SCHOOLS 
 
Read More Schools Stories
 
Return to
Front Page
 
Are Ultra-Liberals Wrong About Kansas and Evolution?
Secular establishment alarmed by Kansas decision not to require Darwinian theory be taught

Although the ultra-liberals of Massachusetts are ridiculing the state of Kansas for actually increasing the teaching of evolution in their schools, a resident of our state has written a book that clearly shows Kansas was correct in its decision.

Massachusetts News
By Paul Moreno

Sidebar: Inherit the Wind was Distortion

November 1--When Kansas stopped requiring that students know the most controversial theory of evolution for state exams, the Bay State secular establishment became alarmed.

Ellen Goodman wrote in The Boston Globe that Kansas had voted to "dump evolution" off the science curriculum; but, as usual, Goodman was totally wrong.

Kansas actually voted to increase its coverage of evolution, but it does not require teachers to tell students that the Darwinian theory, which asserts that new species can be created from existing ones – called macroevolution – is beyond dispute.

The vote was a protest against placing any scientific theory beyond the reach of criticism.

It caused Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard paleontologist and renowned evolutionist, however, to warn of "the latest episode of a long struggle by religious fundamentalists and their allies to restrict or eliminate the teaching of evolution in public schools – a misguided effort that our courts have quashed at each stage."

New Book Shows Problems with Evolution

A new book by a Massachusetts man has collected many of the arguments that constitute the rising tide against evolution. He says that it is becoming ever more obvious that evolution is simply not plausible, and this is a threat to the "scientific" materialism of our cultural elites.

The book is Tornado In A Junkyard – The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, by James Perloff.

Ellen Goodman wrote about the Kansas vote that "Creationists – set up a false dichotomy – creationism or godless atheism."

"It’s a real dichotomy," Perloff says. "The world was either designed or came about by chance – there’s no other choice."

He told Massachusetts News that if more people realized that secular humanism, which is taught in the public schools, is based on evolutionary theories, there would be more pressure for a creationist alternative.

Perloff’s last book, The Shadows of Power, an expose of private influence in American foreign policy, sold over 90,000 copies, and he hopes this one will do even better. It has already gotten a number of favorable reviews and will be a choice in the Conservative Book Club.

"It could have a tremendous impact if the secular humanists would open their minds," says Evelyn Reilly, president of the Massachusetts Christian Coalition.

Perloff’s book is sure to arouse controversy since evolution is now in a state of fevered self-defense, and because Perloff takes his argument against evolution into a wider one in favor of biblical literalism. Moreover, Perloff was a contributing editor of the New American, the journal of the John Birch Society, which even some conservatives still regard as beyond the pale.

Belief in Evolution Requires ‘Faith’

Perloff’s book is a powerful synthesis of recent work by microbiologists, physicists and other scientists showing that there is no hard evidence for the creation of new species from existing ones, and there is much scientific evidence against it. Books by Michael Denton (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis), Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box) and Philip Johnson (Darwin on Trial) have detailed the gaping holes in evolutionary theory. Perloff shows:

It’s "beyond question" that the fossil record does not support evolution, even though this was where Darwin himself said it would have to be proved, and despite much "monkeying around" with the evidence.

New species have never been shown to result from a genetic mutation. All that we know about genetics indicates that mutations harm, rather than improve, organisms.

Most biological systems exhibit such a "complexity" that nothing short of the fully designed system (like an eye or blood clotting) would ever serve an evolutionary purpose.

It is mathematically impossible for random creation of a single protein, let alone a whole cell. The chances are better, said astronomer Fred Hoyle, that "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

In short, belief in macroevolution requires miracles and faith. And evolutionists have both, as evidenced by this statement from Gould. "Evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science, as strongly as the earth’s revolution around the sun. In this sense we can call evolution a ‘fact,’" he said.

"That’s a completely unsupported assertion," Perloff told Massachusetts News.

The faith in evolution is necessary for those who adhere to materialism, says Philip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial. "This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. It follows that nature has to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included any role for God."

Gould and others claim that science and religion are not at odds because they are exclusive. "Science and religion should be equal, mutually respecting partners, each the master of its own domain, and with each domain vital to human life in a different way," he says.

"What these statements mean is that the realms are separate because science discovers facts and religion indulges in fantasy," Johnson says.

