Evolution Education as a Tool of Indoctrination

It’s so hard to be objective sometimes. As a matter of my opinion, I find it impossible. In light of my revolutionary discovery I try then to be neutral. Ken Hamm showed a YouTube video of an atheist, a young guy, not particularly well spoken but not a dunce either. He called what his parents taught him “indoctrination” but called what he learned in school education. This is a perfect example of the worldview guiding the decision. His own words speak of his view toward the information. Whereas I would consider what is being done in school no different then indoctrination, I would also consider what I teach my kids indoctrination. In the case of atheist, he has clearly failed to identify this basic fact. He feels empowered by believing that his life is meaningless, just a highly organized result of wind, rain, and procreation. What he has not considered is that the government, the school, and the powers of this world, are also empowered by him believing that.

Those who seek power over people first seek to dehumanize those people. A man who places no value in himself or his neighbor will not defend himself or his neighbor. For example, Marx wrote that:

“a people without a history are easily conquered.”

This is the purpose of evolution: to remove the real history of mankind, one that imposes value on humankind, one that establishes an absolute moral law, so that mankind may be conquered. America is no different today then the communist and socialist countries of the past. With laws like the Patriot Act and NDAA, it is quite clear that the government of America wants to conquer the people of America.

And the people, with few exceptions, are not fighting back.

And why not? As an extension and quite literally a branch of the Federal government, the school system acts as a major indoctrinator (or educator, if you prefer). This YouTube atheist did not seem to question in any way what he was taught in school. He didn’t question his teachers nor was he asked to (when was the last time YOUR teacher asked you to validate her own lesson with personal research?). He put his trust in a government that seeks to control him and in order to do so must first dehumanize him by turning him into a monkey. And this atheist just ate it up like a ripe banana.

Another one bites the dust.

There is plenty of evidence both philosophically and empirically that would at minimal challenge the philosophy and theory of Neo-Darwinistic evolution. It would at least cause one to question. In some cases, the evidence is so overwhelming and it’s speakers so impactful that the government has put them in jail…for tax evasion. From geology, to biology, to astronomy, to paleontology, to philosophy, the evidence that speaks out against Darwin surrounds scientists and thinkers from outside religious institutions. Berlinsky, Behe, and others subscribe to secular principles but challenge evolution from almost every angle. The world and the government however give no voice to these thinkers because it conflicts with the agenda of power and control.

One does not need religion to disbelieve evolution one only needs the will to see the research and the ability to question what they were taught in school. It takes the will to accept that our autonomous selves could be wrong. I find there is nothing harder to accept then our own wrongness. I could be wrong right now. I guess we will have to see how strong the arguments are against my position (and I’m sure I’ll get some).

There are only two religions- Gods word or man becomes god. The thinking of our time is that man decides truth- moral relativism, situational ethics, and history. In mans version of history, the one pushed in school and in government, and on t.v., people are just animals not much better than a pig. So look around you and look at how animals are treated- eaten, caged, used for testing, and subdued. Why would you resist?

Now take the real history- man is a special creation of an Almighty Creator, the perfect Mind who like love, beauty, justice, and goodness, cannot be seen with the human eye. This creator embed his creation with the ability to think, to logic, to reason. He gave his creation value and freedom. A value that says each one created is deserving of life and liberty so much so that He commanded, “thou shall not murder.” He said, “thou shall not covet, steal, or cheat” each other. That includes the government.

Be caged or be free. It’s your God given choice.


What is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

While the theist is surrounded by evidence to support his belief system, the atheist must constantly and consistently appeal to “unknown” circumstances or unsubstantiated scientific claims in order to wallow happily in his muddy worldview. One such example, is the 2nd law of thermodynamics or what is more appropriately called the law of increasing entropy.

Simply put, the 2nd law states that: “In any closed system, the entropy of the system will either remain constant or increase.”

In other words, in a closed system like the universe, the natural world will decrease in complexity rather than increase in complexity. We see this all the time and consistently, the 2nd law is one of the most strongly verified laws of nature (along with the 1st law). It is a law that is never broken- things break down. Take a look at abandoned cars- they decay, rust, corrode, and fall apart as the wind and the rain take their toll. Or look at our roofs as they bask constantly in the sunlight- they fade away and gather debris which eventually requires a good cleaning or a replacement. Even our own natural bodies are constantly dying away. The body must constantly produce new cells to replace the old and dying cells that cause us to age and the new cells are less complex and less vibrant than the ones they replace. How can this be if (as we are taught in the education system) that life is constantly “evolving” in some Darwinian sense to more complexity? After all Big Bang Cosmology and Darwinian evolution stand firm that everything came from nothing (note: today’s cosmology is slowly accepting M-theory which supports an infinite or eternal universe of sorts.) and that the most complex life came from a simple non-living chemical. It would appear that the basic scientific law of thermodynamics abrasively contradicts the theory of evolution.

What do evolutionists think?

