the Theory of Evolution as Taught in Schools

[Guest]

Amen~!

 

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Acts 17:11

 

Most Excellent Thread Beloved

 

~

 

Genesis Chapters One And Two

 

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:26-27

 

Shoots The Evolutionist With Their Self Made Animal Man

 

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7

 

Out Of Their Fly-In-The-Sky Racist Movement

 

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. Genesis 2:18

 

And Holds All Men Accountable For

 

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Genesis 2:21-23

 

Their Brother Hatred

 

And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. Genesis 4:8-10

 

~

 

No Wonder Men Of Science So Called

 

Deliver me, O my God, out of the hand of the wicked, out of the hand of the unrighteous and cruel man. Psalms 71:4

 

And Their Political Keepers Push

 

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

 

The Most Irrational Stories

 

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

 

~

 

Breath In

 

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

 

The Pure Truth

 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24

 

Love, Joe

[thomas t]

a) Thomas said 5) you didn't show that Darwin had a political agenda. I must admit to come across the "agenda"-reproach quite often here at Worthy lately and I rarely believe it. Would you agree that the word agenda can also be overused? Can you prove yours against (all) evolutionists? NEVER SAID "ALL"!

Well that’s because I did not say “Darwin had a political agenda”. I said the imposition of Darwin’s theory pushed (in public schools) as an established fact, yet in a distorted form, has a political agenda. So I do not mind speaking with you about these things but please do not make me say what I have not said as I always have this problem when speaking to supporters and defenders of this disproved theory.

b) What is clearly demonstrable, from history, is that there are forces that be, that having embraced Darwin’s theory, applied it (not Darwin’s intention) politically that leads to certain forms of devastation based on the premises derived. They are far too many and too wordy examples to go through them all in a forum setting but I will give some for you to consider.

For example, the concepts of “Eugenics” (with its obvious political ramifications) took a huge leap forward into being successfully imposed (and still are being imposed to some yet subtle extent even in our time) once Darwin’s theories appeared to give Eugenics a scientific basis (while yet still unproven).

 

[...]

The principle espoused by Darwin [...] gave his cousin Francis Galton a platform upon which white atristocratic Europeans, and some scientists like Thomas Huxley, could later use to justify their beliefs and plans for colonization and oppression of what we now call Third World Countries.

[...]

Paul,

just as a matter of clarification: I do not support the ToE. I'm against it.

 

(I've now given letters to your post)

 

a) you wrote "evolution as taught in schools [...] has always had a political agenda". You're saying now, as I understand it, that *teaching it* (in the letter, you wrote "imposing") always has a political agenda. OK. (Didn't Darwin teach it? BTW. This sidestep being made,) I ask myself: could it be that it's taught just for being more scientific than what creationists have to offer?

 

b) Eugenics, we've just had somebody advocating it here in Germany, a former politician called Sarazin, is a problem, I agree. It was so during the third Reich, and it is still today in the minds of many.

 

I think it's a fallecy here to infer from some people like Hitler having applied it or wanting it to have applied that all people who teach evolution as science use this for a political hate agenda, as well.

So I think, you didn't prove your point. Your list might be of use to us, though.

 

Your post to me comes across like saying: (let me make this comparison, I'm aware of the fact that you in reality didn't tell this)

(1) there are people who kill with bones. And just because bones are used by some for this reason,

(2) all people having bones are murderers.

Wrong.

.. see, what I'm trying to convey?

 

Have a good day,

Thomas

[thomas t]

Thomas you asked 4) can you show how not believing evolution deteriorates success at public institutions?

[...]

a) We were studying alleged examples of natural selection (which has more than the neo-Darwinian understanding but try to communicate this) and the professor brought up the example in our textbooks of the Peppered Moth Theory (used all the time in all grade school biology classes) which shows how birds would eat the white variety but the darker variety being more easily camouflaged were able to escape notice more readily and fly away to freedom thus demonstrating Darwin’s view of natural selection.

 

The truth is that after studying the case aside from the programming I was meant to receive after so many episodes of drill and repetition through the years, I came to discover the truth:

 

Paul’s peppered moth theory

 

“In the rare probability of the absence of normal foods for particular birds, and if these moths in the natural white phase of their consistently unchanged DNA are unnaturally glued or pinned to a darker tree bark by an outside intelligent force, and their darker counterparts are left free to fly and escape at will, the lighter colored, intentionally glued, or securely attached moths, will have a lesser chance of survival, and may be eaten by certain types of hungry birds, thus proving the necessity for intelligent deceit, and willful outside intelligent intervention to enhance an already unnatural selection, or at least, in order to produce the illusion of a natural selection, to the gullible minds of innocent trusting school children without their or their parent’s consent“!

 

I was severely reprimanded and asked that I do not share this with my classmates (which of course I did anyway…the truth will set you free. All the peppered moth theory teaches is two things:

 

a)      There is an intentional deception being pulled over the eyes of the public mind, and

 

b)      For such unnatural selection to be made to appear to be Darwin’s so-called natural selection, it takes the influence of an outside intelligent force working their will upon nature.

 

 

Not believing it is one thing, revealing its shortcomings quite another.

 

You see, I believe in the idea of evolution as change over time,

 

b) but brainwashing generations to believe a) that creatures of one phyla actually become creatures of another phyla (fish become amphibians, which eventually became reptiles, which eventually became birds, then mammals, etc.) is total science fiction yet taught as if it is the truth supported by scientific fact (when in truth there is not one iota of fact which shows this to be the case). Yet go ahead and try to argue the opposing case in a classroom and see what happens. You will be called names, labeled, and treated as a baffoon. The evidence we see in the geological column totally refutes this as well as the other Darwinian notion called uniform gradualism. b) Are you saying this is good “science” when against the factual truth a fiction is imposed as fact but because it can be proven to be fallacious this makes it good? That’s absurd.

 

c) Ever see Ben Stein’s Expelled: Intelligence not Allowed? The funny thing is that Stein is not a creationist. His point is the repression of the freedom of challenge among many in academia. This follows in their peer group publications. d) 1,000s of articles are submitted and systematically denied publication because they challenge the status quo consensus (like in the days of the Clovis Theory). Anyone who tries to publish an article which questions the ruling opinion of the pedagogues is automatically rejected by the editors as either not science or against “real science”.

 

e) Only when one of their own inner circle makes the point does it carry any weight. One such example is from an article published by a once Darwinian bulldog, Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University. Gould, an avid Darwinian activist for decades, before he passed, eventually rejected the Darwinian model for the Punctuated Equilibrium theory, because in the geological layers, new species just suddenly appear fully formed. Gould admitted among his peers that there are very few if any transitional forms. In the lowest Cambrian layer, life forms suddenly explode on the scene, and not just simple bacteria or archae but creatures made up of cells with fully functional interdependent sub-systems. When he finally got honest with the evidence he saw that his previous assumption based conclusions were inadequate to explain what was actually there.

 

In one of his regular articles in the professional periodical, “Natural History“ (see the May 1977 issue), Gould had already admitted, among the inner-circle of his peers (those who read this periodical) that, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of  Paleontology”! So first off he is not saying they do not appear but that in his opinion they are extremely rare. The problem is the rare ones are mostly being interpreted as intermediary phases but that is by assumption mostly based on similarities of form. In other words if two creatures have wings, they must be related, But such thinking is scientifically erroneous.

 

He goes on to state as a matter of fact that, “In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed.“

 

And after all, Darwin himself admitted that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“. e) Oopps! Well there it is! Sorry Charlie! Consider it broken down.

 

[...]

 

In His love

Brother Paul

 

Paul, (letters in red color added to your posting to avoid too much work)

a) thanks for giving an example. However, I see a difference between believing the one thing and writing it down when asked to explain the other.

 

I'm not going to discuss the peppered moth thing nor your point about animals in phyla, however. The mods in this forum don't want expanded science discussions among believers, and I'm glad that it is so.

If you can disprove it, please jump to question 2) I asked you in the post to you I wrote, yesterday. Thanks.

 

b) please jump to my question 3) I asked you concerning the alledged brainwashing.

 

c) the movie "Expelled.." has been discussed

 

d) please give us just one example of this in the thread "do creationists circumvent science", if you have any.

 

e) you seem to think that lack of evidence proves the contrary. I don't agree with that. I think in case of lack of evidence you can't prove neither the one thing nor the other.

 

Thomas

 

[Guest]

.... I was only giving a few examples of the type of political thinking this leads to (not the only problematic thinking by any means). In this case, according to the evolutionary schema, because people are just (only) animals, evolutionarily graded according to Darwin's outlook (humans, sub-humans, and "anthropomorphic apes"), the unconscious conclusion children are led into is that some are superior, some are inferior, some have a genetic entitlement, the right to impose their will on others, etc., but this by no means is the only problem thinking that comes forth from this erroneous analysis of reality.

 

It is a hypothesis when applied is based entirely on assumptions that have no basis in facts. We are teaching them unfounded imaginations which gives a scientific reasoning to prejudice, false feelings of judgmentalism, and worse, as if they are established scientific fact. Being taught as fact, by the people (their teachers) that they are supposed to be able to trust in to give them "truth", is abominable. Especially when his model is then applied not only socio-politically but also to history, physics, and other matters it has absolutely nothing to do with (also allegedly to be believed and trusted in). Can't you see how problematic such a thing is for all humanity? I consider the teaching of it as if it is a fact, child abuse...mind rape....intentional misdirection.

 

Is the universe really self-existent? Prove it!

Did the universe EVOLVE by chance in time? Prove it!

Did life arise by coincidental natural means from non-living matter? Prove it!

Did a single cell become multicellular organisms which in turn became fish, which became amphibians, then reptiles, then birds, then mammals? Prove it!

Are aristocratic Caucasians actually the more genetically advanced human species (as if there is rally such a thing)? Prove it!

Are males actually more genetically fit to rule and potentially more intelligent because of their greater cranial size and less emotionalism? Prove it!

 

Again Thomas, this is just the tiny teenee tip of the iceberg. When Darwin's evolution is taught in schools we are (by drill and repetition) imposing a number of unfounded lies as if they are truths. Who is the father of lies? Who if he could would cause such deception that would lead man to the conclusion that he can be lord of his own life? Really....

 

If survival of the fittest is the rule of humanity then might makes right...the ends justify the means...the genetically superior have a destined obligation to impose themselves (allegedly for the greater good) upon those sub-humans and racistly called "anthropomorphic apes"! Every time we glorify this man or his hypothesis we are encouraging these notions.

 

The psycho-emotional outcome is an acceptance of unreality as if it is reality. Do you know the psychiatric term for when one believes their unreality is in fact reality? What happens in the human community is an ever growing schizoid state where ones accepted beliefs create all sorts of self contradictions to their own best interest. You asked about some of the political effects and I provided you with some. Did you know that Darwinian curiculum developers believe and operate on the assumption that children enter school insane? That beause they believe in notions like a God, or trust their parents instructions, or believe in the sovereignty of their nation, they are insane? It's true...I can give you some quotations if I must. They believe the classroom to be a form of laboratory and the teachers (without most knowing), by using the methods of statism and Outcome based education, are the great experimenters and children are the objects of experimentation (see??? Not humans....engineerable parts of the stockyard to bring about their plans and purposes...)...

 

 

There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men. Proverbs 30:14

[EinsteinToNewton]

If we teach christian creationism we muat also teach islamic creationism and Hinduism creationism and all the other relgions to. This country was founded on religious freedom and secularism. Read the constitution people

[other one]

If we teach christian creationism we muat also teach islamic creationism and Hinduism creationism and all the other relgions to. This country was founded on religious freedom and secularism. Read the constitution people

i don't see where the constitution tells us what to teach in our schools.   That would be left up to the people in each state.

[Guest]

If we teach christian creationism we muat also teach islamic creationism and Hinduism creationism and all the other religions to. This country was founded on religious freedom and secularism. Read the constitution people

 

By State Law We Are To Teach Truth

But Since 1962

We Don't

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Everyone!

    I am not sure how science is taught in the public school system because I went to a private parochial school from  kindergarten to 8th grade...of course we were taught Gods"creation"as written in the Bible but in science class we were taught the "theory" of evolution....isn't it taught as just what it is,a theory?I understand they don't teach anything Biblical but I didn't realize that they teach evolution as the only option to consider......is this so?

                                                                                                                      With love,in Christ-Kwik

[EinsteinToNewton]

 

If we teach christian creationism we muat also teach islamic creationism and Hinduism creationism and all the other relgions to. This country was founded on religious freedom and secularism. Read the constitution people

i don't see where the constitution tells us what to teach in our schools.   That would be left up to the people in each state.

 

 

The treaty of Tripoli (not in the constitution) article eleven

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11

 

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

 

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.

[alphaparticle]

Blessings Everyone!

    I am not sure how science is taught in the public school system because I went to a private parochial school from  kindergarten to 8th grade...of course we were taught Gods"creation"as written in the Bible but in science class we were taught the "theory" of evolution....isn't it taught as just what it is,a theory?I understand they don't teach anything Biblical but I didn't realize that they teach evolution as the only option to consider......is this so?

                                                                                                                      With love,in Christ-Kwik

Evolution *is* the only scientific game in town. Besides which, it being 'only a theory' is meaningless. Gravity is 'only a theory'. That germs cause illness is 'only a theory'. The theory which allowed us to build nuclear weapons is 'only a theory'. The theory which allows us to make transisotrs for your computer is 'only a theory'. Something being a theory doesn't mean it's ill established at all.