Weâ€™re all for open and objective discussions of scientific theories, right? Who wouldnâ€™t be? If your kids are taking physics in high school, you want them to read critiques of gravity, right? After all, shouldnâ€™t they know that there are some serious weaknesses in the theory of gravity? Right? For instance, the theory of gravity says that gravity makes things fall down. But planets donâ€™t fall into the sun. They go around it. So which is itâ€“down or around? Clearly the theory of gravity is deficient. Right?
Trying to criticize the Lousiana law Zimmer makes this statement, but the reasoning is false. First, you can critique gravity anytime you please, but the results with a good scientific theory are unlikely to dislodge this piece of good science. But then, which theory of gravity is referred to? Newton, or Einstein’s?
The theory of gravitation is solid science, while the theory of natural selection of Darwin is flawed science, an ideology serving an agenda, and the inexorable challenge to it springs from that fact.
The inability of those trained in science to grasp the limits of Darwin’s theory is the result of that training, backed up by the suppression of critics, witness the current regime of sophmoric idiots at Scienceblogs whose intimidation tactics designed to produce conformity or silence is the final result of that impoverished training.