I did not say that creationism is talked about in public schools. That would be illegal, as affirmed in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Note that the Dover school district required the teaching of intelligent design, which is a form of creationism.

I wrote "Yet there was/is a large push to teach creationism in some form or other ("intelligent design") as being co-equal with evolution".

The "was" exists specifically to point to Dover as an example of teaching creationism in schools.

My statement also includes charter schools. (Charter schools are not public schools.) For example, quoting from https://slate.com/technology/2014/01/creationism-in-texas-pu... :

> When public-school students enrolled in Texas’ largest charter program open their biology workbooks, they will read that the fossil record is “sketchy.” That evolution is “dogma” and an “unproved theory” with no experimental basis. They will be told that leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of evolution and the age of the Earth. These are all lies.

My statement more specifically refers to the people doing the pushing, which includes the current US vice president. When he in the House of Representatives he said (quoting https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2002/7/11/hous... ):

> The truth is [evolution] always was a theory, Mr. Speaker. And now that we have recognized evolution as a theory, I would simply and humbly ask, can we teach it as such and can we also consider teaching other theories of the origin of species?

He has declined to inform us on any changes to his views.

You have not demonstrated that "the dominant ideology .. allows no dissent", etc.

I agree that the "dominant ideology" - a politicized way to say 'the considered opinion by those with the most training on the topic' - says that the views of climate change denialists - a politicized way to say 'those who do not believe there is global warming and/or that human action is a significant driver of that warming - has the strength of evidence behind it.

Just like the views of creationists do not have the strength of evidence behind them.

In other words, they are wrong. If they are wrong, why should they be granted an undeserved platform?

I don't understand the rest of your commentary. Were you treating me with respect by presenting a strawman position of my statement?

Most of your text appears so highly abstract that it's meaningless. Should the 'Smithsonian Barbie' be published in Science magazine as a new paleontological find, or would the orthodoxy prevent that from happening? What violence will result by preventing that path as a way to spread knowledge of 'ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams'?

What you wrote reminds me of a criticism by Martin Luther King:

> I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Based on your comment, I believe you are more devoted to order and the absence of tension to justice.