From The Crazy As A Loon File

I found this gem in my Google Alerts today.

The Fall of the Evolution Theory

Posted on28 March 2011.

There has been an article that says “Herman Cummings Challenges the World”. If so, then consider this my ” Indigenous Galactic Network Challenge” (“Local Group” of galaxies). I hereby give advance notice to all living entities that the monopoly of the evolution theory in our culture is coming to an end. Be advised that the arrival of the second to last phase of the era of modern mankind is at hand. It is well past the time for all that (think they) believe the Bible, to accept the whole truth, whether it be of Creation, salvation, or final disposition.

 If you dare the full article can be found over at iNEWP.com

Another Fine Post from: No 2 Religion - Just Say No!

Rise in Unemployment Expected for H.S. Biology Teachers

                      Image via Wikipedia

This just in, an at least 13% rise in unemployment is expected for H.S. biology teachers. This expected development can be tied directly to the view of the majority of high-school biology teachers not taking a solid stance on evolution with their students. 

While fewer than 30 percent of teachers take an adamant pro-evolutionary stance on the topic, a new study finds that 13 percent of teachers advocate creationism in their classrooms.

Another Fine Post from: No 2 Religion - Just Say No!

Related articles

• 13% of H.S. Biology Teachers Advocate Creationism in Class (livescience.com)
• High school biology teachers reluctant to endorse evolution in class (physorg.com)

Say What?

From the dumb and stupid file we find that Tom Ritter, who taught physics and chemistry for over a decade, has filed a federal lawsuit against The Blue Mountain School District in the Middle District of Pennsylvania where he resides. This is same district that rendered the infamous Kitzmiller decision in 2005. 

Tom Ritter's argument:

Evolution is Unscientific "The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity." -- Richard Dawkins, famous Atheist

Biology studies organisms. It can also explain how organisms got that way, but studying organisms does not require explaining how they got that way, and the theory of evolution is bad science.

Evolutionists cannot demonstrate that three critical points are even possible, let alone that they actually happened:
(1) No one has demonstrated that life can be created from non-life.  (Reports of artificial DNA do not alter this fact. Life is still required.)
(2) No one has demonstrated that a new "sexual species" can be created. (Since the definition of species is contested, for these purposes it is defined as an organism that can breed with its own kind and produce fertile offspring, but cannot breed with its ancestors.)

(3) Evolutionists theorize the human brain evolved from lower forms. Over 50 years into the age of computers, machines can crunch numbers far better and faster than humans, recognize and use language and tools, and beat us in chess. Yet science has yet to build even a rudimentary computer that can contemplate its own existence, the hallmark of the human brain. (Contemplating your existence is best understood as imagining what will remain after your death.) And no animal, no matter how "intelligent," can do this either. Ask anyone who espouses evolution if these three points are not true. If evolution is unscientific, why teach it? Because no Creator means no God. In other words, evolution taught without a possible alternative is Atheism. Now Atheism rests on an article of faith (A strong belief that cannot be proven but is nonetheless believed). Therefore Atheism is a religion. And it is illegal to teach religion in the public schoolss.

(I am not defending creationism or intelligent design. But evolution has not proven its case, and until it does, saying it is the only explanation for present life is Atheism.)

I just don't know what to say.

Another Fine Post from: No 2 Religion - Just Say No!

Modesto, Ca. Science Teacher to Teach ID

Image via Wikipedia

According to the Modesto Bee, Roosevelt Junior High (Modesto City Schools) science teacher Mark Ferrante announced at back-to-school night that he would teach the theory of intelligent design alongside evolution. District officials said teaching ID will not happen however some trustees said that ID should be taught. Parents are equally diveded.

 

District trustee Nancy Cline said,

"The current curriculum states that the evolution of man, Darwinism, must be taught as a theory. I feel we do our students a disservice by not helping them become critical thinkers when we forbid the teaching of competing scientific theories, such as intelligent design."

However, Modesto City Schools spokeswoman Emily Lawrence said,

"He will not be teaching intelligent design. He has been instructed to teach the state standards and intelligent design is not in the state standards."

Another Fine Post from: No 2 Religion - Just Say No!

What Did He Really Expect?

Christian Doc says goodbye to Religious Forums. Apparently, God Christian Doc couldn't take the heat in the kitchen over his creationist views. As SKWIM put it, "And another one bites the dust."

