This isn't a complete answer by any means, but as we see it education does not seem to be about education anymore. It is now more about money and selling hardware and software gimmickry with uderlying jobs programs for a few "elite". In the process basic education including the traditional lecture has been thrown out and disengaged students. There are numerous fake educational programs one can point to for this evidence. For instance the Cirriculum On Wheels (COW) program run by Neil Bush, the SHODOR-CSERD and Voyager programs are such endeavors. In fact the Voyager program was a million dollar program to shift some of those funds back the sponsor, Mary Landieu for her re-elction campaign. Nothing more nothing less.

Thanks

http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html

Better late than never.... Darwin borrowed "survival of the fittest" from Malthus. I spent 2 decades teaching science to mostly resistant young Americans. My best students rejected careers in science choosing instead to study business or law. The rest of them just wanted to make lots of money and could see nothing in science that would help them toward that goal. All in all, they perfectly reflected the American society they were growing up in.

Long Live The Apes!!! Everyone knows that God made the Ape in his image....

I'm proud to be a member of the ape family.

Yes, old rascal, Americans are crazy regarding Darwin and genetics. My fundamentalist Christian sister rejects Darwin and the theory of evolution, but breeds collies and Himalayan cats and is very careful of her bloodlines because of the genetic havoc that results when heed is not taken.

See: http://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/index.html

...especially Ch.XI

Thanks BigMoney for your very thoughtful reply. When I look at other apes and primates, I see our cousins.

My guess, forextrader, is that it scares them - it's a threat to their "purity". And a threat to their "perfectness" and "godliness" and "cleanliness" and "moralness" and all those other things they prop up and cling to so they don't have to be concerned with hippieLiberalCommie stuff like open-mindedness, self-awareness, compassion, etc. I think it scares them too to consider that their lifetimes occupy such a tiny sliver of billions of years - they know in their hearts that they are too important for that to be true.

Why do humans, particularly American humans, run away from the true fact that they are hominids (read: apes)? Humans are just highly technical apes, no more, no less.

Fun discussion. A couple more things, before it slips into the archive...

I read an article recently about a Museum of Creationism that was having cash flow problems, and decided to auction off their 90,000,000 year old dinosaur fossil. Um, who did they feel they were defrauding, the visitors or the bidders?

Konservatives know that too much education will make you liberal.

And lastly, I highly recommend Kurt Vonnegut's fine novel, Galapagos. A stunning and compelling journey through the next million years of human evolution.

The early comments in this thread were right on point ... before the discussion got diverted.

A good strong system of public education is (or was) one of the fundamental pillars of our democracy. Its why Americans were the ones to first create a system of public education. Its why early in the union movement you used to see unions insist that extra people be on work crews just to read to the other workers. Its because education is the key to processing information. You've got to have access to information, and you've got to be able to independently think and process the information you get. Both are key to any system of democracy where the decision making power is supposed to lie with the people.

What we've seen over the last 50 years or so is this system under attack by those who don't want a true democracy in this country. Public schools have been under constant attack. Its been going on on a lot of fronts. Some in trying to end public schooling all together and trying to shift its money to private schools (ie, vouchers). Some in attacking teachers and teachers unions. Some in trying to control the curriculum.

That's the key point out of all of this. Our education system is suffering from the wounds of these constant attacks. A constant focus on 'teaching the test' and not teaching people how to think.

They want us stupid.

So, what are we going to do about it? If we've lost control of the system and we can't rely on the system to educate the young-uns, then what do we do? Teach them ourselves. What do we do with the adults who are in the world today without an education? Teach them ourselves.

I'm not an expert on the Black Panthers, but wasn't this one of the things they were doing in some of the communities where they were organized?

If Darwin were wrong about natural selection, then subsequent science would have long ago disproved it. That is the way science works. The fact is that evolution by natural selection is at the heart of our understanding of the earth's history and the life upon it. People believe what they are comfortable with and thus we have a lot of ignorant people who are comforted by their bibles and not science.
It amazes me how people blame Darwin for the misapplication of natural selection by nuts like Hitler and others. Darwin was a very gentle and compassionate human being who may have been a bit culturally bias, but his theory was expounded in the search for truth and for no other reason.

Maybe because to understand a line on a graph that represents y= mx +b you need to know algebra? And to get into a truly dynamic system you need to understand calculus, which is what's going on when x and y aren't constant but are changing over time.

That's partly a smart-ass answer. You can teach subjects like economics without getting into the math. That would be pretty useful at an early high-school level.

