Revisioning Darwin's Theory as above Questioning
In science, theories are tested and debated almost constantly. As silly as it may sound, there are scientists who are still researching gravity. This isn't as absurd as you might think. While no one doubts that mass attracts mass and apples fall down, not up, scientists are still debating the nature of the underlying physical laws and fundamental particles that cause gravitational attraction.
There are always scientists curious about one aspect or another of any theory under scrutiny, and so they challenge it. There's nothing wrong with that; in fact, it is the very nature of science to challenge things.
Except when it comes to neo-Darwinism. Then scientists are supposed to shut up, not ask questions, not challenge anything. That isn't science. It isn't even what Darwin himself envisioned for science.
A fair result can be obtained only by fully balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.It looks as is Darwin would have been sorely disappointed in what is considered a fair consideration of the evidence these days. In Florida there was recently a vigorous debate over how evolution should be taught. Dogmatic Darwinists are insisting that Darwinian evolution be presented without any sort of critical analysis, as if it were 100% above reproach, as if it were a natural law that left no doubts. That may be how they want to present it, but it's far from the truth.
Wired reported that:
The resolutions have been patterned after the one from St. Johns County, which calls for "teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory rather than teaching evolution as dogmatic fact."Leave aside the ridiculously false assertion that ID proponents are trying to use scientific methodology to prove divine intervention. What's troubling here is the effort to relabel any questioning of Darwin's theory as the same as creationism. How convenient. The supreme court has ruled that creationism is not allowed in the classroom, so Darwinists simply tag any questioning of, or challenge to, their pet theory as creationism. Denmark smells relatively pristine in comparison.
Critics say the resolutions' language is thinly veiled creationism -- either in the strictly biblical sense, or the more-modern take of "intelligent design," which purports to use scientific methodology to prove divine intervention.
This isn't exactly a new tactic. Self-proclaimedevolutionary biologist Patricia Princehouse espoused this back in 2005/06. More recently, in Texas it has become the practice to constantly claim that any criticism of evolution is the same as advocating intelligent design.
That would likely be news to the scores of scientists (many who are evolutionists themselves) who question parts Darwinian evolution.