Darwinists this month are celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Scopes trial. But critics of evolution note an irony lost on the Darwinists in the midst of their celebrations, namely, that they now behave exactly like the silencers of science they once reviled.
Desperate to shut down debate that exposes their evolutionary theory as unsustainable conjecture, the Darwinists are using the incantations of an ideology they call science and the power of law to prevent the teaching of any concepts besides random variation and natural selection. While Darwinists still pose as champions of free inquiry, they actively suppress it in the name of their scientific dogmatism.
When I was a seventh-grade teacher, I confiscated a note written by a girl named Jennifer. It was titled “Everyone Hates Melissa,” and Jennifer was collecting signatures.
Melissa, a quiet and gentle girl who was the smartest in the class, was described as “a nerd,” “ugly” and “weird.” Her hair, her clothes, her looks were brutally criticized -- but not her demeanor or her academic skill. After all, there was nothing to criticize there...
Consider the criticisms of the president’s new nominee to the Supreme Court. John Roberts has impeccable legal credentials, so what can the pundits attack? Why, the clothing of his wife and children, of course. A fashion maven in the Washington Post looked down her nose and mocked the family as “a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers.” They were then duly admonished with a sniff: “Please select all attire from the commonly accepted styles of this century.”
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/1743
Comments
Dear "Jack" (or is it "Danny"),
From Stacy Harp's latest post I just learned your real name. I am wondering whether you chose "Jack" Lewis as your pseudonym because "Jack" was C.S. Lewis's nickname, thus: Jack Lewis. If so, I assume you are a C.S. Lewis fan, as I am.
Forrest Schultz
P.S. You have a GREAT Blog! Keep up the good work! F.
Mr. Neumayrs (and, by your implied consent YOUR) misunderstanding of the scientific method concerning the Origin and Evolution of species is pathetic.
Keeping "creationism" and its ugly cousin "intelligent design" out of the classroom has nothing to do with scientific dogmatism, but rather with teaching our children the best science that is available at the current time.
If you want to bring your particular pet theory about the origin of species (be it a creator god, green fairies or monkeys from outer space) into the classroom, have it PASS PEER REVIEW FIRST.
That is, after all, how the Theory AND FACT of evolution got its exalted status as one of the most well-documented and well-proven theories in modern science.
You don't want to teach things to our children in science class that no serious scientists believes are not only factually untrue, but NOT SCIENCE AT ALL.
Markus, spoken like a true devotee of the religion of Evolution. Your religion just has to be true, regardless of all the evidence against it. Besides if facts say Evolution is bunk, then the facts must be "religious dogma".
Evolution is not a religion and I am not a devotee. If a theory comes along that explains the facts better, I (and all other serious scientists) would be happy to adopt it - just like it happened with Quantum Chromodynamics in the field of Physics for example. Contrary to what creationists never get tired of repeating, you would surely win a Nobel prize for disproving evolution (not hard, since it is falsifiable: Just find a fossil in a non-matching strata!)
Problem is, "Creationism" does NOT explain the facts better - rather a whole lot worse. No serious scientist in the field of Biology (with the notable exception of the disputed Mr. Behe), Paleontology or Astronomy is a creationist, since all these fields independently point to a Billion-year old universe. Creationism pitts a couple of lunatics like Dr. Hovind against all of reputable science. Not an easy one to win.
However, to cut a long story short:
I await with bated breath your "facts" that disprove evolution. Make sure you don't repeat debunked old claims, though, by first consulting http://www.talkorigins.org.
The evolution proponents who've commented here prove the point of the "Monkey Wrench" post don't they?! Dogmatic with a capital D and suppressors of any other "theory" other than the one they subscribe to.
