UK Pushing Darwinism on Elementary Students
With new methods and materials, UK teachers will be promoting Darwinism on Grade 5-6 students.
Good news: The UK has developed curricular materials for teaching evolution that include argumentation.
Bad news: The only arguments allowed will be Darwinian arguments, aimed at correcting students’ misunderstandings of evolution.
This is a bit like a teacher directing students to believe that fish sticks are better than fish spheres or fish cubes in the cafeteria—fish being the only food on the menu. Only the shape of the fish will matter; students will never be exposed to the existence of beef or chicken. The DODO curriculum will be all evolution, all the time. And it will be all Darwinian evolution at that. This is clear from looking at the website of the Nuffield Foundation, which has funded the development of teaching guides for use in UK schools at the grade school level. Its press release for January 24, titled, “New guidance supports the teaching of evolution” is echoed on the University of Liverpool website, One of their recommended resources is the Berkeley website “Understanding Evolution,” an American DOPE-pushing outlet.
Like Nuffield, Berkeley gives visitors the impression that nobody at any place, at any time, ever doubted evolution—at least, no intelligent person. Ignoring Darwin skeptics is the best way to indoctrinate. When it comes to the science of biology, students will come to see that Darwinism is the only game in town. The only controversies to use ‘argumentation’ about involve the shape of the food, not the substance. Darwin fish is the only thing on the menu.
Nuffield came up with a clever way to steer impressionable children toward the politically correct view. It offers recordings of children explaining what they think evolution is. This helps teachers prepare for student’s feelings and misperceptions, so that they can gently nudge them toward the Darwinian view (27 Sept 2012, 11 June 2017). For instance, if a student looks at the Ascent of Man icon and asks, “If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”, the teacher can hold up a diagram of Darwin’s ‘tree of life’ drawing, encouraging the students to use ‘argumentation’ to understand why Darwin’s icon answers the question. That way, they will feel like they came up with the idea themselves that Darwin’s diagram (branching gradualism) is better than the Ascent of Man icon (orthogenesis).
Other methods of indoctrination include taking students on an “evolution walk” outside, with signposts showing the kinds of animals that arose over geological ages. This helps them grasp the concept of Deep Time visually. They will never question this manufactured symbolism. It will become Truth to them. They saw it. They walked through it. By the time they reach high school or college, it will have become so familiar, so entrenched in their thinking, they will react in disbelief—even horror—at the thought that anybody could possibly doubt it.
The concept of geological or ‘deep’ time is not directly considered in the science curriculum, so ways of making the enormous numbers more accessible to pupils were successfully developed, including evolution trails made by scaling time in terms of distance walked.
When Argument Is Not Critical Thinking
Nuffield’s website “Ideas About Evolution” looks noble on the surface. It encourages teachers to respect students’ views, challenge claims, and support ideas with evidence. It helps teachers understand students’ views. It suggests using the audio recordings of students as the primary way to facilitate argumentation and understanding. A closer look, however, shows that any controversies only regard particulars about the way Darwinian evolution works (see their page “Representing Evolution“.) The goal is already predetermined: students must be nudged toward the Darwin ‘tree of life’ icon, where the wonders of animals and plants unfold gradually over time as the Stuff Happens Law (natural selection) creates endless forms most beautiful.
Note: The Nuffield Foundation says the views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily the foundation itself, which is “an endowed charitable trust that aims to improve social well-being in the widest sense.”
“Well-being,” right. Teaching impressionable kids that they got here by accident, with no purpose or meaning. Teaching the Stuff Happens Law as science. Teaching argumentation by arguing only details of one side. Teaching a world view that strongly influenced the genocides of the 20th century, eugenics, and abortion to this day. How well does that make you feel?
Remember the short story about “The New Teacher”? It bears reading again (see 21 Dec 2005 entry). Evolutionists are masters of visualization propaganda. We must inoculate students against indoctrination. We must teach real critical thinking: the kind of argumentation that doesn’t win by sidestepping the opposition and card stacking the evidence.
Fight fire with fire?