More Pompous Propaganda from Evolutionists
Recently, the most widely circulated daily newspaper in the state of Texas, the Houston Chronicle, ran an article titled, “It’s Time for Education to Evolve” (Falkenberg, 2008). Attempting to convince readers that science teachers should not be required to volunteer information about the “weaknesses of evolution,” columnist Lisa Falkenberg suggested that “evolution is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis. And scientific theories don’t have weaknesses. If they did, the board [the Texas State Board of Education—EL] would be justified in raising challenges to everything from gravity to relativity to the germ theory of disease” (2008, emp. added). What’s more, allegedly evolution is “a theory as basic to the teaching of science as the U.S. Constitution is to the teaching of American government” (2008). Thus, supposedly state and local school boards should dismiss notions that teachers be required to scrutinize evolution in the classroom.
Once again, fear is running rampant among the scientific establishment and liberal media: fear of a thorough critique of evolution; fear that students might be encouraged to consider the weakness of evolution; fear that young minds will question whether the state-sponsored explanation of origins is compatible with laws of science. Sadly, such fear often produces pompous propaganda reminiscent of Hitler’s 1930s policies to keep Germans from reading anything hostile toward the Nazi Party.
Consider Falkenberg’s inaccurate, arrogant statement that evolution is “as basic to the teaching of science as the U.S. Constitution is to the teaching of American government” (2008). The fact is, many brilliant scientists have rejected evolution. Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Lord William Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, Michael Faraday, Carolus Linnaeus, the Wright brothers, George Washington Carver, Wernher von Braun, and many other notable, respected scientists never believed that evolution was fundamental to science. These men performed great experiments, made remarkable discoveries, and invented a great variety of beneficial devices, yet all the while rejecting the General Theory of Evolution. If, as Falkenberg alleges, evolution is “a theory as basic to the teaching of science as the U.S. Constitution is to the teaching of American government,” and all of these men rejected evolution, how could they have been real scientists? Either they were not legitimate scientists, or Falkenberg’s assertion is false. Who is prepared to discredit the work of Louis Pasteur, George Washington Carver, or Wernher von Braun, simply because they were not evolutionists? And what about the many medical doctors around the world who reject evolution, but still practice medicine and perform surgeries efficiently? Must their work be dismissed simply because they reject evolution? The fact is, a person does not have to be an evolutionist to be a scientist. Such a notion is absurd.
In the second place, Falkenberg alleged that “evolution is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis. And scientific theories don’t have weaknesses.” Yet, evolution’s explanation for the beginning of the Universe contradicts the law of cause and effect. (How did a 14-billion-light-year Universe come from an explosion of a proton-size ball of matter billions of years ago? [see Lyons, 2007; see also Thompson, 2004, pp. 131-138]) Evolution’s explanation for the beginning of life breaks the scientifically established law of biogenesis. (No scientist has ever documented physical life coming from non-life; see Thompson, pp. 139-152.) Evolution’s explanation for how different kinds of life evolved also breaks the law of biogenesis. (In nature, all life comes from previous life of its own kind. A fly, for example, has never produced anything other than a fly; see Butt, 2008.) Evolution’s explanation for design in the Universe (e.g., the precise orbit of the Earth around the Sun) and design on Earth (e.g., the design of a living cell) is terribly weak and inadequate. As a result of an alleged explosion 14 billion years ago, plus time, plus chance, plus non-intelligence, we supposedly got a perfectly designed living cell, trilobite eye, human brain, etc. When have explosions, time, chance, and non-intelligence ever produced such wondrous effects? Scientists have never observed anything of the sort. Still, Falkenberg has insisted that evolution is as much a theory as gravity. Preposterous! Everyone has observed an object falling at 9.8 meters per second squared. But, no one has witnessed something come from nothing, life come from non-life, or physical, functional, complex design come from non-intelligence. Comparing evolution’s alleged factuality with the reality of gravity is like comparing “little green men” with humans: we know humans exist, but no one has ever seen a martian.
Desperate attempts by the media and the scientific establishment to keep students in the dark about the weaknesses of evolution speak volumes about the alleged factuality of their theory. If evolution is as scientifically established as the law of gravity, what does the evolutionary community have to fear? The fact is, the General Theory of Evolution has many fatal weaknesses that should be discussed in educational institutions around the world. Whatever happened to academic freedom? It has been censored with the fear-based propaganda of evolutionists.
REFERENCES
Butt, Kyle (2008), “Mutant Fruit Flies Bug Evolution,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3723.
Falkenberg, Lisa (2008), “It’s Time for Education to Evolve,” Houston Chronicle, November 24, [On-line], URL: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6130817.html.
Lyons, Eric (2007), “The Big Fizzle: Admissions from an Evolutionary Astrophysicist,” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL: https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3393.
Thompson, Bert (2004), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
