Incidentally, the Pope does not support Creationism and Father Mendel did not support the Evolution views Darwin stole from Rev. Malthus (“fight for survival”) and Wallace. Darwin never admitted his plagiarisms, publicly (he is said to have argued that he added his name only at the insistence of long-time friends, not an unbiased set).
His main arguement was the many years that passed since his trip to Galapagos which, he said, were needed to reflect on his data collection. Yet, his arguments on the bird’s beak was wrong, he simply had no way to know the truth, so he made up an explanation. Does that sound familiar? He would have been disqualified, for that reason, in many, if not all, professional societies that keep Ethical values.
Why is it that so many claim all evolution is according to the rules of evolution but have never predicted another species? Great many species have been found on land and in the deep ocean, up to a few days ago, yet, not even one was “predicted” before it was found. Funny!

Apologies, readers or editor! I left some draft material in the foregoing letter. Please remove last paragraph from the letter about evolution. thanks

Take the minimum test of any science: Has it ever predicted anything? Does it have any equations? Is it good for something? Has it directed the discovery of a healing drug? Does it predict the evolution of DNA between species?

Consider this, Darwin was wrong when he concluded the different beaks in Galapagos show “evolution”, the fact is that they were random variations, like the variations between members in your own family.
Yes, people evolve, many or most get bigger in each generation but the DNA data on changes within one species implies every species started with one pair of the same species. Evolution, and everyone else, have yet to explain that.
Darwin, himself, argued at different times for three different and incompatible explanations on evolution. His first publication on different species was written by Wallace and Darwin merely added his name.

Another fact that has no explanation is that where one of an species arrives, they never multiply. This kept many spiders and other insects away from many islands, even after ships brought many of them. Evidently, there was no pair of opposite sex to reproduce.

The third fact is a Gamma ray speculation as to how a Super Nova might have removed or otherwise altered a DNA chain.
Even if this could be replicated in a laboratory, the exact very same change must occur in another one of the same specie, of the opposite sex, in nearby proximity and, around the same time. Super Nova are the one of the rarest star in the sky. “Unlikely” is a gross understatement.

Then, there is that pesky Fr. Mendel, the Polish monk that proved, and developed the algebra to predict, how plants tend to inherit traits of their parents. The real first one to have a scientific prediction on how plants evolve.
He sent a copy of his report to Darwin and it was found annotated by Darwin -but unacknowledged.
Darwin persisted on his “tendency to the mean” that was based on nothing and it is a poor way to develop scientific principles, instead of a result from numerous data, properly analyzed and predicted results, like Fr. Mendel’s.

Some 30 years after Fr. Mendel’s algebra in a paper re-discovered by three scientists, at about the same time, the algebra units Fr. Mendel used was seen to exactly match what others predicted and Fr. Mendel’s units were renamed and have since then been called “genes”, until replaced with a new definition based on DNA segments -another step in the true science of evolution. They refer to segments identified to produce specific chemicals or drugs, with about half found only in the brain.
This may be the foundation of the science of the brain, when its principles are discovered. Remember, the study of ancient bones has no role, at all, in this subject.

I am not eager to sound like a conservative scientific Brooks to Mooney’s Shields. However, being born in an earlier generations gives me perspectives that are often overlooked by more recent generations of scientists, Chris Mooney included.

As a student in the 50s I can recall no issue over Darwin and evolution theory in biology texts and teaching (they were also mentioned briefly in World history texts) in any public schools. Catholic clergy might have problems with evolution, but most Protestant clergy accepted it, taking something like the position already enunciated by the 19th Century Danish naturalist and chemist, Georg Forchhammer. Forchhammer argued that there need be no conflict between science and the Bible. Science should be taken as the authority for the study and understanding of natural phenomena, as the Bible was accepted as the ultimate authority for spiritual matters.

In the 1960s scientific leaders made a fateful and self-centered mistake. New “affective” educational philosophies were introduced nationwide by leading schools of education, foundations, and President Johnsons Commissioner of Education, Harold Howe III, replacing “cognitive” approaches to education. Holding all students to the same standards and teaching methods was regarded as unfair and harmful. Social promotion was introduced. The previous mandatory requirements for math and core science courses (i.e. biology, chemistry, physics) were eliminated.

“AP” (advanced placement) science courses were made available to the minority of students interested in careers in medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, engineering, and science, etc. But most students took the more common option of “earth science”, i.e. mixtures of meteorology, chemistry, geology, etc. that took a mainly descriptive, simplified approach to science and did not provide the rigor of the earlier courses that gave students an understanding of scientific thinking and method.

Where were the scientific leaders? They were busy recruiting the “best and brightest” and had little interest in non science majors – so long as they and university departments got their desired quota of talent. The newer generation of students never gained any real grasp of science or the scientific method. This included both communications majors (journalists) and future clergy!

As creationism gradually increased, so did concerns rise in a segment of the scientific community. Confrontations began to emerge, which eventually became court battles. I have been extremely uncomfortable about the “victories” gained by scientists over school boards and the new intelligent design concepts. At least the activist part of the scientific community regarded the legal victories as the fight for keeping science teaching free from intrusion of religious concepts. But for at least many citizens without stakes in the details it just looked a groups contending for control.

The activist scientists seemed to show little interest in the general standard of science teaching in the schools in question or other schools with far worse standards. It was only challenge to their authority, symbolized by evolution, that aroused action. If the challenge to evolution was withdrawn, the concern subsided.

I yield to no one in my admiration for Darwin, who had one of the highest batting averages for advanced theory and intuitions that would later be proven correct. But I also note that Darwin was also a man of marvelous openness and humility, who would have never been comfortable in the activist role.

introduce students to rigorous approaches that would becoming doctors, dentists, engineers, and now ocourses in science were was regarded as unfairwere e 1960s,l that science was the ultimate authority on detailed natural phenomena, just as the Bible was the ultimate spiritual authority. Danish naturalist and chemist, Georg Forchhammer around 1835, that the Bible was without problems or were neutral. They accepted After all, the Danish chemist, Forchhammer in 1835-40 already pointed out that had problems t to Shields and Brooks, but there perspectives on this longstanding confrontation that people from younger generations like are aspects of this confrontation that battle

It’s not a speed test, or a strength test. It’s an endurance test. (CF the amazing Genie Scott of NCSE, who has worked on this problem for years, and many others like her.)

Maybe it’s time to stop trying to fight these bait-and-switch “teach the controversy” statutes. They are usually vague enough–just mentioning the topics, not the outcome–that complaining about them can sound like hypersensitive whining. Instead of removing them, maybe the statutes should just be explicit about the range of credible scientific explanations. For example, it’s fine to say that there is some uncertainty about the age of the universe, as long as it is made clear that ALL scientifically based estimates come in over five billion years. Young-earth creationists could not complain about that without making very clear what they are really up to.

“analyze and evaluate the sufficiency of scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil records.”

I am assuming it is the specific examples mentioned that are problematic.

Even so, I am missing something in the logic chain. How does this necessarily mean that the various creationists rationalizations will be accepted over the explanations of evolutionary science? It sounds like some odd variety of “teach both sides” gets in rather than an exclusively creationist perspective. While I understand how it might be offensive to have both sides in, haven’t evolutionary explanations been strengthened enough to stand tall in such a fight?