Mar 13 2006
Just to be upfront with you, I am a creationist according to the literal account in the book of Genesis, yet insist that the recent debate of critical analysis is not about teaching creationism or evolution but allowing an open debate of all theories in the classroom.
The liberal bias in our education establishment has prevailed again in last week’s consideration of inserting critical analysis into our science curiculum. Science is based on critical analysis, skeptismsm, testing and retesting. This is how ideas become theories and theories become become laws. What I cannot understand is that we are barred from the critical analysis of theories of evolution. In other words you can question any other scientific fact, law, or theory, but woe is you if you question the theory of evolution. Whether you consider yourself a creationist or evolutionist or somewhere in betweeen, why should we show any topic favorable treatment and bar examination? Critical analysis is to science what sweet is to taste. These concepts are inseparable.
Ask the question, “Should Darwinism be given special protection from inquiry?” Anyone answering “yes” is indicating a fear of the facts. The SC State Board of Education discussed the issue and here is the results. Conservatives mounted a valiant effort, and the numbers reflect improvement from past boards, but the closed minded liberal side prevailed. The motion was to reject critical anlysis and passed 11-6. Those in oposition are to be commended.
Below is the roll call vote from the SC State Board of Education:
Those voting to oppose the rejection of critical analysis
1. Kristin Maguire, 2. Charles McKinney, 3.Jessie Curtis, 4. Terrye Seckinger, 5. Phillip Shoopman, 6. Ron Wilson
Those voting to accept the rejection of critical analysis
1. John Tindal, 2. Rebecca Burch, 3. Trip DuBard, 4. Ben Mitchell, 5. Diane Sumpter, 6. Virginia Wilson, 7. Kristi Woodall, 8. Al Simpson, 9. Patsy Pye, 10. Mike Forrester, 11. Joe Issac