Bonk Job Misunderstands "Critical Thinking"

Is encouraging critical thinking unconstitutional?

No, but teaching religious dogma as if it were science is.

The sticker states: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

And, of course, the Fundies have a problem with evolution. Know what I have a problem with? Parading fantasy around as if it were reality. I'd like to see all Bibles contain a sticker stating, "This book contains myths, fairy tales, legends, and moral lessons based loosely on events which could have happened but, just as likely, didn't. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered". Can you imagine?

Judge Cooper continued with his explanation for finding an Establishment Clause violation: "evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science. To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists."

Well, there we have it. Scientific "truth" by majority rule.

Bzzdt. Wrong. It's scientific truth by peer reviewed scientific scrutiny. Scientific theories pass muster not based on a majority rule vote, but by scientific review which, apparently, looks like a simple vote of opinion to a slack-jawed Bonk Job.

Christian "fundamentalists" and "creationists" make for convenient whipping boys in lieu of reasoned analysis, even when they are calling for an open mind in scientific inquiry.

That's an interesting statement given the amazing lack of open mindedness and reasoned analysis prevalent in Christianity.

The theory of evolution has far too long been shielded from critical examination.

Thus sayeth the Bonk Job. Of course, what they say and the truth of reality aren't always (often?) coincident. The theory of evolution has been exposed to (and weathered) critical examination -- by scientists, no less! -- since it's inception. That's not to say that it won't ever change or even, one day, be thrown out altogether for a better scientific theory, but hey...that's how science works.

Flew wrote that biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved."

I love this argument. It's akin to saying that, due to the astronomical odds against winning the lottery, those who have won it, in fact, cheated.

Students must be allowed to think for themselves about this important matter of life's origin. Cobb County's disclaimer was a welcome step in that direction.

Because students -- not scientists -- are the experts on the matter? Come on now. If there's one thing that school should be intended to do, it should be to teach students to be critical thinkers. Still, they're not experts, so to propose that the final decision be left to them is to misunderstand the role that real experts play. And to undermine scientific theory in favor of religious fantasy is hardly a step in the direction of teaching students the skills of critical thought.

If the federal judiciary is really interested in academic and intellectual freedom as cases not involving "creationists" and "fundamentalists" would suggest, it is time for them to stop crusading against critical thinking simply because "fundamentalists" and "creationists" are for it.

What the Bonk Jobs fail to understand is that it is precisely in the interest of critical thought that the judiciary has banned the warning labels on science books.

It's a terrible case of the pot calling the kettle black for Christians, who've waged a crusade against critical thought for the past 2 millenia, to criticize anyone -- especially a group as reknowned for critical thought as scientists -- of blocking criticism.