Darwinism Remains on Offense

All that Kansas did was to drop macroevolution from the list of science topics that all students are expected to master. (Microevolution, or adaptation within species, is not controversial.) State laws going back to the 1920s, which prohibit the teaching of evolution, have been struck down as unconstitutional restrictions on freedom of speech, as have more recent laws requiring "equal time" for biblical creationism. Johnson says, "The Kansas action was a protest against enshrining a particular world view as a scientific fact and against making evolution an exception to the usual American tradition that the people have a right to disagree with the experts."

He believes evolution is so widely accepted despite its lack of proof, and despite mountains of evidence against it, because powerful institutions want it to be. Secularists hold the endowed chairs at universities, get funding for PBS documentaries and get sympathetic treatment from the media.

Perloff’s chapter, "Trial by Hollywood," in which he shows the gross distortion of the 1925 Scopes trial in the 1955 movie, Inherit the Wind, indicates the great evolution propaganda machine. The film was such a shocking hatchet job on biblical Christians that even the very liberal New Yorker magazine condemned it.
 

Inherit the Wind was Distortion
If most people know anything about the 1925 Scopes trial, in which Tennessee’s law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was challenged, it probably comes from the 1955 movie, Inherit the Wind.

Perloff shows that this film was among the grossest distortions of reality in the history of Hollywood, with the facts shamelessly rearranged to make biblical Christians appear hateful and ignorant.

Perloff shows:

• Though the movie shows a town ready to lynch John Scopes while in jail, in fact, they gave him a seat of honor next to William Jennings Bryan at a banquet held for the latter.

• John Scopes never spent a second in jail. Violating the Tennessee law was not an imprisonable offense; it was punishable only by a fine, which Scopes never had to pay.

• While the film shows a jury returning a "guilty" verdict, in fact, John Scopes’ lawyer, Clarence Darrow, changed Scopes’ plea to guilty on the last day of the trial — to avoid giving Bryan an opportunity to make a closing statement, which Darrow knew would be excellent.

The authors of the movie ignored many contemptuous remarks made by Darrow, including one in which he referred to Christianity as "your fool religion."

Darrow is made to appear compassionate when he chides a journalist who mockingly said that Bryan "died of a busted belly" in the middle of his hysterical closing statement. In fact, it was Darrow who made that comment. (The journalist, H. L. Mencken, reportedly boasted, "We killed the son-of-a-bitch.")

The movie was so egregious that Time magazine said, "The script wildly and unjustly caricatures the fundamentalists as vicious and narrow-minded hypocrites, just as wildly and unjustly as it idealizes their opponents, as personified by Darrow.

Even the extremely liberal New Yorker agreed. "History has not been increased but almost fatally diminished."


Biblical Creationism

Some sympathetic critics say it would have been better for Perloff to proceed cautiously beyond his argument against evolution, but he makes wider claims that the secular establishment is sure to turn against him.

"Creationists miss the boat by focusing on biblical creation, instead of getting people to think critically about evolution," Samuel Blumenfeld, of Waltham and author of Home Schooling: A Parents Guide to Teaching Children, told Massachusetts News.

Disproving evolution on scientific grounds is one thing, but proving the biblical story of creation by science is another. The evidence for theories such as that there was a canopy of water vapor surrounding the earth from creation until the flood, which explains why humans lived for hundreds of years, is scant. Perloff is also too quick to dismiss "theistic evolution"– the theory that evolution is God’s method.

Science is finally reaching the point of seeing its own limitations, that life is beyond any material explanation. But the destruction of evolution need not lead us to trash all science. The astrophysicists and microbiologists have not been as militant as the evolutionary biologists – indeed, they have provided the scientific disproof of evolution that Perloff uses.

"What Christians ought to be telling people is that we don’t want to ban Darwinism," says Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship. "We don’t want less taught in the classroom, we want more taught.

"Of course students should know the basics of evolutionary theory, and all the evidence cited in its favor. But they should also learn the evidence against evolution, the problems and anomalies," he says.

Blumenfeld agrees. "Educators should always try to get students to think critically," he told Massachusetts News. "And once they see all the design in nature, they’ll naturally start to inquire about the designer."
 
RETURN TO FRONT PAGE