Image from article.
Posted on 11/15/2017 11:28:24 AM PST by fishtank
November 15, 2017 | David F. Coppedge
Darwinians Baffled that Students Refuse To Be Indoctrinated
Evolutionists have had complete domination of public school science for decades. They can’t believe that a sizable percentage still don’t accept evolution.
Ryan Dunk at Syracuse University is dumbfounded. He said on his blog last September,
Despite over a half century of education reforms aimed at better science instruction, nearly 40 percent of Americans reject the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution.
In both articles, Dunk commits numerous logical fallacies and propaganda tactics as if taken right out of the NCSE talking points:
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
Image from article.
The Darwinians are looking somewhere, somewhere, somewhere for a final solution.
They are going to be really baffled when Johnny rejects pervert “genderism.”
Explain how many billions of years it would take to evolve the intricacies of the separate male and female reproductive systems to the point where a baby, with a genetic combination of both parents, would result. If one minor anomaly occurs in either system, infertility results.
This planet would have remained empty.
“nearly 40 percent of Americans reject the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution”
If something has “overwhelming scientific evidence”, you shouldn’t care whether people accept or reject it. Nobody cares if laymen believe in gravity, or electricity, or quantum physics, etc. The only things they really worry about convincing the yokels about are things that carry a political agenda.
40% reject evolution?
Or 40% refuse to reject God?
On a semi-related them to this article, you all might want to check out this article by Steyn. https://www.steynonline.com/8252/many-a-slip-twixt-k-cup-and-lip In it, Steyn refers to a speech given by Adam J. MacLeod…. a law professor at Faulkner University in Montgomery. It very much seems like those who didn’t swallow the crap that is evolution were sitting in MacLeod’s class. The MacLeod speech is very good and should be mandatory reading by every high school student…. especially those who are just going to university. And perhaps even more importantly, it needs to be read by their teachers.
The topic of the speech is essentially ‘reason’ or the lack thereof… and ‘how to reason one’s way through the issues of life’ as opposed to just swallowing the prescribed liberal line on everything. The premise of the speech is that MacLeod had got to the point in his career where he noticed that the new students coming in were essentially incapable of reason.
You can find MacLeod’s opening remarks and his full speech at this link…
http://newbostonpost.com/2017/11/09/undoing-the-dis-education-of-millennials/
I am not a scientist but I think there is clear evidence of adaptation of animals, plants and people to conditions they find. The argument I have is making the assumption that adaptation proves evolution as a foundation of all biological life. It does not. This would be like arguing that because wind plays a role in geology it is the sole influence in geology.
Absolutely correct. macroevolution conflicts with the real world. Complexity does not occur gradually. There are not a series of steps involved in the development of te human brain, or a genome. The complexity must be in place from its inception for the complex to exist.
The components of a double helix cannot exist in isolation or by gradual development. They are interdependent for their existence. Children understand this because they look at the world. Ideologues do not look at the world, only at their fantasies.
Absolutely correct. macroevolution conflicts with the real world. Complexity does not occur gradually. There are not a series of steps involved in the development of te human brain, or a genome. The complexity must be in place from its inception for the complex to exist.
The components of a double helix cannot exist in isolation or by gradual development. They are interdependent for their existence. Children understand this because they look at the world. Ideologues do not look at the world, only at their fantasies.
Don’t waste time with Creative Science types.
Facts bother them and interfere with their digestion.
No one can possibly look at the facts of biology and paleontology and not acknowledge that evolution of the body is a reality. Its perfectly possible to reconcile that idea with belief in God and the Bible, but these people have an inability to see the forest for the trees on this subject.
“the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution.”
Puh-leeeze.
Evolutionary theory isn’t just a single idea, but a whole flock of ideas. And many of these ideas are not objectionable, while many of them are.
In a manner of speaking it is like the “Man Made” Global Warming argument. If you object to the idea that it is “Man Made”, they attack you for denying “Global Warming”. No, I can accept the idea that global warming might exist. It is the man made part of it I question.
For example, an important part of evolutionary theory is natural selection. It can be seen in sporting events, marriage, and even in religious faith where the good are rewarded for their good behavior with good and healthy lives; whereas those who engage in bad and wicked behavior live shorter lives stricken with disease and misery.
Of course, it is not always clear cut, in that many virtuous people suffer a lot, while wicked people seemingly prosper.
But over many generations, the good people seem to do better, which is natural selection in a nutshell.
At the same time, a more objectionable concept is the evolution of species from simple lifeforms to very complex ones. And that is where the great conflict lies within that theory. Complexity from haphazard generation seems impossibly hard, compared to the idea of intelligent design.
Explain how many billions of years it would take to evolve the intricacies of the separate male and female reproductive systems to the point where a baby, with a genetic combination of both parents, would result. If one minor anomaly occurs in either system, infertility results.
This planet would have remained empty.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One would have to explain how sex evolved, first off.
Gotta love it when the “scientists” claim “overwhelming evidence”.
What is overwhelming is the grant money and high-paying jobs that flow to “scientists” who spout the garbage they are told to spout.
If the case for evolution is so perfect (it isn't), and organisms evolved over millions of years to create our human species that is pretty much the perfect combination of features to survive and exist, then why should we care about freaks who can't just be a man or woman from birth? Liberals are hypocrites. Transgenders and homosexuals should be mutating to propagate new forms of themselves, but it isn't happening. Too many questions, and no real explanations.
The adaptation is the utilization of existing info in the genome, not from the creation of new information.
Evolution is a big jpke almost as easy to debuke as the big bang, which is really easy to debunk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.