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

[RippyO]

Good point. I am all in favor of ultra-religious parents opting to send their children to that teach creationism and more, ahem, secular parents sending their kids to heathen institutions.
I'd be a little nervous if kids from the first group grow up and become the majority, but I'm no dictator and it's their right to think that way.

[jla]

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

I'm certainly not against this but how would it be done? There are 75 million children in this country.

[RippyO]

I'll Fisk her column later. As for bollocks, would you prefer I say bull#$@&

I love the Brits, what can I say.

[RogueIsland]

Criticism Of Evolution Can't Be Silenced

True, Creationists never know when to shut up and stop strutting their utter, laughable scientific ignorance in front of the world.

[Labyrinthos]

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.

There you have it: Speaking with authority makes one an expert. No wonder the lame stream media looks to Hollyweird for comments on the Middle East, the economy, and the environment -- Because actors and actresses know how to speak with authority and therefore, they must be experts.

[jla]

Can you refute anything Mrs. Schlafly says in her column? It should be very easy for you to do since she and Creationist are so laughably ignorant of science.

[jla]

And none of you, with the exception of Physicist, has proffered any rebut of Mrs. Schlafly's column. Seems you evols aren't too evolved after all.

[DelphiUser]

>>” 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

Good advice and why I usually lurk :-)

>> Even AIG (Link Snip) discourages this.
>>The definition of a theory in science is not the same as in an everyday context.

Huh? We are talking about the theory of evolution being taught as a SCIENTIFIC fact, in school. You may feel free to use evolution in an everyday way without interference from me. (Grin, go on, evolve /Humor)

The history of science can be summed up with “We were wrong”, Did Einstein invalidate the Law of gravity? No, he affirmed, and refined it. Gravity is a law because it is repeatable, and it works every time (thank good ness)

>> But go forward 300 years, and you see Einstein correcting even Newton

Precisely my point, if your really interested in “Science”, you will be open to competing theories, especially since it’s a theory and even laws in science can use refinement, theories that can’t stand up to any debate about their merits have no business being taught as if they were as immutable as the law of gravity (which was updated too).

And since you brought Albert into this, he was a theist (believed in God) “God doesn’t play dice with the universe” – Albert Einstein

[Antoninus]

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.

Interesting observation considering that the scientific method itself was created and perfected by the Catholic Church. Great scientists like Copernicus and Gregor Mendel would likely be amused by your notion that Church and Science must remain separate.

Christianity can not be in any way harmed by science. As Christians believe that God created the world, anything that we can prove about the world through scientific experimentation must be True and not contradictory to the Faith. That said, theological ideas must not be radically reconsidered based on theory.

The problem with Darwinism is that many people have taken a theory about animal speciation and used it as the foundation for their atheism. Thus, any criticism of this theory must be anathema to them on a crypto-religious level. That's why scientists who express doubt about Darwinian evolution are excoriated and their livelihoods threatened.

[DelphiUser]

>>Did #1 somehow offend you?

Nope, just really liked #6 (feel free to like whatever you want for no god/discernable reason)

I NEVER speak in absolutes. – I should have had a humor tag, it’s an infinite loop in word form.

>>Do you believe the Earth orbits the Sun?

Yes, it’s repeatable, and predictable.

[wintertime]

I'm certainly not against this but how would it be done? There are 75 million children in this country.


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

Do 2 things simultaneously:

1) Government schools should start charging tuition to parents who can afford it. Remember. If a parent paid for day care of the pre-schooler, they can afford ***at minimum** that much in tuition now.

2) Offer generous tax credits to parents and any individual or business who contributes to the education of a particular child or to a private education fund offering private vouchers to private schools.

Once there is a thriving private market in education ( in ten years), give the remaining government schools to the principals and teachers who run them now. The counties would continue to own the buildings and fields. The teachers would pay modest rest. The playing fields, gym, library, and theaters would be open to all community groups and their use scheduled by the county parks and recreation department.