But to really understand this stuff, it helps if you know some math.

Globalization is not about educating the masses, it's about keeping them as ignorant slaves under a self-centered, corporate-controlled government.

Have you ever wondered why our educational system teaches algebra, which most of us will never use, but doesn't offer courses in economics until we get to the college level?

Keeping us ignorant of science and economics while brainwashing us with religion has allowed the looters on Wall Street and their government managers to maintain the status quo for the elite corporate insiders while the rest of us continue to pick-up the tab for their insatiable greed.

Education in this country is a joke!

The author seems ignorant too. Darwin did not propose a "theory of evolution", he hypothesized a theory for species differentiation by natural selection. Gravity is not a theory, it is a fact for whose existance there are theories. Evolution is a fact, it is the mechanism by which it takes place that is theoretical, not evolution itself. To deny evolution is as silly as denying the existance of gravity. The US is a country of shallow thinkers, as is consistent with religious belief. Religion promotes shallow thinking, hence the state of the US.

Evolution is a FACT. look at dogs. Look at how we have EVOLVED (changed) dogs over our long relationship. Look at ANY domesticated species, and see it. We can see it in flies. i am not happy about being related to stinky, poop-flinging/eating apes. but it is a FACT. deal with it.
my son wants to be an evolutionary biologist btw. and my local school system unproudly boasts bryan leonard. Social Darwinism (Eugenics, post-nazi) has NOTHING to do with evolution. i am so tired of fighting this fight against idiocy. you want creationism. fine. teach the Ancient Egyptian version, where Ra masturbated the world into existence. don't wanna, then stfu.

back to big money,

You bring up a very valid point, that being that Darwin dose not lay the case out directly for Social Darwinism. That is Social Darwinism in the society. I.E. "let them eat cake, Social Darwinism." I would like to state that Social Darwinism would encompass other facets, the role of 'race' in the competition between states. In my oppnion, after reading his works, we would support both elements of social Darwinism. I would go as far as saying it is the most logical conclusion. A relative of his Robert Galton who coined the term Eugenics, wrote a book 'Hereditary Genius,' which argued that intelligence traveled in families. Galton happened to be related to Darwin. Gave the book positive reviews. Given Darwin's works, being influenced by Robert Malthus, i would assume that Darwin would have thought of the poor dieing off, as acceptable or positive. I would say the major thing is many of my former professors would always say, "Darwin is not a Social Darwinist." Like it were a definitive fact. Given his works, again, i would say Darwin is most likely a social Darwinist. Lastly, he may not have written about his opinions on Social Darwinism, directly, due to the fact Darwin was terrified of public controversy. The HMS Beagle left England in 1831, Darwin did not publish 'the Origin of Species' until 1859, and delayed the publish of 'The Descent of Man' until 1871. And both of the books should really be one. Many speculate that Darwin planed them to be one book. Most of the newer biographies on Darwin share my sentiments on Darwin and Social Darwinism, where as the older books, claim he was not a social Darwinist. It is really funny reading the different books which make opposite claims.

But, of the more important argument i assume we are on the same side, that evolution is the most important force in variation in species, rather then the hand of God.

to Dichterfreund,

It seems you have the "Columbus" view of Darwin. Some think Columbus said, "I am going to sail around the World." to which the rest of the World said, "you'll fall off the edge." Darwin gave a great deal of support to the idea of evolution, rather then come up with the idea. He did come up the correct mechanisms for evolution, but he was not the first. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck came up with evolution before Darwin, but did not have the proper mechanisms of evolution.

"The eternal silence of these infinite spaces frightens me".

teach fact (evolution) instead of fiction (whatever any cult or religion if there is a difference says)

wikipedia: Extraterrestrial life:
All life on Earth is made up of the building block element carbon. In addition, water is the solvent in which biochemical reactions take place. This carbon and water combination may have formed other creatures on other planets with roughly the same make up.
...
Pure water is useful because it has a neutral pH, due to its continued dissociation between hydroxide and hydronium ions. As a result, it can dissolve both positive metallic ions and negative non-metallic ions with equal ability. Furthermore, the fact that organic molecules can be either hydrophobic (repelled by water) or hydrophilic (soluble in water) creates the ability of organic compounds to orient themselves to form water-enclosing membranes. The fact that solid water (ice) is less dense than liquid water also means that ice floats, thereby preventing Earth's oceans from slowly freezing solid. Additionally, the Van der Waals forces between water molecules give it an ability to store energy with evaporation, which upon condensation is released. This helps moderate climate, cooling the tropics and warming the poles, helping to maintain a thermodynamic stability needed for life.

