South Carolina Senator: Darwinism Has Replaced Christianity in Public Schools

Mike FairCOLUMBIA, S.C. – A South Carolina state senator who has supported the critiquing of evolution in public schools says Christianity is being systematically outlawed from public schools and replaced with Darwinism.

Mike Fair represents Senate District 6 in South Carolina and is a member of the state’s Education Oversight Committee. As previously reported, Fair objected to evolution-supporting terminology in proposed science education standards in February. Then, in May, he championed an education policy that would allow students in public schools to learn arguments both for and against evolution.

Despite opposition from evolutionists, Fair is not shying away from the creation/evolution controversy. In a column published on Saturday by The Post and Courier, Fair explained his stance on evolution, arguing that courts have placed an unconstitutional “stranglehold” on the search for scientific truth.

“The ‘truth’ must conform to Darwinism, or it is not allowed,” he alleged. “I don’t suppose it matters what your eyes see or your mind tells you.”

Anything other than atheistic evolutionism, Fair noted, is quickly censured from government schools.

“Making inferences to the best factual information is not allowed if it points to a religion other than atheism,” he wrote. “Consideration that the fine tuning of our galaxy is a miracle (or made that way) is a discussion that is not allowed.”

Referring to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Fair suggested that recent court cases have misconstrued the meaning of the Establishment Clause.

  • Connect with Christian News

“The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution proclaims: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’” he stated. “It means what it says.”

According to Fair, the religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment have been increasingly compromised by recent court cases.

“The majority of our Founding Fathers promoted the Christian faith as individuals but agreed the government would not establish a state faith funded by taxpayers,” Fair reasoned. “However, over time, the courts have come to determine what the words in the Constitution mean. Every set of Supreme Court Justices gives us a new set of ‘founders.’”

“I believe the principles established by the Founders are being removed from the public square by a series of narrow decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court,” he continued. “I am bothered that the Supreme Court has changed the Constitution by a series of 5-4 votes clearly outside the methods duly established to properly change our Constitution.”

Fair then cites several undesirable results of Supreme Court rulings, including the banning of prayer from many public places, the promoting of Darwinism in public schools, and the exclusion of many facts that point to an intelligent designer.

“It is hard for me to believe that intelligence has been ruled unconstitutional in the public schools,” he stated.

Fair contends that judges who rule against religious freedom are circumventing the governmental system established by the U.S. Constitution.

“We have a well-defined process to amend our Constitution that guarantees extensive debate,” he wrote, “but many of the principles held dear by Americans are being cast aside by judicial activism.”

Fair says the evolution/creation debate is of utmost importance, because a belief in God is the foundation for morality.

“Why should a young person care about character if he is just a random conglomeration of particles?” Fair asked.

On the contrary, Christianity offers a logical basis for both morality and science.

“Christianity and science do not conflict,” he asserted. “Christianity and make-believe do conflict.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • James Grimes

    This is to be expected when Atheists and liberals are put in charge of education.

    • James Grimes

      I found one of Senator Fair’s comments interesting, ““The majority of our Founding Fathers promoted the Christian faith as individuals but agreed the government would not establish a state faith funded by taxpayers,” Fair reasoned. “However, over time, the courts have come to determine what the words in the Constitution mean. Every set of Supreme Court Justices gives us a new set of ‘founders.’””

    • bigpawn01

      lmao since the religious and religious teaching have been pushed out of public schools since it never really belonged the level of education has increased dramatically along with technology. we owe much of our current modern comforts and scientific advances to secular people within our society

      • James Grimes

        Sorry, I’m not interested in Atheists’ opinions. That’s all it is.

        • C.P. Steinmetz

          So, you are saying that your mind is made up, and don’t confuse you with facts – correct?
          Nice try at diversion and not speaking to his point. Why would you do that?

  • Brian Westley

    Rep. Fair has no idea what he’s talking about.

    • James Grimes

      Please provide some examples so your comment has some credibility.

      • Brian Westley

        Sure, though it should be obvious…

        “Christianity is being systematically outlawed from public schools and replaced with Darwinism.”

        Christianity isn’t outlawed, though of course public schools can’t push religion. “Darwinism”, by which I assume he means evolution, is taught in science classes as science, it isn’t “replacing” anything.

        “Fair objected to evolution-supporting terminology in proposed science education standards in February.”

        This simply means he objects to science, i.e. he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, literally.

        ““Making inferences to the best factual information is not allowed if it points to a religion other than atheism,” he wrote”

        Atheism isn’t a religion, and evolution makes no mention of gods, so evolution isn’t pushing atheism. Likewise, orbital mechanics don’t mention gods, but that doesn’t mean that teaching planets orbit the sun is pushing atheism, either.

        He obviously doesn’t know the difference between teaching atheism vs. teaching science without mentioning gods. Schools do the latter, which is constitutionally required in any case — schools have to be neutral on religion, which for the most part means not referring to gods at all, except where it’s pertinent to the subject matter (like a course in comparative religion).

        “Fair then cites several undesirable results of Supreme Court rulings, including the banning of prayer from many public places,”

        Prayer hasn’t been banned from many public places — what HAS been banned is having government employees pushing religion. Students can still pray in public schools, which I’m sure would be one of his bogus examples.

        • James Grimes

          I read through your comment and it appears that it is as much anti-Christian as it is anti-Fair. I would guess that you hold to an Atheist worldview and as it is diametrically opposed to a Christian worldview, you would conclude that Fair does not know what he is talking about.
          I spent quite a bit of time in South Carolina over the summer doing research and Mike Fair’s name came up many times. He has a loyal following in the state and his credibility is very high.
          I am not sure that I can agree with your assessment of the man’s position.

          • Brian Westley

            What specific statements of mine do you disagree with?

            I can’t exactly reply to your generalities, and since my comment is rather short, you ought to be able to point to a particular statement of mine that’s anti-Christian or anti-Fair.

          • James Grimes

            “He obviously doesn’t know the difference between teaching atheism vs. teaching science without mentioning gods. Schools do the latter, which is constitutionally required in any case — schools have to be neutral on religion, which for the most part means not referring to gods at all, except where it’s pertinent to the subject matter (like a course in comparative religion).”
            Are you sure that he doesn’t know the difference. I am sure he does. He sees the curriculum as a product of liberal and atheist influences that has usurped the influence wielded by Christian residents of the state. He is looking for balance, not a one-sided curriculum.

