Admissible and Inadmissible Evidence in the National Science Standards- Part II

Admissible and Inadmissible Evidence in the National Science Standards is continued below as Part II. The condensed version of this article is published in the April 2015 edition of the AFA Journal.

 

Although naturalistic evolution from a common ancestry has been taught in public schools for over 50 years, NGSS is more systematic, dogmatic, and deceptive in its approach than most previous standards.  The deception is extremely effective because it begins at age 5 in kindergarten. The new standards will continue to present evidence in a manner that supports the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestry. Furthermore, most scientific challenges to unguided evolution will remain inadmissible. The big difference is that evolution will be taught progressively in this way from grades K-12.

 

Studies have shown that young children from all backgrounds have an inborn natural inclination to favor purposeful design as the best explanation for life, including man.  Most young children instinctively believe that God made all living things, because living things look designed. Due to this instinct and the subconsciously recognized improbability that complex organs happened by chance, they find naturalistic evolution to be illogical – which in fact it is.  Psychological studies have found that very young children can be effectively persuaded to accept natural evolutionary ideas with picture books and visuals when they are taught these ideas at an early age. -1

COPE is also concerned that certain activist environmental concepts in NGSS will be taught from K-12 in a progressive manner without opportunities to examine the scientific challenges. The politically-charged concepts promoted in NGSS include human-induced climate change, global sustainability, and the negative effects of man’s interaction with the environment. Another one of COPE’s main goals is to encourage schools to allow more academic freedom in how controversial issues, like evolution from a common ancestry and catastrophic global warming, are taught.

 

There are several claims by NGSS proponents that deny the charges of not being religiously neutral. One is that there are many “theistic evolutionists” who accept macroevolution and theistic faiths as compatible. However, there are many parents who find macroevolution totally incompatible with their faith. Macroevolution (common descent) by definition is unguided, which leaves no role for a theistic Designer.

 

NGSS proponents also claim that the new standards will make children more prepared for college-level classes and careers. However, the prestigious Thomas B. Fordham Institute only gave it a mediocre grade of “C”, citing weak academic standards, especially in high school, and a lack of clarity in its goals. -2


 

Advocates for macroevolution tend to claim that the evidence is “overwhelming.”  This is mere rhetoric; the evidence is really quite meager and flimsy.  There are two main lines of evidence that evolutionists use: the fossil record, and similarities in anatomy and biochemistry. Embryology was considered strong evidence for evolution at one time, but many mainstream scientists are no longer supporting this idea.

 

A more recent defense of materialistic evolution from a common ancestor is called NOMA, short for “non-overlapping magisteria.”  The term means that science and religion occupy completely different areas (or magisteria) and do not overlap. Students are advised to learn about science (macroevolution) from their science books and science classes and to learn about God from the Bible and churches.  However, the fact is that the issue of macroevolution addresses the most fundamental of all religious questions. Science would remain a strong field of knowledge even if macroevolutionary explanations for origins were minimized. Instead, NGSS is attempting to make macroevolution a central tenant of all fields of science.

 

Many opponents of NGSS claim that the exclusive teaching of evolution from a common ancestry (macroevolution) has the effect of challenging or even destroying a child’s theistic beliefs.  Evolutionary teaching in NGSS begins with observable examples of microevolution, which does not challenge anyone’s theistic beliefs. However, microevolution is expanded and extrapolated to be evidence that all living things evolved from a common ancestor. In fact, this deceptive and progressive teaching of macroevolution has the effect of indoctrinating students into accepting a materialistic, atheistic worldview. At best, students are confused by attempts to merge both guided and unguided explanations of origins.

 

You won’t find a statement in the NGSS materials that denies the existence of God or the supernatural.  Instead, the standards use a variety of techniques to convince students to believe that all events in nature, past and present, have been caused by natural processes.  Since teleology (purposeful design) and God are never mentioned, students are led to believe that these concepts are unnecessary or irrelevant when reconstructing the history of the earth.

 

What recourse do parents have if they think the religious beliefs of their children are being undermined by the heavy emphasis on materialistic/atheistic evolutionary teachings? Some parents feel that this matter needs to be settled by the courts. If a circuit court of appeals and/or the U.S. Supreme Court were to rule that NGSS established a materialistic/atheistic worldview, then the situation around the country would change dramatically for the better. Public schools would no longer be able to teach unguided evolution as the only explanation for life and its complexity.

 

Some parents choose to enroll their children in an appropriate private school or else educate them at home.  Others find their neighborhood schools are acceptably flexible and fair in how they approach the subject of origins. Regardless of where students attend school, parents should monitor their children’s science classes to see what they are teaching about origins. This will require vigilance as the origins science curriculum often begins in kindergarten and tends to overlap with all other subjects.

 

If the teaching is offensive to the family’s religious beliefs, there are still ways parents can intervene. Rather than putting up with an unacceptable situation or fearing a negative reaction from the school, parents should bring their concerns to their local teachers, administrators, or school boards, as well as to state elected officials. Make no mistake, parental opinions carry a great deal of weight, especially if they are persistent or come as a united group!

 

Another amazingly effective intervention is for parents to have their children examine evidence that challenges unguided macroevolution.  Identify the evolutionary concept that is being presented and compare it with challenging scientific evidence. Ask thought-provoking questions and point out alternative explanations for the evidence. Examining and analyzing controversial scientific claims is something that should be promoted in science classes anyway. When these ideas are understood and discussed with parents, children are much more able to withstand attacks on their religious beliefs. Many students are never given opportunities to examine the scientific challenges to unguided macroevolution. Many never hear of the coded information that is found in every living cell or of the complex systems that only function if every part is present from the beginning. Students are are not easily persuaded to dismiss the idea that God designed and created everything when they have opportunities to examine both sides of the origins debate.

 

There are a number of excellent resources that can be used to help children counter materialistic teachings that delete all references to a supernatural Creation. The following are examples that parents will find helpful.

 

An outstanding apologetics website with Cheri Fields is  www.creationscience4kids.com. Go to “About” and scroll down to “Categories” to choose topics. This website has links and recommendations to other helpful resources. -3

 

To help younger children understand the truth of Creation and the Flood, a powerful book is Exploring Geology with Mr. Hibb: Discovering Evidence for Creation and the Biblical Flood . (Michael Oard, Tara Wolfe, and Chris Turbuck. Creation Book Publishers. 2nd edition 2014).

 

“Reasons for Hope” ministry4 offers a free App for Smart devices. It contains a number of very helpful sessions on debunking misconceptions about the Bible and challenging many evolutionary claims. You can go to the “App Store” on a Smart device and search for “Reasons for Hope.” Download it free of charge. -4

 

COPE is available to help concerned citizens and groups deal with issues in their own community or state. The organization can address questions about local concerns, analyze local or state academic standards, provide knowledgeable speakers or consultants, and assist in drafting legislation, policy statements, or education standards. COPE’s website (www.COPEinc.org) provides further details as well as contact information.

 

  1. “Young Children Can Be Taught Basic Natural Selection Using a Picture-Storybook Intervention” Psychological Science. February 6, 2014.  25:892-902.

 

  1. http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/final-evaluation-of-NGSS.html

 

  1. www.CreationScience4Kids.com  by Cheri Fields.  Go to “About” and then to “Categories” to choose topics.

 

  1. Reasons for Hope. www.rforh.com

 

When I find other recommended tools that parents can use to protect and strengthen their children’s faith, these resources may be added to later posts.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *