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

[Dante Alighieri]

No, what are you talking about? I already referenced instances of observed speciation. Biologists were there and watched it happen.

[Oberon]

Under standard laboratory conditions, with controlled variables?

Or was this observations of natural populations in the wild?

[Dante Alighieri]

Some of the instances of observed speciation occurred via experiment. Other instances were observed in nature.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Something you should be aware of before you insult Christians for their beliefs is this: Christians vary in their view of creation. A Young Earth belief, and literal interpretation is not the defining doctrine of a Christian. Furthermore, there are many Christians that believe in ID, or creation, that aren't pushing for either to be taught as science in public schools. So much for your comparison to liberals, and communist.

"Men did not appear when God blew spittle at a dirt pile"

The Creation account says nothing about God blowing spittle on dirt.

"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."


Yes, you denigrated me by insulting Christians as a bunch of 7th century liberal commies. I homeschool. I'm not a Young Earth Creationist. I think evolution has a lot of credibility, but I am skeptical as to it's scope because there is still much to learn. However, it may also be completely right. I am also skeptical as to whether natural selection+random mutation+time are the only forces behind evolution. I believe that God created the universe. He is no less the Creator if he did so through an evolutionary process. I do not support ID being taught as science unless it meets the required standards. I do think that evolution impacts religion and it would be responsible to teach the varying views in the form of philosophy, but I don't see how this could be done in the public schools. I also happen to believe that it would be wrong to force my beliefs are others.

So now, if you wish to insult me for being a Christian you at least know a bit more about me from which to base your remarks on.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

This group that you are referring to does not encompass all Christians.

[Sentis]

Not to let you believe I have gone as I am too busy to bother right now. But you obviously haven't been reading my posts or just have some reading comprehension issues if you saw me referring to all Christians. I think I was very clear which Christians I was talking about and in fact differentiated several times between the "tame ones" and the Mullah style Christians. Sorry but beat your anti-Christian bandwagon over someone else's head.

[DelphiUser]

>>You misunderstand

>>If you are trying to make a point, then it is your responsibility to communicate it in a clear and concise manner, not mine to be psychic.

>>evolution is both a theory and a fact. How so?
It is a theory based on facts water can be steam, or ice, not both at once.
There are facts like Fossils, they exist, there are theory’s about the fossils, how old, how they lived, what they looked like… some things we will never know for sure unless we can literally see the past. Evolution is a theory, based on facts most religions are philosophies of men, backed up by scripture.

>>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!"

First, I challenge you to show me a single instance of observed “speciation” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speciation Evolution within a species is not speciation, show us something that has evolved to the point there it is not genetically compatible with its grandmother. (Species: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species ) Dogs are a species, they can mate with one another, but you and I would be very surprised if two Pedigreed Danes gave birth to a poodle)

Second, you remind me of the quote from Helen Thomas saying: “How did Reagan get so many votes, I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Just because something seems obvious to you does not mean I will accept it without evidence, or argument. Quite the contrary, I’m afraid. (I find challenging the “norm” to be most enlightening of how and if others think)

>>In the same manner, there is the fact, law, and theory of gravitation.

I disagree, there is the Law of gravity (independently verified by apple growers world wide) and theories about strength, cause, and even refinements of the mathematical formula used to describe gravity, but that there is gravity is not doubted as it is repeatable, constant, and measurable.

Evolution is neither repeatable, constant, nor measurable by us mere mortals.

>>As for competing theories however, there isn't any evidence that really supports anything else.

“I can’t imagine a better…” has been uttered by provincial self proclaimed illuminati for generations, then someone comes along with a better idea, and they can’t imagine that there could be a better idea than the current “best” idea.

>>…They couldn't withstand the scientific scrutiny, but evolution did.

Really, when did that happen? I must have missed the proof that turned a highly speculative, and tenuous theory into a law; please post links the scientific paper(s) that prove The Theory of Evolution, along with filling in all the gaps in the Fossil record, and the explanation on how sentience cam about.

Just so you understand my position, I am not saying I have a better explanation, just that we aren’t done on this frontier yet, we don’t know, so lets have more exploration until we have the answers. Shutting off the debate and saying this is now a law will not get us more answers.

“True science is merely another form of Theology.” – Me 20 years ago.

[MEGoody]

There's a difference though when you try to make creationism/ID part of school cirricula as part of your agenda.