Carbon is fundamental to terrestrial life for its immense flexibility in creating covalent chemical bonds with a variety of non-metallic elements, principally nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen. Carbon dioxide and water together enable the storage of solar energy in sugars, such as glucose. The oxidation of glucose releases biochemical energy needed to fuel all other biochemical reactions.
...
other elements and solvents could also provide a basis for life. Silicon is most often deemed to be the probable alternative to carbon. Silicon life forms are proposed to have a crystalline morphology, and are theorized to be able to exist in high temperatures, such as on planets which are very close to their star.
...
technically life is little more than any self-replicating reaction, which could arise in a great many conditions and with various ingredients, though carbon-oxygen within the liquid temperature range of water seems most conducive.

Everyone knows Darwin is a charlatan. Nostradamus, Sylvia Brown, Cleo, Dr. Phil, Bozo the Clown--what's the difference? When will the rest of the world realize the world is only 6,000 years old? When will they realize that we are not monkeys? I will always find my God in the scientific gaps of modern discovery. You should too.

"People who breed animals knew about as much about genetics as Darwin."

Darwin knew nothing about genetics BECAUSE GENES HADN'T BEEN DISCOVERED.

"Also, Darwin was recruited by Captian Robert FitzRoy, to sail on the Beagle to disprove evolution."

Darwin was employed by the captain to disprove a theory which had not yet been formulated?

From "God and Man at Yale" to the present campaign against science, the American right wing has found its chief enemy in education -- the most recent victims of the campaign have been Ward Churchill and Norman Finkelstein, but in general, the victims are the children and teachers in schools that can hardly afford thirty year old educational materials.

rstrindbe,
whatever your studies about Darwin and whatever his work about humankind evolving from apes, SOCIAL DARWINISM is a theory from SOCIOLOGY that refers to the notion of survival of the fittest economically within society-- homo economicus. The poor, therefore, have simply failed to adapt. The rich are evidence of successful adaptation, etc. etc. Buy into it (pun intended) if you will.

"Quite honestly, Darwin didnt do much except pave the way to justify all sorts of new and old horrors in the name of Science instead of God. One religion replaced with another or sometimes working hand in hand(since academic philosophy categorizes science/secularist though as a religious system).

You have Social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, you have vivisection, you have genetic engineering, it goes on.

When you read an article where pigs are tortured and the scientists say this is useful, they do it by playing on the quasi-Darwinian myth that "lesser" species can be used to determine characteristics in "higher" species.

I.e. You can cure disease in elephants by treating giraffes.

I dont miss Darwin. And neither do the squirrels in my backyard.
Its all trivia."

This is exactly the sort of ignorance of science that Susan Jacoby was writing about. Your misunderstanding of Darwinism is both willful and arrogant. In addition, you clearly know nothing about Darwin the man, who most decidedly was not a social Darwinist.

rstrindbe - a very well referenced arguement. While I concede he was no brilliant geneticist - that's not point of the astounding implications of the origin of species. Even the most die-hard bible thumper can come to see that genetics exists and works. But the idea that whole new branches of life can form through millions of years of this process is abhorrent to them, given that the world is only 6,000 years old. They use the term "micro-evolution" to describe something that they concede is possible - but actual speciation, no way. All the things are more or less as god created them.

As far as him being a racist, sure. That's how he was raised. Being of the belief that people who look different are fundamentally inferior is not that same as believing that society should be engineered in such a way as to maximize selective pressures against the weak. And again, his leaning towards eugenics, at least of the proactive variety, is a far cry from advocating "Let them starve", as a modern "Social Darwinist" would.

Do you have any quotes demonstrating his desire to purge these inferior people from the population by transforming society into a dangerous, vicious place so that the weak would fall victim to their own weakness? That's what Social Darwinists are all about. If that's not what he was speaking in favour of, then I'd still claim he wasn't one.

Natural selection is the Darwinian view. When carefully studied and entirely understood, natural selection has an inescapable conclusion: the actual living world, as we see it today, is just one among many possible ones. Its present structure results from the history of the earth. It might well have been very different; and it might even not have existed at all.

Daniel David__ I believe you are right in that using names too much causes much of the divisions with people.

