Secular Humanism and Evolution

“The United States Supreme Court has ruled that Humanism, also known as Secular Humanism and Religious Humanism, is a bona fide religion.  Evolution serves as a doctrine for that religion.  That vital information is not passed on to students and parents.”  Randall Hedtke

“The typical evolution curriculum is a masterpiece of deception, not only for the absence of counterinduction, but the censoring of information that is downright unfavorable to evolution [e.g., Cambrian Explosion].”  Ibid.

How To Teach Evolution

Randall Hedtke, The Washington Times, May 27, 2013, p. 33

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that Humanism, also known as Secular Humanism and Religious Humanism, is a bona fide religion. Evolution serves DarwinismOrIntelligentDesign1as a doctrine for that religion. That vital information is not passed on to students and parents. In other words, evolution has a religious role that could conceivably violate the First Amendment when taught in public schools. Charles Darwin chose not to follow investigative protocol when he researched the idea of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. The” protocol consists of considering alternative points of view (counterinduction) for each item of evolution evidence. Darwin
claimed it was impossible to consider alternative points of view. The other protocol component is the supremacy of facts over theories and hypotheses. Giving facts supremacy over hypotheses means that a single absolute conflict between fact and hypothesis is fatal to the hypothesis. I will refer to the supremacy of fact over hypotheses as Jevons’ elementary rule of logic. Philosophers of science insist that science cannot exist without counterinduction; it is. the bulwark against an investigator’s bias. Real science adheres to investigative protocol. The science establishment allowed Darwin to dispense with counterinduction which, in essence, means mat evolution science is pseudo-science.

Darwin’s rejection of counterinduction means that evolution is tailored to enhance the credibility of Humanism. In Edwards v. Aguilard Court ruled against tailoring an explanation for origins in order to enhance the credibility of religions. Apparently the Court was not privy of Darwin’s decision to dispense with counterinduction.

Educators cannot in good conscience teach a tailored  evolution  curriculum.  Not  only because it may violate the Constitution, but because it violates educational codes of ethics. Educators cannot compromise their professional standards in order to cover up the science establishment’s substandard professionalism. The typical secondary school evolution curriculum is doctrine masquerading as theory. The educator’s recourse to reformat the curriculum by holding it ” accountable to investigative protocol.

Early on in the unit students classify the evolution evidence according to quality. Because textbooks omit counterinduction, students may get the incorrect impression that all of the evolution evidence is highly reliable. Actually, nearly all of the evolution evidence is of poor quality untestable/ circumstantial evidence, meaning it is obviously open to alternative points of view. For example, the counterinductive explanation for the evidence for alleged human evolution is that the remains are that of extinct species of primates or extinct races of humans having nolhing to do with an alleged evolutionary procesfi. That explanation is also untestable but it is compatible to supernatural explanations for origins. Failing to consider that explanation is to denigrate supernatural explanations. Atheistic evolution is the orthodox version that textbooks present, On the other hand, the fossil record is testable forensic evidence Of the earth’s organic past.

The typical evolution curriculum is a masterpiece of deception, not only for the absence of counterinduction, but the censoring of information that is downright unfavorable to evolution. For example, Darwin twice surrendered to Jevons rule of logic. Once because of negative forensic evidence and the other time because of an insurmountable point of logic. Darwinian evolution predicts the discovery of numerous intermediate fossils. They were not “forthcoming, forcing this response from Darwin: “The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by thefinest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory.” A theory that fails to fulfill a prediction is indefensible. When taken at face value Jevons’ rule of logic kicks in regarding the fossil record.

The insurmountable point of logic has to do with natural selection’s incipiency problem which was brought to Darwin’s attention by St. George Mivart: “Natural selection utterly fails to account for the conservation and development of the minute rudimentary beginnings, the slight and infinitesimal commencement of structures, however useful those structures may afterward become.” In the last edition of the Origin Darwin agreed with Mivart: “I have now considered enough, perhaps more than enough, of the cases selected with care by a skillful naturalist to prove that natural selection is incompetent to account for incipient stages of useful structures; and I hope, that there is no great difficulty on this head.” Obviously, if natural selection cannot account for the beginning of a structure, before it has a function, it cannot account for the existence of any structures. Darwin then tried, superficially, to promote other mechanisms for evolution which explains the last part of the quote. Natural selection’s incipiency problem and the absence of intermediate fossils are mutually supportive. Natural selection’s incipiency problem predicts the absence of intermediate fossils. A viable mechanism for evolution does not exist. There is no,legitimate reason why students should be denied that information.

Because Darwin, by admission and deed, determined not to adhere to investigative protocol and the science establishment acquiesced, a dogmatic evolution curriculum was created. It is a curriculum that flagrantly violates educational idealism to the point that it is ethically impossible to teach. Darwin’s impossibility to adhere to investigative protocol becomes education’s impossibility to teach it.

 

Advertisements

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: