My confusion or dispute is not about mutation + natural selection.
Quite frankly what I reject is the fact that under the demand of "evolution" young minds are not taught the difference between "fauna succession" and themselves coming from pond scum.
What has been done in the name of "SCIENCE" is to distort "human beings" to the same status as "fauna succession".
To fill the void of one and the same "self-esteem" classes are necessary.
Science in our children's classrooms today is a mixture of "fauna succession" blended in with what the "evil" human has done to the environment. A 10th grade biology teacher, who is actually the golf coach, bragged at open house, about how many acres of the "Rain Forest" he had saved over the years.
The subject of science has become so PC'd that it is little more than a religion of mutation and natural selection, and all parts of earth are one and the same.
The teaching community in their mutation are just as responsible for the state of "MIND" of children when they blend theories with provable facts. The one thing that is never allowed in any part of teaching science is a "CREATOR". One can show mutation and natural selection, and the "creation" and a Creator are not mutually exclusive and that is what our children are taught as SCIENCE.
A few years back an 8th grade science teacher, who is the girls softball coach, gave an assignment to his class to "create" a creature, name it, and design a habitat for their creation. Talk about a waste of time and brain cells teaching my child to be a "god".
Quite frankly what I reject is the fact that under the demand of "evolution" young minds are not taught the difference between "fauna[l]
succession" and themselves coming from pond scum. What has been done in the name of "SCIENCE" is to distort "human beings" to the same status as "fauna[l] succession".
People are animals, too, whether you like it or not. The faunal succession in this case has such things as Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, etc.
These fossils conform to faunal succession just like anything else does; a specific species is only found in strata of a certain age.
These fossils look like what one would expect human ancestors to look like, assuming we're related to the apes. They're also found in Africa for the most part, which is something Darwin predicted.
To fill the void of one and the same "self-esteem" classes are necessary.
When I was in school in the '50s and 60s we were taught human evolution (with fewer fossils, of course), and we were not given self esteem classes.
The rest of your comments seem to be confusing bad teaching and science. Thhis says nothing about the validity of biology, and a lot about the standards in education departments.