Debate over teaching evolution in schools continues
What do you think about the controversy over the disclaimer Cobb County is putting in their textbooks about evolution?
ast week I began a discussion about this controversial insert and the truth behind teaching evolution in public school. I ended by explaining that neither natural selection nor mutations explain evolution. In fact, they are both the enemy of evolution. Natural selection is a fact of biology but has never been shown to cause vertical changes needed for evolution. Mutations account for the origin of death and destruction, not life.
So, why don't biologists tell you this? Why are you and your children being misled? Why do they insist upon not just concealing these facts of science from you, but also your children? The reason is not because of science but because they are committed philosophically to evolution. Evolution is an assault on science. Intelligent design embraces science.
Good science is not rigid and dogmatic. If this were a debate about science we would be told the truth about natural selection and mutations and the other failings of evolution. Again, the issue is: either there is a designer or there is not. The only view allowed philosophically by those prejudice against believers in God is that there is not.
Notice that in this debate Cobb County is not asking students to be taught Christianity or creation science. All they are asking is for a teaspoonful of fairness. Asking students to consider evolution critically and to view evolution as a theory and not a fact does nothing to expose bad science like when they call natural selection and mutations evolution. But evolution is so weak as an explanation of origin that those who believe in it know it must not be challenged the slightest bit. The creation argument, on the other hand, is so solid and strong scientifically that even a watered down version like intelligent design with no mention of the identity of the creator, Christianity or God proves far superior to evolution. It is like fighting a battle with one arm tied behind the back, one eye closed and both legs chopped off. Premeditated design is so obvious and so superior scientifically as an explanation of origin that no one has to open the Bible or mention God at all to win the debate and refute evolution.
Another issue in this local debate has to be exposed. It is humorous to see biologists portray themselves as downtrodden, outspent and unwilling participants in this debate. Associate professor of biology Sarah Pallas ending her column in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote, "We would like to devote our time to that and to the next medical breakthrough, and cease spending time arguing 19th-century issues." Others have complained about money raised by the Intelligent Design community to combat evolution.
Now the facts: Evolution has nothing to do with real science like "the next medical breakthrough." Evolution has no usefulness in real science and when it does come in contact with the real world it provides poor explanations. For example, there is no good, logical, or scientific explanation from evolution for the gaps in the fossil record or the absence of a geologic column or the complexity of DNA. Instead, since evolution has become a misused synonym for concepts like natural selection and mutations, biologists, like Pallas, feel obligated to fight.
Intelligent design proponents are not arguing the evidence, but their interpretation of the evidence. The conclusions of ID advocates are different because they begin with the assumption that a designer is behind the evidence. Such honesty is not seen with evolutionists. Instead of admitting that they also start with the presupposition that a designer is not involved they simply present their "interpretations" of the evidence as evidence itself. This is circular reasoning allowing the conclusions to interpret the evidence that then proves their conclusions! This is not just dishonest but it is bad science.
To be continued in a later column…
Previous Article Table of Contents Next Article
Perhaps you could get my column published in your local paper, too! Have your newspaper editor contact me. Also, feel free to email me with any of your questions, comments or disagreements.
This article was not published in the Rockdale/Newton Citizen