            “Prayer hasn’t been banned from many public places — what HAS been banned is having government employees pushing religion. Students can still pray in public schools, which I’m sure would be one of his bogus examples.”
            Prayer has been banned from much of the public forum with the cry of “separation of church and state” (a fallacy!) The FFRF is on the warpath against anything remotely Christian. Christian evangelists are being arrested for sharing the Gospel. There have been many articles here on CN.net that have reported these abuses.
            If you are an Atheist, you will never agree with Sen. Fair and you will definitely not agree with what I have just written. But, I hope we can engage in good dialogue without becoming abusive. Thanks.

          • Brian Westley

            Are you sure that he doesn’t know the difference.

            Like I said, he doesn’t appear to know the difference, no. Schools rarely mention gods, and you can’t teach atheism without mentioning gods.

            He is looking for balance, not a one-sided curriculum.

            I’d say he’s looking to preserve Christian privilege.

            Prayer has been banned from much of the public forum with the cry of “separation of church and state”

            Examples, please. You haven’t cited any actual examples, just handwaving.

            If you are an Atheist, you will never agree with Sen. Fair

            That’s irrelevant to his factually incorrect statements. I agree with a lot of what Reverend Barry Lynn says about these issues.

          • James Grimes
          • Brian Westley

            OK, the first one was a ticket for advertising without a permit. That’s not preventing praying in a public place.

            The second one was reversed by the court. Sorry, that means it wasn’t banned, the police acted improperly. If you want to complain that the police aren’t perfect, I’d agree, but you can’t claim that prayer is banned when the courts reverse cases like this — this shows that prayer ISN’T banned, exactly the opposite of your claim.

            The third one is in Scotland, not relevant to US law.

            The fourth one was reversed, as the university would almost certainly lose. See #2.

            The fourth one resulted in a not guilty verdict. See #2.

            The fifth one resulted in a not guilty verdict. See #2.

            Your examples just support MY position — prayer isn’t banned, the courts uphold that right. If prayer was actually constitutionally banned, you would not see the courts throw out those cases above.

            If you want citations of police, university, and other government officials improperly limiting the speech of atheists, I can produce a list, too. But that doesn’t mean promoting atheism is banned, either.

          • James Grimes

            Are any other religious groups subject to such strict legal scrutiny as Christians are?

          • Brian Westley

            You can’t even see other religious groups.

          • bigpawn01

            there is no arguing with the delusional. if you live in an imaginary world you can imagine anything you like and assume it is the real world

          • James Grimes

            Finally, an expert on delusional behavior. Just what we need here on Christian News. BTW, why are you stalking this forum?

          • Jeffrey Samuels

            I have read this entire chain and was appreciating that you both were discussing things rationally… until this last one. Why is it James, that you accuse people of stalking a forum when they are just engaging in intelligent conversation? If this forum is just for Evangelicals to say AMEN to everything written then it is really not a forum at all.

          • James Grimes

            Jeff, most of the Atheists who come to this forum come to be hostile, disagreeable, and insulting. I have no tolerance for them. There are a few who come to learn and they ask good questions. I will engage with them. So, we have the militants and the inquirers. There is a difference. For my part, I will defend the faith without compromise. I hold to a biblical worldview. I hope you are receptive to this explanation.

            Have a great weekend.

          • https://plus.google.com/u/0/112743459266731535020/posts Steve Greene

            “most of the Atheists who come to this forum come to be hostile, disagreeable, and insulting. I have no tolerance for them.”

            I always laugh when people with logs sticking out of their eyes complain about specks in other people’s eye. Thank you for the joke.

          • James Grimes

            LOL, I’m not interested, but thanks for supporting my comment.

          • https://plus.google.com/u/0/112743459266731535020/posts Steve Greene

            Apparently you think that log in your eye is so becoming.

          • James Grimes

            🙂

          • Jeffrey Samuels

            thank you for your response James.

  • C.P. Steinmetz

    Senator Fair has fallen for the Discovery Institute’s bogus ‘controversy’ argument, as well as it’s goal of replacing science with the Christian religion. He says that scientists cannot support anything other than ‘atheistic evolution’. Ridiculous. A Nobel Prize would await anyone who could provide a confirmed alternative scientific explanation. I wonder what the odds are that the Nobel citation would mention ‘atheism’.

    Note that he doesn’t really want the search for scientific truth – he wants to teach the Christian religion in public schools; something clearly unconstitutional. He finds it hard “to believe that intelligence has been ruled unconstitutional in the public schools.” Obviously, it has not; the idea is to intelligently examine scientific theories and explanations in science classes – not to hold to supernatural religious beliefs. And for goodness sake, Darwin and Wallace have been dead for quite awhile and his views are not the totality of the Theory of Evolution. His legal and Constitutional statements – as well as his statements on science – illustrate the terrible state of things in South Carolina – that he should have anything to say about education. His shilling for the Discovery Institute is just sickening.

    • James Grimes

      “His shilling for the Discovery Institute is just sickening.” Really?

    • MEP1101

      Godless
      Evolution is as much a religious belief as is Creation by God.
      Godless Evolutionists claim that G.E. is a PROCESS where the forces
      of nature created life from a “Primordial Soup of Inanimate
      Matter” and then changed that life into evermore complex forms
      of life, eventually arriving at man. The way a process is established
      as a SCIENTIFIC FACT is ONLY done with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, that is,
      DUPLICATING THE PROCESS in the laboratory, or recording it happening
      in nature. But in spite of thousands of scientific experiments done
      in the religious, “Free World” and the God hating,
      Communist world, Godless Evolutionists have not been able to produce
      this scientifically required, Empirical Evidence. Therefore, G.E. IS
      JUST A SECULAR RELIGIOUS DOGMA REQUIRING FAITH IN SOMETHING WHICH CAN
      NOT BE VERIFIED SCIENTIFICALLY.

  • gatekeeper96740

    Yet these same schools build prayer rooms for Muslim student and foot-baths from university monies — our tax dollars……http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/education/07muslim.html?pagewanted=all

    The solution seemed straightforward. After discussions with the Muslim
    Students’ Association, the university announced that it would install
    $25,000 foot-washing stations in several restrooms.

    http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/minnesota-state-univ-installs-islamic-footbath-facility/

    Minnesota State Univ installs Islamic footbath facility
    Posted on December 10, 2008 by creeping
    In hopes of meeting the needs of Muslim students, a foot-washing station was recently installed in Minnesota State University’s Centennial Student Union.
    “What we try to do around this building is provide things that make all kinds of groups of students feel comfortable,” said student union director Laurie Woodward.
    The idea was brought to the Student Union Board several years ago, but it wasn’t until the renovation of several bathrooms on the second floor that the space became available.
    The station was paid for entirely through student fees. Woodward said anyone is welcome to use the room even though it was put in to serve the religious needs of Muslim students.

