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

[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!