Consistent with its early tenent of 'survival of the fittest,' the theory of evolution is struggling for own survival. The story of evolution's rise and fall is not complete, but its struggle to sustain credibility and acceptance is reminiscent of its tales of stories about populations struggling to survive.
The measures evolutionists resort to in order to censor competing theories, to punish skepticism, and to discourage questions that expose fallacies or that suggest cause for doubting its credibility, reveal the desperate efforts required for Evolution to survive. It has a strangle hold on education and science, and its adherents threaten to punish anyone who dares to question its veracity. Does this sound like education or science? Of course not. Evolution cannot stand on its own in public debate, in a scientific environment of free inquiry, or in a healthy educational class that encourages informed questions.
The story of evolution is a story of how one idea gained control over its competitors to establish a monopoly in education. Evolutionists control textbooks, research funding, publications, faculty review boards, the NEA, and much more. The theory of evolution is crammed down the throats of students from kindergarten to adulthood. Questions and debate are squelched. Suspect skeptics of evolution are intimidated and threatened with loss of a job and respect. Evidences for intelligent design and creation are censored. Research papers for intelligent design and creation are censored. Intelligent design proponents are intimidated into silence. And then evolutionists rhetorically accuse their opponents of not being published, not presenting research in peer reviewed journals, and not receiving awards of distinction in their fields as though such absence and lack of accomplishment is evidence that intelligent design is not good science. The lack of presence by intelligent design is not for its lack of science but rather due to the subversive tactics by evolutionists.
Yet for all the effort to control how people think, evolution still struggles to win over the masses. Imagine the results if the doors of free inquiry were opened to question evolution's credibilty. Instead of just saying it is so, evolution would have to prove that it is so. No wonder evolutionists are so intolerant to such a scenario.
October 13, 2004, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (a national non-profit alliance of local, state and federal scientists, law enforcement officers, land managers and other professionals dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values) issued a press release accusing the National Park Service (NPS) of failing to carry out its promised high-level review of the policies governing the selection of books for sale in the bookstores. The press release also stated that the NPS failed to respond to complaints from the heads of seven geoscience societies about the book and to a scathing memorandum from the chief of its own Geologic Resources Division. PEER's executive director Jeff Ruch commented, "Promoting creationism in our national parks is just as wrong as promoting it in our public schools." Story in the Washington Post, Octboer 15, 2004 ...
After a heated discussion October 18, 2004, the Dover Area School Board voted 6-3 to revise the science curriculum to require that students, "be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design." Story in York Daily Record, October 21, 2004...
October 2004 issue of Wired magazine: the cover story declares, "The Crusade Against Evolution" by Evan Ratliff's. Ratliff writes, "Since the debate, 'teach the controversy' has become the rallying cry of the national intelligent-design movement, and Ohio has become the leading battleground. Several months after the debate, the Ohio school board voted to change state science standards, mandating that biology teachers "critically analyze" evolutionary theory. This fall, teachers will adjust their lesson plans and begin doing just that. In some cases, that means introducing the basic tenets of intelligent design." Story in Wired, September 29, 2004 ...
The cover story in the November 2004 issue of National Geographic is entitled, "Was Darwin Wrong?" by science writer David Quammen. Predictably true to his evolutionary allegiance the answer is no.
"Evolution is both a beautiful concept and an important one, more crucial nowadays to human welfare, medical science, and to our understanding of the world than ever before. It's also deeply persuasive -- a theory you can take to the bank. The essential points are slightly more complicated than most people assume, but not so complicated that they can't be comprehended by any attentive person. Furthermore, the supporting evidence is abundant, various, ever increasing, solidly interconnected, and easily available in museums, popular books, textbooks, and a mountainous accumulation of peer-reviewed scientific studies. No one needs to, and no one should, accept evolution merely as a matter of faith."
Saying it is so, does not make it so. Once again, we have empty rhetoric from the evolution gallery. But for skeptic, there is reason for raising the eye brow of disbelief.
Evolution crucial to human welfare? Tell that to the six million Jews and others deemed inferior and primitive races by the evolution driven philosophy of Nazism.
Evolution crucial to medical science? Tell that to the forty million plus babies slaughtered in their mother's wombs labeled as mere tissue or Haeckel's fish in the womb.
Evolution crucial to our understanding of the world today? Creation design and a sense of value for human life is more crucial than ever today for understanding today's challenges.
Evolution is deeply persuasive? If this were so, then why the movement among scientists to accept intelligent design theory?
Evolution has abundant evidence? Other than limited variation occurring within population types, evidence for evolution is virtually non-existent.
Evolution propaganda is certainly readily available "...in museums, popular books, textbooks, and a mountainous accumulation of peer-reviewed scientific studies."
It is true that, "... no one should, accept evolution merely as a matter of faith." Sadly, most do. Few examine its claims, question its evidence, or critically analyze its logic. Indeed, most who accept evolution accept it by faith.
"Unlike other documentary films, EXPELLED doesn't just talk to people representing one side of the story. The film confronts scientists such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, influential biologist and atheist blogger PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education. The creators of EXPELLED crossed the globe over a two-year period, interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers and public leaders. The result is a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions." Megan Erhardt, CRC Public Relations, EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed.
"To silence criticism is to silence freedom." , Sidney Hook, New York Times Magazine, 30 September 1951.
“Freedom of the mind requires not only, or not even especially, the absence of legal constraints but the presence of alternative thoughts. The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity, but the one that removes awareness of other possibilities.” - Alan Bloom