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

[Liberal Classic]

Modern biology does not accept Haeckel's recapitulation theory, though scientists do see connections between ontogeny and phylogeny. Piltdown man was considered an anomaly long before the hoax was revealed, because it didn't have a place in the human family tree. For someone to take these examples and reject science as a lie demonstrates to me that they desire science to be a lie no matter what.

[Virginia-American]

Yes, that was the claim. The proof (photo) was just faked

The proof was by counting moths; the photo was irrelevent to the actual study.

[DelphiUser]

>>For someone to take these examples and reject science as
>>a lie demonstrates to me that they desire science to be
>>a lie no matter what.

Please be accurate in your representations of my position. I did not say science was a lie, merely that there were some who were willing to subvert science in their support of it. (Lying, as far as I am aware is not part of the scientific method) These people are not the mainstream, and the honest seekers after truth (which is how I view most scientists) are maligned by the fact that these charlatans hoodwinked (some of) us, and thus sullied Science’s image. However since these unscrupulous individuals exist, it is prudent to be cautious in believing uncorroborated evidence.

As for the peppered moth, to offer an image which is visual “Proof” of your theory without informing those who will be seeing your evidence without informing them that it is a staged photo for illustration only is dishonest by every definition that I have ever heard. What makes this worse is there was actually merit to the research and the photographs actually wound up detracting from the impact of the study. (I will assert that Evolution within a species happens regularly both in nature, and in the lab. It’s measurable, repeatable, and predictable. This Micro evolution does not prove Evolution between species (Macro evolution), but it certainly begs the question)

To assert that there are no falsehoods that have been told in science is to be intellectually dishonest.

To assert that I have declared Science to be a lie is likewise, dishonest.

P.S. It is customary when discussing someone, or their comments, to ping them to your post.

[Virginia-American]

...As for the peppered moth, to offer an image which is visual “Proof” of your theory without informing those who will be seeing your evidence without informing them that it is a staged photo for illustration only is dishonest by every definition that I have ever heard...

Could you please show where Kettlewell et al referred to the photos as some kind of "proof of a theory" or "evidence"?

[DelphiUser]

>>Could you please show where Kettlewell et al referred to the photos as some kind of "proof of a theory" or "evidence"?

Nope, not gonna do your research for ya. He used them as part of the presentation, whether or not he said “These are accurate” is irrelevant.

Wow, if I fought this hard against evolution, you’d a call me a fanatic. Oh wait…

Can you show where Dan Rather said these documents are 100% accurate in his first airing of them? No, well, he didn’t lie then.

Can you show where Bill Clinton said “I never got a BJ form Monica Lewinski”? No? Well he didn’t lie then.

Give it up already, your obsession with the “No one who is for evolution would ever lie” line shows you for what you are, a believer, not a scientist. (Not that being a believer is bad, if you are willing to admit it.)

Proving a negative is really hard for example; prove that god does not exist:
1. God might be anywhere in the universe and he might be moving around, so you would have to be every where at once to prove he was not there. (That’s omnipresent)
2. He might be hiding somewhere you haven’t thought of so you would have to know everything, and have thought of everywhere he might be, and every form he might take. (That’s omniscient)
3. He might go some where you can’t go or be doing something you can’t do, so you would have to be able to do everything, preferably at once (that’s omnipotent)
In order to prove god does not exist, you would have to be God.

[Virginia-American]

Nope, not gonna do your research for ya. He used them as part of the presentation, whether or not he said “These are accurate” is irrelevant.

It's not my research. You claimed the photos were an integral part of the study; I'm claiming that the study would have been the same if it had not been illustrated. Since the actual study had to do with the numbers of light and dark moths that were eaten, I really don't see what the picture had to do with anything, other than to give the reader an idea of what the predatory birds saw.

And there is nothing fake about the photos. They simply show the light/dark moths on a light/dark bark background.

Give it up already, your obsession with the “No one who is for evolution would ever lie” line shows you for what you are, a believer, not a scientist. (Not that being a believer is bad, if you are willing to admit it.)

But I never said that. What I did way was that in 150 years there has been one hoax or fraud (Piltdown) and one case of exaggerated drawings (Haeckel). The first was pretty much ignored for 30 years until the definite proof of fraud was produced; the latter has been superseded by modern photographs (that, incidentally, show recapitulation; - there are a lot more examples of it known to us than there were to Haeckel).

