Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

SDI -High School Indoctrination Version.


Featured picture from the Gleepy Journal!

I enjoy hanging out with teenagers because they are more likely to be open and honest about what they believe and not so set in their ways they cannot consider new ideas. Yes, they tend to have a sense of invincibility that has not been worn off of them and there are many years of experience layers they do not yet have. I have the blessing of being able to work with and teach large numbers of them. I also keep my eyes and ears open so I may also learn from them.




Post-teenagers (ages 20-25 or so) are not that different from teens and I interact with, work with and live with several of such individuals. In short, I am surrounded by large numbers of young people who are attending public high school and college classes. I suspect it would not surprise you that the college kids especially tend to complain about the liberal and agnostic or even atheist leanings of their professors.




Many of these young people I consider to be friends as well as students and also, as most of them are Christians like myself, they are also my brothers and sisters. One of these young men shared a paper he had turned into his science teacher and her response to him, which turned into a dialogue between them by means of papers and websites shared and comments written in margins. He wanted me to see the result of the exchange of ideas between himself and his teacher.




Now, actually this teacher is not a terrible educator. I want to say in advance that she did not grade my friend off for disagreeing with her. She did not require him to do extra work because he had a differing point of view, nor did she cut off all discussion. She gave him a 100% for fulfiling the assignment and mentioned that she enjoyed hearing his views. So she is not punishing him for disagreeing with her.




On the other hand, she did not give his views any real consideration. She gave us a classic example of SDI.








You can go view the article at the link above. It is a defense of Darwinism published in the National Geographic Magazine that is completely sold out to the idea that, no, Darwin was NOT wrong. Part of the assignment was for students to read and intelligently react to the article. Here is a quote to give you an idea of the general slant of this story:




"Evolutionary theory, though, is a bit different. It's such a dangerously wonderful and far-reaching view of life that some people find it unacceptable, despite the vast body of supporting evidence. "




Dangerously wonderful? What, is Mickey Spillane writing for science magazines now? The only thing dangerous about Darwinism is if you are a scientist and don't believe it, because that viewpoint will be dangerous to your career. Wonderful? A theory that depends on mutation and millions of generations of death is wonderful? What would be bad, then?




Far-reaching? Okay, Darwinists have to reach really far to try to connect transitional forms in the fossil record and to make up just-so stories to explain why everything living not only has the appearance of being designed that it turns out to have a remarkably complex blueprint present in every cell. Darwinists have to reach very far to explain how space came from nowhere, something came from nothing, life came from non-life not to mention how systems like photosynthesis could have possibly have developed by a series of random mutations. They have to reach right past the records concerning thousands of generations of fruit flies and hundreds of thousands of generations of bacteria that have failed to begin to evolve into something else.




The vast body of evidence is a lot like that vast new wardrobe of that emperor who was sold some new clothes. In fact, virtually every aspect of Darwin's contentions have been disproven. The Galapagos Finches which inspired him are not evolving at all, they are simply a species that has information for different sizes of beaks within the gene pool so that the population can adjust to new conditions. Darwinism has had to be changed and rewritten over the years as science began to truly understand the nature of cells, the increasing complexity thereof, the blueprint known as DNA and so on. Uniformitarianism has been disproven. All the sedimentary rock layers of the world are associated with water events. Catastrophism, a necessity for Bible-believing creationists, is the only possible explanation for the rock layers found in real life. As it turns out, molecules do not evolve and there is no evidence that cells do, either. Adaption is simply natural selection choosing the traits already available within the creature's gene pool.




My friend's teacher tried to rebut his arguments and began her rebuttal thusly:




"...the issue here is not evolution, it is an uncontested concept as far as I am concerned."




Whoa! Let's stop right here. This science teacher has decided that Darwinism, unproven as it is, has become fact within her mind and cannot even be considered to be otherwise! Wow. Uncontested? Her own student is contesting it!




She goes on to say that he is "...trusting misleading or deceitful third partie's translations of information. I am absolutely certain of the purposeful deception."




