Evolution and Education

Introduction

“It was because Darwinian theory broke man’s link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe.” -*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67. Australian molecular biologist.]

“Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine. our sacred cow more closely.” -*B. Stonehouse, “Introduction, ” to M. Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 12.

“I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions.” -*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (19182), p. 26.

The key to the future is education. Everyone realizes this, including the evolutionists. There is no doubt but that they are doing everything in their power to mandate evolutionary teaching on all levels of instruction, from kindergarten to post-doctoral programs. But to what extent is that control absolute? Specifically, is it legal to present the alternate viewpoint, creationism, in public, tax-supported educational institutions? This chapter will not only give you an overview of the educational controversy, but also definite information on the legal status of whether or not creation-science can be discussed in public schools. This is a chapter you will want to share with creation-oriented school teachers.

Each year additional millions are spent, on research programs and the sending of expensive satellites into orbit, in a desperate attempt to finally obtain evidence in support of evolutionary theories. But year after year the needed evidence eludes them. It has been remarkable that, in spite of having a theory with no scientific evidence to support it, the evolutionists have been able to gradually obtain a lock-grip on Western science.

Lacking the evidence, these humanists have had to rely on several other methods to provide a solid basis for their theory, much of it centers around the educational system:

1. Ridicule opposing positions as “non-scientific.”
2. Wage continual court battles against any who would seek to introduce creation-science into the schools.
3. Control the teachers unions and National Education Association.
4. Dominate scientific associations and publications.
5. Lobby state and federal legislatures and executive departments.
6. Threaten influential men with open ridicule, loss of financial support, votes, or monetary backing.
7. If necessary, get them ousted from their positions.

1 – WESTERN EDUCATIONAL TAKE-OVER

A SINGLE EXAMPLE-Before moving into this chapter, here is but one example of the desolation that has entered so many millions of lives when they have encountered Darwinism. Large numbers have accepted the assumptions and inaccurate statements foisted on them by Darwinian writers. As a result, they became outright agnostics or atheists, the remainder of their lives were darkened, and they finally went down to the grave without God or hope.

*Albert Einstein (1879-1955) tells how, in his youth, his high aspirations and positive feelings were demolished:

“I came-despite the fact that I was the son of entirely irreligious [Jewish] parents-to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12.

“Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude towards the convictions which were alive in any specific social environment- an attitude which has never again left me, even though later on, because of a better insight into the causal connections, it lost some of its original poignancy.” -*Albert Einstein, statement made at the age of 67, quoted in *P.A. Schilp (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist, Vol. 1 (1959), pp. 5-6.

TAKING OVER EDUCATION-In Western civilization today we have a repeat of the educational suppression and persecution of scientific facts which existed in the Dark Ages.

“There existed a powerful body of men whose hostility to Galileo never abated: the Aristotelians at the universities. The inertia of the human mind and its resistance to innovation are most clearly demonstrated not, as one might expect, by the ignorant mass-which is easily swayed once its imagination is caught-but by professionals with a vested interest in tradition and the monopoly of learning. Innovation is a twofold threat to academic mediocrities: it endangers their oracular authority, and it evokes a deeper fear that their whole laboriously constructed intellectual edifice might collapse.” -*Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers.

The men controlling the modern scientific world are humanists, and humanists are atheists.

DOES RELIGION HURT PEOPLE
?-It is dangerous for people to learn about religious topics? In any given Western society, we find it is the religious people who are primarily engaged in lifesaving activities, such as orphanages, antiabortion efforts, city missions, and all the rest. The story of Edwards and Jukes is worth repeating:

Jonathan Edwards was a well-known preacher in the early American Colonies. Out of 729 of his descendants, 300 were preachers, 65 were college professors, 13 were university presidents, 16 were authors, 3 were U.S. congressmen, and one was a vice president of the United States.

Max Jukes lived at about the same time as Edwards. Out of 1,020 descendants, 300 died prematurely, 100 entered penitentiaries for an average sentence of 13 years each, 190 were prostitutes, and 100 were drunkards. They cost the state an estimated $1,200,000, at a time when the dollar was worth far, more than it is now.

“Humanism is a philosophical, religious and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself. It has its roots in classical China, Greece and Rome.” -*Paul Kurtz, Preface to republication of American Humanist Association: Humanist Manifestos I (1933) and II (1973).

When America was founded it was recognized that Christianity represented the highest morality, and it was natural that Christians would be expected to teach the youth in the schools of the land. The first school in America was in the Jamestown Colony, and was taught by a pastor and ship chaplain. The nation’s first colleges were all founded by Christians, and were originally based on Christian principles: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown, Pennsylvania, and others. But gradually changes occurred that were to reap disastrous results later on. Ultimately, in our own century, outright atheists gained control of a majority of the colleges in America.

