Evolutionists Fear Academic Freedom

Townhall.com ^ | July 5, 2008 | Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

[Kaslin]

Celebrate the courage of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in the fight for freedom. He has shown tremendous courage in signing the Louisiana Science Education Bill, an important blow for academic freedom.

"Our freedom to think and consider more than one option is part of what has given America her competitive edge in the international marketplace of ideas,” said biology scientist Caroline Crocker to the Louisiana House Committee on Education. "The current denial of academic freedom rights for those who are judged politically incorrect may put this in jeopardy.”

Crocker was testifying on the bill allowing supplemental materials into Louisiana public school science classrooms about evolution, cloning, global warming and other debatable topics. The legislature went on to unanimously (35-0) pass the bill. Now it has become law because of Gov. Jindal’s courage.

One would think legislation which allows an environment that promotes “critical thinking” and “objective discussion” in the classroom would please everyone -- it did the bipartisan group of legislators in Louisiana -- but such is not the case. The New York Times felt threatened by the legislation, calling it “retrograde,” naming its editorial on the topic, “Louisiana’s Latest Assault on Darwin.” They were attempting to pressure Gov. Jindal to not sign the law, using a number of tactics including implicit ridicule, subtle belittling insults and untruths.

The law is straightforward and clearly restricts any intent to promote a religious doctrine. There is no mention of either intelligent design or creationism. Darwinism is not banned and teachers are required to teach students from standard textbooks. But the Times calls the legislation a “Trojan horse” because the state board of education must, upon request of local school districts, help foster an environment of “critical thinking” and “open discussion” on controversial scientific subjects. This allows teachers to use supplemental materials to analyze evolution and show views other than Darwin’s theory. It allows evolution to be criticized, and the law protects the rights of teachers and students to talk freely about a wide range of ideas without fear of reprisal.

The Times’ fear is that objective discussion “would have the pernicious effect of implying that evolution is only weakly supported and that there are valid competing scientific theories when there are not.” They called any school district “foolish” if they “head down this path.”

Evolutionists use a variety of methods to silence alternate viewpoints. They say people are trying to “inject religious views into science courses.” Besides calling it a “retrograde step”, the Times used implicit ridicule of Governor Jindal, saying, “As a biology major at Brown University, Mr. Jindal must know that evolution is the unchallenged central organizing principle for modern biology.”

Many reputable scientists and scholars disagree with Darwin’s theory of evolution and certainly challenge it. Evolutionists say they don’t want biased religious views forced on students. Ironically, Darwin’s evolutionary theory is based is atheistic naturalism, a religious belief.

Dr. William Provine of Cornell University explained his and Darwin’s shared atheistic beliefs in this way: “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal -- directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.”

Scientist Casey Luskin, a scholar with the Discovery Institute said, "We would like to see evolution taught in an unbiased fashion and also want students to learn how to think like scientists and to weigh the evidence for and against."

Academic free speech rights for Louisiana’s public school students and teachers are now guaranteed because of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s signature. Trying to strike a modicum of balance to the scientific discussion in classrooms and allow students to hear more than one view, Gov. Jindal acted wisely.

Other states are considering similar legislation. Students deserve academic free speech rights to hear alternate views, ask critical questions and debate controversial topics. This freedom will in turn strengthen our country.

Many reputable scientists and scholars disagree with Darwin’s theory of evolution and certainly challenge it. Evolutionists say they don’t want biased religious views forced on students. Ironically, Darwin’s evolutionary theory is based is atheistic naturalism, a religious belief.

Dr. William Provine of Cornell University explained his and Darwin’s shared atheistic beliefs in this way: “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal -- directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.”

Scientist Casey Luskin, a scholar with the Discovery Institute said, "We would like to see evolution taught in an unbiased fashion and also want students to learn how to think like scientists and to weigh the evidence for and against."

Academic free speech rights for Louisiana’s public school students and teachers are now guaranteed because of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s signature. Trying to strike a modicum of balance to the scientific discussion in classrooms and allow students to hear more than one view, Gov. Jindal acted wisely.