  • gatekeeper96740

    Why is it Darwinism can not be challenged.?

    Their are other points of view. Stephen Meyer has written the first comprehensive DNA-based argument for intelligent design. As he tells the story of successive attempts to unravel a mystery that Charles Darwin did not address—how did life begin?—Meyer develops the case for this often-misunderstood theory using the same scientific method that Darwin himself pioneered. Offering a fresh perspective on one of the enduring mysteries of modern biology, Meyer convincingly reveals that the argument for intelligent design is not based on ignorance or “giving up on science,” but instead on
    compelling, and mounting, scientific evidence.
    http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794

    • maturallite

      The man you refer to has a BS in physics and earth science and a PhD in the history and philosophy of science. He is not a biologist. That’s like me (an engineer) making claims about chemistry. Nobody would (or should) take them seriously. If Meyer is right, why do the overwhelming majority (like 99%+) of biologists disagree with him?

      • gatekeeper96740

        Meyer’s research goes to the very source of the mystery of life: its
        origin, and more specifically the origin of biological information. His
        research and writings in the field represent the cutting edge of the
        argument for design.

        Graduating from Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington, in 1981 with a
        degree in physics and earth science, he later became a geophysicist
        with Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in Dallas, Texas. From 1981 to
        1985, he worked for ARCO in digital signal processing and seismic survey
        interpretation. As a Rotary International Scholar, he received his
        training in the history and philosophy of science at Cambridge
        University, earning a PhD in 1991. His thesis offered a methodological
        interpretation of origin-of-life research.

        He returned to Whitworth College in 1990 to teach philosophy. He left
        Whitworth in 2002, giving up a tenured position, to found and direct the
        CSC at Discovery Institute.

        Prior to the publication of Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt,
        the piece of writing for which Meyer was best known was an August 2004
        review essay in the Smithsonian Institution-affiliated peer-reviewed
        biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The
        article laid out the evidential case for intelligent design, that
        certain features of living organisms–such as the miniature machines and
        complex circuits within cells–are better explained by an unspecified
        designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random
        mutation and natural selection.

        Because the article was the first peer-review publication in a technical
        journal arguing for ID, the journal’s editor, evolutionary biologist
        Richard Sternberg, was punished by his Smithsonian supervisors for
        allowing Meyer’s pro-ID case into print. This led to an investigation of
        top Smithsonian personnel by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, widely
        covered in the media, including the Wall Street Journal and Washington
        Post. The federal investigation concluded that Sternberg had been
        wrongly disciplined and intimidated. The case led to widespread public
        indignation at the pressures placed on Darwin-doubting scientists not
        only at the Smithsonian but at universities around the U.S. and
        elsewhere.

        Meyer’s many other publications include a contribution to, and the editing of, the peer-reviewed volume Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2004) and the innovative textbook Explore Evolution (Hill House Publishers, 2007).

        Meyer has been widely featured in media appearance on CNN, MSNBC, NBC,
        ABC, CBS, Fox News, PBS, and the BBC. In 2008, he appeared with Ben
        Stein in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. He’s also featured prominently in the science documentaries Icons of Evolution, Unlocking The Mystery of Life, and Darwin’s Dilemma.

        • maturallite

          All that just to agree with me. The man is not a biologist. End of story.

          • gatekeeper96740

            LOL TROLL

  • Aaron McNabb

    A great counter to this argument and to lend credence to creationism one could look no farther then the book by Lee Strobel, “The Case for Christ”. Several interesting points; Lee is a Pulitzer winning Ivy League educated lawyer/journalist and while doing research for and writing the book converted from atheism to Christianity. And in the book he presents factual information from many of the top and most respected professionals in their fields. This work would be a great initiative to present both sides of the argument.

    • Psygn

      So, you don’t have a testable hypothesis.

    • C.P. Steinmetz

      Lee Strobel – really? There is a cottage industry on the World Wide Web debunking his work. If you really want to see both sides of the issue, put ‘debunk lee strobel’ into your favorite search engine, and then read and watch away.

  • Jeffery Kinkead

    It’s time for Christians to take a stand!
    Public Schools Intolerant of Christians!: http://youtu.be/9zcdR-9MOWw

    • bigpawn01

      lmao you guys have been for around 2000 years and it has been picked apart by science every time

  • david ramseur

    Creationists are not arguing from what they don’t know but from what they know. They are not saying, “We don’t know therefore it must be God”. We argue that intelligence has only been known to come from pre-existing intelligence. Mind comes from mind, never from matter. This argument that the medium is not the message comes straight from Information Theory.
    Many occupations in the world today are tasked with separating design from accident. (cryptologists, crime scene investigators, insurance investigators, anti-fraud detectives, etc…) We can apply the same techniques that these professionals utilize in their careers to answer the question of our origins. 1.) Is it more likely that incredibly complex life came into being thru chance, natural law, or design? The specified complexity and teleological nature of life lend much credence to the third option. For products of chance are not complex and products of law do not account for specification or variety (such as the linguistic convention associated with DNA). These three options for possible origins is known as the explanatory factor.
    (The explanatory factor) and the (medium is not the message) can be connected with known laws of nature such as the law of Biogenesis and the 2nd law of thermodynamics or entropy. Now Creationism is looking very credible. Further linked with known limits of genetic engineering as discovered in breeding, as well as species reproducing only with their own kind, the truth seems to be obvious.
    On the flip side, the debunking side, evolution has many hurdles that it cannot clear. These include entropy, biogenesis, no inter-species reproduction, the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, the sudden arrival of various complex creatures, irreducible complexity, etc… The Darwinist will always give examples of Micro-evolution when arguing for Macro-Evolution. However, both sides of the creation/evolution argument affirm that variation/adaptability – Micro-evolution exists.
    The reason why this debate is so heavily contested is because Darwinism provides the explanation that God is not necessary. Naturalists will not open the debate because that would perilously allow a divine foot in the door. They refuse accountability to God and therefore cling to a theory that is easily debunked by all of the facts that I cited above. A fairy tale for grown ups. But deep down, real observational scientists know the truth, they just can’t come to grips with it. If they were so confident in the Darwinian theory of life’s origins they would welcome the debate.

    • Psygn

      Metaphysics is not science.

      There is nothing to debate and complaining doesn’t change that.

    • C.P. Steinmetz

      Progress in science does not come about through debate. Generally, scientists won’t even respond to you and other religionists, as it is obvious that you have little scientific knowledge, and only parrot the flawed data and arguments of other ignorant folk. In short, look at science data, not religion data. If you do not have time to acquire some education in science, try looking at http://talkorigins.org/

    • BarkingDawg

      We argue that intelligence has only been known to come from pre-existing intelligence.

      So you claim that all life has a pre-existing level of intelligence that is immutable and unchanging, even across multiple generations?

      • david ramseur

        Yes, that is spot on what I argue for. Intelligence does not come from mere matter. It originates from pre-existing intelligence.

    • https://plus.google.com/u/0/112743459266731535020/posts Steve Greene

      “Creationists are not arguing from what they don’t know but from what they know. They are not saying, ‘We don’t know therefore it must be God’. We argue that intelligence has only been known to come from pre-existing intelligence. Mind comes from mind, never from matter.”

      It’s always rather amusing to see an argument based on immediately demonstrating its own error.

      Please do tell us, just how much do creationists know about how the very first primitive living organisms came about 3.8 billion years ago or whenever it was. How much do *you* know? And I can’t help myself throwing in one these typical creationist questions (that they never seem to ask themselves, with their minds so embedded in their double standards): Were you there?

      So you are indeed precisely arguing from what you do not know. And creationists being so pervasively ignorant of, not to mention antagonistic against, any and all aspects and areas of science they don’t like because of their assumed presuppositions (which are by definition based on what they do not know, which is why it is called “religious faith”), they’re even worse at not knowing things than the average guy because their religious beliefs make them actively opposed to grabbing a clue by actually digging into and learning relevant information known through scientific investigation and research (such as, for example, in the context of the current discussion, origins-of-life research).

      But, of course and in fact, we *do* know that “intelligence has” *not* “only been known to come from pre-existing intelligence,” since we know through an extensive body of scientific results from relevant biological and paleontological research that intelligence has developed over a great deal of time through the natural processes entailed in biological evolution. (The modern human species came from previous species which were less intelligent – smaller brains – and they came from previous species which were less intelligent – smaller brains – and so on. There was nothing more sophisticated, organism-wise, than prokaryotic, and then eukaryotic, single-celled organisms for billions of years on earth before even the first multi-cellular organisms developed.)

      In all of this *in terms of science* there is not one shred of evidence that intelligent aliens – and certainly not any gods – visited earth and engineered life on this planet. So your remark that “Creationists are not arguing from what they don’t know but from what they know” is in fact completely bogus. You also pretend that “This argument that the medium is not the message comes straight from Information Theory” which is also completely bogus (another demonstration of how creationists love to take things out of context and then just make things up about what they actually have little to no clue about). Yet another example: You spout one of the typical creationist canards trying to pretend that evolution is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, and argument which has been explicitly debunked for literally decades. “no inter-species reproduction” – Say what? I mean, just how ignorance of the subject of biological evolution can a creationist be? (Don’t answer that. Poe’s Law exists for a reason.) “the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record” – While in fact paleontological discoveries routinely produces transitional forms from the fossil records and has done so for several decades.

      Thank you for demonstrating the out-of-touch-with-reality head-in-the-sand approach creationists love to employ in their rhetoric. We tell people how scientifically illiterate creationists are and we get criticized for allegedly straw-manning them – and then real live creationists such as yourself show up and prove just how right we are.

      • david ramseur

        Your reply goes like this: You’re ignorant. You are blinded to the facts. Your statements are wrong. Blah blah blah. However, you have not demonstrated how my statements are wrong. For instance, how does the theory of evolution (things get more complex and ordered over time) reconcile with the 2nd law of thermodynamics (a law that OBSERVES everything breaking down and cooling over time)? How do irreducibly complex cellular structures form instantaneously from no blueprint? Why have we been unable to produce life from non life? I mean we have time, energy, and biological starting blocks at our disposal; but why has it not occurred? Why do we not see evolution happening around us? Give me an example of macro-evolution if you can. If information can come from matter alone please explain how this happens. Can you give me any examples of transitional forms in the fossil record? Present your case and we will see where the facts line up. Your long response proves my point that Darwinian Evolution is to be your savior from personal accountability to God. The only problem is that it is not grounded in truth.

        • https://plus.google.com/u/0/112743459266731535020/posts Steve Greene

          You wrote, “However, you have not demonstrated how my statements are wrong.”

          Au contraire. It is *you* who has not demonstrated how your assertions are correct. All you did was make bald assertions.

          However, the fact of the matter is that I know and you know – and I know that you know – that in actual science it is known quite well that evolution is not somehow contrary to the second law of thermodynamics as you creationists claims. And the fact of the matter is also that while creationists have made this assertion they have never once published a single research article in any professional journal of science, not physics, not biophysics, not chemistry, and biology, backing up this assertion. So if you ever get around to actually trying to back up your assertion, then we’ll have something to talking about. Until then, I’m just getting a good laugh at how you try to pretend that you get a free pass to just make up pure crap attacking legitimate science on the basis of nothing more than your subjective religious beliefs founded on circular reasoning.

          In regard to demonstrating that your statements are wrong, I did not cover everything in your Gish Gallop, but I did point out certain errors – and I notice how you use the rhetoric in your reply precisely for the purpose of waving your hands to evade those and pretend I did not point them out. And then you Gish Gallop some more.

          I do realize that creationists can do the Gish Gallop until long after the cows have been put up in the barn, and waste everyone’s time while completely ignoring the blatant errors that have already been pointed out about their rhetoric. And I thank you for demonstrating that.

          In regard to transitional forms, anyone who – just as one particular example – tries to pretend that the fossil record of the evolution of the Equidae doesn’t exist is demonstrating one, or both, of two things: oblivious ignorance of the science, or the deliberate nature of their promotion of falsehoods about the science. And I notice how you also completely ignored my point about the evolution of humans. Specific references would be the Home heidelbergensis and the Home erectus. The problem with creationist rhetoric is just how out-of-touch with reality it really is. Anyone who wants to actually learn anything about science will never learn it from the cornucopia of pseudoscience nonsense that permeates the creationist literature.

          • david ramseur

            The evolution of the Equidae the famous horse series. Looks great, doesn’t it? But each of the supposed ancestors is a complete animal. They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction. There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes. Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random trial-and-error if evolution were true, but no transitional forms have been found. The fossils have not caught any changes in the midst of being created, even though they should have occurred over long periods of time. In the late 1800’s, evolutionists simply placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series. However, evolutionists no longer believe there was the direct ancestry (orthogenesis).