The evolutionist must appeal to some unknown mechanism in order to continue with their belief in atheism. These explanations however are not refutations nor should they be considered as such. Perhaps the most common explanation is the “added energy” fallacy as made popular by Richard Dawkins (a mediocre scientist at best). His argument asserts that while the universe is a closed system (meaning that no energy is being added to the universe), our earth is an open system as it receives energy from the sun. Therefore, the 2nd law of thermodynamics would not apply. In this case, Dawkins (and many atheists especially of the type who comment on Youtube videos) asserts (without evidence by the way) that by simply adding energy to a part of the system, the 2nd law-while applying to the whole- would have a reverse effect on the part. If that’s true then life on earth would be increasing in complexity rather then decreasing (which is what evolution claims). The argument uses the example of plants and sunlight. As plants receive energy from the sun, they increase in complexity.

Here is the problem with this position. It has no basis in reality. Naturally, life on earth in NOT increasing in complexity despite the massive amounts of energy we receive from sunlight. Plants do not generate complexity in a vacuum. Rather, a highly complicated process called photosynthesis is taking place on a chemical level to convert that energy into a useable form. Similar to solar panels without the technology inside, a plant without chlorophyll and the photosynthesis process would simply dry up and die. Solar panels are just simple materials without the complex technology built into them. Without the technology, the glass would decay, crack, and the pieces would whither just like the abandoned car.

So we see that adding energy does nothing without a machine to convert that energy. Think of it this way, the US added a whole lot of energy to Germany in WWII and was the result more complexity or less complexity? Did the US leave Germany more orderly or less orderly? The answer seems obvious- unless you’re an atheist.

Professor Andy Macintosh puts it this way:

“The principle of energy loss for useful work still applies in an open system, since there is no benefit unless there is a machine to use the energy added. Boeing 777s cannot be made in a car factory by adding loads of sunlight or electricity unless the machinery is available to use that energy to build Boeing 777s. Similarly the human brain cannot be formed from simpler machines just by adding energy if there is no machinery available to do this. Spontaneously forming of such machinery will not happen.”

While the atheist will appeal to unknown natural factors, unsubstantiated scientific claims, and usually resort to name calling and elitism, they have no factual basis on which to build their case. They simply preach to their converted who cheer and shout in complete oblivion to their own ignorance. Christians do this too. As believers we must always be ready to answer their objections. In some cases, this might be as simple as asking them to clarify their position so you can do your research. You will find that while there are some challenges worth advanced study time, the opposition the 2nd law is not taken seriously in real science. It’s only the atheist who holds to his faith. We as Christians may be certain that this painting-though marred and vandalized by sin and sinners- will always bear the signature of it’s painter.

Some additional resources:



Evolution Not A Problem For Thinking Christians

theApologetic on Facebook
I was sitting at home about to take a nap when a close friend called me and told me about a witnessing opportunity. Without hesitation, I kicked of my slippers, put on my flip flops and met him at his work. There in his office was a young guy, a son of a mutual friend with questions about life and about Christianity. I’d met him before but only briefly. A young guy of 18, he calls himself an atheist and asserts that he “believes in science.” I knew that in prior conversations he had been asked to clarify what he meant by “science” and had no response. Simply put, he was parroting what he had heard others say (a technique we all tend to employ) and this gap in his knowledge provided us as believers a great opportunity to help him with his thought process.

We shook hands and I asked him what kind of questions he wanted to ask. Without missing a beat he looked at me and said, “what about evolution.”

I tried not to smile. There are certainly those moments in life when we recognize that God has given us trials in order to prepare us for specific moments. Paul writes about this in Romans 5. This was my Romans moment. See, it is the objective of modern evolutionists like Richard Dawkins to use Darwinian evolution as a marketing tool against the Biblical God. By and large the church’s response has either been to ignore the questions all-together or to accept it and squeeze it into scripture. Both are incorrect and an violation of the trust we are to have in God. The truth is, any thinking Christian can deliver a simple apologetic against evolution in just a few moments time. Here is what I said to him.

The truth is, I love this question. So much of our culture has been brainwashed to believe that somehow evolution disproves God but we are going to look at why this is not so. There are two ways to address this question. We can address this question scientifically or we can address this questions philosophically.

1. Scientifically speaking let me make it clear to you that I do not subscribe to the neo-Darwinian theory of macro-evolution. This theory states that all life formed randomly by processes no longer observed into animals we’ve never found. Furthermore, they claim that against all bio-chemical evidence to the contrary, life came from non-life and one animal turned into another completely different animal. Without going into the details, try to imagine a mousetrap. It has 5 moving parts and each part is inter-related. The base, the spring, the cheese-holder, the neck-snapper, and the lock. Now if any 1 of those 5 moving parts is gone, the whole mechanism fails. If the neck-snapper is gone, it won’t work. If the wood base is gone, it wont work. Does that make sense? (he said yes). Ok, now imagine if the wood base was made of paper- would the base be strong enough to lock the neck snapper in place? (he said no). You’re right, I said. So the mousetrap could not have evolved slowly and gradually through time since all parts are needed to be in place at the same time in the right order and of the right quality. We can observe this, test it, repeat it, and make predictions with this. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. Compare with macro-evolution: it’s never been observed, repeated, tested, or predicted. The mousetrap is science, evolution is not. And you believe in science right?  (He said yes again).  Great, me too.

