You’re still missing the point. The point isn’t a rehash of Gould’s theses. You make it seem like I’m saying we never discover. Preposterous. I said as much in my first reply to fuzzyfungus, and you’re taking the conversation off on a bizarre tangent.
The original point is that biology is just as awash with adaptationists as the US is with creationists. And, I am taking it a step further in saying that they are similar in their disregard for the way things really work: so it all may as well just be ineffable. Because to a closed mind, it is. The whole thing is not objectively invisible and forever dark. But if you are an adaptationist or a creationist, it may as well be. That is the relevance.
The further relevance is that any simplistic, mechanistic view, whether it’s a creationist one, or an adaptationist one, is what is going to prevail in Texas for a long time. I suggested, tongue-in-cheek, to shut the schools down because kids aren’t even getting an education. Not a real one, anyways.
It seems that they might not even get a taste of an education until college or grad school, and even then, most will avoid biology. IMO, schools don’t have to fully explore every complexity, but they can at least allude to nuance in their curriculum.
Personally, I’d settle for a nuanced treatment of both creationism and Darwin, gasp, as long as it causes students to think for themselves. If the curriculum is an oversimplification, and even if creationism is left out, no good was done.