            Evolutionists believe erectus to be sub-human based on certain features of the skull like the large brow ridges. But this is not evidence at all, because humans today have essentially all of these features. The cranial (i.e. brain) capacity is within the human range; there is good evidence that erectus used tools; had controlled use of fire; they buried their dead; they used red ochre for decoration; had seafaring skills; and their posture was just like ours.

            Certain fossils have been discovered in Australia that look strikingly like erectus (the Kow Swamp individuals from 10,000 years ago; Mossgiel individual dated 6,000 years ago; and Cossack skeletal remains dated from a few 100 to 6,500 years ago).

            Since these fossils are so ‘young’, evolutionists explain them in non-evolutionary terms. That is, the strong erectus-like features are not explained by evolution from apes, but by other non-evolutionary mechanisms such as the climate, nutritional problems, genetic factors, and others.

            So why should we need evolution to explain ‘normal erectus’ when we can explain it by other non-evolutionary factors? Evolutionists have just undone the whole idea of human evolution! Here’s the conundrum: it is unthinkable that these individuals weren’t human due to the ‘young’ date, but if they were human, then normal erectus must be human also.

            Not only does the morphological evidence point to the fact that erectus is fully human, but evolutionists themselves explain erectus in non-evolutionary terms! Because the crucial chain-link of erectus is now broken, the current idea of human evolution is finished.
            As for the contributions to science from evolution:

            “I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding discoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”–Philip S. Skell. August 29, 2005. Why Do We Invoke Darwin? The Scientist, Vol. 19, No. 16, p. 10.

          • https://plus.google.com/u/0/112743459266731535020/posts Steve Greene

            I love how you begin your response by proving just how horrible your lack of understanding of evolution really is:

            “The evolution of the Equidae the famous horse series. Looks great, doesn’t it? But each of the supposed ancestors is a complete animal. They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction”

            Of course each of the supposed ancestors is a “complete animal”? What did you think they were supposed to be? This very statement by proves that the incompetence of your understanding of the subject is at the same egregious level as, for example, creationists Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort and their infamous croco-duck stupidity.

            However, there is one point where your statement is completely wrong, and that is in regard to “failed growths” because in fact even at the genetic level there are numerous specific examples of such a concept, such as endogenous retrovirus material. At a more macroscopic level, during evolution phenotypic traits can become reduced in function (i.e., function in terms of survival of the organisms in their evironmental context) for which natural selection over time alters the gene pool in the population in such a way that these phenotypic traits become altered. In the case of the Equidae the classic example of this is the reduction and eventual disappearance of all of the toes except one, with that one becoming much large and the claw evolved into a hoof. So it’s merely amusing how your obvious misrepresentation tries to sweep such facts as these under the rug and pretend they don’t exist when in fact the fossils do exist and are stored and displayed in museums, with much paleontological research about the various specimens published in the professional science literature of biology. Of course it comes as no surprise that the creationist – you, in this case – is completely ignorant of the actual science and loves to make up all sorts of false assertions and vacuous arguments based on those false assertions for the deliberate purpose of trying to attack the science to try to prop up a false religious belief in a religious myth in a religious book. Your remarks as I have quoted here merely demonstrate just how confused and scientifically illiterate you really are on the subject, and we thank you for showing this.

            Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae
            by Bruce J. MacFadden
            (Cambridge University Press, 1992)

            Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
            by Donald R. Prothero
            (Columbia University Press, 2007)

            In regard to the Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus (just as a couple of examples), it is equally amusing how in your ignorance of the science you try to pretend that there are merely example of existing variations of modern humans, when in fact they are not but have features unique to their species and which are what is expected as a evolutionary ancestors of modern humans. They are transitional forms staring you in the face, yet – typical creationist – you misrepresent everything in sight, deliberately omit consideration of the features which are evolutionarily transitional, and try to sweep it all under the rug and pretend they don’t exist. You assert that “Not only does the morphological evidence point to the fact that erectus is fully human” – but we notice how you are not actually quoting any paleontologists on the subject, and though we realize you creationists are not capable of comprehending such a basic point as this, assertions made by scientifically illiterate people on the basis of their inordinate religious bias against science as motivated by their beliefs in a false religious doctrine based on a religious myth in a religious book is totally irrelevant.

            The Complete World of Human Evolution (Second Edition)
            by Chris Stringer and Peter Andrews
            (Thames & Hudson, 2012)

            And the way you are writing makes me suspect you’re not just any kind of creationist, but a young earth creationist in particular, who not only is out-of-touch with reality in regard to biology and paleontology but also just as egregiously out-of-touch with reality in regard to geology and astronomy, believing in the empirically false religious dogma that the “heavens and the earth” have not existed for more than about 6,000 years or so because of religious belief in a religious myth in a religious book. I’m guessing about this just because of the manner in which you say certain things, but I could be wrong. So be sure to address this and explain whether or not you are a young earth creationist.

            And then you finish off by quoting another creationist, who has never actually published any scientific research on the subject. He is a chemist whose areas of actual scientific research are irrelevant to the topic. He’s just making up crap just like you are.

            Let’s make this absolutely explicit, David: All of us are fully aware of the fact that creationists are, as motivate by their devotion to their false religious beliefs, more than able to make up anything they feel like making up to attack science in an attempt to try to prop up their false religious beliefs, but making things up has nothing to do with improving the creationist reputation of far-less-than-zero credibility nor with showing that you actually know more than squat about the relevant science (which we all notice you are diligently steering well clear of). And merely regurgitating talking points from the cornucopia of scientific illiteracy from the creationist pseudoscience literature.

            When are you going to actually deal with what actual paleontologists discuss in actual scientific research published in the actual professional literature of paleontological science?

            And all of us – including you – know the answer to this question: Never.

  • Mark Moore

    Why pick on evolution? All branches of science contradict the Abrahamic religions. Geology, physics, astrophysics, chemistry, archeology, paleontology and on and on. The bible is biblically wrong (wrong on a huge and sweeping scale) about almost everything that can be fact checked except for a few names and places that are mentioned.

    The biblicals depend on atheistic science for their medicines, food, transportation, communications, military superiority and then thank Jesus.

    I would recommend to all Christians, Muslims and Jews that the next time they go to the hospital they ask for biblical medicine only – you know, prayer.

  • jennylynn

    Darwiniannism is a false religion and shouldn’t be taught in schools. Evolution takes faith and is not scientific. Something does not come from nothing without a Creator so why have the conversation. You want separation, remove the religion of evolution.

