Piltdown Superman

In the twentieth century, John Dewey was considered a great intellectual. He is credited with developing the modern public school system. Dewey had some odd and contradictory ideas in his worldview. He was an atheist and signer of the atheistic Humanist Manifesto, which openly admitted that it was a religion. Also, he did not believe in absolute truth or knowledge. It is ironic that an educator did not believe in knowledge. Worse, his rejection of God made him blind to the fact that logic comes from God — without God, morality, knowledge, wisdom, logic, and science are impossible ! Those details did not matter to Dewey. While he did some things that helped the school system, he wanted children depending on others to do the thinking for them — reflecting the atheistic, evolutionary, and Marxist trends that were growing in the formerly United States at the time. It can be seen today that many people have no inking about how to do critical thinking. Also, notice how these sheeple tend tow

Although many Western countries had Judeo-Christian values when they were founded, they have drifted from them over the years. People still enjoy the fruits of those values to some extent but are mostly unaware of where they originated. Different values are taught in schools. State-run education is a misnomer; it is actually indoctrination. Yes, indoctrination  is a word that is often casually used, but it is used very deliberately in this case. The school system has control of children for about a thousand hours a year. They teach materialistic and atheistic "values," especially evolution. Textbooks, Freeimages /  Jean Scheijen It is hypocritical for atheists and other secularists/humanists to be outraged when Christian parents want to instill their morals and principles in their children. Christians are supposedly indoctrinating" them. Not hardly! The opposite is true. Evolution is paramount, and liars for Darwin believe that, according to their fundamentally-flawed mo

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) has been gradually creeping into public schools for quite a while, but not under that name. Like we have seen before, there are programs that seem to have noble goals, but are insidious at their cores. SEL is one of them. It purports to be about empathy, supportive relationships, and so on. Then comes equity. That is a favorite term of Marxists and means equal results. What ends up happening is that people who work very little get the same reward as those who do the work. See where this is going? Theosophy symbol superimposed on colorized Karl Marx image The sidewinder who was one of those instrumental in setting up what is now SEL was John Fetzer. He was religious, but exchanged the semblance of Christianity for occult activities. One of these was the teachings of theosophist Alice Bailey. Watch out when occultists, New Age believers, and others reference "the Christ," as this is not  Jesus Christ. Bailey spoke of "the Christ" a

This news is a mite confusing on several levels. The secular science industry is outraged — outraged , I tell you — that evolution has been dropped from the education system in India. That may change momentarily, but like evolutionists feeling threatened by Neanderthal intelligence , principles here are important. One thing this child found confusing is that officials said one reason to remove evolution is that it "conflicts with creation stories." Evolution is in keeping with Hinduism, the majority religious viewpoint. (Christians are a minority, and atheists are a tiny fraction of the population.) Secularists were disingenuous in their objections. Angry shouting scientist image made at Bing AI Image Creator As expected, tinhorns said that evolution is essential for science. That is false, and there are many times when genuine science is performed without rubbing the belly of the Bearded Buddha. Molecules-to-mystic evolution is unhelpful in teaching medical science , and we

Can there really be any disputing that Darwinian indoctrination is increasing? Several posts referenced on this site show that babies are born ready to learn, read, and so on, but atheists insist that children are born atheist until they are forced to learn theism. Got a shred of science for that claim, Zeke? There are indications that babies are born with an innate theism and recognize that the world is designed. Misotheists in the secular science industry know this, and the best way to push out belief in God is to replace that belief with evolution. Illustration by  Sidney Paget , 1904, modified at Pixlr Photomash Studio In addition, misotheists accuse Christians of indoctrinating children, but those sidewinders are doing just that  under the guise of education . A recent survey claimed to show that how children are influenced to believe evolution contains bad reasoning and is deceptive. Anti-creationists want to reach as many teachers and students as possible to get them to believe

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  A great deal of noise was heard all through Deception Pass, and was even noticed all the way down to Stinking Lake. The hands at the Darwin Ranch were celebrating, and foreman Rusty Swingset even bought both fire water and cheese curls. This was in response to the news that people in the formerly United States embrace evolution. (At least, to some extent.) The question in a survey to which they responded was a mite disingenuous. Efforts at indoctrination were having the desired results. It seems to this child that there would be more of a push to get people educated in science, mathematics, and basic reading skills, since our academic achievements in those areas would satisfy the Greek philosopher Mediocrates . Also, was there a concerted effort to convince people to believe in actual, demonstrable science facts? Not hardly! No, it is more important to get people to believe in fish-to-fool evolution. The primary worldview in the secular science industry is mate

