Conspiracy Theorists In The NCSE Take Aim At Gov. Jindal and Creationists

Dedicated proponents of evolution who are part of a special interest group in one form or another, have formulated various conspiracy theories.

Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch who are part of the NCSE are still very much upset but still at war over Governor Jindal’s signing of a bill which teaches “critical thinking” in science. Both also like to get intelligent design and other general terms confused with creationism as stated in Scientific American

“As always in the contentious history of evolution education in the U.S., the devil is in the details. The law explicitly targets evolution, which is unsurprising—for lurking in the background of the law is creationism, the rejection of a scientific explanation of the history of life in favor of a supernatural account involving a personal creator. Indeed, to mutate Dobzhansky’s dictum, nothing about the Louisiana law makes sense except in the light of creationism.”

“Past strategies have included portraying creationism as a credible alternative to evolution and disguising it under the name “intelligent design.”

Eugenie Scott is the same woman who appeared in a movie where she advocates ruining careers if anyone dares to question Darwinism. She makes up stories, trying to demonize creationists and intelligent design proponents.

Now there are fundamental differences between Intelligent design and creationism…Intelligent Design advocates macro-evolution, common descent, and the very old earth hypothesis, the three fundamentals opposed in true creationism. So why are the conspiracy theorists such as Eugenie Scott telling the public it’s the same thing with a difference face?

In answer to that question, the courts on a federal level have ruled against creationism being taught in the public schools, while the Dover ruling against ID was local, it didn’t make law in other localities or states.

Here is another conspiracy theorist with a similar pattern in viewpoint, wrote in his blog

I think it is for this latter reason, combined with the fact that Texas is a socially conservative state, that proponents of an idea called “Intelligent Design” are making a big push to get that idea into the Texas state science standards. Further, they are on the verge of succeeding. Nearly half of the state school board, and fully half of the special commission set up to review science standards, publicly support Intelligent Design.

The funny part of all this, neither of these issues (creationism or intelligent design) brought up by the NCSE or this particular blogger  had anything to do with inserting “critical thinking” or “strengths and weakness” into science. Why? Because there is no evidence of teaching creationism or intelligent design as a result of those particular concepts! All these conspiracy theorists harp on is the fact that are either creationists or ID proponents.

In fact, these same conspiracy theorists impose the very same viewpoints when it comes to Texas Science Standards. They argue “strengths and weakness” of evolution is teaching creationism which is a myth. While it’s true, creationism is critical of evolution, this doesn’t necessarily make it creationism. Non-Christians have been critical of Darwinism.

Also, there is no evidence whatsoever in it’s 10 year history in Texas and I have even confronted a Texas science teacher over this issue. Granted she takes her teaching seriously, and wants the best for her students. But she is wrong on a number of issues including this one, because she believes in special interests like the NCSE.

Her response or lack thereof wasn’t surprising concerning because she can’t even find a notion that she believes is a real example of her concerns to even agree or disagree with, but she will write mainly about personal beliefs like the blogger whom I quoted, undermine people’s character who are creationists or ID proponents in such places like the school board and about so-called errors by creationists. To me, she is just as bad as Eugenie Scott!

Since there is no evidence, why keep repeating these myths about a conspiracy concerning creationists taking over the public schools to teach what they consider a religion?

Because it’s easier to attack intelligent design or attack critical thinking, or attack strengths and weakness of evolution. Evolutionary proponets do not like students to think outside the box. Many secularists like to think science can only destroy religion not confirm it, which is far from the truth!

5 thoughts on “Conspiracy Theorists In The NCSE Take Aim At Gov. Jindal and Creationists

  1. Michael,

    What in the world are you talking about? I didn’t respond because:

    A) I’m too busy to do so.
    B) There wasn’t anything in it that seemed to warrant a reply.

  2. Not really, I have seen your writing style which has a similar pattern as others who believe in the way you do.

    If you had the opportunity of clear examples instead of attacking what people believe that has no impact on education, rather than arguing about agendas that you can quote which are being pushed in the public schools, you would most certainly would not pass up the chance, sooner or later! Since you keep up with it, no doubt you would have some links as well, which saves a lot of time than writing. But thank you for your reply anyway!

  3. Michael,

    I’m still clueless as to what you are talking about. If there is something in the reply you wrote on my blog that you specifically want me to reply to, then please do let me know. You actually stated a few things I agreed with (such as “It appears Mr. Mcleroy believes intelligent design, or creationism should be discussed in the public classrooms, but doesn’t want to follow through on that belief” and “I’m impressed with Mr. Mcleroy response”) so I didn’t think a reply was necessary.

    “Not really, I have seen your writing style which has a similar pattern as others who believe in the way you do.”

    It’s clear from my writing that I support teaching evolution, but other than that Michael, I wouldn’t make any assumptions about my beliefs. I think you’d be rather surprised.

  4. Let me clarify your confusion,

    Mr. Mcleroy from your home state of Texas has been a target for special interests including yourself. There has been nothing as far as solid evidence that he had pushed creationism or intelligent design in the public schools.

    So what you have been focused on his more or less a personal belief. The voter guide in his opinion didn’t have his precise view so he checked the box that was closest to his viewpoint but didn’t totally represent it.

    Why are you concerned about the survey anyway? What has he done on the job to prompt you to track what he believes in? Isn’t it true that what you are engaging in which I think is trivial, is all about your concern over how evolution will be taught? I think your better than that.

    The 1990s was suppose to be a break through decade. Genomes from diverse organisms would be collected, sequenced and compared. Through this research up until now, this data was suppose to reveal answers to a lot of questions concerning the Phylogenetic tree. It hasn’t. But when teaching stuff like this, you make sound like there is so much evidence. You certainly wouldn’t teach it as a weakness in evolution, now would you?

    One can get an idea of what you believe in considering you have public writings on the internet and the writings of others. I thank you for your reply.

  5. Michael,

    My response to you started to become quite lengthy and involved quite a few external links, so I’ve just posted it over at my own blog.

    Merry Christmas!

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s