    • BarkingDawg

      Evolution is science.

      We need to teach science in schools

      • jennylynn

        Prove it! You can make something from nothing. Make a rose from nothing.

        Evolution Vs. God Movie
        youtube.com

        • BarkingDawg

          “Prove it! You can make something from nothing. Make a rose from nothing.”

          =======

          Sure. But you have to be patient as it takes about 13 billion years.

          • jennylynn

            That is the lie of the century. It is a coverup to excuse their ignorance as fact. You can’t see apes turning into man since the past 6000 years, so they tell you oh, it was millions of years so you will deny God and worship flawed men who are fallible.

          • BarkingDawg

            The science of geology tells us that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

            The gasoline you put into your car was derived from fossil deposits millions of years old.

          • BarkingDawg

            Using science and physics, man went to the moon and back. Rock samples collected were dated using radioisotope ratio methods as being almost as old as the Earth.

          • BarkingDawg

            Everyday, medical researchers use biological research techniques based on our understanding of evolutionary processes to develop new drugs and treatments for disease.

            Do you deny this?

          • jennylynn

            The ever changing mind of science. According to an NBC report in August in 1999, there was a remarkable discovery in Australia. They reported that, accorrding to the JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, scientists had found what they considered to be proof thaat life appeared 2.7 billion years ago- a billion years earlier than previously thought. Now they admit that they were wrong in their first estimate ( a mere 1,000,000,000) years off. but with this discovery they are now sure they have the truth…..until their next discovery. USA TODAY ( March 21, 2001) reported , ” Paleontologistss have discovered a new skeleton in the closet of human ancestry thatt is likely to force science to revise, if not scrap current theoris on human orgins.” Reuters reported that th discovery left, ” scientists of human evolution…confused,” saying, ” Lucy may not even be a diirect human ancestor after all. Furthermore you should really look at biomedical pre-science in the Bible. The the originator of life was the first one to advocate medicine and health long before science was the religion of man.
            Exodus 22:31
            And neither shall you eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs”
            Thousands of years before modern science identified bacteria, God made provisions for Israel by banning the eating of meat that may be spoiled by bateria.
            In Leviticus 7;22-24
            we are told, ” And tthe LORD spoke to Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, You shall not eat no manner of fat, of ox or sheep, or of goat. Saturated fats come from animals and God was protecting His people.
            In Genesis 17:12 The Bible instructs that male babies are to be circumcised on the eighth day. Medical science has now discovered that this is the day that cagulating factor in the blood, called prothrombin, is the highest. It reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. I can go on and on. The point is God the author of life is the God of science and man learns science from God and stlll hasn’t caught up.

            This is what Lipson, professor of physics at the University of Manchester, UK stated, ” In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientist have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘ bend’ their observations to fit in wiwth it.
            In the Foreward to the Origins of Species (100th eddition) Sirr Arthur Keith admittted, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”

          • BarkingDawg

            So? Science is all about change.

            Is that why it scares you so?

          • jennylynn

            Infallible man is always changing because he is always realizing his fallible errors. God on the other hand does not change.
            I Am the LORD, I change not. Malachi 3:6
            But if you want to argue that you are an animal that comes from slime that is your choice.
            But know creating your own god of science or man, will not save you on judgement day.

            But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.
            2 peter 2:12

          • https://plus.google.com/u/0/112743459266731535020/posts Steve Greene

            “Fallible man is always changing because he is always realizing his fallible errors. God on the other hand does not change.”

            Which remark – as is so very typical of creationist rhetoric – displays two blatant fallacies.

            First of all, you happen to be one of these “fallible man” – yet you try to pretend you are not, and so spout all sorts of rhetoric based on the obviously false pretension that you are not fallible – which, further, demonstrates the blatantly close-minded attitude, and self-contradiction, that lies at the core of the creationist mindset.

            The second fallacy is that no one questions whether or not any god “does not change” (but in fact, incidentally, the very god that creationists promote – the Bible god – has changed a lot), because you are not a god, you are a fallible human being. Your argument is based on the obviously false premise that your beliefs about a god, and beliefs about, for example, astronomy and geology and paleontology and biology based on your creationist religious beliefs are infallible.

            Third – and this is a somewhat difference nuance of the topic – is the fact that, quite literally, by attacking science because “it changes” creationists reveal a horrible confusion in their thinking, in regard to basic epistemological principles. This is because the fact that, and the manner in which, science changes (i.e., actively engages in and promotes the continuous revision the body of knowledge, the explanatory frameworks, and the very concepts that make up what we call “science”) is precisely one of the fundamental *strengths* of science, especially as compared to all other areas of human cognitive pursuits. By attacking scientific revision you are literally attacking the basic epistemological principle of correcting your ideas when when you find out that they are wrong (or even at least not quite right), and by extension attacking relevant information gathering and the use of rational analysis to understand this information – which is how you reveal not only the fundamentally close-minded nature of creationist thinking but also how creationist ideology is actually fundamentally opposed to truth and truth-seeking.

          • jennylynn

            I never said I was infallible. I said man is infallible and God is not. The God of the Bible has not changed, mans understanding of God and His word have changed. If you want to argue that you are evolved slime from an animal go ahead. But you have no observational evidence which science is based off. You boldly aserrt what science cannot prove, and you demand faith far more credulous than any we possess. The continual wreckings of false hypothesis is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the supposed learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles.

          • https://plus.google.com/u/0/112743459266731535020/posts Steve Greene

            You reveal your pretension to infallibility with every post you make.

            You make all these claims about God – and you pretend your claims are infallible.

            In regard to the fact that the God of the Bible has changed – Apparently you have not read the Bible. God changes constantly. As one specific example, I always get a good laugh out of the Christian apologetical argument about some supposed “absolute morality” or “objective morality” – coming from their Bible god, of course. And then when I point out how the Bible god not only condoned but commanded his followers to engage in a genocidal campaign of territorial conquest (slaughtering millions of men, women, and children wholesale – “slaughter” being the word used in the Bible story) in the book of Joshua – they immediately try to run away from the implications of this with something like ‘But that was the Old Testament and we are not under the Old Testament any more.’ And I reply with, Precisely! Exactly! That’s the point! Because things have CHANGED, and this supposed “absolute morality” from the Bible god is something that doesn’t even exist in the first place, not even in the context of Christian religious beliefs themselves, not without abandoning whole parts of the Bible altogether.

            So, yeah, I’m laughing about your infallible assertions about a god.

