Feature Article - June 2019
by Do-While Jones

Outcome-based Science

Jeremy’s email illustrated how Outcome-based Education is running science.

Last month we published a long email from a science teacher named Jeremy. 1 We did not comment on it. Instead, we invited our readers to respond. Here are some excerpts from some of their responses, and our comments on their comments.

Jeremy’s Key Points

We encourage you to go back to last month’s newsletter to read Jeremy’s email in its entirety; but here are four quotes from Jeremy’s email which we consider to be his four points:

  1. I was a little concerned about your claim that high school teachers present scientific theories as factual, and am hoping to reassure you. … I would like to say that in my case at least, not only do I not present the theory of evolution as truth, I also don’t present theories relating to the electron as truth either.
  2. To claim a scientific model in physics represents truth and another in biology does not, is to paint an inaccurate picture of how science is done in either field. More accurate is to state that neither model represents truth, and neither is meant to. In my opinion, there is no such thing as truth in any realm of science; in fact, I like to say to my students that what we strive for are merely models that are less wrong than the ones that came before.
  3. To return to my main point: claiming that “evolutionists” (a term that only exists in certain circles outside science) are engaging in philosophy rather than science is doing multiple disservices: one, it does a disservice to the countless millions of man-hours spent on gathering evidence underlying the model of evolution, and on using – yes! – the scientific method to analyze this evidence. Second, it does a disservice to those working in the field of biology by making claims as to their relative legitimacy: you may divisively and derisively choose to call them “evolutionists” if they use the theory of evolution as a paradigm for their work, but I assure you that no such division exists between these and other researchers in the field. Third, it trivializes the strenuous lengths these people go to in pointing out how wrong they or others might be, in the hopes of getting it right overall. To attack each other’s hypotheses and try to find fault with them is one of the most important aspects of scientific inquiry.
  4. To me this is how science really is supposed to work: you develop a model based on a certain interpretation of the evidence at hand, but once new evidence is discovered, or once a person makes a more compelling case for a different model based on existing evidence, the theory changes. This is not, as you seem to believe, a proof that the whole theory is built on sand; rather, it is a demonstration that scientists are continually testing the foundation these theories rest upon and trying to replace bad rock with better.

Outcome-based Education

Seppo and Tom both noted that, unlike most of the email we receive from evolutionists, Jeremy’s email was polite and coherent. It provoked equally polite responses from our readers. The closest any of our readers came to being impolite was this comment from Jackie:

I guess I have been wrong most of my life. I thought science was about truth. I wish I had that science teacher back when I was in school. I could have put any answer down and gotten A+ every time since there is no truth in science.

This really isn’t a rude comment about “that science teacher”—it is an insightful comment about a controversial program called “Outcome-based Education,” which is the root of the problem.

Outcome-based education (OBE) is an educational theory that bases each part of an educational system around goals (outcomes). By the end of the educational experience, each student should have achieved the goal. … Australia and South Africa adopted OBE policies in the early 1990s but have since been phased out. The United States has had an OBE program in place since 1994 that has been adapted over the years.

OBE does not specify a specific method of instruction, leaving instructors free to teach their students using any method. Instructors will also be able to recognize diversity among students by using various teaching and assessment techniques during their class. 2

“Recognize diversity” is the politically correct way of saying that instructors should recognize that some students aren’t as good as others, therefore less should be expected of those students. “Recognizing diversity” is the soft bigotry form of racism, manifested in “affirmative action,” which demands lowering of standards in certain cases, just to be fair. Paradoxically, people who insist on consistent academic standards, regardless of race, are accused of being racists by people who must believe certain races are inferior and incapable of meeting those standards.

Contrasting the traditional educational model with OBE, left-leaning Wikipedia says,

The goal of this [traditional] education was to present the knowledge and skills of an older generation to the new generation of students, and to provide students with an environment in which to learn. 3

Education used to be a process by which old people passed knowledge on to young people. What a stupid, out-dated idea!

