Evolution Is the Only Scientific Theory That Needs Laws to Protect It


“Evolution is the only scientific theory that needs laws to protect it!”

Those words were written in an ICR.org article back in 2007 after someone nominated “the brave biology teachers of this nation who teach evolution despite the opposition they encounter” for Time magazine’s Person of the Year. The Institute for Creation Research correctly noted back then that this was all grandstanding:

“But what is this opposition these teachers are so bravely withstanding? Almost no one in formal creation science organizations in America is trying to completely eradicate the teaching of Darwin’s theory of macroevolution in taxpayer-paid public schools. Instead, creationists and freethinkers seek a balanced science curriculum, in which the serious scientific flaws associated with evolutionary theory are included, and/or a non-atheism-based origins alternative is presented side-by-side with evolution.”

Of course, the truth of the matter is that it is the evolutionists who persecute creationists and freethinkers. Nevermind that Darwin himself said, speaking of his arguments in Origins, “I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”

Of course, the “sides” he refers to are special creation and evolution. Yet today’s “science advocacy” [read: evolution enforcement] groups are not content with a fair and balanced presentation of both sides of the origins argument. No, they want evolution alone taught in our publicly-funded schools – and they only want its strengths taught and none of its weaknesses! Meanwhile, the public isn’t convinced and a large number of them in both the US and the UK would like to see creation taught alongside evolution.

So how do the new evolutionists – or post-Darwinists, as I like to call them – go about convincing the public to teach evolution exclusively and uncritically in our public schools? They don’t. They don’t engage in debate with creationists under the pretense that such discourse would give creationists an undeserved air of credibility. Which is really weird, because their argument is supposed to be so ironclad that you’d think they’d actually be looking for chances to debate creationists and show the public how weak their opponents’ arguments were, right? But they rarely engage in debate because, well… The truth of the matter is that they just stink at debate. They stink at debate because they don’t actually know what creationists affirm; they’re used to bashing away at straw men from the safety of credulous fandom. So they don’t debate and they don’t really care to win over the public [that’s too hard], so they’ve resorted to indoctrinating our kids through public schools [and yes it is indoctrination when it’s taught exclusively and uncritically]. And they want laws to protect their exclusive ideological monopoly.

Take for example, the most recent efforts of the British Humanist Association and their Teach Evolution, Not Creationism campaign. They’ve got a petition signed by nearly 12,000 misotheists, a snazzy propaganda website, and a bold fallacious statement that reads as follows:

“Creationism and ‘intelligent design’

Creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories, but they are portrayed as scientific theories by some religious fundamentalists who attempt to have their views promoted in publicly-funded schools. There should be enforceable statutory guidance that they may not be presented as scientific theories in any publicly-funded school of whatever type.

Organisations like ‘Truth in Science’ are encouraging teachers to incorporate ‘intelligent design’ into their science teaching. ‘Truth in Science’ has sent free resources to all Secondary Heads of Science and to school librarians around the country that seek to undermine the theory of evolution and have ‘intelligent design’ ideas portrayed as credible scientific viewpoints. Speakers from Creation Ministries International are touring the UK, presenting themselves as scientists and their creationist views as science at a number of schools.

The current government guidance that creationism and ‘intelligent design’ should not be taught in school science should be made statutory and enforceable. It also needs to be made comprehensive so that it is clear that any portrayal of creationism and ‘intelligent design’ as science (whether it takes place in science lessons or not) is unacceptable.

Evolution

An understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology. The teaching of evolution should be included at both primary and secondary levels in the National Curriculum and in all schools.

Currently, the study of evolution does not feature explicitly in the National Curriculum until year 10 (ages 14-15), but the government is overseeing a review of the whole curriculum with the revised National Curriculum for science being introduced in September 2012 to be made compulsory from 2013. Free Schools and Academies are not obliged to teach the National Curriculum and so are under no obligation to teach about evolution at all.”

You can view the statement at http://evolutionnotcreationism.org.uk/

In addition to the British Humanist Association itself, the statement is endorsed by the Association for Science Education, the British Science Association, the Campaign for Science & Engineering and Ekklesia. The latter is a post-Christian theological travesty calling itself a think-thank; they really just wish to reinvent Christianity according to modern humanist notions, which is why they’re such easy bedfellows with the BHA. In addition, about 30 individuals scientists have signed the petition as well, including Sir David Attenborough and misotheist Richard Dawkins.