Now this is interesting. For instance, Jonathan Safarti of the Creation on the Web website is one of his resources. This man is a chess grandmaster, a certified genius who has several doctorates and publishes Darwinist peer-reviewed papers against the flow of Darwinism as well as papers submitted to Intelligent Design groups. He is so brilliant that Hugh Ross refuses to debate him on the science behind the Big Bang theory, even though Dr. Ross is an astrophysicist and Dr. Safarti is first and foremost a physical chemist. Creation Ministries International publishes peer-reviewed journals and is involved in intense research. It is a reputable organization. She could not begin to show them to be either deceptive or misleading or ignorant.




My friend specified answersingenesis.org as reference material and the teacher accused them of misleading the uneducated public! That is a ridiculous thing to say and indicates that she either cannot or will not try to digest any information that she hasn't already accepted and glued into her mind. That site was founded by Dr. Ken Ham, an environmental biologist and teacher and lecturer and author with plenty of experience and credentials on his side.




The Institute for Creation Research is another organization (founded by the famous hydrologist Dr. Henry Morris) devoted to studying the evidences from a creationist perspective. IDthefuture is one authored from the ID point of view, regardless of any Biblical information. There are many such organizations peopled by actual scientists studying the evidences without being chained to a Darwinist point of view. The RATE project is an example of some of the work being done by such groups, often working in tandem to find answers to questions presented by available information.




Anyway, my friend made a number of comments on the article, printed out some evidences that argued against assertions made by the article and turned all of this in to the teacher. Some of the things he noted were pretty obvious. I mean, by now anyone with any integrity acknowledges that the Haeckel embroyo series was a canard, a series of fakes invented by Haeckel to try to support evolutionary teachings. Yet this teacher actually defends sources that reference the Haeckel chart!






The teacher continues on, using the words "ignorance" and "mislead" a second time. She refers to papers presented by this student that expose Haeckel, present evidence that so-called vestigal organs have purposes and are not evolutionary trash left behind within the gene.




Disciplines like biogeography, paleontology, embroyology and morphology are dominated by evolutionists and yet breakthroughs in these fields are pointing scientists towards life as a function of design. The teacher ignores these evidences and simply pushes through to her conclusion - that "for the sake of his mind" my young friend needed to study evolution more and more until, apparently, he was sufficiently indoctrinated.




This is not education, it is indoctrination. When information that exposes problems with evolution is ignored and labeled as lies then we should not associate such thinking with science.


Carl Linnaeus, the inventor as it were of taxonomy by proposing his Linnaean system of biological classification intended it as a way of understanding the ways of God as well as of the world:




Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species




He proposed an order designed by God for animals, plants and minerals (which was abandoned by science later) by which one could classify and identify the types of created beings. He was not a believer in evolution in any form but understood that there would have been measures taken by God to allow for variation within kind.




I have noted in previous posts that Darwin was simply following up on the work of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin in seeking a way to separate the idea of God from the existence of life and matter. He tried and discarded various means by which notgod could do the work of God, including Lamarkian mechanisms before settling upon natural selection in conjunction with mutation. As it has been said before, that is like expecting a tornado to assemble a working 747 while whipping through a junkyard, including the pilots and crew and fuel and all...only far less likely. Nevertheless, many believe in this idea because it allows them to discard God.




I have often presented evidences of life being designed and the world being flooded without benefit of reference to scripture. I will post more on this interaction between the student and the teacher soon. But I will end this post with the teacher's own words...




"It's sorrowful to me, as a lover of knowledge, to see ignorance preyed upon, with willing submission by the prey, I might add. Investigators of true knowledge, when considering an issue objectively, will know the difference and be far better off because of it."

Ah, she is actually saying that the student she has just given ten out of ten points for this assignment is willingly ignorant! Look carefully at the phrasing.


That above statement, so pompously stated, is from someone who defends the Haeckel chart and will not deign to even consider information that comes from sites not affiliated with Darwinists. Not. Even. Consider. This is science? No, this is indoctrination and SDI.

