Eugenie Scott: No Weaknesses In The Evolutionary Paradigm

Testifying before the Texas School Board of Education, Engenie Scott head of the special interest group says there are no weaknesses in evolution. First time ever a scientific theory has been proclaimed such status since Newton’s Law of Physics.

Conflicting data has often arises in the theory of evolution. For instance, evolutionists say the fossil record depicts one story while on other hand biological molecules tell a different story, as a result, it has lead to the dismantling of the Darwin Tree for some Darwinists who are looking for alternatives in the structure of evolution.  This is most certainly a weakness in evolution (fossils saying one thing, and biological molecules saying another) which ought to be taught to school children who attend public schools.

What is generally the response to such conflicting data with evolution? To them, it’s not the issue of what is not explainable, but rather it’s the progress of science which is currently unable to explain it at this time but eventually will be able to explain the conflicting data with evolution. On the other hand, creationists are more concerned about substance, because true science will always confirm God’s Word.

Although I believe advocating no weaknesses in a scientific theory known as evolution (or any other scientific theory) which has to explain an array and diverse complexities of nature is certainly misleading the public and certainly not teaching children all sides in the realm of science. It’s more like indoctrination of science (remains dogma until replaced) rather than just teaching science or in this case, evolution.

So why are defenders of evolution like Engenie Scott so against in wanting the as-yet unexplained problems being taught in the public schools? Are they fearful, the evolutionary theory wouldn’t hold up in the minds of children? The answer is, most likely “yes” because creationism according to the courts is not allowed in public schools so there is no real present threat of creationism to be afraid of replacing evolution or being taught alongside evolution. Even if creationism was scientific in their minds, it still could not be taught, because “it’s religion” the likes of Engenie Scott would say.

But some teachers also say they do teach “weaknesses” in evolution alongside the strengths. Sure there might teachers out there who select a few particulars what I call “safe” items which are controversial (a term they like to use instead of weakness) in evolution which some might mention in passing with approval of others but over all as-yet explained problems in evolutionary theory alludes practical and balanced teaching in the public schools.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Eugenie Scott: No Weaknesses In The Evolutionary Paradigm

  1. Michael: “because creationism according to the courts is not allowed in public schools ”

    That is *not* true: it is not allowed in the science class (because it is not science), but it is allowed in religion class.

    And of course any theory has weaknesses, whatever one person says. Kelvin has said nonsense about physics being almost ‘done’ too, a long time ago. So what ? Why do you care what one person says ? Think for yourself !!

    But the weaknesses of evolution are minor, and fairly technical. Sure, try and explain that in high school. You’ll get blank stares. But it is OK to teach that scientific theories are not perfect, that is true for any of them, including evolution.

    But evolution is also an observed fact, just like gravity is an observed fact. Both have an theory with the same name trying to explain these observed facts. And those facts do not have weaknesses: they are simply facts. If you dispute the observations, than go ahead. Most people don’t, as it is pretty obvious what the facts are. The interpretation is a little harder sometimes, but it helps that new observations come in all the time.

  2. “So why are defenders of evolution like Engenie Scott so against in wanting the as-yet unexplained problems being taught in the public schools?”

    She’s against teaching “as yet unexplained problems” as “weaknesses.” These are two different things. Consider your own example:

    “For instance, evolutionists say the fossil record depicts one story while on other hand biological molecules tell a different story…. This is most certainly a weakness in evolution (fossils saying one thing, and biological molecules saying another) which ought to be taught to school children who attend public schools.”

    The “different story” is different only in minor details. The correspondences far, far outweigh the differences. The genetic evidence is in fact a stunning confirmation of the fossil record. Why do you think this is a weakness?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s