“This article [by Perlstein] is really dreadful. It’s totally slanderous toward Dr. Fred Schwarz, who was not even on the Right, much less a wingnut. Despite being an anti-Communist scholar, Dr. Schwarz was otherwise apolitical. Contrary to being some kind of loony conspiracy theorist, as he is depicted here, Schwarz was an expert on Marx, a gifted debater, and was notorious for the generosity of spirit with which he engaged with his ideological opponents.” A responder to the Rolling Stone article as posted online.
“The sky is falling! Many interest groups and journalists raced to tell that to the public when a modest but important bill became law in Tennessee early in April . The law instructs teachers and administrators to ‘create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to difference of opinion about controversial issues.’
“What’s not to like? The law, similar to one in Louisiana, also protects teachers who help students (I’m quoting from the official legislative summary) ‘understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught….’ Oh, here’s the problem: Evolution is one of the theories that can now be analyzed and critiqued.
“The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, and many others have gone ape over the inclusion of evolution. They revere critical thinking and the freedom to explore, but not when it might produce irreverence toward their idol.
“Those groups and many journalists brought up Tennessee’s 1925 law that made illegal the teaching evolution in public schools and led to the Scopes ‘monkey trial.’ They did not note that most public schools in the four score and seven years since then have gone to the other extreme by forbidding the teaching of anything but evolution. In states from Virginia to Washington true believers in evolution have harassed and driven away teachers who dared to teach both sides of the Darwin debate.
“If macro-evolution were proven, the true believers would have a case, but more than 800 Ph.D.-bearing scientists have signed a statement expressing skepticism about contemporary evolutionary theory’s claims that random mutation and natural selection account for the complexity of life. These scientists say, ‘Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.’
“The 1925 law tried to close off debate, but the think tank that has proposed laws like Tennessee’s new one, the Discovery Institute, is working to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It wants evolution, including its unresolved issues, to be fully presented to students: ‘Evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned.’
“That gets to the heart of the hysteria. The New York Times editorialized in 1925 for ‘faith, even of a grain of mustard seed, in the evolution of life.’ The Times said evolution gives us hope for progress: ‘If man has evolved, it is inconceivable that the process should stop and leave him in his present imperfect state. Specific creation has no such promise for man.’
Specific creation, of course, has the ultimate promise: God cares. Sadly, many look desperately for hope elsewhere, anywhere. Last month the New York Times editorial page editor, consistent with his predecessors, criticized critics of evolution who have ‘learned to manufacture doubt.’ The Times, of course, daily manufactures doubts regarding God, but thunders, ‘Thou shalt not doubt’ evolution. If other states follow Tennessee’s example, we’ll have a robust debate instead of more attempts to suppress it.” Marvin Olasky, World magazine, May 5, 2012, p. 11
Editor’s Comment: The Perlstein article sought to make Dr. Schwarz out to be a wingnut over his statements regarding Communism and the science of “animal husbandry.” Schwarz said, “No Communist ever proposed to establish the Communist society with present sinful nature. Before the social order of Communism can come to pass, the new and redeemed mankind must emerge from the ashes of the destroyed Capitalistic Civilization. How do the Communists propose to bring their promise to pass? By what means will they be enabled to work this incredible transformation? The Communists answer by one word: ‘SCIENCE.’
He then explained the details, “A very similar story could be told in the realm of animal husbandry….The Communists proposed to use this same science to transform human nature itself. The idea is provocative yet fascinating.”
But isn’t this exactly what the New York Times was claiming for the scientific theory of evolution? “If man has evolved, it is inconceivable that the process should stop and leave him in his present imperfect state.”
Although evolutionists never apologize, Dr. Schwarz certainly deserves one!