Authors
Tennessee House Bill 368 will move to a vote by the House General Subcommittee of Education after expert testimony from scientists and educators who expressed their concern that students need to learn more about science and develop critical thinking skills.
Read More ›One of the most powerful education organizations in the country is the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), which stands alongside the rest of the Darwin lobby in holding that neo-Darwinian evolution should be taught in a one-sided, pro-evolution-only fashion. This is an extreme position, as it seeks to ban scientific criticisms of evolution. Due to its exclusive and dogmatic nature, the NSTA’s position is analogous to the extreme position advocated by some religious fundamentalists who would seek to ban teaching about evolution in public schools. But the Darwin lobby is smart. While it is trying to ban and censor the views of its opponents, the Darwin lobby has a particular narrative which tries to paint its opponents as the censors Read More ›
Why do we need academic freedom legislation like Tennessee’s HB 368? In case biology lecturer Alison Campbell decides to relocate to the United States. Sadly, even if she remains in New Zealand, there are already people here who don’t allow for the free flow of ideas, especially when it comes to discussion of evolution. Biology lecturer Alison Campbell at the University of Waikato in Hillcrest, New Zealand, exemplifies a mindset that is tragically common in academia. She openly boasts that if a student were to use standard ID arguments such as the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, that student would be “marked down”: If, for example, a student were to use examples such as the bacterial flagellum to advance Read More ›
It’s springtime (almost), which means that Darwin lobbyists are starting to come out in full force to spread misinformation about academic freedom legislation. This is most unfortunate because their goal, plain and simple, is to prevent students from hearing about scientific critiques of neo-Darwinian evolution in the classroom. I’ve already covered some of these bad objections here. Let’s consider the false claims being promoted by critics of academic freedom legislation. Myth #1. Academic Freedom Laws Have Led to Litigation Some critics, especially those in Oklahoma, have felt the need to promote outright falsehoods by claiming that the Louisiana Science Education Act has been subject to lawsuits. The truth is that there has never been a legal challenge to an academic Read More ›
Across the country legislation is moving forward that will protect teachers and students who want the freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory. February 12 used to be universally recognized as the birthday of Abraham Lincoln–a day celebrating freedom. Needing a patron saint, modern Darwin lobbyists have recently converted February 12 into “Darwin Day.” At this very time, U.S. Congress’s lone atheist is trying to honor Darwin’s birth by submitting a congressional resolution to get a government declaration that Darwin’s theory is “strongly supported,” and attacking the teaching of dissenting viewpoints. There’s nothing wrong with celebrating Darwin’s birthday–if that’s what you really want to do. But in recent years the advocacy of evolution has become Read More ›
A new paper in the journal Science reports results of a survey of how science teachers cover evolution. Titled “Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom,” the paper laments that more teachers aren’t pushing neo-Darwinian evolution in a dogmatic fashion, even attacking one teacher who dared to suggest, “Students should make up their own minds” on evolution. The survey forces teachers to fit into 1 of 3 categories: “Advocates of evolutionary biology,” “Advocates of creationism,” or “Advocate of neither.” According to the survey, 28% of teachers are “Advocates of evolutionary biology,” 13% are “Advocates of creationism,” and a full 60% are “Advocates of neither.” (These are the percentages reported in the survey–odd how they add up to Read More ›
https://youtube.com/watch?v=W0kHPw3LaG8
At 4:38 of this interview, Paul Nelson says that the Miller-Urey experiment is incorrectly interpreted by textbooks as having “synthesized life.” What he meant to say was “the building blocks of life.” Dr. Nelson regrets the error.