[FreedomProtector]

I believe the primary focus of the question asked is directed at public schools, in particular, public high schools. Although it has been a while since I have been in high school (college, graduate school and several years of very interesting work have since past), I believe there is some knowledge that is gained via experience, and my personal experience in public high school biology class is relevant to the question at hand.

My high school biology instructor repeated her presupposition that "evolution is a fact" over and over and over again, sounding more like a broken record then a science teacher. The vast majority of classroom time was wasted studying antiquated, disproved 'evidences' for evolution. There was very little classroom time was spent on learning fundamental biological concepts: analyzing structure and function, cell division and mitosis, meiosis, biochemistry, genetics, etc. or performing laboratory experiments. It was self-evident that it was more important to the instructor that the students in my class believe in evolution then understand fundamental biology concepts. If I asked a typical student in my class after her lectures, “Did the Miller-Urey experiments demonstrate that life could come from non-life?” --the typical answer was an unscientific, “yes”. The law of abiogenesis was not important, life miraculously arising from non-life was. If I asked one of my peers in the class after her lectures: “If someone was to lift weights and increase their muscle mass, would genetic traits of bigger muscle would be passed on to their children?” --the typical answer was an unscientific, “yes”. The laws of genetics were not important, miraculously changing from one species to another was. The perspective my biology class was taught from hindered the understanding of fundamental biological laws of many of my peers. Teaching evolution ‘as fact’, as the ‘only view allowed’ did not enhance the educational process, it hindered it.

All hope was not lost. Heros are born in unlikely times. While most of class was sadly merely regurgitating the antiquated, disproved 'evidences’ for evolution on tests, FreedomProtector learned how to think independently and to prove the regurgitated antiquated ‘evidences’ are invalid, have that proof stand up to the very hostile, well-educated peer-review test, and write both on tests in the time most of the class was just regurgitating. Batman was born when the Joker killed his parents. FreedomProtector was born in this biology class when the instructor tried to kill freedom of intellectual inquiry. The very hostile, well-educated peer-review carried over to FreedomProtector’s high school physics class where the Physics instructor had a Master’s degree in evolutionary biology, but in his words “could only get a job teaching physics”.

Although one class is a very small sample, I believe from what I have heard and read elsewhere that it is reasonable to believe that this sample is sadly descriptive of other high school biology classes.

"Should a view be taught/should a view be allowed to be taught?" is not the right question. Maybe this is a valid question for a classroom in the former Soviet Union, but not for America. There should be freedom of intellectual inquiry. The right questions which should be asked by anyone whether they are in a classroom regulated by an all-knowing state or not are: Which view is probable? Which view is most likely true?

[Virginia-American]

...The vast majority of classroom time was wasted studying antiquated, disproved 'evidences' for evolution...

Could you be a bit more specific please?

[Virginia-American]

There should be freedom of intellectual inquiry.

There is. That's why evolution, in the form of the neo-Darwinian or Synthetic Theory, is the "only game in town". It triumphed something like 100 years ago.

At the HS level, all students can learn is the basics of the varous sciences. The fact of evolution is evident from the fossil rocord, and the theory is supported by innumerable bits of evidence from fossils, geographic distribution, biochenistry, embryology, etc.

To pretend that there is some sort of controversy in science is iresponsible; the only controversy is between various sects of Christianity and Islam.

ID and/or creationism will have to advance to the point of being testable scientific theories with lots of evidence and success in explaining phenomena that the current theory can't before it will be ready for HS level presentation. If this ever happens, it will be in research labs.

[Virginia-American]

...: “If someone was to lift weights and increase their muscle mass, would genetic traits of bigger muscle would be passed on to their children?” --the typical answer was an unscientific, “yes”...

I'm having a hard time believing this; are you claiming that the teacher was so awful that you couldn't tell the disproved Lamarckian theory from normal biology?!

[.30Carbine]

I'm so glad you thought to ping me to your worthy post! Thank you for saying these things.

[js1138]

The law of abiogenesis was not important...

Just out of curiosity, what is "The law of abiogenesis"?

[tomzz]

The very hostile, well-educated peer-review carried over to FreedomProtector’s high school physics class where the Physics instructor had a Master’s degree in evolutionary biology, but in his words “could only get a job teaching physics”.

I can't imagine a four year degree in "evolutionary biology". What a waste of a life. At some point, St. Peter is going to ask that dude what he did with the brains and talent he was given, and that's not going to be much of an answer.

