Folks who vote for a larger Welfare State should also discourage the teaching of evolution?

by philg

I’ve been enjoying The Great Trials of World History and the Lessons They Teach Us, by Douglas Linder, a professor at the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law.

One of the trials covered is the familiar Scopes Trial, in which ignorance is pitted against Science.

Professor Linder highlights that one of the reasons William Jennings Bryan was against the teaching of evolution in schools, however, is that he was an advocate for equality and was fighting against attempts to discourage unsuccessful Americans from breeding, e.g., in the Eugenics movement.

I wonder if Jennings Bryan would be perplexed by the situation today in which advocates for a larger Welfare State, which encourages maximum reproduction by the least successful Americans (by providing free housing, health care, food, and smartphones on condition that they have children), are simultaneously loud advocates in favor of teaching evolution in schools.

Readers: Why do people who advocate for maximizing the percentage of Americans who are descended from those who never worked also enjoy rooting out the handful of American Creationists and calling them stupid? Shouldn’t folks who advocate maximum fertility among those on Welfare want to downplay a biological theory that says children will closely resemble their parents?

7 thoughts on “Folks who vote for a larger Welfare State should also discourage the teaching of evolution?”

  1. I wonder if Jennings Bryan would be perplexed by the situation today in which advocates for a larger Welfare State, which encourages maximum reproduction by the least successful Americans (by providing free housing, health care, food, and smartphones on condition that they have children), are simultaneously loud advocates in favor of teaching evolution in schools.

    You forgot to mention that even those schools are free. You also forgot to mention, once again, the free “national security” by the armed forces.

    Why do people who advocate for maximizing the percentage of Americans who are descended from those who never worked also enjoy rooting out the handful of American Creationists and calling them stupid?

    Gallup says that about two-fifths of Americans are creationists. https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx . Since they are so numerous, no effort has to be made to root them out.

    Also, the assertion that some people are descended from those who never worked implies that there are Americans who don’t have a single ancestor who ever did any work. No such individuals exist.

    • If we’re going to play the “pedantic parsing” game, then let’s at least play it better:

      > Also, the assertion that some people are descended from those who never worked implies that there are Americans who don’t have a single ancestor who ever did any work.

      I don’t see why a child of two non-working parents wouldn’t qualify for the designation of “descended from those who never worked.” The child is descended from the parents. The parents never worked. What’s the problem?

    • phik: You have technically valid point, but use of the word “descended” implies something else. It doesn’t matter. The number of of such parents isn’t enough to get worked up about. Also, I see no one has any defense at all for my other criticism of Phil’s rant.

  2. philg, you haven’t been keeping up with trends in the humanities. Everyone is taught that everything is socially constructed, sex, physics, etc. In short, all students are fervently taught to be creationists. Biological evolutionary is way out of fashion.

  3. Phil G: Ask some evolutionary biologists. The campaigns of pain in the assery aren’t coming from creationists these days.

    Vince, he hasn’t answered that because he’s not an anarcho-capitalist. There are more options on the menu than the government should provide everything and the government should provide nothing, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

    • Tony: I’d certainly agree about the menu. Though I’m not sure what you’re referring to about the lack of response. He hasn’t responded to the statistic that two out of five Americans are creationists. I’m not sure what that has to with your menu. Perhaps you think that Phil thinks it’s a great idea to provide every American with free national security and K-12 education. Perhaps you also think that he supports free health care for everyone over aged 65 and above, but no one younger than 65. Those are quite significant assumptions to make based on silence.

Comments are closed.