A favorite liberal maxim is: “The mind is like a parachute. It only functions when open.” So why are libs so zealously opposed to any idea that runs counter to evolution?
A trial opened Monday over a warning sticker placed in suburban Atlanta biology textbooks that says evolution is “a theory, not a fact.” The sticker reads, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”
As you might expect, opponents insist that the warning label violates the separation of church and state by promoting religion. They insist this is a backdoor attempt to reintroduce Biblical creation into the classroom.
Truth is few Christians want the Bible taught in secular classrooms. If for no other reason, they ask, “What would a secular teacher know about such a subject?”
But on the subject of science, proponents of the sticker point to the gaping inconsistencies, lack of evidence and flawed logic undergirding evolution. Even secular scientists have begun to recognize the mounting evidence in support of intelligent design, which is a substantive alternative to evolutionary theory. Adding to these arguments is the longstanding premise that the academic environment is to be a marketplace of ideas intended to engender critical and creative thinking.
Still, many evolutionists are upset that the sticker diminishes the status of evolution among other theories. To which I can only say, “It’s about time.”
A truly scientific theory, by definition, must be testable by repeatable observations. That means a scientific theory can only attempt to explain processes and events that are presently occurring repeatedly and are within our observation. In other words, a scientific theory is empirical in nature.
By contrast, evolution and intelligent design are not provable by empirical observation and are therefore not truly scientific theories at all. Each theory does possess scientific character because they each attempt to correlate and explain scientific data. Yet, both intelligent design and evolution are best characterized as explanatory models on mans’ origins. They are philosophical and historical in nature, not empirical.
Unfortunately, the entanglement of philosophy and science over the last 100 years has led to a one-sided education system where the free exchange of ideas and critical thinking is suppressed. What an embarrassment that in the freest nation in the world, we are the only academic community that does not recognize the need to disentangle scientific data from personal bias, worldview or flat-out dogmatism. As one Chinese scientist remarked, “In China we can question Darwin but we can’t question the government; in America you can question the government but you can’t question Darwin.” The inevitable outcome of such a biased education system is an impediment to the advancement of science.
That white elephant aside, opponents of the warning labels claim concern that college admission counselors will think less of the science education in Cobb County, Ga., as well as the “unfortunate” students forced to endure the presence of the warning labels on their textbooks. This is nothing more than a typical liberal use of a fear tactic and a red herring. The primary purpose of the sticker is to encourage critical thinking. That makes education better, not worse.
Darwinists have long discovered an effective way to silence those who question evolution is to marginalize them through name-calling and character assassination. They characterized those who support the intelligent design movement as Bible-thumping fundamentalists, dangerous pseudo-scientists, flat earthers, etc. Undaunted by such juvenile attacks, there are many bona fide critical thinking scientists, myself included, that support intelligent design.
The goal, then, for education in our public school systems and higher academic institutions is to examine and discuss the evidence of origins apart from our worldviews. Consider this example.
Assume the fossils of a one-toed, two-toed and three-toed horse were to be shown to a panel of evolutionists and intelligent design advocates. An evolutionist might conclude that the fossils support descent-by-modification of a species consistent with their worldview. By contrast, intelligent design advocates might conclude with equal validity that the fossils do not provide evidence of a transitional animal but rather demonstrate a rule of extinction that persists in the world today at 20,000 species per year. In either case, the evidence remains unchanged – able to support but unable to prove either explanatory model as accurate.
Presenting the evidence in this manner – disentangled from personal bias, worldview, religious doctrine or dogmatism – will only encourage independent and critical analysis. Anything less stifles the advancement of science.
We shall see in just days whether or not the judge in Georgia agrees.
SPECIAL WEEKEND OFFER: Until 10 p.m. Pacific Sunday, get “The Case Against Darwin” – a concise, reader-friendly yet authoritative survey of the very latest scientific evidence against evolution – FREE!