All Nonfiction
- Bullying
- Books
- Academic
- Author Interviews
- Celebrity interviews
- College Articles
- College Essays
- Educator of the Year
- Heroes
- Interviews
- Memoir
- Personal Experience
- Sports
- Travel & Culture
All Opinions
- Bullying
- Current Events / Politics
- Discrimination
- Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking
- Entertainment / Celebrities
- Environment
- Love / Relationships
- Movies / Music / TV
- Pop Culture / Trends
- School / College
- Social Issues / Civics
- Spirituality / Religion
- Sports / Hobbies
All Hot Topics
- Bullying
- Community Service
- Environment
- Health
- Letters to the Editor
- Pride & Prejudice
- What Matters
- Back
Summer Guide
- Program Links
- Program Reviews
- Back
College Guide
- College Links
- College Reviews
- College Essays
- College Articles
- Back
Teaching and Promoting Christianity in Schools and Excluding Evolution
Evolution... A feud between evolutionists and creationists that spawned around one and a half centuries ago. Evolution is the idea that all living organisms have descended from one common ancestor. The idea of evolution was made famous by Charles Darwin, and is still a staple in the science curriculum in the schools of today. But something is quite corrupt about the idea of evolution, and the facts that are presented with it. Evolution is not a science, rather a religion. A such well protected religion, that certain school officials have gone to the extent of firing science teachers that have even questioned the idea of evolution, for fear of young, immature students realizing that what they have been taught all along, is dead wrong. Scientists disregard findings that go against the theory of evolution, and if they were to publish those findings in major science magazines, they would be out of a job in the science field forever. The religion of evolution is so corrupt, that it should never be taught in school without the other side being presented as well. In this paper, I will state why teachers should be able to promote Christianity, why it should be out of the science curriculum, and how the earth is not 4.6 billion years old, but much rather 6,000.
People believe in a thing called ‘Separation of Church and State’. This basically says that the organized church and nation state need to stay separate from each other. So teachers and school administrators are not allowed to promote any certain religion, yet they can teach them. On top of that, the President of the US can not set up an organized religion, and pastors and ministers can not promote any certain candidate for the US Presidency. But the thing about this is that Constitution of the US says nothing about this separation. The words were only spoken in a letter to Congress by Thomas Jefferson, but never confirmed as an amendment. So why this somewhat ‘unspoken’ agreement amongst the nation? There is no such thing as Separation of Church and State, so why is it so commonly repeated whenever the subject of religion is brought up in school? This is yet another attempt by the evolutionists to control and monitor what is taught in the science curriculum.
What is commonly believed is that the teachers are able to teach Christianity, yet not promote it in any way, but they also have to teach evolution as well. But all the teachers seem to promote evolution, and not even think about how unfair this double standard seems to be.
Now back onto the subject of evolution. This subject should not even be allowed to even be mentioned in school. To even think about how we all are descendants of one common ancestor is absurd! Genetic mutations of that degree would make every race on this planet extinct. Next time I find a fossil of a fish, I’ll make sure I’ll say hi to my grandfather...
Other crap that scientists want us to believe exist: carbon dating. The bible tells us that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old. One way that scientists try to disprove this is by carbon dating, and trying to prove that certain fossils are millions of years old. Carbon dating is measuring the amount of Carbon-14 in a fossil, to find out when it lived. How much Carbon-14 it has lost determines when it once lived. But there is one MAJOR problem with this. You have to know how much Carbon-14 was coming into the atmosphere at the time in order to know how much Carbon-14 the organism had lost. There is no initial starting amount of carbon that can be determined. After millions of years, the Carbon-14 would have already been depleted, so why after a supposed million years is there still Carbon-14 in fossils?? Maybe the earth is only 6,000 years old... Just a suggestion??
Here’s another little fun fact for everyone... A star explodes approximately every 30 years... In the whole night sky, there are only 300 supernovae rings. A supernova is the remnants of an exploded star. Why are there only 300 supernovae rings if the universe is 4.6 billion years old. There should be at least 153 million supernovae rings in the night sky if the earth is that old. If there are only 300 rings, this should prove that the earth as at least less then 9,000 years old. Right?? Well, it does, but scientists are dead-set on finding a reason for this, but sad to say, they never will.
Another trick that scientists want us to believe is the formation Grand Canyon... Such a magnificent beauty... But how was it formed?? By the Colorado River eroding it for billions of years, of course. WRONG! It is literally impossible that the Colorado River formed the Grand Canyon? Why you ask? The highest point of the Grand Canyon is somewhere in the middle... Higher than where the river enters the canyon. How can water flow up stream, against gravity? That’s right, it can’t. The canyon was formed in a matter of months, about 4,400 years ago, in a gigantic worldwide flood. That’s how.
But how do these last few paragraphs tie into evolution?? Well... Scientists use stars, carbon dating, and other such facts attempt to prove evolution through a time scale... They want people to believe that it took billions of years to get to where we are now. But in reality it only took a matter of a 6,000 years. Scientists will go to any extent to prove to the world that evolution is taking place... But to no avail. All it takes is s a few facts to disprove the theory of evolution.
Similar Articles
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
This article has 19 comments.
Actually, there is a lot of evidence supporting evolution, which is why it is being taught in public schools. "
Standard creationist claims — about the age of the Earth, the pattern of descent of living creatures, and human history— are contradicted by scientific evidence, and were rejected by mainstream science over a century ago. Teaching such claims in science class misinforms and mis-educates students.
It would damage our students' understanding of evolution, one of the most significant theories in science, critical to unifying biology, to integrating biology with geology and astronomy, and to establishing the scientific foundations of modern medicine and agriculture. Creationist arguments also frequently promote severe misunderstandings in other scientific and mathematical areas, such as thermodynamics and statistics.