“Gradually, however, deism and unitarianism infiltrated the colonies, especially in New England, undermining the supernatural aspects of Christianity, even though there was still a commitment to the concept of a personal transcendent God who had created all things in the beginning. Pre-Darwinian evolutionism also made its impact, especially the idea of `long ages.’ This belief of the ancient pagan religions was re-introduced into England by Hutton, Playfair, and Lyell and was soon promoted in this country, even by such creationist geologists as Agassiz, Silliman, and Dana. Also, the famous `nebular hypothesis’ for the evolutionary origin of the solar system, introduced in continental Europe by Kant and LaPlace, made numerous American converts, including the leading Christian biologist, Asa Gray, who would soon become Darwin’s main propagandist in the United States.” -H. M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), pp. 45-46.

“The schools in those days were almost all private schools; in fact, most of them were Christian schools. However, the strongly Biblical orientation of the colonial churches, and especially the colleges which they had formed (Harvard, Yale, and others) had already become strongly diluted by deism and unitarianism, and it would not be long before these entrenched heresies would be yielding to two even more deadly British imports-the uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell and then later the evolution of Charles Darwin. In the meantime, the Unitarian, Horace Mann, would lead in getting American education shifted to a system of public schools. The latter would still have a nominal commitment to creationism and Christianity for a while, but would eventually be subverted to a full-blown evolutionary humanism through the baleful influence of John Dewey and his disciples.” -Henry Morris, History of Modern Creationism (1984), p. 31.

Shortly after the American colonies were established, Massachusetts took the lead in education.

Centering at Harvard University, it also took the lead in introducing evolution into American schools and colleges. Horace Mann of that state led out in promoting ‘normal schools’ for the training of school teachers. By 1860, state teacher training colleges had a strong control over what was taught to teachers. But it was not until the 20th century that state legislatures and teacher associations gained control over the textbooks. Prior to our century, most American schools were rural with locally chosen school boards and textbooks. The well-known McGuffey Readers, with their solid moral content were generally used.

The National Education Association was formed in 1857. When the teacher strikes began in 1967, the NEA quickly became the most powerful labor union in America. But, unlike other unions, the membership of the NEA includes not only the teachers, but also the school and county administrative staff, and book publishers as well! *John Dewey was born in 1859, the year that *Darwin’s Origin of the Species was published. Dewey was the American founder and leading promoter of “progressive education.”

“An absolute faith in science became the driving force behind the progressives. . the most important idea that would influence the educators was that of evolution-the notion that man, through a process of natural selection, had evolved to his present state from a common animal ancestry.” -Samuel L Blumenfeld, NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education (1984), p. 43.

“The underlying assumption of progressive education was that the child is simply an evolved animal and must be trained as such-not as an individual created in God’s image with tremendous potential as an individual. A child was considered but one member in a group and therefore must be trained collectively to fit into his or her appropriate place in society. Dewey studied Russia’s educational system extensively and was a socialist himself, as well as a materialistic pantheist.” -Henry Morris, Long War Against God (1989), p. 48.

*John Dewey, along with fellow educators who viewed matters as he did, founded the American Humanist Association in 1933. *Dewey became its first president. The basic statement of beliefs of the AHA was published that year under the title, Humanist Manifesto, and later became the unofficial framework of teaching in most school textbooks.

CONTROL OF SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION
-Humanism is atheism, and, to a great degree, it controls modern education. Atheistic sentiments are presented in the form of evolutionistic terminology, so as to be less objectionable. These concepts permeate both the humanities and the sciences.

Scientific articles continually pour forth from the presses of thousands of scientific journals; so much so that few have even a partial conception of what is taking place in the scientific world. Because of the “mystery” of science as well as its technological benefits, spokesmen for science have an aura of infallibility when they speak about science, health, medicine, or even ancient history.

“The Library of Congress receives 55,000 scientific periodicals, and it estimates that there are at least 15,000 more. Each year there are over one million different science articles published worldwide. One must read an article every three seconds, non-stop, to keep up!” -*Don DeYoung, Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1989, p. 41.

But the editors who release those scientific articles, frequently must adhere to evolutionary standards or they will be in trouble.

“If a Darwinist is an editor of some kind, be it that of a scientific journal, or that of a publishing house, the Darwinist can be expected to do his bit to make sure that only Darwinist ideas successfully see the light of day. As R.L. Wysong says,

” ‘It is next to impossible to publish material that is.. anti-evolutionism through the well known trade publishing houses, even though these same houses copiously publish evolutionary material. Has freedom of the press become freedom to be sure all of the propaganda is on one side, and a free land a place where you can say what you think [only] if the majority thinks the same way?” -Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1986), p. 99. [Quotation from Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), pp. 28-29.]

2 – UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES

OBJECTIONS TO THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION -Throughout this set of books, we have observed a multitude of reasons why evolutionary theory is a packs of unsubstantiated hypotheses, without any scientific basis.

“The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate. . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible.” -*P. Lemoine, “Introduction: De L’ Evolution?,” Encyclopedia Francaise Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.

A basic cause for concern is that we are teaching something as “science” in our schools-for which there is no real evidence!

“For some time, it has seemed to me that our current methods of teaching Darwinism are suspiciously similar to indoctrination . . .

“The Darwinist can always make a plausible reconstruction of what took place during the supposed evolution of a species. Any difficulties in reconciling a given kind of natural selection with a particular phase of evolution can be removed by the judicious choice of a correlated character . . . .

“Looked at in this way, the teacher of Darwin’s theory corresponds with the latter, since he undoubtedly is concerned to put across the conclusion that natural selection causes evolution, while he cannot be concerned to any great extent with real evidence because there isn’t any.” -*G. W. Harper, “Darwinism and Indoctrination,” School Science Review, December 1977, p. 258, 265.

“There is no doubt about it that the doctrine of evolution is the greatest curse in our educational system.” -Brig. General F.D. Frost, The Fundamentalist, January 1950, p. 21.

POWER OF THE SCHOOLS-Yet evolutionists know that they cannot possibly convert the world to atheism unless they control what is taught in the schools. Even revolutionary evolutionists, such as Mussolini, recognized this fact. He tried to systematize the inculcation of fascist theories to the children of Italy:

“One will say that geography and mathematics are by nature nonpolitical. Such may be the case, but also the contrary. Their teaching can do harm. From the elevation of his chair, certain words, an intonation, an allusion, a judgment, a bit of statistics, coming from the professor suffice to produce a political role and should be a fascist.” -*Bonito Mussolini, “Scuola Fascists, ” Le Temps (August 31, 1932).

THE POWER OF TEXTBOOKS-Not only are school authorities and teachers powerful, but textbooks are also.

“Textbooks are more potent forces in what and how teachers teach and in what and how children learn than we are ready to admit. Textbooks select for study a content, an emphasis, a method of instruction and learning, and a level of difficulty. This power is held jealously by the government and dominant party of nondemocratic countries. No totalitarian country would chance the consequences of freedom in textbook development and selection. Even the choice of initial story in the first reading text must pass the approval of political and educational committees.” -*J. Chall, “Middle and Secondary School Textbooks, ” The Textbook in the American Society (1981), p. 26.

Because of the power of textbooks on youthful minds, the atheists have especially sought to dictate as to the nature of their contents.

“It is significant that practically all the literature studied in high school and college classrooms today is humanistic in tone. For example, the supposedly exemplary literary collection known as ‘The Great Books of the Western World.’ The listing contains almost none of the great Christian classics nor any of the great volumes of biblical exposition or Christian apologetics, but is replete with all the great classics of humanistic thought and purpose. The books that touch on religion at all tend to promote either paganism or deism or, at best, unitarianism and Christian liberalism. Many, of course, are overtly evolutionistic.” -H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), p. 41.

Special efforts are made to weave evolutionist sentiments into every aspect of the curricular content. The publishers of one set of biology books explains how that was a central concern in the preparation of their text series:

“Because of its pervasive and comprehensive character, evolution is treated in three ways in the BSCS materials. There are specific chapters on evolution as the history of living things. There are specific chapters on evolution as a process. And third, evolution either as history or as process is interwoven in all other chapters where it has a place: in the treatment of cell chemistry, ecology, taxonomy, and so on.” -*E. Klinckmann, Biology Teacher’s Handbook (1970), p. 16.

Yet that one biology text series soon became the standard to be followed by the other biology text publishers. The word had spread: get on the bandwagon, or else.

“In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, ‘fifty percent of American school children currently use BSCS books directly and the curriculum is incorporated indirectly in virtually all biology texts.’ ” -W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited (1954), p. 395.

*Hyde describes the power of textbooks in changing the moral tone of the youth.

“Critical powers may be emotionally orientated against religious beliefs, while the assertions of a popular humanism, with its mechanical explanation of life and its rejection of the spiritual, is uncritically accepted. Thus a prejudice against religion becomes firmly established while religious ideas remain confused and inadequate.” -*K Hyde, Religious Learning in Adolescence (1965), p. 92.

POSITION OP EVOLUTIONISTS: ONLY EVOLUTION IN THE SCHOOLS-A fierce war is being waged to shut out from the schools that which is moralistic or creationistic.

“I would turn the argument the other way around and hold that it is essential for evolution to become the central core of any educational system, because it is evolution, in the broad sense, that links inorganic nature with life, and the stars with earth, and matter with mind, and animals with man. Human history is a continuation of biological evolution in a different form.” -*Julian Huxley, “At Random,” Evolution after Darwin (1960), p. 65.

This problem extends beyond the schools to the later place of employment:

“Were biologists, geologists, or paleontologists to endorse publicly a pseudoscience such as creationism their chances of achieving or retaining prestigious academic positions would be greatly undermined, as would their chances for high office in professional societies. Only in Bible colleges, seminaries, and creationist ministries can the latter succeed as outspoken creationists.” -*C. Patterson, “An Engineer Looks at the Creationist Movement ” Proceedings from the Iowa Academy of Sciences (1982), p. 57.