Eventually, move to a completely privatized system of education with parents paying their own tuition and private charities providing private scholarships to private schools for the poor.

[Diamond]

I have never, ever met a professional scientist who rejected the modern synthesis (i.e. that genes are the mechnaism of Darwinian inheritance, and that genetic mutation is the origin of inheritable variation).

Chinese evolutionists don't seem to have the same reverence for Darwinism that you do.

Cordially,

[RippyO]

As I recall, Copernicus was not welcomed with open arms by the Church. Mendel, I am not sure of, although I agree he was a genius.

You err that use of evolution to promote Godlessness is widespread. Many are able to see the two as co-existing.

And for the last time, just because you can't prove something doesn't make it invalid. Shades of gray, shades of gray. To me, Evo is simply grayer than ID.

My posts may be short and a little scatterbrained because I am surfing on a Treo. Not to mention that I am currently in class (EVO 101: How to enslave our children and PROFIT!!!!)

No seriously, I'm in a class.

[Labyrinthos]

And none of you, with the exception of Physicist, has proffered any rebut of Mrs. Schlafly's column.

What is there to rebut? She wrote an opinion column in which she epressed her opinion. That doesn't make her an expert in anything. She cited Ann Coulter to support her position. BFD. As much as I like AC, she's not an expert in science either. What I learned from the column is that conservative pundits must be correct in their views if they cite other conservative pundits who share the same opinion, and if 10% of Americans feel the same way, then the opinion is no longer an opinion, but a fact, even if it defies the rules of science and what is known as the scientific method and peer review.

[DelphiUser]

>>Is the Big Bang theory open to experiments?

Sure, let me know how it goes (Grin)

Don’t jump to conclusions, you just might fall. Teaching any theory as a fact is my problem, the big bang, string theory, the multiverse theory, all great stuff, just don’t teach tem as facts, that’s all, allow competing theories, and compare them in a scientific way, that’s all I ask.

[Bonaparte]

"The theory was not built by consensus, but by Darwin."

Now that you've hung out your shingle as a biologist, can you tell me what Darwin's "scientific" credentials were?

The fact is that he had no background in science and was not credentialed in any biological field. It is also a fact that he himself doubted his own ideas later in life and many of his claims have been discarded by contemporary evolutionists.

"The goal of any investigation is for essentially everybody to agree because the correct idea has been found. Such is the case with the origin of species."

But not "everybody" agrees. Many scientists who (unlike yourself) have credentials in the relevant fields of biology dispute the findings that you and others take as gospel. They do not concur with your claim that the "correct idea" has been found.

You state that you have never met a biologist who rejects current neo-darwinist belief. But I have cited roughly 30 working biology professors who have long since gone public with their belief that major components of the darwinian model are not the "correct ideas" and have not been scientifically demonstrated. This was all over the news wires and was posted and discussed here at Free Republic. Where were you? While these people were putting their careers on the line to challenge sacred orthodoxy, you apparently had your head buried so deep in the sand that you believed your own circle of academic acquaintances constituted a sufficient sampling to generalize about all biologists.

[RippyO]

Fine. Teach alternate views. But ID cannot be one of them.

[DelphiUser]

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

>>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).

I did not say you were a liberal, I commented on name calling as a tactic; your own mind convicts you.

>>I'm not calling names
>>Schlafly is a whiner
>>Coulter is scientifically illiterate

Must be my eyes, looks like it to me, gotta get some rose colored glasses, that’ll fix it!

[DelphiUser]

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

ROTFLOL

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

I am purposefully trying to cover all religions here, not address a specific one.

[DelphiUser]

>>Fine. Teach alternate views. But ID cannot be one of them.

I personally think ID is bunk that said, I think they should be able to teach it too if it is taught, and analyzed with the same standard Evolution (or any other theory) is held to. I just think it looks bad to say, “You can’t teach that theory here”

Honest debate, all facts allowed, opposing theories, logical argument = kids who learn to think for themselves. Sounds like good education to me.