Oct 132005
 

Uncommon Descent highlights a lawsuit by Attorney Larry Caldwell, President of Quality Science Education for All, officials of the National Science Foundation.

Lawsuit Alleges that Federally-Funded Evolution Website Violates Separation of Church and State by Using Religion to Promote Evolution

Kudos to Mr. Caldwell! This is just another demonstration of religious Darwinism. Darwinian critics of ID are not interested in the scientific case against Darwinian evolution. It is all about protecting their faith. Forrest and Gross was targeting the wrong people, they should have looked inside their own camp as I did here.

  5 Responses to “Creationism’s Trojan Horse by Darwinists”

  1. Also, Telicthoughts wrote:

    Eugenie Scott here offers an exact strategy on how high school science teachers can indoctrinate students regarding religion in favor of accepting Darwinian theory. Amazing! She even promotes starting in elementary school!

    [Eugenie C. Scott declared,] “Especially at the elementary level, many teachers have “science phobia” . These teachers are especially reluctant to teach evolution, for obvious reasons. They need better knowledge of the content of science, but they also need encouragement to teach a controversial issue.”

    Read the article and I ask you. Could Scott have been more blatant in promoting religious indoctrination in the classroom? It would be hard to imagine. From now on there can be no doubt that prominent Darwinian proponents have been hypocritical about a motive to keep science pure from religious ideology. They apparently are, in fact, not concerned about the purity of scientific exploration, but rather about promoting an ideology and worldview. Game over man. Game over.

  2. Once this article of Ms. Scott’s and the particulars of the lawsuit get more and more discussed around the internet and other places, it is going to be harder to defend the “ID is just religion in disguise” mantra we’ve heard for so long. Scott has made clear that as long as it the “right” religion or as long as religion is explained “correctly”, then it is perfectly okay to bring it up in science class. After all, we don’t want these poor school children to think that big, bad science is coming to take their religion away. They just need to be indoct…er, I mean, taught how to “correctly” understand what their religion teaches about origins and so forth.

    Perhaps Ms. Scott could explain to everyone why its perfectly acceptable to tell students in a science class that religious beliefs, rightly understood, are perfectly compatible with evolution, but telling them the opposite is not acceptable.

    On the other hand, Ms. Scott could follow the recommendations of the Discovery Institute and not teach or mention religion at all, and simply agree with the DI to teach students both the theory of evolution and make sure they understand the many problems that go with it. It’s that latter part that get Ms. Scott and those of her ilk squeamish. “Problems? What problems?…these are details we haven’t fill in yet, that’s all!”

  3. It’s telling that fdocc thinks science is “religious indoctrination.”

    No, Eugenie Scott isn’t calling for religious indoctrination. There is no rational or fair way to read her comments that way.

    What religion is it that you claim is anti-science?

  4. Caldwell’s suits clog up the courts and create nuisances.

    Is that what you commend?

    In his last suit against NCSE and Scott, he failed even to deliver notice of the suit to them, then he had the suit dismissed. This is against the ethical canons of lawyers. His latest suit looks to be more of the same.

    So what you endorse is unethical behavior using the courts to harrass people.

    Shame on you.

  5. Here on March 14, 2006, now we know that Mr. Caldwell is a two-time loser. Not only did he fail to follow through the preliminaries of his suit against Scott, getting the suit dismissed, his later suit against the University of California was dismissed for lack of standing.

    Just like ID, there is nothing of substance in Caldwell’s complaints.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.