Meanwhile, just in the last 50-odd years, how many frauds have anti-evolution activists committed? Well, there's

"Dr" Carl Baugh's fake human/dinosaur footprints - exposed by scientists, not by anti-evolution activists
Gary Parker's dishonest claims that protein analysis shows humans to be more closely related to chickens and bullfrogs than to chimps.
Don Patton's false claims about "Malachite Man" (ne "Moab Man")
Talk Origins exhaustive listing of fake "anomalous fossils"
The fake account of Darwin renouncinghis theory on his deathbed, pushed by the self-serving preacherwoman "Lady Hope".
Kent Hovind's notorious $250,000 challenge to "prove" the Theory of Evolution, where, in order to win, you'd also have to "prove" that "1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves." (When the IRS gets through with him, he won't have the 250K; but that's another kind of fraud, tax fraud)
Lies about what astronomers have found
The thousands of fraudulent quotations mined from legitimate scientists by anti-evolution activists with no more respect for the scientists than they have for that mother lode of mined quotes, the Bible.

So one or two in 150 years doesn't look at all bad in context, does it?

[DelphiUser]

>>You claimed the photos were an integral part of the study

Integral, I do not remember using that word… part of the study, yes.

(Please don’t put words in my mouth; I don’t know where they’ve been) / Humor

>>So one or two in 150 years doesn't look at all bad in context, does it?

In your post # 326 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1684487/posts?page=326#326 you (said or quoted, I am not sure because of the formatting, but either way, I’ll assume that this is your position since you then started to argue for it.)

>>Do you -- does anyone -- have any *real* examples of
>>actual "fakery" done in an actual attempt to falsely
>>bolster evolutionary biology itself in the view of those
>>who might be "on the fence"? I'm familiar with a lot
>>more of the history of science than most people on this
>>forum, and *I'm* not aware of any such attempts. So drop
>>the goofy conspiracy theories, please.

Yes, I have *real* examples, (In an absolute statement, only one example of exception is necessary to prove it false). You have admitted to 1.5 falsehoods, so my point is made. (I love the half a falsehood BTW)

>>>>Give it up already, your obsession with the “No one
>>>>who is for evolution would ever lie” line shows you
>>>>for what you are, a believer, not a scientist. (Not
>>>>that being a believer is bad, if you are willing to
>>>>admit it.)

>>But I never said that.

See your quote from 326 above. If you don’t agree with something, why quote it? (Yes I quote Marx all the time, but I never said I agreed with him) You are not reasoning in a straight line here.

>>What I did say was that in 150 years there has been one
>>hoax or fraud (Piltdown) and one case of exaggerated
>>drawings (Haeckel).

See my dog poop in brownies example above. I am not saying you should believe anything, and I believe I stated that there were falsehoods on both sides BEFORE you trotted this list out, so what is your point? These three that I listed are famous fakeries, I could find more, but I was not entering a contest of “Fakery Finding”.

Bringing out “Evidence” of falsehoods of people trying to prove evolution wrong is beating a dead horse since I said it had happened in my prior post. (Bringing out the list actually bolsters my point)

Apparently you have more of a taste for dog poop than I.

In short, you keep trying to make this a fight between two competing theories; I am not promoting a theory. I was told this could be proven. It has not been. I am not promoting a theory of my own, as you seem to keep thinking, by attacking what you think is my position. As I stated earlier, I believe God could have used evolution, (punctuated equilibrium, or steady progression), six day creation (complete with carbon dating, and Dinosaur fossils in the soil layers), or some other yet to be discovered method. As such, I can be impartial in my analysis because my faith is not at risk. An analysis of your statements here reveals you as a believer in evolution, and one who is a little fanatical at that.

Some advice, Go out side, get some fresh air, look at God’s creations through your eyes, not a microscope, play with some kids (preferably your own) relax. Then when you have a clearer mind, re-read my posts. You keep arguing my points as if there is something to fight about.

I will restate my opinions here

1. Evolution has not been “Proved beyond a shadow of a doubt”.
2. All theories should be taught, until disproved.
3. This discussion generates an emotional response (because it affects people’s personal beliefs) which leads people to do and say things in the heat of the moment that they later regret.
4. We may never know the answers, but the study is important because it teaches us as much about ourselves as the answers would.

See? Not really much to fight about, these are pretty self evident (of course my opinions will always seem self evident to me; Grin)

Be well.

