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!