2.  Now we can also look at this philosophically. Lets say that none of what I said a second ago is true. Lets pretend that we see evolution happening everyday. News sorts of animals are constantly coming into existence; little rock piles get rained on and turn into goo which turns into a cell, and so forth. How does this prove there is no God? It doesn’t. It simply reflects the mechanism that God used to create the diversity that we see today. Additionally it would mean that Genesis 1-11 is allegorical rather than literal (a poem rather than a narrative). I personally, don’t believe this to be the case, but we’re just talking philosophically here. Something has to program the cell to evolve. If evolution were a law of nature, it would require a law giver. That law giver is God. A computer cannot operate with a program inside it telling it what to do, right? Well, DNA is the same way. DNA is digitally encoded to work a certain way. Someone had to program that code just like someone has to program the computer. As a matter of fact, Bill Gates said that DNA is just like computer code only a whole lot more complicated. So evolution does not disprove God, if it happens at all it actually demonstrates the process by which God works which then becomes an argument for God. Does that make sense?

Keep in mind reader that I am going over the basic apologetic here. Im not going into information theory or “shannon” information, or the fact that in order for natural selection to take place one must first have a replicating mutator. This being the case, the evolutionist must explain how the replicating mutator came to be. The point is, most people are not prepared or willing to delve into the science or philosophy behind their worldview. When you as the thinker can demonstrate the science or the philosophy to them with kindness and grace (remember, its by God’s grace that you know anything at all), you will gain their trust. From their you can explain how by knowing someone we can learn to trust them which brings us directly to the person of Jesus.

My meeting with this young man was profitable. We spoke for another hour or so before he had to leave and I had no desire to nap after that! I answered a lot of his questions and got a lot of smiles. We had some good laughs and I hope to meet with him again. I know that God is wooing him and Im grateful that he used me to answer this guys questions. Maybe next time he will use you.

Religion vs. Science or Religion vs. Religion?

While its true that Creation scientist Duane Gish makes the claim that Creation is not science he- in the same sentence- says the same of evolution. His reasoning is that both belief systems appeal to a non-provable, non-repeatable, non-testable function.  While the evolutionists claim to be grounded in science, it must be noted that their theories have never been repeated, never been tested and have never been proven.  While we cannot repeat the Big Bang, neither can we repeat Creation.  In this manner, both evolutionism and Creation are religious in nature while both use scientific data to support their positions.  The difference is the religion; Theism (or the belief in an active, loving, personal God) or materialism (also called: naturalism or the belief that “nature is all there is”) This presuppositional approach is necessary of science in that evidence cannot “lead” anyone anywhere. It is only our interpretations of evidence that can lead- and the evolutionists know it!

Devout Evolutionist Richard C Lewontin in a review of Carl Sagan’s book agrees, “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”

Richard Dawkins further agrees when in an email letter to Phillip Johnson he wrote, “Our philosophical commitment to materialism and reductionism is true...” (He then goes on to “espouse” that Creation offers “no solution” to the origins debate- a circular argument)

In his response Johnson asserts that when you “separate the philosophy from the science, the proud tower (of evolution) collapses.”

We see that evolutionists in a variety of fields agree with the postulate that evolutionary origination is religious in nature- based not on empirical evidence (as they seem to claim over and over again) but on philosophical commitments (aka- faith). Physicist and Information scientist Hubert Yokey writes, “the belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from nonliving matter is simply an article of faith in strict reductionism and is based solely on ideology”

Evolutionist and co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick sadly offers, “Every time I write a paper on the origin on life I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.”

Evolutionist, mathematician and astronomer, Chandra Wickramasinghe agrees when he observes, “The emergence of life from a primordial soup on the Earth is merely an article of faith that scientists are finding difficult to shed. There is no experimental evidence to support this at the present time…”

Evolutionist and microbiologist,  Michael Denton also agrees “The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.

So when the leaders of the movement admit to being religiously motivated but a follower (ie: an evolutionist) claims to be irreligious then we see an inconsistency in their worldview- like jamming the wrong piece into the puzzle. We know that truth is not inconsistent so they must be incorrect. Indeed the evolutionary worldview lacks empirical evidence and as stated above requires a pre-commitment (a priori) to materialism. Otherwise stated, its conclusions are loaded into its assumptions. The matter then is not whether it’s religion against science (and I could go into this a bit further at another time) but a matter of reasonable faith (one with evidences) versus unreasonable faith (one without IE: Atheism, Mormonism).

I’m just glad I’m on the right team.