Criticism Of Evolution Can't Be Silenced

Eagle Forum ^ | August 16, 2006 | Mrs. Schlafly

[jla]

Criticism Of Evolution Can't Be Silenced

---

by Phyllis Schlafly, August 16, 2006

---

The liberal press is gloating that the seesaw battle for control of the Kansas Board of Education just teetered back to pro-evolutionists for the second time in five years. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the movement to allow criticism of evolution are grossly exaggerated.

In its zeal to portray evolution critics in Kansas as dumb rural fundamentalists, a New York Times page-one story misquoted Dr. Steve Abrams (the school board president who had steered Kansas toward allowing criticism of evolution) on a basic principle of science. The newspaper had to correct its error.

The issue in the Kansas controversy was not intelligent design and certainly not creationism. The current Kansas standards state: "To promote good science, good pedagogy and a curriculum that is secular, neutral and non-ideological, school districts are urged to follow the advice provided by the House and Senate Conferees in enacting the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001."

This "advice," which the Kansas standards quote, is: "The Conferees recognize that quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

The newly elected school board members immediately pledged to work swiftly to restore a science curriculum that does not subject evolution to criticism. They don't want students to learn "the full range of scientific views" or that there is a "controversy" about evolution.

Liberals see the political value to teaching evolution in school, as it makes teachers and children think they are no more special than animals. Childhood joy and ambition can turn into depression as children learn to reject that they were created in the image of God.

The press is claiming that the pro-evolution victory in Kansas (where, incidentally, voter turnout was only 18 percent) was the third strike for evolution critics. Last December a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, prohibited the school from even mentioning Intelligent Design, and in February, the Ohio board of education nixed a plan to allow a modicum of critical analysis of evolution.

But one strikeout does not a ball game win. Gallup Polls have repeatedly shown that only about 10 percent of Americans believe the version of evolution commonly taught in public schools and, despite massive public school indoctrination in Darwinism, that number has not changed much in decades.

Intelligent judges are beginning to reject the intolerant demands of the evolutionists. In May, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned the decision by a Clinton-appointed trial judge to prohibit the Cobb County, Georgia, school board from placing this sticker on textbooks: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Fortunately, judges and politicians cannot control public debate about evolution. Ann Coulter's new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," has enjoyed weeks on the New York Times best-seller list.

Despite bitter denunciations by the liberals, funny thing, there has been a thundering silence about the one-third of her book in which she deconstructs Darwinism. She calls it the cosmology of the Church of Liberalism.

Coulter's book charges that evolution is a cult religion, and described how its priests and practitioners regularly treat critics as religious heretics. The Darwinists' answer to every challenge is to accuse their opponents of, horrors, a fundamentalist belief in God.

Although the liberals spent a lot of money to defeat members of the Kansas school board members on August 1, they are finding it more and more difficult to prop up Darwinism by the censorship of criticism. The polite word for the failure of Darwinism to prove its case is gaps in the theory, but Ann Coulter's book shows that dishonesty and hypocrisy are more accurate descriptions.

Evolutionists are too emotionally committed to face up to the failure of evidence to support their faith, but they are smart enough to know that they lose whenever debate is allowed, which is why they refused the invitation to present their case at a public hearing in Kansas. But this is America, and 90 percent of the public will not remain silenced.

---

Further Reading: Evolution

Eagle Forum • PO Box 618 • Alton, IL 62002 • phone: 618-462-5415 • fax: 618-462-8909 • eagle@eagleforum.org

Read this article online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/aug06/06-08-16.html

[My2Cents]

It's Darwinism's application to justify about every leftist social theory which doesn't play well in an essentially conservative nation.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP

[ThinkDifferent]

The issue in the Kansas controversy was not intelligent design and certainly not creationism.

Also, there are no American troops in Baghdad.

[DannyTN]

spot on.

[Oztrich Boy]

They don't want students to learn "the full range of scientific views" or that there is a "controversy" about evolution.

That's because there isn't a controversy about evolution within science.

If it is controversial to you, tell your children that elswhere than in science classes.

[Hong Kong Expat]

You can't silence empty barrels as well.

[Physicist]

Evolutionists are too emotionally committed to face up to the failure of evidence to support their faith,

The entire creationist belief system is predicated upon the notion that almost every scientist consciously puts aside the evidence to profess something they know is not true.

Such a notion simply does not make logical sense. You can't find that level of unanimity among the oppressed victims of communism, whose very lives are on the line. And yet the scientists are supposed to be even more strongly motivated by a mere emotional investment? Please.

No Christian congregation manages that level of commitment either, I might add.

News flash for Mrs. Schlafly: the scientists overwhelmingly have considered the evidence more deeply than you ever possibly could have, and more honestly besides, and almost to a person have reached a conclusion that is the opposite of yours.

[Paleo Conservative]

But it can be ridiculed.

[taxesareforever]

Evolutionists are too emotionally committed to face up to the failure of evidence to support their faith, but they are smart enough to know that they lose whenever debate is allowed

Isn't that the truth. I love it when Phyllis uses Ann Coulter's book to support her statements.

[wyattearp]

I love it when Phyllis uses Ann Coulter's book to support her statements.

A whiner quoting the scientifically illiterate. Oh, yeah, I'm impressed. Not.

[spinestein]

[Criticism Of Evolution Can't Be Silenced]



The scientists studying and teaching evolutionary theory, knowing that it's an integral part of science, must always welcome criticism. What they don't welcome is persons who are totally ignorant of not just evolution, but of the methods of science entirely, telling them they're idiots and frauds and demanding that the government force them to teach to the students in their science classes that a religious creation myth is a valid alternative to genuine science.

[RippyO]

Exactly. Proponents of ID say they just want to "open a dialogue" and give "alternating viewpoints a chance". It's not creationism, they say!

Well, why do about ALL of the "broad-minded" IDers act in some sort of concert with political evangelicals? Every one of them has some sort of link to religious organizations. ID, carried to its logical end, IS creationism.

So then, is it true that the only reason the vast majority of scientists who believe ID is a sham....just what, reject God? are all acting in consort to enslave our children in a godless, Satanist plot? Get together at Darwin's grave every Halloween and chant incantations?

I don't think so.

[ProfScience]

I am a professional scientist actually working as a scientist. The vast majority of scientists that I work with acknowledge the shortcomings of evolution as a theory and recognize that it is time to sack the theory as it has been pushed and in effect evolve to a new theory. Those of us who were trained with the "Central Dogma.., Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny...gradualism... precepts etc." have already acknowledged that the facts do not support darwinian evolutionary theory, grown up and moved on. If you are referring to poorly educated public school teachers in general than you may have a point to be made.

[Sentis]

[quote]It's Darwinism's application to justify about every leftist social theory which doesn't play well in an essentially conservative nation [/quote]

This is a ludicrous statement. Darwin did no such thing. Neither does Evolution. Just because a theory scares the bejesus out of some people who have no grasp of science more profound than "God make Thunder", "God heap big Man in Sky, him pour rain down on us" does not make for ground of criticism.
You want to believe that God works outside of natural processes go live in a cave because for the rest of us science is the uncovering of just how this universe is put together and the application of that science. I see very little difference between people who believe that God made man out of a mud pie and people who believe that God is waiting on them with 72 virgins in heaven when they kill infidels. One is a little less repugnant socially but both are not much more advanced than the 7th century.

I get tired of primitive screwheads who can't figure out that Evolution and God forbid I say it "Darwinism" is a more conservative idea than that whiny, liberal, hippie they worship as a God.

[Sentis]

Just what sort of "Scientist" are you?

[RippyO]

A professional scientist. Who coincidentally works....as a scientist.

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

If evolution theory is true, it wouldn't exist without the Creator's impetus. I used to believe in God 'creating' evolution. But now, with proof still quite elusive and sketchy, I'm not so sure about evolution.

