Skip to content

More monkey business in Louisiana

You may have read that Louisiana has passed a new law on the teaching of evolution and creation.  Whoopee

If you’ve been reading A View from the Altar, you know that I believe God created the heavens and the earth.  On the other hand, battling this out in the government school classroom is not a good strategy.  It’s simply the wrong venue.  There’s a simpler solution, and one the public is more likely to embrace, and which even the militant Darwinist will be obliged to respect, however grudgingly.  If you don’t like what the government schools are teaching, then get your kids out.

Certainly that option is not easy for every individual.  On the other hand, if you took the money most families allocate to restaurants, cable or satellite TeeVee, cigarettes, gourmet coffee, payments on a new rather than a used car, special fingernail decals and toenail treatments, golf, and gas wasted on running around because they’re bored, they could pay for at least one head of their yungun to attend a fine Christian school.

That said, I actually see nothing objectionable about what the new law in Louisiana says.  It authorizes teachers to challenge evolutionary dogma and, by the way, the current (and slowly waning) fad about global warming. You can read the actual text of the law here, but you’ll need Adobe Acrobat to read it.  As laws go, it really ain’t half bad.  If Darwinists could have had such a law on the books in Tennessee in 1925, they would have praised it to the skies.

Now that their party exerts most of the influence in the schools, challenges have become intensely unwelcome.  They wish to shut the doors, impose a cloture on the debate and have things their way without having to face pesky questions about whether chickens preceded or followed eggs.  Christians understand the mechanics of the basic unfairness in this.  It follows from the sinfulness of human nature, a result of Adam’s fall.

The authors of the law were careful to use the PeeCee buzz phrase, “critical thinking skills” when discussing what it is they expect teachers to teach.  Now, as long as “critical thinking skills” means cramming young minds full of Darwinist beliefs that can’t be questioned, that’s okay.  But if it means challenging Darwinism, why this will never do.   The Sensuous Curmudgeon makes a comment representative of the attitude of the general run of Darwin’s thought police:  “If [students] go on to become PhD researchers, then — and only then — maybe they’ll do some original thinking of their own.”

Got that?  Nobody is allowed to think for himself until he’s got that Ph.D. degree hanging on the wall.  Since he (or she, or them) is anonymous, we have no idea about whether the Sensuous Curmudgeon is permitted any independent thinking.

One final comment about the general nastiness that has surfaced on aggressively pro-Darwin websites like Little Green Footballs.  We need to be smart enough to distinguish between the motives of the legislators and the substance of their legislation.  Their motives are obviously religious while their tactics have remained scrupulously secular.  For Darwinists to castigate Christians for having religious motives for what they advocate is frankly stupid.  And concerning tactics, Darwinists are within their Constitutional rights to demand that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  In forced deference to the profusion of legiscourts, creationists have carefully avoided all references to religion in legal texts.  They’ve also been careful to avoid advocating any particular religious viewpoint.  Apparently this approach is driving the Darwinists around the bend because it a) complies with what Darwinists have previously demanded while it b) opens the door to students asking nagging questions Darwinsts won’t be able to answer.

And you can be sure that somewhere, there’s a kid whose parents have primed him to ask how carbon-14 could be in a diamond.  There’s no good answer to this as yet, hence the goal is to shut down debate.  Allowing unanswerable questions to be asked used to be how science was advanced.  Now, it’s apparently a really bad thing.  Stay tuned.  Expect lawsuits soon.

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] light, so don’t argue with the man about that.  But if we accept the PeeCee dictum that a formal education is required before you can comment on the weather, then Chu is no more qualified in the field of climate […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *