Political Correctness by Scientific Societies - Breaking Down Political Correctness

Details

Last Updated on Saturday, 03 December 2011 20:14

To quote from the Tri-Societies, “The intelligent design/creationist movement has adopted the lamentable strategy of asking our science teachers to ‘teach the controversy’ in science curriculums, as if there were a significant debate among biologists about whether evolution underpins the abundant complexity of the biological world. We believe there is no such controversy.”

Thus, 10 officers made a politically correct statement for approximately 14,000 members without seeking input or giving the members an opportunity to engage in the decision. And for a subject viewed as “no controversy” by these 10 officers, the numerous letters from the members made the official statement such a “hot potato” that the officers closed discussion quickly and would not permit additional letters to be published after December 2005. Through God’s providence, my letter was accepted; and after a number of rewrites to meet the 500-word requirement, it was published. A slightly modified version is contained below for your reading.

Dear Tri-Society Executives:
It is unfortunate that a statement was approved to silence discussion on evolution without member input. To claim the statement summarizes the scientific aspects of this issue does not gain any credibility for our professions. To compare the evolutionary concept to the Law of Gravity is comparing apples to oranges.

A definition of evolution is needed. Is it the gradual development of a single cell into a complex organism like a human being, as claimed in thousands of books? If so, where is the verifiable proof as claimed in the statement? The claim by scientists that the existence of dogs and wolves (which are in the same genetic pool) is proof that simple cells evolve into human beings over time is a leap of faith and not based on facts. In their grandstanding, our officers apparently forgot the scientific method. And to say there is no controversy is a brash and false claim since about 50% of the respondents objected to the statement.

Science and the scientific method should be applied rigorously to our fields of study. Instead, some “scientists” extrapolate far beyond the available data to make statements that are misleading at best and often outright lies. Consequently, science and the scientific method have lost credibility with the general public while some “scientists” have reached lofty positions. Some of these false statements remained in schoolbooks for 30 to 50 years before being corrected. Note, the data did not change; just the interpretations of the data changed.

Most people are unaware of the subtitle of Charles Darwin’s 1859 book and its impact on society and science. The Origin of Species was subtitled Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Hitler and others, who were responsible for the genocide of millions of people by the “superior” race, had adopted the evolutionary doctrine conveyed in the subtitle. Thousands of Australian aborigines were killed for their skeletons in an attempt to prove the descent of man from a simple cell to monkeys/apes to humans. The Nebraska man was fabricated from what is now known to be a pig’s tooth. Ernst Haeckel’s drawings of embryos, ubiquitous among biology textbooks, are now known to be fraudulent (Richardson et al. 1997). There are many other examples at http://www.arn.org.

Even though massive amounts of money and media have been used to promote the evolutionary origin of simple cells to complex mankind, a recent Harris poll showed that 67% of US citizens do not believe they evolved from monkeys/apes and only 12% support the teaching of evolution alone in our public schools to explain the origin of life.

The controversy includes astronomy as much as biology. Carl Sagan claimed that our earth was an insignificant blue dot in a vast universe. And yet, after millions/billions of dollars spent on SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence), the earth remains the only known planet that meets the multiple requirements to sustain life. We apparently forget what Wernher von Braun, father of our space program, wrote in 1972: “It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance.”

And the controversy continues in a social context. Sir Julian Huxley indicated people adopted the theory of evolution because the idea of God interfered with their sexual mores. Richard Dawkins concluded that Darwin made it intellectually respectable to be an atheist. Thus, the notion that evolution is purely a scientific issue supported by objective and operational scientific data is nonsense.

More discussion should be encouraged; otherwise, an elitist censorship would seem to prevail rather than a search for the truth.
— Horace D. Skipper, PhD
Pub. in Crops, Soils, and Agronomy News
Dec. 2005, pg. 8

Another incident, similar to that which prompted me to write the above letter, occurred at a town-hall meeting of the SSSA about 10 years ago. I hope this “war story” and my letter will encourage you to be pro-active for the truth. A very vocal minority dominated the meeting of over 250 members for almost two hours with arguments to split away from the Tri-Societies. Based on the verbal assault, one would have guessed the motion would have passed by a huge majority. However, when the silent majority was given the opportunity to vote, they voted 3:1 against the split and the Tri-Societies remain together today.

Please be encouraged by I Samuel 17:26: “For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?” and I Samuel 17:37: “And David said, ‘The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine;’” and  II Timothy 1:7: “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” Please remember, if the Black Robe Regiment (Pastors) of the Revolutionary War had remained silent, we would probably still be a British Colony.
­