The Teaching of Evolution in our Schools;

Science is supposed to be an open contest of ideas.  The reality is that in our schools, the awkward questions about macro evolution/Darwinism are avoided and there is no real contest of ideas.  The teaching should include all of the contradictions raised by macro evolution theory, at least some examples of the calculations of the extreme improbabilities the theory requires, an overview of all the unanswered questions about life (especially the genesis of life), and some discussion of the profound differences between micro evolution and macro evolution.  

TEACH THE CONTROVERSIES   STARING DOWN DARWINISM

The Teaching of Evolution in the Science Curriculum

Stand Up For Science, Stand Up For Kansas  (Many Darwinists are obviously afraid of a true contest of ideas.)

There is a major misconception about science being put forward by the Darwinists.  They would have us believe that if science is not taught as something unquestionable that one is not teaching science.  The following is a quote from Richard Feynman, Nobel prize winning physicist: "The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darned sure of what the result is going to be, he is in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize the ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."

Teaching the controversy and the uncertainties associated with Darwinian macro evolution would be teaching the truth about science.  Students should not be taught "absolutes" when in truth they are not there.  This is especially true when it comes to evolution, but has ramifications beyond that arena.  In Japan, at the grade school level, children are taught about probabilities and uncertainty.  Do we want our children brought up without an understanding of uncertainty?  Do we want them to blindly accept authoritative statements which have deep moral implications? That is what happened in Nazi Germany before and during World War II.  Teaching the controversy would be a great way of teaching our children to think for themselves.  Quoting Feynman again; "The first key to wisdom is assiduous and frequent questioning ... For by doubting we come to inquiry, and by inquiry we arrive at truth."  " --the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue."

REPORT ON COMMENTS ON PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO DRAFT OF OHIO SCIENCE ACADEMIC CONTENT STANDARDS.

Students should be taught what a real hard science proof of evolution would look like.  While proposed proofs of macro evolution should be subject to the rigorous tests of experimental science, however, no one should underestimate the science available to evolutionists.   Those which champion macro evolution are often of high intelligent and are representing what they have been taught to look for and been taught to interpret in a dogmatic Darwinian way only.

The problem is that this dogma of evolutionists often and usually flies in the face of the actual scientific findings.   The problem is not that there is not a lot of science about micro evolution in the arena.  There is science there that is fully worthy of funding and even increased funding to find the real truth about micro evolution.    The problem is unproven extrapolations of findings based on dogma rather than objective fact.   This is hard to come to grips with since Darwinian evolution is so open to interpretation and reinterpretation and is self referential.   Darwinian macro evolution theory is based on a number of unproven assumptions.

This writer objects to not teaching the clear differences between theory, proven science laws, and the interpretations of science findings.  We also objects to the statements made by hard-core evolutionists (based not on hard science fact) about the origin and meaning of life and to statements which imply that there is no guidance to evolution.   We would not diminish in any way the complexity of the task science faces in trying to understand life and its history.  In many ways, the study of life’s vast array and complexity is a far greater challenge than the study of even the most exotic laws of physics.

This writer also believe that some form of Darwinian evolution is a significant factor in the history and development of life, but that there is no where near close to sufficient objective science to support it as the primary determinate in the development of life.   This writer believes that God could have allowed life to take an essentially random development path for a time which would be short in God’s time frame.   The objective science says, however, that is not what happened.

There is a growing number of paleontologists who are beginning to question the dogmatic beliefs of hard core Darwinists in regards to macro evolution.  One example is Niles Eldridge who is the Curator in the Department of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History who is a proponent of "punctuated equilibrium" as contrasted to their only being slow/gradual pure Darwinian evolution.   

The premier example is probably the scientist who wrote one of the mainline books on evolution "Biochemical predestination (Doctorate in biophysics and professor of biology at S.F. State University in Calif.)  Dr. D. Kenyon, the author, has through his studies come to believe that Darwinism cannot be the full explanation and that design of some type must also be involved in evolution.  How can any teacher now honestly teach Darwinian macro evolution as a complete explanation for life as fact when Dr. Kenyon himself believes that to be scientifically unsupportable.

Another example is Robert Wesson who wrote the book “Beyond Natural Selection” (a highly recommend book for youth*)  which gives quite a large number of examples from nature which cannot be explained by Darwinism.  (He does believe that control genes are the answer, when in reality, they present an even bigger problem for naturalists since they are inimitable to Darwinism gradualism.  The book, however, still points out numerous problem for Darwinism, as can be found on the pages referenced below;

* Pages in the referenced book; 45, 48, 49, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62-69, 82, 83, 87-89, 95, 99-100, 108, 113, 116, 119, 124, 127, 128, 131, 142, 149, 159, 163, 168, 169, 171, 176, 177, 180, 182, 184, 190, 192, 193, 195, 198, 202, 206, 208, 211-212, 214-215, 236, 239,241,252, 256, 260, 261, 263-266, 272, 278, 291, 293, 299, 301,305, 307, 308

Click here for an example of others questioning the doctrine of evolution.

Click here for an excellent video tape shown on PBS about scientists questioning macroevolution.

Click here for how a more open minded teaching of evolution "theory" is being proposed in Ohio.

Click here for a list of "assumptions" made by proponents of Darwin macro evolution.

Those who are thinking outside of the dogma need support.  Cutting funding for the study of evolution would just tend to stifle the minority in the field who are beginning to break through the dogmatic teachings of the profession and prevent there being new more open-minded thinkers entering the field.   Only a vigorous study and debate will eventually bring the objective component of evolutionary science to the fore.

The teaching of evolution should be in the true spirit of science with an open debate of all ideas.  There are many other such books which raise many questions which need to be made known to students.  This site will provide a list of some of these books along with lists of websites which can be found which show at least some degree of openness in their thinking and which do not hide their bias.

The only reason for not teaching the questions about evolution would seem to be that the Darwinian evolution science community is apparently afraid of a true contest of the full set of hard facts against the theory.  It is interesting that they appear to be afraid of what they believe is the "fittest" theory being put to the test of survival in an intellectual classroom debate.

TEACH THE CONTROVERSIES

EVOLUTION–"NO DEBATE ALLOWED

Icons of Evolution, written by Jonathan Wells,  two Ph.Ds, one in Molecular and one in Cell Biology.

A Darwinists response to Well's attack on the Icons of Evolution.  Read very carefully and note the lack of  direct proof or any simple logic path to show that the basic points raised by Wells are wrong.  For example, on Icon 1), even if the experiment was valid, all it produced was some molecules which are extremely simple compared to even a single protein and nothing remotely resembling life.  This is typical of Darwinist arguments.  They raise a lot of complex issues and ways to look at them with "just so" stories which do not amount to anything like a proof.  (Also note the lack of differentiation between micro and macro evolution, which is huge.)

Even if we assume that both of the above sites make good arguments, the fact that many scientists are finding at least very questionable areas in Darwinian dogma show that the controversy should be taught, not just the dogma just because those scientists (with professional and financial stakes at issue) say it is so.

Misconceptions as Barriers to Understanding Science

PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science.

Darwinism and Indoctrination by Our Public Schools.  It is a serious problem.

Inherit the Wind in Reverse, Darwinist persecution of a high school teacher.

We recommending reading the book; "The Case For A Creator" by L. Strobel which contains a wide range of scientific references.

Center for Law and Justice (This organization can help you exercise your right to religious freedom.)