Paranoid professors afraid of a close examination of evolution 
by: Robert Lattimer, Ph.D.

Home | Audio | Buy | Contact | Downloads | FAQ | Links | | TOC | Videos

Letter to the Editor of the Columbus Dispatch (not published) 
Submitted February 20, 2004

A Dispatch editorial (Feb. 15), an article by OSU Prof. Steve Rissing (Feb. 6), and a letter by OSU Prof. Jeff McKee (Feb. 20) all complained about a particular lesson plan (Critical Analysis of Evolution) in Ohio's proposed Model Curriculum in Science.

Rissing, McKee, and the editorialists are infuriated that anyone would dare question Mr. Darwin's pet theory the idea that all life on Earth arose by natural causes from a common ancestry.

Apparently scientists can critically analyze just about anything else the Big Bang, the shape of the Earth, or whatever. But for some reason Mr. Darwin is immune from critique.

The screaming scientists say a theory must be testable. But how do you test the idea of macroevolution (common descent)? No one has yet figured out how to make new body parts from scratch, or turn a bacterium into a fish, for example.

The hysterical professors say the lesson in question promotes intelligent design (ID). How so? Has anyone read it? You wont find the word design or any hint of ID concepts like irreducible complexity and biological information. The alleged ID connection is nothing but a red herring that has no basis in fact.

The irrational evolutionists say that common descent has been proven; its as reliable as gravity. There is, they say, no evidence against it. Oh, really? Even Darwin knew there were holes in the evidence lack of transition species in the fossil record, the sudden appearance of new species, absence of a viable mechanism to provide variation. The gap between the evidence and the theory has widened with time, not narrowed, and yet the Darwinian faithful dare not break ranks.

All this fuss about one little lesson in Grade 10. One small opportunity for students to use their critical thinking skills to take a close look at Darwin.

What are these scientists and editorial writers so afraid of? If macroevolution is so robust, shouldn't it be able to withstand a challenge by a few sophomores in high school? Or is the theory so weak that it must be propped up at all costs?

It seems to me that the paranoid professors are afraid that a close examination would show that the emperor (macroevolution) has no clothes. And on this point, they just might be correct.

Robert Lattimer, Ph.D.
Hudson, Ohio 44236