Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,726
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 41:
Line 41: − +
→Evolutionary indoctrination
== Evolutionary indoctrination ==
== Evolutionary indoctrination ==
Evolutionist/atheists commonly attempt to censor the plain evidence for creation and against [[evolution]] (see: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]). In addition, they commonly attempt indoctrinate children and the public into Darwinism using fraudulent means (see: [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]).
Evolutionist/atheists commonly attempt to censor the plain evidence for [[creation]] and against [[evolution]] (see: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]). In addition, they commonly attempt indoctrinate children and the public into Darwinism using fraudulent means (see: [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]).
[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref> ]]Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] (see also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]])<ref>
[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref> ]]Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] (see also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]])<ref>