bang-to-man theory, with no causation, no purpose, and no meaning). By all means, don’t fall into the trap of framing the debate like they do as ‘science vs religion.’ If you do, you’ve lost before you started. Read this about “science” from Evolution News & Views.

With these points in mind, you are ready to evaluate whether creation threatens the quality of education in public schools. Should children learn about adequate causes and effects, or throw up their hands like Darwin and say “stuff happens”? Should they learn about observable, repeatable, testable facts, or learn how to tell just-so stories? Should they learn logic, or imbibe self-refuting ideologies? That’s how you should frame the debate.

Some “anti-evolution” groups like the Discovery Institute do not advocate teaching intelligent design at all, let alone creation science. They would be content to get schools to teach Darwinian evolution honestly, not the uncritical whitewashed version with the flawed icons used to illustrate it. They agree with Darwin: “A fair result can only be obtained by fully stating the facts and arguments on both sides of each question” (see Academic Freedom Day). Amen! (Too bad Darwin failed to do that in The Origin, a fact he admitted in the preface.) Hold this Darwin quote in the face of the Darwinazis and tell them to obey it. Tell them science is not about consensus. Tell them they are closed-minded bigots for refusing to consider challenges to their atheistic religion.

Johnson is able to label Darwin skeptics as “interest groups” because his interest group has power. For the same reason conspiracies never prosper (because if they prosper, none dare call them conspiracies), interest groups never prosper, because when they do, they cease being called interest groups. They become The Consensus. “All scientists agree” that “there is no scientific debate” about the fundamentals of Stuff Happens. You have to get outside the fogma to see through this rhetorical trick.

Darwinazi John Tyndall, one of Charlie’s X-club co-conspirators, said this to the British Association in 1874:

The impregnable position of science may be described in a few words. We claim, and we shall wrest from theology, the entire field of cosmological theory. All schemes and systems which thus infringe upon the domain of science must, in so far as they do this, submit to its control, and relinquish all thought of controlling it.”  [See James Clerk Maxwell’s poetic response to Tyndall’s insufferable chutzpah in our 8/10/2005 commentary.]

That’s not science. That’s not education. It’s totalitarianism. It’s scientism pretending to be helping the children, but determined to rule the world. Don’t be fooled. The Darwinazis have had power for a long time, but that’s no reason to become a DODO like them, pushing DOPE. It took a long time to end slavery, too. Keep the heat on, and if your representatives put on the appeasement facade but won’t challenge the Darwinazis, vote the rascals out.

Leave a Reply