If you missed the 2004 transit, don’t miss this one–it will be the last in your lifetime. Share the experience with children if you can; it will be a nice memory and a teachable moment about the clockwork regularity of the heavens, and how our Privileged Planet gives us an ideal platform for making scientific discoveries.
If you missed the 2004 transit, don’t miss this one–it will be the last in your lifetime. Share the experience with children if you can; it will be a nice memory and a teachable moment about the clockwork regularity of the heavens, and how our Privileged Planet gives us an ideal platform for making scientific discoveries.
The way to make a concept impregnable is to use rhetorical devices to render competition out of bounds, and then nationalize the favored view. An AP story demonstrates how this is done with evolution.
The way to make a concept impregnable is to use rhetorical devices to render competition out of bounds, and then nationalize the favored view. An AP story demonstrates how this is done with evolution.
John Hanna’s report on PhysOrg about draft science standards in Kansas renders any competitors to Darwinian evolution off limits. “Kansas is now among 26 states helping to draft new science standards alongside the National Research Council, with the goal of creating standard, nationwide guidelines,” he wrote. Here’s how the last sentence portrays evolutionary theory:
The first draft of the multi-state standards declares that evolution and its underlying mechanisms are “key to understanding both the unity and the diversity of life on Earth.” The standards also say evolution is among a few core concepts in life sciences that “have a long history and solid foundation based on the research evidence established by many scientists working across multiple fields.”
The first draft of the multi-state standards declares that evolution and its underlying mechanisms are “key to understanding both the unity and the diversity of life on Earth.” The standards also say evolution is among a few core concepts in life sciences that “have a long history and solid foundation based on the research evidence established by many scientists working across multiple fields.”
The only ones opposing this view, according to Hanna, are conservative Republicans, except for one “moderate Republican,” who ousted a conservative Republican in 2006. She said “she’s comfortable with the language in the draft standards.” It doesn’t appear that the one conservative Republican on the board, who believes “the draft embraces naturalism and secular humanism,” will get very far with his argument, “They are preferring one religious position over another.” Who would ever want to throw away the key to understanding?
The only ones opposing this view, according to Hanna, are conservative Republicans, except for one “moderate Republican,” who ousted a conservative Republican in 2006. She said “she’s comfortable with the language in the draft standards.” It doesn’t appear that the one conservative Republican on the board, who believes “the draft embraces naturalism and secular humanism,” will get very far with his argument, “They are preferring one religious position over another.” Who would ever want to throw away the key to understanding?
This article illustrates several propaganda tactics evolutionists use to present themselves as scientific and Darwin skeptics as religiously motivated. It’s worth reviewing these again (get out the Baloney Detector):
This article illustrates several propaganda tactics evolutionists use to present themselves as scientific and Darwin skeptics as religiously motivated. It’s worth reviewing these again (get out the Baloney Detector):
• Put “intelligent design” in scare quotes. (Scare-mongering)
• Don’t define intelligent design, but imply that whatever it is, it is against science. (Association)
• Define evolution as a “key to understanding.” (Big Lie)
• Define evolution as a “key to understanding.” (Big Lie)
• Portray evolution as a “core concept.” (Loaded Words)
• Assert that it “has a long history”. (Glittering Generalities, Half Truth– so does belief in design)
• Assert that it has a “solid foundation”. (Suggestion)
• Claim that the solid foundation is “based on research evidence”. (Bluffing, Glittering Generalities)
• Claim that the solid foundation is “based on research evidence”. (Bluffing, Glittering Generalities)
• Say evolution has been “established by many scientists working across multiple fields.” (Bandwagon)
• Worry readers that opposition to evolution “invited some ridicule” (Fear-mongering).
• Scare readers that opposition to evolution could prevent students from competing in “a global job market” (Scare-mongering, Non-sequitur).
• Quote the politician who believes “the board should defer to scientists, science educators and business leaders when considering changes.” (Appeal to authority).
• Quote the politician who believes “the board should defer to scientists, science educators and business leaders when considering changes.” (Appeal to authority).
• Present the “scientists, science educators and business leaders” as a unified front all supportive of evolution. (Bandwagon, Intimidation)