            You wrote, “But you have no observational evidence which science is based off. You boldly aserrt what science cannot prove….”

            I do also always laugh when people make arguments – in this case creationist – based on denying reality, such as in this case trying to pretend that the extensive body of research results about various aspects of and details about biological evolution which has been published in the professional science literature of biology and paleontology for several decades (these days, it is literally hundreds of research articles published each and every year about all sorts of different areas about evolution and evolutionary biology). Denying reality doesn’t get your argumentation anywhere except into a deep, dark hole.

            And I also always laugh when creationists – who say what they say because of their religious ideology, built on their religious beliefs in religious myths in a religious book – make remarks like “You may tell where the supposed learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles.” What makes me laugh is the sheer hypocrisy of the remark – precisely because the remark itself explicitly displays the distinct contrast between us: Some people know that that “the debris left behind of suppositions and theories” were left behind for the deliberate reason of continually building upon our store of knowledge and being willing to cast aside any and all ideas that do not fit what we continuously are learning about the world around us – the contrast being precisely that creationists are just the opposite have seized on long-falsified and obsolete suppositions and theories building on religious dogma based on religious myths in a religious book. You could not have made the anti-truth nature of the creationist mentality any clearer.

          • https://plus.google.com/u/0/112743459266731535020/posts Steve Greene

            “They reported that, accorrding to the JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, scientists had found what they considered to be proof thaat life appeared 2.7 billion years ago- a billion years earlier than previously thought.”

            Which means you are apparently not only not able to comprehend what you are reading, but not able to comprehend basic 8th grade earth science, since in fact scientists think that life has been around on earth since at least 3-1/2 billion years ago (and probably another few hundred million years before that) because of a few relevant fossils in the geological record. It’s always amusing how when creationists just open their mouths and make bogus remarks in an attempt to attack science they don’t like because of their religious beliefs they demonstrate that in regard to science they rarely have a clue what they’re talking about, and certainly reveal a horrible ignorance of the scientific context of any details of the science on the subjects that they like to make things up about.

          • jennylynn

            You worship the god of science because you think it answers all your questions. You fail to understand that it is God who wrote the laws of science. Science is still catching up to the Bible which was written before your religion of science. But I understand it is easy to replace God with humanism to make you more comfortable.
            Isaiah 46:8-10
            Remember this, and be assured; recall it to mind you transgressors. Remember the former things long past, For I Am God and there is no one like Me. Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done.

            Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done.

          • https://plus.google.com/u/0/112743459266731535020/posts Steve Greene

            You wrote, “You worship the god of science because you think it answers all your questions.”

            You know, when a person begins their argument by employing an obviously false statement, it does not bode well for his argument. Your example is certainly no exception to this general rule.

            First of all, I don’t worship any “god of science,” I certainly do not think science has the answers to all questions, and in fact your entire sentence here is completely contrary to what I stated in the first place, thus demonstrating that my points have gone at least 58 miles over your head.

            “You fail to understand that it is God who wrote the laws of science.”

            And you know this, how?

            “Science is still catching up to the Bible which was written before your religion of science.”

            Au contraire, you jumped into this discussion in the first place precisely because of the unscientific nature of your religious beliefs. And, just to point out one specific historical example, geological science deliberately and explicitly abandoned employing any sort of “biblical considerations” in regard to scientific investigation of geology around two hundred years ago, precisely because ideas constructed based on beliefs about Bible stories were found to be either absolutely false, or lead people into confusion instead of clarity in regard to the actual science, or were otherwise just irrelevant. That situation has not changed – and the fact that you would try to pretend otherwise is a great example of the highly distorted and misrepresentative nature of the rhetoric you employ. Thank you for the demonstration.

            “But I understand it is easy to replace God with humanism to make you more comfortable.”

            Says the person who needs the crutch of his religious beliefs to provide him psychological comfort to get through his life.

            Yeah, see? Two people can play the red herring ad hominem nonsense game – except in your case since that is exactly what religious belief is for I’m the one who’s got it right.

            And then you quote a Bible verse. Wait a minute… I thought this discussion was about how people engage in irrational attacks against science because of their particular religious belief – and then what do you do? Jump right in to prove it. Thank you again.

            And so to finish this off, I’ll simply note how in your response you did not address even one single point that I made in my previous post, that you responded to. Now that’s pretty weird.

          • BarkingDawg

            Jenny, do you understand how the computer you are typing on works? Not, how to click on the mouse, but the physics of how the semi-conductors, LCD screens, and the electro-magnetic waves that form the signals used in communication. Did you know that the fundamental processes involved are based on the same scientific principles that you so fervently deny?

            How do you reconcile that?

          • jennylynn

            Do you understand the complexity of the human brain and the DNA? Humans created the computer because of their comlex brains not because of evolution. The DNA is far more complex than a computer chip and can never be duplicated, because it was created by God Almighty.

          • BarkingDawg

            DNA and molecular genetics prove evolutionary theory every day.

            Just because it is too complex for you to grasp is not evidence of creationism.

          • jennylynn

            How can you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
            When, where, why and how did;
            Single cel led plants become multi-cellled? ( where are the two and three- cellled intermediates?)
            What came first in evolution and did it work without the others? The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat food, the digestive juices or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juices( stomach, intestines, etc.?)
            DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
            The list goes on…. Which came first the woman or man and who’s reproductive parts that perfectly fit together? How did pro-creation come about?

          • BarkingDawg

            How can you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

            =======
            Mutations and natural selection

            Mutations occur all the time. Most are neutral. Some are deleterious. A few are beneficial.

            Natural selection takes care of the rest.

          • jennylynn

            You do not know the difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro ( mutations) does not require new information. Macro evolution requires something from nothing.

          • BarkingDawg

            Sigh. It’s too late, and I’m tired and don’t have the energy nor the inclination to disabuse you of your erroneous notions about how evolution and biology work.

            Have a nice night.

          • BarkingDawg

            Feel free to google up your questions.

          • jennylynn

            No need. I already know the answers.

          • BarkingDawg

            No, no you do not.

            But, that’s ok.

            You can believe whatever you wish. Fortunately, you are not involved in any form of scientific research so your beliefs are moo *

            *it’s like a cow’s opinion, it’s just: “Moo .”**

            **90’s TV cultural reference.

          • david ramseur

            The forces of nature did not create your functional computer. Your computer was designed by people who had ideas, drew up blueprints, and put it all together. It could not have happened gradually as a minimum number of interworking parts is needed for the machine to function. Same goes for the far more complex than a computer single celled organism. Whatever progress arose in creating a cell from chance would the very next instant have an equal opportunity of being destroyed by chance.
            Also, think about this, the sentence you are reading right now did not originate from the pixels on your computer screen, it originated from my mind. The medium (your computer) does not produce the message (intelligence). Intelligence must be imposed upon your computer screen from an outside force (my mind). Likewise, molecules do not produce the coded information that is found in DNA. That intricately complex coded message is imposed upon the DNA strand from an outside source (the Creator).

