“The whole story needs to be presented” — and other creationist lies

June 6th, 2008 Bones Posted in Commentary |

On another website a creationist posted the following:

Students should be allowed to discuss and debate evolution in the classroom. That’s hardly possible when only one side is given. Besides, we’re not even talking about ID or Creationism here. We’re just talking about teaching evolutionary theory in a scientific manner. The whole story needs to be presented.

Only one side?

And which side is that? And which side is being omitted? This complaint really boils down to — the side that is taught is science, and the side that is omitted is religious belief. And not just any religious belief, but a fundamentalist belief in the inerrancy of the bible. That is the “side” that they want taught.

The whole story?

What exactly does that mean? Does that mean all of the science that pertains to the subject? The most important points gleaned from the technical literature? The current debates and controversies within that particular field?

If that’s the case, no problem.

But the problem is, as used by creationists and IDers, “the whole story” really means religious objections to evolution dressed up with whatever science can be found. And it means as much of their religious belief as they can squeeze into the deal.

“The whole story” is a fraud and a lie, dressed up in a phraseology designed to play on the emotions of the unwary. “Sure, I think you should tell the whole story,” most folks will answer — not realizing that this really means teaching one narrow version of religion in public school science classes to counter legitimate science.

It’s the same with “teach the controversy.” What controversy? Well, the one the Discovery Institute wants taught, the one they drummed up between science and religion, not any real controversy within science. Dishonest, as usual.

And let’s not forget, “It’s just a theory,” generally stated as if that simple phrase was a fatal blow to the theory of evolution. This little bit of dishonesty relies on the fact that most folks don’t know how the term “theory” is used in science. It’s usage there is far from the way it is used amongst the general public.

And last but not least, teaching evolutionary theory in a scientific manner…

And who is telling scientists how to conduct science and teachers how to teach? It’s religious fundamentalists! They are the last people you want telling scientists how to do science because they are committed to the overthrow of the scientific method! And they are the last people you want telling teachers in public schools how to teach because they want their own narrow view of religion taught whenever it contradicts the findings of science.

9 Responses to ““The whole story needs to be presented” — and other creationist lies”

  1. I just got finished chewing up a “strengths and weaknesses” lawyer-to-be from Alabama this morning. Of course, he didn’t reveal that he used to be the “collegiate outreach director” for a rightwing Dominionist group called “Redeem the Vote” in his letter to the editor.

    Meh. More here if you have a whole bunch of free reading time on your hands.

    What is it about Southern lawyers and anti-evolutionism?

  2. midwifetoad Says:

    “The first to recognize the failure of natural selection was Mivart In Darwin’s own day. He was followed by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1909, William Bateson in 1914, Reginald C, Punnett in 1915 and, most important of all, Leo Berg in 1922 who identified the real role for natural selection”

    Good thing there hasn’t been any research since 1922. ;^)

    On the other hand You might want to check out the Science News link in the “Experimental Science” article below.

    There’s nothing like laboratory work to settle this kind of question.

  3. midwifetoad Says:
  4. “homozygous atheist”?

  5. While I am persona non grata just about everywhere in cyberdumb, it is enciouraging that Denyse O’Leary, the co-sponsor of Uncommon Descent, from which forum I have been twice banished by David Springer, has allowed me to hold forth as you can see from the following link to her forum -Overwhelming Evidence.

    http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/550#comment

    Naturally, I am very pleased.

    I suspect this will evoke more of the usual invective. Vent your atheist spleens with gay abandon because -

    I love it so!

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”

  6. If you don’t mind, I’ll vent some believing spleen:

    You really think we’re the best God can do? You actually believe that this rickety shape and barely-seeing mind could actually be in God’s image? What a tiny, shoebox-sized god you believe in to limit creation to this half-finished form.

  7. Carolina_guitarman Says:

    John Davison wrote:

    “Naturally, I am very pleased.
    I suspect this will evoke more of the usual invective. Vent your atheist spleens with gay abandon because -
    I love it so!”

    In other words, you admit you are here to troll, that you enjoy trying to piss people off.

    How 5th grade.

  8. Bye now. Have a nice “groupthink.”

Leave a Reply