I just read and responded to a
New York Times article about Florida teacher David Campbell who helped devise the new state standard specifically requiring Evolution to be taught in public schools. I found the article to be well written and Mr. Campbell well presented. I am sure he is proud of it. I, however, was ashamed. The science presented and the conclusions advanced are shoddy at best. Please read this for yourself.
Here is my response, which was also posted on the Times site:
As a scientist and former educator, I am amazed at the number of those responding who have no clue what a "theory" is (the concept is presented, after all, at the middle school level) or who understand it fully (presumed based on their descriptions of themselves and their work) yet misuse the term, perhaps for the sake of argument.
So, we have two camps, both including noted and worthy scientists, both also including those who in defending their position, present it as "fact."
Is the theory of Evolution indeed a "theory?" Much of the claimed scientific investigation has revolved around Natural Selection which is readily observable even to the untrained. There can be little doubt that Natural Selection has been ongoing from the very moment life began. Individuals best suited to their environment will tend to survive longer and have more opportunities to reproduce, so changes in genetic code due to random accidents or any other cause can lead to changes
within the species.
But it is a giant and unattained leap from Natural Selection
within a species to claims that this process leads to the creation of a
new species. There is not one valid study which properly supports the creation of a new species through Natural Selection or any other means.
The Evolutionary camp has traditionally defended their "theory" with such fervor that they pull dishonorable stunts such as false claims based on "doctored" pictorial evidence. Shame on Campbell for using Mickey Mouse as a pro-Evolution prop. His changed mouse is still a mouse and is thus nothing more than an example of Natural Selection WITHIN species.
It is dishonorable and shoddy to hide behind the lab coat of scientific respectability to further a cause for which there is no viable evidence. None! I would feel far more comfortable if we were asked to accept the so-called "Theory of Evolution" on faith.
Creationists point to the Biblical reporting in Genesis and, allowing for wider interpretation among believers, accept by faith the the origin of species, life and indeed all matter as factual and therefore in no need of scientific proof.
No one has seen a new species evolve from a different one. No one saw God's creative activity past or present. From a purely scientific point of view, either of these stands must be accepted by faith alone... well, not quite.
The study of statistical probabilities is a science and can help us out in this situation. Referring back to the first spark of LIFE in all its amazing complexity, which do you feel would prove most probable.
Is it more probable that, by any means of randomness and without intelligent influence of any kind, the proper components of even the simplest speck of living, reproducing matter would somehow come together under the perfect conditions and LIFE would accidentally happen? And survive to reproduce itself?
(Think of taking all the parts of a fine, Swiss watch and dropping them in a bag which would be shaken until all the parts reunited properly and the watch rebuilt itself.)
Or is it more statistically probable that the complexity and perfection of the many systems we observe were designed and created by a being of infinite knowledge and power?
(Think of the bodily systems, circulatory, reproductive, etc; the weather and water cycles; the solar system; indeed the universe... all are amazingly interrelated and interdependent.)
So, it isn't just species we are talking about here. The entire conflict must be applied universally. Is all we observe the result of millions of cosmic to microscopic accidents? Or is God who He says He is? Before you look around in wonder at the splendor of creation and decide there is no God behind it is all, consider that this is no casual question. Your entire future depends on where your opinion falls.
Throughout history, the most brilliant men and women of science were also believers in the creator God of the Bible. It is also true that none of them tried to apply scientific investigation inappropriately as has been done with the so-called Theory of Evolution."
Note added 7:28 PM: I just checked their web site and see that The New York Times has pulled my comment. It was up at least within minutes of my submitting it. Upon reading through the 250+ posts, I note they kept very few that disagreed in any way with the stance of the article. I am truly disappointed with the Times.