One of the reasons the ultra-left supports teaching evolution...and ONLY evolution...in the public schools is that it fits their political agenda. A godless world where life just sort of happened to come into existence, and then just "evolved" of its own accord into the many lifeforms we see today, including humans, is similar to Marxism. Life is seen as purposeless, godless, and constantly evolving to a higher state. That higher state, of course, is seen as leftism. It's inherent in their use of the word "progressive" to describe their politics. They're more "evolved" than we conservatives are.
This isn't to say that Darwinian theory doesn't include aspects the left dislikes. The left despises natural selection, which is the aspect of Darwinism that is most likely correct. Natural selection produces what the left hates most: natural inequality.
So if the left has some problems with Darwin over the issue of natural selection, why are they so adamant that ONLY Darwinian theory be taught to the kiddies?
Here's the answer:
Remember the old "Fairness Doctrine"? It required broadcast media to give equal time to opposing views. This generally stifled OVERT political activism by the media. If Walter Cronkite had endorsed the Democrats or some liberal cause OVERTLY, CBS would have had to give equal time to opposing views, something they didn't want to do. But leftism prevailed in the media by being covert. CBS never officially endorsed the Democrats, but they biased their coverage by their choice of which stories to cover (GOP scandal gets big coverage, Dem scandal gets none) or by the tilt of the news story (if feminists object to a textbook then it's a story about fighting evil "sexism", while if parents dislike a textbook it's a story about "censorship").
By following this template, the liberal media pushed the leftist agenda for decades. They're still doing it, as we see with their grandiose coverage of the so-called Plame CIA leak and their non-coverage of Sandy Berger's archives theft. But with the Fairness Doctrine now gone, conservatives have been able to fight back with alternative media (talk radio, FOX News), and we've also been helped by the internet.
The entire public school system is geared toward denying that natural selection occurs. It's a system based on equality, not excellence. It's also militantly secularist. As occurred with the Fairness Doctrine, the entire public education system is designed to further the left's agenda. The left knows full well that the implications of Darwinism which they dislike will be downplayed or even denied. Can you imagine what would happen to a high school science teacher who delved heavily into the ramifications of natural selection, in terms of equality and inequality? In terms of individual, group, or gender differences? He'd be fired.
So the left knows that their problems with Darwinian theory (natural selection) will be downplayed and overriden by every other aspect of public school education. The Darwinian aspects they like (randomness, godlessness, "progress") will be reinforced by the rest of the school curriculum.
Like the Fairness Doctrine, the current evolution regime in the schools doesn't allow for overtness. It simply establishes a template in which leftism & secularism are taken as a given while conservatism & the existence of God are "outside the mainstream". It's a system they're quite happy with.
"A godless world where life just sort of happened to come into existence, and then just "evolved" of its own accord into the many lifeforms we see today . . ."
"Life is seen as purposeless, godless . . ."
"The Darwinian aspects they like (randomness, godlessness . . ."
So if one accepts the theory of evolution (which, btw, says nothing about how life commenced) as the best current, scientific explanation for biological development and diversification, one necessarily rejects God?
Thanks for your post.
I never considered the point that natural selection tends against Marxist ideology. The extent to which atheistic assumptions have become predominant in science textbooks warrants a more level-headed approach, but the controversy should be reserved for later years. Nomenclature and factual explanations of how things work would suffice until high school age. The bottom line is that public schools ought to reflect the pluralistic nature of the population lest it tacitly engage in the establishment of religion, including atheism. If they cannot do this, then it is time for the fedral government to desist from allocating tax money to public schools.