Other states are considering similar legislation. Students deserve academic free speech rights to hear alternate views, ask critical questions and debate controversial topics. This freedom will in turn strengthen our country.

[mrjesse]

There are two kinds of evolution: That which I have seen (many call it micro evolution) and that which I have not seen (which I'll call All Speciation by evolution, or ASBE for sort, but most call macro evolution.)

What I do see is a lot of quick-switching between saying "Oh, evolution is well demonstrated" while referring to micro evolution, then switching silently to ASBE - for which I heretofore have not found any good evidence. (Oh, yeah, I've been referred to lists of 93,000 links or all of google itself with no clue as to where to start, but never even one single article which provided clear conclusive evidence for ASBE.) Remember: If I can't see it for myself, I can at best only take it on faith - which isn't science!

When I see those pictures of a handful of skull bits stuck onto fixall - maybe in the correct shape, maybe not - it's usually with the claim that they are good evidence for ASBE, or at least humans from apes. Of course we have no idea of real shape and real scale. If you ask me, they could all well have been caused by micro-evolution as is depicted in the photos below. Do we really have anything that goes beyond demonstrating variation in the caliber of micro-evolution? I haven't found anything.

As far as I can tell, the theory of ASBE doesn't have any great evidences which you could see and say "Oh wow!" but rather is made up on thousands of tiny little clues, each of which by itself would be totally unconvincing, and each of which only has merit because of all the others which support it. Reminds me of the farmer who knew that a single ostrich couldn't produce enough lift to fly so he tied a hundred of them together to see if their combined lift would work!

Furthermore, science dogmatically rejects all non-natural events - not because they are impossible and regardless of the evidence - for the simple reason that they posit a non-natural cause. The problem is that until proven impossible, a non-natural cause is possible - so science dogmatically rules out something that is possible.

Let me put it this way: If God did exist, just as the Bible said, could science still exist? Could man still study the world around him? Of course he could! so why dogmatically rule out the possibility? (Especially when the chances of life arising from non-life is about impossible.)

And no matter how certain somebody else is of a claim, if I cannot see it myself, I can at best accept it by faith. And if I take purely by faith a statement which I myself cannot know -- that's not science, that's faith!

And my observation has been that the majority of people who believe in ASBE (All Species By Evolution) do take it by faith -- for them, it fills the role of a religion.

So what evidence do we have that actually proves more then what well may be just microevolution, like these photos below?

How about these (not to scale):

How about these, to scale:

----

This one wouldn't inline

----

Micro-evolution in short time periods can produce some very drastic changes.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

That's the other thing I was wondering - how many millions of government dollars can we throw behind a theory (like All Species By Evolution, or ASBE) before it becomes impossible to tell whether the theory lives on the evidence or the money?

-Jesse

[reasonisfaith]

Thanks for your insights.

I look forward to checking into your “crude math” later.

[rustbucket]

-- the recent researches of workers like Dean and Henshelwood (1964) already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in the seemingly monolithic walls of the Neo-Darwinian Jericho

What cracks are those? In 1964, puntuated equilibrium hadn't been proposed yet as far as I know. It resolved a lot of problems that evolutionary scientists had found with the gradual continual evolution model. As I said in my earlier post, the TOE changed as a result of new fossil evidence.

I never heard of Gish before. When I looked him up in response to your post I found the following comment on the web [Source]:

... Gish's debates are canned---he repeats more or less the same stories and arguments against evolution over and over, from place to place, from month to month, from year to year. The same arguments are even reproduced in his books and articles. Because of the nature of debates, it's inevitable that some of Gish's arguments get refuted by various scientists over time, often more than once. But Gish just goes to the next debate without ever changing any of his storyline. He succeeds at this, because in the next city, with a new audience and a new scientist to debate, who's to know that his argument got shot down, with evidence, by that other evolutionist last week?

