Secular humanists, atheists and evolution enforcement groups [posing as "science advocacy groups"] have given up scientific debate. Instead they’ve resorted to a more fascist approach: mockery and legal suppression of alternative theories or dissent from Darwin in any form. Now they want even more, and what they want would make Galileo turn over in his grave.
A few days ago, I wrote an article called Evolution Is the Only Scientific Theory That Needs Laws To Protect It, in which I drew attention to efforts by the British Humanist Association and a handful of evolutionist, including misotheist Richard Dawkins, regarding science education in UK schools. In essence they want microbes-to-man evolution taught exclusively and uncritically in all UK schools, and, since they do in fact believe the Biblical axiom of Proverbs 22:6 (“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it”), they want our children indoctrinated in evolutionary dogma at an earlier age.
Now, as promised, I will dissect the position statement being promoted by the BHA to demonstrate the fallacies of logic contained therein.
It’s ironic, but I cannot even get past the title of their effort, “Teach Evolution, Not Creationism,” without having to caution my readers against a trick of rhetoric. By contrasting the term “evolution” with “creation-ISM,” the authors of this position statement have given us a question-begging epitaph. A fair presentation of the issue would have read, “Teach Evolution, Not Creation,” or even, “Teach Evolutionism, not Creationism,” but the BHA did not wish to put the creation origins framework on equal footing with evolution, so they added the “-ism” to their opponent’s position to make it seem less credible. It really doesn’t bode well when even the title begs the question.
Onward. The position statement is divided into two sections. As the heading indicates, the first concerns:
“Creationism and ‘intelligent design’”
OK, stop right there. We’ve already noted how adding the “-ism” to creation is meant to illegitimize their opponents’ position, but Why is intelligent design in quotes? Well, that’s a similar trick. If you put your opponent’s position in quotes or preface it with an adjective like “so-called,” you’re [again] begging the question. By couching the argument this way, the BHA hopes to get folks biased against creation and intelligent design from the get-go without actually addressing why they’re allegedly illegitimate.
Anyway, they made a pretense of content after that heading, so we’ll continue, noting beforehand that both the question-begging “-ism” and the use of quotes is repeated:
“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.”
The very first sentence contains two fallacies.
 That Creation and ID are not scientific theories. This [again] simply begs the entire question. Certainly the BHA does not bother to explain or rationalize their bold-faced denial, but rational minds might ask “By what definition of science are creation and/or ID invalidated as scientific theories? If it’s a self-serving definition that insists on pure naturalism then they’ve not only begged the question but they’ve also given away the fact that they simply wish to disqualify the question without addressing whether it’s true! That being the case, science is no longer a search for truth but a search for purely natural answers whether they happen to be true or not! This is not scientific inquiry; it’s dissemblance.
 That ID and Creation are supported only by some religious fundamentalists. Many ID proponents are far removed from being fundamentalists by any definition of the term! In fact, some Intelligent Design advocates even ascribe to a form of evolution, just not the arbitrarily godless [purely natural] variety. It is obvious then that they are trying to dredge up the old science versus religion chestnut, when both sides have their scientists and clergy in support of either theory.
So note that thus far this position statement gives us unqualified, question-begging epitaphs and then goes on to so grossly misrepresent their opponents that we are forced to wonder whether they’ve even bothered to examine their opponent’s position before they bothered to disagree with it.
No doubt hoping for a credulous government, they continue [in bold print, no less]:
”There should be enforceable statutory guidance that they may not be presented as scientific theories in any publicly-funded school of whatever type.”
Well, that’s fascist. I also feel compelled to note that “enforceable statutory guidance” is an oxymoron that would feel right at home in the pages of Orwell’s 1984.
To justify such extreme measures, they offer the following evidence [abandoning bold print for more sensible type-setting for the moment]:
“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.”
Both Truth in Science and Creation Ministries International have responded to BHA, so I’ll let them speak for themselves. In a brief statement called What Is There To Fear?, Truth In Science stated:
“Although Truth in Science features prominently in this web article, the organization has never advocated the teaching of creationism in science lessons in schools. It has consistently advocated, promoted and distributed materials that encourage a more critical approach to the teaching of Evolution as an important component of science education, allowing individuals to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
The DVDs and textbooks distributed by TiS are designed to provide additional resources to teachers and students to facilitate this journey. Legislation to protect science from thoughtful enquiry is surely a contradiction of terms. Science can only flourish in an environment of academic freedom.”
