Here is an excerpt of the article which may have touched off the latest controversy over the theory of evolution. NY Times’ writer Linda Beil on June 4th wrote “Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy.” “. . . Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are “creationism” or “intelligent design” or even “creator.”
“The words are “strengths and weaknesses.”“Starting this summer, the state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution should be taught. The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse.
“. . . Dr. (Don) McLeroy, the (Texas state education) board chairman, sees the debate as being between “two systems of science.”
““You’ve got a creationist system and a naturalist system,” he said.”
PRO-EVOLUTION STAND
The all-knowing infamous NY Times, that very liberal bastion of left-wing bias and opinion-shaping and at times seemingly very un-American, even anti-American, daily newspaper, expectedly published the scathing editorial below attacking those scientists and persons holding to an alternate view of life’s origin. Worshipping at the altar of secular-humanism, they dismiss intelligent design explanations or even any recognition that the theory of evolution is flawed and has any serious weaknesses as pure fantasy, unscientific, and a handicap to the educated. While designating sacred status to evolution, which it considers “elegant truth,” “no longer a hypothesis,” but it is “a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence”, it rejects any and all criticism of the theory. Read the editorial for yourselves. The emphasis is mine.
June 7, 2008
NY Times Editorial
The Cons of Creationism“When it comes to science, creationists tend to struggle with reality. They believe, after all, that evolution by means of natural selection is false and that Earth is only a few thousand years old. They also believe that students who are taught a creationist view of biology — or who are taught to disregard the Darwinist view — are not being disadvantaged.
“The Texas State Board of Education is again considering a science curriculum that teaches the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, setting an example that several other states are likely to follow. This is code for teaching creationism.
“It has the advantage of sounding more balanced than teaching “intelligent design,” which the courts have consistently banned from science classrooms. It has the disadvantage of being nonsense.
“The chairman of the Texas board, a dentist named Don McLeroy, advocates the “strengths and weaknesses” approach, as does a near majority of the board. The system accommodates what Dr. McLeroy calls two systems of science, creationist and “naturalist.”
“The trouble is, a creationist system of science is not science at all. It is faith. All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator. Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin. If the creationist view prevails in Texas, students interested in learning how science really works and what scientists really understand about life will first have to overcome the handicap of their own education.
“Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence. The weaknesses that creationists hope to teach as a way of refuting evolution are themselves antiquated, long since filed away as solved. The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms.”
So then, according to the NY Times editors, evolution is fact and intelligent design and all other explanations are mere fiction or faith.
PRO-INTELLIGENT DESIGN STAND
In reality the opposite is true, as attested to by former math teacher and whose words and thoughts have occasionally appeared on this blog, K.C. Priest, whose response to the NY Times article was published in that paper a few days ago.
June 12, 2008
Letters
Evolution and the FactsTo the Editor:
Re “The Cons of Creationism” (editorial, June 7):
“Before I retired, I was a full-time math teacher. With the full knowledge and dismay of state and county school officials, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, I demonstrated to my students that mathematics, using statistics, probability and number magnitude, proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolution is nonsense.“The students saw that the evidence clearly shows that every item associated with humans, animals and plants are intelligent designs, and that intelligent design is cience.
"I always let the students figure it out for themselves and allowed them to believe what they chose, but at least they were exposed to the scientific facts, which evolutionary extremists want to censor from the minds of public-school students.
Karl Priest, Poca, W.Va., June 7, 2008
K.C.’s last sentence accurately summarizes the situation that exists in America today. To stray from the dogma of Darwin is to open the door to a path of enlightenment and truth. The politically correct worldview of the NY Times editorial elites, academia and so-called mainstream scientists is the only philosophy to which the children of America should be exposed. Heaven forbid that they should be allowed to think critically and be exposed to the full truth!