A university professor explains how he goes about eliminating those students which do not accept evolutionist doctrines.

“I would not fail a student outright simply on the basis of the above answers but would certainly consider it necessary to check further into his/her command of the subject. The best way to do this, in my view, would be to request that they detail their scientific arguments and reasons for their answers. If those arguments turned out to be scientifically counterfeit or badly fallacious, as are those of the present day creation scientists; or if their reasons were contradictory to scientific facts or contradictory to certain other theories of science (e.g. thermodynamics), then I would consider these persons to either be impostors or seemingly hopeless incompetents (probably due to their being misled by evangelists from the creationist movement). Moreover, I would keep their answers on file as powerful evidence of their incompetence and then proceed to submit a failing grade. . even if their success on the memorization parts of the quizzes etc. were enough to carry them into the passing range (on paper). In other words, I would use my professional judgment in a case like this and if I thought the new findings superseded the overall averages on exams (which are always incomplete barometers of competence anyway and should only be used as guidelines when more definitive information is lacking), then 1 would overrule those scores on the basis of the answers I got from the special investigation.

“Another case is worth noting here. Suppose the student gives the correct scientific answers in his or her science course and suppose he/she also knows and gives the correct scientific arguments and reasons for the follow-up question, but still insists on rejecting all this for reasons of incompatibility with his/her religious beliefs. In this case, I would prefer to pass the student strictly according to the usual scoring criteria but with the proviso that his rejection of the subject matter for religious reasons be noted on his transcript of grades.” -*John W. Patterson [of Iowa State University], letter to Kevin Worth (February 7, 1984).

Here is the official word from the Humanists: Only evolution is to be permitted in the schools.

“There are no alternatives to the principle of evolution, with its ‘tree of life’ pattern, that any competent biologist of today takes seriously . . Evolution is therefore the only view that should be expounded in public-school courses on science.” -*Committee of the American Humanist Association, “A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science, ” The Humanist, January-February 1977, Vol. 37, p. 4.

Here is their demand in writing, which they sent to every school authority in the land:

“A sponsoring committee headed by Bette Chambers has secured the signatures of 179 scientists, educators, and religious figures to a statement which they say is being sent to all major school districts in the United States. The statement, along with several articles attacking the concept of creation, were published in the January/February 1977 issue of The Humanist, published for the American Humanist Association and the American Ethical Union.

“The statement reads:

” ‘We, the undersigned, call upon all local school boards, manufacturers of textbooks and teaching materials, elementary and secondary teachers of biological science, concerned citizens, and educational agencies to do the following:

” ‘-Resist and oppose measures currently before several state legislatures that would require creationist views of origins be given equal treatment and emphasis in public school biology classes and text materials.

” ‘-Reject the concept, currently being put forth by certain religious and creationist pressure groups, that alleges that evolution is itself a tenet of a religion of ‘secular humanism,’ and as such is unsuitable for inclusion in the public school science curriculum.

” ‘-Give vigorous support and aid to those classroom teachers who present the subject matter of evolution fairly and who often encounter community opposition. ‘ ” -*Humanist statement, The Humanist, January-February, 1977.

In other words, the evolutionists declare: “We will dominate the educational field in spite of what the public wants! They are too stupid to know what is best for them!”

FACT, FACT, FACT-

The following statements were placed in a brochure by the National Association of Biology Teachers, an affiliate of the National Education Association, for the reading consumption of high school biology teachers. It is shocking to think that such leading educational organizations would consider high school biology teachers so ignorant that they would accept as truth such statements. Can any educated scientist believe that all scientists accepted evolution by 1860? Evolutionary theory is the Great Scientific Assumption. When evidences are lacking, assurances must supply their place.

“We all accept the fact of evolution . . The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact. It is the basis of all our thinking.” -*Sir Julian Huxley, quoted in New York Times, November 26, 1959.

“He [Darwin] finally and definitely established evolution as a fact, no longer speculation or an alternative hypothesis for scientific investigation.” -*George Gaylord Simpson (1951).

“That evolution is a fact and that the astonishing diversity of animals and plants evolved gradually was accepted quite universally soon after 1859.” -*Ernst Mayr (1978).

“The origins of races and species by evolution is a demonstrated fact supported by experimental evidence as strong as the evidence for the existence of atoms, electrons, protons, and other particles of matter.” -*G. Ledyard Stebbins (1977).

“Evolution as a historical process is established as thoroughly and completely as science can establish facts of the past witnessed by no human eyes.” -* Theodosius Dobzhansky (1951).

“Evolution is, I believe, firmly established as a scientific fact.” -*Donald C. Johanson (1981).

“All reputable biologists have agreed that the evolution of life on the earth is an established fact.” -*B. B. Vance and *D. F. Miller, Biology for You (1963), p. 531.

“Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos-from heavenly bodies to human beings-has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes.” -*Rene Dubos, “Humanistic Biology, ” American Scientist, Vol. 53, March 1965, p. 6.

“That evolution, so stated, is an indisputable fact accepted by all but one or two of those who are accredited experts in the study of biology . . Of the fact of organic evolution there can at present day be no reasonable doubt; the evidences for it are so overwhelming that those who reject it can only be the victims of ignorance or of prejudice.” -*M.J. Kenny, Teach Yourself Evolution (1968), pp. 1, 159.

“The first point to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory but a fact. No serious scientist would deny the fact that evolution has occurred, just as he would not deny the earth goes round the sun . . All scientists agree that evolution is a fact. . There is absolutely no disagreement.” -*Evolution after Darwin, Vol. 3 (1960).

“The truth is that evolution is an irrefutable fact.” -*Ashley Montague, quoted in *T. Hughes, “The Fact and the Theory of Evolution, ” American Biology Teacher 44 (1982), 27.

PEOPLE SHOULD BE FREE TO STUDY-Freedom to think, study, and learn should be guaranteed to all men, but the evolutionists want to control the mind. “Think only as we think,” is their decree.

Even worldly educators and scientists recognize that this evolutionary dictum is wrong. All the evidence should be considered.

“The search for knowledge and understanding of the physical universe and of the living things that inhabit it should be conducted under conditions of intellectual freedom, without our religious, political or ideological restrictions. . Freedom of inquiry and dissemination of ideas require that those so engaged be free to search where their inquiry leads.. without political censorship and without fear of retribution in consequence of unpopularity of their conclusions. Those who challenge existing theories must be protected from retaliatory reactions.” -*Emerson and *Haber, “The Scopes Case in Modern Dress,” University of Chicago Literacy Review (1960), p. 527.

*O’Grady declares that we should consider all possibilities-not only the “chance theories” of the evolutionists, but “facts indicating purpose,” which are to be seen all through nature.

“While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion-that everything in the universe happened by chance-would violate the very objective of science itself . .

“. . The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.” -*R. O’Grady, “Evolutionary Theory and Teleology, ” Journal Theoretical Biology (1984), p. 567.

*Bloom says it well:

“Freedom of mind requires not only, or not even especially, the absence of legal constraints but the presence of alternative thoughts. The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.” -*A. Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (1987), p. 249.

*Stratton underlines it:

“The need to seek truth for its own sake must constantly be defended. Again and again we shall have to insist upon the right to express unorthodox views reached through honest and competent study.

“We ask for freedom of study and protection for the rights of those who hold unpopular views. But there is no freedom without responsibilities and obligations. The public rightfully holds the university responsible for the intellectual integrity and professional competence of its faculty. And I believe that in areas of uncertainty and dissent, the university has an obligation to its students to present fairly and clearly the variety of views that give body and substance to the problem.” -*J. Stratton, Science and the Educated Man (1966), p. 77-79.

Educators recognize that the only hope of better things will be found in objectively viewing all the evidence.

“I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible.” -*M. Argyle, “Social Pressure in Public and Private Situations,” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 54 (1957), p. 174.

3 – PARENT-TEACHER-STUDENT POLLS

WHAT DO PARENTS, TEACHERS, AND STUDENTS WANT?-What do the people want?

Public opinion surveys have been made at various times, and it is clear that, far and away, the American public wants all the evidence presented. A majority of them recognize that only to present the side of the evolutionists is not best for the good of society.

1 – High School Teachers: An opinion survey was taken of 400 high school biology teachers.

“According to a survey of 400 high school biology teachers conducted by two University of Texas at Arlington sociology professors, 30 percent believe in Biblical creationism. Nineteen percent believe that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. The sociologists consider the situation ‘disastrous’.” -*Waco Tribune-Herald, September 11, 1988, p. 2E.

2 – High School Biology Teachers: A second teacher survey was made, this one also of high school biology teachers.

“A survey of secondary-school biology teachers in Indiana showed that 173 out of 325 felt that evolution was a theory and not a fact, and 163 out of 330 thought that evolution should be presented as one of several alternate theories.” -Jerry Bergman, “Attitude of University Students Toward the Teaching of Creation and Evolution in the Schools, ” Origins Vol. 6, 1979, p. 62. [Survey: *John C. Troost, “An Analysis of Factors Influencing the Teaching of Evolution in the Secondary Schools in Indiana,” Ed.D. thesis, Indiana State University (1966).]

3 – Citizens and parents: In two California school districts citizens and parents were surveyed for their views on the matter.

“Many public opinion polls have shown that parents and citizens in general overwhelmingly desire both models [evolution and creationism] to be taught in the public schools, rather than the present practice of teaching only evolution. For example, in 1973, in Del Nome County [California] Unified District, the following data were compiled in a random survey of 1,346 homes:

” ‘Should evolution be taught in the public schools?’ -58 percent, yes; 34 percent, no; 8 percent, undecided.

” ‘Should creation be taught in the public schools?’-89 percent, yes; 8 percent, no; 3 percent, undecided.

