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

[Labyrinthos]

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

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. Although Mrs. Schlafly obviously has the right to comment on any topic she likes, he opinion on evolution is no more learned than Babs Streisand's opinion on world politics.

[Antoninus]

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.

Of course they have. Because it's been demonstrated publicly that if you step out of line with regard to Darwinian orthodoxy, your career will be ruined. Witness the treatment of Dr. Richard Sternberg.

In my opinion, the ToE offers the best explanation for speciation we currently have. That said, the amount of ridicule and personal attack one must endure to broach the slightest criticism of the ToE matches anything from the Calvinist versus Catholic religious threads.

Like it or not, the ToE has become the 'creation myth' for atheists. And they defend it like it was a tenet of a religious faith rather than as science.

[steve-b]

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.

Intellectually, it is equivalent to the DUmmie moonbat notion that the minions of the Bush Family Evil Empire perpetrated the 9/11 massacre and managed to cover it up, with not one of the many people who would have been involved ever breaking ranks.

[Antoninus]

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

Exactly.

The philosophy of science as we understand it is relatively new.

Created mainly by the Catholic Church, btw, who were also responsible for the University system as a whole.

[steve-b]

That said, the amount of ridicule and personal attack one must endure to broach the slightest criticism of the ToE matches anything from the Calvinist versus Catholic religious threads.

That is the natural result of creationist politicization of the matter. The same effect comes up in (for example) discussions of election security, which inevitably lead to charges (from liberals) that it's all a scheme to disenfranchise people or (from conservatives) to to even broach the subject provides aid and comfort to the conspiracy mongers who say Bush stole the election.

[wintertime]

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.
( From the article)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Evolution has **religious** consequences, as well as political. This is true for evolution and ***hundreds*** of other government school polices and issues.

What does the education of a child involve? It involves three religious questions that guide and direct the actions of every sentient person on this earth. They are:

1) Where did we come from?
2) Why are we here?
3) Where do we go when we die?

Evolution impacts a child's belief on all 3 of those questions and the consequences for that child are highly political, cultural, and religious.

There is NO way for government schools to address the topic of evolution, ID, or creationism without ***establishing*** the religious worldview of some ( see the 3 questions), and actively undermining and destroying the religion of others. The government school can NOT be neutral. Secular is NOT religiously neutral.

As long as we have government schools we will have continual and bitter acrimony over evolution and hundreds of other issues. The biggest political bully will get to answer the three questions that shape everyone's actions in this life: Where do we come from?. Why are we here? Where do we go when we die? Is it an wonder that the battles over government curriculum is so vicious?

Solution: Get government out of education. Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education.

Government schools can NOT simultaneously respect a citizen's right to free speech, free press, free expression of religion, and free assembly, and run compulsory schools. Government ESTABLISHES religion every minute of every school day, because government never were, are not, and never will be religiously neutral. Evolution is merely one of hundreds of examples.

In other words, government schools are unconstitutional on both the state and federal level.

[Antoninus]

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?

For the record, I accept evolution as the best explanation of speciation. So according to those polls, I'd be one of the 99.985% too. However, I have problems with certain aspects of the theory that haven't been explained to my satisfaction.

And, really, these numbers don't mean much. It's been demonstrated in scientific circles that expressing major concerns about Darwinian evolution can be hazardous to your career. It's like taking a poll in Syria asking whether people agree with Assad on his Israel policy.

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.

I didn't suggest it was worthy of rejection. I suggested that there is still controversy about how it works. Personally, my holes include:

-> How to account for the fact that some species seem to mutate and change so radically and "quickly" while others remain the same or nearly so for hundreds of millions of years.

-> How to account for the Cambrian explosion where 95% (or thereabouts) of the animal phyla that exist today suddenly came into being.

[jla]

Although Labyrinthos obviously has the right to comment on any topic he/she likes, his/her opinion on evolution is no more learned than Babs Streisand's opinion on world politics.

But, Mrs. Schlafly has proven herself more than capable of speaking on a vast range of subjects and speaking with authority on those subjects.
Therein lies the difference between Mrs. Schlafly and her contemptible detractors.

[Antoninus]

That is the natural result of creationist politicization of the matter.

Riiiiight. And there's no politics involved on the other side at all, right? They're as pure as the wind-driven snow...

I may be an evolutionist, but I'm not that stupid.

[wintertime]

It is likely that there are only a handful of scientist working in his area of interest. To identify that interest would identify him.

[RippyO]

In my opinion, the ToE offers the best explanation for speciation we currently have I appreciate you saying that.

At least for me, the reason I am so adamant about the subject is the dishonesty of the IDers. Their motive is religious, no sane person can doubt that. One the ID foot is through the door, it's safe to say creationism would get a much bigger foothold. Which worries me because the Church, which is based on faith, and science, which is based on method, MUST remain separate, for the good of both. BTW, Steve b's comments are spot on. Why can't we have "discussion" on homosexuality and gun control? Why can't we have "compromise". What are you so "afraid" of? Same principle.

[DelphiUser]

I have a theory I’d like to try out here:

OK there are three kinds of people in the world, those who believe in a god (Theists) and those who do not believe in a god (Atheists), and those in Denial of these other positions.

True atheists are rare; I have never yet met an atheist, merely those in denial. As an example of an “Atheist” who is really just a theist in denial, I offer Castro’s request that people pray for him.

Theists believe that a god created life and people with an obvious reproduction system, sexual in nature which requires a man and a woman to reproduce. This is then accepted as their god’s plan for reproduction.

Atheists believe that people came to exist through a natural process, usually Darwinism, and that the Sexual reproduction is how we got to be the way we are, and continue to change, those who do not reproduce are “Dead Ends” and are being culled from the Gene Pool.

Neither true theists, nor true atheists practice homosexuality because it violates their basic beliefs, unless they are in denial of those beliefs.

Postulate: All Homosexuals are in denial of atheism, and / or theism. Homosexuals use the confusion of pitting these to forces against each other to avoid addressing their personal denial. This is why homosexuals will pretend to be theists or atheists depending on their perception of who the threat to their avoidance of their denial appears to be from. Homosexuals do this in an attempt to enlist the others to their logical argument and prolong the debate, thus prolonging their denial.

[jla]

Though I agree with your opinions on the state of public education I can't agree that public schools are "unconstitutional".
If this were so then Thomas J would have never proposed the University of Virginia or his plan of erecting schools throughout VA for children and young adults alike. And after he did no one raised any objections, constitutional or otherwise, and those around at the time were also present at the constitutional convention.

[RippyO]

Oh bollocks. Might as well say Noam Chomsky has "proven" himself to. Proven to who?

[wintertime]

If this were so then Thomas J would have never proposed the University of Virginia or his plan of erecting schools throughout VA for children and young adults alike
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thomas Jefferson was wrong.

[RippyO]

Are you calling me gay? All right, maybe I watched Project Runway once or twice but that's all I swear!

To be honest, where we diverge is your definition of Theism.

[wintertime]

Their motive is religious, no sane person can doubt that.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The motives of evolutionists are not religious, BUT, the consequences of evolutions are profoundly political, cultural, and RELIGIOUS.

This is why there is continual acrimony over evolution and hundreds of other issues in the government schools.

It is axiomatic: Government schools never were, are not now, and never can be religiously, politically, or culturally neutral. The government school will ALWAYS be establishing the religion of some while destroying the religion of others.

Solution: Immediately begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education.

[jla]

Can you or can you not refute anything Mrs. Schlafly states in her column? If so let's hear it, otherwise concede and admit that you are helpless against her daunting power of reasoning.

...and where did a Texan learn the term "bollocks"?

[taxesareforever]

I'm not a liberal.

Then why do you use liberal responses? Sheesh.

[wintertime]

"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." ( from the article)

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Secular is NOT religiously neutral. Secular will establish the religion of some and destroy that of others.

Education of a child is NEVER NEUTRAL. It is axiomatic.

(caps for emphasis)