Creation Moments Responds to the Washington Post
EVOLUTION: A BANKRUPT PHILOSOPHY
Degradation of science in the classroom leads to rote belief
in philosophy with no scientific foundation.
www.creationmoments.net/news/main.phpIn an Oct. 1, 2006 Washington Post article titled, War against evolution could deeply harm future of U.S. science, Paul A. Hanle, president of the Biotechnology Institute, relates how he was asked: "How can you teach biotechnology in this country when you don’t even accept evolution?"
The raised hand was that of a visiting student from France. The context was a discussion encouraging the teaching of biotechnology in high school.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to be able to say to such a question that in this country we don’t teach a particular theory as fact, but instead rely on honest investigation of true science, always ready to reinterpret data based on new confirmed discoveries?
Instead, when the author of the Washington Post article was challenged about the fact that people in our society have the freedom to reject evolution, he missed his opportunity. Rather than uphold the lofty heights of balanced scientific investigation that put a man on the moon, he feels embarrassed for his poor, ill-educated society.
A higher society is one in which each individual is allowed to challenge points of view, especially with accepted test methods. Scientific claims that challenge evolution dogma enable our society to function. Without an open door to free thinking in this area, we become dominated by the "academic elite" like Dr. Eric R. Pianka of the Texas Academy of Science whose strong belief in evolution philosophy led him to call for the extermination of 90% of our population to help bring positive outcomes to society and environmental issues!
Whether one believes in evolution or not does not preclude understanding biology or any scientific discipline. And contrary to the belief of evolutionists like Paul Hanle, the "cornerstone principle of biology" is not evolution. Like any other science, biology has historically been based on the scientific method of observation, experimentation, and modeling of the observable world around us.
"Hanle’s assertion that there is ‘no serous scientific debate’ over the supposed ‘cornerstone principle’ of evolution in biology is just plain dishonest," says Dr. Don Clark, a biotechnology scientist and a firm supporter of the recent intelligently designed origin of life on our planet.
"To blame the decline in math skills and science education on questioning evolution is preposterous," Dr. Clark added. "This decline of skills in our students is due to the lack of discipline in our society resulting directly from the evolutionary teaching that we evolved from primordial organic soup."
Scientists like Dr. Clark have a point. A quick glance at social statistics points to a direct correlation of the introduction of evolution into the public schools and lower SAT scores. When Christian underpinnings were removed from U.S. classrooms in 1963, the evolution content in biology text books increased by 1000% - from an average of less than 3,000 words per book in the early 1960's to over 30,000 words just after 1963.
It is interesting to note that many other negative statistics began to skyrocket during that same year. From teen pregnancy to drug abuse to suicide, the virtually identical graphs rise from sea-level "straight lines" to Mt. Everest "peaks". In fact, it’s these negative statistics on the graphs that have evolutionists continually on the defensive. How could the planned social utopia evolve into such disarray?
Noticeably missing from Paul Hanle’s article was an explanation of how the ability of students to understand evolution has any thing at all to do with scientific ability. Just as any philosophy can be studied and learned, yet not adopted as truth by the student, so evolution can be studied and learned by anyone. It is worth noting and highly ironic that students raised in a Christian or home school environment consistently score higher on SAT and advanced placement tests than their peers brought up in the public school system. For example, a 1997 study found that homeschool students on average out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects. The problem is not a belief system - or is it?
Most of the founding fathers of modern science saw intelligent design and God as the foundation for science. Their belief in God as Creator did not inhibit them from laying down scientific principles by which true science is practiced today. In fact, scientists like Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Nicolaus Copernicus, Gregor Mendell, Johannes Kepler, and Christian Huygens helped bring about the technological revolution of our age.
What hope is there in trying to understand a chaotic world? None. It only leads to a decay in innovation and technological breakthroughs, because there is no true scientific foundation on which to build.
A war on belief systems in going on. It is a war between those who believe in the uniqueness of man, created by God, and those who believe man is just another evolved animal species. There is no other way to describe it. And while many people have bought into a philosophy at odds with a Creator God, they do so NOT out of scientific investigation, but out of the coercion and constant barrage of misinformation from secular humanism in the form of evolution.
The writer of the Washington Post article admits that random mutation forming a human eye is "difficult to understand." Of course it’s difficult to understand when approached from evolutionary presuppositions! That’s because the eye did not form through random mutations. No scientific study supports it. In fact there has never been a mutation recorded that brought about new genetic information. Camera lenses were designed and created. This is fact. But for evolutionary scientists, the fact of God’s existence simply must be ignored.
With evolution, there is no "open inquiry." There is no room for alternative explanations. Those who hold to evolution do not want to even consider the thousands of scientific evidences that stand in opposition to evolutionary theory.
According to the Washington Post article, the questioning of evolution theory is a "raw deal" for students. We feel that the very opposite is true. If evolution is true, you do not know where you came from, so why should you care about the future? Evolutionary philosophy creates the desire to live only for today, and not care about tomorrow, or your fellow man. Besides, evolution is simply a theory - and an unproven one at that.
In the U.S. we once had an educational system which encouraged individual thought. Today, we have a system where hoaxes and disproved evidences for evolution are still used as examples in text books.
If we want to enhance the science programs in our schools and get our kids interested in science once again, we must return to the days of open discussion and dialogue. Only then will our society reap the benefits of free thought and innovation.
Students who have the freedom to believe in divine creation will not be handicapped when going to college. And their career will only be hampered if the scientific community blackballs them. This type of prejudice is the dangerous proposition being made by Paul Hanle in his article.
We at Creation Moments agree with Paul Hanle that tomorrow’s biologists must be equipped with sound, scientifically based knowledge. It is why we fight so hard and persevere so long against irrational, unsupported theory and conjecture.
Thankfully, America is waking up to the fact that we’ve been duped. Most of us can "pass the test questions about evolution theory." But we don’t buy it anymore. Many of us were ridiculed in our classes for holding to a God-created universe. And we have finally become aware that there is more on the agenda than impartial scientific inquiry.
Scientific investigation that supports creation and intelligent design will not disappear. The weight of evidence is too great. From the polonium rings in granite to the irreducible complexity of single-celled organisms to the complete lack of transitional forms anywhere in the fossil record (except for the hoaxes, of course), the proof against far outweighs any that support it. It is truly a bankrupt philosophy.
