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.