Examples-- Conservative-good,liberal-bad, Reagan-good, Clinton-bad, Jesus-good, Darwin-bad, progressive-good, socialism-bad, free enterprise-good, capitalism-bad.

All of these buzzwords cause people to believe and do all sorts of strange things that make no sense when analyzed, but few people take time to do that.

For instance, is it really conservative to run the nation into 9 trillion of debt with no plans on how to pay it off so let the kids worry about it?

Is it really free enterprise to have CEO`s making 400 times or more what the aversge wage-earner gets?

Our nation should be talking about ideas instead of worn-out cliches that we hear parroted every day that mean nothing.

To Big_Money,

i have studied Darwin in great depth. My first reaction is how unoriginal his work was. People who breed animals knew about as much about genetics as Darwin. I also see many look to Darwin as some sort of 'Great Atheist' in fact Darwin was a pious man. At one point he studied to become a priest, and he attributed an illness caught in Africa to God's wrath. Also, Darwin was recruited by Captian Robert FitzRoy, to sail on the Beagle to disprove evolution.

Darwin was a Social Darwinist. Especially when his works is compared to Arther de Gobineau. De Gobineau wrote about 'the natural inequality of man' in his 1855 book 'Essai sur l'inégalité des races humaines' (in English, 'Essay on the Inequality of the Human races'). This element of social Darwinism proposes that the 'races of men' developed linearly. Basically, from apes, to Africans, to Asians, to Europeans then to God. (I just want to make clear that i do not espouse these views, i am just explaining them.)

Here are a few quotes i have selected from Darwin's 'Descent of Man.';

"It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but 'a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla' and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the Negro." (Descent of Man, pg. 32)

Here Darwin suggests that, 'Negros' are more closely related to the gorilla then Europeans are related to gorilla.

"But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of man, in whom it is much more highly developed then in the white and civilized man." (Ibid, 35)

Darwin clearly states he sees the, 'dark coloured races' as a less developed form of man. Darwin claims, 'without any further information' the naturalist would not believe that Negros and Europeans are of the same race.(Ibid, 678)

"Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care…Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, it the prudent avoid marriage, while the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society." (Ibid, 688)

Social Darwinism 101

I have read both 'The Origin of Species' 'Descent of Man' and various other works by Darwin. I would argue that any other conclusion then Darwin was a Social Darwinist would be inaccurate.

Not to forget the biggest scientific ignorance of all: the belief that 110 story concrete and steel buildings can collapse into their own footprints at the speed of gravity because of one hour of kerosene burning fires.

I repeated a joke I found funny during the bird flu scare propaganda in 2005- "Bush doesn't even believe in evolution, but he thinks this particular virus is going to mutate and spread?"

The 20-something I repeated it too looked at me and said "Evolution is a theory and isn't true. Mutation is a fact and God does it"

That's how it's reconciled, Old Rascal.

Why does creationism persist? People value pride over knowledge.

Well.. when you have a multimillion dollar Creation Museum in your backyard as we do here in Cincinnati.. It is a massive poke in your eye embarrassement.

and folks FLOCK from all over the world to this stupid thing.

I have been to it ..out of curiousity and to be able to accurately inform others of the misguided nature of Biblical Creationism.

They use fear to coerce stupid people into believing this Biblical 6000 year creation/ dinosaurs were on the ark bs.....

There are thousands of U.S. educated scientists who are biologists and ecologists, but who listens to what they have to say? Paul Ehrlich warned of overpopulation as did William Vogt and Fairfield Osborn to mention a few, but despite their pleas for human population control, out numbers have sextupled since the 19th century. Darwin's evolutionary theory has stood the test of time and was based on observations by Malthus regarding population dynamics- i.e., give a population food and it will grow.

Politicians listen to economists and businessmen who can fund their campaigns. Our politicians are woefully undereducated in science and hence the mess we are in regarding the enviroment, nuclear weapons and overpopulation. Bush's latest budget cuts family planning by several million while 2 billion on the earth are living on $2 per day and cannot possible afford contraceptives. Overpopulation creates the hopelessness that fosters terrorism, but morons like Bush will never figure this out.

"......except for he odd meteorite the biggest sound won't be a bite...." Great poetry empirePie.More please.

On the science education problem in the U.S.,it seems to have been always thus.Most American scientists seemed to have come from Europe,Great Britain,Scandinavia,etc.some as refugees from German persecution,some post WW11 like Von Werner,many for the better conditions and facilities.Medical science seems to be an honorable exception if you seperate it from the unimaginable greed of pharmacutical companies.
I personally have no background in this area and am making a point based on little knowledge,only a perception,and having three children and six grandchildren,know how hard it is to get kids interested in maths or science.