[By contrast,] OBE is meant to be a student-centered learning model. 4

Student-centered learning sounds like a good idea; but Wikipedia admits,

Assessing liberal outcomes such as creativity, respect for self and others, responsibility, and self-sufficiency, can become problematic. There is not a measurable, observable, or specific way to determine if a student has achieved these outcomes. 5

Notice that the desired outcomes are “creativity, respect for self and others, responsibility, and self-sufficiency.” Missing from the list of desired outcomes is “acquisition of knowledge.”

Student involvement in the classroom is a key part of OBE. Students are expected to do their own learning, so that they gain a full understanding of the material. Increased student involvement allows students to feel responsible for their own learning, and they should learn more through this individual learning. 6

Although OBE was formalized in the 1990’s, it goes back much farther than that. I was on the student council in 1964, and was shocked when my high school administration asked the student council for suggestions about the curriculum, presumably so that we would feel more responsible for our own learning. How could we students know what we should be taught? We didn’t know what we didn’t know and needed to learn! They were letting the inmates run the asylum in the 1960’s, and they are still doing it today! OBE has been around for about 60 years, even if it wasn’t called by that name until the 1990’s.

Conservatives consider OBE to be nothing more than indoctrination.

Unfortunately, that's what Outcome-Based Education is — a process for government telling our children how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and what not to know. What the children say, think and know must conform to the liberal Politically Correct ideology, attitudes and behaviour. What they do not know will be everything else. And because they won't know the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic, they won't be able to find out. OBE is converting the three R's to the three D's: Deliberately Dumbed Down. 7

Some conservatives hoped when Trump was elected, he would abolish the Department of Education. They weren’t anti-education. On the contrary, conservatives are for charter schools and school choice because they value high-quality education, and believe that competition and experimentation will improve education in America. Conservative parents want to be able to choose to send their children to the school which is doing the best job of educating children.

Liberals oppose school choice because they believe that education should be the same everywhere in America, so that no schools will be better than any other. There should be no difference (diversity) in education. That’s why the Federal Government needs to control what is taught—especially when it comes to politically relevant things like evolution, climate change, and gender identity. Every student needs to have his or her brain washed the same way so there will be unity in the country.

Whenever liberals and conservatives argue about what educational standards should be adopted by the Federal Government, conservatives lose the discussion before it even begins, because they have accepted the premise that there should be educational standards set by the Federal Government.

A member of a state legislature ended his email to us this way:

On the other hand the "scientific method" in the field of evolution seems to consist strictly of taking a vote on the latest find to see how that fits into the big picture. There is no prediction, no experiment and nothing that can be repeated independently. That's not science it's politics. Something with which I'm acquainted. And politics has far more to do with who is the most persuasive than it does with devising repeatable experiments that falsify a particular hypothesis. Omitting the how of science and simply comparing the outward form demonstrates a profound lack of understanding. Yes, Jeremy is correct that scientists in the field of evolution strive mightily to disprove one another's finding of the day. But that discord looks far more like a political or religious debate than it does like science.

That's my two cents.

You may be thinking that we have gotten off track with this discussion of politics—but we haven’t. The theory of evolution is actually driven by politics rather than science. If you could take politics out of the equation, and go strictly by science, competent schools would have stopped teaching the theory of evolution long ago because the scientific evidence against evolution is overwhelming. There is no value in teaching fables about how dinosaurs evolved into birds.

This all has to do with Jackie’s point about wanting to have had a teacher like Jeremy. (“I could have put any answer down and gotten A+ every time since there is no truth in science.”) If Jeremy is under 30, all of his schooling has been Outcome-based Education. Even if he is over 30, he has been subjected to 30 (perhaps even 60) years of OBE indoctrination. It isn’t surprising that he thinks there can be diversity of truth. That’s why Jeremy’s first point was “I would like to say that in my case at least, not only do I not present the theory of evolution as truth, I also don’t present theories relating to the electron as truth either.” In OBE, it is more important that the student feel good about his understanding of a subject than the accuracy of what he thinks about a subject. If the student isn’t comfortable with the truth, it may “trigger” him, which will result in severe emotional damage.

