New Times: ‘There is no other side to evolution’

A local free weekly paper called New Times ran an article in its May 1 – May 7, 2015 edition about a science teacher (Brandon Pettenger) at Arroyo Grande High School who received complaints that he was teaching creationism. The article reported that people who seemingly have studied into evolution less than the science teacher, disciplined him for having the courage to attempt to point out some of the scientific flaws of evolution. Then others who also seem to have studied the subject less scientifically than the science teacher condemned him as well.

The New Times followed up that printed article with the following, which I found online:

There’s no other side to evolution

Atheists United San Luis Obispo applauds the Lucia Mar Unified School District for pledging to ensure that their teachers understand that creationism and intelligent design are not allowed in science classes. We would like to explain why this policy is just as much in the interest of the religious as the non-religious.

After learning that their son was allegedly being taught creationism in science class, the parents of an Arroyo Grande High School student wrote an email to the teacher, asking him to stop. The teacher responded by saying: “I feel it would be a disservice to my students not to present both sides of the argument.” This prompted letters from Atheists United San Luis Obispo and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which got administrators to take notice.

In explaining the teacher’s actions, Assistant Superintendent Tom Fiorentino told the media: “It was the right intent; it was the wrong action,” and, “based on my investigation, it was just a way to motivate those 11th-graders into discussion.” The Tribune also weighed in, stating “Sorry, but there is no dispensation for teachers who feel it’s their duty [to] present both sides of the debate. … Teaching religious dogma in science class is prohibited—period.”

We very much appreciate the support and swift actions of our community to get creationism out of science classes, but we also feel compelled to point out that the justifications for doing so hint of the insidious misconception that there is a scientific controversy about evolution. There is not, and perpetuating this myth only undermines our children’s understanding of the scientific method.

The overwhelming majority of the scientific community endorses evolution and rejects creationism and its dressed-up child, intelligent design (ID). A 2015 Pew Research Center poll puts this number at 98 percent. Our federal courts came to the same conclusion in 2005. In the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover, the Discovery Institute, supporting intelligent design (ID), and the National Center for Science Education, supporting evolution, brought out their best experts for an exhaustive evaluation of the evidence. This is what the judge, John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, concluded:

“Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science,” and, “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” http://www.newtimesslo.com/commentary/12324/the-debate-evolution-vs-creationism/

So according to the above, science is partially defined as to whether certain groups hold to a view.

That is not science. The view “There’s no other side to evolution” is not only improper censorship, it is scientifically flawed.

None of the then so-called ‘scientific groups’ of the 15th century thought the world was round. Group-think is not science nor should it be portrayed as such.

Furthermore, the acceptance of ‘evolution’ as the only scientific explanation of how life began is absurd. It is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE.

Science is supposed to be about observation and documentation of facts that are true. There is absolutely no science to demonstrate that life spontaneously began and then quickly evolved.

Getting back to New Times, it did also put a rebuttal article online that pointed out a few things:

I am writing in response to a letter from the Freedom From Religious Foundation (FFRF) and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS). The letter was written at the behest of Atheists United SLO and the family of a student at Arroyo Grande High School (AGHS). It was addressed to Jim Hogeboom, superintendent of the Lucia Mar Unified School District, and urges the investigation of Brandon Pettenger, a science teacher at AGHS who the letter accuses of “inserting his personal religious beliefs into the public school classroom.” The letter has received attention in the local press and was circulated on the Internet. I write as a concerned citizen and as a parent of a Central Coast New Tech High School student as well as two recent graduates of AGHS.

It is indeed ironic that Atheists United SLO, which promotes itself as a “freethought” organization would lead a campaign to stifle classroom debate and limit academic inquiry. Yet in the letter written by RDFRS and FFRF, they say:

“Any attempt to teach that there is a controversy about evolution is similarly fraught with legal peril. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity. There are not two sides of the evolution argument for Penttenger to present. Teaching a controversy about evolution is like teaching about the controversy that exists between chemistry and alchemy, or astronomy and astrology, or voodoo and medicine. There exists only scientific fact and evidence, and a religious belief that rebels against such evidence. On can, indeed must, be taught in public schools. The other cannot.

“We request that you investigate this matter immediately. If these allegations are founded, Pettenger must be directed to refrain from promoting religion or attacking evolution in the public school. Courts have upheld the dismissal of teachers in cases like this. At the very least, appropriate disciplinary action should be taken, and the results of your investigation placed in the teacher’s file. Please promptly inform us in writing of the steps you are taking to protect the rights of your students.”

Threatening schools with legal action and good teachers with dismissal amounts to intimidation and bullying. It’s downright intolerant. The fact that these organizations continue to publicize the issue even after AGHS handled it internally reveals their true motives. They want to silence anyone else who might have the audacity to question their evolutionary dogma as well. Their strategy is censorship by intimidation.

