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.
Nothing to see here. Just more of the typical creationist methods of attacking while playing the poor persecuted victim. Never mind that creationism is not science and not a theory.
Creationists are some of the best at making theirselves victims I've ever seen.
"YESWEDOYESWEDOYESWEDO!!!!!!!!!"
THEN WHEN DO WE VOTE ON GRAVITY???? CAUSE I'M TIRED OF WALKING UP THE STAIRS!!!!!!
When on earth was the last time the general public voted on a scientific issue!?!?!?!?!?! NEVER!
If you want to accept that evolution is science, but fight for it not to be taught in schools, fine... But you CANNOT argue that evolution is NOT science, because it bloody well is! At least according to the scientific community.
Einstein:
identification
childlike
cold ...unimaginable
There are your clues to the workings of the human psyche at a certain stage, Connie. Some develop past it, some don't.
Obviously, Einstein did, to this point:
Life and death flow into one and there is neither evolution nor destiny, only being.
There is your conclusion.
ping
What I'm saying is that intelligent design - that the origin of life cam from God - is a matter of opinion. The evolutionary process isn't, at least as far as it has been researched. It's a process.
BTTT!
I guess. It's an idiotic article, but ...
Dogma is immune to reason. You either believe, or you don't, but it is not open to debate
Then what do theologians do?
|
See my post #13.
I'm tired of what gravity has done to my girlish figure.
I'm in favor of voting to repeal gravity.
"Astronomers can't test stars in a lab"
Wrong. The conditions extant in stars have been created in labs many times in recent years. CERN has made many experiments successfully simulating stellar environments. So has Stanford. So has Los Alamos.
You don't need to have the whole star in the lab to extrapolate results, do you?
If so then you won't mind my rubbing your nose in the fact that evolution is extrapolated from a minute sample of representative individuals, not entire species or family/genetic lines.
This is fun! (:
Beats me. How can someone not believe a self evident truth?
The conclusion I hope you mean is that it illustrates his spiritual maturity, which some here seem to lack entirely.
That is the conclusion that I reach, too.
In fact, those are the conclusions that I reach.
Beats me. How can someone not believe a self evident truth?
Better ask them how they work out their dogmatic differences. I don't claim to be a theologian.
I don't either. If they can work out the differences, then they apparently weren't dogmatic.
If they can work out the differences, then they apparently weren't dogmatic.
Perhaps their settlement is what then becomes known as "dogma."
What does pointing out the evolution of science prove??? If you really have such a problem, with science, then I suggest you stop using your car, as well as your heating and plumbing... Oh wait! You only have problems with TODAY's science, the stuff that hasn't been thoroughly tested yet.
All the examples you gave, at least the ones that were honest, are silly. WHo proved them ALL wrong? Other scientists... And what were they replaced with? Other scientific theories!
For instance #1, heliocentrism. First of all, aristotle was not a scientist, he was a philosopher. Real scietists did not appear until the enlightenment. Heliocentrism is a theory that will never change, not without shaking our knowledge of tghe natural world like never before. It was a risky venture 800 years ago, but not today.
"Evolution hasn't really convinced anyone."
Other than the scientific community...
If evolution was ever proven wrong, which is possible, though as unlikely as relativity being proven wrong, it would throw half the life sciences current conclusions into question. And if it ever were proven wrong, it would be found out by a scientist, or replaced by a better scientific theory. There would never, ever be any input from the church in this process.
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.