Davis Logsdon wrote:

"On what are you basing your assertion that US laws are based on biblical religious teachings? I would argue they are not."

US laws as they pertain to American Indians are based on biblical religious teachings. The Papal Bull Inter Caetera launched the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Dominion. The case is laid out by Steven Newcomb.
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096416600

No leader or group of politicians can force our citizens to accept the theory of evolution. No one can force us to accept the theory of gravity, although it is foolish to deny the possibility that gravity does, indeed, exist. While we in the United States debate the validity of these theories, the Europeans, the Indians, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Russians, and many others are rapidly making discoveries in many scientific fields which will someday leave us intellectually impoverished. Americans still have a wonderful ability to make new innovations in science, but how long will it last if we keep our young people at an educational disadvantage?

Evolution does not abnegate their being a 'greater' essence behind it, but it does somewhat dispel the myth of a 'Sky Daddy.' The expression of that Essence might simply be found in the diversity of changing forms. The mechanisms (laws) of science--if they really be science--must be neutral, meaning such principles can be used for constructive or destructive purposes. Since man has a mind which can understand these principles, he has a choice of how to apply this understanding.

The direction of change in evolution is determined largely by the chemical and physical laws that govern genes, and the organism's relationship with its environment.

Evolution does not deny there being a higher intelligence, but only dispels religious myth, which religionists seek to promote as fact. As with many agendas, it is an aggressive one.

Sleep tight sweet Aphrodite

Oh homo erectus ...he wrecked us ...
he wrecked us
So why did he leave us
small brain should have been a select us
Oh homo erectus ...he wrecked us ...
he wrecked us...
should have left that fire alone...
stuck with the raw ...and left dark matter in the dark...
oh pine for homo erectus
when fight or flight didn't need to check a manifest
and destiny was timeless

but hush

Sleep tight sweet Aphrodite
the post human era will be even better than before!
for nature will nurture even more
except for the odd meteorite
The biggest sound won't be a bite
though that may seem a little trite
for finite is just time that said good night

Kelmer, give credit where credit is due: the term "social darwinism" was coined by a sociologist named Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1902) and is useful only if you buy into that particular world view of society as vicious struggle.

The craziest part of Americans' disbelief in evolution is that it requires a disbelief in genetics, for genetics is the mechanism of evolution, though discovered by main stream scientists years after Darwin's Origin of Species.

Darwin never identified the mechanism of evolution, just the phenomenon itself.

But what's crazy is that many Americans accept genetics as a reality. We know about cross-breeding flowers, farm animals, dogs, cats, etc., and many of our pharmaceuticals are the result of gene-splicing. And the list goes on.

So I think most Americans accept and have some understanding of the mechanism of evolution - genetics - regardless their disbelief in evolution itself.

Crazy, huh?

According to Darwin..the USA is an evolutionary dead end. Americans will join the Neandrathals as thick headed primates to dumb to survive

For instance, we seem to have learned quite a bit these days about viruses (cold, flu, HIV, etc) and how they are constantly mutating---and we can observe them doing so. This, to me, is more important information for students to ponder than whether Darwin thought us to be descended from apes. What can we see now? We do not need to re-try the Scopes case in every local school board. We do need to keep students up to speed on what we're learning every new year.

Doom n Gloom,

On what are you basing your assertion that US laws are based on biblical religious teachings? I would argue they are not.

What you say is true, Daniel, and Clemsy. One could easily take everything Jesus said, and everything Darwin theorized, and not feel forced to reject the wisdom of one based on a loyalty to the other. But, sadly, that whole "teams" thing gets started, and someone implies you gotta pick one or the other. With us or against us.

"Darwinism" is practically a derogatory term. I studied "Darwinian" evolution in university, and the word "Darwinism" was never part of the discussion. I agree that the ideas have to get out of the boxes that have been built around them.

The problem is dualistic thinking: if this than not that. If Darwin than no God. People who view the biblical myth as concrete can't just reorient their cosmology without tearing down their faith.

Blood has been spilled over less.

It isn't the school's job to hold one thing over another. Schools present the data. Data usually has a hard time against faith. I mean, step outside the confines of divine revelation and take a cold look at it.

It looks absurd.

You think data is going to change that? Of course not. Luckily we are in an era where the old myths are losing their grip... which is why the true believes are hanging on tooth and nail. They can get dangerous in such a situation.

