Swiss drag knuckles accepting evolution, etc

Swiss drag knuckles accepting evolution, SwissInfo, October 9, 2006 ...

[Graphic: Pyrrhus of Epirus (see below), University of Texas]

One in three Swiss thinks it is "definitely false" that humans developed from earlier species of animals, according to an international survey on evolution. How seriously should we take the news that only Austria is less enlightened among "old" European countries? Is it simply a reflection of Switzerland's religious history and dislike of change -or a serious failure of the education system? ... This reminds me of Bill Dembski's point about Darwinists' "presumption ... that the failure of Darwinism to be accepted is a failure of education" because "It seems ridiculous to convinced Darwinists that the fault might lie with their theory and that the public might be picking up on faults inherent in" it!:

"Gallup polls consistently indicate that only about ten percent of the U.S. population accepts the sort of evolution advocated by Dawkins, Ruse, and Shermer, that is, evolution in which the driving force is the Darwinian selection mechanism. The rest of the population is committed to some form of intelligent design. .... Why has the biological community failed to convince the public that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution and that evolution so conceived (i.e., Darwinian evolution) can successfully account for the full diversity of life? This question is worth pondering since in most other areas of science the public readily signs off on the considered judgments of the scientific community. Why not here? ... I submit that the real reason the public continues to resist Darwinian evolution is because the Darwinian mechanism of chance variation and natural selection seems inadequate to account for the full diversity of life. One frequently gets the sense from reading publications by the National Academy of Science, the National Center for Science Education, and the National Association of Biology Teachers that the failure of the public to accept Darwinian evolution is a failure in education. If only people could be made to understand Darwin's theory properly, so we are told, they would readily sign off on it. This presumption -- that the failure of Darwinism to be accepted is a failure of education .... For what else could be preventing Darwinism's immediate and cheerful acceptance except religious prejudice? It seems ridiculous to convinced Darwinists that the fault might lie with their theory and that the public might be picking up on faults inherent in their theory. And yet that is exactly what is happening." (Dembski, W.A., "Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame," Metanexus Institute, March 16, 2000).

State education board drops evolution debate, The Columbus Dispatch, October 11, 2006 ... Eight months after scrapping curriculum guidelines that critics feared would open the schoolhouse door to creationism, the [Ohio] State Board of Education yesterday pulled the plug on its seemingly incessant debate over Darwin's theory of evolution. The board voted 14-3 to "discharge" a subcommittee that had been keeping the issue alive. Martha Wise, a board member from Avon, said she pushed to end the discussion because the issue had become a lightning rod for debate and had long overshadowed the work of the board. ... Michael Cochran, co-chairman of the subcommittee and Franklin County's representative on the board, vowed to keep the issue alive. ... Joining Cochran to vote against Wise's motion were board President Sue Westendorf, of Bowling Green, and Emerson Ross, of Toledo. Board member Deborah Owens Fink, of Richfield, who like Cochran has long argued that critics are wrong to assume that "critical analysis" of evolution was a thinly veiled effort to inject religion into the classroom, left the board meeting before yesterday's vote. In February, the board voted 11-4 to eliminate portions of curriculum guidelines for 10 th-grade biology and an accompanying lesson plan that called for critical analysis of evolution. The move came after a federal judge ruled that a similar curriculum used in a Pennsylvania school district was unconstitutional. ... One would think that if "Darwin's theory of evolution" had nothing to fear from "critcal analysis," that its proponents would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of their theory over its competitors.

Darwinists may think they have won another victory, but it is another Pyrrhic victory , i.e. "a victory which comes at devastating cost to the victor" after "King Pyrrhus of Epirus [see above], who during the Pyrrhic War defeated the Romans ... in 279 BC, but suffered severe and irreplaceable casualties in the process."

That is, the public and students (who are the next generation of the public, including its scientists) will draw the conclusion that evolution is a hot-house plant

[Graphic: Hothouse plants, Wikipedia]

which needs to be artificially protected from its surrounding environment to survive!

Schools must teach evolution, Detroit Free Press, Lori Higgins, October 11, 2006 ... LANSING -- New high school science curriculum guidelines approved Tuesday by the [Michigan] State Board of Education make clear which concept won the debate between evolution and intelligent design. Teachers should teach evolution in science class, the board said unanimously. It did not endorse intelligent design, though teachers can still discuss it in class. ... The board also removed ambiguous language that could lead some to question the validity of evolution. The eight-member board sets expectations for what teachers should teach, but it's up to local schools and educators to implement the recommendations, and it's conceivable a teacher could decide to teach intelligent design anyway, as long as the course expectations are met. ... Another State and another `win the battle but lose the war' victory for the Darwinist establishment. It is not hard to win "the debate between evolution and intelligent design" when the full power of the State, enforced by legal sanctions, is protecting "evolution", and "intelligent design" is not allowed freely to present its case: 1) positively evidence and arguments for design in nature; and 2) negatively present evidence and arguments against those theories (e.g. Darwinism) and philosophies (e.g. Atheism, Materialism, Naturalism) which deny the reality of design in nature.

However, having said the above, I should again point out that the ID movement's position (which I agree with) put by ID theorist Steve Meyer to the Ohio State Board of Education (coincidentally), is against requiring "students to know the scientific evidence and arguments for the theory of intelligent design," but instead "Teachers should teach students about the main scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory" and "permit, but not require, teachers to tell students about the arguments of scientists, like Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who advocate the competing theory of intelligent design" (my emphasis):

"When two groups of experts disagree about a controversial subject that intersects the public school curriculum students should learn about both perspectives. ... teachers should describe competing views to students and explain the arguments for and against these views as made by their chief proponents. Educators call this `teaching the controversy.' Recently, while speaking to the Ohio State Board of Education, I suggested this approach as a way forward for Ohio in its increasingly contentious dispute about how to teach theories of biological origin, and about whether or not to introduce the theory of intelligent design alongside Darwinism in the Ohio biology curriculum. I also proposed a compromise involving three main provisions: (1) First, I suggested--speaking as an advocate of the theory of intelligent design--that Ohio not require students to know the scientific evidence and arguments for the theory of intelligent design, at least not yet. (2) Instead, I proposed that Ohio teachers teach the scientific controversy about Darwinian evolution. Teachers should teach students about the main scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory. And Ohio should test students for their understanding of those arguments, not for their assent to a point of view. (3) Finally, I argued that the state board should permit, but not require, teachers to tell students about the arguments of scientists, like Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who advocate the competing theory of intelligent design." (Meyer, S.C., "Teach the Controversy," Cincinnati Enquirer, March 30, 2002. Discovery Institute-Center for Science and Culture: Seattle WA).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
Genesis 5:28-32. ²⁸When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. ²⁹ He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed." ³⁰After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. ³¹Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died. ³²After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.