Evilution Versus Creationism … Err, We Mean Just Anti-Evolution!

Posted: September 21, 2013 in religion, science
Tags: , , , , , , ,

What amazes me throughout the evolution versus creationism “debate” in the US is the two-sided mouth of anti-evolution proponents. Out the one side, they try to make it clear they’re not arguing for religion, they just want “strengths and weaknesses” or “alternative” ideas with regards to evolution. That’s the more public face. Out the other side of their mouth is when they clearly, blatantly, and without any way of misinterpreting argue for creationism to be taught either alongside or in evolution’s stead.

This is heating up yet again in hot Texas with yet another debate over textbooks. This time, it’s the board needing to approve textbooks that meet their science standards as opposed to a few years ago when it was needing to actually create those science standards. What has been obvious by those watching is that those who are against evolution this time are making almost no attempt to hide the fact that they’re coming from a creationism “alternative,” citing the Bible and various other religious reasons for why evolution should not be taught.

Oh, and this was discussed on the WND article posted from the Dallas News under the title, “Evolution Debate Heats Up Over Texas Textbooks.”

And, the WND comment section currently has 127 comments, filled with Bible verses and other religious arguments. For example, “Reason2012” started off by saying, “Evolutionism is anti-God and anti-science.” As usual, the up-voted comments are pro-god, down-voted ones are pro-evolution. I don’t think it’s important to go through them but rather just point out yet again how people against evolution are motivated ONLY by religion. If someone has an example of someone who was not motivated by religion, please post, because I have never seen one.

  1. Jeff L. says:

    I’ve been wondering of late where this anti-science stance in the U.S. comes from? Knowledge is power, as is wealth. There’s a lot of money being spent to devalue some kinds of scientific knowledge, and cast scientists (the government funded ones) as disingenuous leeches. For instance, once can see that climate science threatens the profits of fossil energy companies.

    But why is evolution theory being attacked again with vigor? Who is gaining from “teaching the controversy”, as Discovery Institute propagandizes (there is no controversy). Perhaps it’s merely a convenient wedge issue, denigrating the scientific method in this specific case so to engender skepticism of any scientific findings that happen to be anathema to (short-term) corporate profit. Cigarette companies played this game, too, but didn’t attack science itself (they just produced their own studies to muddy the waters).

    I don’t see anybody attacking the discovery of the amplituhedron, even though the science behind that potentially every bit as perspective-changing as evolution. No money to be made in disparaging particle physics, I guess. (Though libertarians would argue against publicly-funded basic research).

    • Stuart Robbins says:

      I’m really not sure. I’m surprised I don’t have a ready answer for you. If you happen to do additional research on this and find possible answers, let me know!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s