Basically, this evolution enforcement coalition seeks to convince their “Government to make statutory and enforceable the current, non-statutory, guidance that creationism and ‘intelligent design’ should not be taught in school science, while at the same time calling for the teaching of evolution to be included at both primary and secondary levels in the National Curriculum and in all schools.” src: http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/895

Translation: They want evolution taught exclusively and uncritically, and they want our children indoctrinated in it at an earlier age so they can get rid of their opponents by attrition rather than by defending their claims.

Again, ICR said it best: “Evolution is the only “scientific theory” that needs laws to protect it.”

In my next post, I will address the fallacies contained in the BHA’s statement itself.

-Sirius Knott

About these ads

36 thoughts on “Evolution Is the Only Scientific Theory That Needs Laws to Protect It

  1. Pingback: Sometimes, you need laws to prevent harmful errors from being legitimized | Unsettled Christianity

  2. Pingback: There Is No Science But Naturalism and Darwin Is Its Prophet! [Revisited] | DefendingGenesis.org

  3. Pingback: I Call It Fascism: A Critique of the British Humanist Association’s “Teach Evolution, Not Creationism” Position Statement | DefendingGenesis.org

  4. Pingback: Tony Breeden: I Call It Fascism: A Critique of the British Humanist Association’s “Teach Evolution, Not Creationism” Position Statement | Intelmin.org

  5. Pingback: Theological Newspeak: Why Some Folks Calls Me, Ken Ham and Other Biblical Creationists “Radical Liberals” | DefendingGenesis.org

  6. Pingback: Tony Breeden – Theological Newspeak: Why Some Folks Calls Me, Ken Ham and Other Biblical Creationists “Radical Liberals” | Christian Apologetics & Intelligence Ministry

  7. Wouldn’t “nanananana god did it no you’re wrong no matter how many examples and how much evidence” be the creationist method of debate?

    • No, it wouldn’t. Creationists have actually changed their minds about the horse series [we now accept it as representing a single baramin or created kind with the exception of Eohippus] and what a created kind even means [now above the species level; generally at about the family taxon]. Evidence persuades us to revise our theory just as evolutionists are supposed to revise theirs. Unfortunately, this can never happen so long as they insist there are no weaknesses within the theory.

      Regards,
      revTony

      • I would like to see the name, with references, of any knowledgeable person who ever claimed that there are no weaknesses within any theory.

        By the way, is there no one in the creationist camp who knows enough Hebrew to realize that “baramin” does NOT mean “a created kind”? No one has any curiosity about what the Bible actually says, I guess.

      • Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education [NCSE] is quoted as stating “”There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution.” This statement originally appeared in the Thursday, January 22, 2009 edition of the Dallas Morning News, in an articled entitled, “State Board of Education debates evolution curriculum” by Terrence Stutz [tstutz@dallasnews.com].
        The NCSE’s site also has numerous references to the “alleged weaknesses” of evolutionary theory, which is simply rehashing that statement in a different form. The original post has been removed from the Dallas website, but the article was duplicated at http://www.texscience.org/reports/sboe-science-standards-news-reports-2009jan21-23.htm

        The Bible says that plants and animals were created after their kind. The term “baramin” was coined by Frank Marsh, who suggested the term from the Hebrew words bara [created] and min [kinds]. No one has ever said that the term is exact, nor do we claim that the term itself comes from Scripture. Rather, the term “after its/their kind” [min] is used over 30 times in the Old Testament: in the Creation account, in the Flood account and in Levitical law, respectively. The term implies some sort of limit to biological change. Creationists once believed that the Genesis kind/min was analogous to the species taxon but after considering new evidence we have revised our theory and now generally place it around the family taxon. For example, see Barminology: Creationists Re-examine the Horse Series.

        Regards,
        revTony

      • Thanks for the info about Dr. Scott. It’s too bad that people get carried away with rhetoric sometimes. It would have been more accurate to say that the “weaknesses” that the IDists and creationists are always bringing up are bogus and have been dealt with many times.

      • Lindberg,

        In some cases, the arguments given by creationists have been bogus [or at least have been discredited when further evidence presented itself], but not all. Frankly, what I usually hear is the accusation that creationist arguments against evolution are bogus without a reference to any single argument or, even more sadly, in reference to straw man versions of the arguments of creationist positions.

        For example, the assertion that creationists claim there are no candidates for transitional fossils is bogus. Yes, some ill-informed creationist proponents might use that argument, usually out of misunderstanding, but what creationists actually claim is that there are only a handful of disputable candidates when the fossil record such boast innumerable transitional forms. When confronted with the stasis and sudden appearance of fossil creatures, evolutionists propose saltations to account for the lack of evidence for pure gradualism.

