The K-12 public education setting is where established science is taught, not new, controversial science (if you could in fact extricate the religious base from Intelligent Design). Get it to be the dominant theory, then you can expect it to get down to the K-12 schools. Until then, you are trying to do a dishonest end-run around the process.
Evolution is a key political tool of the left in creating a universe for our children that has no need of a Creator
This is where you betray that your real objection to evolution is not a scientific one. You want it out of schools because it offends your religious and social sensibilities, not because of any supposed lack of scientific merit. I remember statements such as these whenever someone tries to pass Intelligent Design off as science.
Evolution, like global warming, was hatched in an ideologically powered birth chamber
Evolution was "hatched" by highly religious Christians in an environment where those who supported it were branded as heretics, and later even put on trial. Yes, Darwin was a Christian when he started formulating his theory of natural selection; in fact, he rather annoyed others on the Beagle with his constant quoting of scripture. It survived religious, political, legal and scientific attacks for decades before it came to the forefront of science. Even the powerful Lord Kelvin was an opponent. That is a sign of a strong scientific theory.
Its history has no comparison with the history of global warming, which was latched onto and supported by politicians pretty much from the beginning. With so much support from the highest levels of international governments, there's pretty much no way it could fail, at least in the short term. But the short term is all the politicians need, maybe 40 or so years to remake the world as they want it using a time-tested political tool called threat of catastrophe. After that it won't matter if the public realizes global warming is a fraud, the damage will have been done.
No one is objective, my FRiend. I merely put my biases forward openly for your consideration.
As you have not answered my demonstration that junk science can also be dominant science for centuries, I must suppose that you accept the premise, rendering your “it’s right because it’s dominant” argument meaningless ... again.
As for your view of the sanctity of secular education, my dad was a K-12 science/math teacher for decades and then a principal in the Chicago public schools for more decades and if you truly believe that said schools are a beacon of “established” scientific objectivity then we are from different planets, because both my personal experience, my dad’s experience, and my broader research in the area indicate that flawed, biased human beings are involved, but who for economic reasons tend to hide their strong biases behind a patina of compliance with the reigning secular orthodoxy. It is a closed system that does not admit “heretics,” regardless of whether said heresy is rational, if the a priori presuppositions of an autocratic few at the top of the pyramid are the least bit threatened. It is entirely religious in character.
As for my religion being my “real” reason for objecting to evolution, you create a false dichotomy. Scientific facts are important to religious people too. We all have a vested interest in good science. There is no necessary conflict between religious belief and scientific observation. They are both paths to truth. Therefore, while my religion does suggest a certain prism for viewing scientific data, so does yours. Better to admit you’re wearing tinted glasses than to pretend you’re the only one in the room who sees the world as it truly is.
As for your history of the genesis of evolution, it’s a head scratcher. Darwin dropped his bomb right in the middle of the Enlightenment, which was anything but Christian, and the theory was quickly taken up and championed as a way to elevate rational materialism as a replacement for traditional theology and thus throw off the shackles of Victorian prudery. And the evidence suggests that Darwin himself, who had at one time thought to be a preacher, devolved from his early faith to something not recognizable as Christian at all. Ideas have their impact, given enough time. So I do not believe your presentation of the history of the theory is correct. I am open to new insights, but it would help if you would name names and cite specific incidents to support your view, as everything may turn on a matter of interpretation.
Peace,
SR