Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwinists top the censorship food chain
Townhall.com ^ | December 27, 2004 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on 12/27/2004 2:34:25 PM PST by Ed Current

The most censored speech in the United States today is not flag-burning, pornography or the press. The worst censors are those who prohibit classroom criticism of the theory of evolution.

A Chinese scholar observed, "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."
Polls show that the vast majority of Americans reject the theory of evolution, as have great scientists such as William Thomas Kelvin and Louis Pasteur. But that does not stop an intolerant minority from trying to impose a belief in the ape-to-man theory on everyone else.

Local school boards have finally had enough of this tyranny. From Georgia to Pennsylvania to Ohio to Wisconsin to Kansas, school boards are finally moving toward allowing criticism of Darwin's theory.

The Darwinists have propped up their classroom dominance by the persistent use of frauds and flacks. The fraudulent pro-evolution embryo drawings of Ernst Haeckel littered schoolbooks for 100 years, and it took specific action by the Texas Board of Education to keep them out of current textbooks even after the New York Times exposed Haeckel's deception.

Many textbooks feature pictures of giraffes stretching their necks to feed high off of trees, but genetics and observed feeding habits disprove that as a basis for evolution of their long necks. Moreover, the striking beauty of the colored pattern on the giraffes illustrates that design, not merely usefulness, is what animates our world.

Continued censorship of criticism invites additional fraud, so evolution has suffered more embarrassments than any other scientific theory. The Piltdown man was a lie taught to schoolchildren for decades, even featured in the John Scopes Monkey Trial textbook, and only five years ago a dinosaur-bird fossil hoax was presented as true on the glossy pages of National Geographic.

If Darwinists want to teach that whales, which are mammals, evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open, we should surely be entitled to criticize that. Yet school libraries have refused to accept books critical of evolution, even when written by college professors.

Responding to the majority of their constituents, Georgia's Cobb County recently authorized a textbook disclaimer saying "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

The American Civil Liberties Union claims this is unconstitutional and is seeking out supremacist judges to order classroom curricula to continue the censorship and forbid an open mind about evolution. If the theory of evolution were well supported, there would be no reason to oppose open debate about scientific claims.

In December 2004, a world-famous champion of atheism, Antony Flew, announced his conversion to acceptance of intelligent design underlying our world. The Dallas Morning News observed, "If the scientific data are compelling enough to cause an atheist academic of Flew's reputation to recant most of his life's work, why shouldn't Texas schoolchildren be taught the controversy?"

At 81, Flew can speak out because he is now free from the peer pressure that silences younger colleagues who fear loss of jobs, funding, or even dreams of winning a Nobel Prize. Evolution critics Fred Hoyle and Raymond Damadian were unjustly denied Nobel Prizes and their work was instead recognized by awards to less-deserving others.

Darwinists know they cannot persuade skeptical adults, so they try to capture impressionable schoolchildren. At our expense and against our wishes, children are taught that the world exists only for what is useful, not by design.

To typical schoolchildren full of wonder, we live in a world best described as a marvelous work of art. The snowflakes that grace us at Christmastime typify the artistic beauty that bestows joy on all ages but, like an acid, evolution corrodes this inborn appreciation of beauty and falsely trains children to view themselves as mere animals no more worthy than dogs or cats.

There is a strong correlation between belief in natural selection and liberal views on government control, pornography, prayer in schools, abortion, gun control, economic freedom, and even animal rights. For the most part, the schools in the blue states carried in the 2004 presidential election by U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., are strongly pro-evolution, while the red states carried by President George W. Bush allow debate and dissent.

It should surprise no one that the United States, land of the free and home of the brave, has the lowest percentage of evolution believers in the world. The highest percentage lived in the former East Germany.

The U.S. Senate of former Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., quietly slipped a provision into the No Child Left Behind Act that requires, by the 2007-2008 school year, science testing by grade 5. That gives censors the authority to force 10-year-olds to believe and defend evolution.

It is long past time for parents to realize they have the right and duty to protect their children from the intolerant evolutionists. Hooray for courageous school boards that are finally rejecting censorship and allowing debate.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist; education; schlafly; wrongforum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 441-454 next last
To: Dimensio
FYI, I don't really consider evolutionists liars.
I consider the theory of evolution a lie.
To believe in a lie does not necessarily make one a liar... only decieved.

You might also find it interesting that I believe there is no such thing as an atheist.
I say this because God's Word (which has proven itself to be the most accurate historical document in human history) indicates that the knowledge of God's existence is written on every man's heart so that no-one will have an excuse.

It doesn't really bother me to have people call me a liar for what I believe... especially by those who are not willing to question the limits of their own understanding.
241 posted on 12/28/2004 12:03:45 AM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Prove that your mention of Johnson was nothing more than attempt at self-aggrandizement.


242 posted on 12/28/2004 12:04:46 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
FYI, I don't really consider evolutionists liars.