It is one thing for scientists to make mistakes, but Darwin's acolytes are slow to correct them when the naturalism narrative is threatened. Indeed, several icons of evolution have been referenced on this site alone that continue unabated. One of these is the claim that the appendix is "vestigial". Neotinic atheists and many evolutionists are happy to let errors slide despite the oft-repeated mantra that "science is self-correcting". So-called vestigial structures/organs were supposedly unneeded leftovers from our evolutionary past, so they atrophied or became nonfunctional. Like the claim of "junk" DNA , evidence was hitched to the wagon of evolutionary presuppositions, and a passel of hubris was added to the load. All of these are assumptions based on worldviews, not conclusions based on scientific evidence. The hubris is that secularists did not understand DNA ( which had not been fully sequenced ), nor did they understand the functions of certain s

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen We have seen here are that promulgators of evoporn, whether misotheists or their churchian allies, reveal their determination to indoctrinate people into universal common ancestor evolutionism. Many are fanatically intolerant of other views, especially of their circulation. Before we saddle up and ride this trail, it needs to be emphasized again that there are people who are evolutionists because that's how they were trained; apparently many are unaware that there are other views of origins. In addition, many scientists want to just do science stuff. It's the proselytizers — the indoctrinators — that are the problem. Ideally, science thrives on challenges, better ideas, examining the logic, scrutinizing the validity of data, asking if sufficient evidence was utilized, and more. (Similar things in our lives also benefit from similar scrutiny.) Darwin's cheerleaders are appalled — appalled , I tell you — when evolution is questioned or doubted in the sl

Evolutionary assumptions carry a great deal of baggage, and most of it fails under scrutiny. Misotheists assert that "children are born atheist", which is absolutely unscientific and has been refuted — and evidence indicates the opposite . In a similar way, children are born with the capacity for language. Credit: slightly edited image from Unsplash / Iana Dmytrenko Indeed, since secularists know that children have an inborn knowledge of the Creator, they want to get that nasty ol' theism indoctrinated out of them and replaced with evolutionism . Children are not blank slates, old son, but were given many capabilities by their Creator. A spell back, we saw that children are born "wired" for reading . This subject needs to be examined further, as it causes a Gordian knot for atoms-to-anthropologist thinking. There is no scientific evidence that something as complex as language (including recognition of shapes) evolved from stupid early humans making grunting sou

When people who believe in creation want to teach their children, secularists chant in Vox Robotica, "That is indoctrination. We educate. Believe". Of course, secular institutions of alleged learning have children many hours a day, days a week, weeks a year. They indoctrinate in the atheistic state religion. School Teacher by Jan Steen, 1668 Secular humanism is a worldview that exalts humanity above all else, and its foundation is philosophical naturalism. Essentially, it is the religion of atheism in a masque. "But Cowboy Bob, there are religious people that have signed the Humanist Manifesto things!" Yes there are. There are also those who mounted up and rode with Michael Zimmerman's anti-creationist "Clergy Letter Project" , and some groups for the separation of church and state (the kind where anything Christian is to be kept out of public life). However, you are unlikely to find Bible-believing Christians among the groups. Also, these inhuman

For many years, it has been taught that our traits are the result of our genes. Did Ellen touch the cleft in your chin after you were putting up the Christmas lights, Sparky? That crease was caused by a gene, they say. Credit: RGBStock / Helmut Gevert Eye and hair color, straight or curled, sizes of various body parts, other things — a gene for each. While this idea is useful to advance the particles-to-paralegal storyline, it is not true. Unfortunately, bad science ideas (especially those that support evolution) tend to remain in textbooks. The truth is much more complicated; Dr. Robert Carter said, "If life were really simple, evolution might be possible"; evolution is increasingly less possible relative to the complexity of life. Several genes are involved in traits and trait expressions, and other factors come into play. Indeed, our Creator likes variety, and he gave us many factors to express our individual characteristics. I taught college level human genetics and was c

