No, not at all. The article's first sentence says this: Some people think evolution should not be mentioned at all in public schools, while others think any evidence that may contradict evolution should not be allowed. No truth in the part I underlined.
No truth? The underlined comment is so vague that it can't not be true. The writer is a bit sloppy in making her point though, as seen from what follows your snip above... Both views reflect poor science, and if either side wins, students will lose. Unfortunately, that's just what might happen in Minnesota. Although many people view Darwinian evolution as a valid explanation, others have begun questioning parts of this theory.
Lets stipulate that she hasn't got a handle on Darwinian vs. neo-Darwinian, etc., and that she may well have some anti-evolution agenda. Rightly or wrongly, evolution is often oversimplified to students and to the public at large as an undeniable monolith rather than a well-founded scientific theory that, for all its merits, is still a work in progress. It doesn't matter if the writer hears voices emanating from wall sockets, and it doesn't matter if her agenda is to convince us of monsters in the closet; if she's observing that evolution can be presented in a non-dogmatic fashion that concedes some loose ends, then her observation is correct. The article goes on to say this: For example, a growing number of prominent biologists are signing on to the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Written in 2001 to encourage open-mindedness within the scientific community ... That gives an entirely false impression. The genuine scientists who question evolution are an extremely small number. (When I say "genuine scientists" I'm aware of the 2 or 3 biologists who have been said to be "leaving evolution in droves"; and I intentionally exclude charlatans who, like Duane Gish, are trained primarily in the engineering of sanitation facilities.)
Setting Gish aside, quite appropriately, I think you've ascribed meaning to the statement "we are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," that isn't warranted. To harbor skepticism about the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection as mechanisms for evolution is not synonymous with questioning the totality of evolutionary theory. Evolution is a theory, and should be tought as such. It explains facts, which is what theories are supposed to do. There are no competing scientific theories, so it's insane to speak of "suppression" of honest inquiry.
Here's the problem, and it think it's where creationists go off the rails... In government schools secularism his been so hammered by the likes of the ACLU into something between atheism and agnosticism. It's also undeniable that some, though not all, evolutionists are hostile to faith, and lean on their own understandings evolution as bulwarks for their hostility. When evolution is presented in this context, it takes on significance in the secular vacuum that can be both implicitly and explicitly hostile to faith. This is where the weird syzygy of leaped conclusions by both evolutionary atheists and creationists occurs, in thinking that the pros and cons of evolutionary theory have real bearing on the realities of the human soul and the Creator. It's not enough to say "it's just science (not saying you did, personally)," in a values-clarifying context where some say that "science is all there is," and in any event, science is all that can be taught.
|