A Closer Look at Textbooks Needs A Closer Look

Image via Wikipedia

In a New American article, Raven Clabough says,

"In light of the recent controversy surrounding the Texas Board of Education, and what may be an improvement on the information taught to America’s youth, I suddenly became curious about the “facts” found in the textbooks in my own state of residence: Florida."  

And he doesn't like what he found. While I think some points maybe valid most are simply Discovery Institute talking points.

One of my favorite comments was from Soulf2:

Discovery Institute reference fail
Wow, referencing the Discovery Institute without even looking into why they are not taken seriously is a major fail point for Raven Clabough. Anytime you want to know why the alt to evolution is not presented, just look it up on the talkorigins web site. talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Every creationist claim is quoted, sourced, and cited.

As for the general history books... WTF? Are you serious? No single book is going to go into extensive details unless that is it's focus topic. If it did, student text books would be MUCH longer and impossible to cover over such a short time span. Also, opinion pieces should not be inserted into history books, save that for philosophy. However, we are lucky that most students are then able later to take topic oriented classes later (after the base history has been established).

And now for the actual article. Bold added by me for emphasis.

A Closer Look at Textbooks
Written by Raven Clabough  - Friday, 28 May 2010

In the debate over textbook content, the two major points of contention always seem to be the teaching of evolution, and American history overall. Students are schooled to believe that evolution is a fact, not a theory, and that America is a democracy, when it is in fact a Constitutional Republic, and that the Constitution is a living document that evolves over time.

Perhaps most disturbing is the absolute rewriting of history and blatant falsities that are being presented to the influential young minds in some textbooks, including concepts like “FDR saved America from depression” and “Woodrow Wilson was a progressive hero.” 

In light of the recent controversy surrounding the Texas Board of Education, and what may be an improvement on the information taught to America’s youth, I suddenly became curious about the “facts” found in the textbooks in my own state of residence: Florida.  

On evolution, Florida’s Holt Science and Technology textbook for eighth graders indicates: “Scientists observe that species have changed over time. They also observe that the inherited characteristics in populations change over time. Scientists think that as populations change over time, new species form. Thus, newer species descend from older species. The process in which populations gradually change over time is called evolution.” When discussing the evidence for evolution, the textbook refers to fossils and fossil records, case studies of whales, and DNA. Of course, there is an entire section dedicated to the greatness that was Charles Darwin, and much of the speculative language disappears. However, the textbook does refer to Darwin’s hypothesis on natural selection as a theory. 

The problem with the Holt Science textbook, however, is that even though it was copyrighted as recently as 2006, there is no mention of the alternative discoveries that dispute the theory of evolution. In 2001, the Discovery Institute launched a list of hundreds of scientists who dissent from Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. According to the Institute, “During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, “artificial intelligence” research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism’s central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.” The letter of dissent states, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” 

Of the reasons for the dissent, the Center for Science and Culture indicated that Darwin’s theory of “microevolution,” changes within existing species, is uncontroversial and supported by a plethora of evidence, but that his theory of “macroevolution,” large-scale changes over geological time, was “controversial right from the start.” The Center states, “In the first few decades of the twentieth century, skepticism over this aspect of evolution was so strong that Darwin’s theory went into eclipse.” Dissenting scientists argue that the genetic mutations necessary to account for the theory of “macroevolution” would produce mostly harmful effects, not positive effects like the development of the human eye. 

Now, I do not pretend to thoroughly comprehend evolutionary theory, but one thing seems certain. Evidence uncovered after Darwin’s death has created a divide between scientists who do and do not subscribe to the theory of macroevolution, and that it is certainly worth mentioning in the Science textbooks. According to the Center for Science and Culture, “Since the controversy over microevolution and macroevolution is at the heart of Darwin’s theory, and since evolutionary theory is so influential in modern biology, it is a disservice to students for biology curricula to ignore the controversy entirely … it is inaccurate to give students the impression that the controversy has been resolved and that all scientists have reached a consensus on the issue”. 

It seems fair to say, unfortunately, that political correctness plays too much of a role in the content of school textbooks. In fact, according to a Rasmussen poll, 55 percent of parents believe that to be the case. If a science textbook even suggests that Darwin’s theory of evolution may be false, the writers are charged with supporting creationism. To avoid that clash, they simply leave out contradictory data. 