This brings us to something David said in his email.

[Jeremy is] correct in stating that scientific models and theories in general should not be considered fact.

However, to say "there is no such thing as truth in any realm of science" is going overboard into deep post-modernism. Just because our models are inaccurate and need refining doesn't mean there is no truth in them. There are many things in old textbooks that are still true today. There is much more to science than models and theories.

If the scientific theory of evolution is something like: "populations shift in traits and ratios of alleles over generations," then that "theory" is actually something even creationists would accept as a fact. Newton's laws are still valid, and his gravitational equations are still accurate for the phenomena they originally described. The facts about chemical reactions have stayed the same and aren't going to change. Aircraft, electronics, and many other technical and medical modern marvels wouldn't be here if we hadn't established a number of facts by scientific investigations.

Since David brought up old textbooks and models, let’s address those two topics.

Old Textbooks

Jeremy said, “I also don’t present theories relating to the electron as truth either.” The textbook used in the Introduction to Electrical Engineering course I took in 1967 had a lot about vacuum tubes, very little about transistors, and absolutely nothing about integrated circuits. (Integrated circuits were too new. The Fairchild 709 operational amplifier was introduced to the market in 1965. The Texas Instruments 7400 quad NAND gate came out in 1966.) There are many things in modern electrical engineering textbooks that weren’t in the introductory textbook I used—but everything in that old textbook is still true today. My old Fender Deluxe Reverb guitar amplifier still uses vacuum tubes, and those vacuum tubes still work just like they did in the 1960’s—but I now use solid-state amplifiers and effects when I record the song parodies for the April newsletters. Truth progresses—but it doesn’t change. We learn new, additional truth—but the old truth is still true.

But, if you look at a biology textbook from the 1960’s, you will learn that dinosaurs were slow, stupid, cold-blooded reptiles. It was “true” then—but it isn’t true now (unless the consensus has changed again). Evolutionary “truth” changes because it isn’t true. It is just the latest story.


Perhaps the most important point has to do with scientific models. David wasn’t the only one to recognize this. Several other readers picked up on this point. Let’s start the conversation with this excerpt from Brad’s email:

What Jeremy left out was what the scientific method entails. He mentions the evolution of the electron model that each successive model did not come about because a group of physicists voted down the current model.

What Brad said is true—but, to be fair, that isn’t exactly what Jeremy said. Jeremy didn’t say the electron model was voted down. Jeremy said,

In my opinion, there is no such thing as truth in any realm of science; in fact, I like to say to my students that what we strive for are merely models that are less wrong than the ones that came before. In such a way, we progress e.g. from the ancient Greek model of 4 elements, to Thomson’s less wrong model of atoms as plum pudding, to Bohr’s less wrong model of nucleus and circular-orbit electrons, to modern quantum field theories, etc etc.

The classical model of the atom is easily visualized. It is like a planet surrounded by many moons. The protons and neutrons are stuck together in the nucleus (the planet) and the electrons (the moons) orbit the nucleus.

In 1913, Bohr improved this model by quantizing the radial distances of the orbits of the electrons. That is to say, there are only certain distances from the nucleus in which electrons can orbit. Electrons are constrained to orbit in specific concentric “shells” with specific amounts of kinetic energy. Bohr improved the model of electrons orbiting the nucleus to a model of electrons orbiting the nucleus at particular distances, which explains the observation of spectral lines.

Furthermore, the outer shell “likes” to be filled (usually with 8 electrons), and so atoms combine with other atoms to share electrons in such a way as to fill their outer shells. This expanded the understanding of the Periodic Table of the Elements by saying that columns in the table represent atoms with the same number of electrons in their outer shell.

This allows chemists to predict which elements will combine to form compounds based on the atoms’ “desires” to fill their outer shells. The notion of atoms “wanting” to share electrons is a useful fiction which explains how chemicals react with each other, even though nobody believes atoms have any kind of conscious volition.

The modern quantum theory model is purely mathematical. It describes atoms in terms of complex statistical equations and quantum numbers which aren’t easily visualized. That’s why we can’t show you a picture of it. All we could do is to show you some equations which you don’t want to see, so we won’t show them to you. (You can thank us later.)

In modern quantum theory, atoms are modeled as having various energy states with specific probabilities rather than electrons orbiting a nucleus at specific distances. It isn’t as visual as the traditional model, and is more complex and harder to understand; but it does a better job of predicting atomic behavior in more situations than the traditional model does.

Despite that, chemists still rely upon the Periodic Table in many situations because it wasn’t really wrong—it was just limited in application. Even after the quantum theory came along, chemists still correctly believed that adding sodium hydroxide to hydrochloric acid would create scalding hot salt water.

The biological equivalent of the Periodic Table is taxonomy. Species are assigned to families, classes, genera, and so on, in the same way that chemical elements are assigned to rows and columns in the Periodic Table. The difference is that species get moved from one family to another based on the latest consensus; but chemical elements never get their rows or columns changed.

I am confident that 100 years from now, none of the currently known elements will change their positions in the Periodic Table. New, heavier elements might be discovered or created, and subsequently added to the table—but none of the currently known elements will change their position. I don’t expect the same stability in biological classification because it is purely subjective. In the future, some other criteria might be deemed more important than the current classification criteria are. New categories might be created, and existing species might be moved from several different existing categories into the new category, and the current biological classification system might become obsolete.

Here’s the point: Biologic taxonomy is based on philosophy. The philosophy of common descent drives taxonomy, and vice versa. Once the notion of common descent is rejected, taxonomy might change significantly.

Models Aren’t Theories

A theory is a trial hypothesis. A theory is a proposed explanation for what will happen under given circumstances. A theory needs to be confirmed experimentally before it can be accepted as a fact.

A model, on the other hand, is a way of looking at something. You can look at an atom as electrons orbiting a nucleus in defined shells, or you can look at an atom as something whose behavior is defined by some statistical equations. There is a subtle difference between a thing and the way you look at a thing.

Let’s try to explain the difference by thinking about the number of days in a month. How many days are in the month of August? More to the point, how do you know how many days are in August?

When I asked you how many days are in August, you might have thought to yourself, “Thirty days hath September … ,“ and after going through the whole poem without finding August, you realized that August must have 31 days. Or, you might have started counting on your knuckles, and when you got to the first bump on your right hand, you realized August must have 31 days.

Or, if you are too young to know the poem or the knuckle-counting method, you might have pulled out your phone and looked at a calendar.

Here’s the point: The poem, the knuckle-counting method, and a calendar, are different models for determining the number of days in a month, just like the periodic table is a model that helps you remember which chemicals will react.

People who have trouble remembering poems prefer the knuckle-counting method. That doesn’t make knuckles true and poems false. Neither method is “the truth.” Learning the poem does not invalidate your knuckles. Both methods are simply models which help you determine the “true” number of days in a month.

The models aren’t months—they are different ways of looking at months. A calendar is a better model of a particular month than the poem and knuckles are because the calendar not only tells you how many days are in the month, it also tells you the days of the week.

People who have used the poem, their knuckles, and calendars, have verified their accuracy over the years, so they have confidence in those models. Evolutionary models of how life diversified have not been verified. An evolutionary model might say that some descendants of a particular lizard evolved into Tyrannosaurus rex and others evolved into hummingbirds—but there is no way to verify that.

On the other hand, the evolutionary model suggesting race horse speeds can increase without limit was proved to be false again last month. 8 There is a limit to how much an existing characteristic can be changed by breeding, disproving the notion that, given enough time, micro-evolutionary changes can result in macro-evolutionary innovation.

That discussion about old textbooks and models was prompted by what David said. David said more that is worth discussing.

Labels and Assumptions

David went on to say,

To claim that "evolutionists" is a term that only exists outside of science is to dismiss the hundreds or thousands of scientists who do not consider themselves evolutionists. He does, however, have a good point that criticisms between those who hold different models and theories of evolution is a valid part of science and by itself doesn't argue against the general validity of positing (and testing) such theories.

