Fresh on the heels of victory in last year’s Dover intelligent design trial, Darwinists have now successfully scuttled Ohio's model lesson plan that encouraged students to think critically by exposing them to both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism. Thanks to the tireless enforcers of Darwinian purity, the story Ohio students will now hear on Darwinism will sound a lot like the news stories on Castro in Cuba’s state run newspapers: all positive, all the time.
The average citizen who reads about these developments may be wondering what contrary evidence the Darwinists are afraid of, and how the politicians in Ohio got buffaloed into supporting such a reversal, particularly when at least three polls (two by Zogby) indicate that Ohio voters by a 3 to 1 margin support the state's science standards calling for students to critically analyze evolution.
But instead of a reprimand, I believe congratulations are in order. In their ongoing effort to shut down the growing debate over modern evolutionary theory, the Darwinists have managed to successfully argue one thing in Pennsylvania and precisely the opposite in Ohio. That’s no easy task in a country with watch dog journalists not only in traditional media but also in ravenous blogging packs all over the internet.
The Darwinist reversal worked like this:
In Dover, they insisted that physical evidence presented against their theory wasn't an argument for intelligent design. Darwinist Kenneth Miller made this argument on the stand and the judge concurred. But in Ohio they wanted to scare people into thinking that simply teaching students the scientific evidence for and against Darwinism was somehow legally dangerous. Since it isn’t, the Darwinists had to get creative, had to change their story. So now they asserted that simply exposing students to the evidence against Darwinism constitutes the teaching of intelligent design. Thus, their Ohio position flatly contradicts their Dover position.
To sell both required a propaganda machine of extraordinary skill and nerve. Bravo!
If the Darwinists can pull that off, I say the sky’s the limit. Why stop at beating up on small school districts (Dover) for briefly mentioning to students that they can learn about an alternative origins theory, intelligent design, in the school library? Why stop at expunging from Ohio’s biology curricula any mention of the weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory? No, it’s time for them to go after all of those mainstream biologists and their impermissible facts that have infiltrated the peer reviewed literature.
Take one particularly frustrating example. Evolutionists routinely appeal to a peppered moth experiment as evidence for Darwinian evolution. But then further investigations by mainstream scientists revealed that, in all likelihood, the experimental results were propped up by fudged photographs.
Ohio students won’t learn about this, but what about the innocent citizen who reads the peer-reviewed literature directly? Better to go into the scientific literature and expunge the uncooperative truth about the peppered moth experiment.
Of course, that’s just the beginning. Darwinists routinely use examples of microevolution (change within species) as supposed knockdown evidence for macroevolution (the evolution of fundamentally new body plans). But the peer-reviewed literature is filled with mainstream scientists who question whether evidence for microevolution can be extrapolated to provide strong support for macroevolution.
Those articles will need to be gotten rid of, too. For that matter, something will have to be done about all of those evolutionists with the cheek to point out such things. No problem there. According to the Darwinists' Ohio logic, scientists who merely point out weaknesses in Darwinism (Stephen Jay Gould, Franklin Harold, Stuart Kauffman, etc., etc.), are arguing for intelligent design, are card-carrying design theorists. That means they're fair game: break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles.
After that the real work begins. I’m talking about all those uncooperative fossils, the great quarries in Canada and China that show how most of the major groups of animals appeared in a geologically brief period of time during the Cambrian explosion, contradicting Darwin's gradually branching tree of life. Those fossils can't just be left sitting around. They too will have to be gotten rid of.
Sanitizing the fact pattern will demand a Herculean effort and constant vigilance. Not even friends are to be trusted. Take a February 13 story on the BBC News of all places, reporting on a Science magazine article explaining how the problem of chemical evolution (a prerequisite for Darwinian evolution and already the Achilles heel of origins science) is in even worse shape than previously thought, since scientists now realize that volcanic pools apparently offer no help in the matter.
It’s not enough to keep this information from students in high school biology classes. The facts are a danger to us all. Such stories will have to be stopped.
But take heart. The Darwinian Fundamentalists have arrived. They just want to help.
