The Evolution Half-Debate
In this week's World Magazine, Timothy Lamer takes a look at the situation in Kansas, where the state board of education recently conducted three days of testimony about whether the schools there should teach both the scientific evidence for and against evolution. Except there was one problem: . . . One side didn't show up, as Lamer reports:
The Darwinist side refused to debate but it did station a lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, to question [Intelligent Design] witnesses, and during their answers he occasionally sighed and shook his head, a lá Al Gore in the 2000 presidential debates.
Lost in the propaganda and facial expressions is just how modest the proposed revisions are. For all the comparisons to the Scopes trial, the roles in that trial have been reversed 80 years later. Today, it's the critics of Darwinism who want to introduce what they see as important scientific evidence into science classrooms and it's the Darwinists who are fighting to keep out what they see as heresy.
And yet, the revisions would not require the teaching of ID, which is fine with ID advocates who admit that their theory is too new to be the focus of classroom instruction. The revisions would merely have teachers teach Darwinism and the scientific evidence that supports it, but not treat Darwinism as revealed religion that must not be questioned.
A reading of the revisions turns up no mention of God, no mention of a young Earth, no mention of the Bible. What they do call for is more information in classrooms—a requirement that science teachers present both the scientific evidence for Darwinism and the scientific evidence against it.
If this proposal is merely asking for a fair debate and discussion of the evidence for and against evolution, and the Darwinists are so confident in their "theory," what are they afraid of?