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.