Over at the Huffington Post a high school biology teacher writes:
Are we doing ourselves a disservice when we speak about our “belief” in evolution? Should we find a new way to talk about the “theories” that underlie our ideas? What about when we talk about the “design” of human anatomy? Why are we always finding ourselves on the defensive? Doesn’t all of the natural evidence that the universe has to offer support the conclusions that scientists have drawn (and modified) over the past five centuries?
I’ll attempt to answer, as given my experience with biology teachers ignorance and stupidity abounds. With respect to doing yourselves a disservice, yes you are doing yourselves a disservice. Instead of speaking about your belief in evolution you should be speaking about the biological state that you find yourselves in thanks to natural selection operating on the anuses of ancient ape-like creatures. This is part of series of events brought about by evolution which allowed your ancestors to control their excrement but which unfortunately has not lead your way of thinking being different than excrement.
With respect to talking about “theories,” they need not find new ways of talking about theories given that evolution, whatever it may be, seems to be rooted in hypothetical goo. They need not talk about the design of human anatomy because there is no design and no intelligence in the mechanistic brain events which cause them to falsely “believe” that they are intelligent and therefore capable of engaging in the scientific method. With respect to evidence, when it seems that “all” the evidence must support a theory then that should be counted as evidence against it. The fact that biology teachers have a history of failing to understand why that is so is linked to their failure to understand science in general and their gullibility when dealing with the “overwhelming” mental illusions which typify pseudo-science. The only reason that “all” of the evidence always supports evolution, whatever evolution may be, is because evolution was never specified as a scientific theory in the first place.
The irony of biology teachers who promote pseudo-science in the name of science is that they often make claims like this when it comes to ID:
Something tells me that the fundamentalist religious folks who want to add “creation-science” to state mandated science curricula don’t really understand what the hell the word science actually means. Because let’s face it, once intelligent design squeezes its way into the pages following evolution in our biology books, we might as well add astrology to our astrophysics lectures and toss some alchemy education into the chemistry lab.
Where is the historical evidence that this is actually the case? For that matter, where is there any evidence other than the arguments of association that typify biologists of this sort that this is actually the case? I suppose that one is supposed to rely on an imaginary mythology of progress instead of actual evidence again? In the real world history shows that principles of ID are linked to science and progress as we know it as well as the gradual elimination of pagan and nature based superstitions. This history stands in contrast to the textbook cases of pseudo-science that philosophical naturalism has led to in the past. That’s why a historian summarizing the philosophy that gave birth to evolutionary creation myths and pseudo-science in the past may as well be summarizing the philosophy taught to ignorant schoolchildren by biology teachers now:
The scholars whom we shall quote in such impressive numbers, like those others who were instrumental in any other part of the German pre-war and war efforts, were to a large extent people of long and high standing, university professors and academy members, some of them world famous, authors with familiar names and guest lecturers abroad…
If the products of their research work, even apart from their rude tone, strike us as unconvincing and hollow, this weakness is due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values and, by standing order, knows exactly its ultimate conclusions well in advance.
(Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People
by Max Weinreich (New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7) (Emphasis added)
Filed under: Uncategorized |