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.