I know posters like that on FR on other topics. The critique of Gish continued on that web site:

In his debates, much of Gish's diatribe is directed towards the fossil record and the alleged lack of transitional forms between earlier and later forms of life. Gish has admitted that if transitional forms can be shown to exist, then creationism is dead (see Debates-Parrish 1991). Creationists, including Gish, are able to deny the existence of transitional forms because they use their own home-made definition of the term. For example, Gish claims that to be intermediate, fossils must be on a direct line of descent with each other and that transitional creatures would have to possess half-formed, and therefore useless, body parts (Gish 1985, 1995). But evolution does not happen that way and the well-known theory of punctuated equilibrium solves many supposed problems with the fossil record (Gould and Eldredge 1972).

[Non-Sequitur]

A list of “transitional forms” with apparent detailed descriptions seem to me like a way of getting around the fact that these are not really transitional forms.

The link explains why science believes these are examples of transitional fossils. Why are they wrong?

Why do you depend on pictures for your evidence? Why isn't a description sufficient?

...of these animals would demonstrate the vastness of unfilled physical gaps and unanswered questions.

Well of course there are unfilled gaps and unanswered questions. Science is all about filling those gaps and answering those questions, and it attempts to do so every day. Unlike Intelligent Design, science doesn't claim to have all the answers already. And unlike ID, there are no questions that science isn't interested in trying to answer.

[gusopol3]

I sort Creationists with 9-11 Truthers.

I sort you with NYT editorialists

[reasonisfaith]

I would suggest reading Gish instead of relying on the word of critics who were biased against him before they wrote their criticism. That way you’ll see exactly what Gish said, instead of what other people said about him.

One of the weaknesses of punctuated equilibrium is that it is part of the defensive reaction put up by evolutionists. This reaction is antithetical to science because it begins with a premise (the truth of evolution) and then it tries to imagine ways that the premise can be true. Not scientific, but it runs rampant among evolutionists.

In science if an idea is not supported by objective, physical evidence, the idea is supposed to be rejected.

[reasonisfaith]

Language is important. To fix your misunderstanding: I never said I depend on pictures for evidence. That’s a distortion.

Language and graphics should be used. When language alone is used, it gives a false sense of detail.

[Coyoteman]

One of the weaknesses of punctuated equilibrium is that it is part of the defensive reaction put up by evolutionists. This reaction is antithetical to science because it begins with a premise (the truth of evolution) and then it tries to imagine ways that the premise can be true. Not scientific, but it runs rampant among evolutionists.

In science if an idea is not supported by objective, physical evidence, the idea is supposed to be rejected.

Your ideas concerning how science works appear flawed.

What evidence changed from before to after the idea of punctuated equilibrium was introduced? Didn't the evidence remain the same?

Didn't the theory of evolution change in some small ways to better account for the existing evidence? Is not the theory then more supported by the objective, physical evidence than it was previously?

Isn't that what science is supposed to do?

[rustbucket]

One of the weaknesses of punctuated equilibrium is that it is part of the defensive reaction put up by evolutionists. This reaction is antithetical to science because it begins with a premise (the truth of evolution) and then it tries to imagine ways that the premise can be true. Not scientific, but it runs rampant among evolutionists.

Altering a theory to fit new evidence is a weakness? It is a strength. The altered theory explains the fossil evidence, both new and old, better than the old theory.

[Fichori]

"I think this explains why pictures of transitional forms are not used, including in the link by Non-Sequitur, because a good common sense look at the general morphology of these animals would demonstrate the vastness of unfilled physical gaps and unanswered questions." [excerpt]

Here's the best Transitional Form I have yet to see:

(Of course, I'm partial.)

[mrjesse]

But evolution does not happen that way and the well-known theory of punctuated equilibrium solves many supposed problems with the fossil record (Gould and Eldredge 1972).

As if well-known makes it somehow correct. My leg. but I digress.

Do you evolutionists actually believe in punctuated equilibrium?

It's pretty funny. When a man argues that the first cell could not have sprang to life because its too complicated, the evolutionary scientist argues that it it happened a little bit at a time and really was no big deal. But when a man argues against ASBE (All Species By Evolution) saying that we're not finding the billions of intermediate species fossils that we should be, then the evolutionary scientists argue that it happened in spurts, where multiple benefits were being prepared for before they were of any use.

