With the onset of someone like DeVos the left needs to get smart about evolutionism/darwinism. I have no idea what agenda the dread DeVos has in mind, and the question of creationism in the schools is understandably of concern to the non-religious but the question of ‘evolution’ is not the same as ‘darwinism’. And the design argument is not the same as the creationist argument: the latter is so primitive theologically as to be datedly infantile at this point. The ‘ID’ groups have a more nuanced and updated ‘design’ argument which may or may not be ‘stealth creationism’ but which is intelligible on its own terms. It is a species of reductionist lunacy to hold down the fort on darwinism, i.e. taken as the same as the theory of evolution, after so much exposure of the theory’s flaws. So if scientists want to keep creationism/ID out of the schools they should stop provoking religionists who know perfectly well that natural selection is a deception and discuss the issue of ‘design’ in scientific terms. In the process it is cogent to critique the biblical design argument and to demand a critique of the false equation of biblical design historicism and evolutionary design arguments, what to say of the distinction of ‘design’ and ‘intelligent design’, the latter closing the gap between the intelligibly coherent design argument and the crypto-theistic (or not!) case for some kind of ‘intelligence’ in nature. The issue is not the incorrectness of design but their complexity and near obscurity in the suggestion of teleological issues still at the threshold of science.
Scientists/secularists need to toss in the towel on design arguments and, for those who are obsessed with the Dawkins fundamentalist abuse of natural selection to debunk theology, adopt an ‘atheist design’ argument, a discourse long overdue in evolutionary/cosmological circles. We have suggested here many ways to do that, and have also warned the question may be so far insoluble, in Kantian terms, the reason WHEE has so much material on the issue of the ‘critique of metaphysics’. It is one thing to critique religious viewpoints, it is another to promote the sterile and provocative views of scientism on man. Religionists understandably gag on this and wish the subject to be more intelligently taught in schools.
In the Trump era, it has become critically important to stop deceiving the public about the nature of science with respect to evolution. It is a strategy to hand the right victory on a platter. It is hard to think of a subject as best categorized as ‘junk science’ as darwinism.
Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s pick as secretary of education, has funded groups that champion “intelligent design,” a sophisticated outgrowth of creationism. Science educators worry that she could use her bully pulpit to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.