Mr. Tangarone, a 17-year veteran of the Weston school system, claims that a program he wanted to teach about Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln was rejected by the school administration because it involved teaching evolution — the scientific theory that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor.The response of the school administrator, Mark Ribbens, is astounding:
“I find it hard to believe that in this day and age that a teacher such as myself can be ordered to eliminate the teaching of Darwin’s work and the theory of evolution,” he said.
“While evolution is a robust scientific theory, it is a philosophically unsatisfactory explanation for the diversity of life. I could anticipate that a number of our parents might object to this topic as part of a TAG project, and further, parents who would object if evolution was part of a presentation by a student to students who do not participate in the TAG program.”Philosophically unsatisfactory explanation for the diversity of life? If it is a scientifically satisfactory explanation for the diversity of life, and it is being taught as science, what difference does it make how philosophically unsatisfactory it is? Is that how we are to treat all scientific disciplines? There are, doubtless, those who would treat modern astronomy's explanation of the origins of the cosmos as "philosophically unsatisfactory." Should we not teach it on that basis? Should we not teach modern geology? It conflicts with flood geology, which many people find philosophically satisfactory, even if it has no scientific merit.
Those who let philosophical predilections hijack their duty to teach good science have no business in the education field and should step down or, as in the case of Don McLeroy, be voted out of office.
Hat tip to BioLogos.
Now playing: Peter Gabriel - Red Rain