Creationist claims also create confusion about the nature of the scientific research, the way scientists actually obtain and evaluate evidence, make and test hypotheses, and continue to deepen our scientific understanding of natural processes. Thus, the damage of teaching creationism goes deeper that the specific subject matter, and makes it harder for students to understand new scientific ideas throughout their lives."
I meant doesn't coexist. That is the reason science and God don't coexist. At least not to most mainstream scientists.
But there are a few creation scientists who use science to back up what it says and the Bible, and a lot of that has been proven true and makes a lot of sense.
I wonder that too. I mean what is such the problem with scientists believing in God? The truth is most scientists are atheists. Actually about 95%, here in the US.
Thats why I think science and God coexist right now because most of the scientists are going to be biased.
Appearently earlybird, you did not read what I put. Microevolution, or natural selection, variation, as been proven.
Macroevolution, the true soul has never been proven. Macroevolution basically states that through Microevolution or mutations, we have changed. It has never been observed that an animal or human has give birth to anything other then its own kind.
Shoot! It went through more then once. Sorry! I'm new to this.
Happyboat, go to newgeolgy, debunking evolution for me. It offers a new opinion to the evolution theory and gives some light to some of the lies you've told.
Yes, happyboat, that is a proven fact, its called natural selection. The idea that an animal can has certain features that relates to its enviroment. (Microevolution)
Macroevolution is the true soul of evolution and has still not been proven, that is why the evolution theory is still just that, a theory.
Oh Lord. Yes, happyboat, that is a proven fact, its called natural selection. The idea that an animal can has certain features that relates to its enviroment. (Microevolution)
Macroevolution is the true soul of evolution and has still not been proven, that is why the evolution theory is still just that, a theory.
Yes, happyboat, that is a proven fact, its called natural selection. The idea that an animal can has certain features that relates to its enviroment. (Microevolution)
(Macroevolution) The true gospel of evolution is that things can change from one thing to a completely different thing by mutations in the DNA. The problem with that is that mutations are harmful and DNA has repair system so nothing like this can happen. There goes the whole evolution theory right there. Macroevolution has never been proven, despite what people say, and the "missing links" have still not been found.
Yes, happyboat, that is a proven fact, its called natural selection. The idea that an animal can has certain features that relates to its enviroment. (Microevolution)
(Macroevolution) The true gospel of evolution is that things can change from one thing to a completely different thing by mutations in the DNA. The problem with that is that mutations are harmful and DNA has repair system so nothing like this can happen. There goes the whole evolution theory right there.
Macroevolution has never been proven and the so called "missing links" have never been found. Humans will always give birth to humans, the same way monkey's will always give birth to monkey's. Macroevolution is saying that one thing will all of sudden "evolve" and give birth to something totally different.
On the contrary, I think earlybird got the hammer on the head. One of the main attributes of living organisms is that we can addapt. Your saying that, because of its universal location, organisms were able to flourish. But if it were not, and within a reasonable temperature, they could adapt to even that. Evolution.
Living organisms adapt. Proven fact.
You know earlybird, I've read a few of your comments and I think your one of the most biased people ever.
Its clearly that you don't understand evolution. Did you know that if the earth was just a little bit closer to the sun, we would burn, and if it was a little bit farther away, we would freeze. Your evolution believes this happened by chance and I think that is stupid.
It's clear that a lot of work went into this paper, and it is really well written, but it's also clear that you don't really understand evolution. There are a number of times in this paper where the author's misinformation is evident. The first instance of this is the confusion of science and religion. Science is based on observation, testing, and logical deduction. If credible evidence can disprove a hypothesis, the hypothesis is discarded. Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts (and succeeds) to explain the natural world. Charles Darwin formulated it from his observations of the fauna of the Galapagos. Many studies and experiments have confirmed his original thesis (google lenski e. coli). Religion, on the other hand, cannot be proven or disproven. It's based on faith. People believe in evolution because it has been proven. Creation, however, cannot be proven unless someone invents a time machine to take them back 6000 years.
An example you use to 'disprove' evolution is carbon dating. Pretty much all of the carbon on the earth goes through the carbon cycle (aside from the odd meteor deposit, most of the materials on earth have been here for millions if not billions of years), so the amount of carbon on the earth now is roughly the same as the carbon that's been on the earth for a while. Therefore, the amount of carbon on Earth in the past is a non-issue.
Your assumption about supernova rings is that a) supernova rings somehow manage to stay in the sky forever and b) there is no dust, gas, etc. blocking some parts of space from view. The fact is, there are a lot of stars that are too far away for us to see, and a lot that are hidden behind clouds of dust and gas.
While the paper itself was good, the facts used to back it up were less so.
Wow! Really good, I loved this. I myself hate being taught evolution because as you said, it is a religion. And do you want to know something that I just learned which is even more of a reason to take it out of the schools.
As we all probably know, Charles Darwin is the father of evolution, coming up with it and publishing his book in, I think, 1859. Now people in the 19th century didn't have the technology we have now, so when they looked at DNA in microscopes, all's they saw were little blobs they called protoplasm. So Darwin came up with the idea from looking at DNA that we all come from one simple cell. Now, in are day, with out better technology, we know there is no such thing as a simple cell and that all cells are incrediably complex.
Darwin wrote in chapter 6 of On The Orgin of Species that "natural selection can only act by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inheirted modifications, each profitable to the preserved being... If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, succesive, slight modifications, my theory would break down."
Darwin says it himself. We have found cells and organs that are very complex with our modern technology that Darwin clearly states could not be formed by numerous, succesive, slight modifications. So in truth, the theory of evolution broke down the moment modern technology discovered the complexity of DNA and the human bodies. So why are we still learning it? Have scientists, really read Darwins book, where he says this clearly.