In the same Rasmussen poll, a mere 31 percent of parents believed history textbooks portray American History accurately.  On Glenn Beck’s May 25 episode, he furiously discussed how history is being rewritten to be politically correct.  He pointed to a Virginia State McDonald Publishing History textbook that discussed the Declaration of Independence and said, “The declaration expanded these ideas that all men are created equal and they are endowed … with certain unalienable rights.” The words “by their Creator” were removed and replaced by ellipses. 

Fortunately, Florida’s McDougal Littell Creating America eight grade textbook does not attempt to remove God’s role from the founding of American independence from British rule.   

Where the textbook falls short, unfortunately, is in the discussion of FDR’s presidency. The book accurately asserts that “the New Deal did not end the Depression” and even states that the New Deal did forever change the U.S. government. However, in the half-page mention of the Japanese internment camps, little focus is given to the overall and blatant injustice of the internment program. The program is summed up as follows:

In the days and weeks after Pearl Harbor, several newspapers declared Japanese Americans to be a security threat.  President Roosevelt eventually responded to the growing anti-Japanese hysteria.  In February 1942, he signed an order that allowed for the removal of Japanese and Japanese Americans from the Pacific Coast.  This action came to be known as the Japanese-American internment.  More than 110,000 men, women, and children were rounded up.  They had to sell their homes and possessions and leave their jobs.  These citizens were placed in internment camps, areas where they were kept under guard.  In these camps, families lived in single rooms with little privacy.  About two-thirds of the people interned were Nisei, Japanese Americans born in the United States.

And that’s it. There is no mention of what happened to the Japanese after the war, no real focus of what life was like in these internment camps, and no discussion of how most of these citizens did not have their properties restored to them upon their release. 

Likewise, the textbook does not mention the other prejudiced practices under FDR, including the imposition of restrictions on Italian and Germans living in the United States. According to the German American Internee Coalition, FDR “interned at least 11,000 persons of German ancestry” even though the law stated only “enemy aliens” could be interned. Under FDR, the Department of Justice (DOJ) “instituted very limited due process protections for those arrested.” Also under FDR, “pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, DOJ created a network of prohibited zones and restricted areas.  Enemy aliens were forbidden to enter or remain in certain areas and their movements severely restricted in others.... Pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 9066, the military could restrict the liberties of citizens and aliens, as it deemed necessary.” 

Yet none of that information appears in the McDougal Littell textbook. Nor does the textbook discuss FDR’s creation of the Office of War Information, which virtually regulated all information in print, inhibiting freedom of press and speech. 

The issue with leaving out such pertinent information is that it lulls American students into a false sense of security about their government. To know history is to avoid repeating it. People who accuse governments’ critics of being “conspiracy theorists” are unaware that much of what people say could “never happen in America” already has. 

For these reasons, and many more, it is certainly no wonder the Texas Board of Education felt compelled to investigate the content of the textbooks. It should even prompt other states to take similar actions of scrutinizing textbooks to examine what is being left out or glossed over.  

Note: There are many more articles like this at the New American. While the site does not claim to be a mouthpiece for the religious right, it is quite obvious they are.

• Beck's Founders' Fridays Attempts to Undo Revisionists' Damage
• Texas Board of Education Gets the Facts Right 
• Inside the Texas Textbook Controversy  

At Least Some States Get It Right

Image via Wikipedia

Unless you have been under a rock or lost in a jungle you have most likely heard about the Texas Textbook fiasco.  Well at least some state are getting right. According to Omaha World-Herald staff wrtter, Joe Dejk Nebraska and several other states are not introducing Intelligent Design into state science standards.

Although advocates of intelligent design enjoyed fleeting success the past decade in Kansas, they have not found Nebraska science classrooms so welcoming.

Three members of the Nebraska Board of Education say they're not aware of any effort by board members or the public to include intelligent design in Nebraska's new science standards.

Nebraska's 253 school districts would have to adopt the state standards, or more rigorous ones, or risk losing accreditation.
The standards take on added importance this year because education officials will use them to design for the first time a statewide science test. That test will be piloted at some schools next spring and implemented at all public schools in 2012.

Nebraska's proposed standards would continue to refer to evolution as theory. California's standards, among the nation's most detailed, do not qualify evolution as a theory. Oklahoma's standards, on the other hand, make no mention of either intelligent design or evolution, but children are taught “biological change over time.”

In Iowa, evolution also is included in state standards.
The Iowa Core, adopted by Iowa lawmakers in 2008, requires high school students to “understand and apply knowledge of biological evolution.”

