The Discovery Institute has given an “award” for “Most Dogmatic Indoctrinator In An Evolutionary Biology Course.” Personally, I think that this post deserves an award for “stupidest pretend award.” Since when is teaching reality indoctrination? Seriously, an intelligent design proponent talking about indoctrination makes my head hurt.
Randy Crowther starts off the post with this outlandish statement:
It seems that dogmatic Darwinists will now applaud efforts to consistently suppress scientific criticism of modern evolutionary theory.
No. Evolutionists applaud efforts to suppress pseudoscientific criticisms of evolutionary theory, but real criticisms and unanswered questions are welcomed. Pretending that unanswered questions, logical fallacies, and willfully ignorant remarks are valid criticisms is preposterous. Yet that is all that intelligent design proponents bring to the conversation
The Discovery Institute gave this “award” to Randy Moore, Ph.D. Besides a quote from Dr. Moore, Crowther doesn’t really state why he is guilty of indoctrination. Here is the quote:
“The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming and comes from diverse disciplines, such as molecular biology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, ethology, and biochemistry. There is no controversy among biologists about whether evolution occurs, nor are there science-based alternative theories,” states Dr. Moore. “Evolution is a unifying theme in biology; teaching it as such is the best way to show students what biology is about and how they can use evolution as a tool to understand our world. [Evolution] is as important an idea as there is in science – it is a great gift to give to students,” says Dr. Moore.
I wanted to include the quote because he made a couple of really important points. The first is how so many different disciplines provide support for evolution. Having evidence coming from so many different directions makes a strong theory. Moore also brings up how there is no controversy among scientists. Also good for a theory when so many people support it. Finally, he talks about how using evolution to explain how certain aspects in biology arose leads to a deeper understanding of the world around us.
Obviously, the Discovery Institute disagrees:
First the evidence supporting evolution isn’t as overwhelming or mountianous as Moore claims. Jonathan Wells proved this with Icons of Evolution which still causes conniption fits for Darwinists. More recently, the new supplementary biology text from Hill House Publishers, Explore Evolution,
Is he seriously going to say that two unscientific books (Icons of Evolution and Explore Evolution) can discredit the work of thousands of scientists? There is a mountain of evidence for evolution, despite Crowther’s willful ignorance.
Second, there’s no knowing what Moore means when he says there’s “no controversy … Obviously there is no controversy over microevolution, change over time. But there is huge controversy among scientists over evolution if you mean macroevolution. Witness the Dissent from Darwin list where hundreds of scientists proclaim their skepticism.
A fraction of scientists in unrelated fields saying they don’t believe in evolution is meaningless. The vast majority of relevant scientists do believe in evolution (see Project Steve). Does the fact that people literally believe in astrology, aliens living among us, or a hollow earth mean that there isn’t a consensus against those things? Of course not and the same is true for evolution.
Besides, there is no real difference between micro- and macroevolution in evolutionary theory. Small changes over short periods equals large changes over long periods. It is an artificial distinction made for convenience similar to microeconomics vs. macroeconomics. What happens at the micro scale effects what happens at the macro scale.
Crowther’s last point:
Third, Darwinian evolution is not a theory of everything. To claim it the unifying theory of all biology is laughable.
Moore did not say that it was a theory of everything. He said “Evolution is a “unifying theme in biology.” Just like supply and demand in economics, evolution can explain a good deal of the aspects of biology: included but not limited to antibiotic resistance, vestigial organs, gene homology, phylogenetic trees, and geographically isolated species.
Crowther concludes with:
It’s pretty pathetic when a scientific theory like Darwinism has to be propped up through indoctrination. Worse, those who lie to their students will now be rewarded for doing so. Orwellian isn’t it.
What is pathetic is that there is a group of people so desperate for evolution not to be true that they are willing to deny the most logical theory and the evidence that supports it while supporting a theory based on absolutely no evidence. It is pathetic to call someone a liar for teaching the only theory with evidence to support it.
I personally don’t know Dr. Moore, but after seeing him get this award from the Discovery Institute, I would love to meet him and shake his hand.