16 comments:

Taxandrian said...

Nice article. Not that it presents anything new or interesting, but still...quite entertaining!

highboy said...

"Nice article. Not that it presents anything new or interesting, but still...quite entertaining!"

Yes, taxandrian. Your blogs are much more cutting edge with great insight. LOL.

IAMB said...

Plenty of things here that bug me, but as time is limited, I'll just mention a couple...

Ahem...

I'm sure it's been pointed out to you before, but I'll do it again: I'm under the impression that you seem to think "uniformitarianism" in geology means that nothing catastrophic ever happens. This is pure and utter crap. The uniformitarian model simply means that the processes observed today are the same processes that have acted throughout history. Also, current understanding is that pretty much everywhere on earth has been underwater at one time or another, but not all at the same time.

Something that really bugs me (since I am, after all, a micro guy):
and hundreds of thousands of generations of bacteria that have failed to begin to evolve into something else.

This dismissive "they're still bacteria" thing trivializes the most genetically diverse domain of life on the planet. Seriously, there's more differences between E. coli and Staph than there is between you and your wife's rose bushes.

Heck, there's a pretty good chance that two different strains of Staph are more different than you and your pet dog (you strike me as a dog person... I could be wrong).

We'll just leave it there for now.

P.S. Hello Highboy. Long time no see. How's the family?

highboy said...

Not bad IAMB. Thanks for asking.

Taxandrian said...

OK, for kicks & giggles:

I want to say in advance that she did not grade my friend off for disagreeing with her. She did not require him to do extra work because he had a differing point of view, nor did she cut off all discussion. She gave him a 100% for fulfiling the assignment and mentioned that she enjoyed hearing his views.

Which makes me wonder why you wrote this article. She certainly took the time to listen to your friend's arguments. So what's the problem, really? Not agreeing with someone does not necessarily mean that one did not consider the given arguments. After all, who says that, as a science teacher, she hasn't your friend's arguments earlier from other students?

Dangerously wonderful?...The only thing dangerous about Darwinism is if you are a scientist and don't believe it, because that viewpoint will be dangerous to your career.

I think you're misinterpreting the teacher's words here. I think that what she meant was that the evolution theory may be percepted by some religious people as dangerous to their faith.

Darwinists have to reach very far to explain how space came from nowhere, something came from nothing, life came from non-life not to mention how systems like photosynthesis could have possibly have developed by a series of random mutations.

First off, you might want to define what exactly you mean by 'Darwinists'. But if by Darwinists you mean those who adhere to the evolution theory, you might want to explain what exactly cosmology and abiogenesis has to do with it.

My friend's teacher tried to rebut his arguments and began her rebuttal thusly:

So she did take his arguments in consideration? I mean, why spend time on rebutting arguments you don't even take in consideration?

Now this is interesting. For instance, Jonathan Safarti of the Creation on the Web website is one of his resources.

Wow Radar, you surprise me! You are still plugging Creation On The Web as a trustworthy souce of information after the John Hartnett debacle? Follow-up article
Radar, didn't you tell your young friend that Creation on the Web publishes articles by scientists who use nonsense mathematics in order to fool their audience?

Also, I wonder why whenever you mention Jonathan Sarfati you have to emphasize that he is a chess champion? What does this have to do with the validity of his arguments? Or do you simply mention it to impress people?

My friend specified answersingenesis.org as reference material and the teacher accused them of misleading the uneducated public!

Personally, I wouldn't trust an organisation that tries to censor criticism either. I mean, your arguments must be really weak if you try to silence your critics by filing false DMCA claims.

"It's sorrowful to me, as a lover of knowledge, to see ignorance preyed upon, with willing submission by the prey, I might add."

Referring to the Hartnett debacle, I can only conclude she is completely right.
And no, she doesn't say that your friend is willingly ignorant. She says that he willingly submits himself to his ignorance being exploited by people who say exactly what he wants to hear. Just like you, Radar, fell prey to John Hartnett.

highboy said...

