Darwinists must feel like an endangered species. How else to explain their name calling and threats of court protection to ensure their survival? It's obvious they have little confidence their theory can survive open debate when they are fighting so aggressively against one small statement presented in Senate Bill 96. SB 96 if passed; "shall require that instruction to students on any theory regarding the origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race, shall stress that not all scientists agree on which theory is correct". (See SL Tribune articles "Buttars Bill is an embarrassment", "Panel OK's Bill etc 1-18-06" and several others.) Going so far as to call the "bill an outright lie" and "ignorance" Tribune articles have argued time and again that no credible scientists disagree with evolution in one breath and in the next admit that evolution is a "widely accepted theory-though one that is constantly evolvingÃ¯Â¿Â½our understanding is still incomplete, there is considerable and productive debate about processes of evolution". There is sure a lot of demand for our theory only, when so much uncertainty is evident to anyone who has studied the history of the theory of evolution.
Actually the obvious lies being presented are coming from evolutionists in their frightful defense of their ever-changing theory. Claiming that "no credible scientists disagree with evolution" must come as quite a lie to chemist and five time Nobel nominee, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, who has stated "Some defenders of Darwinism, embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Schaefer is one of the many distinguished scientists joining the rapidly growing roster of hundreds of scientists signing a statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" These scientists have uncovered numerous scientific and historical errors, exaggerations and omissions in the various theories of evolution.
Of course evolutionists try to brand any scientist who disagrees with them as a creationist (always hoping the ACLU can then have any of their arguments thrown out on separation of church and state grounds), they want people to think that the only criticism of Darwin's theory today is from religious fanatics.
True the numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast. This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with off the cuff attacks attempting to stigmatize all critics-including scientists-as religious 'creationists'. These are excellent examples of viewpoint discrimination.
A Zogby poll released Sept. 24, 2001 showed an overwhelming support of 81 percent for the position that when scientific evidence supporting Darwin's theory of evolution is presented; scientific evidence against it should also be presented. From the rising debate taking place all across the nation its clear this support is growing. This is the American way, the pros and cons, both sides of the story, not letting only one side have all the say in an argument which so deeply impacts the entire society.