Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Nothing like being honest I say. Like all frauds, cReationism and ID are merely in search of CONTROL, they conveniently use an argument of Biblical Inerrancy to fool the pious masses.

Is that an argument for having no control or for substituting the generally accepted one with one effemm approves of? If it is the latter could we have some sight of what it will consist of?

True to my own direction, I offered up a comment to the KC church. I was shunted to a section that stated that my comments are awaiting moderation and edit.

Now that I've grown up (somewhat), I can see why any governing body would use religion (monotheism especially), it is the ultimate societal control mechanism.

What do schools have to do with evolution theory? Gee spend I'm not sure, but I struggle to see how it would countermand it.

Unless they were creationist schools. Which is the 'final solution' isnt it? Christian country, Christian schools, Christian people, Christian communism.

Hitler did it all wrong, you guys are on the right track. Your elite make Himmler and Hitler look like Pinky and the Brain.

Why would God create us?

It’s right to ask questions about evolution
(By Ken Mercer, San Antonio Express-News, December 14, 2008)

I want to present the other side of the State Board of Education’s debate on teaching scientific strengths and “weaknesses” of evolutionary theory in future textbooks.

The Texas Freedom Network (TFN), an ultra-liberal advocacy group, funded and published the research study quoted by the Express-News.

Using political “red herrings,” TFN testifiers incorrectly implied teaching scientific weaknesses is a new requirement. They argued that allowing discussion of weaknesses would lead to teaching religion and subsequent litigation.

The fact is Texas has allowed teaching scientific weaknesses in science textbooks for the last 20 years. In that period of time, not one lawsuit was filed; and for the record, the teaching of creationism and intelligent design is not found in any current textbook adopted by the State of Texas.

TFN’s real agenda may be illustrated in this consistent, three-fold testimony to the State Board of Education: (1) Evolution is a fact; (2) there are no weaknesses to that theory; and (3) students are “unqualified” to ask questions.

Is evolution a fact? Most people of faith agree with what is commonly referred to as “micro” evolution,” small changes that are clearly visible. We see this in new vaccines and new strains of flu. You can witness evidence of microevolution downtown in any city via the thousands of varieties of stray dogs and cats.

The controversial “macro” evolution was commonly understood as those major changes that could occur if one species jumped to another. For example, have you ever seen a dog-cat, or a cat-rat? The most famous example of macroevolution is the Darwinian “man from an ancestral primate.”

Realizing the weakness in macroevolution, Darwinists changed the meaning. Whatever their new definition, where is the evidence for one species changing to another?

Are there weaknesses to the theory of evolution? I asked the testifiers at the SBOE meeting about Dr. Ernst Haeckel’s embryo drawings, which appeared in science textbooks for almost 100 years. His drawings implied that a fish, salamander, turtle, pig, etc. " each had almost the identical embryology of a human.

When I redirected the question, the testifiers admitted that Darwinist Haeckel was a fraud and that his “research” should never have appeared in textbooks. But it did.

The famous “missing link,” the Piltdown man, survived scientific method and peer review for almost 40 years. Finally someone was allowed to ask a question and found a weakness. This missing link was really the jawbone of an orangutan fused to a human skull. British Broadcasting called this the greatest scientific fraud of the 20th century.

The third part of the liberal agenda is most troubling. How can anyone state that students are “unqualified” to ask questions?

I consistently argued for freedom of speech and academic freedom. The opposition publicly argued against these freedoms.

In the 19th century, William Wilberforce, the focus of the recent biographical movie “Amazing Grace,” argued against the intellectual elite of Great Britain. He is credited with ending the racist English nightmare known as the “Black Slave Trade.”

History is not kind to Darwinian evolutionists who push their theory as truth, no weaknesses and no questions allowed. In this 21st Century, scientific research that opposes academic freedom will never pass any “smell test.”

I stand for students who will always ask questions and search for truth.

An agenda that opposes both freedom of speech and academic freedom is unpatriotic, un-American, and unscientific.

The freedom peddler makes out of matters of truth a bait to lure people into a trap. Truth to him is an "ideal" and not a daily way way of doing things. He believes that he defends the truth if he is righteous. The conservative, who, out of an instinctive knowledge of the great difficulties connected with the pursuit of truth, defends the status quo in social living, is by far more honest. He has, at least, a chance of remaining decent. The freedom peddlar must, if he wishes to get along, sign his soul over to the devil.

Truth should be used cautiously against the fear of truth which is justified by actual conditions. Truth cannot be used as a tool without the infliction of pain, often severe pain; but neither can it be used like a medical drug. It is an integral part of the way of life of the future and has to grow organically within the senses and primal movements in our children from the very beginning in infancy. And this requires social and legal protection which no freedom or truth peddlar is ready or able to give.

People avoid the truth because the first bit of truth uttered and lived would draw more truth into action and so on indefinately, and this would rip most people right off the customary track of their lives. But people, basically, know what is true and what is not, even if they so often render help to the lie. They support the lie because the lie has become a crutch without which life would not be possible. Therefore, in common human intercourse, the truth, and not the lie, is suspected of being phoney.

Let people live their own truths, not your truth.

And-freedom and truth peddlers are-

Quote:

....not to be blamed for having ideals but for having emptied all ideals from any content whatsoever. Reich again.

They just talk about freedom and truth as abstractions, mere words, as if that is sufficient to establish their credentials for controlling the classrooms.

Put them in a corner on meaning and you're on Ignore.