I never said that you did. Another non-sequitur, because you're unable to address the fact that you lied.

I consider the theory of evolution a lie.

So? You've demonstrated that you know nothing of it, so your opinion really doesn't count for much.

To believe in a lie does not necessarily make one a liar... only decieved.

Ah, so when you claimed that all who accept evolution do not believe in God, you were just being decieved, is that it?

You might also find it interesting that I believe there is no such thing as an atheist.

No, I find that many creationists as out of touch with reality as you can have any number of bizarre and unrealistic beliefs.

I say this because God's Word (which has proven itself to be the most accurate historical document in human history) indicates that the knowledge of God's existence is written on every man's heart so that no-one will have an excuse.

Uh-huh. And it just happens to be the "God" that you believe exists. Not the "God" of the Hindus, not the "God" of the Muslims, not one of the gods of the Olympic pantheon, it's all about you.

It doesn't really bother me to have people call me a liar for what I believe

I don't call you a liar for what you believe, I call you a liar for repeating a lie. Specifically, you are repeating the lie that all who accept evolution do not accept the existence of God. That is a lie. You are a liar for making the claim. You seem, however, utterly incapable of responding to anything, instead replying to some hypothetical post that no one made because you're afraid to address reality.
243 posted on 12/28/2004 12:08:08 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
With impeccable documentation, Weikart demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers of the pre-Hitler era believed -- and celebrated the fact -- that Darwinism overturned traditional Christian ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life.

That's a fact. Evolution is the perfect philosophical basis for being an asshole.

244 posted on 12/28/2004 12:10:21 AM PST by judywillow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
I consider the theory of evolution a lie.

In what way, exactly?

You might also find it interesting that I believe there is no such thing as an atheist.

Then you're wrong about that as well.

I say this because God's Word (which has proven itself to be the most accurate historical document in human history)

Oooookay...

indicates that the knowledge of God's existence is written on every man's heart

And this means what, exactly?

It doesn't really bother me to have people call me a liar for what I believe...

We don't call you a liar for what you beleive. We call you a liar for making transparently false claims.

245 posted on 12/28/2004 12:12:42 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: judywillow
Evolution is the perfect philosophical basis for being an asshole.

You're not sounding too mannerly yourself, hon.

246 posted on 12/28/2004 12:15:53 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I find compartmentalization extremely fascinating... like the ultimate rubics cube to unlock... and yet the key does not lie with that which we can understand, but rather that which we cannot.


247 posted on 12/28/2004 12:16:24 AM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns; Ed Current
Don't you wonder what the real motive is for their defense of evolution? They'll tell you it's for the sake of science or some such obfuscation, but the following is more likely: source
248 posted on 12/28/2004 12:19:26 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Prove that your mention of Johnson was nothing more than attempt at self-aggrandizement.

Right after you "prove" that you're not a serial killer.

Hint: "Proof" is a very difficult thing to provide. Try restating your request in a more sensible manner, with more modest goals, and in a less confrontational way.

In short, you're *still* behaving like an ass. And yes, I do at times myself (mostly as a result of responding-in-kind), but it's not *all* I do on these threads, unlike (*cough*) some people. In years past you at least *attempted* to discuss the topic. Lately, though, all I've seen you do is lob terse, snottily-worded stink-bombs into these discussions.

Why bother?

249 posted on 12/28/2004 12:25:30 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Dataman; Ichneumon
You are outright calling him a liar?

And suggesting he must prove his innocence?

I've watched your posts for a while and learned to blow them off, but you've finally hit rick bottom with this.

Read the thread he linked to. It refers to those earlier threads - threads which, along with millions of others, are not archived.

Combined with Ichneumon's obvious mastery of the subject, I don't believe any intelligent or reasonable person would honestly doubt him. I wont speculate openly as to why you would claim to.
250 posted on 12/28/2004 12:25:55 AM PST by Trinity_Tx (Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believin as we already do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Don't you wonder what the real motive is for their defense of evolution?

You just hit the nail on the head... right from wrong.
There are only two ways to deal with guilt... rejection or resolution. It's not really about defending science... it's about ignoring the consequences of sin.


251 posted on 12/28/2004 12:29:02 AM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Dataman; Safrguns; Ed Current; Dimensio
Don't you wonder what the real motive is for their defense of evolution? They'll tell you it's for the sake of science or some such obfuscation, but the following is more likely:

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but this one's not very good. In fact, it's downright goofy.

And for you to claim that it's "more likely" than the obvious explanation (i.e. that we object to bogus attacks on evolutionary biology -- and other sciences -- because we hate to see science education in this country "dumbed down" further than it already is), is just a *really* poor reflection on both your mental and emotional state.

For pete's sake, man -- if we were "really" motivated by some evil desire to destroy the United States, we'd sure as hell be able to find more direct routes to that goal than, *gasp*, DEFENDING EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY (*swoon*)... The horror, the horror...

Please *THINK* before posting, and step *away* from the crystal meth...

