ScienceFreedom.org

Faith in Evolution Intervention Program

A shortened version of this was delivered to the Utah Board of Education¹

It is not enough, many Utah educators say, for our students to understand Darwin’s theory, and how Darwin proposes that the diverse kinds of life came to be. These students must have a core belief in what Darwin espoused. Anything less they count as a failure. If a student is not fundamentally convinced that Global Warming is caused by man’s activity, they count it as a loss. This segment of Utah educators seek not only core conviction of these controversial theories, they seek to manipulate society’s direction through their philosophies². The very notion of these educators, that a student must have a fundamental conviction of these or other pet theories of theirs, runs flatly counter to the very foundations of science itself. Science is questioning. Science is observation, and measurement. Science is decided on the evidence, not on the special pleadings of someone’s faith in alleged happenings.

We can demonstrate to a student the principles of gravity. We can demonstrate the Earth is a sphere. We can demonstrate the results of DNA mutations and natural selection. The students can even perform such experiments themselves. But none can observe the lineal parentage of man or any other creature back through fossiliferous rock to some spark of life some said to have appeared 3 billion plus years ago. They cannot observe this alleged spark of life, and in some fashion or another, watch the DNA and structure of its descendants shift and change until over an unfathomable period of time it becomes a man or other creature. These frequently referenced “evidences of evolutionary common ancestry” all rest on assumption and inference. Assumptions and inference are subject to the state of mind of the observer. It is said by various philosophers of science that science conclusions are not driven by the observer’s state of mind. Is science really a way of knowing³ as some Utah professors claim?

Now in our time we do observe and measure genetic degradation and the loss of vitality and function, the opposite of molecules to man evolution - Yet of the 180 structures once listed as vestigial in man by evolutionist’s⁴ said to have had significant even vital function in the past, each has been shown to perform useful and often vital function still today and some multiple functions^{5 6}. Similar findings are coming to light for other creatures as well^{7 8}. Do we observe decay and degeneration? Yes – Do we observe molecules to man evolution, No.

Can evolution be observed through the study of embryos, as is claimed? Though all creatures that have four limbs may also show four limbs developing in embryo, I am assured by researchers in the field of embryology, like John Spicer, that the notion of an organism reliving its evolutionary past during embryo development is not supported by actual data⁹.

Several recent journal articles and presentations clearly show that many of today’s science educators are out for more than mere understanding of science concepts, they want your child's heart and soul commitment to their theories. One professor, an expert on “evolution education,” stated their objective: “To help students accept evolution as a valid scientific theory so that they will directly apply it to their daily decisions”¹⁰ (emphasis in the original). This professor, along with three other professors, authored a paper regarding teaching evolution. In this article they ask the question:

“Is there a relationship between religious commitment (religiosity) and student acceptance of evolution?”¹¹

And the results of their research:

“Our data show that religiosity does affect their initial willingness to accept evolution. We found a negative relationship between overall religiosity and acceptance of evolution. The items used in our measure of religiosity (e.g., frequency of prayer, church attendance, belief in an afterlife, etc.)”¹²

Why do you suppose that this is? Could it be because, as was stated in my child’s Utah biology textbook:

“The theory of evolution ... is in contradiction to the literal interpretation of the Bible. [And] it seems to diminish human significance”¹³ ?

The authors of the above mentioned study go on to state that:

“The challenges can be overcome with purposeful intervention, usually by creating cognitive dissonance for the students. … At BYU, ...we designed a meaningful intervention that led to significant increases in acceptance of evolution.”¹⁴

So “Molecules to Man evolution” appears to be not simply an issue of science consideration – it is an issue that requires special intervention to cajole the BYU biology students into not just an understanding of Darwin’s theory but core belief that evolution is just part of their natural history. So just how successful are they? I understand that they boast a 100% acceptance of the Darwinian theory by some measures.

So what does all of this have to do with what you will be voting on today? The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is put together and promoted by like-minded individuals. This same techniques and insistence of an acceptance of Darwinian evolution and Global Warming is foundational in the whole of the NGSS¹⁵. Insistance of acceptance of these pet theories removes these topics out of the realms of science education and into the space of “science” indoctrination. Further, this excessive pet theory promotion is done at the expense of teaching other important science concepts - concepts in physics, chemistry, even more depth in cell biology¹⁶, etc.

As I sat on the Standards review committee, I being the only one not willing to endorse the NGSS, I suggested that we should encourage teachers via an introductory statement "to premote student inquiry by exploring scientific literature that challenges controversial theories," particularly in subjects like global warming and evolution. There are many such challenges in the scientific liturature. This would open up critical analysis and encourage children to test the scientific theories presented. I was not even able to get this thought completly out of my mouth before the whole room seemed to errupted in opposition to my suggestion of surveying diverse opinions on scientific subjects. What I observed is not science education, it is anti science. It is limiting the breadth of scientific facts available to students so that they may come to a predetermined conclusion. Even the current Utah State Board of Education position statement on evolution states:

The nature of science encourages ongoing and meaningful investigation of all assertions made by science. Scientific conclusions are tested by experiment and observation as all scientific theories are subject to continued evaluation.¹⁷

Are you surprised when I say that those most opposed to what I suggested, those who spoke the most against it, were several BYU profesors?

I urge the Board to stay true to the assurances previously made by key USOE personnel¹⁸ to the parents and students of Utah. That is, that our Utah Board of Education will not adopt national science standards with the baggage that they unquestionably will and have brought into our Utah science classrooms.

Teach All of the Science:

We believe our Utah students should be free to hear the full breadth of scientific evidence. Science teachers should not be shackled to sterilized arguments and filtered scientific facts because the science points to what has become politically unpopular conclusions, perhaps even indications of a creator.