Again, the answer to the basic question, "Should religion be put on an equal footing with evolution in the classroom?" is "Only if the religion you choose is the RIGHT one, so as to have an apples to apples comparison." i.e. it has to be a religion which works on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, i.e. evolution vs voodoo or evolution vs rastafari. That's almost an insult to the rastas, but it's the closest there is.

[Quix]

Excellent points.

[SoldierDad]

FYI ya'll

Just received a phone call from my son, Robert, whose in Baghdad. We were able to talk for 18 minutes. I passed along to him all of your thanks for his service to our nation. He is doing well and today is a day off for his Platoon. His response to your thanks was "No problem, just doing my job". So far, he said, his Platoon had not run across any IED's. I'll follow with more as it comes in. Thanks to all of you for your concerns for him and the men of his Platoon.

[betty boop]

"Should a view be taught/should a view be allowed to be taught?" is not the right question. Maybe this is a valid question for a classroom in the former Soviet Union, but not for America. There should be freedom of intellectual inquiry.

Well said, FreedomProtector!

What a dismal story you relate. :^(

And yet probably pretty representative of the state of biological science teaching in the public schools today, where indoctrination rules. And not just in science classes.

Thanks for an excellent essay/post!

[Stultis]

I'm confused. Why do you write of "peer review" wrt a high school biology class? I can't figure what your getting at with that. You also write of "freedom of intellectual inquiry" almost as if the high school classroom was were scientific theories and principles were developed, debated, honed and tested, rather than a place of introductory education about the results of scientific inquiry.

[jerri]

Which view is probable? Which view is most likely true?

Thank you FreedomProtector, those are questions that should be asked.

[b_sharp]

This post is a fine example of the type of misdirection and hyperbole used by anti-evolutionists to convince the choir without having to provide evidence or counter evidence.

"My high school biology instructor repeated her presupposition that "evolution is a fact" over and over and over again, sounding more like a broken record then a science teacher. The vast majority of classroom time was wasted studying antiquated, disproved 'evidences' for evolution. There was very little classroom time was spent on learning fundamental biological concepts: analyzing structure and function, cell division and mitosis, meiosis, biochemistry, genetics, etc. or performing laboratory experiments. It was self-evident that it was more important to the instructor that the students in my class believe in evolution then understand fundamental biology concepts. If I asked a typical student in my class after her lectures, “Did the Miller-Urey experiments demonstrate that life could come from non-life?” --the typical answer was an unscientific, “yes”. The law of abiogenesis was not important, life miraculously arising from non-life was."

Here is the first indicator that you not only do not understand the SToE but are completely unaware of the significance of Pasteur's work on origins of life. There is no 'Law of Abiogenesis'; it is a construct of anti-evolutoinists looking for some way to convince themselves that life could not form from pre-life. In fact the only place you find mention of it is on Anti-evolution sites or sites where scientists refute it.

What Pasteur 'proved' is that complex multicellular life does not arise from dead flesh. This is far from the development of earliest life from the self organization of simple replicating molecules.

"If I asked one of my peers in the class after her lectures: “If someone was to lift weights and increase their muscle mass, would genetic traits of bigger muscle would be passed on to their children?” --the typical answer was an unscientific, “yes”. The laws of genetics were not important, miraculously changing from one species to another was. "

Here is the second indicator that you do not understand the SToE or are purposely trying to mislead. What you have described above is Lamarckism, something that never was part of Evolution and in fact was shown to be incorrect by Evolution.

"The perspective my biology class was taught from hindered the understanding of fundamental biological laws of many of my peers. Teaching evolution ‘as fact’, as the ‘only view allowed’ did not enhance the educational process, it hindered it."

Apparently that class was taught incorrectly if the above passages are any indication. If that instructor taught Lamarckism in place of Darwinian Evolution, and spontaneous formation of complex multicellular organisms in place of the simplest molecules gaining complexity gradually through time, he/she should be removed from teaching and required to update her/his knowledge.

"All hope was not lost. Heros are born in unlikely times.

So now you are a hero? And this is because you refused to learn what is not taught as evolution in the first place? All the heroes who died or who saved countless lives on 9/11 and those giving their lives in Iraq would be most interested that you consider yourself a hero through such a minor act.

"While most of class was sadly merely regurgitating the antiquated, disproved 'evidences’ for evolution on tests, FreedomProtector learned how to think independently and to prove the regurgitated antiquated ‘evidences’ are invalid, have that proof stand up to the very hostile, well-educated peer-review test, and write both on tests in the time most of the class was just regurgitating.

Fascinating. Care to share those peer reviewed refutations of Evolutionary evidences? Just reprint a paper here, you can even remove your real name if you want.

