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

[MarDav]

Of course it is...and here's the reason: at the end of the day, you must adhere to a belief in the existence of the theory of evolution's missing pieces the same way people of faith adhere to their beliefs in God--by believing they will be discovered/revealed.

The intellectually honest evolutionist admits to this, the intellectually dishonest does not. Hence, controversy.

[Sloth]

I get tired of primitive screwheads who can't figure out that Evolution and God forbid I say it "Darwinism" is a more conservative idea than that whiny, liberal, hippie they worship as a God.

Typical Darwinist contempt for God. Which is why so many of them deride 'intelligent design,' even though it does not contradict what has elsewhere on this thread been called the core of evolution: common descent with inherited modification.

You will never find a controversy in which BOTH sides are more intellectually dishonest than this Crevo crap.

[RippyO]

,'Objective' scientific method should not be ignored, but manipulated science should be. Such as a lot of GW science. Grant monies seem to somewhat control scientific ethics now. That's basically a conspiracy theory.

[Vanders9]

Do you make the same demands of the atomic theory of matter? In all seriousness, I can think of much more serious "holes" in that theory than exist in the theory of evolution.

No, but then that theory is testable now, whereas evolution, having taken place, is a past event, which is not so easily repeatable.

Be honest: the features of evolutionary theory to which the school board members object have not changed at all since Darwin.

I wouldnt really know, and wouldnt presume to know, what they are thinking of.

Whatever changes in thinking have occurred (which by the way is a sign of health and not of a problem in a scientific discipline), they have not overturned the core ideas. And yet all of this ginned-up controversy has only a single goal: to manufacture public distrust in those core ideas.

I agree wholeheartedly that the changes in thinking are a sign of health, however, as you then go on to state - they have not overturned the core ideas. Is tht because the core ideas are unassailably correct, or just that no-one dares to challenge them?
As for your comments on the "ginned up controversy", the implication that is being done purely to manufacture public distrust is pure speculation on your part. There are any number of reasons why people are concerned about this issue, some valid and some (no doubt) very suspect.

First, how do you reconcile the accusation that scientists "parrot repeat" the theory with your earlier assertion that evolutionary theory is changing?

Simple. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I very carefully did not do that. Im just pointing out that in general I want scientists to be objective and free to consider all possibilities.

Second, the school board is not responsible for setting scientists straight, but for educating children. And it does them a disservice to teach them that an unusual scientific controversy exists in the field of evolution, when in reality it is one of the most firmly established and intellectually unassailable ideas in science.

True, their duty is to educate...but they have to know what to teach. Is it doing them a disservice? Im not so sure. Considering that this discussion is going on, this is obviously a controversial topic that they are certainly going to need to be aware of in life.

[Sentis]

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

It's quite easy. I am always amazed at the fact that most Christians are conservatives when they are hell bent on moving on to a communist paradise. Sounds more like hell to me than paradise.

[MarDav]

Christians believe that Hell is a place of eternal separation from God. In fact, Christian beliefs concerning God, Christ, Heaven are, at their core, acceptance of the biblical teachings that the manifold evidence that we see in our present material world that create what some would refer to as "hell on earth" (crime, poverty, war, human suffering, etc) is proof of man's fallen nature and that these proofs have a spiritual and eternal consequence. To dwell, as we do now, on a planet where this temporary/physical separation creates such heartache, grief, suffering and woe, and then to choose the alternative as one's guiding principle seems rational, rather than amazing.

[Sloth]

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

Feel free to continue displaying your ignorance.

[Hacksaw]

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

I think you should bash Christians loudly and often, and make sure you identify yourself as a Darwinist when doing it.

[js1138]

I think he is referring to Kent Hovind. Anyone who can put "central tenets of evolution" and "recapitulation" in the same sentence is smoking something stronger than tobacco.

[jla]

News flash for Mrs. Schlafly: the scientists overwhelmingly have considered the evidence more deeply than you ever possibly could have, and more honestly besides, and almost to a person have reached a conclusion that is the opposite of yours.

This is an outright lie. Would you care to verify it? Especially that "almost to a person" claim.
And for your information, Physicist, Mrs. Schlafly has testified in the U.S. congress on nuclear proliferation. So I wouldn't doubt her tenacity in looking at any evidence regarding evolution.

[RippyO]

Mark McGwire testified before Congress too. What is your point? Appearing before Congress = veracity? LOL

[jla]

Try looking up her testimony instead of making inane comments.

[Sentis]

I'm not bashing them I am giving you an honest look at your religion and its true political leanings. Its rational study of people who are still living in the 7th century. Oh were those muslims or christians?

[Sentis]

Ted Kennedy has testified before congress on Nuclear proliferation and any number of other subjects, does that make him a beacon of honesty?

[MarDav]

"...an honest look at your religion and its true political leanings..."
Free of all bias and pre-disposition, of course.

[Sentis]

I know what Christians believe no use harping about it to me. They also believe that god formed man out of a mud pie, that snakes can talk, and that language was developed because man built a building that was too high.

Coming back to that when we send rockets into space why is God not punishing us each and every time by confusing the tongues of all those scientists (real scientists mind you)?

[atlaw]

So our efforts here are obviously evangelical. We believed because of someone's testimony to us and we hope to share the same testimony to you.

In short, you want public school teachers to teach sunday school in science class, and convert their students to the religious tenets of your particular church. Correct?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Or coherent.

[DungeonMaster]

In short, you want public school teachers to teach sunday school in science class, and convert their students to the religious tenets of your particular church. Correct?

They already teach Sunday school and call it science. It's the religion of evolution. That's why my kids don't go to public school church.

[RippyO]

I know enough about to know that she is essentially a political voice, and not an expert. Like Fat Teddy as alluded to below. Congress has been known to use hearings for political statements from time to time.

Does she have a PhD in Intl Relations or some such field? What are her qualifications? BESIDES being a professional nag.