Evolution not spoken here

Goddamit, do we have to trot out both the Flying Spaghetti Monster and nearly every reputable scientist on Earth, again, to illustrate why evolution is proper for the science classroom and why creationism and intelligent design are philosophies from a few particular groups scarcely intimate with science?

Do we?

Yes. According to Jason R. Wiles, teachers at an Arkansas science education institute that serves a bunch of public schools, are "forbidden to use the 'e-word' (evolution) with the kids. They are permitted to use the word 'adaptation' but only to refer to a current characteristic of an organism, not as a product of evolutionary change via natural selection. They cannot even use the term 'natural selection'."

Again, that's a science education institution.

I am instructed NOT to use hard numbers when telling kids how old rocks are. I am supposed to say that these rocks are VERY VERY OLD ... but I am NOT to say that these rocks are thought to be about 300 million years old.
Essentially, the directors of the institute are hamstrung by the threat of losing funding. Appeal to a higher authority? Well, in July of '04, Arkansas Governor 'Aww shucks' Huckabee commented:
"I’m not familiar that they’re dodging it. Maybe they are. But I think schools also ought to be fair to all views. Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that’s why it’s called the theory of evolution. And I think that what I’d be concerned with is that it should be taught as one of the views that’s held by people. But it’s not the only view that’s held. And any time you teach one thing as that it’s the only thing, then I think that has a real problem to it."
This doesn't require comment, does it? Tell me.

How about we just re-reproduce some of the words of the judge who rebuked the ID-ers in Dover. Harshly.
"[This case, from the old Dover, PA School Board that ID should be taught as science, makes] it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.