Evolution. Intelligent design. These are terms that can cause great consternation in the minds and hearts of many, particularly opponents of each view. Now, that anxiety and debate have resurfaced in theaters everywhere with Ben Stein's new documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." The press kit says, "('Expelled') exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy." (To see a trailer of the movie or access its free resources, go to www.getexpelled.com.)
I like Ben Stein. I think he's funny, creative and an insightful commentator on a host of issues. I'm not bent on defending him or "Expelled," but I'm glad he made it. I saw it last weekend, and I liked it. I think it will wake up many people to the truth. What truth? That educational arenas have become limited learning environments because of biases against God, the Bible and creationism. Stein is correct in saying that passionate antagonism and hostility (that parallels any fundamentalist extremism) equally exists in naturalist and Neo-Darwinian camps. Proof of their avid bias easily can be seen in some evolutionists' reviews of this film. Many are loaded with as much inflammatory language, intolerance and bigotry as any hate-filled group.
I'm not endorsing the movie because it is flawless or unbiased in its presentation, but because it raises real issues of educational suppression. Why can't creationism or intelligent design be taught in public schools? Naturalists answer by saying that ID is not a science. Rather than debate classifications, however, I would ask further, Why can't variant theories of the origin of life be presented even outside science courses? Isn't education based upon presenting a wide array of knowledge and opinions?
Since when does science own the market on how life began? If it is based largely upon empirical investigation of present, repeatable data, then the evolutionary theory for the beginning of life stands upon no more solid ground than ID. Why? Because neither theism nor the naturalistic view of life's earliest origin is provable in a strict scientific sense. They are both past, unrepeatable singularities, which takes them out of the scientific realm of study and observation. For example, no branch of science can prove how inorganic matter produced organic cellular life. And evolution, even if accepted as factual, does not dispel a Creator because Neo-Darwinism cannot explain the inception of life on earth definitively. So if both evolution and ID stand upon similar hypothetical platforms of discussion and possibility, why can't they both be taught in academic arenas as theories of our origin? ID deserves a seat in classrooms across America.
Again, dissenters of creationism answer this question by classifying ID as a religion and further say that religion belongs exclusively in homes and churches.
Says who? They answer that the separation of church and state in the First Amendment bans ID from entering classrooms in any form. What they don't realize, however, is their conclusion is a constitutional misinterpretation and bastardization of the First Amendment. It was written and adopted, among other reasons, so that Congress neither would establish a federal religion nor restrict religious or speech freedoms, which can include religious instruction in public classrooms.
Whether theories of life's origin are classified as religion, science, philosophy or social studies, our Founding Fathers would disagree adamantly that any theory should be locked out of classroom instruction. In fact, when Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia, he did so with an expectation that a spirit of freedom would flourish among alternative educational views. While he prohibited sectarian theology in that particular university in order to establish its distinction from other denominationally affiliated higher institutions, Jefferson did not abolish instruction or debate on Providence, theism or creationism (which he even embedded in the Declaration of Independence).
On Dec. 26, 1820, he wrote to Destutt de Tracy, "This institution of my native state, the hobby of my old age, will be based upon the illimitable freedom of the human mind, to explore and expose every subject susceptible of its contemplation." One day later, he charged William Roscoe: "This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
If America's Founding Fathers espoused openness to religion, creationism and the Bible being taught in schools, then it beckons the question, Why don't we? To leave out of educative curricula the most influential text in Western civilization — including in American history, law and literature — is a blatant and biased withholding of proper public instruction.
That is why my wife, Gena, and I are on the board of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, which has helped 443 public school districts in 37 states to implement a course on it. More than 200,000 students have been taught from it already. You, too, can learn more about the curriculum, why its teaching is constitutional, and how it can be implemented in your public school by contacting them:
National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools
P.O. Box 9743
Greensboro, NC 27429
1-877-OnBible (1-877-662-4253)
336-272-7199 (fax)
www.bibleinschools.net
It's time for every parent, teacher and school district to answer in the affirmative the question of Fisher Ames, who assisted in the creation of the First Amendment and also was chosen but declined (for health reasons) the presidency of Harvard University in 1805, "Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book?"
To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CHUCK NORRIS
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
|
 |
Comments
|
6 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Thanks for this timely article, Chuck. As always, I appreciate your definite stand on plentifully declaring the thing as it is, Job 26:2. It appears that one of the criticisms of the film by pro-evolutionists is that creationists wrongly maintain that belief in evolution was responsible for the mass extermination of Jews and other so-called 'sub species' before and during WW2.
In fact, this is exactly what belief in evolution did. The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell is a near-exhaustive resource on evolution (available from Chick Publications). Ferrell states, p 44, that Hitler carefully studied the writings of Darwin and Nietzsche and his book Mein Kampf was based on evolutionary theory. Even the title, 'My Struggle,' is a Darwinian expression and according to Ferrell, Hitler believed he was fulfilling evolutionary objectives by eliminating "undesirable individuals and inferior races" in order to produce Germany's "Master Race" i.e. his crowd in charge. Ferrell also shows that another prominent mass-murderer of the 20th century, Josef Stalin, was a committed evolution, along with Karl Marx. Both Communism and Nazism derive from the followers of evolution. As the Lord Jesus Christ warned in Matthew 7:17, "a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit."
Keep pushing the right buttons, Chuck. You have a vital ministry.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Alan O'Reilly
Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:52 AM
|
|
|
|
I really enjoy not only this article but all you articles. I want to thank you for standing up for the Lord in these days.
We need people like you to keep us informed. I'm looking forward to seeing this movie.
There seems to be those among us who think they know what is best for this Nation and really don't care what "We the People" think. If God before us who can be against us though. Mind the Lord!
I was so happy to hear Lou Dobbs on CNN talk about the UNAN. Lou said it is very secretive so no one knows what is being agreed to behind closed doors not even the Congress. I guess the Bush administration won't tell Congress, even when asked, what is or has been agreed to either. I read about this on the internet but you don't know what is true on there and couldn't understand why the News Media wasn't saying anything about it.
The people need to know what our forefathers believed and said in order to really understand what their intent was in all areas of this Great Nation. There are those who believe that info is out dated the same way they think the Bible is out dated and no more than a history book. May God help us and open their eyes.
God bless you! Keep the faith!
Your sister in Christ!
Comment: #2
Posted by: Lola Mathuews
Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:23 AM
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree the teaching of Intelligent Design should be allowed in school. We should also teach the creation theories of the various Native American tribes, Hinduism, Buddhism, and every other religion out there. They should be taught in religious studies classes, and that would be a fair presentation and would not, in any sense, cause undue furor among the "evolutionists".
What I do not agree with is that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools along side the theory of evolution. Evolution does not cover "the origins of life". All it covers is the change that has been brought since the origin of life, which is exactly what Intelligent Design is supposed to counter.
The whole idea of Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" really is not that strong. It amounts to "If I can't imagine how it could have evolved, it must have been designed." That's hardly a sound basis for a scientific theory. Where is the proof that it was designed? Can it be reproduced? Yes. The same arguments could be made for evolution - but there's a slight problem. We have witnessed (and affected) the evolution of countless species of life on this planet. There are documented cases of new breeds of dogs being created by Human breeders through selective breeding. How is that different than what happens in nature?
Computer studies as well have backed up the major theories of evolution and shown light on how specific characteristics of life could have evolved, but.. most importantly, they show that evolution works. Is there an instance of a computer study (or a study of any sort) showing how Intelligent Design operates?
That is science. Intelligent Design is not a science. It does not propose any testable hypotheses or give a process that can be replicated.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Matt Bardeen
Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Mr Bardeen: Did you even read Chuck's article, or just react? "Evolution does not cover "the origins of life". All it covers is the change that has been brought since the origin of life, which is exactly what Intelligent Design is supposed to counter." Incorrect. If it cannot explain the origin of life as ID does, then it has no basis being taught as a scientific theory. "The whole idea of Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" really is not that strong. It amounts to "If I can't imagine how it could have evolved, it must have been designed."" Incorrect. Irreducible complexity means that science cannot explain how it works when it is broken down to its component parts. That's one of the core problems with evolution. "We have witnessed (and affected) the evolution of countless species of life on this planet." Incorrect. You are confusing macroevolution (change from one species into another) with microevolution (slight changes within a species). Moths may change color and viruses may mutate, but they are still moths and viruses - they don't become iguanas or antelopes. Macroevolution is not presently observable either in the living world or in the fossil record, and there are no transitory forms to document its ever having taken place - just the opposite in fact. "There are documented cases of new breeds of dogs being created by Human breeders through selective breeding. How is that different than what happens in nature?" That was done at the behest of intelligent human beings who artificially produced breeding conditions which resulted in these new breeds - much more akin to an Intelligent Design than to an Evolution- and furthermore, the end result in each case was still a dog. What intelligent humans have NOT been able to accomplish, furthermore, is the creation of life from nonliving matter. Curious, no? "Computer studies as well have backed up the major theories of evolution and shown light on how specific characteristics of life could have evolved, but.. most importantly, they show that evolution works." Incorrect; there are no transitory forms in the fossil record, and much like climate change models, computers only spit out what is fed into them. "Intelligent Design is not a science. It does not propose any testable hypotheses or give a process that can be replicated." The same can be said of Darwinian macro-evolution - not observable, not testable, not reproducable....and quite frankly, not a science. ID simply looks at the evidence and arrives at an inescapable conclusion - that life cannot arise from nonliving matter w/o help from some source of supernatural assistance. Until that issue is addressed, Darwin's theory has no business being taught even in universities.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Matt
Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:21 PM
|
|
|
|
Mr Bardeen: Did you even read Chuck's article, or just react? "Evolution does not cover "the origins of life".
All it covers is the change that has been brought since the origin of life, which is exactly what Intelligent Design is supposed to counter." Incorrect. If it cannot explain the origin of life as ID does, then it has no basis being taught as a scientific theory.
"The whole idea of Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" really is not that strong. It amounts to "If I can't imagine how it could have evolved, it must have been designed."" Incorrect. Irreducible complexity means that science cannot explain how it works when it is broken down to its component parts. That's one of the core problems with evolution.
"We have witnessed (and affected) the evolution of countless species of life on this planet." Incorrect. You are confusing macroevolution (change from one species into another) with microevolution (slight changes within a species). Moths may change color and viruses may mutate, but they are still moths and viruses - they don't become iguanas or antelopes. Macroevolution is not presently observable either in the living world or in the fossil record, and there are no transitory forms to document its ever having taken place - just the opposite in fact.
"There are documented cases of new breeds of dogs being created by Human breeders through selective breeding. How is that different than what happens in nature?" That was done at the behest of intelligent human beings who artificially produced breeding conditions which resulted in these new breeds - much more akin to an Intelligent Design than to an Evolution- and furthermore, the end result in each case was still a dog. What intelligent humans have NOT been able to accomplish, furthermore, is the creation of life from nonliving matter. Curious, no?
"Computer studies as well have backed up the major theories of evolution and shown light on how specific characteristics of life could have evolved, but.. most importantly, they show that evolution works." Incorrect; there are no transitory forms in the fossil record, and much like climate change models, computers only spit out what is fed into them.
"Intelligent Design is not a science. It does not propose any testable hypotheses or give a process that can be replicated." The same can be said of Darwinian macro-evolution - not observable, not testable, not reproducable....and quite frankly, not a science. ID simply looks at the evidence and arrives at an inescapable conclusion - that life cannot arise from nonliving matter w/o help from some source of supernatural assistance. Until that issue is addressed, Darwin's theory has no business being taught even in universities.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Matt
Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:24 PM
|
|
|
|
What's especially unfortunate is that most of the reviews of Stein's movie don't even address his core complaint: That free and open scientific inquiry is being effectively banished from most of this country's institutions of higher learning. That is the real tragedy.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Matt
Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