However, all that merely covers up the fact that there are differences between science at large and the "science" that we object to. It is not a matter of biological vs. physical models, as there are "scientific" statements that have nothing to do with biology that we also object to. We object to the assumption that the known speed of light in a vacuum and the calculated size of the universe can be used to determine the age of the universe. We object to the assumption that the measured decay rates of elements and measurements of the ratios of elements can be used to extrapolate indefinitely ages far beyond known history.

Most of all, we object to the theory of evolution when it is used in the sense of the belief or claim that all life diverged from an original population of primitive microbes, and that these microbes were formed from non-living matter by natural processes. In both of these cases, things are posited to have happened which have never been observed, nor can they be derived from valid extrapolation from what has been observed. Furthermore, both of these are often presented as fact, and science as it is generally formulated today allows for no other opinion, only variations.

David’s main point had to do with assumptions, which we will address in a moment; but we cannot resist commenting on labels first.

I’ve noticed that one of the easiest ways to tell a liberal from a conservative is that liberals think labels are bad; but conservatives think labels are good.

Conservatives like labels because they are concise ways of expressing an idea. Calling someone “an evolutionist” instantly conveys the idea that the person in question believes all species evolved from a common ancestor through variation and natural selection, rather than diversification of many different “kinds” of living things which were originally created intentionally. It is a convenient way of conveying information.

Liberals think labels are stereotypical, inaccurate, misleading and insulting because that is the way they use labels. Their labels are “doublespeak.” 9 Readers outside the United States might be surprised to learn that Planned Parenthood is not a fertility clinic, nor is it a place where people are taught how to raise children. It is the largest chain of abortion clinics in America.

Jeremy’s “main point: claiming that ‘evolutionists’ (a term that only exists in certain circles outside science)” seems to imply that Jeremy thinks that “evolutionists” is an insulting term; an inaccurate, misleading stereotype used by fringe lunatics, not used by real scientists. Jeremy said, “it does a disservice to those working in the field of biology by making claims as to their relative legitimacy: you may divisively and derisively choose to call them ‘evolutionists’ … .”

Jeremy may think the term “evolutionist” is meant to be divisive and derisive, but it isn’t. It is simply a way to distinguish the beliefs of creationists from the beliefs of evolutionists. Offence is in the ear of the beholder.

Harley asked,

To his main point, would he prefer being branded a rationalist (a term well known in philosophical circles)?  If so, why did he earlier state “In my opinion, there is no such thing as truth in any realm of science.” How do you have a discussion (about science) with someone who claims that there is no such thing as truth?  On the other hand he is admitting that he can only teach a difference between lies and damned lies.

Another thing that caught my eye was this, I would like to ask him what “scientific method” is he referring to that is being used to “analyze this evidence”?

Like Harley, we wonder how Jeremy can think that the scientific method was used to show the theory of evolution is true. But then, since there is no such thing as truth, why bother with the scientific method at all?

This brings us back to Outcome-based Education, which demands one must not be dogmatic about the truth if the truth might offend someone. This over-riding concern with sensitivity to cherished beliefs has crippled science through self-censorship. Few scientists are as brave as Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray were when they published The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life in 1994. Some scientists keep their research to themselves if it isn’t politically correct.

This brings us to David’s second point, regarding assumptions. He listed several assumptions which are assumed to be true by evolutionists, but not by creationists. What David said bears repeating.

Most of all, we object to the theory of evolution when it is used in the sense of the belief or claim that all life diverged from an original population of primitive microbes, and that these microbes were formed from non-living matter by natural processes. In both of these cases, things are posited to have happened which have never been observed, nor can they be derived from valid extrapolation from what has been observed. Furthermore, both of these are often presented as fact, and science as it is generally formulated today allows for no other opinion, only variations.

Attacking Hypotheses

We agree with Jeremy’s point,

To attack each other’s hypotheses and try to find fault with them is one of the most important aspects of scientific inquiry.