Iowa high schools must adopt the Iowa Core by 2012; elementary schools by 2014.

... a 2005 federal court ruling that found a Dover, Pa., school board violated the U.S. Constitution when it approved teaching intelligent design alongside evolution.
Although Kansas' standards no longer refer to intelligent design, an introduction to the standards includes a reminder to teachers not to “ridicule, belittle or embarrass a student for expressing an alternative view or belief.”

The National Science Teachers Association opposes mandating the teaching of intelligent design. The association endorses teaching evolution, viewing it “as a major unifying concept.”

Read the entire article here: Standards keep focus on evolution

Related articles by Zemanta

• Evolution's New Foe: Timid School Administrators (wired.com)
• Texas SBoE and the Flinstones (no2religion)

Home School Text Books Replace Evolution With Creationism

Image by woodleywonderworks via Flickr

There are a lot of valid reasons to home school a child. Poor quality and dangerous schools come to mind. However, whatever the reason, having quality text books and educational materials is critical in making home schooling a success.

Obviously, the battle for secularism in education is not just in public schools it also needs to be fought with home schools.

Top home-school texts dismiss evolution for creationism

By Dylan Lovan, The Associated Press

LOUISVILLE, Kentucky — Home-school mom Susan Mule wishes she hadn't taken a friend's advice and tried a textbook from a popular Christian publisher for her 10-year-old's biology lessons.

Mule's precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth's excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section of the book from Apologia Educational Ministries, which disputed Charles Darwin's theory.

"I thought she was going to have a coronary," Mule said of her daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. "She's like, 'This is not true!"'

Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the U.S. And for most home-school parents, a Bible-based version of the Earth's creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show 83% of home-schooling parents want to give their children "religious or moral instruction."

"The majority of home-schoolers self-identify as evangelical Christians," said Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association. "Most home-schoolers will definitely have a sort of creationist component to their home-school program."

Those who don't, however, often feel isolated and frustrated from trying to find a textbook that fits their beliefs.

Two of the best-selling biology textbooks stack the deck against evolution, said some science educators who reviewed sections of the books at the request of The Associated Press.

"I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids," said Jerry Coyne, an ecology and evolution professor at the University of Chicago.

The textbook publishers defend their books as well-rounded lessons on evolution and its shortcomings. One of the books doesn't attempt to mask disdain for Darwin and evolutionary science.

"Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling," says the introduction to Biology: Third Edition from Bob Jones University Press. "This book was not written for them."

The textbook delivers a religious ultimatum to young readers and parents, warning in its History of Life chapter that a "Christian worldview ... is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is."

When the AP asked about that passage, university spokesman Brian Scoles said the sentence made it into the book because of an editing error and will be removed from future editions.

The size of the business of home-school texts isn't clear because the textbook industry is fragmented and privately held publishers don't give out sales numbers. Slatter said home-school material sales reach about $1 billion annually in the U.S.

Publishers are well aware of the market, said Jay Wile, a former chemistry professor in Indianapolis who helped launch the Apologia curriculum in the early 1990s.

"If I'm planning to write a curriculum, and I want to write it in a way that will appeal to home-schoolers, I'm going to at least find out what my demographic is," Wile said.

In Kentucky, Lexington home-schooler Mia Perry remembers feeling disheartened while flipping through a home-school curriculum catalog and finding so many religious-themed textbooks.

"We're not religious home-schoolers, and there's somewhat of a feeling of being outnumbered," said Perry, who has home-schooled three of her four children after removing her oldest child from a public school because of a health condition.

Perry said she cobbled together her own curriculum after some mainstream publishers told her they would not sell directly to home-schooling parents.

Wendy Womack, another Lexington home-school mother, said the only scientifically credible curriculum she's found is from the Maryland-based Calvert School, which has been selling study-at-home materials for more than 100 years.

Apologia and Bob Jones University Press say their science books sell well. Apologia's Exploring Creation biology textbook retails for $65, while Bob Jones' Biology Third Edition lists at $52.

Coyne and Virginia Tech biology professor Duncan Porter reviewed excerpts from the Apologia and Bob Jones biology textbooks, which are equivalent to ninth- and 10th-grade biology lessons. Porter said he would give the books an F.

"If this is the way kids are home-schooled then they're being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology," Coyne said. He argued that the books may steer students away from careers in biology or the study of the history of the earth.

