In Sundayâ€™s article â€œCreationism Bias Seen in Standardsâ€, Rob Boston says that those who advocate changing science teaching standards are making â€œa backdoor effort to let creationism be taught in the schoolsâ€ and that â€œin the mainstream science community, there is no debateâ€ regarding the truth of Darwinism.â€ The question is not whether Mr. Bostonâ€™s words are true; they are demonstrably false. The only question is whether he makes these out of blatant ignorance or intentional misrepresentation. Andrew Petto would have us believe that it is only â€œsectariansâ€ who doubt evolutionary orthodoxy, and that those who donâ€™t bow the knee to Darwin â€œdonâ€™t do science workâ€. I hope he knows better than this, for he too is surely wrong.
Why these people make these outlandish statements when they can be so easily disproven is beyond me. I would point them to the work of Michael Behe, molecular biologist (that would be science, wouldnâ€™t it, Mr. Petto?) at Lehigh University, whose Darwinâ€™s Black Box exposes Darwinâ€™s theory as implausible from the standpoint of the biology of cells. Those few who have attempted to refute Behe have either resorted to ad hominem attacks (a la Petto), to wildly imaginative (read: hilarious!) expostulations, or to responses that excel only in missing the point entirely. Read the book with an open mind, and I dare you to hold to evolutionary orthodoxy! Oh, and by the way, Behe is categorically not a â€œcreationistâ€ as defined by the newspaper article.
Lynn Margulis, professor of biology at UMass and herself no creationist, says that history will judge neo-Darwinism as â€œa minor twentieth-century religious sectâ€; in her public talks, she challenges molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by Darwinian methods. The silence is deafening.
These two scientists are representative of a growing number who are unwilling to quail before the decomposing remains of Darwinian explanations. Letâ€™s teach Darwinism in our public schools–whatever evidence can be mustered for it–along with the evidence which devastates the hypothesis, and then letâ€™s let bright students who have weighed all the evidence reach their own conclusions. We who reject Darwinism are not at all afraid of the whole truth coming out–can the same be said of the Darwinist establishment?