Est. May 2008

11 May, 2015

Such Unwarranted Panic

I can't think of anything else to call this:
MONTGOMERY, Ala. – A bill introduced in the Alabama legislature that would allow students to learn the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories is being criticized and ridiculed by evolutionists as an attempt by “religious fanatics” to “undermine the integrity of science education.”
Are their criticisms well-founded?  Doesn't sound like it:
“This bill would require the State Board of Education, local boards of education, and staff of K-12 public schools to create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects,” the bill’s synopsis states. “This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course.”

HB 592 also encourages public schools to “review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories.” The bill would also allow students to discuss and debate disputed scientific subjects, “including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, and human cloning.”
You know, back in the dark ages of the late  80's and early 90's, when I was going through studies for my eventual biology degree, we called this kind of thing – the critical analysis of theories, hypotheses, and 'facts'-so-called ('there's no such thing as 'fact' in science', we were told; 'they're just things which have stood the test of time and analysis'') – science.

I guess that sort of thing has fallen out of favor with the poobahs of our current 'Intellectual Elite'.  And what we see in this story is familiar to anyone who follows this kind of reporting: evolutionists rant and rave and (almost literally) foam at the mouth whenever any alternate hypotheses are offered, especially in ' biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, and human cloning'.

The question is, 'Why?'  Why do they wind themselves up so tightly whenever someone so much as offers the opportunity to critically analyze such things?

In my experience, this kind of violent reaction telegraphs the idea that these folks know, should their 'theories' undergo rigorous critical analysis – required to adequately 'review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories' – their 'theories' won't survive, at least in their current forms.  They have a vested interest in making sure something such as evolutionary 'theory' remains unchallenged, whatever that interest might be – financial, power, prestige, whatever.

But this isn't science; it's dogma.

No comments: