Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

You actually have no faith in your position and you never have had. You have no coherent policy to offer. Your inability, despite the pressing of points, to see that inteigent designe is not sience should be part of a school and that school being part of a community of believers was your basic undoing. And there were many other repressions, which is what it is.

The extra-causal propensity or agent has a very high utility
as a recourse in perplexity, but its utility is altogether of a
non-economic kind. It is especially a refuge and a fund of
comfort where it has attained the degree of consistency and
specialization that belongs to an anthropomorphic divinity. It
has much to commend it even on other grounds than that of
affording the perplexed individual a means of escape from the
difficulty of accounting for phenomena in terms of causal
sequence. It would scarcely be in place here to dwell on the
obvious and well-accepted merits of an anthropomorphic divinity,
as seen from the point of view of the aesthetic, moral, or
spiritual interest, or even as seen from the less remote
standpoint of political, military, or social policy.

The misuses of Darwin
(Simon Underdown, The Guardian, 12 November 2009)

For evolutionary scientists there is no such thing as "Darwinism". Instead we have a scientific theory that, in combination with Mendel's work, provides the modern or neo-Darwinian synthesis, which explains the development of life on Earth. Although this is a rather succinct definition it effectively sets the limits of the usefulness of Darwin's theory. However, in the last 150 years, there have been many attempts to take Darwin's idea and apply it outside of the context for which it was developed, hence the influence of social "Darwinism" on concepts such as eugenics and a more recent Darwinian nihilism that absolves the individual of any moral or social responsibility.

There is an inherent danger in extrapolating science beyond the realm for which it was intended, but ironically this human trait is perhaps best understood as an evolutionary hangover from the development of our massively expanded brainpower. We have an innate need to expand and develop ideas in order to explain our wider existence or justify our behaviours.

This inherent danger of using Darwin's theory outside of its biological context has lead to attempts to portray Darwin as the de facto cause of 20th century genocide: see, for example, Andre Pichot's book The Pure Society. There is a fallacy at the core of this line of thinking " can scientists really be held responsible for what is done with their ideas when they are misunderstood and corrupted by groups such as the Nazis? I would argue that they cannot: the actions of criminals do not need such highbrow justification and trying to do so merely lends a pseudo-scientific veneer the actions of the Third Reich.

A newer and perhaps more insidious attempt to blame "Darwinism" for human atrocity comes in the form of Dennis Sewell's book The Political Gene: How Darwin's Ideas Changed Politics. Sewell cites Darwin's work as the reason for the development of something that he broadly categorises as a form of moral detachment from societal rules and norms: evolution is random and without purpose therefore I can do whatever I please. He argues that this moral vacuum can lead to disturbed teenagers perpetrating horrific crimes such as the Columbine school massacre. Sewell does not propose that Darwin's theory leads inevitably to such actions, however he suggests that some of Darwin's other writings were racist and not in keeping with modern views. This is hardly a stunning revelation: Darwin was a man of his time and of his society. Sewell is making a common mistake in grafting the faults and flaws of Darwin the man onto Darwinian evolution. Darwin the man has been venerated and condemned during the 2009 celebrations " surely it is now time to move on from either hero worship or iconoclasm to a more nuanced view, just as evolutionary biology has developed since 1859.

An interesting parallel can be seen in how Islamists subvert the essentially peaceful message of Islam into a justification for violence and vitriolic hate. One can no more blame the actions of misguided Islamists on Muhammad than the Nazis or high school shooters can be blamed on Darwin.

Humans have a tremendous capacity for selflessness and creativity but we also have an equally developed ability to cause destruction and misery. Both extremes are a result of our evolutionary heritage. If we blame Darwin for the dark side of human nature, logically we must also credit him with all that is good.

1--Is my lone fight not evidence of my faith in the position I have taken.

2--As I support the status quo, and have all along, then tf is saying that the status quo is incoherent. My policy is perfectly coherent. I am opposed to atheism being the only religion in schools and I'm opposed to Darwin's ideas being used in a half-baked fashion as a lever to get atheism into schools.

3--I have never said that "inteigent designe" should be part of science classes. tf is simply blurting without having read the thread. Some form of ID is present in every school and every community.

4--tf is not qualified to take part in this debate and neither are you. You are both batting against religion, and religion in a very watered down form, for personal and selfish reasons to do with God knows what. Neither of you have read anything significant on this subject which is why all your contributions are infantile. I very much doubt you could even read the Veblen quote and your obvious avoidance of it is evidence for that.

Darwinism is used as a broadly general euphemism for atheism with no room for agnostics or deists. These so-called people of faith also fail to explain what their religion means and uncover not a whit of scientific evidence supporting any supernatural being or "designer" (a schizophrenic designer at that). That one is a British prig and a troll doesn't prejudice any of us towards those across the pond. You'd find more atheists, agnostics and deists there than here. On one hand wanting to defend American prigs who are Creationuts and IDiots yet have an obvious bias towards all Americans is a typical example of a lowly priggish troll.