    • Psygn

      So, creationist have promoted Darwin to godhood, wow!

      “Something does not come from nothing without a Creator”

      Scientists create light from vacuum

      http://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html

      • jennylynn

        Scienctist Create light FROM A VACCUM.
        A vacuum is not nothing, it is something.

        The experiment is based on one of the most counter-intuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence.

        • Psygn

          Exactly, the universe exist because nothingness is unsustainable.
          No creator required.

          • jennylynn

            Evolution Vs. God Movie
            youtube.com

          • Psygn

            Evolution Vs. God Movie, Ray Comfort, lol, so many fallacies so little time. There is no evidence of gods.

            If you have an actual argument from this dishonest propaganda film or other source please present it. Videos don’t play well on my limited internet device.

            There is however evidence of quantum
            fluctuations, it was an acquaintance of mine who first measured the Casimir Effect back in 1997.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

            I can’t bring you up to speed on all the recent advancements made in quantum physics in this limited thread.

  • Nikola Tasev

    “Darwinism” is not a religion, and evolution is not against Christianity. Catholic schools teach evolution and the Catholic Church does not oppose it.

    • BarkingDawg

      There are those that post here that consider the Roman Catholic church to be the height of evil.

      • Nikola Tasev

        Then they would have to clarify which one of the “[small, geographically contained, theologically unremarkable brand of protestant] Christianity is being systematically outlawed”. You know, so we can tell the “true” Christians apart from all the other unremarkable brands of Christianity.
        I mean it seems like God really put some effort in making the true version he continuously inspired not stand out with particular achievements, popularity or anything else among the other indistinguishable denominations.

  • BarkingDawg

    The school districts lawyers have no doubt informed the district that it will be cheaper to remove the quotes now compared to opposing the removal in court, losing , them having to remove it later.

  • BarkingDawg

    There is no such thing as. “Darwinism”. There is just science

    • jennylynn

      Evolution Vs. God Movie
      youtube.com

      Dare to watch!

  • VD65

    Let’s make this very clear, not everyone in the United States is a Christian. The public schools are prohibited from teaching creationism on the fact alone that it is representative of ONE religion. I am almost 70 and it was NEVER taken out of public schools because it was never taught in the public schools or never was supposed to be. If you want your children to be ignorant fine but you teach these things either at church, in the home or in a Christian private school. These are the options, the only options because it is unconstitutional to do anything else. Quit bringing these ideas up because it affects other people’s civil rights to freedom of religion and their rights when going to public school with others of many religious ideologies. Never and I mean never has anyone been given the right to teach religious ideas within any school curriculum in a public school in the United States. Evolution is a theory. That’s why it’s called The Theory of Evolution but it is the closest scientific explanation and quite frankly doesn’t take away from anyone’s religious beliefs because the Bible, for instance, really is non specific. You cannot take a day as literal. We don’t know how a day was measured if you believe in creationism or how it was gone about because it just says certain things came to pass and that is that. Give it a rest Christians. You try to steamroll over the rights of everyone else. Just let them teach and keep religion out of it.

    • KenS

      your statement are so false. The bible was the original textbooks used and paid for US taxpayers dollars for many years. Also, Genesis 1:5 tells us exactly how to measure a day. “ANd God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

      • BarkingDawg

        How do you do that for the period when the solar system did not exist yet.

    • MattFCharlestonSC

      VD65, very well said. Ken S, creationism is not a scientific theory and does not belong in public schools. Why would we choose this specific theory over any of the other religious creation stories?

  • Johnnes Teixeira

    There are countless logical fallacies in this text: appeal to consequences (“if humans are the result of evolution, then there would be no reason by which a young person would care about character”), straw-man (no one says that humans are ‘just particles’. Evolution just says we had a common ancestor) , appeal to pity (“oh, please, religion is being persecuted in public schools, please, help us!”), etc.

    First, how so “the promoting of darwinism” ?
    Why do you think that teaching evolution is an anti-religious act? Evolution says nothing about religion or supernatural beings. Science seeks to explain the natural world through natural processes, whereas religion seeks to explain the world through supernatural causes. Evolution is the scientific theory which explains the origin of biodiversity, the history of life. Evolution is a well-supported theory, with mountains of evidences and researches, the unifying concept of Bioligy. Without evolution being taught, how would students learn about the classification of living things? How would students learn the causes of the current distribution of species, without evolution being taught?

    It’s not a prejudice against religion, but it cannot be taught in public schools. If a religion were to be taught, how would students from other religions react to learning ONLY a religion different from his one?

    It’s not because evolution contradicts the Bible that therefore it is an anti-religious concept.
    There are several religious views which do not allow blood transfussions, in-vitro fertilizations, or experiments with animals, but, must we therefore stop teaching such concepts to students because they simply challenge religions? NO! Evolution is a fundamental principle of modern science, the most important theory of Biology, and for its merits, it must be taught in all schools.

    If you think that evolution must not be taught, then I’d recommend that yo develop a theory better than evolution. If you can develop a theory which explains through NATURAL CAUSES the evidences, better than evolution, then it’d be fair to teach that theory.

    Furthermore, why “teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution”? Just because it contradicts your held religious views? If you can find a good reason for which people reject evolution (or to why this alleged “controversy” should be taught), other than the fact that it contraducts religious texts, then you’d have a good reason to do such a thing. Moreover, creationists KNOW that teaching alleged “flaws” in evolution would make students reject it. So, after a long time leading students to reject evolution, I’m sure they’d attempt to introduce pseudoscience like intelligent design into schools, as an “alternative”.

    There is NO controversy about evolution in the scientific community. Scientists do not want to know WHETHER evolution occurred, but HOW it occurred. The current controversy about evolution is a social, not a scientific one. All the questions or alleged “challenges” to evolution have been answered and refuted. If such alleged “flaws” to/in evolution were really challenges to the theory’s validity, then surely scientists from all over the world would have stopped studying/researching the theory, evolution would not be published in reputable scientific journals, etc.

    Evolution has survived countless attempts for it to be refuted for over 150 years.

    I see no reason for which this worthless campaign should be taught.