Who's really indoctrinating whom about evolution?

In my last post, I made some observations on how certain half-truths and misunderstandings about evolution are encouraged and perpetuated by the pro-evolution establishment. Some might even call it a “conspiracy.” You can read that post here. Whenever I make that claim, I'm usually met with boos and hisses from militant evolutionists who accuse me of being a flat-earth, science-denying, nut case. Instead of cliché ad hominen, wouldn't it be at least a little interesting to discuss the claim itself? Maybe they could even offer something in the way of a rebuttal. Is that asking too much? Sigh.

Rather than simply ignore their empty words, I thought I'd explore the issue a little deeper. Some people simply don't understand the lengths to which rabid evolutionists will go to bolster and perpetuate their flagging theory. Let me direct your attention to an article on Slate.com titled, Give Me An “F!” Creationists Fail a Fourth Grade Science Test where self-described “science-evangelizer,” Phil Plait, laments that elementary students are being taught creationism. In the article he said:

My complaint is one of simple reality. Young-Earth creationism is wrong, and it’s certainly not science. For that reason alone, ideally it shouldn’t be taught as truth anywhere, let alone a science class.... In fact, all of science shows creationism is wrong, because creationism goes against pretty much every founding principle of and every basic fact uncovered by science. If creationism were true, then essentially no modern invention would work. Since you’re reading this on a computer, that right there is proof enough. [Italics and bold in original]

Really, Mr. Plait? All of science shows creationism is wrong? “No modern invention would work” if creationism were true? Computers are proof that evolution is correct? His comments are hilarious and, what's worse, he means them! No exaggeration I could make about Plait's comments could be any more extreme that what he's actually saying.

I shouldn't have to rebut any of these outrageous claims because they are absurd on their face. It makes no sense to say that things like computers or satellites or rockets wouldn't work if God created the universe. I'm fairly certain that Plait is unaware that Charles Babbage, the man credited with inventing modern computing, was a creationist. However, the point of my blog, today, isn't to detail the contributions creationists have made to science. Rather, it's something else that Plait said that piqued my interest.

What really makes my heart sink is the reality that this is actually being taught to young children. Kids are natural scientists; they want to see and explore and categorize and ask “why?” until they understand everything. And we, as adults, as caretakers, have a solemn responsibility to nurture that impulse and to answer them in as honest a way as possible, encouraging them to seek more answers—and more questions—themselves. That’s how we learn. ¶But this? This isn’t learning. It’s indoctrination. [bold added]

Indoctrination is a strong word to use. The ordinary definition of “indoctrinate” is to teach someone to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. Yet there is a pejorative connotation to the word. I taught my children to speak English; does that mean I indoctrinated them to speak English? Is it indoctrination to teach our kids right and wrong? To be nice? To pick up their things, to get good grades, and to work hard? Teaching our children our values isn't indoctrination – it's called raising them. We also tend to raise our children to share our religious beliefs. I'm sure the parents who send their kids to the private school Plait is ridiculing, are Christians who believe in creation. That wanted to send their kids to a Christian school that reinforces the same values the kids learn at home. To accuse the parents of “indoctrinating” their kids is a type of ad hominem.

What I find most curious about militant evolutionists is how angry they become whenever someone doesn't believe in evolution. In the introduction to his article, immediately following the photo of the 4^th grade quiz, Plait assumes the reader would be, “screaming in rage and/or pounding your head against the desk.” Why? Because some people actually believe in creation and neither Plait nor his cohorts can stand it. He says later, “I am deeply saddened that there are places teaching this to children.”

Worshipers of scientism virtually froth at the mouth over the simple fact that people exist who doubt evolution. They obsess over it. They stay up at night worrying about it. They wring their hands and plot about ways to stamp out science deniers. Yet they can't see their hypocrisy through their blinding contempt. They are the ones interested in indoctrination! Do you think I'm exaggerating? Let's look at some facts.

THEY LIE

Think about the things Plait said in this article:

• all of science contradicts creationism.

• no modern invention would work if creation were true.

• Creationism goes against every founding principle and every basic fact of science.

If he made just one statement like this, I might dismiss it as hyperbole. To repeat it over and over shows he's being very deliberate. It's rather ordinary for evolutionists to lie to bolster their theory. I've written about some examples of this on my blog before but there are many more than those I've discussed. Just click on the “lies evolutionists tells” lable of this post and see a few of them.

When people tells lies to advance an agenda, that's the very definition of propaganda.