Wile countered that Coyne "feels compelled to lie in order to prop up a failing hypothesis (evolution). We definitely do not lie to the students. We tell them the facts that people like Dr. Coyne would prefer to cover up."

Adam Brown's parents say their 16-year-old son's belief in the Bible's creation story isn't deterring him from pursuing a career in marine biology. His parents, Ken and Polly Brown, taught him at their Cedar Grove, Indiana, home using the Apologia curriculum and other science texts.

Polly Brown said her son would gladly take college courses that include evolution, and he'll be able to provide the expected answers even though he disagrees.

"He probably knows it better than the kids who have been taught evolution all through public school," Polly Brown said. "But that is in order for him to understand both sides of that argument because he will face it throughout his higher education."

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Evolution - Show Me the Proof

The famous or infamous reply by creationists to evolution is, "show me the proof". Or if evolution is true where is the crocoduck?

Recently I was emailed a group of amazing pictures. Obviously, these are Photoshopped but never the less they are very cool.

So, for you own amusement or to mess with creationists follow this link to 22 amazing photos of "evolution".

Evolution Weekend - The Clergy Letter Project

Image via Wikipedia

I had previously heard of the Clergy Letter Project but not really known what it was about. Today I found info about Evolution Weekend in one of my Google Alerts. I find the premise of the Clergy Letter Project to be intriguing. It certainly shows that there are religious groups that value science and the scientific method. However, I do not think there is any debate on the issue. Evolution and the scientific method must be taught in our schools.

Here are two statements from the Clergy Letter Project web site:

The Clergy Letter Project is an endeavor designed to demonstrate that religion and science can be compatible and to elevate the quality of the debate of this issue.

Evolution Weekend is an opportunity for serious discussion and reflection on the relationship between religion and science. One important goal is to elevate the quality of the discussion on this critical topic - to move beyond sound bites. A second critical goal is to demonstrate that religious people from many faiths and locations understand that evolution is sound science and poses no problems for their faith. Finally, as with The Clergy Letters themselves, which have now been signed by more than 13,000 members of the clergy in the United States, Evolution Weekend makes it clear that those claiming that people must choose between religion and science are creating a false dichotomy.

Pastor Mike - What A Dick

Image via Wikipedia

In Pastor Mike's most recent post he wonders if Darwin was a racist. While he certainly won't commit to saying Darwin was racist but he certainly paints that picture with quotes from various individuals. Pastor Mike thoughtfully highlights and emphasizes certain "evidence" for us. Pastor Mike also attempts to link Darwin with moral decline, atheism and the rise of Hitler.

A few selected quotes from Pastor Mike's post that he uses as "evidence":

Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist, and a contemporary of Darwin, who laid the foundation of racism and imperialism that resulted in Hitler's racist regime.

Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote, "I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible."

Sir Arthur Keith, a well-known evolutionist, assessed Darwin's impact on Hitler and Germany: "We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy....The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter which has drenched Europe in blood."

I think, however, this is the money quote from Pastor Mike himself (emphasis and highlights are Pastor Mike's): 

Men like Nietzsche (who often said God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race, and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, and Stalin were all outspoken evolutionists, ( as well as ATHEISTS ! ) , and these people and their theories have been responsible for the slaughter of multi-millions of people, and the destruction of freedom all over the earth. It is amazing that so many liberals, radicals, fascists, communists , socialists , and atheists , as well as the easily impressed worship at Darwin's shrine.

What A DICK!

Teaching Evolution Without Offending Creationists

Is it possible to teach evolution to middle and high school students without offending their religion? University of Alabama professor Lee Meadows thinks so and has written a book, "Missing Link", to help teachers. Bob Sims writes about the professor and his book in The Birmingham News.

Faith and science: UAB professor's book helps teachers present evolution without offense

By Bob Sims -- The Birmingham News

November 28, 2009, 6:00AM

UAB education professor Lee Meadows grew up in love with science, but his conservative Southern Baptist upbringing left him somewhat conflicted.

  Meadows has written "Missing Link," a textbook on how to teach evolution without offending religious beliefs. "It's a book for teachers to help them deal with the issue of evolution with middle and high school students," he said.

  Meadows said he knows the student's perspective from experience.

  "Biology is my favorite subject," he said. "But evolution scared me off as a student. I was afraid of evolution from the first I heard of it. I don't know that I've reconciled it, but I've realized science has its own set of rules."

