Replies

It is very simple, it's called behavioral science. Tell a child that he is a mistake and you will effect the way he looks at himself. tell a child he came from a monkey and it will effect the way he thinks of himself.

You will need to demonstrate an actual causation rather than just asserting one in order to carry credibility with your claims.

The best example of this is the teenage premarital sex rate. since the kids believe that they are nothing but high order animals, then they should give into their urges instead of controlling them.

Again, merely asserting that the teaching of the theory of evolution leads to increased underaged sexual activity does not demonstrate your claim. You will need to show actual evidence linking the two.

The schools promote this idea and believe it, so they hand out condoms.

I do not see how this relates to the theory of evolution.

There are so many statistics that I could throw out to prove this line of reasoning that space is not available.

Again, these statistics -- which you have not provided -- are not relevant to the validity of the theory of evolution, nor do they demonstrate that teaching the theory of evolution leads to the behaviour that you describe.

Just do a simple study: compare the behavior of children taught in a Christian school that teaches Creation to the behavior of children in a non-Christian school that teaches evolution. If you can't understand this, maybe you need to evolve more.

If you have references to such a study that is able to rule out all other possible different factors between the two groups of students that can conclude that teaching the theory of evolution has a direct impact on the behaviour of students, then you will have a point. Merely asserting your claims, however, does not demonstrate them to be factual. Moreover, even if your claims are true, they do not affect the validity of the theory of evolution. Are you suggesting that we supress truth because some may find the consequences of knowing truth to be undesirable?

Even without the theory of evolution, everyone knows that if we trace our ancestors back far enough we find some bad people. Maybe a criminal here and there, perhaps a wanton woman or two, that sort of thing. Go back further, and our ancestors were all pagans. Certainly at some point they were all barbarians, and before that they were savages, perhaps cannibals. We know this is our ancestry, even if evolution were never dreamed of. Our children learn this.

But so what? Does anyone, upon learning our history, decide to be a savage, or a criminal? Or a pagan? Even in these days of endless excuses, does any criminal defend his actions on the grounds that some of his long-ago ancestors were criminals too? Such a defense is too absurd, even for the OJ jury.

We can certainly be influenced by our parents, but the primitive behavior of our distant ancestors is meaningless regarding the kind of people we choose to be. So what difference could it make if, millions of years ago, our ancestors weren't even human?