        Sirius Knott

      • Thanks for your reply again.

        How many do you consider a handful? If you give me any number, I could probably give you twice that. And I’m no expert, only a more-or-less innocent by-stander who is traing to understand things a bit.

        There are long lists of transitional fossils on the net, but you seem to consider any reference to other sites to be illegitimate. So I leave it to you to google the expression yourself. Strictly all fossils are transitional.

        Getting back to your title, the reason why evolution might be the only theory that might need laws to protect it could be that it the only scientific theory that has been under such a strong well-organized well-funded religious and political attack for so long. Other themes (cigarettes causing cancer, global warming, vaccinations, etc.) come and go, but the attacks on evolution have been going on for more than a century and half.

      • Lindberg,

        A handful is a relative term meant to contrast the available candidates with the number which should be evident if gradualistic microbes-toman evolution were true. In any case, name any number you care to and I’ll show you why said candidates are disputable.

        Now, you state that evolution might be the only theory that needs laws to protect it because it is under such an exclusively strong, sustained, well-organized religious and political attack. When you state that attacks on evolution have been going on for more than a century and a half, what you really mean to say is that it has been on the defensive since it was formulated. But is this a good reason to protect it by law. Isn’t the strength of science that no theory or hypothesis is exempt from critical inquiry and thus from its self-correcting mechanism? By giving microbes-to-man evolution protected legal status, you will transform it into dogma; worse, evolutionists will find themselves in the role of Cardinal Bellarmine with creationists in the role of persecuted Galileo.

        Science will stagnate if academic freedom is restricted. With the force of law behind it, scientists will be afraid to question evolution lest they suffer loss of position, reputation and status. It’s fascism, plain and simple.

        -SK

      • “Strictly all fossils are transitional.”

        Guess I’d better take YOUR word for it and throw out the words of the experts, huh? Evolutionists admit that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. Also, common sense, because we should see millions of things fossilized in transition. Doesn’t happen.

        “Getting back to your title, the reason why evolution might be the only theory that might need laws to protect it could be that it the only scientific theory that has been under such a strong well-organized well-funded religious and political attack for so long.”

        That’s the true spirit of scientific integrity, innit! Suppress, outlaw, even persecute the dissenters (yes, it’s happening as we speak).

      • “Guess I’d better take YOUR word for it and throw out the words of the experts, huh? Evolutionists admit that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. Also, common sense, because we should see millions of things fossilized in transition. Doesn’t happen.”

        Thanks for your comment.

        I’d like to see your sources of information, because they seem to be completely different from anything I have ever seen or heard of.

        I hope you aren’t referring to the Kirk Cameron – Ray Comfort brand of transitional fossils. They certainly do not exist. If they did, the theory of evolution would be quickly abandoned.

        Cheers!

      • First, drop the ad hominem genetic fallacy, Skippy.

        Next, I’m taking the words of the evolutionists themselves who admit that there are no transitional forms. It’s really simple: If evolution were true, there would be millions, maybe billions, of transitional forms and not a few samples that fundie evolutionists produce and say, “Aha! Here’s one!”, but are disputed at best. We should be seeing things in process today of evolving into something else.

        Show us lots and lots of transitional forms. While you’re at it, an actual evolutionary mechanism. We’ll wait here.

      • “Next, I’m taking the words of the evolutionists themselves who admit that there are no transitional forms.”

        Funny! When I go to museums, they are full of them.

      • Lindberg,

        Instead of the innumerable transitional forms darwin predicted for his theory, we have only a handful of disputable candidates which could as well be mosaics as legitimate transitional forms.

        -Tony

  8. (comment posted after another comment “pending approval”)
    I also like(sarcasm) how you require moderation on comments, to avoid any questioning.
    Isn’t that indirectly lying?
    You realize theirs is “a place in hell” made for liars..
    The thing is that evolution has visible evidence sporting it even if it’s wrong, it’s the best at the moment.
    where creationism only has “lack” of information. “we don’t know so god did it”
    Under that logic, we should bring back alchemy to teach along science.
    Does this sound wise to you?
    This is how teaching creationism sounds to those of us who don’t believe in a god.
    More particularly, If we were to teach creationism, we would have to teach it vaguely, or ALL OF THEM; every religion including druidism.

    • yeah,no,

      Comments are moderated on this site according to the posted Rules of Engagement. It’s not lying, as I’ve never claimed this site is an open forum; rather, the contrary.

