I am always fascinated how proponents of certain viewpoints will do just about anything to prevent opposing viewpoints from being heard. Why is that? I think the answer is clear. It’s because their viewpoint is weak, and the logic of an opposing viewpoint will expose its weaknesses and cause people to doubt its veracity.
Case in point: the theory of evolution. All kinds of pro-evolution groups will do anything to prevent alternative viewpoints from being taught in the schools. Some have even opposed the teaching that evolution is a theory – even though that’s exactly what it is. Below is an article along those lines:
TALLAHASSEE - It’s not about letting religion creep into science classrooms, Sen. Ronda Storms insisted. It’s about protecting the rights of students and teachers who don’t agree with the science behind Darwinian evolution, the Republican from Valrico argued before the Senate’s pre-k through 12 education committee voted 4-1 Wednesday to approve the bill. Despite her argument, religion kept coming up anyway, as Storms pressed for her “academic freedom” act. Her bill would allow public school teachers to present science-based alternatives to Darwin’s theory of evolution, a theory written into Florida’s curriculum standards and one that is held as a fundamental concept of biology by most members of the science community. Although professors spoke in opposition to the bill and a representative from the American Civil Liberties Union said it would open the door to teaching creationism, the committee voted to move the bill forward. “Evolution will still be taught as a matter of law. This bill does not undo the current standard,” Storms said. She added, “It’s interesting for me to note that the only folks who brought up religion today have been those in opposition.” A debate about evolution has been swirling in the Capitol since last month, when the state Board of Education adopted the state’s new science standards, which mandated teaching evolution. Activists persuaded the board to qualify evolution as a “theory,” but the board did not write in any special provision for teaching alternative beliefs. (from The Media Roundup, an e-newsletter © The Interfaith Alliance Foundation; 4/1/08)
My point is that if Darwinism is true and provable by the scientific evidence, then what are they afraid of? Why not allow alternative scientific theories to be presented, especially since evolution is still a theory, not a Law of Nature? The reason is that Darwinism is unproven, the fossil record is very incomplete, and no transitional species have been found. Adaptation within a species is clearly observable, but evolution from one species into another isn’t. Their argument that we see evolution at work in microbes is false. Yes, viruses mutate, but that isn’t the same as higher-level species evolving into another species, such as a land-based animal evolving into a dolphin. The dolphin was clearly designed for an aquatic-based environment. What would a transitional animal have looked like? A fish with legs? Such a transitional creature probably couldn’t have survived because it was “neither fish nor fowl.”
More on suppression of alternative views in a future post.