[MEGoody]

And how precisely are these beliefs?

I can't believe you are still asking this question. My post was quite clear. If you don't get it now, you never will. (Although I suspect you get it and are pretending not to.)

Have a nice day.

[Dante Alighieri]

"My post was quite clear."

Really? Let's examine it again:

"So what would you call embracing one interpretation over another?

Of course.

And there are varying theories depending on one's interpretation of the data. So you choose to either believe one interpretation of the data, or you choose to believe another. It is belief.

I realize that for evols, that's a terrifying word, so they avoid it like the plague. Seems quite irrational to me."

Let's examine it logically:

In standard form, you stated:

1) A belief is "embracing one interpretation over another."
2) Evolutionary theory is such an interpretation
3) Therefore, evolutionary theory is a belief.

This is fallacious however because, in 1 (the premise) you misdefined belief. A belief is the strong acceptance in the truth of a proposition, usually with little to no evidence. Since scientists do not hold a strong acceptance or a conviction in the truth of a proposition (evolution) and do not ever claim that evolution is true absolutely, it is not a belief. Let me show you:

1) A belief is the strong acceptance in the truth of a proposition, usually with little to no evidence
2) A scientific theory is a proposition
3) The principle of tentavity prohibits strong acceptance in a scientific theory to be held as true with absolute certitude, to allow for revision and self-correction
4) Scientific theories contain multiple lines of genuine positive evidence, as defined by their criteria
5) Evolutionary theory is such a scientific theory
6) Scientists do not accept evolution as true with absolute certitude according to the principle of tentativity
7) Evolutionary theory as a scientific theory, by definition, contains multiple lines of genuine positive evidence
8) Evolutionary theory is therefore not a belief

Evolutionary theory is accepted as *accurate* not as true with absolute certitude.

"If you don't get it now, you never will. (Although I suspect you get it and are pretending not to.)"

Not really. You made a fallacious claim.

"Have a nice day."

Thank you very much. I wish you as well a good day.

[MEGoody]

A belief is the strong acceptance in the truth of a proposition, usually with little to no evidence.

According to Webster's, a belief is "the mental act, condition or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person or thing. Mental acceptance of or conviction in the truth or actuality of something. Some believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."

The additon of 'little or no evidence' seems to reflect YOUR belief as to the definiton of belief. Which makes the remainder of your post completely meaningless, since it is based upon an erroneous belief from the start.

Again, have a nice day.

[MEGoody]

A belief is the strong acceptance in the truth of a proposition, usually with little to no evidence.

According to Webster's, a belief is "the mental act, condition or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person or thing. Mental acceptance of or conviction in the truth or actuality of something. Some believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."

The additon of 'little or no evidence' seems to reflect YOUR belief as to the definiton of belief. Which makes the remainder of your post completely meaningless, since it is based upon an erroneous belief from the start.

Again, have a nice day.

[Dante Alighieri]

"According to Webster's, a belief is 'the mental act, condition or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person or thing. Mental acceptance of or conviction in the truth or actuality of something. Some believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.'

"The additon of 'little or no evidence' seems to reflect YOUR belief as to the definiton of belief. Which makes the remainder of your post completely meaningless, since it is based upon an erroneous belief from the start"

I'm using the standard philosophical definition of belief: "Affirmation of, or conviction regarding, the truth of a proposition, whether or not one is in possession of evidence adequate to justify a claim that the proposition is known with certainty." Whereaupon God remains a belief, scientific inquiry becomes knowledge.

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/b2.htm#bel

Therefore, the argument remains valid.

"Again, have a nice day."

You as well.

[MEGoody]

whether or not one is in possession of evidence adequate to justify a claim

So the definiton you refer to does NOT say 'with little or no evidence.' Thank you.

[Dante Alighieri]

That's the logical, consequence of it. A belief remains a belief *unless* it becomes justified - thereupon, it becomes knowledge. Evolution is justified by evidence. Therefore, it becomes knowledge. Your statement is fallacious.

[Aquinasfan]

I wouldn't wish school on any kid, except the kid next door who drives me nuts.

[MEGoody]

Evolution is justified by evidence.

So you believe. :)

[Dante Alighieri]

No. Justification of evolution occurs from evidence given in a variety of forms, such as ERV insertions, predicted and confirmed chromosomal fusion in chromosome #2 with sub-telomeric duplications, observed instances of speciation, the fossil record, et cetra.