Back to my point if you will; where did the review of Darwin's SWAG take place before it was presented to the first school district? Darwin's musings were adopted based on legal cases, not on academic presentations.
The "theory" of evolution is a political tool and not the basis for any scientific discipline. There is a reason for teaching impressionable young people to accept a rigid dogma such as the evolutionary twaddle introduced to students in biology classes in jr.high school. That reason is to get young people used to the idea of being told what to think instead of leading them into learning how to think.
That's the difference between education and indoctrination. Indoctrination is telling a student what to think. Education is helping him discover how to think for himself.
This is not true. The people who teach evolution really believe it. It doesn't help your case to overstate it, or impugn the motives of your opponents.
Perhaps if you had read the documents I had provided, you would know the answer to that question.
Back to my point if you will; where did the review of Darwin's SWAG take place before it was presented to the first school district? Darwin's musings were adopted based on legal cases, not on academic presentations.
How Darwin presented his work went beyond just writing The Origin of Species, as he had presented his work to his peers before publication. They didn't have (many) peer reviewed journals back then where people could lay out their work, but instead they did give presentations to their peers. And that is what he did, as well as providing published work. Darwin's work may have had to have been forced into public schools, but that's only because the evidence was much to strong for it to stay out.
The "theory" of evolution is a political tool and not the basis for any scientific discipline. There is a reason for teaching impressionable young people to accept a rigid dogma such as the evolutionary twaddle introduced to students in biology classes in jr.high school. That reason is to get young people used to the idea of being told what to think instead of leading them into learning how to think. That's the difference between education and indoctrination. Indoctrination is telling a student what to think. Education is helping him discover how to think for himself.
If you think that's how the current school system works, then perhaps you didn't learn anything at all. Ignorance is bliss, eh?
Yes, I am familiar with Bible Study classes.
Well said. There are other areas, other than biology, where schools are indoctrinating our young:
1) "Racheal Carson is a hero" - Her book "Silent Spring" was very influential in restricting the use of DDT. Schools present her as a hero for the environment. The schools don't teach how all of the claims against DDT usage have been refuted and that malaria, that could have been controlled by DDT, has killed tens of millions.
2) "Humans are causing global warming" - This is drummed into young heads of mush from K through 12. The evidence against this silliness is never presented.
3) "Guns are bad" - No evidence is ever presented at all. No discussion of Constitutional rights ever takes place.
And so on. In the case of Darwinism, I would be happier if biology teachers simply pointed out the huge holes in Darwinism and left it as an "I don't know" and "Darwinism is far from being a complete explanation". Instead it is presented as "this is fact" or "this is what happened", much like when teachers discuss global warming - "this is fact".