Watch out radar. They broke out the big guns on you: a youtube clip.

Anonymous said...

What taxandrian said, plus this:

"Darwinists have to reach very far to explain how space came from nowhere, something came from nothing, life came from non-life not to mention how systems like photosynthesis could have possibly have developed by a series of random mutations."

Whoa.

1. Who says "space came from nowhere" and "something came from nothing"? Seriously.

2. Anyone who tries to explain how life came from non-life would have to reach very far. You unduly flatter your side of the argument by pretending that creationists have somehow explained how life came from non-life. All they've provided is the claim that God created life from non-life; regarding the how, they have provided nothing even approaching a hypothesis - yet some of them feel qualified to mock others who have proposed such hypotheses or theories.

And as taxandrian pointed out, of course, "Darwinism" has nothing to do with the question of life from non-life. You can easily believe that God created the initial spark of life, but then used the mechanism of what we call evolution and natural selection for life to take its course.

3. Do you take it that complexity of a theory itself is an indicator that the theory is wrong?

If an explanation for something is "simpler" but has zero explanatory power, does that mean that it is a better explanation? If so, then I propose an even simpler explanation than "God did it": "it just is".

Sucks that it doesn't explain anything, sure, but keep in mind it's pure simplicity that is being valued here.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Hey Highboy,

long time no see. Any luck in getting your in-laws arrested yet?

-- creeper

AIGBusted said...

I can't believe how much misinformation I have read in this article. First of all, check out my article on Answers in Genesis for a good review of just how deceptive they are:

http://secweb.infidels.org

/?kiosk=articles&id=791

(Remove spaces)

Also, take a look at expelledexposed.com to see the kind of misinformation out there.

Finally, there is no real controversey about evolution within the scientific community. Over ninety nine percent of biologists accept it. Think about it: Is there any other situation where you, as a nonexpert, would accuse the vast majority of experts of stupidity or fraud?

highboy said...

Creeper: no need. They've been amusing me with their unemployment and homelessness. Thanks for asking. Not sure what it has to do with the post though.

Anonymous said...

"Creeper: no need. They've been amusing me with their unemployment and homelessness. Thanks for asking."

Ah, so they're homeless now? How does your wife feel about that?

Are you doing the Christian thing and giving to them charitably? Or is their plight simply "amusing" to you?

"Not sure what it has to do with the post though."

What does it have to do with the post? Nothing that I can see. But no harm in having a chat while Radar's recovering.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Ah, so they're homeless now? How does your wife feel about that?

Are you doing the Christian thing and giving to them charitably? Or is their plight simply "amusing" to you?"

1. Frustrated with them.
2. How do you know what the Christian thing to do is in this situation? Would I be helping them by giving them money or enabling them, thus contributing to the problem? I have them over for dinner here and there for the sake of reaching out, and let them bounce their grand kid on their knee. That's about it. They are mooching off another in law to get by, while they all smoke pot and blame the government for their current plight. They think I'm lucky. I try to point out that whether it was Clinton, Bush, or even Obama when he takes office, I've always had a job and paid my bills. They don't get it.
3. As an aside, my wife's sister who lives in Texas was arrested for possession of 200 pounds of weed. She's out on bail after months of incarceration but still awaiting a hearing. Imagine that?

But my wife and I are the ones with the last name "High". LOL.

Anonymous said...

"Are you doing the Christian thing and giving to them charitably? Or is their plight simply "amusing" to you?"

1. Frustrated with them."


I bet. Addicts aren't much fun to be around. But then again, if they're potheads (and if that's all they are), things could be worse.

"2. How do you know what the Christian thing to do is in this situation?"

How do you, I suppose would be the more relevant question. I don't know for sure, but from what I've retained of my upbringing I'm guessing being "amused" with them doesn't seem quite the way to go.

"Would I be helping them by giving them money or enabling them, thus contributing to the problem?"

