"Every time the critics of Darwinism lose in court and their demand to redesign biology lessons is not accepted, they undergo evolution, arming themselves with arguments that sound advanced and subtle but they remain as dangerous as before"
On May 17, 2005, the New York Times published an editorial and an article in the science section on science education. "Every time the critics of Darwinism lose in court and their demand to redesign the biology lessons is not accepted, they evolve (in English they also undergo evolution), arming themselves with arguments that sound advanced and subtle but they remain as dangerous as before" the newspaper writes in the editorial. He cited the development of the anti-evolutionary arguments from the traditional forms of creationism through "intelligent design" to the "critical analysis of the apparent weaknesses of the theory of evolution". The New York Times comments that in Kansas, the so-called "minority report on the state's science standards" seeks to change the definition of science in a way that seems to leave room for supernatural explanations of the origin of life and its development and not just for the natural explanations that are the current essence of science." Something that was described as "extremely inappropriate to the curriculum of the public schools."
In the same issue, in the scientific section, the physicist Lawrence Krauss wrote that "The school boards want to teach the controversy. What dispute? After all, evolutionary biology is not the only scientific subject that arouses theological divisions. Citing the field he deals with, cosmology as another example. However, these subjects themselves are not scientific. "An atheist evolutionist like Richard Dawkins and the spiritualist Dr. Kenneth Miller of Brown University who has written extensively about evolution can completely agree about the scientific mechanism that governs biological evolution, and the fact that life evolved through natural selection." Kraus writes. The students are indeed completely free to make up their own minds on any subject, but it is necessary to give them the right information so that they can judge for themselves. However, if you deny them the knowledge of the essence of science or demand that they be presented with theological ideas such as "intelligent design" in the curriculum, you muddy the waters by adding theological speculations to scientific theory."