252 posted on 12/28/2004 12:32:33 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Please *THINK* before posting, and step *away* from the crystal meth...

I like your scientific approach to your opposition. It's what makes you stand out. If you followed the link to Fox News, you'd see who wrote the material. Are you accusing Bill of being on meth?

You're too easy... which is another reason your "debate" with Johnson doesn't ring true.

253 posted on 12/28/2004 12:37:19 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Darwin conceded that "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory" was that the fossil record failed to back up his evolutionary hypothesis.

This is a gross misrepresentation of what he was actually saying in that passage, but hey, why start being accurate now?

"Why," he asked, "if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" He figured it was just because the fossil record was incomplete.

Among *OTHER* reasons which you "forgot" to mention.

That was a long time ago. Where are the transitional forms?

Here are several hundred for you, and there are thousands more where those came from.

Let me guess -- you were under the impression that there were "no transitional fossils" because you believed the lie in the creationist pamphlets, right?

254 posted on 12/28/2004 12:39:28 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Hint: "Proof" is a very difficult thing to provide.

You make a claim and then qualify it with the equivalent of "the dog ate my homework." You can't have it both ways: You can't sing the praises of proof, evidence, and the scientific method while suggesting we believe you had an on-line debate with Philip Johnson but you forgot to save a copy and can't give us the link.

It's an arrogant double standard-- not unlike the one that says creationists question evolution because they are ignorant but evolutionist question creation because they are intelligent.

255 posted on 12/28/2004 12:47:02 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
[Please *THINK* before posting, and step *away* from the crystal meth... ]

I like your scientific approach to your opposition. It's what makes you stand out.

Thank you.

If you followed the link to Fox News, you'd see who wrote the material. Are you accusing Bill of being on meth?

No, please work on your reading comprehension -- I'm accusing *you* of being delusional for *your* linkage of O'Reilly's point with (*gasp*) the defense of evolutionary biology (and other sciences). That was all *your* fantasy, O'Reilly made no such connection, most likely because he's *not* a paranoid maniac on the topic of evolution, unlike some people I could name.

Are we clear now, son?

You're too easy...

Clearly, you're a legend in your own mind.

which is another reason your "debate" with Johnson doesn't ring true.

Let me get this straight -- you think it's somehow wildly beyond credibility that when Phillip Johnson dropped into talk.origins a few times in the early 1990's (established fact) when I was posting there during the same period (also an easily established fact), I managed to exchange posts with him on the subject of the newsgroup?

I repeat -- step *away* from the drugs, and attempt to *think* before you post, lest you continue to make a fool of yourself.

256 posted on 12/28/2004 12:49:08 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; The Ghost of FReepers Past
Let me guess -- you were under the impression that there were "no transitional fossils" because you believed the lie in the creationist pamphlets, right?

You're just playing dumb, right? Do we need to bring out the quotes of evolutionists denying that there are any transitional forms? Besides, if there were actually a transitional form, that would be proof for evolution, wouldn't it? And if you had proof, it wouldn't be a theory any more, would it? Evolutionists could get rid of the peppered moths from the texts then as well as Haekel's embryos, and a dumpster full of other bogus "evidence."

Or aren't you playing dumb?

257 posted on 12/28/2004 12:52:41 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
"It's not really about defending science... it's about ignoring the consequences of sin."

LOL Why would that motivate me? I don't sin any more now that I believe there is evidence for evolution than I did in my most devout Christian walk. And I still spend time on other sites fighting "secular fundamentalists".

Sorry, guys. Some of us just happen to have studied both sides and simply concluded that, so far, the evidence is best explained by the theory of evolution.

258 posted on 12/28/2004 12:53:34 AM PST by Trinity_Tx (Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believin as we already do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
It's hilarious that FReepers who are hyper-critical of any political or social poll critical of conservative goals have so whole-heartedly embraced this poll "proving" that most Americans don't believe in the Theory of Evolution.

That aside, it's not censorship to demand that scientific fact and not religious dogma be taught in public school science class. As for being allowed to criticise evolution, hell you can criticise all you like. Biologists criticise and refine the theory all the time, and it's quite simply the best explaination we have for how species developed.

If you can come up with something better than "God did it", I'll happily switch to that. Until then, don't accuse me of censorship for wanting to keep your religious beliefs out of my child's education.

259 posted on 12/28/2004 12:57:15 AM PST by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Let me get this straight -- you think it's somehow wildly beyond credibility that when Phillip Johnson dropped into talk.origins a few times in the early 1990's (established fact) when I was posting there during the same period (also an easily established fact), I managed to exchange posts with him on the subject of the newsgroup?

Now it's devolved from a debate to an "exchange of posts." Ok. I can imagine you possibly submitting a question but I can't really imagine Johnson responding unless-- once upon a time-- you were civil (and that does take some imagination).

260 posted on 12/28/2004 12:57:18 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 441-454 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson