Response to the Columbus Dispatch Article
Titled: "Monkey Business"
In order to avoid possible copyright infringements, we do not quote the entire Columbus Dispatch article in our response. To obtain a copy of original Dispatch article, click here.
excerpts from original article = blue
our responses = black
"Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching civics and never mentioning the United States Constitution,'' the National Academy of Sciences said last year.
Asking for the opinion of the NAS on this issue is like asking the fox to guard the hen-house. The implied assumption in this statement is that we should trust the judgment of the NAS. There is very good reason not to. The NAS published a book called Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. This is most likely what he's referring to. It is a guide for how to teach evolution, and how to counter creationists. What this article fails to mention is that this book is full of misleading statements. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D, F.M. wrote an excellent book in response to the NAS's book called Refuting Evolution. For a sample of what's in Refuting Evolution, look here to learn more about the heavy influence of atheists, humanists and agnostics in the public school system. Look here to see all of chapter 4, which deals with the dinosaur-to-bird controversy.
On the other hand, supporters of the Ohio standards contend that avoiding the e-word is a reasonable step to avert conflict with creationists.
It will not work. Evolution under any name is a fairy tale, and we are determined to expose it as such.
Charlton said he wouldn't want to teach biology without using the word, nor would he advise most teachers to practice such verbal sleight of hand. On the other hand, he said, hanging out the evolution banner is not as important as teaching kids basic concepts, including how science works.
If Mr. Charlton is so concerned about teaching how science works, then perhaps he should be honest about all the glaring problems with evolution.
But Charlton believes the way to avoid controversy in most communities is to make clear from the start how science works and to spell out its limitations.
This sounds good, but it is not occurring where the religion of evolution is being taught in the public schools. Evolutionists in general are NOT honest about the limits of science when it comes to discussing evolution. There are incredible amounts of compelling evidence that they intentionally omit. Creation scientists have compiled enough of it to bury this failed theory once and for all.
Don't argue with students about religion or denigrate their beliefs, he said. Just be firm that such beliefs are outside the realm of science.
This is a common myth that is a favorite of evolutionists. They typically claim the debate is one between science and religion. This is highly misleading. Evolution is a religion. It has its roots in the religions of humanism and atheism. This debate is really between the highly biased scientists of one religion (evolution) against the highly biased scientists of another religion (Christianity).
"Science is one way of knowing the world, but there are lots of others,'' he explained. "But when you're dealing with the science way of knowing the world, you've got to play by science's rules.''
Evolution has no corner on the market. It is simply one highly flawed view, or interpretation of the observable evidence. Creationism is another view. When real science is applied honestly, it fits the creation model much better than the evolutionary model.
As a species, therefore, biology teachers need to avoid predators and adapt to their political environment to survive. While the squabble over evolution delights newspaper columnists, classroom teachers don't need the hassle.
The real answer is to start telling the whole truth about evolution, and to allow creationism to be taught in the public schools. There is strong public support to have creationism added to the curriculums in public schools. Therefore, teachers should to be "hassled" over this issue.
In any case, Charlton said, most science teachers ignore state guidelines in favor of the stronger -- and more comprehensive -- national science education standards published in 1995 by the National Academy of Sciences.
As mentioned above, the NAS guidelines are a sham. They do more to promote the religions of humanism and atheism than they do to promote real science.
David Lore, science reporter for The Dispatch, is online at firstname.lastname@example.org
Mr. Lore, creation scientists have compiled mountains of compelling evidence against evolution. Why does the Columbus Dispatch intentionally ignore this evidence? What your paper is practicing in its reporting on the issue of evolution versus creationism isn't journalism. It's propaganda. You might find it interesting to know that this particular article helped to inspire the creation of this web site. We have lived long enough with the Dispatch's propaganda campaign against creationists. The Dispatch usually will not publish our letters to the editor. They also will not allow any big-league creation scientists to present an opposing view. We will be responding to virtually every Columbus Dispatch article that is published that promotes evolution or attacks creationism. Mr. Lore, please do not consider this a personal attack on you. It is not intended as such. We simply believe that since the Dispatch is engaged in what amounts to a propaganda campaign for evolutionists, that we have no choice but to respond to it. We look forward to the day when the talented editors at the Dispatch start practicing real journalism on this issue by presenting both sides of the argument in an even-handed way.
Contact us with your comments or questions.