1 Thanks for submitting the article. Short-but-sweet! Hope you have time to see this and the other submissions as the Darwin is Dead Carnival on my blog...

2 I have a question about your definition of "Darwinist dogma."

Darwin said nothing about genetic drift (i.e., no selection involved), yet every non-ID believer and non-creationist I know accepts the mountains of evidence for its existence.

If we only adhere to Darwinist dogma, how is it that we accept that loads of evolution occurs by mechanisms that didn't occur to Darwin?

3 Hmm... what's that "of evolutionary theory" doing in there? I mean, why single that out, instead of just saying "of everything the students are taught in science classes"? Or are the students NOT supposed to analyze critically everything they are taught, with the big exception of evolutionary theory?

What's the point of that?


Until that's explained, I suggest y'all tone down the "kids aren't supposed to think critically in school" kind of comments, an example of which is presented above: "instead, they are [...] presented only evidence in support of scientific theories, but not any evidence that may call such theories into doubt."

I suppose that should read: "they are [...] presented only evidence in support of all scientific theories except for the theory of evolution, but not any evidence that may call such theories (except for the theory of evolution) into doubt."

4 That "critically analyze" language in the Ohio standards was just part of a general stealth effort by certain Board of Ed members to insert propaganda for creationist/anti-evolution content. The otherwise-hard-to-explain singling out of evolution that commenters above point out is just the beginning.

The standards came attached to a "model lesson plan," offered as an optional template for Ohio science teachers, that was loaded with exactly the sort of Intelligent Design and even old-fashioned Creationist content that has been debunked a million times *and* thrown out as unconstitutional in case after case.

The Board's advisory committee of scientists told the Board members behind the model lesson plan that it was full of misleading and untrue material criticizing evolutionary theory, even using such words as "lies." This fact was kept from other Board members when the "critical analysis" standard and lesson plan were previously voted on and passed; these members' discovery of how they'd been misled helped lead to the change in this latest vote. One of the members who led the charge against the "critical analysis" material identifies herself as a creationist, but she recognized the standards as bad ones and recognized that she'd been duped.

This is a typical tactic of anti-evolutionists: change the label, keep the content and protest and deny mightily when people don't buy it. That's the tactic behind the facelift for Creationism that produced Intelligent Design, and behind the facelift that has now replaced ID with "critical analysis" or "teach the controversy."