Evolutionists Fear Academic Freedom

Townhall.com ^ | July 5, 2008 | Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

[LetMarch]

I applaud the Governor for his stand to allow all to be taught, as free people in a free nation.
When I a freshman took a course in Geology in the fall of 1953, I was astonded that the order of evolution was in harmony with the Bible’s order of creation, at the time I thought this was reasonable.
About 7 years later (1960) In my research, I read “Enspiration vs Evolution” by Dr. W. B. Riley, (copywrite 1923). He pointed out that in Darwin’s Theory it is stated over several hundred times, “we may well assume.” In the Holy Scriptures it is stated over and over, “thus saith the Lord.” (Shall we live on assumptions, or by every word of God?)
Dr. Riley also taught the results of teaching evolution as a fact, and the results of teaching creation. He said, those that are taught evolution, in lieu of creation, would turn to Athesism, Communism,and Anarcy. And that has, and is happening.
God’s word, and His creation have lasted thousands of years,
and our children (as well as adults) are taught “In the beginning God” and the the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and he became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7)
Yes, “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and the host of them by the breath of His mouth.” (Psalm 33:6)
A blessed result of teaching creation (God’s word) is given in Proverbs 16:6, “By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.”

[Caramelgal]

Students deserve academic free speech rights to hear alternate views, ask critical questions and debate controversial topics.

No. Wrong. What students really deserve is a good and classical education and not a blank license for teachers to teach and promote every subtle or not so subtle indoctrination of every “alternate” viewpoint or a forum to promote the personal beliefs of the teacher, whether the beliefs of the teacher are religious or political; founded in a fundamentalist religious belief of any kind or in Marxism or in radical feminism or radical environmentalism, or that of every wako conspiracy theory. We have too much of that sort of BS being taught in classrooms as it is now and it has to stop.

Let’s put the Evolution argument aside for a moment and think about the chaos this sort of “let’s hear and give equal time and equal credence to every alternate viewpoint” would bring.

So you have one kid in the classroom whose parents are young Earth creationists. So a science teacher has to give this “belief”, one with no basis in science, equal time and equal credence in any lesson plan about astronomy or geology? A number of you would be OK with this, but would any of you be equally comfortable allowing a teacher in a health or home economics class on nutrition promoting and giving equal time and credence to veganism and the teacher’s personal Wicaan belief system?

Should a science teacher, teaching about the NASA space program and our landing on the Moon have to give equal time and equal credence to conspiracy theories that it was all just staged on a Hollywood movie set?

I think it’s good to allow students to ask “critical questions” with the emphasis on “critical” and not silly, but to mandate that a teacher has to address and give equal time and credence to every challenge to every fact, whether historical or scientific, it just asking for even more erosion of our educational system.

What about the so called science teacher who was teaching an alternate view of evolution from a fundamentalist website that had no basis in science and thought that burning Christian Crosses in students arms was a good way to teach about electricity? A lot of people defended this guy but what if the teacher was a Wiccan and burned pentagrams on the arms of his students to teach the same lesson? That would not have been any more defendable in my opinion.

In high school, I took an elective and advanced honors level, college level course on political thought and theory.

We were objectively taught and studied the political theories of the ancient Greeks; Plato and Aristotle through the age of Enlightenment, Voltaire, and ended with Carl Marx and Marxism.

I knew my teacher, who I greatly respected, was from my discussions with her, was personally more liberal in her political views than the views I already had. For my final thesis paper, I chose the Communist Manifesto. I wrote my thesis in a very objective manner. While I had a point of view, I did not interject my personal “beliefs” into my paper, rather I used facts and the sort of reasoning my teacher objectively taught in this class to contrast Communism with other political theories and point out the flaws in Communism. I got an A for the course and an A for my thesis.

[Soliton]

You believe that churches should be required to teach what the state dictates to them. Is this correct? Yes, or no, please.

I do not think we should teach religion in science class in public schools and I do not think that churches should have to teach anything they don't want to.

My point was that there are many competing religious beliefs and scientific facts that contradict Genesis. Based on your logic of academic freedom, churches logically should have to offer competing ideas too.