Reminds me of the guy who murdered somebody, but who plead innocent on account of insanity. At first the defendant's lawyer argued for insanity and the prosecutor argued that the defendant was sane. Then the judge sentenced the defendant to life in a mental ward. But a year later, the defendant decided he's feeling fine now - so now the prosecutor and the defendant's lawyer are arguing over the exact same thing, but now they've both changed sides - now the prosecutor is arguing that the defendant is insane and the lawyer is arguing for sanity!

Is that how it works in science? Is it like a corrupted court system where they argue one line of reasoning one day then just the opposite the next day, depending on what point they are trying to make?

So when we're talking about tiny cells which don't leave fossils, then it's a slow gradual process. But if we're talking about stuff that should have left fossils, then it goes in jumps!

What is the best evidence for punctuated equilibrium? Isn't it just a result of "We know we evolved but since there are so many missing links they must have equiliberally punctuated?"

By the way, I realize that evolutionists don't like to admit to the vast missing links, but they do well know about them and it bothers some of them otherwise we wouldn't have bright minds proposing things like punctuated equilibrium.

So when the prediction is first made that all species came by evolution, it can be rightly be said that "We just haven't found all dem bones yet." But after enough time we ought to expect to be seeing some more of these billions of intermediate (and I do mean incrementally intermediate - not a few sparse handfuls that jump millions of years and could well be produced by the degree of variation observed in dogs in the last 200 years) Anyway, after enough time of nothing like we should be getting, one must ask the question "Maybe we've been had." Just how long can we go on before we see that the bill isn't just late - it's entirely missing?

-Jesse

[rustbucket]

Do you evolutionists actually believe in punctuated equilibrium?

Yes, but I'm not a biologist. Evolution isn't my specialty.

What is the best evidence for punctuated equilibrium?

As I understand it, the fossil record shows many species staying relatively unchanged for large periods of time. Then when change occurs it appears in the fossil record to have been quick or essentially instantaneous on a geologic time scale. Other species evolved very slowly or gradually.

To me this suggests that environmental conditions and competitors were fairly constant for species that evolved slowly while they differed substantially or changed dramatically for species who were geographically isolated from each other. The geographic isolation and different conditions favored different characteristics in the species. When isolated species came in contact after millions of years of isolation, there were enough mutations in the DNA that they were effectively different species unable to reproduce together.

Something like that anyway. As I said, I'm not an expert in evolution. It just makes far better sense to me than one of the creation stories.

I gather there are examples of so called missing links in the fossil record that show change occurring in multiple stages over eons. But you'd best ask an evolution scientist about it.

Is that how it works in science? Is it like a corrupted court system where they argue one line of reasoning one day then just the opposite the next day, depending on what point they are trying to make?

As new evidence is found that indicates problems with a theory, new or modified theories that better explain the data are proposed. There is nothing corrupt, perverted, or dishonest about the process. It is a search for truth based on evidence.

[reasonisfaith]

“Altering a theory to fit new evidence is a weakness?”

In a court of law it’s called perjury.

[L98Fiero]

‘“Altering a theory to fit new evidence is a weakness?”

In a court of law it’s called perjury.’

LOL!!! Goodness. Thank you for that. Demonstrating you know nothing of science OR law. It’s a two-fer.

[reasonisfaith]

“Thank you for that. Demonstrating you know nothing of science OR law.”

Lying on the stand is known as perjury.

[reasonisfaith]

I’ll break it down for you.

A guy on the witness stand, or in a science journal, declares that x because of p. (Where x is the truth claim based on p, the evidence.)

Then p is shown to include no physical evidence, so the guy changes his mind and says no, I didn’t mean x, I meant y.

He’s making things up, known as lying.

[L98Fiero]

That’s not the same as changing a theory due to new evidence. Investigators do it all the time. Scientists do it all the time. The only people who try to change evidence to fit theory are demagogues, zealots and frauds.

[reasonisfaith]

Just to make sure we’re clear on this—I’m talking about changing theory to fit evidence, not the other way around.

The first theory was Darwinism. Then it was changed to punctuated equilibrium, in order to be more consistent with evidence.