Evolution in education....why are our tax dollars paying for this lie?

I fully agree with you. Here is all the Assumptions and denials I found from their own mouths.

One main reason evolutionists and creationists differ in opinion is because they have a different premise. Evolution scientists believe everything originates from a series of changes and can be explained by time, chance, and continuing natural processes that are inherent in the organization of matter and energy. (Creation X) Evolution is commonly applied to the historical development of life and has been expanded into virtually any subject matter all the way to the development of the universe itself. Like most ideas, the Theory of Evolution has evolved into something it was not originally believed to be.

Creationists believe in evolution, but not to the extreme that every living thing evolved from a single cell into the complex organisms of today. In essence evolution means change. Micro-evolution (small changes) within species is a scientific fact that Creationists readily acknowledge (120). However, macro-evolution (tremendous changes) is a belief that is simply not evident in nature.

There are two kinds of Creationism; scientific and Biblical. Scientific creationism bases its beliefs upon the scientific data. In fact, creation scientists believe that scientific creationism and Biblical creationism should be taught independently of each other. Some of the most brilliant scientists in the history of the world were creationists: Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Galileo, Faraday, Kepler, and so on.

While it is often asserted that Creationism is based on religious beliefs, evolution has its beliefs based in atheism and secular humanism. The Supreme Court has classified atheism and secular humanism as religions. The evolution model is atheistic in nature while the creation model is theistic. One evolutionist wrote an article titled, "Creation 'Science' Is Dishonest." On the contrary, scientists who assert evolution as a "fact" only need to look at the history of their false findings and hoaxes of man's "missing links" to see their hypocrisy (156 and 159). It is one thing to personally believe in evolution and relate it and all evidence associated with it as circumstantial, but to assert it as a "fact" is unethical and prejudicial.

Another reason why creation scientists view things so differently from evolutionists is simply a matter of differing interpretation of the data. Even evolutionists do not agree with one another because of differing interpretations of the data, especially when it comes to biological classifications. So, why are creation scientists shunned?

Evidence for evolution can be interpreted in different ways. Comparing anatomical similarities between different organisms can provide evidence for evolution. The forelimb in vertebrate animals can be compared bone for bone. The upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand, and fingers are distinguishable (53 and Britannica 7:9). While evolutionists contend that this is evidence of, "descent from a common ancestor (evolution)" creationists believe that this is no more than proof of, "a common design (creation)."

A second piece of evidence for evolution is shown in the development of organisms. The embryonic stage of development is so similar that a frog, chicken, salamander, or human embryo are virtually indistinguishable. Evolutionists believe these amazing similarities show how organs and structures have changed their form and function with evolution. Creationists show what evolutionists call "useless evolutionary leftovers" are in reality necessary functional structures (62 and 66).

A third source of evidence that evolutionists use comes from chemical evolution or "hot soup" as Dr. Stanley Miller calls it. In 1953 he conducted an experiment using a "primordial solution" along with an electrical discharge to simulate lightning. He became successful in producing amino acids commonly found in nature. Creationists hold that it is no more than science fiction that would make a scientist conclude that life could result from a hypothetical chemical evolutionary process. There is no evidence to support this kind of speculation.

A forth source of evidence is related to genetics. This evidence relies on the process of mutation in order to validate the theory of evolution. In the documentary Genetics: Patterns of Diversity it concludes, "But still, the controversy remains. The challenge to Darwin's theory is to explain these molecular changes in terms of natural selection." There are many other challenges to Darwin's theory. Creationist Dr. Parker states:

Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a "genetic load" of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers.

...The creationist mechanism works and it's consistent with what we observe. The evolutionist assumption doesn't work, and it's not consistent with what we presently know of genetics and reproduction. As a scientist, I tend to prefer ideas that do work and do help to explain what we can observe. (Creation 115)

It is an established fact that mutations can not be the mechanism that explains the process of evolution because it leads to the destruction of the organism.

Now, the creation model for variety that Parker refers to is the genetic square (114). This is the mechanism which is believed to have caused differences among people at the Biblical "Tower of Babel" incident. "Variation within created types" is a scientific fact (107). This is the (creationist) mechanism by which we observe such diversity among organisms. Evolutionists try to exaggerate this scientific fact to further their claims. The fact is, as Dr. Gary Parker wrote, "Creationists don't believe that frogs turn into princes... but rather that frogs and people were separately created from the same kinds of molecular 'building blocks'". The creationist mechanism works!

The fifth and most popular source of evidence used by evolutionist stems from the fossil record. Evolutionist Jay Savage states, "We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution..." (V). Encyclopaedia Britannica (14:376) under a section called "The speculative nature of phylogeny [via fossil record]" states, "...judgements of relationships among organisms are almost always based upon incomplete evidence..." This means assumptions are used to fill in the missing pieces of evidence. Britannica also states, "The overwhelming majority of species that have ever lived have long since been extinct and with them the connecting links necessary for the direct demonstration of the descent of modern organisms from common ancestors." This statement shows that the evidence does not exist for Savage to "demonstrate the fact of evolution." He sidesteps the scientific process and logic thereby showing his bias thereby discrediting himself, his profession and the theory.