THEY SQUELCH

Several years ago, the Cobb County Board of Education placed a sticker in school science books that said, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” Note that the stickers didn't mention creation or even religion. Instead, they said that evolution should be examined carefully, critically, and with an open mind. Critical thinking should be a staple in educating our kids and Mr. Plait seems to agree based on his comments above. Questioning everything is supposed to be a fundamental principle of science – except when it comes to evolution. No one is allowed to question evolution! In the matter of Cobb County, the case ended up in court where a judge ordered the stickers be removed. Such is always the case when any criticism of evolution is suggested in the public classroom. Any policy that might treat evolution as anything less than an absolute fact is challenged in court. Any teacher who seems sympathetic to creation or intelligent design risks losing his job.

Groups have been organized, like the National Center for Science Education, whose sole mission is to insure that the teaching of evolution is not diminished in any way. They recently took up arms against the School Superintendent in Arizona who was rewriting science standards for the state. On their website, NCSE bragged, “NCSE, of course, is constantly on guard for threats to the integrity of science education, including in Arizona.” By “science education” they mean “teaching evolution.” What was their complaint? One example from the article says, “First, although evolution is still listed in the edited standards as a core concept, the description of the concept was changed for the worse. The writing committee explained it by saying, correctly, “The unity and diversity of organisms, living and extinct, is the result of evolution.” This was then edited to say, ‘The theory of evolution seeks to make clear the unity of living and extinct organisms.” The difference, of course, is that the writing committee’s version clearly says that evolution is correct, while the edited version is studiously agnostic.”

It seems the edited version didn't seem to state evolution was a fact. Oh the horror! I used to think evolution was theory only theory protected by a political lobby – of course, now there's the whole virus thing going on. //RKBentley bites his tongue//

THEY PROSELYTIZE

Education is supposed to be about imparting knowledge. It's supposed to make kids “critical thinkers.” We make sure kids understand the material but teachers are not supposed to take sides. Right? I have a degree in business. Part of my studies in college included learning about different economic philosophies but let me ask you this: do you think it's possible to understand an economic theory without endorsing it? Of course it is. I can learn about – and understand – socialism while remaining a capitalist. Likewise, a person could learn about and understand evolution while still being a creationist. When it comes to teaching evolution, though, it's not enough for these people to make sure every student understands the theory. They won't stop until every student utterly rejects creation and wholly embraces evolution.

Remember in Plait's bio, he is described as a “science evangelizer.” What do you think he means by that? I think it's obvious. And he's not alone in his zeal. In a NY Times interview, Bill Nye was asked, “do you imagine a child in a creationist-friendly household managing to get his hands on the book [you've written about evolution] and stealing away with it?” Nye's answer is very telling:

A man can dream! It would be great if the book is that influential. My biggest concern about creationist kids is that they’re compelled to suppress their common sense, to suppress their critical thinking skills at a time in human history when we need them more than ever. By the time you’re 18, you’ve made up your mind. It’s going to be really hard for you, as they say in the Mormon tradition, to “lose your testimony.” But if you’re 7 or 8, we got a shot.

“We got a shot”? We should be concerned that someone with such poor grammar wants to teach our kids but I'm more alarmed by his obvious intentions – reach the kids young enough, and we can convince them evolution is true.

I came across an article in The Conversation that says, “The best way to get children to understand evolution is to teach genetics first.” That paper was a little more candid than many about the motive to teaching evolution. In the following excerpt, pay attention to the parts I've highlighted in bold:

An understanding of evolution and acceptance of the idea of evolution are two different things. Acceptance is the belief that the scientific view of evolution is the correct version: you can understand evolution but not accept it and you can accept it but not understand it. We found that students typically accepted evolution to a greater degree after taking the genetics class.....

We also set up a series of focus groups to find out why the understanding and acceptance of evolution are not more strongly coupled. Evidence from these suggests that what is more important for evolution acceptance is not what is taught, but who provides the endorsement. For some students, being told that key authority figures such as parents or teachers approve of scientific evidence for evolution made a big difference to their ability to accept it.....

Whatever the underlying cause, the data suggest a really simple, minimally disruptive and cost-free modification to teaching practice: teach genetics first. This will at least increase evolution understanding, if not acceptance. As with many emotive subjects, it takes more than teaching the facts to shift hearts as well as minds.

So there you have it. Do you still say there's no conspiracy? You can read their words for yourself. They are not coy about their intentions – they want to indoctrinate our kids! They are just angry that pesky little things like the kids' parents and religious liberty keep getting in their way.