Not only did Papa Darwin  plagiarize other people and hijack Edward Blyth 's idea of natural selection in his presentation of evolution, but he also tinkered with the formation of atolls, which was based in incomplete science. It is malarkey, but still taught to students. Palmyra Atoll, NOAA photo by Erin Looney Secular science indoctrination centers (schools) are famous for providing false and outdated information regarding evidence for evolution and the age of the earth. Indeed, they use fraud . (This is "education".) We've covered Haeckel's drawings that are used to support both abortion and evolution already, and the Miller-Urey experiment has been thoroughly refuted. Darwin's ideas on atoll formation is known to be junk science, but that and the others are still in the textbooks. Maybe it's because it makes secularists feel good, and they need to make the books bigger? Darwin investigated other questions than evolution, such as the nature of barnacl

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Under usual circumstances, the secular educational system has students under its control for several hours a day, weeks a year, many years. They are typically given the airbrushed versions of secular humanism and evolution.  Image courtesy of Genesis Apologetics Ironically, when Christian and creationist parents want to do what is right and teach their kids the truth, atheists and evolutionists say that we are "indoctrinating" them. Not hardly! In fact, they  are doing the indoctrination, then accusing us of what they are doing themselves. It's okay to question evolution so you can learn how it happened, but it is streng verboten  to question if it happened in the first place. "Go to a natural museum history", they said. "You'll learn a lot." Yes, you'll learn how cherry-picked facts based on the naturalism narrative can be presented as scientific truth. Also, you can see from models and reconstructions how artists'

Way back in 1925, John Scopes of Dayton, Tennessee, was arrested and put on trial for allegedly teaching evolution. The whole thing was a set-up by the falsely-named American Civil Liberties Union to put creation on trial. Dr. Robert Carter investigated what was actually in the textbook,  A Civic Biology, Presented in Problems by George W. Hunter. Modified from an illustration in the textbook (public domain) As mentioned, the case happened in 1925, but A Civic Biology  was written in 1914. It was not only outdated, but loaded with evolutionary and secularist views. Some of the evolutionary material was deceitful (equivocating change  with evolution , plus a passel of outright false statements). Scientific racism and eugenics are also included in the textbook. Public domain photo via Wikimedia Commons There are a couple of things for which I would have liked to have seen references or further explanation. One is that the word Caucasian  is outdated and no longer in use. A

There are some people who may have impressive academic credentials, but they lack the sense that God gave a goose. Is it untrue that institutions of higher learning are supposed to equip students to face the challenges of the future and to contribute to their fields? Credit: Pexels / Polina Tankilevitch Today's schools are indoctrination centers for profit. If the university gets the money (the most important part) and the student can correctly answer test questions and write a dissertation, they win the prize. Yes, this child is cynical. Today's institutions have "safe spaces" and try to protect hurt feelings instead of spurring students to meet and deal with confrontations and challenges. If any become scientists, I reckon they'll be mediocre at best but excel in promoting evolutionism. More than once I have encountered people who have claimed to be scientists who  did not exhibit much skill in the use of logic. One on social media who was pronounced in

Like any skilled totalitarian knows, it is vitally important to control broadcast, social media, the press, the courts, and so on. Free speech is a pretense, where it is supported — but only when approved sentiments are uttered. From there, the Ministry of Truth  indoctrinates people through propaganda. Evolutionary propaganda is becoming increasingly successful. Background image furnished by Why?Outreach Darwin's disciples in the secular science industry and academia are smarter than we are, even though they think we evolved from the same primordial slime. Just ask them. So, they get to decide what people think. (Not that they want to teach people how  to think, just what  to think.) They are gleeful about their victories — but they are not winning because of convincing evidence and devastating logic, but through activist judges and legislation that favors the worldview of atheistic naturalism. It is interesting that many scientists and academicians simply assume evolutio

Believers in universal common ancestor evolution have contrived a number of stories to convince the world (and themselves) that we evolved through trial and error, vast amounts of time, survival of the fittest. Our putative ancestors were critters that looked a great deal like monkeys and apes. However, their stories have many problems, so they are constantly changing. Background image :  The Passion of Creation ,  Leonid Pasternak, 1880s Public indoctrination centers (commonly known as schools , but more accurately as branches of the Ministry of Truth) do a good job in presenting varnished tales of tails and origins, but they do not seem to teach students how to think critically. Instead, they lasso the evoporn and believe it, even when facts disputed or rejected by evolutionists. Somehow this gives them license to ridicule, as if such actions prove that they are right; note that logic doesn't seem to be stressed by the evolutionary Ministry of Truth, either, and Darwin'