Say "No" to eulogizing Charles Darwin and evolution
Evolution, is it science or religion? It is still under debate.
This site is a response to the Darwin Day campaign by atheistic evolutionary believers to embed the theory of evolution as a scientific fact. A proposed petition will ask President Obama to issue a proclamation that “Honors Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution by natural selection.” This is a fallacious argument but more on that later.
Why are the atheists asking the government to endorse something that is so blatantly wrong and obviously a bait and switch tactic? What’s at stake? There are only two views of how the universe, the world and you and I came to be. Either it was created or it evolved. This is a philosophical debate—ultimately, it’s not really about the science. The constitution calls for the state not to be involved in the establishment of any religion—yet a mandated religious view is being proposed. Even ardent evolutionist and former university professor Michael Ruse admitted:
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint … the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”[i]
Natural selection, as mentioned in the petition, is a real observed phenomenon, but it does not provide the genetic information necessary to turn particles into people as believed by evolutionists. This may surprise some readers because natural selection is usually equated with evolution. The father of natural selection was actually a Christian named Edward Blyth and not Darwin at all, and Blyth was not an evolutionist. Darwin was caught up in the sociopolitical climate of the time which led to the search for an evolutionary mechanism to explain our existence.
Evolution is not the kind of science that sends man to the moon or provides medical cures
Is evolution really ‘scientific’? Most people don’t realize that interpretations of the past are clearly determined by our belief system. ‘Science’, as most people understand the phrase, can only deal with interpreting ‘facts’ that we observe in the present. Those facts are then filtered through one’s preexisting belief system or worldview about the past. And in many cases, the proposed mechanisms that supposedly occurred in the past are not actually observed to be happening today. How can this be science, which most understand to be the observable, repeatable and testable scientific method? Even the world’s leading Darwinian evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, said:
“Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”[ii]
That’s not science! See a short video clip of Richard Dawkins unable to answer a simple question about evidence for evolution that should be true.
Top row: Haeckel’s fraudulent images of embryos
Bottom row: Actual photos of embryos
The moral illegitimacy of evolution
Here is an example of evolutionary biology that has been known to be wrong for over 100 years (admitted by evolutionists) and yet it is still in many high school and university textbooks today. Our textbooks are full of such mistakes. Such erroneous views have caused people to believe that they are no more that rearranged pond scum, with no meaning and purpose. This has led to much of the moral decay we see in society. So, let the debate really be about science and let’s see who is really teaching it badly. Such teachings have had disastrous consequences on individuals and our societies including promoting euthanasia—and the abortion of millions of innocent unborn children because of the faulty evolutionary belief that they are not yet fully human. Worse still, even President Obama has agreed with arguably the world’s most radical bioethicist/eugenicist, Peter Singer, that infanticide (killing children after they are born) should be legal. If one is old, handicapped or just unwanted—one is not safe anymore.
See the following for the consequences of evolutionary teaching on society:
“Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.” Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
This is the only the thin edge of the wedge
How would you feel about possibly being forced to take a public holiday to celebrate Darwin and endorse evolution? It’s already happening in the UK! If we allow this to happen any criticism of evolution will not be tolerated. This brainwashing will increasingly create a moral vacuum in our culture. So much for the scientific method of critiquing any hypothesis! Such censorship is authoritarian, and similar regimes with this evolutionary atheism at its core are responsible for more deaths in the last century than in all of the recorded religious wars in history. This is an attack on free speech and our constitutional rights. There is already ample evidence that shows the discrimination against any scientist who does not hold to an evolutionary worldview. What is happening to our great democracies?
Why is criticism of evolution not allowed? Ask the anti-God humanists!
Science is not neutral. The National Center for Science Education helps the government form science curriculum for our schools. They are an offshoot of the American Humanist Association, and its executive director, Eugenie Scott, is a self-proclaimed humanist who wants everyone to think their way. She tacitly admitted that if students heard criticisms of evolution, they might end up not believing it!
“In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.”[iii]
Let’s applaud critical thinking and allow people the right to choose by having access to full and frank information about our origins. Let’s not hoodwink people into accepting a religious humanistic religion under the guise of science.
Our country’s future could depend on it.
Just released! Get the most concise, yet comprehensive response to the very best that evolution has to offer.
The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution. A response to The Greatest Show on Earth: the evidence for evolution by Richard Dawkins.
Produced for the 2009 Darwin double anniversary it poses the question, “If Darwin knew today what we know about science—would he still be an evolutionist?” Filmed in South America, UK, North America, Australia and Europe, The Voyage features dramatic period recreations and stunning nature cinematography interwoven with scholars sharing their perspectives on the man and the controversy.
[i] Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000. Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.