A Miami Herald article on the bill to allow teachers and students to present “scientific information” critical of evolution shows the supporters — Ben Stein, the “Intelligent Design” advocates of the Discovery Institute, state legislators — has the supporters insisting that no, no, no, this bill obviously doesn’t allow intelligent design to be taught in schools. The Discovery Institute’s Casey Luskin, for instance, asserts that since critics of “ID” say that it isn’t science, how can they possibly suggest that the bill would allow intelligent design to be taught?

Would anyone care to bet that if this bill passes, the Discovery Institute won’t immediately start insisting that ID is so science and therefore must be taught? Along with all the other supposedly scientific theories such as all the dinosaur fossils having been caught in Noah’s flood (Leonardo daVinci demolished that one several centuries ago, but it still circulates)? Or the endless cries of “Well, I don’t think that could have evolved naturally, so it must have been designed!” as if one person’s incomprehension was scientific proof?

Luskin is perfectly right that critics of ID, myself included, don’t consider it science (and we’re right), but that hasn’t to date stopped the Discovery Institute from insisting otherwise. If the bill passes, why should they change?

And let’s not forget House Speaker Marco Rubio, who said last month that teaching evolution is equivalent to the propaganda tactics of Castro’s Cuba because it consists of the state undermining what parents may be telling their kids at home: “Of course, I’m not equating the evolution people with Fidel Castro (but) in order to impose their totalitarian regime, they destroyed the family; they destroyed the faith links that existed in that society.”

So if the parents are flat earthers, would Rubio object to their learning geography?

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.