[Sentis]

I wondered because you see I'm a professional Archaeologist and I work as an Archaeologist. I don't think that I had met a bonfide professional "Scientist". You know those generalists Scientists they are really coming back in vogue since the Victorian age.

[Physicist]

Either you believe that the current working theory of biology employed by the vast majority of scientists is something other than the TOE--playing with semantic niceties, in other words--or you are not being truthful at some level. The things you mentioned are not central tenets of evolution and never were; common descent with inherited modification is the core issue.

I have never, ever met a professional scientist who rejected the modern synthesis (i.e. that genes are the mechnaism of Darwinian inheritance, and that genetic mutation is the origin of inheritable variation). And I have regularly interacted with life scientists, both personally and professionally. For you to indicate that the "vast majority" of scientists you've met do reject it is frankly unbelievable.

[Oztrich Boy]

A professional scientist. Who coincidentally works....as a scientist.

When you say "professional scientist" does that mean his profession is as a scientist.

[RippyO]

I definitely see the value in your past judgement. Obviously, we believe in God. But the scientific method, while not something to be worshipped, cannot be ignored.

The idea that God created Evolution smacks of having it both ways, but in my infinite ignorance I cannot help but see it is the most true.

As for proof, it's impossible to prove evolution, just like it's impossible to 100% verify many theories. And yes, further research and information will arise that will, at the very least, modify our perceptions of evolution. But is it the best and most explanatory theory, given the knowledge we currently have?

Yes.

[RippyO]

I dunno. Perhaps he plays one on TV.

[Sentis]

No, it means he is most likely a professional liar. Most Scientists have a discipline the fact he doesn't name it means one of three things.

1. He is lying and is not a scientist

2. He has a degree but not in anything remotely related to a life science for instance in electronics or meteorology.

3. He is one of those class of new "Scientists" that get their training in Churches and promote ID.

[Sentis]

I should have put number three as number one as they are the same thing. Oh well...

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

'Objective' scientific method should not be ignored, but manipulated science should be. Such as a lot of GW science. Grant monies seem to somewhat control scientific ethics now.

Evolution makes sense for most all species. But, I'm not convinced 100%. You may be right as to it being impossible to prove. You'd think however, that we'd see proof in nature. There are how many gazillions of species? You'd think there'd be at least one existing link/crossover/imbetweener whatever you want to call it. Did evolution go nuts for millions of years and then just stop? An evolutionary age?

[Van Jenerette]

While I continue to hit my students with my lecture "Bibles & Gunpowder and the American Revolution" I have another lecture...

"Darwin meets Jesus in America's Public Schools: Why The Atheist want our Children to learn Natural Selection but quietly Need them to behave like Good Tolerant Christians.

[MonroeDNA]

Kooksville squared.

[taxesareforever]

A whiner quoting the scientifically illiterate. Oh, yeah, I'm impressed. Not.

Typical liberal response. Name calling since they don't have a leg to stand on. Whoops, don't fall over there.

[Bonaparte]

"...the current working theory of biology employed by the vast majority of scientists"

Ah, science-by-consensus.

There was a time when the prevailing explanation for combustion was the phlogiston theory. Those "scientists" had consensus too. They were also quick to ostracize colleagues who raised scientific objections to it -- just as they have attacked a biochemist like Behe or a molecular biologist like Denton in more recent times.

Something like two dozen scientists recently came to the defense of the Cobb County Board of Education during the textbook "sticker" hearings. They were credentialed in fields such as microbiology, biochemistry and biophysics. Brave people. I can only imagine the abuse and insult they've since endured from their "colleagues in consensus."

What I'd like to know is this: How is it that you're more qualified to render a scientific opinion on biological matters than they are? Aren't you straying a bit out of your area of expertise?

[John Locke]

Despite bitter denunciations by the liberals, funny thing, there has been a thundering silence about the one-third of her book in which she deconstructs Darwinism.

Start here.

Continue here.

Lots more references at the talk.reason site. All accessible through search engines via "Coulter" and "evolution". Mrs Shlafly is simply full of it.

[Vanders9]

News flash for Mrs. Schlafly: the scientists overwhelmingly have considered the evidence more deeply than you ever possibly could have, and more honestly besides, and almost to a person have reached a conclusion that is the opposite of yours.


This is very true, but not the point. The problem is that the theory of evolution DOES have quite a lot of holes in it. That doesn't neccesarily invalidate the theory (it may just mean more thought and research needs to be done) but it is worrying that people are being taught as fact that which is still theory. Evolutionary theory does change as more research is done, and what was being taught as fact a few years ago is not considered accurate now.

If this school board is merely asking for a more critical assessment of this issue, that's surely a good thing. We need scientists who think rather than parrot repeat.

[PGalt]

We were all created. Many of us devolve.

[AdAstraPerArdua]

I seem to recall the catholic church being every bit as convinced that the Sun circled the Earth as creationists are that God created man.

It only took a few hundred years for Galileo to get an apology, so I guess this equally self-evident argument should be settled by about 2300. . . . .

[Physicist]

Ah, science-by-consensus.

The consensus is the result of the scientific inquiry, just like the heliocentric solar system. The theory was not built by consensus, but by Darwin.

The goal of any investigation is for essentially everybody to agree because the correct idea has been found. Such is the case with the origin of species.

[RoadTest]

"That's because there isn't a controversy about evolution within science."

Yes, there is.

[RoadTest]

Yes - it's not science when you call theory "fact".

[Physicist]

The problem is that the theory of evolution DOES have quite a lot of holes in it. That doesn't neccesarily invalidate the theory (it may just mean more thought and research needs to be done) but it is worrying that people are being taught as fact that which is still theory.

Do you make the same demands of the atomic theory of matter? In all seriousness, I can think of much more serious "holes" in that theory than exist in the theory of evolution.

Evolutionary theory does change as more research is done, and what was being taught as fact a few years ago is not considered accurate now.

Be honest: the features of evolutionary theory to which the school board members object have not changed at all since Darwin.

Whatever changes in thinking have occurred (which by the way is a sign of health and not of a problem in a scientific discipline), they have not overturned the core ideas. And yet all of this ginned-up controversy has only a single goal: to manufacture public distrust in those core ideas.

If this school board is merely asking for a more critical assessment of this issue, that's surely a good thing. We need scientists who think rather than parrot repeat.

First, how do you reconcile the accusation that scientists "parrot repeat" the theory with your earlier assertion that evolutionary theory is changing?

Second, the school board is not responsible for setting scientists straight, but for educating children. And it does them a disservice to teach them that an unusual scientific controversy exists in the field of evolution, when in reality it is one of the most firmly established and intellectually unassailable ideas in science.

[DungeonMaster]

The entire creationist belief system is predicated upon the notion that almost every scientist consciously puts aside the evidence to profess something they know is not true.

Not quite. As with other religions, we know that you believe evolution to be true. But we also know you to be blind to the real truth. It is very similar to Islam. Now there are a group of people that strongly believe a false religion, yet they believe it to the point of wanting to blow themselves up with their babies to expand their religion.

So our efforts here are obviously evangelical. We believed because of someone's testimony to us and we hope to share the same testimony to you.

[70times7]

IBTP!

[MarDav]

Of course it is...and here's the reason: at the end of the day, you must adhere to a belief in the existence of the theory of evolution's missing pieces the same way people of faith adhere to their beliefs in God--by believing they will be discovered/revealed.

The intellectually honest evolutionist admits to this, the intellectually dishonest does not. Hence, controversy.

[Sloth]

I get tired of primitive screwheads who can't figure out that Evolution and God forbid I say it "Darwinism" is a more conservative idea than that whiny, liberal, hippie they worship as a God.

Typical Darwinist contempt for God. Which is why so many of them deride 'intelligent design,' even though it does not contradict what has elsewhere on this thread been called the core of evolution: common descent with inherited modification.

You will never find a controversy in which BOTH sides are more intellectually dishonest than this Crevo crap.

[RippyO]

,'Objective' scientific method should not be ignored, but manipulated science should be. Such as a lot of GW science. Grant monies seem to somewhat control scientific ethics now. That's basically a conspiracy theory.

[Vanders9]

Do you make the same demands of the atomic theory of matter? In all seriousness, I can think of much more serious "holes" in that theory than exist in the theory of evolution.

No, but then that theory is testable now, whereas evolution, having taken place, is a past event, which is not so easily repeatable.

Be honest: the features of evolutionary theory to which the school board members object have not changed at all since Darwin.

I wouldnt really know, and wouldnt presume to know, what they are thinking of.

Whatever changes in thinking have occurred (which by the way is a sign of health and not of a problem in a scientific discipline), they have not overturned the core ideas. And yet all of this ginned-up controversy has only a single goal: to manufacture public distrust in those core ideas.

I agree wholeheartedly that the changes in thinking are a sign of health, however, as you then go on to state - they have not overturned the core ideas. Is tht because the core ideas are unassailably correct, or just that no-one dares to challenge them?
As for your comments on the "ginned up controversy", the implication that is being done purely to manufacture public distrust is pure speculation on your part. There are any number of reasons why people are concerned about this issue, some valid and some (no doubt) very suspect.

First, how do you reconcile the accusation that scientists "parrot repeat" the theory with your earlier assertion that evolutionary theory is changing?

Simple. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I very carefully did not do that. Im just pointing out that in general I want scientists to be objective and free to consider all possibilities.

Second, the school board is not responsible for setting scientists straight, but for educating children. And it does them a disservice to teach them that an unusual scientific controversy exists in the field of evolution, when in reality it is one of the most firmly established and intellectually unassailable ideas in science.

True, their duty is to educate...but they have to know what to teach. Is it doing them a disservice? Im not so sure. Considering that this discussion is going on, this is obviously a controversial topic that they are certainly going to need to be aware of in life.

[Sentis]

Do you want me to list the reasons Jesus is a Liberal and the Christian Heaven is basically a Communist set-up :)

It's quite easy. I am always amazed at the fact that most Christians are conservatives when they are hell bent on moving on to a communist paradise. Sounds more like hell to me than paradise.

[MarDav]

Christians believe that Hell is a place of eternal separation from God. In fact, Christian beliefs concerning God, Christ, Heaven are, at their core, acceptance of the biblical teachings that the manifold evidence that we see in our present material world that create what some would refer to as "hell on earth" (crime, poverty, war, human suffering, etc) is proof of man's fallen nature and that these proofs have a spiritual and eternal consequence. To dwell, as we do now, on a planet where this temporary/physical separation creates such heartache, grief, suffering and woe, and then to choose the alternative as one's guiding principle seems rational, rather than amazing.

[Sloth]

Do you want me to list the reasons Jesus is a Liberal and the Christian Heaven is basically a Communist set-up

Feel free to continue displaying your ignorance.

[Hacksaw]

Do you want me to list the reasons Jesus is a Liberal and the Christian Heaven is basically a Communist set-up :)

I think you should bash Christians loudly and often, and make sure you identify yourself as a Darwinist when doing it.

[js1138]

I think he is referring to Kent Hovind. Anyone who can put "central tenets of evolution" and "recapitulation" in the same sentence is smoking something stronger than tobacco.

[jla]

News flash for Mrs. Schlafly: the scientists overwhelmingly have considered the evidence more deeply than you ever possibly could have, and more honestly besides, and almost to a person have reached a conclusion that is the opposite of yours.

This is an outright lie. Would you care to verify it? Especially that "almost to a person" claim.
And for your information, Physicist, Mrs. Schlafly has testified in the U.S. congress on nuclear proliferation. So I wouldn't doubt her tenacity in looking at any evidence regarding evolution.