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

[jla]

Here's Mrs. Schlafly's resumé. Comparing her to Mark McGuire or Ted Kennedy is a foolish, and futile, attempt at discrediting her.

Phyllis Schlafly

Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo. She has been a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972, when she started her national volunteer organization now called Eagle Forum. In a ten-year battle, Mrs. Schlafly led the pro-family movement to victory over the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists, called the Equal Rights Amendment. An articulate and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement, she appears in debate on college campuses more frequently than any other conservative. She was named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home Journal.

Mrs. Schlafly's monthly newsletter called The Phyllis Schlafly Report is now in its 38th year. Her syndicated column appears in 100 newspapers, her radio commentaries are heard daily on 460 stations, and her radio talk show on education called "Phyllis Schlafly Live" is heard weekly on 45 stations. Both can be heard on the internet.

Mrs. Schlafly is the author or editor of 20 books on subjects as varied as family and feminism (The Power of the Positive Woman), nuclear strategy (Strike From Space and Kissinger on the Couch), education (Child Abuse in the Classroom), child care (Who Will Rock the Cradle?), and a phonics book (Turbo Reader). Her most recent book, Feminist Fantasies, is a collection of essays on feminism in the media, workplace, home, and the military.

Mrs. Schlafly is a lawyer and served as a member of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, 1985-1991, appointed by President Reagan. She has testified before more than 50 Congressional and State Legislative committees on constitutional, national defense, and family issues.

Mrs. Schlafly is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Washington University, received her J.D. from Washington University Law School, and received her Master's in Political Science from Harvard University.

Phyllis Schlafly is America's best-known advocate of the dignity and honor that we as a society owe to the role of fulltime homemaker. The mother of six children, she was the 1992 Illinois Mother of the Year.

[jla]

What are her qualifications? BESIDES being a professional nag.

You're just a font of wisdom 'n wit, aren't you.

[RippyO]

Jack of all trades, master of none.

Well, at least she has a Masters. Doesn't mean I would subpoena her instead of Condi or Wolfowitz. The same reason I will listen to actual biologists than an advocate lawyer when it comes to evolution.

[MarDav]

Right, and all this begins with the assumption that God is. I assume this is so, in part from creation all around us. You assume it is not so based on...your inability to believe? That's an honest question, and not meant to offend or demean.

[MHGinTN]

"ID, carried to its logical end, IS creationism." And just as truthfully, evolution carried to its logical end requires abiogenesis ... yet requesting evolution scientists prove by example is touted as absurd. There are some strange forces at work on both sides of the debate.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Here's Mrs. Schlafly's resumé.

Which part of that do you imagine makes her an expert in evolutionary biology?

[jla]

Which part of that do you imagine makes her an expert in evolutionary biology?

Wrong question. What you, and your fellow ape-descendants, should be asking is what makes yourselves qualified to espouse and propagate an unproven theory, rife with deception and mendacious claims.

[Senator Bedfellow]

So she has no expertise, and rather than defend her inanities, you'd prefer to insult anyone who questions you. And you're actually surprised that ID/creationism has no traction, I'm sure.

[RightWhale]

It's Darwinism's application

Did Darwin have anything to do with application of evolution to social progress? Or, was social liberalism already in existence anyway just as relativity was a term in use in sociology long before Einstein's Year of Genius?

[jla]

...and Mrs. Schlafly never claimed to be an expert in evolutionary biology. I doubt she couldn't care less if folks wish to believe the nonsense of evolution. Her point is that the evols, in promoting their little theory, insist that Creationism be suppressed.

[Sentis]

I believe a GOD probably exists I don't believe in the superstitious little god worshiped by most evangelicals who breathed life into mud and made man. That is a silly superstition akin to getting the 72 virgins in heaven. I also think science need to be taught in school not your mythology that you pass off as science.

[RippyO]

No. We insist that our children not fall any further behind in science by indulging the whims of Schlafly and her ilk. I have nothing against Creationism. If you want to teach it in private or homeschool, go for it.

But it is not science, and should not be publicly funded. You say we ascribe to the religion of Evolution? No. We merely respect the scientific method, and where it leads us.

Ooh ooh ee ee

[blitzgig]

"Did evolution go nuts for millions of years and then just stop? An evolutionary age?"

Evolution does not work that way. As the theory explains, evolution through natural selection is a very slow-moving process requiring millions of years to produce results in living things. It is a continuous process, not something that happens in abundance at one point and then stops at another point in time. We tend not to find links or crossovers among species because all the species are still going through natural selection, and the species populations are still experiencing variations in physical traits.

[RobRoy]

I am about ten pages from finishing Ann's book. The best deconstruction of evolution I ever saw (in laymans terms) was on Fredoneverything.net - until I read her book. She most definitely twists the knife after insertion.

As evolutionists are forced to answer questions about their own "superscript font" (lame rathergate reference here), the house of cards completely collapses.

At least it does to those actually paying attention. ;)

[RobRoy]

>>The entire creationist belief system is predicated upon the notion that almost every scientist consciously puts aside the evidence to profess something they know is not true.<<

It may appear that way, especially to those on the "receiving end". But I don't think that is the case.

[RobRoy]

>>A whiner quoting the scientifically illiterate. Oh, yeah, I'm impressed. Not.<<

Ad hominem - after ten posts.

No doubt about it, this is a crevo thread.

[RobRoy]

>>The scientists studying and teaching evolutionary theory, knowing that it's an integral part of science, must always welcome criticism. What they don't welcome is persons who are totally ignorant of not just evolution, but of the methods of science entirely, telling them they're idiots and frauds and demanding that the government force them to teach to the students in their science classes that a religious creation myth is a valid alternative to genuine science<<

I agree. And if anyone ever tried to do that I would be again' it.

[jla]

Ad hominem - after ten posts.

Well, they are descended from apes, so it's not expected that they practice good manners. ;^)

[RobRoy]

Did you read what Ann had to say about Archaeologists? It was actually pretty funny.

No offense. :)

[RobRoy]

The word "scientist" has about as broad a meaning as the word "evolution".