Similarly, in a slightly longer response, CMI stated:
“Unfortunately, the media’s general reporting of this latest campaign is as misleading as the statements made by the scientists seeking to support the BHA and its apostles of secularism. According to the Guardian, “Speakers from Creation Ministries International are touring the UK, presenting themselves as scientists and their creationist views as science at a number of schools.” In fact, the majority of our speaking engagements are at churches and we visit schools only occasionally. When we do speak at schools, it is by invitation or has been instigated by someone known to the school locally and never solicited by CMI. Moreover, it is extremely rare for us to speak in a science class.”
CMI also notes that the BHA isn’t the only misotheistic organization attempting to enforce an evolution-only curriculum in science classrooms. The British Centre for Science Education launched its “CrISIS” [Creation In Schools Isn’t Science] campaign to attempt to convince the UK government to shut down any exposure of students to creation concepts, even in religious instruction. The CrISIS campaign was supported by the Ekklesia [an organization that claims to be Christian but actually opposes Christian influence and promotes an unbiblical liberal agenda, much like “rev” Barry Lynn’s Americans United for Separation of Church and State here in the USA], Richard Dawkins and many of those who now endorse BHA’s efforts.
CMI’s criticisms of the CrISIS campaign could just as easily apply to BHA’s efforts:
“Science has incidentally advanced historically through debate and dialogue without appeals to special authority, and such dictatorial statements are a poor reflection of the true nature of science. Instead it reflects more the attitude of Cardinal Bellarmine and the Church authorities who tried to silence Galileo, than a genuine respect for freedom of enquiry in science. Such demands to ban some lines of enquiry may suit atheists who a priori reject creation, but it will not advance science. We may ask then whether science is really a search for truth, or as the signatories of this statement wish, merely a search for naturalistic explanations irrespective of whether such explanations can even exist for such things as the origin of everything.
Creationists would welcome public debate with anyone who wants to defend the statement that “Creationism is … contrary to scientific fact”. But rather than allow such debate, the proponents of this campaign would rather suppress the matter.
But more importantly, this campaign and statement clearly has little respect for the beliefs of a significant religious minority in the UK, including children, as it seeks to deny freedom of speech to those who believe in special creation… There is a sad irony here, in that secularists and atheists are showing a degree of intolerance that they have accused conservative religious believers of displaying. This statement reflects a belief in the dominance of science over other areas of education and thought—this is really scientism; science as a worldview, a religious belief system.”
Oblivious to the irony and inadvisability of their position, the BHA continues [in bold print once more] by repeating themselves:
“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.”
All they do here is make it abundantly clear just how paranoid they are that someone might expose children of UK citizens [most of whom think that creation and evolution should be taught side by side, mind you] to the creation framework of origins and thus bust up their intended monopoly on the minds of future generations. This kind of Nazi thinking is exactly why I came up with the religious proclamation, There Is No Science but Naturalism and Darwin Is Its Prophet! to make it more evident what these evolution enforcement groups are actually proposing.
Their next section is on evolution:
“An understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology.”
Theodosius Dobzhansky, in a fit of religious devotion, made the outlandish claim that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution!” But is that really true?
Atheist Dr Michael Zimmerman makes a similar claim in the pro-evolution Clergy Letter Project:
“We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.”
But the sad truth is that creation is foundational to science, not evolution. As I responded in the Creation Letter:
““Observable, testable, repeatable science has brought us many benefits and innovations. The founders of modern science were Creationists, “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Most of the disciplines within science were founded before Darwin or by scientists who actually rejected his theory. The Scientific Method itself is based on the idea that an orderly creation can be rationally understood because it was designed by an Intelligent Creator. Creationists today continue to practice normal, experimental science without need of evolution.
