Don’t believe evolution—just accept it!
19 May 2003
A letter writer to the UK’s leading newspaper for teachers at all levels—the Times Educational Supplement (TES)—recently pointed out the dangers of presenting evolution as fact, drawing a fascinating response from James Williams, the PGCE programme leader at the University of Sussex, Brighton.1
In his letter, Mr Williams rues what he sees as a failing of the current National Curriculum for science in England and Wales, namely that it ‘marginalizes this central tenet of biology [evolution] to such an extent that success in achieving the highest grades [in high school exams] can come with little or no study of this important scientific principle.’ He goes on to make some very telling admissions:
‘Examples of evolution used in textbooks are flawed and in need of radical updating.’
‘Our teaching of evolution is poor … ’
Of course, informed creationists have pointed out these things for many years—for helpful, up-to-date information, see Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s two devastating critiques of the currently taught ‘evidence’ for evolution, Refuting Evolution2 and Refuting Evolution 2.3 In fact, Mr Williams himself notes that these weaknesses in the education system have been ‘capitalized on by creationists … to suggest that the theory is inadequate and a lie,’ whilst claiming—without supporting evidence or reasons—that we are using people’s misconceptions about what evolution is!
The solution, he says, is not to teach students belief in evolution but rather to get them to accept it. Apparently there is a fundamental difference here: ‘There needs to be acceptance of, not belief in, evolution taught in school science.’ Confused? He goes on to explain that teachers should ‘Teach acceptance of evolution in school science and belief in creation in religious studies’ (emphasis added). Still confused? Unfortunately, the dictionary doesn’t help much, giving the following definition of ‘acceptance’: belief or agreement. About ‘belief,’ the dictionary includes, ‘a principle, etc., accepted as true, often without proof.’4
So, this teacher of teachers would have them ‘accept evolution due to the weight of evidence’—odd in view of his admission about the poor quality of the textbook evidence for and teaching of it! But that means, by definition, belief in and agreement with it. Of course, the old canard, that evolution is science and Creation is religion, has been thoroughly refuted many times.5 But it shows how evolutionists attempt to ‘save face’ in the light of the dwindling scientific evidence for their cherished idea—many of the evolutionists’ favourite textbook examples of evolution have had to be thrown out as a result of more research or because they were found to be fraudulent; e.g. peppered moths, embryonic recapitulation, vestigial organs, horse evolution series, walking whales, ape-men, homology, junk DNA, etc.6
How ironic then, that the editor of the TES chose to give Mr Williams’ letter the very curious, but apt, title ‘Have some faith in evolution.’7 Faith is indeed what children and young people will require to believe this ailing theory, in the absence of solid evidence in its favour. How tragic that so many prefer the words of mere men to the Word of God. The Apostle Paul exhorted Christians with the following sobering words: ‘Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ’ (Colossians 2:8). We would do well to take this sound advice to heart.
References and notes
- PGCE stands for Post-Graduate Certificate of Education, an internationally recognized teaching diploma.Sarfati, J., Refuting evolution: A response to the National Academy of Sciences’ teaching about evolution and the nature of science, Master Books, 1999.
- Sarfati, J. (with Matthews, M.), Refuting evolution 2, Master Books, 2002.
- Collins concise dictionary and thesaurus, Harper Collins Publishers Limited, 1995.
- See for example, Ref. 3, chapters 1, 2 and 3.
- Refs 2 and 3.
- TES, p. 27, 2 May 2003.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.