That is a complaint for the residents of New York to take up with their mayor and elected officials. If you don't live there, not a dime of your tax dollars are involved. Congress has nothing to say about how a city allocates and spends their budget. So your assertion that "our tax dollars" are involved is pure equus ferus caballus fecal matter. And perhaps they need the extra protection because of all the crazed Liberals and Democrats who are threatening to destroy the station. Particularly that criminal element masquerading as a social movement over near Wall Street. Who knows what those crazy loons might do. And the city is spending far more on them then they are on protecting Fox News studios. How many jobs has the OWS crowd created that contributed taxes to the city of New York?

The thing is that when you get into the details, you go beyond what the kids are capable of understanding. We simplify in all subjects. For instance, first we teach kids that violence is wrong. Then we teach that being the aggressor in violence in wrong. From there, we'll move to specific instances where aggressive violence had a positive result, such as in revolutions against unjust authority. While the specifics get complex, the broad rule applies in most of the situations the kids will see. Bringing up revolutionaries would just be confusing and pointless when lecturing your 3-year-old about punching the kid next door.

Everything that's seen in traditional schooling is simplified as such, but that does not take away from the either the accuracy of that sophisticated version of the theory or the value of the simplified version.

Why does it have to be one or the other?

I don't believe that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. However, evolution is supported by facts and science, that is what is being taught in schools. Only that which can be proven. But evolution is simply a study of the steps that life went through to get to where we are. There is still room for the belief that those steps were guided by the hand of God.

Perhaps evolution is the way in which God created the earth and its inhabitants. If you look at the steps creation went through, they coincide with the order of evolution. One does not necessarily rule out the other.

You are free to teach your children your religious beliefs at home. You are also free to send your children to a religious school where they will be taught only one view, but at least it will agree with yours.

Earth used to be the center of the universe, it also used to be flat. Long before that Zues sat atop Mt. Olympus shooting lightning bolts at people, and other gods he didn't like.

Science evolves, and old truths are proven wrong. Religion is in a desperate struggle to keep up with science in the case of overwhelming evidence to prove other wise. The catholic church would label you a heretic and you could be burned at the stake for claiming earth was not at the center of the universe and the sun, moon, and all the planets revolved around us. But eventually, and always too late religion will accept scientific fact. The great truth of our time is evolution. Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports it, religion will do all it can to fight it. If evolution wasn't something that went directly against what the bible says, it would be scientific fact. Yet, because of religion casting doubt on the theory, it is still a theory.

If you want you schools teaching creationism, they should also be teaching Buddism, Hinduism, and Islam since to teach creationism is to teach the fundimentals of Christianity it would be only fair to teach the other major world religions also.

This is just sad that just because it conflicts with your religious beliefs, you call a very concrete theory a lie. There are thousands of pieces of evidence that support evolution whereas there are none that dispute it...not a single one. And your quote is ridiculous as well. Evolution has nothing to do with origins of life, just diversity in species. It is proven, plain and simple. The only aspect of the theory that is not concrete are the mechanisms that control the change. So educate yourself before you spout off such ignorant nonsense.

If evolution isn't factual then they'd be as well taking all science books and ripping them up because evolutionary biologists use the same methodology and techniques as other scientists. If biologists are wrong then the logical implication must be that all scientists are wrong. The idea that evolution isn't a fact is too ludicrous to be taken seriously.

Religion has no place in the schools. Until you can come up with even one half the PROOF that has been accumulated to support evolution, to support your silly delusional view of reality, you have no right to demand that superstition be taught to any ones children.

I'm seriously worried that people are this ignorant.

Evolution is false because it doesn't agree with your religious beliefs? I'm sorry, but the evidence doesn't agree with your religious beliefs. Stop spouting your nonsense.

Go educate yourself: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

Evolution is supported by the evidence. No credible scientist denies evolution.

You brought up the Christian idea of 'irreducible complexity', which has been proven to be such a joke that even Creationists aren't using that argument anymore ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexit... ).

There are TONS of lies being told to our children in schools, and evolution is the least of them, as it actually has a basis in scientific fact! I don't want my children inflicted with your creation myth, and I'm sure you don't want your children inflicted with mine. Therefore, leave the Gods out of it and just teach the nitty-gritty, so to speak.

Blatant lies taught in school:

Columbus discovered America (he never even set foot on the continent)

The Pilgrims were the only ones on the Mayflower and came here peacefully (they hijacked it, by all accounts. and they weren't the first "Pilgrims". The first were Spanish Jews)

Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin in Kentucky (that particular cabin was built 30 years after his death)

And that's only THREE of them! There are literally hundreds of lies taught to our children daily that have no basis in scientific fact, as evolution just happens to have.

I strongly suspect you are not so upset about your children being taught lies as you are that your religion is not being honored in a public school.

~Morg~

Isn't gravity a theory as well? Are our constitutional rights being stripped because our children aren't learning that there could be a giant magnet in the center of the earth?

Creationism stories are from many cultures, I hope you fight to include all of them and not just the Christian creation story. If my kid gets a story on God, I expect one about the FSM too