Christian school curricula and home-school curricula do vary somewhat. Generally speaking they teach what evolutionists believe, and the evidence against that belief. Students in public schools are at an educational disadvantage because evolutionists have gone to court to prevent any criticism of the theory of evolution in public schools. Public school students learn half of what other students learn.

How to Argue

We have focused this article on science education because I think that it is more important than refuting particular aspects of Jeremy’s letter. Some readers, however, chose to respond to weak points in Jeremy’s email. Seppo was one.

Hello Mr. Pogge,

Here are some of my thoughts.

1. It is a very polite letter!

2. Jeremy writes: Lord Kelvin was working from a wrong set of assumptions. It is as if he thinks evolutionists are now working with the right set of assumptions; but they are still just assumptions.

3. Jeremy mentions nuclear fission. I think he believes that radiometric dating indicates that the earth is billions of years old. You have already written a lot of articles about the failures of radiometric dating so I will not repeat your arguments. I would like to ask Jeremy how he can calibrate those measurements, especially with all those cases of "contamination". I mean if I have one watch, how can I be sure it runs on time? If I am with 5 people who each has a watch giving different times, which one is correct?

You have to have an independent time-telling method that can be trusted.

4. Jeremy also writes about evolutionists using the scientific method. The scientific method uses experiments. I would like to ask Jeremy to present the successful experiments for:

- creating a singularity outside of time and space, which explodes to form a new universe.

- creating life (abiogenesis)

- turning a fish into an amphibian into a reptile into a bird and a reptile into a mammal into an apelike creature into a human.

As long as there is no experimental proof, evolutionists are believers and can justifiably be called evolutionists.

5. According to Jeremy someone who calls people that don’t believe in (macro) evolution are outside of science. I do not agree.

6. Jeremy mentions the theory of evolution as a paradigm but I think the theory of (macro) evolution is a consequence from a much bigger/deeper paradigm or worldview. He who does not believe in a Creator God has to invent some kind of naturalistic, materialistic way of creating a universe with everything in it, no matter how unbelievable it is. The worldview you have dictates how you interpret the facts. Jeremy writes about a certain interpretation of the evidence at hand.

7. I am glad that Jeremy is not presenting the theory of evolution as the truth, but he thinks it is less wrong than Genesis. I would like to ask Jeremy for experimental proof that Genesis is wrong. You have to investigate the facts of the universe, of the earth and of life and see if they fit better in a creationist’s worldview or in an evolutionist’s worldview.

Mr. Pogge I wish you well and Jeremy also.


Danko disagreed with Seppo’s approach of addressing weak points in the theory of evolution. He wrote,

Dear Sir,

After reading the email from that so-called science teacher, I would say that he is more interested in the philosophical side than in real science. Taking that in account, any attempt to point to obvious weak points of the theory of evolution is a waste of time. The main reason is that he already knows all of them, and he even mentioned them in his email. Sometimes I believe that evolutionists suffer from some kind of "Stockholm syndrome". The theory of evolution has abducted their common sense; but instead of fighting it they try to find excuses for it.

In my opinion, the only way he can live with such a contradiction in his mind and daily work is to proclaim that there is no truth in any field of science—not just in the theory of evolution. Instead of separating the theory of evolution from real science, he simply adopted the view that there is no real science at all, everything is not truth, and everything is just a less wrong model. Of course, this would be his own problem, except he is a teacher and obviously uses his position to transfer his delusions to students.

We agree with both Seppo and Danko, despite the fact that they have opposite opinions. We do refute specific evolutionary arguments—because we can. The facts are on our side. We have been addressing specific evolutionary errors for 23 years in this newsletter. But we also realize that, to an evolutionist, facts aren’t sufficient. We must address the underlying emotional, philoso­phical, and political issues which trump the facts.

