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.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.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.
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.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.
Special Relativity is an explanation of mechanics that differs from Newton's view.
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.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.
Heliocentrism is an explanation of celestial motion that differ from Ptolemy's view.
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.