The recently enacted “Leave No Child Behind” education bill (H.R. 1) includes a last-minute provision that was neither debated nor publicized. Beginning in five years, all children in the grade levels of 3-5, 6-9 and 10-12 will be subjected to federally required testing in science.
Why require science testing for grade schoolers? The education crisis is the inability of students to read and write and add and multiply, not their failure to recite the periodic table of elements. Elementary reading and math skills are absolutely essential, but grade school science skills plainly are not.
During the House debate over the education bill last year, some Democrats wanted science testing to promote their agenda, but Republicans blocked it. Through persistence and lack of public attention, liberals prevailed and snuck science testing into the final version. Few, if any, were even aware of what had happened.
Just as night follows day, you can bet that evolution will be included in these grade school tests. Unless stopped, this new federal requirement will require all 50 states to teach evolution to students as early as 3rd grade, a dramatic change from the current requirements in many states.
The strong correlation between EVOLUTION & POLITICS.
Students represent 100% of the future. Just as hooking teenagers on cigarettes ensures most will continue to smoke as adults, hooking grade schoolers on evolution guarantees that most will become liberals as adults.
Countries with high percentages of belief in evolution, such as the former East Germany, have the most socialistic governments. England, the birthplace of free enterprise and Adam Smith, later embraced evolution and correspondingly went down the road of socialism. America, the freest country in the world, has the lowest percentage of belief in evolution (about 35%).
The even split between Bush and Gore in the last election reflects a corresponding split between states that promote evolution and those that do not. The states that voted for Gore mostly require evolution indoctrination in their schools, while the states that voted for Bush mostly downplay evolution.
For example, Gore surprisingly lost his home state of Tennessee. Tennessee does not push evolution in its schools, enabling Bush to prevail (as have two Republican Senators and no state income tax).
7/8 of the Democrats who voted to confirm conservative Attorney General Ashcroft were from states with the least stringent evolution requirements. Remember Senator Jeffords’ switch to supporting Democratic control of the Senate? No problem for him, as he is in a pro-evolution state.
New Jersey has imposed heavy evolution indoctrination beginning in 4th grade, and this formerly conservative state has move dramatically to the Left. The first President Bush carried it by 13 points in 1988, yet by 2000 George W. Bush lost it by 16 points on the same platform. A few months ago, Bret Schundler, a popular conservative mayor of one of New Jersey’s largest cities, lost by a double-digit margin to a Gore-like opponent in the recent gubernatorial race.
Individually, the high correlation is equally clear. Parents and teachers can watch individual grade schoolers believe in the evolution taught to them, who then gradually buy into liberal beliefs as they get older. No across-the-board conservative believes in evolution. Ronald Reagan criticized it.
“Materialism” is the view that all phenomena must have purely material explanations. Materialistic approaches to social problems underlie liberal politics. Non-material concepts like freedom, liberty and inalienable rights are downplayed or ignored.
For example, gun control is the materialist’s response to violent crime. Take away the guns, according to this approach, and violent crime should be greatly reduced. This view sees guns as the cause of violent crime, rather than intangible causes such as evil. The fact that guns are more often used to deter crime is overlooked.
Population control, another favorite of the Left, is likewise a manifestation of materialism. It teaches that the world has limited resources, and thus restricting population should increase the average resources available for each individual. In fact, humans themselves increase resources such as food, and more people means greater creation of resources. India, which will surpass China as the most populated country in the world, produces more food than it can consume.
The conservative rejection of materialism is the history of human progress. Reaganomics, for example, entailed rejecting the conventional wisdom that government cannot afford to lower tax rates. Reagan predicted, correctly, that lower tax rates would increase rather than decrease government revenue, by enhancing productivity. Similarly, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of the free market rejects pure materialism by relying on unseen forces.
The greatest discovery of the 20th century, quantum physics, constitutes a rejection of pure materialism by science itself. The transistor, based on quantum physics, became the foundation for all the marvelous computer and communication advances. Materialists resisted quantum theory for decades, because it accepts action-at-a-distance (like quantum “tunneling” in semiconductors) and divergent results for identical experiments. But these characteristics are now widely accepted.
Medicine likewise began its tremendous advances when it recognized and tested for the “placebo effect.” Drug trials now include patients taking pills that actually contain meaningless substances. This is done because some patients improve based on thinking they are taking a helpful drug, when in fact the material itself is ineffective.
Even sports, the most material endeavors of all, confound pure materialism. Competing while “in the zone” is a well-known phenomenon that defies material explanation. Long jumper Bob Beamon, at the 1968 Olympics, set a famous world record by leaping several feet beyond what he could ever do before or since. Baseball players on hitting streaks describe seeing pitched baseballs as larger than at other times, again defying material explanation. Golfers and basketball players have unexplained streaks of seemingly impossible accuracy.
Evolution Equals Materialism.
Conceived before the Civil War, evolution theory insists that species can only have purely material origins. To the question “where did man come from?”, the theory of evolution insists that only purely material origins are possible.
Given that limiting premise, evolutionists are constrained to assert that simple species magically transformed, by themselves, into more complex species. The non-material forces that are widely accepted in economics, physics, medicine, and elsewhere are censored by the biology materialists.
No evolutionist, even after being presented with contrary evidence, will change his mind as long as he remains a materialist. Famous British paleontologist Colin Patterson harshly criticized evolution, but said that he could not see any other explanation. Evolution is little more than pure materialism, and belief in the latter requires belief in the former.
But neither materialism nor evolution tells the full story. Neither admits the existence of evil, or even physical action-at-a-distance. Asking a materialist to concede and explain the existence of aesthetic beauty is a fruitless exercise, comparable to expecting a computer to describe the Mona Lisa.
Evolution in Ohio.
Ohio has been one of the most conservative states in the country: its legislature, governor and two Senators are principled Republicans, and Bush won it despite losing the adjacent states of Michigan and Pennsylvania. But Ohio will not remain conservative if the liberals succeed next month in requiring evolution indoctrination in its schools.
Missouri, once solidly conservative, has drifted leftward ever since it forced evolution on its schools. John Ashcroft was the most popular man in Missouri in 1990, but after a decade of mandated evolution he could not even win reelection against a deceased opponent in 2000.
Next: current evolution struggle in Ohio.