      Your statements about evidence betray the fact that you are grossly ignorant about the subject. Creationists and evolutionists have exactly the same evidence but different interpretations of the same evidence where it concerns microbes-to-man evolution and millions of years. Your God-of-the-gaps comment is about two decades out of date; might I suggest you brush up on the issues before you come back.

      I would also suggets a course in basic logical argument, since your statement “under that logic, we should bring back alchemy to teach along science” is a classic example of a non sequitur based on the further fallacy of a straw man argument. If you’d like a primer on common logical fallacies, especially those commonly employed by atheists and evolutionists, I recommend Discerning Truth by Dr Jason Lisle

      If this is truly how teaching creationism sounds to you, I would suggest that you first attempt to comprehend what it is you so emotionally disagree with. If it helps, I gave the following opening argument in a debate with an atheist: How Did We Get Here?

      Your latter point that we would have to either teach creationism vaguely or teach all theories of origins is a baseless emotional appeal oft parrotted by atheists. The Biblical Creator is the only rational option.

      Regards,
      Sirius Knott

    • “…how you require moderation on comments, to avoid any questioning.”

      Appeal to Motive fallacy, with just a dash of Either/Or fallacy. Personally, I moderate because of obscene trolls or tiresome people who keep up with the personal attacks or absurd arguments, those types cease to have their questions and comments posted. Maybe, just perhaps, Sirius is doing something OTHER than “avoiding questioning”?

      “Isn’t that indirectly lying?” See above.

      “The thing is that evolution has visible evidence sporting it even if it’s wrong, it’s the best at the moment.” There is not enough evidence (certainly not “visible”, or testable, or falsifiable, or repeatable, or verifiable) to justify calling evolution a “theory”. Let’s be honest, it’s a belief system about the past, interpreting the evidence to fit evolutionary preconceptions.

      “This is how teaching creationism sounds to those of us who don’t believe in a god.” What are you afraid of, besides evidence that contradicts your presuppositions?

      “More particularly, If we were to teach creationism, we would have to teach it vaguely, or ALL OF THEM; every religion including druidism.”

      Uh…yeah, sure.

  9. “First, drop the ad hominem genetic fallacy, Skippy.”

    Where was the ad hominem?

    Just mentioning someone’s name in order to identify what one is talking about is not an ad hominem.

    If it were, every reference to “Darwinism” would be an ad hominem.

    • lindberg,

      A genetic fallacy is when you claim an argument is erroneous based on its source. By placing creation science in quotes you insult creation scientists, attempting to poison the well with a genetic fallacy.

      If I were to commit a similar genetc ad hominem, I would place “evolution science” in quotes to snidely dismiss its legitimacy.

      Tony

  10. And you didn’t answer my question. Please name the “evolutionists themselves” you are talking about, and give references, so we can see what they were talking about.

    • Lindberg,

      Actually I did. I gave yo a quote from the executive director of the National Center for Science Education herself. This just shows how little you are paying attention to my argument.

      Tony

      • Eugenie Scott is not a scientist. She is the executive director of the National Center for Science Education. Can you not name a scientist?

      • Lindberg, you’re not even trying! Eugenie Scott is a physical anthropologist who got her PhD from the University of Missouri and her research focused on medical anthropology and skeletal biology. What else do you need me to Google for you?

  11. You are aware that biology is not the only field of science that directly contradicts the creation, but rather clear contradictions exist in nuclear physics, astrophysics, stellar evolution, chemistry, geology, archaeology, and theoretical physics? As a hypothesis, it has been disproven an inordinate amount of times, why would you consider equating Genesis to science, when it is clearly a separate practice known as religion?

    • Mark,

      It is true that science conducted through a lens of pure naturalism directly contradicts supernatural creation, but the irony is that the adherent of pure naturalism must affirm that nature can do miraculous things: that everything can come from nothing, that life can come from non-life and that a frong can become a price if we just give it enough time. Miracles are of course the province of the supernatural, making any attempt at ahering to pure naturalism a contradictory farce. Are you also unaware that the majority of the sciences were founded by Bible-affirming men who wished to thing God’s thoughts after Him?

      • If you ever do see a frog became a prince, you should write it up as a proper scientific report. You would probably win a Nobel Prize for disproving the theory of evolution.

    • @Mark, Theoretical physics cannot by nature offer any clear contradiction to the genesis creation account. Also, a branch of science cannot in itself contradict anything. Rather, it is an interpretation of data from a branch of science which may contradict a postulated interpretation of said data. So this is about the validity of axiomatic interpretation. Thus, I would kindly request one example of how each of the following (nuclear physics, astrophysics, stellar evolution, chemistry, geology and archaeology) directly contradict creationism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s