Let all views be heard, dissenters say—teach only one view, suppressers say
Published: 4 November 2014 (GMT+10)
No matter how hard British evolutionists try to suppress Darwin dissenters, a survey shows that more than half the population still rejects naturalistic explanations for our existence and wants opposing views—such as creation—presented in the classroom.
This has infuriated many evolutionists including Lewis Wolpert, emeritus professor of biology at University College London and vice-president of the British Humanist Association, who said: “I am appalled. It shows how ignorant the public is. Intelligent design and creationism have no connection with science and are purely religious concepts. There is no evidence for them at all. They must be kept out of science lessons.”1
Another, James Williams, a lecturer at Sussex University, said: “Creationists ask if people believe in evolution. Evolution is a theory and a fact. You accept it because of the evidence. What the creationists have done is put a cloak of pseudo-science to wrap up their religious belief.”2
Of course, that assertion could be turned on its head thus: “Evolutionists ask if people believe in creation. Creation is a theory and a fact. You accept it because of the evidence. What the evolutionists have done is put a cloak of pseudo-science to wrap up their religious belief.”
What the survey results demonstrate is that even some of those who did not identify as creationists aren’t afraid of alternative views being presented in the classroom alongside evolution.
On the other hand, evolutionists such as Wolpert and Williams won’t tolerate any questioning of evolution on the basis that it is ‘fact’, so therefore, the public is ‘ignorant’ for thinking otherwise.
Actually, CMI would be opposed to any legislation to make the teaching of creation compulsory in public schools. (How could an atheist teacher fairly teach anything which so soundly opposed the foundations of his own worldview?)
At the same time, while we do not engage in any sort of political lobbying, we think it would be fair and appropriate if individual teachers who wished to do so were free (not compelled) to present the evidence which is contrary to the evolution viewpoint, and not be compelled to teach only that which favours it. In other words, teachers who wished to present a balanced approach to this particular hypothesis should be free to do so, giving pro and con arguments, without misrepresentation. Among other things, this would encourage critical thinking skills.
Unfortunately, this is not very likely in view of the philosophical stranglehold which evolutionary materialism/naturalism has on the Western mind in our age.
For more see The Teaching of Creation in Schools.
References and notes
- Ammi, K., Why do half of Britons not believe in evolution?, 26 July 2014, examiner.com. Return to text.
- Butt, R., Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds, 2 February 2009, theguardian.com. Return to text.
What would be really great is to have creationists write textbooks which teach both evolution and creation. Or perhaps creation.com could provide additional chapters or supplements to be added to or taught along side of textbooks that teach evolution or biology.
Personally, I think that the only truly fair thing to do is to remove ALL teaching about origins from the regular science curriculum altogether. All origins hypotheses can then be taught in a philosophy of science course where they can be properly debated and all views considered. Who knows...students might actually learn critical thinking skills in the process.
It would be nice if this could be put up for a vote. Let evolutionists present indisputable, factual evidence that evolution is so critical to scientific understanding. Surely they can give examples of major scientific breakthroughs wherein 'knowing' that the earth is 4.2 billion years old was a critical factor, or in which 'knowing' that humans evolved from prosimians, tetrapods from fish, birds from dinos etc. was a crucial factor. When they fail to present this evidence, perhaps more people will see that speculation and conjecture are not very scientific.
Let us not forget that Eph 6:12 "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places".
The darkness rules this world and we are trying to expose the darkness and you can't expect the darkness to like it. I don't want them, (unbelievers) to try to teach Creationism, They'll mess it up because of their bias. Teach observational science in the classroom and edit the bias of unobservable evolution out of the textbooks. Origin science, (religion) should be an elective course taught separately from a strictly informational point of view with no bias if possible. The problem is, everyone has a bias!
I have a question.If those studies at the beginning are true then how come i have seen studies for the U.K that state that it has a high atheist count?I mean unless they label agnostics who are unsure about evolution as atheist.I don't see how it still has a high atheist count if the survey showed more then half reject naturalistic explanations.
You are right that an atheist would by definition have to believe in some sort of evolution. And you are right that a high percentage of people in the UK identify as atheist (a 2002 survey indicated 39% as opposed to the world average of some 17%). But that still leaves another 60% of people as non-atheists, thus free to reject naturalistic evolution. The survey mentioned in the article, from examiner.com, indicated that over 50% rejected naturalistic evolution, which is less than 60%. Of course, many of those who reject naturalistic evolution may hold to some form of evolution with God intervening along the way. (Note that the classic academic theistic evolution generally tends to reject this, indicating rather that evolution happens naturally with God's involvement more or less mysterious/invisible.)
Wolpert falsely dichotomizes this scenario, by making out you are either religious and ignorant or scientific and evolutionist.
To most people's minds,when they hear the term 'religion' they automatically think, 'ignorant, false, mythical, personal, dogmatic, outdated' - they think those things because it is a generic term. It is used by evolutionists commonly, and can be regarded as a Question-Begging-Epithet.
Similarly, they also use the term, 'science' to capture the public's imagination, as we usually think of science as, 'proven,enlightened, factual, true, objective, evidenced, beyond dispute'.
But obviously a rather glaringly obvious mistake in this rhetorical language, is the fact that the construction of the eye or ear, isn't dependent upon any religious teaching. For the construction of an eye or ear, is scientific fact. Therefore to say intelligent design is 'religion' is the Special-Pleading-fallacy, for ordinarily, construction or code is understood to be design, objectively-speaking.
Evolution has no observable evidence to support it. No factual data or scientific law corroborates its story. The hypothesis is based solely on the opinions of people who reject God and His word. Just as Cain refused to seek God's idea for an acceptable sacrifice, he instead killed Abel. All socialists do the same thing they reject God and especially His word and try to destroy any person or idea that accepts or even agrees with God's word.
Whenever I read these responses from these evolutionists trying to suppress creation teaching I can't help but think of the children's story by Hans Christian Anderson, "The Emperor's New Clothes".
In NSW Australia at present there is a push to remove Scripture teaching by volunteers from public schools in favour of secular ethics classes. At the same time Atheists argue that Scripture could also become a broad lesson of Religion where the basics of each faith is taught. Yet when it comes to science "There can only be one."
So often the argument is a set up, much like dating methods, conveniently selected data at the expense of conveniently discarded data (self correcting not). This in itself seems unethical & biased regarding science.
If evolution science is really robust, why should it be treated as endangered science needing protection from non science? When Galileo solar centric view was emerging, Aristotle geocentric view was not banned by scientific community, was it? When a worldview completely ignores robust eye witness account by resorting to uncalibrated carbon dating or other uncalibrated dating method, science does not have solid foundation in that worldview.