  Meadows, now a member of a conservative Presbyterian Church in America congregation, remains an evangelical. But he's forged a way to study evolution on the terms of science without compromising faith.

  "My faith is still important to me," he said.

  Now he looks at the issue through the eyes of a teacher.

  The key for Meadows, a former high school science teacher, has been "teaching by inquiry," a method he said encourages students to study the fossil record, tracing animals back through time and understanding scientific explanations of changes and apparent adaptations.

  "Teaching by inquiry is hands-on science on speed," Meadows said. "It's giving them the evidence, then seeing how scientists interpret the evidence. Inquiry always says start with the evidence."

  Meadows offers one cardinal rule for teachers: "Never challenge a kid's religious beliefs," he said. "I want teachers to say, 'What you believe the Bible says is really important.'"

  Students should learn science on its own terms, not as a competing explanation to religion, Meadows said. "Science limits itself to natural evidence."

  It's not necessary to mock anyone's beliefs to teach evolution, Meadows said.

  "Science teachers in public schools have two legal duties: they have to teach science, but they also have to care for the kids, as if they were parents for that hour," Meadows said.

  Public school science teachers are bound to teach the theory of evolution and the evidence that leads scientists to embrace it, he said.

  "Their duty is to teach evolution," Meadows said. "In a public school, they are barred from teaching creationism, which courts have ruled is inherently religious."

  Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was explained in his book "On the Origin of Species," published in 1859. Because of the 150th anniversary of the book's publication and the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth in 1809, there have been many commemorations of Darwin and his life and theories this year.

  There has also been backlash by those opposed to Darwin's theories. Filmmakers Jon and Andy Erwin of Bessemer-based Erwin Brothers Motion Pictures premiered their anti-evolution documentary, "The Mysterious Islands," on Tuesday at the Alabama Theater. They did their filming in the Galapagos Islands, reviewing Darwin's conclusions and siding with another member of Darwin's ship, Captain Robert Fitzroy of the HMS Beagle, who disputed many of Darwin's conclusions.

  Meadows said that while many may object to Darwinian theories on theological grounds, it's important that students be given a solid science education.

  In his book for teachers, he recommends lesson plans that go to source material on fossils.

  Meadows recommends studying the work of J.G.M. "Hans" Thewissen, professor of anatomy at the Northeastern Ohio Universities, who has documented the evolution of whales. He directs teachers to the Web site www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm.

  "There is piles and piles of evidence for evolution, and scientists can explain that," Meadows said. "What the kids believe at the end of the day -- that's their choice."

Pastor Gets Partial Credit on Teaching ID in Schools But Fails on Evolution

Image by Colin Purrington via Flickr

I am giving Western Oklahoma Presbyterian Examiner Thomas Spence partial credit for his reason why creationism should not be taught in public schools but a fail on how evolution should be taught. Spence says that intelligent design or any version of creation should not be taught in public schools, which is the way it should be. However, his reasoning is that, "Any version of creation that could be agreed upon by a state department or local board of education will certainly be a sanitized, politically correct version..." Spence then says, "The real issue must be that evolution should be taught only as a theory".

I agree with Spence that we should be teaching our students logic and reasoning but I disagree with his statement that the theory of evolution is based on a broad application of a proportionately small number of facts. Although, I am not an evolutionary scientist even I know that there is a preponderance of facts to support evolution. In Spence's last paragraph though, he tries to sound reasonable with his thoughts on teaching thinking and reasoning skills but that is after he says evolution is based on assumption or premise. Funny, I thought belief was based on assumption and premise, the assumption there is a god and the premise that god is good and loving.

Should intelligent design be taught in public schools? As a Christian and as an American I say without hesitation, absolutely not! Any version of creation that could be agreed upon by a state department or local board of education will certainly be a sanitized, politically correct version of what should be taught by individuals, families, and churches in accordance with the faith and insight of each.

The real issue must be that evolution should be taught only as a theory. It is not a fact. It is an intelligent guess based upon the broadest application of inductive reasoning applied to a proportionately small number of facts. We need to teach our students logic and reasoning before introducing them to theories. The most elemental component of logic is that if the premise is false, then everything that follows can be proven to be true.

Evolution is based upon an assumption or premise. Belief in a divine creation is based on faith. We should address this issue at the core by the direct teaching of thinking and reasoning skills in our schools. When our students can effectively discern what is based in faith, assumption, fact, emotion, theory, or guesswork; then we have better prepared them to use their education regardless of the curriculum.

Intelligent design to take over all studies

Image by Colin Purrington via Flickr

In an opinion piece by Brian Reinhart on Sept. 4th of the online version of The Rice Thresher, Brian says that,

"...the consensus among reasonable people is that modern science indicates the theory of evolution was, at best, a misguided effort. Most contemporary theorists agree that evolution does not explain the fact that the universe is so perfectly adapted to our needs. And if even a single step in the alleged "evolutionary" process had gone wrong, we would be completely different creatures. We probably would not even be able to think.

Brian then goes on to say,

"...there is increasing acceptance among the scientific community of intelligent design theory, or the theory that life is best explained as the product of some kind of prior plan, sketched out by an all-encompassing being far cleverer than we are."

Brian also notes that,

"Several hundred scientists around the United States recently signed an open letter expressing their doubt about evolution. The list included Rice professors Patricia Reiff, James Tour and Pablo Yepes, plus professor emeritus Dale Spence." 

Brian also goes on to debunk the theory of gravity, plate tectonics, astronomy and enlightenment. Read his entire opinion piece to fully understand his thinking.

Casey Luskin says Study Evolution, Think for Yourself

Image by elfsternberg via Flickr

Casey Luskin suggests students learn everything about evolution they can but to be critical in their thinking. I couldn't agree more however methinks he is expecting them to come to his conclusion. Somehow, I think if students do think critically they will find that the Theory of Evolution is sound.

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

By Nathan Black Christian Post

As students step foot on campus for another school year, an intelligent design proponent has offered a few tips for the millions who will face the teaching of evolution in their science classrooms.

Tip number one, "never opt out of learning evolution," says Casey Luskin, co-founder of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, according to the Discovery Institute.

"In fact, learn about evolution every chance you get."

Having attended public schools from kindergarten through his master’s degree at the University of California, San Diego, Luskin was taught a "biased and one-sided origins" curriculum – basically, the neo-Darwinian theory.

There was virtually no debate or dialogue on the theory when he was learning it and "neo-Darwinian evolution was always taken as a given."

But Luskin does not regret having studied evolution as much as he did. He says the more evolutionary biology he took, the more he became convinced that the theory "was based upon unproven assumptions, contradictory methodologies, and supported weakly by the data."

So he encourages students not to be afraid to study evolution.

His advice comes as a new report reveals that the treatment of biological evolution in state science standards improved dramatically over the last decade. According to the National Center for Science Education, which defends the teaching of evolution in public schools, 40 U.S. states – including the District of Columbia – received satisfactory grades for the treatment of evolution in their state science standards. Only 31 states had received such grades in Lawrence S. Lerner's 2000 study Good Science, Bad Science, conducted for the Fordham Foundation.

Meanwhile, five states – Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia – received an "F" and another six states received the grade of "D."

Texas was recently in the national spotlight when the state board of education revised science standards in March to encourage students to "critique" and examine "all sides" of scientific theories.

Denouncing the inclusion of "creationist jargon" – language to justify the use of teaching material that casts doubt on the theory of evolution – in science standards, the NCSE report's authors, Louise S. Mead and Anton Mates, believe creationists have strategized to insert more "innocuous language" such as "critical analysis" and "strengths and weaknesses" into the standards.

Mead and Mates contend in their report, "It is simply not true that there are credible scientific alternatives to evolution, nor that evolutionary theory has 'weaknesses' that make it unlikely to be true, nor that scientific work has been done that casts doubt upon it. Students should be left in no doubt on this score."

Luskin thinks otherwise.

He challenges students to be critical in their thinking when approaching evolution and be proactive in learning about other credible scientific viewpoints that are likely censored by teachers.

"[Y]ou must be careful to always think for yourself," he cautions. "Everyone wants to be 'scientifically literate,' but the Darwin lobby pressures people by redefining 'scientific literacy' to mean 'acceptance of evolution' rather than 'an independent mind who understands science and forms its own informed opinions.'"

For Luskin, critical thinking and his own independent study led him to conclude that neo-Darwinian evolution was a set of questionable assumptions, and not facts.

He also discovered that there were "credible scientific views that dissent from neo-Darwinism" that were never disclosed to him.

"Yes, take courses advocating evolution. But also read material from credible Darwin skeptics to learn about other viewpoints. Only then can you truly make up your mind in an informed fashion."