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

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

"That's basically a conspiracy theory."

What, Global Warming? I think so. Grant money determining scientific results? No that's not just theory. My brother works in a lab where all decisions and even denial of experiment results are slanted to appease the grantors. He's seen this in many other labs he deals with. If you look closely at most GW science, you will see corruption, selective data and doctored results. More than ever, science has preconceived results affecting how experiments are set-up and controlled. The grant funding gravy train rules. Many scientists do not get grants unless they will produce the desired results. This has become an epidemic.

[Labyrinthos]

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

I don't have a problem with public schools teaching intelligent design or creationism as long as they don't teach it as part of the science curriculum or pass it off as science. If they are going to be taught in the public schools then they should be taught in social studies class in the same chapter as the "sky turtle" and other religious and cultural beliefs regarding the creation of the universe and the origin of human life.

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

I'm well aware of the time it takes for a species to evolve. But, with all the species in existence, you'd think there'd be one in the middle of the process where the evolutionists, could say, "See, here's the missing link in a living species". Since it has occurred in the past and is supposed to in the future, it should also be happening now. I was being a bit facetious with those last two questions.

[RobRoy]

>>Coulter is scientifically illiterate. Read her new book. A friend's 15-year-old kid knows more science than she does.<<

"Science" is a broad field/term and, generally speaking, quite specialized. That is why one "anti-evo" poster was ridiculed here by darwiniacs for saying he was a "scientist". What "science" does your kid know (as opposed to "believe) more than Ann?

Post 11 was pure ad-himinem.

[Antoninus]

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.

Read and learn: Nicolaus Copernicus

As with Galileo, the Church objected to proclamations of the certainty of the theory in Copernicus's work. Much like the modern peer-review process, the Church was very skeptical of novel ideas. And when you look at the history of science, there have been a lot more cranks with wrong ideas that led nowhere than geniuses with innovative new ones.

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

OK, I'll take your word for it over the testimony of my lyin' eyes and ears.

[RippyO]

'tis not your eyes and ears that lie but thy perceptions.

True that there are many a crank in science, but not many keep up the charade after 150 years. Especially in such an open environment as today. (or do you actually believe the 16th century was more tolerant of unconventional opinions)

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

Yeah, I'm starting to have more and more doubts as to evolution. Like GW, I think many scientists are corrupt in their experiments by trying to match desired results. Scientific integrity is hard to find these days. All doubters and critics are denounced on several levels. Also, they can't or seldom get federal grant money. Plus, the press will not present their views to the public. Bunch of sell outs.

[RippyO]

And where do the IDers get their money? I doubt James Leininger opens his checkbook unless he's sure what the result of any 'research' will be.

[Bonaparte]

You've hit the nail on the head. It takes real courage for an academic biologist to go against neo-darwinian orthodoxy. If he is not already tenured, his career will dead-end, his research funding will dry up and he will have difficulty getting any of his work past peer review to publication. But those who go along to get along will qualify for a seat on the National Academy of Sciences with the other hardcore enforcers of the "correct ideas."

[RippyO]

And I'm going to need a little more evidence of 'The Man' punishing anti-GW and anti-evo views besides 'My brother says this is happening.'

I want examples, and lots of them

[Antoninus]

'tis not your eyes and ears that lie but thy perceptions.

You haven't spent much time arguing with atheists, have you?

Especially in such an open environment as today. (or do you actually believe the 16th century was more tolerant of unconventional opinions).

I think the fact that a scientist can't criticize Darwinian ToE without losing his career is an indication of how open our society isn't. Unconventional ideas, even if they are supported by science, are commonly shouted down in our current climate. Don't believe me? Try making the following statement in a scientific millieu and see what happens to you: "Statistical studies have indicated that women may not have the same cognitive abilities as men when it comes to mathematics."

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

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

Work on fruit flies went on for decades. They were good subjects because their chromosomes were large and relatively easy to manipulate, and they reproduced like crazy.

That work involved sorting out the functions and locations of genes. I think homeobox was one of the fruit fly discoveries.

I remember seeing the pictures where they covered the flies alternatively with eyes and then legs. Mostly gross.

But I wouldn't characterize this as work in evolution because it was too primitive for that. Evolution was established based on the fossil record. Molecular biology has mostly supported the fossil record, but it's not far enough along to resolve many issues IMO.

[RippyO]

I agree that Summers was sandbagged but he made that statement in a public forum. I have to believe that grantwriters are less hysterical than the Harvard chapter of NOW. I would love to see examples of anything otherwise.

Besides, aren't there religious foundations out there that are relatively well endowed? I defy you to find a starving creationist in a world where James Leininger exists.

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

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?

Do you mean like ligers or mules? With enough technology you can cross anything. Look at all the weird lab mice strains running around. Some have human immune systems or human brain cells. ;(

In evolutionary biology, the important first step to speciation is that 2 populations rarely, or don't, crossbreed. That's what allows them to develop separate characteristics and eventually become morphologically distinct and unable to cross-breed.

Your requirements are not part of evolutionary theory.

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

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

I agree. Species can be defined that way.

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

Go see Al Gore's movie.

[wintertime]

I don't have a problem with public schools teaching intelligent design or creationism as long as they don't teach it as part of the science curriculum or pass it off as science. If they are going to be taught in the public schools then they should be taught in social studies class in the same chapter as the "sky turtle" and other religious and cultural beliefs regarding the creation of the universe and the origin of human life.

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

Doing this is not religiously, culturally, or politically neutral. If the government gives the imprimatur of "true science" to evolution, and labels ID and/or creationism "social science", the government is sending a powerful religious message to all the students in the school.

Face it, please. Government schools never were, are not now, and never can be religiously neutral. Evolution is merely one of hundreds of curriculum policies and issues. As long as we have government schools, the fighting among the various political bully groups over the hearts and minds of the children will continue to be acrimonious.

There is only one constitutional solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. Do this and the curriculum wars will end.

[wintertime]

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

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

Please read post: #177.

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

Yes, private money does provide grants for skeptics of evolution and GW, non-skeptics as well. But, almost all federal money and the powers that be in academia and the media are for GW and evolution. Their is no balance in federal funding. The doubters are silenced. That's why you doubt the doubters. You don't hear their view. Read 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton. He exposes this very nicely.

[MarDav]

"I believe a GOD probably exists I don't believe in the superstitious little god worshiped by most evangelicals..."

On what basis do you believe that a GOD probably exist? Is this a hunch? Or do you base this belief on some proof? You've done an awful lot of denigrating of the community of believers on this forum, denigrated them for [what you presume to know about] what they believe in. How is your nebulous statement about the "god" you believe probably exists any more valid than those made about the God of the people you denigrate? This is extraordinarily hypocritical and arrogant of you. This, along with many of the statements made by like-minded folks like yourself, show an irrational, condescending smugness that belies the reasoned, scientific approach you claim to utilize when invetigating the origin of life.