Here is one of Colson's Breakpoint article, about the Darwinists
attempts to suppress as `religious' books critical of their own
`religion'.
Perhaps the key paragraph is:
"People like Scott know there's a serious scientific
case to be made against Darwin, so why do they keep
pushing the religion button? The answer is that they
are worried: Thanks to just these arguments, the
monopoly that Darwinism has held in public schools is
disintegrating."
Steve
==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE==================
To subscribe to this list,
http://www.breakpoint.org/transcripts.taf
BreakPoint Commentary #91122 - 11/22/1999
Darwin's Desperate Disciples: The Detroit Library Controversy
by Charles Colson
As everyone knows, the purpose of any good library is
to broaden our horizons--offering information from
many different perspectives. But not long ago a
school district created controversy when it did just
that: when it voted to include in school libraries
books offering a critical perspective of Darwinian
evolution.
It all began when the Melvindale-Northern Allen Park
School Board in Detroit voted to place books critical
of Darwinian evolution in its school libraries. You
might have thought that scientists, of all people,
would welcome rigorous inquiry into controversial
subjects. But instead, Darwin's defenders went
ballistic.
The National Center for Science Education, an
evolutionist watchdog group, immediately issued an
Internet alert urging members to send letters to the
"Detroit News" condemning the board. Director Eugenie
Scott told the press the books selected for
school libraries were "bad science," that they were
"frankly religious," and that some were even "a joke."
But all this was sheer bluster. Scott knows that
among the 19 titles were books authored by Michael
Behe, Michael Denton, and Dean Kenyon--all well-
respected, tenured biology professors at secular
universities. The case these professors make against
Darwinism is not religious but scientific. It's based
on things like the "gaps" in the fossil record, the
pervasive pattern of sudden appearance of new life
forms followed by long periods of no change which
contradicts completely the theory of evolutionary
change. The case is based on the irreducible
complexity of living things--which suggests they could
not arise by any gradual, piecemeal process. Like a
watch or a mousetrap, many living things consist of
pieces that have to be assembled from the outset or
they won't work at all.
People like Scott know there's a serious scientific
case to be made against Darwin, so why do they keep
pushing the religion button? The answer is that they
are worried: Thanks to just these arguments, the
monopoly that Darwinism has held in public schools is
disintegrating. In response, defenders of Darwinism
are seeking to construct a united front for the
public, denouncing all criticisms of Darwinism as
anti-scientific.
Yet, enforcing a single perspective in the science
classroom is ITSELF anti-scientific. The very point
of scientific inquiry is not to protect
pet theories from criticism, but to get at the truth.
As biologist Jonathan Wells asks, "Should [students]
be permitted to think for themselves, or should they
be indoctrinated by one party in the controversy while
all other views are officially banned?"
I'm happy to report that reason finally prevailed over
anti-science hysteria in Detroit. Books offering
scientific criticisms of Darwinism can now be found on
the shelves of school libraries.
Why not donate a good science text to your own public
school library, like "Of Pandas and People"? It
provides students with the facts that Darwinists
are trying to suppress. It outlines the
case for intelligent design, which is proving the most
serious challenge to macroevolution since Darwin
published his theory more than a century ago.
Of course, if you do bring in a book like this, the
Darwinist book-banners won't like it. You might even
spark a controversy. But it would be a genuinely
scientific thing to do.
Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries
"BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" ("BreakPoint") is a
daily commentary on news and trends from a Christian
perspective. Heard on more than 425 radio stations
nationwide, BreakPoint transcripts are also available
on the Internet. If you know of others who would
enjoy receiving BreakPoint in their E-mail box each
day, tell them they can sign up on our Web site at
www.breakpoint.org. If they do not have access to
the World Wide Web, please call 1-800-457-6125.
BREAKPOINT EDITORIAL STAFF
Executive Editor: Nancy R. Pearcey
Managing Editor: Anne Morse
Associate Editor: Roberto Rivera
Research Associate: Kim Robbins
Research Associate-Assistant Editor: Douglas C. Minson
Production Manager: Lori Whaley
Administrator: David Carlson
List Maintainer: Larry Wilson
Customer Service: Dennis Rayburn
Website Content Manager: John Shaw
Copyright notice: BreakPoint may be copied and re-
transmitted by electronic mail, and individual copies
of a particular BreakPoint E-mail transcript may be
printed, provided that such copying, re-transmission,
printing, or other use is not for profit or other
commercial purpose. However, BreakPoint may NOT be
reproduced in any form on the World Wide Web or in
broadcast media, print media or other media without
express written permission. Prison Fellowship
Ministries considers requests to reprint, transmit,
or otherwise reproduce BreakPoint (or portions
thereof) in broadcast, print, or other media on a
case-by-case basis; please contact Prison Fellowship
Ministries at 1-800-457-6125 to submit a request.
Any copying, re-transmission, distribution, printing,
or other use of BreakPoint must set forth the
following credit line, in full, at the conclusion of
the portion of BreakPoint that is used:
Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted
with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio
ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
Prison Fellowship Ministries(R) may withdraw or modify this
grant of permission at any time.
[...]
===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE===================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Was it an accident that Darwin's conclusion meant just what every reader
wanted it to mean? I think not. Darwin used the same ambiguity in his
private letters. Darwinism, therefore, began as a theory that evolution
could be explained by natural selection. It ended as a theory that evolution
could be explained just as you would like it to be explained." (Darlington
C.D., "The Origin of Darwinism", Scientific American, Vol. 201, May
1959, p60)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------