Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

May 03, 2005

Evolutionists troubled by thinking students

The taxpayer funded missionaries for the religion of Evolution, working in government schools as “science teachers” are facing an increasingly educated group of students, difficult to indoctrinate.

From the very inaptly named, Christian Science Monitor:

Nearly 30 years of teaching evolution in Kansas has taught Brad Williamson to expect resistance, but even this veteran of the trenches now has his work cut out for him when students raise their hands.

That's because critics of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection are equipping families with books, DVDs, and a list of "10 questions to ask your biology teacher."

The intent is to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of students as to the veracity of Darwin's theory of evolution.

The indoctrinators complain that the questions are “not science-based” and waste time. The article lists the following questions as some of those being asked by students:

Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

The article fails to mention how many government school science textbooks repeat this error. Many do, and pointing it out is a legitimate question.

Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

How is that not about science?

Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry - even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

Good question, and i very much based on a truly scientific approach. If the textbooks are deceptive, it's a legitimate question. It's shameful that teachers would feel asking it is a “waste of time”

Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds - even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

I imagine questions like this are pretty uncomfortable for the disciples of Evolution, and dismissing them as “unscientific” (as the Soviet Union used to dismiss any revolution against their regime as “counter-revolutionary”) is much easier than..oh...thinking.

Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection - when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

I remember those pictures when I was in school. Faked science is not science -- but exposing fake science is part of science.

Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

Kids who actually think for themselves can be so annoying to government indoctrinators. Please pay no attention to that pseudo-scientific scam artist behind the curtain.

Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

Add to that a generation for a fruit fly is about 30 days. People have been doing breeding experiments on them for several centuries, and there doesn't seem to be any new species popping out in all that time.

Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

How is it unscientific to question bad evidence? What kind of education is that supposed to be?

Why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact - even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

Because Evolution is a religion, and you aren't supposed to question it, just believe it blindly and have faith in the all powerful gods of Time and Chance.

The article is really amusing, as far as that kind of propaganda can be. The teachers whine because the students question them, then whine because they claim the students don't understand Evolution. Well, answer their questions, ya morons!

Posted by Danny Carlton at May 3, 2005 10:34 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/1074

Comments

Evolution is not a religion. Religion is more akin to some idiot rolling around on the ground speaking in "tongues", while 99 more idiots stand around saying "Praise the Lord!"..."He lives!"..."Amen". And what's even more "amusing" is how you will spend your day(s) looking for loopholes to discredit the scientific community---a community that ironically goes against your "conclusion"---the very same "conclusion" that was handed to you by Mommy and Daddy because they wanted to protect you from reality---the hard reality that YOU will cease to exist, just like every OTHER living thing.....::sniff, sniff::

Posted by: boomSLANG at May 3, 2005 12:41 PM

Yes, Evolution is a religion. No, I do not "go around" looking for "loopholes". I don't need to. The blatant errors of the religion of Evolution are laid right out in the open. No one needs to search for them.

Your religion was handed to you by others who also wanted a convenient way of rationalizing immorality they found inconvenient. You flame Christians because you know they're right, and you hate being confronted by the truth.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at May 3, 2005 01:44 PM

Every human being is born agnostic. I don't "flame" Christians, I question, and challenge, Christianity. Furthermore, my arguments are based on evidence; so far, all you've done is entertain me with erroneous "mathematics", some oxymorons, and some reverse-psychological mish mash.....i.e "the religion of evolution".

Posted by: boomSLANG at May 3, 2005 05:26 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.