You objected, not on academic freedom grounds, but suggested that support from taxpayers was the determining factor.

I demonstrated that churches ARE supported by taxpayers and you agreed.

Therefore, logically, both churches AND schools should be forced to offer alternatives or NEITHER should. I prefer neither, but since you promote creationism in schools, you logically support evolution in churches

[xenophiles]

>There is no absolute scientific proof that evolution occurs...

There is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution...

You missed an important point, Non-Sequitur: "absolute scientific proof" is not a phrase that scientists use, it's an imaginary standard that creationists apply to theories they don't like. (Mere evidence is good enough for theories they do like, and popularity for their non-scientific ideas.)

It's hard to imagine what "absolute scientific proof" would be -- it's almost an oxymoron -- but here are a few other theories that can't clear that hurdle:

The germ theory of disease; there are strong correlations, but no real proof (and besides, some diseases aren't correlated with microbes, so there). The theory that stars are suns and the sun is a star; circumstantial evidence, no proof (and besides, some stars are different colors, so we can fuss with the definitions). The Round Earth Theory; LOTS of evidence but no absolute proof, it could be an illusion, we can refuse to understand the evidence, we can refuse to believe travellers' accounts. The theory that all human beings are mortal; massive inductive reasoning does not constitute proof.

If you have time on your hands you can play with the "my theory's been around a long time and many people still believe it" standard. Astrology anyone?

[aruanan]

The germ theory of disease; there are strong correlations, but no real proof (and besides, some diseases aren't correlated with microbes, so there). The theory that stars are suns and the sun is a star; circumstantial evidence, no proof (and besides, some stars are different colors, so we can fuss with the definitions). The Round Earth Theory; LOTS of evidence but no absolute proof, it could be an illusion, we can refuse to understand the evidence, we can refuse to believe travellers' accounts. The theory that all human beings are mortal; massive inductive reasoning does not constitute proof.

Pretty weak.

[LetMarch]

Some churches do, but it not ordained to do so. The church
was founded for and by the Lord Jesus Christ. He said, “I will build My church” and It is written, “Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it.” And He promised to “present it without wrinkle and without spot.”
As to teaching in other nations, I would allow them to teach here, as they allowed us to teach in their countries.
If they will not allow us to teach, neither should we allow
(and some are even subidized by and established by our taxes)them to teach in our nation.

[Coyoteman]

What do the evolutionists say—to those who would like to be certain that their belief in evolution is based on firm science—about the lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms?

The claim that there are no transitional forms is creationist propaganda. They refuse to see those transitionals, hence they don't exist.

This is an example of a transitional:

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

[Coyoteman]

One would think legislation which allows an environment that promotes “critical thinking” and “objective discussion” in the classroom would please everyone...

Now that teachers can't be disciplined for “critical thinking” and “objective discussion” there is nothing to prevent them from critically examining religious beliefs.

A young earth and the global flood should be among the easiest to apply “critical thinking” and “objective discussion” to.

There is no credible scientific evidence supporting either belief, and teachers will now be free to state this. And there's absolutely nothing the fundamentalists can do about it because of the silly law they just got passed.

[Theo]

Would the Brown's suggest opening up Geology to those who say the earth is flat? Or Astronomy to those who say the Sun revolves around the Earth?

Yes. And then the class would discuss these theories and find them to be false. That's called "critical thinking," my friend.

Now I'll go in the corner and shut up, as you'd like.

[rustbucket]

Darwinism is a religion

If that were so, why has the theory of evolution changed (dare I say evolved) over the years as more fossil evidence has been gathered? Darwin provided examples of slow continuous evolution and that was mainstream evolutionary theory for years. However, the twentieth century theory of punctuated equilibrium better explains much, but not all, of later fossil finds.

Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium

[sasafras]

This is how the left wins the public argument - by appealing to people’s sense of emotion - i.e sympothy. Emotion wins everytime - this is how we have homos, minorities and women dictating policy to the majority. Rather than a colorblind society we have race, sexual preference and gender based discrimintion.

IF the right wants to win the cultural war they will unfortunately have to engage people from an emotional (ie. sympathy) level. People are sheep and for the most part idiots. In fact the more educated one is, the less common sense they have.

[ShadowAce]

I do not think we should teach religion in science class in public schools and I do not think that churches should have to teach anything they don't want to.

We agree on both of these points. I *think* where we differ is what is being advocated here. I do not believe that "religion" is being required to be taught in science class. I do believe, though, that the weaknesses and strengths of any theory, or belief system, should be taught when that theory or belief system is taught.

Part of the teaching the weaknesses of evolution could include (NOT "should"), religious beliefs of various peoples. While this part would not be science, the exposure of the theory's weaknesses would be the science being discussed.

[Hacksaw]

If this was a refereed debate, you would have just lost by stating my position. Thank you.

Only if you referee doesn't know the difference between school district taxes and tax exmpt institutions. By your reducto ad absurdum, we could put the tax exempt ACLU in the same camp and start regulating it, and I am sure you wouldn't want that, 'cause then they wouldn't have the fund to sue taxpayers who do not vote they way they like.

[AnalogReigns]

Would the Brown's suggest opening up Geology to those who say the earth is flat? Or Astronomy to those who say the Sun revolves around the Earth? How about those who say the earth is hollow, or that man has never orbited the earth or set foot on the moon, or that Pi is actually 3.0 and not 3.14?

Every single one of your examples can be shown as nonsense by repeatable experimentation in the here and now. Evolution, as a theory of what happened in the (very) distant past, cannot be directly tested by repeatable contemporary experimentation, in the good old here and now.

As a theory of history...not at all subject to direct observation and experimentation, (and by it's own hypothesis actually pre-historic...) Darwinism is unique in science, in that so many scientists hold to it as firmly as gravity, and yet unlike gravity, and practically everything else in science (since it is claimed evolution happened over hundreds of millions of years), no one can directly test it.

It's no wonder that the most ardent evolutionary scientists are atheists, and, virtually all atheists are evolutionists. All religious beliefs have a philosophy of history, and Darwinism is no exception.

[LetMarch]

Maybe that is the reason the Dr. Provine is at Cornell,instead of Harvard or Yale. Knowing the founders of Harvard believed that “All knowledge without Christ was vain.” And yet still on the college seal the motto, “For Christ and the Church.
And Yale had a primary goal of, “Every student shall consider the main end of his study to wit to know God in Jesus Christ and answerably to lead a Godly, sober life.”

Would to God these were true today, at all our Universities, we would have worthy goals and purposes.

[Soliton]

I didn’t use taxpayer support as a determining factor, my opponent did.

[AnalogReigns]

...

[Soliton]

I do believe, though, that the weaknesses and strengths of any theory, or belief system, should be taught when that theory or belief system is taught

The weaknesses of scientific theories including evolution IS being tought in science class. Darwin did it himself. You cannot offer religious objections in schools unless the religious objections can be argued based on scientific evidence. ID offers no proof at all; no evidence. It isn't science so teach it in church

[reasonisfaith]

I’ve seen this example provided by you in a previous thread. If I remember correctly, you never replied to my refutation. To illustrate the inadequacy of this example, I would ask you how many genetic mutations were involved in the evolution of this species from the previous one, and what are the corresponding phenotypes?

This one questionable example of yours is like trying to stop a hurricane with a single bag of sand.

In order to give a minimum amount of credibility to evolutionism, fossil evidence of transitional forms must be found at least in the tens of thousands, but preferably in the tens of millions.

I challenge you to provide just ten separate examples of transitional forms.

[reasonisfaith]

“If evolution is true, the rocks should contain billions times billions of fossils of the ancestors of the complex invertebrates. Yet, not one has ever been found.”
-Duane T. Gish, in his book The Fossils Still Say No.

More from Gish:
“Errol White, an evolutionist and expert on fishes, in his presidential address on lungfishes to the Linnean Society of London, said: ‘But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing…’ Later he went on to say, ‘I have often thought how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law.’”

If you read Gish’s book, or research the fossil record, you will see that there is no (zero) fossil evidence for transitional forms. Not just transitional forms between fish and amphimbians, but also between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and all the countless species between which transitional forms must have existed in the path of commmon descent if evolution is true.