"Batman was born when the Joker killed his parents. FreedomProtector was born in this biology class when the instructor tried to kill freedom of intellectual inquiry. The very hostile, well-educated peer-review carried over to FreedomProtector’s high school physics class where the Physics instructor had a Master’s degree in evolutionary biology, but in his words “could only get a job teaching physics”."

Now you talk about yourself in the third person? Hmmm.

[FreedomProtector]

The belief in evolution by chance and natural process is based on ultimately based on faith, not scientific verification and observation. Since no one can or has ever verified evolution, either spontaneous generation or one species miraculously changing into another in the laboratory, and no one has invented time machine a back in time and watch the origin of life and all its diverse forms, evolution is ultimately based on faith.

Evolutionists themselves state that evolution is religious.

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, a leading evolutionist is often considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, a primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "Religion Without Revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said: “Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.” [Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and `Row, 1964) pp. 125, 222.] Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern.” Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."

Evolutionist and senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson: “If we accept [Karl] Popper’s distinction between science and non-science, we must first ask whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical) … Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test.” [Colin Patterson, Evolution (London: British Museum of Natural History, 1978), pp. 145-146

Evolutionist Harrison Matthews in the Introduction to Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory – is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.”
[L. Harrison Matthews in the Introduction to Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1971)



Evolutionists like to pompously masquerade repeatedly stating like a broken record that is evolution is scientifically and intellectually superior precisely because of its supposed non-religious character. Not so. Religious is exactly the right word to describe it. The philosophy of “matter is all there is” (Carl Sagan) is built on a faith-based premise. Its basic presupposition—a rejection of anything supernatural—requires a leap of faith. All people have a religious worldview--all people have presuppositions about ultimate reality. No one is neutral. Evolutionists openly state their presuppositions starting with the assertion that "Evolution is a fact". Nevermind the fact that no one has ever verified evolution--either spontaneous generation or one species miraculously changing into another. With religious fervor evolutionists presume that they know the cause of circumstantial evidence before examining it.

“Evolution is a fact, not a theory.”
Carl Sagan

“The first point to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact…”
Julian Huxley

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

…The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p.434

Professor of Genetics, Dr. Whitten, University of Melbourne:
“Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.”
Professor Whitten, 1980 Assembly Week address, University of Melbourne.



Evolution is the central doctrine and provides the foundational basis for the religion of Secular Humanism.

The Humanist Manifesto I: “Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.”

Evolutionist Julian Huxley: “I use the word ‘Humanist’ to mean someone who believes that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or a plant, that his body, his mind, and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution, and that he is not under the control or guidance of any supernatural Being or beings, but has to rely on himself and his own powers.”

Humanist Manifesto II: As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity……humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves…..human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces….

John Dewey, a signatory of the Humanist Manifesto I, wrote A Common Faith, in which he said, ‘Here are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class or race. . . . It remains to make it explicit and militant.’

In its decision in Torcaso v. Watkins (June 19, 1961), the U.S. Supreme Court stated, ‘Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.’ A few years later (1965) the Supreme Court allowed Daniel Seeger conscientious objector status because of his religious beliefs. He claimed to be a Secular Humanist.

Since no one can or has ever verified evolution, either spontaneous generation or one species miraculously changing into another in the laboratory, evolutionists themselves state that evolution is religious, and evolution is the central doctrine that provides the foundational basis for the religion of Secular Humanism, evolution is a religion.

Amendment I of the constitution states that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There are two clauses, "establishment" and "no prohibition." The first says the federal government may not establish a religion, secular or otherwise. The second says that the federal government may not prohibit an individual's free exercise of religion; that is, the individual right of conscience is inviolable. Since evolution is a religion, the “no prohibition” clause in the constitution is violated by only allowing teaching of one secular religion evolution and prohibiting other views. By only allowing only one secular religion to be taught, and subsequently financially supporting it, the government is establishing a particular state sponsored religion. The establishment clause was never intended to protect people from religion (hence the “no prohibition” clause), it was intended to protect people from a particular state sponsored religion. Both the establishment clause and the no prohibition clause are violated when the state says that only evolution should be taught.

"Should a view be taught/should a view be allowed to be taught?" is not the right question. Maybe this is a valid question for a classroom in the former Soviet Union, but not for America. There should be freedom of intellectual inquiry and freedom of religion, secular or otherwise. The right questions which should be asked by anyone whether they are in a classroom regulated by an all-knowing state or not are: Which view is probable? Which view is most likely true?