I don't know, which is it? Do you automatically dismiss that option as "enabling them"? I guess so. But that seems like an awfully easy option. And I don't think Jesus Christ was into easy options.

On the other hand, maybe it is all about "to each his own".

"I have them over for dinner here and there for the sake of reaching out, and let them bounce their grand kid on their knee. That's about it."

Have you considered getting snapshots of them smoking dope during their visits so you can turn them in? Just a thought.

"They are mooching off another in law to get by, while they all smoke pot and blame the government for their current plight. They think I'm lucky. I try to point out that whether it was Clinton, Bush, or even Obama when he takes office, I've always had a job and paid my bills. They don't get it."

In what way do they blame their government for their "plight"?

"3. As an aside, my wife's sister who lives in Texas was arrested for possession of 200 pounds of weed. She's out on bail after months of incarceration but still awaiting a hearing. Imagine that?"

Whoa! In Texas? How'd she swing that? That's some serious volume. How much time do you think she'll do?

"But my wife and I are the ones with the last name "High". LOL."

Yep, that always was pretty ironic. Teehee.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"I bet. Addicts aren't much fun to be around. But then again, if they're potheads (and if that's all they are), things could be worse."

Yup. I can't get it into their heads, that regardless as to whether or not pot is addictive/bad for you, its illegal, and therefore if its not a big deal, it'd be easier to give it up.

"How do you, I suppose would be the more relevant question. I don't know for sure, but from what I've retained of my upbringing I'm guessing being "amused" with them doesn't seem quite the way to go."

I just take the whole Bible into context. And there's nothing wrong with getting a chuckle.

"I don't know, which is it? Do you automatically dismiss that option as "enabling them"? I guess so. But that seems like an awfully easy option. And I don't think Jesus Christ was into easy options."

Sure He is. Its a fine line, but one must have boundaries while also reaching out in love. That is why I don't cut them off completely by I won't simply throw money at them.

"In what way do they blame their government for their "plight"?"

Its Republicans fault he can never keep a job, and can go literally years without a job. I saw him do a 3 year stint before with no job, and she quits at the drop of a hat. When I first met my wife however Clinton was in office and he didn't have a job. He couldn't keep one under Bush and I'd love to know who he's going to blame under Obama. Its the Republicans, the rich people, etc. Meanwhile, he's been to job interviews where if they offer minimum wage, he tells them they'll get minimum work, and then laughs that they didn't hire him. I'm sure you'll agree, to get anywhere you have to eat a certain amount of poop for a while. He doesn't get that.

"Whoa! In Texas? How'd she swing that? That's some serious volume. How much time do you think she'll do?"

I have no idea. She wrote us letters telling conflicted stories time and again, and now that she's out on bail living with her uncle in Texas we haven't heard much. I do know this: she asker her other sister, not my wife, (there's 3 of them) to call her voicemail on her cell phone, and there was literally about 40 vms from angry hispanic sounding people wanting to know where their ish was.

"Have you considered getting snapshots of them smoking dope during their visits so you can turn them in? Just a thought."

You think I'd let them smoke pot in my house just to get a picture of them smoking weed? I'm not that obsesses creeper, and besides, the law stipulates that police actually have to catch them with it themselves.

radar said...

I addressed the "bacteria evolution" issue in the last post.

The rock layers are a testimony to massive catastrophism, not small local events. Many rock layers stretch for thousands of miles and often you find layering many thousands of feet up in the mountains featuring thirty-foot boulders in a mix with smaller rocks and mud, all displaying collision markings, the testimony to a rapid and remarkably powerful water flow well beyond what is seen in the world today.

radar said...

"This dismissive "they're still bacteria" thing trivializes the most genetically diverse domain of life on the planet. Seriously, there's more differences between E. coli and Staph than there is between you and your wife's rose bushes."

It is also true that one did not evolve into the other nor is there any evidence that any bacteria have evolved into another kind of microorganism. A mountain lion is not a wolf but what does that have to do with the price of eggs?