You tell him Larry! ** Darwinists Eager to Avoid Debate By: Larry Taylor Atlanta Journal Constitution February 2, 2004 Last year, in public comments before the Cobb County Board of Education, I witnessed firsthand the danger that can come when personal opinions and philosophical or religious prejudices are allowed into the science classroom. I was shocked as Cobb County public school teachers stood at the podium and made the absurd claim that evolution is an absolute proven fact that is no longer disputed by reasonable, educated people. Further, these teachers went on to denigrate anyone who held an opposing viewpoint as "uneducated," "illogical," "radical" and my all time favorite, "right-wing extremists." I left that meeting vowing to protect my children from the obvious bias and open hostility that was exhibited by the teachers in attendance. Now that Georgia school Superintendent Kathy Cox has proposed new science standards that de-emphasize the terminology used to explain evolution, the state teachers and professors are once again in an uproar, claiming that our students will receive a substandard education unless they are taught all of the facts concerning the origin of life. I could not agree more. The answer is not to de-emphasize or water down the classroom instruction on this fascinating and important topic, but to examine it openly, critically and fully. Students should be exposed to all of the scientific evidence on evolution, both for and against, so that they can come to logical, informed, scientific conclusions. However, in their clamor for "all the facts" to be taught, there are a few facts that the pro-evolution science educators are keeping from our students. ⢠Far from settled science, there is a growing debate within the science community about the ability of evolution to fully explain the diversity of life on Earth. More than 300 scientists from major universities nationwide, including dozens from Georgia, have signed a document expressing doubts about the claims of evolution. ⢠Modern science instruction includes an undisclosed bias that artificially eliminates any possibilities other than evolution to explain life. It prevents the students from expanding their scientific knowledge and learning skills by forbidding the opportunity to investigate alternative theories scientifically. ⢠Much of the "evidence" cited in science textbooks in support of evolution is dubious at best, and in many cases outright fraudulent. Biologist Jonathan Wells, in the "Icons of Evolution," discloses countless examples of textbook evolutionary "evidence" that has been summarily dismissed by mainstream science, yet is still in use today. ⢠Scientific evidence that might cast doubt about the claims of Darwinian evolution has been censored from Georgia classrooms, as are the views of scientists who dissent from the established evolutionary doctrine. ⢠In an attempt to cloud the issue, the Darwinists will always try to interject "creationism" and "separation of church and state" into the debate. Knowing that they cannot win the debate on the merits of the evidence, they will always resort to this tactic. The Darwinists are always quick to label someone like me a religious extremist who just wants to interject my own personal faith into the science classroom. Yet it is they who seek, through the power of the state, to insulate their own beliefs about life's origins from critical examination, to propagate those beliefs on an unwitting student population, and who defend their beliefs with the fervency of the most radical fundamentalist. Georgians should ask themselves why they are so adamantly opposed to an honest, open and critical examination of evolutionary theory in our classrooms. Could it be that their sacred cow is less than convincing when exposed to the light of truth? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Taylor, father of three children in Cobb County public schools, is director of Parents for Truth in Education. ******
Thanks Douglas Erwin for your integrity to admit there are major problems with your theory. Do you mind if we share your observations with the public school kids in Georgia? From the mouth of an evolutionist come these fine words. I couldn't have said it better. * Douglas Erwin, âMacroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution,â Evolution & Development 2 (2000):78-84. Douglas Erwin is a paleontologist on the staff of the National Museum of Natural History (at the Smithsonian), and one of the leading critics of claims that microevolutionary processes suffice to explain macroevolutionary patterns. In this article, Erwin challenges the standard view of evolution, and argues that other processes and mechanisms are needed: Microevolution provides no satisfactory explanation for the extraordinary burst of novelty during the late Neoproterozoic-Cambrian radiation (Valentine et al. 1999; Knoll and Carroll 1999), nor the rapid production of novel plant architectures associated with the origin of land plants during the Devonian (Kendrick and Crane 1997), followed by the origination of most major insect groups (Labandeira and Sepkoski 1993). (p. 81) The gap between microevolution and macroevolution, Erwin contends, is real: âThese discontinuities impart a hierarchical structure to evolution, a structure which impedes, obstructs, and even neutralizes the effects of microevolutionâ (p. 82). Much more work is needed, Erwin concludes, before we can claim to understand macroevolution.
Simply amazing.... do you guys even listen to anything we say? I challenge you to find ANYONE here who has claimed that: 1) macroevolution is proven 2) Microevolution proves macroevolution 3) Macroevolution is a perfect theory You guys just love setting up strawmen and then tearing them down. For the millionth time, I repeat, MACROEVOLUTION is an unproven THEORY. Get over it already. Now the question is... should a scientific theory be taught in school? Answer: YES. It should be taught as the best model we have to date. Not as absolute proof. Now STOP PRETENDING that the people defending evolution here have been making such ridiculous claims. peace axeman
Slowtrend: >Thanks Douglas Erwin for your integrity to admit >there are major problems with your theory. From Erwin quote: >Much more work is needed, Erwin concludes, before >we can claim to understand macroevolution. I wish Theists could all show such "integrity". JB
How the anomalies to classical evolution results in an affirmation of creationism belief is beyond me.
They'll never stop because they know the moment they do they have to argue on a rational basis and they'll lose. Cuz then they have to start with the following premise: "I believe a man in the sky controls my destiny." LOL
I think the correct understanding of the belief is that God controls the universe and gives man free will to act within it. A man in the sky must be your belief system.
>A man in the sky must be your belief system. Now THAT was a snappy come-back ART. I can smell the fumes from here. JB
Some of the apparent evolutionists on this thread like to interject comments about religion, the Bible, and theism. Where have I sought to defend any of that on this thread? Please show me. My argument has been throughout, there is a controversy surrounding the 'facts' about the theory of evolution, and that particular controversy about the 'facts' is kept out of many public schools. I have argued that the controversy should be freely taught, not hidden from public school kids. My additional argument has been that much of the 'evidence' for the theory of evolution that is controversial, according to many scientists, is not identified as controversial in certain biology textbooks, some PBS documentaries, newspapers, and many popular magazines. I posted the ten questions. They all deal with major tenants of the Darwinian theory of evolution. And one of the worst of all the fallacies of our evolutionists is the fallacy of equivocation, isn't that right Mr. Axeman? Since you are the expert on fallacies, maybe you would like to share your definition of equivocation. You probably have one right there on hand, one that you could share with a fourth grade debater like me. Does it have something to do with more than one definition of a term? Just asking. You know as well as I do, there is no controversy over microevolution, changes within a population over time. But there is a raging controversy over macroevolution, new organs, new body parts, new species. Come clean. Stop equivocating. Don't you just love those smiley faces!
Nice fabrication. And one of the worst of all the fallacies of our evolutionists is the fallacy of equivocation, isn't that right Mr. Axeman? Since you are the expert on fallacies, maybe you would like to share your definition of equivocation. You probably have one right there on hand, one that you could share with a fourth grade debater like me. Your claim of equivocation is false. I CHALLENGE YOU to show WHERE I have commited this fallacy. And no... I wont provide a definition. I already know it, and that is what makes it so obvious that YOU DO NOT Look it up yourself, or are you too lazy? POST it right here, next to the quote from me that shows I commited it Good luck..... peace axeman