Evolution is not observable, testable, repeatable science. It’s a belief about the past, an atheist Just-So Story seeking to displace the divinely revealed Creation record. It’s based on the flaw of naturalism, which begs that all problems must have a natural explanation, so God isn’t needed. This stands directly at odds with the Biblical claim that God’s existence, eternal power and Godhead are self-evident in His Creation, for it excludes an Intelligent Creator from all consideration. Faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions! Sadly, statistics demonstrate that children taught godless evolution as scientific truth reject religious truth wholesale!”
And frankly, I must insist that they define the term evolution. You see, evolutionists use the term “evolution” for BOTH the sort of observable horizontal changes in biology [eg., speciation, mutation, adaptation, etc] that Creationist also affirm AND the larger claim of unobservable vertical [phyletic] changes in biology [viz. microbes-to-man evolution]. In fact, often they will speak of observable horizontal changes and then switch their definition of evolution to mean the goo-to-you claim of common ancestry without drawing attention to it. The observable horizontal changes in biology that creationists and evolutionists both affirm ARE indispensible to our understanding of biology. However, microbes-to-man evolution is NOT at all central or fundamental to our understanding of biology; rather than being central to our understanding of biology, fish-to-philosopher evolutionary interpretations are tacked onto real science in an ad hoc manner. The very fact that a good number of practicing biologists are also Creationist and proponents of ID suggests that claims of the centrality of evolution to the understanding of the field of study are overstatement at best.
Without bothering to clarify what they mean by evolution, the BHA statement nonetheless demand [in bold, followed less shrill print]:
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.
The text of their on-line petition elaborates further on their intent:
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. At the same time, an understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology. Currently, the study of evolution does not feature explicitly in the National Curriculum until year 10 (ages 14-15). Free Schools and Academies are not obliged to teach the National Curriculum and so are under no obligation to teach about evolution at all. We petition the Government to make clear that creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories and to prevent them from being taught as such in publicly-funded schools, including in ‘faith’ schools, religious Academies and religious Free Schools. At the same time, we want the Government to make the teaching of evolution in mandatory in all publicly-funded schools, at both primary and secondary level.
Basically, they want evolution taught in all UK schools, exclusively and uncritically. Maybe they should call this goose-stepping fascism the Darwin Youth campaign. Or perhaps I’m prophesying something much worse to come despite my irony. This document is a request that the religious rights of the citizens of the UK be grossly denied when it comes to education. In effect, the petition is urging the UK government to enact a new age of religious persecution and discrimination based on a state dogma of godless evolution.
Let me speak plainly: These people at the British Humanist Association and their allies have no true interest in the integrity science. Their true objective is in spreading their own humanistic worldview; thus, they do not mind overmuch if evolution is taught as dogma in UK schools and protected by law from both criticism and competition, for by insisting that this all-natural origins framework be taught as fact to our children in public schools without either showing the flaws of that theory [including the limitation that it can only come up with all-natural answers that may or may not be true, and are most certainly false where supernatural agency was actually responsible, though it would never be able to ascertain this error under the arbitrary limitation of science as naturalism] or by teaching the competing supernatural origins framework, they are simply indoctrinating kids in a secular humanist worldview. Some folks will object that to be secular is best because it’s neutral to religion or irreligion, but this is demonstrably false. To be secular is to be irreligious; it is to favor irreligion over religion… and it implies to our children that such irreligion is preferable in our society!
We must pray for our Christian brethren in the UK and for their children, that they might have zeal, wisdom, boldness and success against those who would lay a stumbling block before our children!
One final thought before I close this piece: The geocentrists of Galileo’s day were smug in the fact that the scientific consensus affirmed that the Earth was the center of the universe. They castigated those who dissented from this established view, which had endured for centuries by that point. They misused their power and influence to effectively tar and feather those who thought the evidence better suited heliocentrism. And they were wrong. This history lesson should remind evolutionists like Richard Dawkins that they need to grow some humility. No matter how long a theory prevails, it may be overturned. A refusal to consider the alternative, a recourse to legal protections, and a standard tactic of public mockery and suppression of dissent is antithetical to scientific inquiry. In fact, these are the hallmarks of dogma. And of cowardice.
Think about it.