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

[Oberon]

There are current observations of speciation.

In what species?

[Dante Alighieri]

And speciation is the process by which new species arise. Ergo, macroevolution. What are you talking about?

[Dante Alighieri]

Except Aristotle never provided evidence for spontaneous generation, never conducted experiments, and did not follow the scientific method. The philosophy of science as we understand it is relatively new.

[Oberon]

Except Aristotle never provided evidence for spontaneous generation, never conducted experiments, and did not follow the scientific method.

I think you've got it surrounded, DA. =]

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

In what species?

You can find examples all over the web, especially in the journals devoted to the subject (which creationists refuse to read for some reason).

Here are some examples from the usual suspects.

Creationists don't accept them because a lizard is still a lizard and a fern is still a fern. But they came from one population that has split and no longer interbreeds. According to evolutionary biologists, that's how speciation begins.

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

In your post #98, you said,

There have been numerous experiments in speciation.

Speciation doesn't occur in a lab under a protocol, it occurs in nature. If someone happens to catch it, hopefully they write it down for the rest of us.

You make it sound like someone's making mice out of shrews in the lab. It confuses the creationists since they already think that's what evolution is.

[Dante Alighieri]

Weren't there several experiments in speciation? I recall the fruit fly literature.

[DelphiUser]

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

Name calling, the last resource of the liberal, also sometimes the first.

The "Theory of Evolution" It's a theory See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory for a definition of theory Specifically look at #6 "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture"

you seem pretty adamant about something that cannot by definition be proved, and you also seem sure there is no other possible explanation.

In a truly statistical universe everything possible must happen. -- Simple proof that we do not live in a truly statistical universe

P.S. I NEVER speak in absolutes.

[RunningWolf]

Although I am not a professional scientist, I have made several studies and self directed research into evolution as a theory over the years, and I came to the same conclusion you have and that is that its time to sack the theory and move on.

My study and and self directed research was largely centered around the 'transitional hominids' in the various incarnations that keep getting carted out as the 'missing link' that cements it all together/sarc>

But as I have looked beyond the 'transitional hominids' I have seen the same patterns repeated in other areas of 'the mountain of evidence'

The mountain of evidence is a mirage, as is toe.

BTW I have had it on my to do list to complete a small project as to this and if/when I get it done, I will ping you to it. Hope it is found interesting by you and the rest.

W.

[Oberon]

Creationists don't accept them because a lizard is still a lizard and a fern is still a fern. But they came from one population that has split and no longer interbreeds. According to evolutionary biologists, that's how speciation begins.

The two populations may no longer interbreed, but to me the more important question is this: Are they cross-fertile, and would they produce fertile offspring?

If they have the same number of chromosomes and would produce fertile offspring, I submit to you that they are the same species.

[Dante Alighieri]

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." - What Mark Twain Didn't Say I'm surprised people still use this objection. Even AIG (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp) discourages this. The definition of a theory in science is not the same as in an everyday context. Whereas a theory means "guess" in an everyday context, scientifically, a theory is a well-supported conceptual model that explains a series of facts and is supported by empirical evidence. A theory is the highest standard in science. Gravitation is a theory, there's atomic theory, germ theory, heliocentricity is a theory. Also, proof is non-existent in science and pretty much only exists in mathematics. Science must be tentative and at no time is concluded on a subject. For example, 400 years ago, Newton's theory of gravitation basically, under your argument, would have been proven. But go forward 300 years, and you see Einstein correcting even Newton.

[bobdsmith]

The "Theory of Evolution" It's a theory See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory for a definition of theory Specifically look at #6 "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture"

Did #1 somehow offend you?

In a truly statistical universe everything possible must happen. -- Simple proof that we do not live in a truly statistical universe. P.S. I NEVER speak in absolutes.

Do you believe the Earth orbits the Sun?

[DelphiUser]

>>Do you make the same demands of the atomic theory of matter?

Atomic experiments are repeatable, one of the basic proofs of Science is performing experiments to confirm a hypothesis by independent scientists.

For in introduction to the scientific method, see: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

IMHO: It is ignorant for anyone to insist that a theory be accepted as fact without being able to reproduce it, regardless of what alternative is being presented.

[wyattearp]

Typical liberal response. Name calling since they don't have a leg to stand on. Whoops, don't fall over there.

I'm not a liberal. Stick it, punk.

[Dante Alighieri]

Wrong, wrong. Experiments are not the only thing. Is the Big Bang theory open to experiments? Clue: falsification tests. What's funnier is that there have been numerous experiments in evolution.

[Antoninus]

That's because there isn't a controversy about evolution within science.

Uh, yes there is. Darwinian ToE has a lot of holes in it and the mechanism for how it works is still not well understood.

[wyattearp]

Ad hominem - after ten posts.

Not ad hominem. Schlafly is a whiner. Read "Safe, not Sorry" sometime. That's all she does in that book - whine. Coulter is scientifically illiterate. Read her new book. A friend's 15-year-old kid knows more science than she does.

taxesareforever is the one leveling ad hominem attacks.

[wyattearp]

Name calling, the last resource of the liberal, also sometimes the first.

I'm not calling names. Schlafly is a whiner. I've read her stuff. Coulter is scientifically illiterate. I've read her stuff.

You just called me a liberal, without any justification for doing so. The name caller on this thread is you (and a few other lowlifes).

[Dante Alighieri]

No, there isn't. According to the Gallup survey, 95% of scientists in the U.S. (where the issue is centered) accept evolution and of those scientists in the relevants fields, 99.985% of those scientists accept evolution. What are you talking about?

Also, mind giving the holes? And while the mechanisms aren't entirely understood and necessarily the theory is incomplete, that doesn't mean the theory is, as you suggest, worth rejection.

[steve-b]

If this school board is merely asking for a more critical assessment of this issue, that's surely a good thing.

If Sarah Brady is merely asking for a more efficient procedure to prevent criminals and the insane from obtaining guns, that's surely a good thing.

If Kim Jong-Il is merely asking for a more effective defense of his nation, that's surely a good thing.

The problem is that all three of the above motives are equally implausible.