Study evolution facts and judge for yourself

Study evolution facts and judge for yourself
Scott Lane - San Antonio Express-News - 12/12/2008 - original
In response to the Express-News editorial of 12/1 (“Don’t Water Down Science Curriculum”) we at San Antonio Bible Based Sciences Association would like to ask how you can water down a curriculum which is almost exclusively evolution already by changing the wording which has existed in the curriculum for many years? Also, no creationist organization in this state is trying to insert new language, change the evolutionary science curriculum of this state or insert creationism in any way during this adoption cycle. Further, all board members of the State Board of Education(SBOE) are unanimous in stating that they have no intent to insert new language, change the curriculum or in any way try to insert creation into the curriculum. How then may we ask is our children’s education so imperiled, and how will it be changed in any way from what it has been? The following is a letter I sent to all of the SBOE members and which has had a positive response from two members, one of which invited me to testify in Austin.

“I am a math and science teacher in our public schools. While my personal belief is that Scientific Creationism and Intelligent Design have more than sufficient scientific evidence to support their inclusion in classroom science discussions, that is not my agenda. As a teacher in our schools I can tell you that the controversial wording "strengths and weaknesses" has implications to us only in a very narrow and limited way, but an important one. The charge that this wording, which has been in our good state science curriculum for years, will now suddenly undermine all good science education is ludicrous. In point of fact, most science teachers due to the pressures of TAKS only have the time to cover what is included on the test (and neither ID nor creation are on the test).

But, there are two disturbing things about deleting this language. First is the implication that evolution above all other scientific theories has neither weaknesses nor points of debate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science is a field constantly in a state of flux. As new discoveries come to light scientists change what we believe to be true. The theory of evolution itself is in its fourth remake due to newly discovered science.

Darwin theorized that pangenes (cells floating in the blood) transmitted genetic and acquired characteristics. With the work of Mendel and Defriese this was modified to purely genetic, non-acquired characteristics and the use of sperm cells. The theory was further modified years later to its present version known as mutation theory. However, there is a large body of evolutionary scientists which do not subscribe to the traditional gradualist's theory of mutation and want to shift evolutionary research and theory to the hybrid theory of punctuated equilibrium (the theory that evolution happens in huge jumps of mass mutations which would explain why we find so few transitions in the fossil record).

What we think we know changes over time and the debate and critical evaluation of scientific evidence is the process which brings future discoveries to light. This brings us to the second reason; our children need to be challenged with critical thinking and critical evaluation of data. Teachers do not need to worry whether responding to a students query about an ID or creationist's idea which dovetails onto the evolutionary material they are covering can be answered without fear of reprisal and that they can praise the student for their questioning mind, for that's what we want to foster! Inclusion of this phrase will not alter what is taught in our school in any significant way in terms of content since that content is all geared towards TAKS and next to the End of Course Exams (neither of which will have questions on ID not creation), but this phrase does enable an atmosphere of free dialogue we should want in our science classrooms and which promote the open, questioning minds we need as future researchers!”

In response to the several letters in the paper over the past two months SABBSA would be very happy to oblige and provide scientific evidence of weaknesses in evolution and for creation. We stand ready to go to any venue you invite us to, and can present several hours of scientific evidence which supports creation. Included in these will be the fact that evolution violates the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, as well as the Law of Biogenesis. We can show you creation evidence in the fields of microbiology, genetics, probability, biochemistry, biology, geology and physics which support creation and undermine evolution. You are also welcome to peruse our website at On the newsletters page you will find almost ten years worth of newsletters, most with a discussion of recent evidences uncovered for creation. On the links page you will find links to national creation organizations which specialize in providing creation evidences.

There have been some wild charges in letters about us. It should be known SABBSA has been around for more than a decade with a membership which includes an astrophysicist, teachers, medical doctors, a college biology teacher, computer programmers, civil engineers and many other degreed professionals with varied technical backgrounds. You are also invited to one of our meetings. See our Web site for times and locations. At our October meeting we showed a video of an 8 year research program looking into radiometric dating methods. At our December 9th meeting we will have a presentation by one of our board members, Dr. Daniel Harris (PhD. Astronomy) who will look into the mathematics behind Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Such is the level of scientific discourse we offer to the public and invite them to attend and judge the evidence for themselves.

Scott Lane is president of the San Antonio Bible Based Sciences Association.