Evols were even upset when one school system wanted to put a sticker on their science books that said "Evolution is a theory." Sounds like evols have their own agenda, e.g. don't question the party line.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

When you use the word "Christians" followed by a slurry of insults, how should I differentiate.

Here's an example:
Liberals are a bunch of mindless drones ruled by hysterical emotion and lacking in common sense. Which Liberals am I talking about?

[DelphiUser]

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

I guess your right, I'm processing the information, not regugitating it.

Reality, what a concept.

"E" you areound somtime.

[webstersII]

"Is the Big Bang theory open to experiments? Clue: falsification tests."

If it's not then it's not a theory, is it?

[webstersII]

"If you look closely at most GW science, you will see corruption, selective data and doctored results. "

Yes, but that NEVER happens in any research related to evolution. I know this because many people on FR, including at least one scientist, have told me it's so.

Yeah, right. Talk about sticking your head in the sand.

[wyattearp]

No, they don't. Nearly all of my friends are Christians. Absolutely none of them are like that. I was not attempting to paint all with the same brush, and I certainly hope that you did not take it that way.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I was uncertain. Some harsh comments have been made about Christians on this thread. I am a Christian, and those comments didn't describe my beliefs regarding evolution and education. I realize that sometimes Christians are not well represented by how a few behave though. Thanks for your post. I was not offended by you. In light of other comments made on this thread, I was feeling a bit defensive in regard to my faith that Christ is God's Son. I apologize if I came across as abrasive.

[metmom]

I am always amazed at the fact that most Christians are conservatives when they are hell bent on moving on to a communist paradise.

Which Christians are interested in moving on to communism? I'm sure you could provide some support for your statements. Naming some names and demoninations would be a good start. Then you could provide us with a written record of their own stated agenda.

[wyattearp]

I apologize if I came across as abrasive.

Not at all. That was certainly worth clearing up, and you weren't the least bit abrasive about it.

[metmom]

Do you want me to list the reasons Jesus is a Liberal and the Christian Heaven is basically a Communist set-up :)

Go for it.

[metmom]

The same reason I will listen to actual biologists than an advocate lawyer when it comes to evolution.

Then why should we listen to the evo proponents on these threads? Many of them, by their own admission on these threads, have no degree in the biological sciences, yet continue to tell the non-evo crowd that they are wrong about evolution. Well, if Phyllis Schlafly's word on the subject had no credibility because she's not a biologist, that should logically apply to all the non-biologist evos on these threads. They are not qualified to speak on the subject any more than she is so their word on the subject has no more credibility than that which they give her.

[wyattearp]

I just got caught up a bit on the thread. Whew. I think I can understand why you may have been a bit on the "touchy" side. Honestly, you did not come across that way to me.

In my experiences at Republican conventions, the religious right were extremely abusive individuals. They were far worse than liberals. The liberals used foul language, but couldn't hold a candle to the religious right in outright verbal abuse.

Most other Christians went out of their way to make it clear that "those folks do not represent us", to the point of visible shame and embarrassment. Due to their concentration of numbers in Republican party politics, conventions see a whole lot more of them than are represented elsewhere. It happens a lot here on FR as well.

We used to laugh at them at first (at the conventions). You could see them coming; red-faced, fists clenched at their sides, many wearing home-made clothing based on designs that went out of style in the 19th century, looking for somebody with a button that said "STAFF" on it, so that they could verbally detonate upon the 'forces of evil' in a tirade that truly has to be seen to be believed.

(Just in case anybody was wondering where I attained my talent for flame wars...)

Vile creatures, truly vile. Somebody earlier referred to them as "the Mullas of Christianity", and they weren't so far off. If that particular faction of the party ever gains the power which they so desperately lust after, they will be little different than the Taliban (no burkas, anyways - at least probably not). This same faction is the more vocal of the proponents of ID, and has even joined forces with Islam in an attempt to attain their goals. They make all of Christianity look bad.

And, no, I never for one microsecond thought that you were one of them.

[RippyO]

A-ha! Then the only ones who are obliged to speak are the biological experts, and THEY overwhelmingly say that there is a lot more evidence for evo than ID.

For my part, all I am doing is appealing to their authority. My only original contribution is pointing out inconsistencies in the IDers arguments. Since I took a logic class in college, I like to believe that I am qualified to do that.