{"Headline Light - 36 Point"/}On the Right Side: Questioning the theory of evolution

I had promised some time ago that I would be writing a column about the theory of evolution. That time has come. Actually, with all the reading I’ve done, it’s probably going to be three or four columns.

First of all, I want to say that I have the greatest respect for all the fields of science and the individuals who have chosen science as a career.

What I can’t stand is arrogant science when it comes to talking about evolution.

There seems to be an air of elitism or snobbishness against those who hold honest and educated theories that refute the theory of evolution.

In a book by William Dembski, "Uncommon Dissent, Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing," he quoted Richard Dawkins, a prominent name in the field of evolution, or Darwinism, saying that those who resist Darwin’s explanation are "ignorant, insane or wicked."

Isaac Constantine quotes Dawkins as saying, "If people lived according to rationalism, there would be less waste of time. People would concentrate on really worthwhile things, instead of wasting time on religion, astrology, crystal-gazing, fortune-telling, things like that."

Last one by this self-absorbed megalomaniac, from his own book, "The God Delusion": "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. A naif blessed with the perspective of innocence has a clearer perception."

These are just a few quotes of this maniacal, irrational fool. Do you really think you could have an intelligent discussion with an individual like this?

Unfortunately, he is just one of many who will resort to any means of insult, character assassination, snideness and lies to discredit those who have the nerve to question the myth of Darwinism’s invincibility.

Another example of dismissive attitude took place last year when I attended a lecture by a retired biologist who shared the very valid concerns he had about Darwinism and evolution. The lecture was very informative and provoking, the speaker having an excellent ability to communicate difficult issues on a level that was made understandable to the layman.

During the question-and-answer period, a person stood and very arrogantly and insultingly raved on about how wrong the speaker was about almost everything the speaker said earlier.

This person was obviously caught up in his self-importance, not having a question at all but rather trying to give all us unenlightened ones the benefit of his genius.

The speaker took what the man said very graciously, something I don’t think I could have done; and finally the disrupter sat down (or left, I didn’t pay any attention), and we could benefit further from the knowledge and experience of the speaker.

We creationists and believers in intelligent design can take solace in the fact that more and more prominent scientists and intellectuals are questioning the Darwinism myth of invincibility every day.

In addition, based on a Gallup poll taken of adults in 2007, less than 50 percent of Americans believe in evolution.

In the poll, 49 percent said they believed in evolution, 48 percent said they do not and 2 percent had no opinion.

Yet, any other alternative or conflicting theory is not even allowed to be taught in schools. The ACLU actually sued a school district when the board simply wanted to include a disclaimer in textbooks that mentioned the "biblical version of creation and other teachings on life’s origin."

The disclaimer went on to say "It is the basic right and privilege of each student to form his/her own opinion or maintain beliefs taught by parents on this very important matter. "¦ Students are urged to exercise critical thinking and gather all information possible and closely examine each alternative toward forming an opinion."

Robert C. Koons has said in his article, "Why Darwinism Fails to Inspire Confidence": "We have, therefore, the right and even the duty to compare what Darwinian scientists have actually accomplished with what they still must accomplish if their strong claims of certainty are to be sustained. The evaluation of the arguments of biologists is within the competence of each person, as is the task of assessing the appropriate degree of doubt or certainty that is attached to their conclusions."

Based on the above poll, it seems as if people are doing just that.

___

Tom Sears is a professor of accounting at Hartwick College in Oneonta. He can be reached at SearsT@hartwick.edu. His column appears every other week.