The National Center for Science Education defines dogma as “a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation.” When an organization claims that “evolution is as much a fact as gravity” or that people must “refrain from attacking evolution in public school” they are treating the theory of biological evolution as if it is infallible dogma that is above critique or refutation. It is not, and should not be treated as such. http://www.newtimesslo.com/commentary/12324/the-debate-evolution-vs-creationism/

Schools, in the USA at least, were supposed to teach truth and encourage independent thought. Yet, more and more, the truth is stifled for various false agendas (the homosexual agenda is another that immediately comes to mind). Forcing the teaching of evolution, while stopping scientific explanations in conflict with it is a prelude to a type of the ‘famine of the word’ which is prophesied to come (Amos 8:11-12; watch also Famine of the Word?).

People who have seen the Ben Stein movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, realize that the academic community frequently hurts the careers of those who actually have scientific evidence against evolution. Most academics teach that, in violation of the law of biogenesis, primitive life somehow sprung up–it is a false teaching that facts disprove.

But what if we allow the impossibility of spontaneous primitive life to have occurred as evolutionists (as now defined) save is scientific?

Well, the primitive life would die. Part of the reason for this is that even a single-cell is so complex, and so full of various biological subsystems, that scientists have learned that many systems are essentially necessary for life to exist or continue. Science recognizes that living organisms must be self-contained, eat, digest, and reproduce to continue to exist.

Notice what even Charles Darwin wrote his book The Origin of the Species:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (Darwin C. The Origin of Species. In Chapter 6, Difficulties on Theory. Cricket House Books LLC, 2010, p. 124).

Is it scientific to not point out the fact that the cell is too complex to have spontaneously sprung up on its own? A cell could not possibly have randomly formed as it needs to be complete to survive.

Even if a spontaneously alive lined-up amino acid (with other substances coincidentally there) cell could have existed, it would die because:

1) All living organisms need biological structures such as organelles and membranes. Without a membranous structure, the proteins would ultimately diffuse and destroy the living organism. Living organism must be somewhat self-contained.
2) All living organisms need nourishment and direction. Since randomness would not have created the biological structure known as a DNA-containing nucleus (or some primitive equivalent), the cell would die. Even if it had some type of nucleus to provide direction, the nucleus would have to have come into existence with ability to determine what to eat and how to find food, another impossibility.
3) Even if the cell had all the above, it would die, because there would have been no reason for it to have spontaneously generated a digestive system in order to utilize the food.
4) Even if evolutionists are granted all the improbabilities and impossibilities this article discusses, the primitive life would quickly die out as there would have been no reason for it to have spontaneously generated an ability to reproduce, nor would it have any innate ability to do so.

It is in the Bible that we are told that when God made life He intended it to reproduce (Genesis 1:11,28,29). The idea of an ‘intelligent design’ by a Spirit being is the only explanation that does not defy scientifically provable knowledge–for all other explanations result in something that must die out.

And the scientific fact is that evolution as a model for explaining how life began makes no scientific sense. FWIW, let me mention that I do have a Ph.D. in one of the biological sciences, am a published scientist, and am completely convinced that real scientific evidence completely eliminates evolution as the source of life.

Evolution requires simply too many scientific impossibilities to make sense. And it only takes one impossibility to disprove a theory. Evolution is falsely called science (1 Timothy 6:20, KJV).

Some items of possibly related interest may include:

Is God’s Existence Logical? Some say it is not logical to believe in God. Is that true? Here is a link to a YouTube sermon titled Is it logical to believe in God?
Is Evolution Probable or Impossible or Is God’s Existence Logical? Part II This short article clearly answers what ‘pseudo-scientists’ refuse to acknowledge. Here is a link to a YouTube video titled Quickly Disprove Evolution as the Origin of Life.
How Old is the Earth and How Long Were the Days of Creation? Does the Bible allow for the creation of the universe and earth billions of years ago? Why do some believe they are no older than 6,000 years old? What is the gap theory? Where the days of creation in Genesis 1:3 through 2:3 24 hours long? Here is a link to a sermon: Genesis, ‘Prehistoric man,’ and the Gap theory. Here is a link to a related article in Spanish: ¿Cuán vieja es la Tierra? ¿Cuán largos fueron los Días de la Creación? ¿Teoría de la brecha?
Questions and Answers from Genesis Many wonder about certain early events that this article discusses.
Where Did God Come From? Any ideas? And how has God been able to exist? Who is God?
Building Character: Going on to Perfection Once you have accepted Jesus, do you need to strive for perfection and build character? A related video sermon is available: Going on to perfection and building character.
What is the Meaning of Life? Who does God say is happy? What is your ultimate destiny? Do you really know? Does God actually have a plan for YOU personally? There is also a video titled What is the meaning of your life?