US school's new challenge to Darwin

A school in Pennsylvania is coming under fire from scientists because it dares to contradict the modern consensus. "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators," is Richard Dawkins' dictum. If you don't think it's snappy enough, how about my own offering (I hope that this represents the viewpoint fairly): "Life arises spontaneously, develops randomly and survives." This school is breaking the mould.

The school in question has demanded that teachers read to its pupils a statement which I reproduce below.

Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.

Well, I could critique the statement for a few accuracy slips -- and clearly, it misses the point that in science, there are theories and there are theories. But the point it's making is quite clear. Darwin's theory of evolution is something which unifies a lot of evidence into one explanation -- but it doesn't unify everything. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the same facts, yet is radically different.

Let's try this statement with a few different parameters (my examples will be from Physics) and see whether it makes more or less sense.

Because Newton's laws of motion are a theory, they continue to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Laws are not a fact. Gaps in the Laws exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Special Relativity is an explanation of mechanics that differs from Newton's view.

This is eminently sensible. Newton's laws of motion are indeed different from the laws of motion as predicted by Special Relativity, although they are recovered as approximations of Einstein's equations for low velocities. Of course, Special Relativity (and its big brother, General Relativity) continue to be tested and found accurate.

How about this one?

Because Ptolemy's astronomy is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The epicycles are not a fact. Gaps in the epicycles exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Heliocentrism is an explanation of celestial motion that differ from Ptolemy's view.

Fairer? Even this is double-edged, afer all. Ptolemy's view worked perfectly adequately for a few centuries. But Copernicus' view wasn't perfect either. If memory serves, Copernicus worked thinking that orbits were circular. For reasons I don't profess to understand, orbits are in fact slightly elliptical. And in this instance, Ptolemy's theory was just plain wrong. It's not even a low-velocity limit, or any such similar. It is simply wrong.

In short, science has been full of theories which seemed eminently reasonable for decades, even centuries -- theories which worked, but theories which were either not quite all there, or even just plain wrong. Why do evolutionists hold so tightly to their own particular theory? And why do they think they have the history of science on their side?

So, schools are being required to inculcate their charges in the evolutionary view, without any form of debate or dissent, without anything remotely suggesting that an alternative viewpoint may be possible -- and conversely, without any decent supporting evidence. Richard Dawkins once commented, "child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns." I think that applies to evolutionists, too. Three cheers for Dover Area High and its insistence that evolution be taught in the context of the wider debate.

Read the full BBC article here.

Eternal Light! eternal Light!

Eternal Light! eternal Light!
How pure the soul must be
When, placed within Thy searching sight,
It shrinks not, but with calm delight
Can live, and look on Thee!

The spirits that surround Thy throne
May bear the burning bliss;
But that is surely theirs alone,
Since they have never, never known
A fallen world like this.

O how shall I, whose native sphere
Is dark, whose mind is dim,
Before the Ineffable appear,
And on my naked spirit bear
That uncreated beam?

There is a way for man to rise
To that sublime abode:
An offering and a sacrifice,
A Holy Spirit's energies,
An Advocate with God.

These, these prepare us for the sight
Of holiness above;
The sons of ignorance and night,
May dwell in the eternal Light,
Through the eternal Love.
(Thomas Binney, 1798-1894)

It's been a little while sinc I last posted, well, anything here; that's entirely due to the fact that life has become intensely hectic over the past couple of weeks. However, I fully expect things to calm down a little over the next week.

In view of this, I'm posting a hymn which we sang this evening, a hymn which takes us to the throne of God. An odd choice, some may think. But yet it is thoroughly necessary. When things are hectic, I need space -- we all do. I need time in solitude, time to reflect, time to pray. But why can I do all of this?

There is a way for man to rise To that sublime abode, and the way is through Jesus Christ and his finished work. Recently, I've heard a fair number of sermons on what to do when things get too much. With the greatest respect in the world to the source/s of those sermons, lots of the time they end up repeating the same old platitudes -- take it all to God, we are told. Look to Jesus, we hear. And yes, we should pray about things and focus on Jesus. But is that really all we should do?

Binney's hymn takes me to God and reminds me that although I don't deserve to be allowed into his palace, yet by his Son's death I may bow at the throne itself. And that, I think, is where I find true rest. Taking not my problems, but my person to God, and looking at Jesus, not just to look at him, but because he is the Author and Perfecter of my faith.