“In Cupertino Union School District [California], these data were compiled in a statistically-sound random survey of 1,995 homes:

” ‘Should scientific evidence for creation be presented along with evolution.’- 84.3 percent, yes; 7.8 percent, no; 6.3 percent, uncertain; 1.6 percent, neither.

“A continuing random telephone survey is being conducted in many cities by the Institute for Creation Research Midwest Survey. The central question in this survey is:

” `Should evolution only, creation only, both evolution and creation, or neither evolution or creation be taught in the public schools?’ Results compiled to date yield the following data:

“5.2 percent, evolution only; 18.9 percent creation only; 64 percent creation and evolution; 11
percent, neither evolution nor creation.

“While these data are limited, they nevertheless provide a good sampling of what adults feel is fair and proper for public schools.” -“A Comparison of Students Studying. . Two Models,” in Decade, of Creation (1981), p. 55-56.

4 – Adults: In the 1970s, the Institute for Creation Research conducted two midwest America surveys of adults. Here is what the public wanted the public schools of America to teach:

Creation and evolution:

Survey 1-68% / Survey 2-72.6%

Creation only:

Survey 1-16% / Survey 2-12.6%

Evolution only:

Survey 1-5% / Survey 2-5.0%

No opinion:

Survey 1-11% / Survey 2-9.0%

Total creation only or creation and evolution:

Survey 1-84% / Survey 2-85.3%

Total:

Survey 1-100% / Survey 2-100.0%

The source for the above information is Jerry Bergman, “Attitude of University Students Toward the Teaching of Creation and Evolution in the Schools,” Origins Vol. 6, 1979, p. 62.

Here is a summary of several other surveys taken of citizens, parents, teachers, and lawmakers:

“The general public certainly supports the trend: a massive majority (86% to 8%) of the national public supports teaching the theory of creation in public schools rather than just evolution (AP-NBC News poll), including nearly equal supermajorities of Protestants and Catholics (Stacey and Shupe); more than two-thirds of lawyers nationally agree (56% to 26%) and find dual instruction constitutional (63% to 26%) (American Bar Association-commissioned poll); majorities (80% at Ohio State, 56% at Oberlin) of university students at secular institutions agree (Fuerst, Zimmerman); two-thirds (67% to 25%) of public school board members concur (American School Board Journal poll; and a substantial minority (42.3% to 53.7%) of even public school teachers favors the theory of creation over the theory of evolution (Austin Analytical Consulting poll).” -W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited (1954), p. 8.

Here is data from two other polls:

“The young age position is embraced by forty-four percent of the American public, according to a Gallup poll, and that near-majority is obviously not mostly Fundamentalist.” –”44% Believe God Created Mankind 10,000 Years Ago” -San Diego Union, August 30, 1982, col. 1, p. 12.

“Instead, most support for the theory of creation is manifestly nonreligious because eighty-six percent of the American public supports its teaching.” -*NBC News/ Associated Press.

Bergman summarizes the various citizen polls in this way:

“According to all recent studies, the vast majority of the public favors teaching both creation

and evolution in the schools.” -Jerry Bergman, “Attitude of University Students Toward the Teaching of Creation and Evolution in the Schools, ” Origins Vol. B, 1979, p. 63.

5 – University students: Two surveys were taken of students at a university. This was a “longitudinal study,” in that a number of years elapsed between the two polls. In this way an indication of changing student views could be obtained.

“The only longitudinal studies of which the author is aware indicate that the creationistic explanation is growing in acceptance among college-age students. The percentage of students at Brigham Young University accepting the creationist alternative to evolution was surveyed by Christensen and Cannon. They found that in 1935, 36% of the students agreed with the statement: ‘Man’s creation did not involve biological evolution,’ compared to 81% in 1973. The affirmative response to the statement: `The world’s creation did not take millions of years’ was 5% in 1935, compared to 27% for 1973. This is one of the most significant changes Christensen and Cannon found. The sample size was 1159 for the 1936 study and 1056 for the 1973 sample.” -Jerry Bergman, “Attitude of University Students Toward the Teaching of Creation and Evolution in the Schools,” Origins Vol. 6, 1979, pp. 62-83. (Survey: Harold T. Christensen and Kenneth L. Cannon, “The Fundamentalist Emphasis at Brigham Young University: 1935-1973,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 17(1):53-58 (1978). j

Bergman himself conducted a survey at Bowling Green State University, in Bowling Green, Ohio:

“The results of the survey found that the clear majority of both undergraduate and graduate students taking biology classes favored the teaching of both theories of origins in the schools.

“Of the undergraduate students, a total of 91% felt that both the evolution and creation models should be taught in the schools. Of the graduate students, 71.8% felt that both models should be taught in the schools. Of the graduate sample, 21.1 % felt that only evolution should be taught, compared to 6.1 % of the undergraduate sample. This is a difference of almost 3.5 times. On the other hand, a small number of both samples felt that only creation should be taught; 2.9% of the undergraduate sample, compared to 7.0% of the graduate sample . .

