NSF spends 2 million to create Darwin indoctrination lesson plans

The NSF is, of course, the National Science Foundation. And the 2 million, of course, came from the pockets of taxpayers.

Here’s the post at Evolution News.

Excerpt:

The goal of the Evolution Readiness Project is to get “young children” to “believe in” evolution. According to the National Science Foundation’s website, they’ve spent $1,990,459 of taxpayer-funded National Science Foundation (NSF) dollars to bankroll this project. Welcome back to school.

The agenda of the project is further clarified in the NSF Grant Award Abstract which states that it aims “to support a learning progression leading to an appreciation of the theory of evolution and evidence that supports it.” That’s fine, but why only the evidence that supports evolution?

Only the evidence in favor of Darwinism? What about the evidence against Darwinism?

The project justifies its dogmatic approach by promoting the myth that there is no scientific dissent from the consensus view on natural selection:

Yet, essentially there is universal agreement among scientists that evolution by natural selection is the fundamental model that explains the extraordinary complexity and interdependence of the living world. Moreover, evolution by natural selection is a quintessential scientific theory, explaining an extraordinary collection of data, including much that Darwin himself was unaware of, with a small collection of powerful ideas.

Of course, it is not true that “essentially there is universal agreement among scientists” about evolution by natural selection. Over 850 Ph.D. scientists have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism of modern evolutionary theory’s “claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life,” and urge that “[c]areful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

The rest of the article lists a stack of non-Christian, non-theistic scientists who doubt the efficacy of Darwinian mechanisms to explain macro-evolution.

Darwinism is “hide the decline” applied to the history of life.

5 thoughts on “NSF spends 2 million to create Darwin indoctrination lesson plans”

  1. There are more PhD scientists with the first name of Steve that have signed the counter petition. indicating that there is major debate amongst scientists is hyperbole and is only being pushed by antiscience organizations like the Discovery Institute.

    Like

  2. “What about the evidence against Darwinism?”

    If by “Darwinism” you mean modern evolutionary synthesis, I’ve never seen any. What evidence are you talking about?

    Like

    1. Let’s start with two. The origin of life and the Cambrian explosion.

      OOL:
      https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/could-life-have-emerged-spontaneously-on-the-early-earth/

      CE:
      https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/does-the-cambrian-explosion-disprove-darwinian-evolution/

      And be sure and watch at least one debate on the issue before commenting again, so that I know that you’ve heard BOTH SIDES, since you admit you formed your opinion by listening to one side only.

      Here’s a short one:
      https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/how-well-do-darwinists-do-in-debates-with-skeptics/

      Like

      1. Some of the details in your article about the CE are false, such as the length of the period. Some more accurate facts can be found here.

        Evolution does not cover abiogenesis, so I am not sure why you raise this point, hence “origin of species” rather than “origin of life”.

        At the moment all alternative hypothesis have not gained enough evidence to be able to compare to the incumbent theory. There are some great debaters in the ID crowd, however once you get past the rhetoric there is little scientific substance.

        What amount/type of evidence would convince you that evolution is an accurate theory? If you can not define this then you are not basing your views on evidence. Alternatively, what evidence against ID would make you dismiss that as a valid hypothesis?

        Like

        1. For me, evidence that speciation is possible and/or has happened, rather than presupposed by the system that is supposed to prove it would work.

          Even the most strident defenders of the evolutionary model that I’ve managed to have a 2nd layer (and beyond) discussion with admit that this is the big problem: speciation.

          Origin of Species? Problem is Speciation? The whole system has a problem.

          From observed limitations of change in husbandry and plant modification to a vast number of falsified attempts by evolutionists to prove that speciation has happened (polyploidalism in plants, russian wood mice are two that are still dogmatically being held to last I looked, despite being taken behind the wood shed even by evolutionists…)

          Evolutionary theory’s greatest strength is that it best fits the model that it presupposes.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s