Continued from previous page
The “agreed upon standards” are a part of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act which states that “a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.”
The uproar from Saint Darwin’s ardent defenders was predictable. None was willing to participate in the public hearings held in early May.
Yet a new national survey shows that almost two-thirds of U.S. adults (64%) agree with the basic tenet of creationism, that “human beings were created directly by God.” Another 10 percent subscribe to the theory that “human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them” (intelligent design). Moreover, “a majority (55%) believe that all three of these theories [evolution, creationism and intelligent design] should be taught in public schools.”
Such open-mindedness is in keeping with the findings of fact that came out of the hearings in Kansas; “An objective approach to teaching origins science is one that reasonably informs students about relevant competing scientific views. State endorsement of an objective approach that favors neither Naturalistic Explanations [n]or the Scientific Criticism of those Explanations will more appropriately inform students about origins, will provide good and liberal science education, will cause the state to not take sides on the issue, and is a formula that is most likely [to] lead to the best and religiously neutral origins science education.”
Why does the mere mention of objectivity and a critical examination of Darwinian evolution send shudders of fear through its evangelists? And what exactly is it that so fiercely drives them to defend their theory?
It is clear that there is more than science at work here.
Darwinism is the core belief under girding philosophical naturalism, expressed in such documents as the Humanist Manifesto III which establishes the Humanist belief system, as “rejecting any ‘supernatural’ influence and rel[ying] on modern science and the view that humans are the product of ‘unguided evolutionary change.’”
In a similar vein one could cite George Gaylord Simpson: “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind,” or Jacques Monod, “Man has to understand that he is a mere accident.” Monod is typical of the origins exclusionists, writing that Darwinism was “…no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition—or the hope—that on this score our position is likely to be revised.”
Nonetheless, most aren’t buying that brand of religion.
In large numbers, we remain intractable in our belief that a supreme being was the ultimate cause behind the creation of the universe; that there was a first “unmoved mover,” a creator or an intelligent designer and that all we call reality did not happen by random, naturalistic phenomena.
Paul the apostle was just as ardent in his beliefs as modern-day Darwinists. In describing the natural world he explained that belief in an intelligent designer was a priori: “His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...”
The 16th-century scientist Francis Bacon wrote, “A little science estranges a man from God. A lot of science brings him back.” Clearly, this is what is at the heart of Darwinist’s fears of the teaching of “a lot of science.”
Gregory J. Rummo has a master's degree in organic chemistry from Fordham University. His column appears Sundays on the editorial page of the New Jersey Herald.
Return to main page to comment on article.
No comments:
Post a Comment