“The undergraduate males were 2.5 times more likely to feel that only evolution should be taught, compared to females (11.0%, compared to 4.8%). On the other hand, interestingly, the undergraduate males were slightly more likely to want only creation to be taught: 4.4%, compared to 2.6%. As to wanting both models taught, again the percentage of females was higher (92.6%, compared to 85.6% for males).

“Relative to the respondents’ belief structure, 7.9% of the undergraduates classified themselves as ‘atheistic evolutionists,’ compared to 13.5% of the graduate students . . Approximately half of both the graduate and undergraduate students classified themselves as theistic evolutionists. In addition, 43.0% of the undergraduates classified themselves as either theistic creationists or pure creationists, compared to 35.2% of the graduate students.

“Thus, according to this survey, 89.4% of the undergraduates believed some form of creation, compared to 79.9% of the graduate students.” -Jerry Bergman, “Attitude of University Students Toward the Teaching of Creation and Evolution in the Schools,” Origins Vol. 6, 1979, pp. 64-66.

8 – Scientists: Surveys have also been taken of scientists, and the results show a far different viewpoint than the evolutionists suggest. Here is one of those polls:

“A poll published in the February 1988 issue of the professional magazine, Industrial Chemist, tells us what scientists really believe.

“According to the poll of professional scientists, over one-fifth-20.6 percent-completely reject evolution. Less than half of the scientists-48.3 percent-believe that it is even possible for man to have evolved from lower forms without supernatural intervention. Do the scientists think that scientific creationism is hurting science education? According to this poll, 39.9 percent say ‘No.’ ” -Paul A. Bartz, Letting God Create Your Day, Vol. 1, No. 3 (1990), p. 62.

4 – CURICULAR CONTENT

EVOLUTIONISTS TRIP TO DESTROY ACADEMIC FREEDOM–Evolutionists claim to believe in the full “intellectual and academic freedom” of teachers to teach what they will, and withhold what they will-but it is determined that this “freedom” is to be accompanied by the total suppression of “intellectual and academic freedom” of students to hear, read, or consider any version of an issue other than that which the teacher wishes to present.

Then the evolutionists arrange matters, through teacher training, hiring, legal enactments, and court decisions-so that no teacher will dare teach anything other than evolution!

The objective is that there will be no “intellectual or academic freedom” for anyone but the evolutionists! They alone are to have the power to decide what shall be presented to the public through books, schools, and the media.

BOTH SHOULD BE IN THE SCHOOLS-It is clear that a majority of citizens and parents want the evidence for both sides presented, not just one side. It appears that most students want to know the evidence for both also, so they can arrive at more accurate conclusions. Polls of school teachers indicates that they share the same position.

In addition, experts in the field want it also. *Kastrinos and *Voss explain why it is so urgent:

“The fundamental inherent difficulty in the study of evolution is that this great natural process involves time dimensions of magnitude quite out of proportion to the duration of human life or even to the sum of human experience, and the observer has therefore to rely on indirect, or circumstantial evidence. Hence beliefs that are often referred to as theories of evolution are, more accurately, only working hypotheses. This is a very important matter because the essence of a hypothesis is that it is an opinion suggested by the available evidence, but not one which precludes the possibility of some alternative. A hypothesis may well be substantiated when more corroborative details are forthcoming, but until then there is no logical reason for excluding the consideration of some other explanation of the facts. So, while it may be justifiable to believe that evolution affords a reasonable explanation of the facts of nature, it is not justifiable to maintain that no other explanation is possible or permissible.” -*W. Kastrinos and *B. Voss, “Influence of the Textbook on Topics Remembered by Students Who Took College Boards in Biology,” American Biology Teacher 32 (1970), p. 233. (Italics ours.)

It would be excellent teaching procedure to present both sides.

“No teacher should be dismayed at efforts to present creation as an alternative to evolution in biology courses; indeed, at this moment creation is the only alternative to evolution. Not only is this worth mentioning, but a comparison of the two alternatives can be an excellent exercise in logic and reason. Our primary goal as educators should be to teach students to think and such a comparison, particularly because it concerns an issue in which many have special interests or are even emotionally involved, may accomplish that purpose better than most others.” -*R.D. Alexander, in J.P. Zetterberg (ed.), Evolution versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy (1983), p. 91.

*Litcher and *Johnson present three reasons why creationism should be included in the curriculum; the first is social, the other two are educational.

“Second, we believe that an argument for teaching special-creation can be made, but to plausibly do so requires a conscious shift to the domain of the curriculum controversy. Within that domain there seems to be at least three possibilities: a moral argument concerning the rights of minority groups, a pedagogical argument concerning the common device of teaching by comparison and contrast, and a substantive argument concerning an effort to provoke a student’s understanding about the nature of explanation and how it functions. The first of these is obviously a difficult area but should be taken seriously. The last, relatively unexplored, we find genuinely interesting because of its potential for addressing broader issues about the curriculum and what it should be.” -*J. Litcher and *D. Johnson, “Changes in Attitudes, ” Journal of Education and Psychology (1969), p. 149.

