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

[RippyO]

A-ha! Already did. I fail to see how a pro-GW-exists piece assumes that all opposing views are blocked.

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

You couldn't see any cherry-picking and manipulation of facts and data, in Gore's fakumentary? Or BS statements like: "All scientists now believe..." and "There is a consensus..." These terms are used when something has not been proven to mislead the masses. More than a few years ago, they probably said, "A consensus of scientists now believe the Sun orbits around earth." As if it's absolute fact and can not be questioned.

[Dante Alighieri]

You misunderstand - evolution is both a theory and a fact. How so? The theory explains the diversity of life and its relation to each other; then there's the fact - there is so much evidence for evolution and considering observed speciation, it's laughable to deny it. It's equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes, and shouting, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" In the same manner, there is the fact, law, and theory of gravitation. The theory explains the tendency for objects with mass to accelerate to each other, the law (Gx(m1m2/r^2)) describes the tendency, and the fact is the universal observation of the tendency. Newton was wrong; it's as simple as that. The only problem was, his Laws were approximately correct at speeds less than 0.1c. Evolution is constantly refined. What's your point? As for competing theories however, there isn't any evidence that really supports anything else. Lamarckian evolution's gone, spontaneous generation's gone, along with everything else. They couldn't withstand the scientific scrutiny, but evolution did. Albert wasn't a theist, in the sense of a personal God - he was a scientific pantheist. Ever heard of physicists and their "God" talk?

[Dante Alighieri]

Things can be both a theory and a fact. Gravity is both a theory, law, and fact. There is germ theory and the fact of germs. There is atomic theory and the fact of atoms. There is evolutionary theory and there is the fact of evolution.

Perhaps, science classes should not only time teaching the results of scientific research, but also spend a significant amount of time teaching the philosophy of science. (In any case anyone's wondering and accuses me of plagiarism, that's from my account on YouTube)

[Sentis]

It's based on faith but faith doesn't belong in the classroom, science does. Faith is not provable neither yours nor mine. Creation has no evidence, none. Men did not appear when God blew spittle at a dirt pile anymore than women grew out of a rib.

If I have denigrated people of faith here they deserved the slap in the face for forcing their faith onto those who would rather teach reality. If they are insulted that man isn't made from a pile of mud and that the Earth is older than 6000 years then they need to wake up and join reality and quit acting like the mullahs in Iran and forcing their atavistic nonsense on the rest of us.

[RobRoy]

Has there really been observed speciation? I think that would be even more significant than piltdown man (at least when it was thought not to be a hoax). I mean no disrespect by mentioning piltdown man. I only mean that, if it had been genuine, it would have solved a lot of problems. I would think that a genuine example of true speciation would pretty much shut a lot of non-evolutionists up. Why are these examples not being shouted from the housetops? I know of none.

[Dante Alighieri]

Speciation has indeed been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

[Sentis]

Why not just type observed speciation into a search engine sometime. Thats close enough for shouting.

[js1138]

I would think that a genuine example of true speciation would pretty much shut a lot of non-evolutionists up. Why are these examples not being shouted from the housetops? I know of none.

Primarily because actual speciation doesn't correspond to the Hollywood image. No special powers; not dramatic change in form; no fish to squirrel in one step.

The most dramatic examples of speciation being observed are ring species. There are examples of birds whose territories circle the globe. Each individual can mate with the individuals to its immediate East and West, but there is a distance, like the international date line, at which differentiation prevents interbreeding. Perhaps the non-mating individuals just don't approve of their cousin's tail-feather color; but whatever, they don't mate when they have the opportunity.

This is the way speciation actually works. Nothing dramatic or consistant with Hollywood. It's slow and boring. Nothing to shout from the rooftops.

[Oztrich Boy]

Notably absent from her "resume" is any reference to academic achievement or professional experience in the areas of biology, physics, chemistry, geology, mathematics, or any other real science.

Master's in Political Science. That's sorta science inn't it?

[Oztrich Boy]

So we should listen to her opinion on whether the critiques are good science or not, or whether they belong in science class or not, because....?

Her "feelings" tell her Evolution is wrong, and she doesn't want it, and noöne else should either.

[Oztrich Boy]

re are current observations of speciation.
In what species?

You only had to ask

Try Google: "ring species" salamander

[Oztrich Boy]

Schlafly is a whiner

It is my understanding they prefer to be called "political activists"

[Labyrinthos]

Master's in Political Science. That's sorta science inn't it?

Simple concepts made difficult by people who have far too much time on their hands.

[wyattearp]

Then why do you use liberal responses? Sheesh.

Name one, punk.

[wyattearp]

Must be my eyes, looks like it to me, gotta get some rose colored glasses, that’ll fix it!

Glasses wont help you. Your problem is what you are using to process the information.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Her "feelings" tell her Evolution is wrong, and she doesn't want it, and noöne else should either.

It would be nice if they were that concise for once.

[wyattearp]

What "science" does your kid know (as opposed to "believe) more than Ann?

Biology. Ann spent a third of her new book making a fool of herself. Even high school kids are laughing at her ignorance of the biological sciences. (and it's not my kid, by the way).

Post 11 was pure ad-himinem.

You shouldn't use big words that you can't understand. Heck, you can't even spell it. An ad-hominem attack would have been if I was attacking taxesareforever on a personal level in post 11. I didn't. What I did do is make observations regarding the people that he was quoting. The ad-hominem attack was in taxesareforever's (and the usual cheerleaders) response to me.

Schlafly is a whiner. Her book "Safe, not Sorry" is a total "poor, poor me" whining rant about her not getting her way at a convention. It also contains a lot of man-hating feminism. I lost all respect for her after reading it.

[Dante Alighieri]

Your support of the theory of evolution? (By the way, I don't think think evolution is really a liberal idea; heck, the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover were conservatives, and the judge was a conservative recommended by Rick Santorum!)

[MarDav]

You sort of ducked my question. You say you believe in some sort of god. Then you say that this is based on faith. Faith in what? What is it that leads you to place your faith in whatever God you believe in? It sounds like you are merely hedging your bets and covering the "god angle" just in case...Don't mean to come off as disrespectful or smug (sorry if that's how I'm sounding). It's just that your answers are very curious.