Chris speculates,

When it comes to the general advancement of knowledge, in realms scientific or otherwise, I would argue that Jeremy does actually believe there is truth, or something damn near like it. If that’s the case, then denying the existence of truth in any realm of science is simply a distraction. What happens when someone believes in something scientifically important and they are confronted by evidence that seriously undermines that belief? If they want to continue believing, despite the evidence, then they might do so by saying “Well, there is no such thing as truth in any realm of science.”

I’m sure Jeremy’s response would be “But there is overwhelming evidence for my belief in evolution”. Good, let’s focus on that evidence: that’s the best and only way to discover truth.

Warm regards,

We are uncomfortable with people speculating about what other people they have never met believe—except when we do it! Seriously, we can’t know for certain why people believe what they believe—but there is some benefit to pondering what might make them have those beliefs because it might help us to understand them.

In this essay we are suggesting that Outcome-based Education might be responsible for acceptance of the non-scientific theory of evolution as a scientific explanation for the diversity of life. Of course, we can’t prove Outcome-based Education is to blame—but it is worth considering the possibility.

One has to wonder, given the overwhelming scientific evidence against the theory of evolution, and the constantly changing speculation about how evolution might have happened, why are some people evolutionists? There might be as many answers as there are evolutionists. That’s why we have to listen to them to understand them.

Tom’s Last Words

Also I wanted to thank YOU for your years of dedication and your wonderful articles. I always want to write you and never seem to do it. (Except once, after which you explained to me the meaning of infinity.)

If anybody can engage Jeremy it is you!

Go get ‘m!

Thank you,

Frankly, Tom’s last comment hurt a little bit. It isn’t our intention to “get” Jeremy. We want to portray our understanding of Jeremy’s position as honestly as we can, and then clearly explain why we think that position is wrong. If we have misunderstood Jeremy, we hope he will write again to explain to us why we are wrong. If we are wrong, we honestly want to know it.

The loser of an argument is actually the winner. When the argument is over, the loser has learned why he was wrong. The winner doesn’t know anything he didn’t already know.

You may have noticed in political arguments, the person who doesn’t have facts on his side tries to bully the other person into shutting up to prevent him from presenting the facts. That’s why evolutionists go to court to prevent any criticism of the theory of evolution in public schools. They can’t handle the truth.

This essay isn’t about Jeremy. It is about how Outcome-based Education has corrupted science. Rather than make the unsubstantiated assertion, “Outcome-based Education is harmful to science,” we needed an actual example of why we believe that to be true. Jeremy provided us with an example we could use to illustrate our belief.

Jeremy didn’t really try to defend evolution. Instead, he explained his view of what science is and how it should be taught. Our position is that he has adopted outcome-based science, which is not really science—it is a politically driven attempt to make absolute truth questionable, and unrealistic liberal ideas unquestionable.

Education isn’t education anymore, and science isn’t science anymore. Education is no longer transfer of knowledge and skills of an older generation to the new generation of students. Now the desired outcome of education is “creativity, respect for self and others, responsibility, and self-sufficiency.” Science is no longer a method to determine truth through carefully controlled experiments. Now science is whatever consensus produces the desired outcome. That’s why teachers like Jeremy don’t teach anything as the truth.


We want to thank all of you who wrote to tell us your reactions to Jeremy’s email, and are sorry we could not print all the email we received in our “six-page newsletter” (which, as you can see, is nine pages this month). We selected excerpts which, in some cases, were unique opinions, and in other cases were representative samples of points made by several readers, to give the broadest coverage of the responses.

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution
Home Page
Back issues of
(our newsletter)
Web Site
of the Month
Topical Index


1 Disclosure, May 2019, “Scientific Fact”
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome-based_education
3 ibid.
4 ibid.
5 ibid.
6 ibid.
7 Phyllis Schlafly Report (May 1993), “What's Wrong With Outcome-Based Education?”, http://www.ourcivilisation.com/dumb/dumb3.htm
8 Disclosure, May 2019, “Kentucky Derby Controversy”
9 In the novel, Nineteen-Eighty Four by George Orwell, Oceania's four government ministries’ names are “doublethink” or “newspeak.” They are the opposite of their true functions: The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture, and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.