Posted on 12/27/2004 2:34:25 PM PST by Ed Current
The most censored speech in the United States today is not flag-burning, pornography or the press. The worst censors are those who prohibit classroom criticism of the theory of evolution.
A Chinese scholar observed, "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."
Polls show that the vast majority of Americans reject the theory of evolution, as have great scientists such as William Thomas Kelvin and Louis Pasteur. But that does not stop an intolerant minority from trying to impose a belief in the ape-to-man theory on everyone else.
Local school boards have finally had enough of this tyranny. From Georgia to Pennsylvania to Ohio to Wisconsin to Kansas, school boards are finally moving toward allowing criticism of Darwin's theory.
The Darwinists have propped up their classroom dominance by the persistent use of frauds and flacks. The fraudulent pro-evolution embryo drawings of Ernst Haeckel littered schoolbooks for 100 years, and it took specific action by the Texas Board of Education to keep them out of current textbooks even after the New York Times exposed Haeckel's deception.
Many textbooks feature pictures of giraffes stretching their necks to feed high off of trees, but genetics and observed feeding habits disprove that as a basis for evolution of their long necks. Moreover, the striking beauty of the colored pattern on the giraffes illustrates that design, not merely usefulness, is what animates our world.
Continued censorship of criticism invites additional fraud, so evolution has suffered more embarrassments than any other scientific theory. The Piltdown man was a lie taught to schoolchildren for decades, even featured in the John Scopes Monkey Trial textbook, and only five years ago a dinosaur-bird fossil hoax was presented as true on the glossy pages of National Geographic.
If Darwinists want to teach that whales, which are mammals, evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open, we should surely be entitled to criticize that. Yet school libraries have refused to accept books critical of evolution, even when written by college professors.
Responding to the majority of their constituents, Georgia's Cobb County recently authorized a textbook disclaimer saying "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."
The American Civil Liberties Union claims this is unconstitutional and is seeking out supremacist judges to order classroom curricula to continue the censorship and forbid an open mind about evolution. If the theory of evolution were well supported, there would be no reason to oppose open debate about scientific claims.
In December 2004, a world-famous champion of atheism, Antony Flew, announced his conversion to acceptance of intelligent design underlying our world. The Dallas Morning News observed, "If the scientific data are compelling enough to cause an atheist academic of Flew's reputation to recant most of his life's work, why shouldn't Texas schoolchildren be taught the controversy?"
At 81, Flew can speak out because he is now free from the peer pressure that silences younger colleagues who fear loss of jobs, funding, or even dreams of winning a Nobel Prize. Evolution critics Fred Hoyle and Raymond Damadian were unjustly denied Nobel Prizes and their work was instead recognized by awards to less-deserving others.
Darwinists know they cannot persuade skeptical adults, so they try to capture impressionable schoolchildren. At our expense and against our wishes, children are taught that the world exists only for what is useful, not by design.
To typical schoolchildren full of wonder, we live in a world best described as a marvelous work of art. The snowflakes that grace us at Christmastime typify the artistic beauty that bestows joy on all ages but, like an acid, evolution corrodes this inborn appreciation of beauty and falsely trains children to view themselves as mere animals no more worthy than dogs or cats.
There is a strong correlation between belief in natural selection and liberal views on government control, pornography, prayer in schools, abortion, gun control, economic freedom, and even animal rights. For the most part, the schools in the blue states carried in the 2004 presidential election by U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., are strongly pro-evolution, while the red states carried by President George W. Bush allow debate and dissent.
It should surprise no one that the United States, land of the free and home of the brave, has the lowest percentage of evolution believers in the world. The highest percentage lived in the former East Germany.
The U.S. Senate of former Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., quietly slipped a provision into the No Child Left Behind Act that requires, by the 2007-2008 school year, science testing by grade 5. That gives censors the authority to force 10-year-olds to believe and defend evolution.
It is long past time for parents to realize they have the right and duty to protect their children from the intolerant evolutionists. Hooray for courageous school boards that are finally rejecting censorship and allowing debate.
Well, that seems to be how (junk) science is determining that man is causing global warming. /sarcasm off
carbine
menenges
frangible
Most community forums (including this one) actually don't allow or recognize the right to unfettered free speech. Nor should they.
"Well, that seems to be how (junk) science is determining that man is causing global warming. /sarcasm off"
hmmm, what your post says is that you agree that man causes global warming, yet I suspect your intention was to imply otherwise... sorry for the confusion, could you please clarify?
Einstein could think.
Who is this Chinese scholar? What's his name?
And can you point me to an article in a Chinese scientific journal that criticizes Darwin?
Intelligent design doesn't necessarily displace evolution. Also, it's a question of opinion, not really one of pure science.
"Calm down, PeterFinn. He didn't say "there is no evolution.""
Why stop there? He also said:
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one."
Science is DICTATED BY FACTS, it is not a democracy, we do not VOTE on what science tells us.
YESWEDOYESWEDOYESWEDO!!!!!!!!!
We have a mandate, after all, so what we says, goes!!!!
It is because we say it is.
WE are who we absolutely need to believe we are!!!!!!
Alacarte, you will find the answers to this endless and ridiculous debate in the work of Piaget and Jung.
The psychological facts are plain as the nose on your face.
Some debates are simply not worth the time.
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one."
This is THE crux of the matter...and the pater!
And some are not even possible.
"Intelligent design doesn't necessarily displace evolution. Also, it's a question of opinion, not really one of pure science."
It is NOT opinion! Where do all you people get this notion that science is a democracy? Science is DICTATED by the facts. If science tells us evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life, then that is the end of the conversation. No matter how many accountants or musicians think general relativity should be repealled changes absolutely NOTHING. It just means the general public needs a better education on science.
And some are not even possible.
Obviously, "doctor"
There are cases you can help, and cases you can't. Wisdom lies in knowing which is which. Compassion is one thing; effectiveness is quite another.
"Science is DICTATED BY FACTS, it is not a democracy, we do not VOTE on what science tells us."
Here's some scientific facts for you:
1) The Earth is the center of the Universe. Per the scientist Aristotle it is a fact.
2) Illness is caused by bad air. 'Mal aria' as the scientists once labeled it in Latin.
3) "Radiation is perfectly harmless and possibly therapeutic." Mme. Marie Curie, who is now known to have died from radiation exposure.
4) Illness can be cured by bleeding the bad humours from people - a scientific fact that killed George Washington.
5) Thalidomide is a safe drug for pregnant women to use to prevent miscarriage and nausea.
6) Nuclear power is clean and safe.
7) AIDS is not a communicable disease.
8) Cancer is a communicable disease.
9) The human body cannot long endure the stress of travelling at velocities in excess of sixty miles per hour.
10) Powered flight is impossible.
11) No one will ever fly faster than the speed of sound (hence 'sound barrier').
12) Polio cannot be cured or prevented, only treated.
13) Brontosaurus had a tiny head. (The first museum curator to assemble one used a handy small skull from another critter - creating a 'fact' that took 100 years to dispel.)
14) Neanderthal man walked hunched over. (The one example had arthritis).
15) Silicon chip CPU's cannot exceed 133Mhz due to thermodynamic limitations.
16) Global warming is caused by SUV's.
17) Global cooling is caused by SUV's.
18) A doctor not washing his hands before a surgery has NOTHING to do with post-operative infections! (Common knowledge prior to the 1880's).
19) Atoms are immutable.
20) Syphillis started in the Americas and was transmitted to Europe by Christopher Columbus. (Recent findings show syphillis existed in Europe as early as the 1200's).
21) Cold air will make you sick. (Catch a 'cold' lately?)
I'm really having fun here. Want me to go on? :P
My definition of a "scientific fact" is when whatever the pointy-headed academes decide is a fact is accepted as such by one of your ignorant people in Arkansas. Until then, it is not so substantially true as to be past challenge or reconsideration.
In my years I've oft found "scientific facts" to actually be "scientific facts...for now."
Like I said, if it is so substantially true that Bill Clinton's cousins accept it, too, then I'll go with calling it a "fact". If they don't accept it then you and your scientific pals need to go back and prove your case.
That does not mean you're wrong, it just means you need to present your case a bit better.
Evolution hasn't really convinced anyone. I usually have no problem arguing evolution-true-believers out of some point or another in my first five minutes of debate.
I won't say evolution isn't possibly true. Maybe it is. BUt those people on the pro side of the argument can't even agree on it, so why should I accept it as a body of facts when they can't agree on what those facts are?
Whales from bears? Everyone knows they come from toasters/sarcasm off
Dogma is immune to reason. You either believe, or you don't, but it is not open to debate.
Ridicule is a tool used mainly by nitwits. If the data are not on your side you can always turn to ridicule and personal attacks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.