Bogus defenses of Evolution Sunday and Clergy Letter Project
. . . .he says that I created Evolution Sunday in response to the following policy adopted by the school board of Grantsburg, Wisc.: “Students are expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information. Students shall be able to explain the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. This policy does not call for the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent Design.”
Wells goes on to say that “Zimmerman called the policy a decision 'to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance.'”
The fact of the matter is that the policy quoted above was what the Grantsburg, Wis., school board adopted after many of us attacked their original policy and brought worldwide attention to their creationist agenda. Those of us who fought the school board declared victory after their creationist policy was jettisoned and this new one was adopted.
Well, why didn't the Darwinists also "declare victory" when the state boards of education of Kansas and Ohio adopted "critical analysis of evolution" policies that were similar to the Grantsburg's school board's policy above? Instead the Darwinists adamantly opposed those Kansas and Ohio policies.
It is true that intelligent design may come up in discussions of the strengths and weaknesses of evolution theory in science classes, but both the Ohio and Kansas education plans for including a critical analysis of evolution theory stated expressly that there was no specific purpose to teach intelligent design.
He also completely misses the point of Evolution Sunday. He asserts that “it is not evolution in general, but Darwin’s particular theory (Darwinism) that Evolution Sunday celebrates.” The term “Darwinism” has never appeared on any material associated with Evolution Sunday. Indeed, “Darwinism” is a term that is almost exclusively used by creationists to attack evolution.
The Wikipedia article on "Darwinism" says that Europeans in particular do not use the term in a derogatory sense.
. . . .the purposes of Evolution Sunday have been absolutely clear from the outset. The event is designed to provide an opportunity for congregations around the world to discuss the compatibility of religion and science, to investigate why religion and modern science need not be at war with one another. . . . . . one of the purposes of Evolution Sunday is to bring attention to the Clergy Letter, a letter signed by more than 10,500 Christian clergy members. This letter makes it clear that thousands upon thousands of Christian clergy members have no problem embracing their faith as well as evolution.
The Clergy Letter does not just call for open-mindedness towards evolution theory but advocates evolution theory, calling it "a foundational scientific truth" and saying that "[t]o reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children" :
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
Labels: Evolution controversy (1 of 4)