On the other hand,if you have access to a 6th grade public school, Social Studies text book, take a look at the chapters on the Middle East. You decide if what they are passing for history is actually religion or not. You're liable to be shocked.

We won't be able to put obsolete mythic structures to bed until we stop passing it off as history.

Many people in America are not fond of hearing someone assert or imply that Darwin is somehow wiser, better or more informed than Jesus of the Bible. Neither will Darwin do well in Islamic countries if similarly compared and emphasized over The Prophet and the Koran.

I believe that more emphasis on observable science and less emphasis on authors' names (such as Darwin) would be helpful. If we can teach what we can readily observe, we do not really have to dwell on "isms", such as Darwinism. WHAT we see is more important truth than WHO gets credit for supposedly having first seen it.
Darwin is dead and gone. And we don't necessarily owe him a royalty on "Darwinism" that always, always comes with a divisive price for its mere mention. What, for instance, have we learned in the last 150 years that is observable on its face? That, too, is science.

Those nations who let their religious nut bags run their educational system doom their future generations to technological irrelevance. In an age where technological superiority equals political superiority, the gutting of science education because it does not fit into the born-again christian world view is dooming future generations of Americans to the status of miserable citizens of a has-been power.

Susan Jacoby says, do as I say not as I do. That prescription is designed for failure. America's adoption of religion as the basis for laws that subjugate non-white people is both historic and contemporary. One cannot argue for National educational objectives based upon a scientific world view while at the same time blindly accepting religious biblical teachings as the basis of American Law. You can't have it both ways Susan.

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096416600

The real problem is that science is not being well taught in school these days, if ever. Right now I'm working as a mentor to gifted children in science, and their ignorance of the scientific method and procedures is appalling. Science is presented as knowing facts to the general public, and as the work of specially trained and educated people who do the science.
What a far cry from the science of the Nineteenth Century when research was done by men (and a few women) who had no reputation to risk, nor funding to lose. Many like Gregor Mendel were monks and priests who did science as a hobby. That is not true now, now scientists are professionals who have to pass special programs that weed out those who disagree with the status quo. And if your scientific research declares things that are not acceptable to the scientific "community" and/or its funders then your career is over. Truth has become a victim of status in science as in politics and public life.

kelmer, I gotta disagree. To say Darwin didn't do much is like saying that Newton, Kepler or Einstein didn't do much. Which of course you can say, but I gotta disagree. Some very few people stumble upon a whole new way of understanding our world, and those few people have an enormous effect on the development of civilization.

And, to blame Social Darwinism on Darwin makes me even more disagreeable. His name, like the name of many others, has been hijacked, and as usual it is done by a band of unenlightened boneheads who would argue against the actual thinking of the person named until the day they die.

Let's blame George Orwell for the bastardization of words, shall we? After all, it's named after him. I got all grumpy on one of the articles here the other week for calling the mass printing of money to waste on ineffective military foolishness, "Military Keynesianism". It's an advanced form of Orwellianism - Take the name of someone who had invaluable things to say. Use their name as a catch-phrase for some loosely related but utterly evil thing. Get people like you, kelmer, to develop some allergic reaction to the actual thoughts of great people like Keynes, Darwin, Orwell, and most of all, Christ.

Quite honestly, Darwin didnt do much except pave the way to justify all sorts of new and old horrors in the name of Science instead of God. One religion replaced with another or sometimes working hand in hand(since academic philosophy categorizes science/secularist though as a religious system).

You have Social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, you have vivisection, you have genetic engineering, it goes on.

When you read an article where pigs are tortured and the scientists say this is useful, they do it by playing on the quasi-Darwinian myth that "lesser" species can be used to determine characteristics in "higher" species.

I.e. You can cure disease in elephants by treating giraffes.

I dont miss Darwin. And neither do the squirrels in my backyard.
Its all trivia.

The US business elites promoted religious fundamentalism throughout the 20th Century to get the hoi polloi to develop irrational fear and hatred of the atheistic Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China and of socialism and communism in general. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the business elites have not been particularly hasty about addressing the deficiencies in science education that were an indirect result of that fundamentalism because of the possibility of hiring engineers and scientists from other countries, ironically including the People's Republic of China.

Democracy can only succeed in an educated society. Democracy has failed in the US due to educational institutions providing socialization rather than education.
Although the teachers often get blamed for this, the problem is actually the result of corporate and religious influences.