*Goldman declares that the presentation of only one side leads to suppression and party indoctrination. Intellectual freedom demands that both be included.

“Monopoly in education can become thought control, denying the individual teacher’s and student’s right to read and listen and think and debate and make decisions and speak out. The views of those who hold the monopoly are exalted, while nonconforming views are suppressed or ignored. Thus education ceases to be education and becomes indoctrination.

“. . I prefer to consider both views as theories, which is apparently all the creationists want.

“. . Certainly the cause of intellectual freedom would seem to be best served by the inclusion rather than the exclusion of competing theories in any area of human study.” -*R. Goldman, Religious Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence (1964), p. 239.

Scientific facts should be presented, and this only can be done when evidence supporting both sides is made available to the student:

“When studying science in all fields-biology, zoology, genetics, geology, astronomy, etc. we should use all knowledge available to us and should present all of this to our students. Students should be exposed to both sides of the coin regarding biological change-the doctrine of creation and that of evolution-since both are based on models.” -*A. Vergote, The Religious Man: A Psychological Study of Religious Attitudes (1969), p. 298.

It is only when all sides are presented that the errors can be seen. Not to do so leads to an “inquisition mentality.”

“We cannot imagine that the cause of truth is served by keeping unpopular or minority ideas under wraps. . Specious arguments can be exposed only by examining them. Nothing is so unscientific as the inquisition mentality that served, as it thought, the truth, by seeking to suppress or conceal dissent rather than by grappling with it.” –*E. Hurlock, Child Development (1942), p. 360.

Students should be presented with the options so they can select the best from among them.

“My professional training is that of a molecular biologist, or biochemist, and one of my research specialties is abiogenesis, which is more popularly known as ‘the origin of life.’ I am an evolutionist, and I am not a Christian.

“In my opinion, the Balanced Treatment for Scientific Creationism and Evolution Act is a reasonable alternative to the current state of affairs for one powerful reason: Students would have available a realistic set of options to explore, discuss, evaluate, and, if they so choose, from which to select a personal answer to the problem of the origin of life.” -*O. Uribe and *J. Martinez, Analyzing Children’s Books From a Chicano Perspective (1975), p. 10.

Recognizing that so little evidence is available in support of evolutionary theory; it is well that all available evidence be presented, no matter which side it may favor.

“In some school systems, it is mandated that the evolution and special-creation theories be taught side by side. That seems a healthy attitude in the view of the tenuous nature of hypothesis.” -*A. Altman Bains and *J. Vasquez, “A Black American Perspective, ” Perspectives on School Print Materials: Ethnic, Non-Sexist and Others (1975), p. 29-30.

Basic proof for evolution is missing, and for this reason evidence for the alternate position should be presented. In so doing, somewhere amid it all the solutions may be found.

“He may even convince you, as he has convinced me, that some fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive, although expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the groundswell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to re-examine our sacred cow more closely. Somewhere between us may lie the grain of truth that we would all be better for knowing.” -*G. Skoog, Coverage of Evolution in secondary School Biology Textbooks: 1900-1982 (manuscript Oct. 16, 1982), p. 12.

Since in the Western world, we do not use the Russian method of only teaching a single state-determined doctrine on a given subject, creationism ought to be in the textbooks, along with Darwinism.

“Alternatives to Darwinism are not usually mentioned . . It may be objected by some that there is no need to mention alternatives to Darwinism because none of the alternatives is widely believed. This argument might be acceptable if we were also prepared to accept the same argument from a Soviet indoctrinate-that he doesn’t teach capitalism because so few people in the USSR believe in it.” -*G. Harper, “Darwinism and Indoctrination, ” School Science Review (1977), p. 267-268.

* Harper decided that we were using the Soviet system after all!

“For some time it has seemed to me that our current methods of teaching Darwinism are suspiciously similar to indoctrination. To try to establish whether there is indoctrination, I have used two approaches. The first involves a brief survey of the methods we use; the second is a more philosophical approach-namely to apply a criterion or means of identifying indoctrination to our teaching of Darwinism.

“A review of methods used to put across Darwinism to children gives cause for concern.” -*G. Harper, “Darwinism and Indoctrination,” School Science Review (1977), pp. 258-259.

Students should have an opportunity to learn of bath possible views in regard to biological subjects.

“Students should be exposed to both sides of the coin regarding biological change-the doctrine of creation and that of evolution.” -*A. Thompson, Biology, Zoology, and Genetics: Evolution Model vs. Creation Model (1983), p. 2.

Whether or not some may consider it the wrong theory, their decision should not prevail as to what is to be taught: creationism should be presented in the classroom as well as evolution.

“Creationism is a viable, understandable and plausible theory for the creation point. It is my opinion that it is a wrong theory . . I would like it discussed, particularly in the science classroom.” -* William Provine, “Scientists Abandon Evolution,” Contrast, March – April 1982, pp. 1, 3. (Self-described atheist.)

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Evolution Cruncher

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: