Evolutionary indoctrination - Revision history

DavidB4-bot: /* top */HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://creation.com → https://creation.com (7)

2019-04-09T11:57:52Z

top: HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://creation.com → https://creation.com (7)

DavidB4-bot: /* Islamic resistance to evolutionism in Britain */HTTP --> HTTPS, replaced: http://www.telegraph.co.uk → https://www.telegraph.co.uk

2019-04-02T11:41:46Z

Islamic resistance to evolutionism in Britain: HTTP --> HTTPS, replaced: http://www.telegraph.co.uk → https://www.telegraph.co.uk

DavidB4-bot: /* top */HTTP --> HTTPS [#1], replaced: http://en.wikipedia.org → https://en.wikipedia.org

2018-09-26T15:52:06Z

top: HTTP --> HTTPS [#1], replaced: http://en.wikipedia.org → https://en.wikipedia.org

Conservative: /* Evolutionist indoctrination losing its effectiveness */

2018-05-07T12:55:19Z

Evolutionist indoctrination losing its effectiveness

DavidB4-bot: clean up

2016-08-16T21:15:56Z

clean up

DavidB4-bot: clean up & uniformity

2016-07-13T12:14:24Z

clean up & uniformity

Aburke: /* Evolutionist indoctrination losing its effectiveness */

2016-04-28T01:59:16Z

Evolutionist indoctrination losing its effectiveness

Conservative at 17:33, December 26, 2015

2015-12-26T17:33:11Z

Conservative at 17:13, December 26, 2015

2015-12-26T17:13:56Z

Conservative at 17:13, December 26, 2015

2015-12-26T17:13:11Z

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Evolutionism is established in people through indoctrination and not evidence.
-In response to evolutionary indoctrination and the uncritical acceptance of evolution by many evolutionists, the scientists at the organization [[Creation Ministries International]] created a [[Question evolution! campaign]] which poses [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]. In addition, leading creationist organizations have created lists of poor arguments that evolutionists should not use.<ref>
+In response to evolutionary indoctrination and the uncritical acceptance of evolution by many evolutionists, the scientists at the organization [[Creation Ministries International]] created a [[Question evolution! campaign]] which poses [https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]. In addition, leading creationist organizations have created lists of poor arguments that evolutionists should not use.<ref>
-*[http://creation.com/arguments-evolutionists-should-not-use Arguments evolutionists should not use] by Creation Ministries International
+*[https://creation.com/arguments-evolutionists-should-not-use Arguments evolutionists should not use] by Creation Ministries International
 *[https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/ 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid] by Answers in Genesis</ref> See also: [[Atheism and critical thinking]]
 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]]er, 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]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>https://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>
-* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
+* Dr. Don Batten, [https://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
 * [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
 </ref> In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of [[Charles Darwin|Darwinian]] evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref>
 Many atheists when faced with the compelling data for [[creation]] and [[evolution|against the evolutionary position]] irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ "Understanding Evolution" website] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].</ref>  [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner:
-{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘[[Intelligent design|design]]’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today).<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf</ref>}}
+{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘[[Intelligent design|design]]’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today).<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf</ref>}}
-Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].<ref>[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed]</ref>
+Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].<ref>[https://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed]</ref>
-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]]er, 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>
+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]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>https://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref>
 For more information please see: [[Evolution|Evidence against evolution]]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 "Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught," Prof Dawkins said in a Sunday newspaper interview.
-"Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with. The Government could do more, but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about [[multiculturalism]] and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2494397/Richard-Dawkins-Muslim-parents-import-creationism-into-schools.html ''Richard Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into schools''], ''The Telegraph''</ref>}}
+"Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with. The Government could do more, but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about [[multiculturalism]] and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come."<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2494397/Richard-Dawkins-Muslim-parents-import-creationism-into-schools.html ''Richard Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into schools''], ''The Telegraph''</ref>}}
 == See also ==

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 </ref> In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of [[Charles Darwin|Darwinian]] evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref>
-Many atheists when faced with the compelling data for [[creation]] and [[evolution|against the evolutionary position]] irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ "Understanding Evolution" website] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].</ref>  [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner:
+Many atheists when faced with the compelling data for [[creation]] and [[evolution|against the evolutionary position]] irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ "Understanding Evolution" website] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].</ref>  [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner:
 {{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘[[Intelligent design|design]]’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today).<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf</ref>}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:55, May 7, 2018
Line 43:		Line 43:

	In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class.<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html</ref> In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9851</ref>		In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class.<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html</ref> In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9851</ref>
		+
		+	=== Islamic resistance to evolutionism in Britain ===
		+
		+
		+	In recent years Britain, the birthplace of Darwinism, has seen a large influx of [[Islam\|Muslim]] immigrants. Most religious Muslims are creationists.<ref>Hameed S (2008). "Bracing for Islamic creationism". Science 322 (5908): 1637–8.</ref> In the UK, between the years 2001 and 2009 the Muslim population increased nearly 10 times faster than the non-Muslim population.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5621482.ece Muslim population 'rising 10 times faster than rest of society]' 30 January 2009, Richard Kerbaj, The Sunday Times</ref> See also: [[Atheism vs. Islam#Atheism, Islam and belief in evolution\|Islam and belief in creationism]]
		+
		+	The British newspaper ''The Telegraph'' reported in an article entitled ''Richard Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into schools'':
		+	{{cquote\|Prof Dawkins, a well-known atheist, also blamed the Government for accommodating religious views and allowing creationism to be taught in schools.
		+
		+	"Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught," Prof Dawkins said in a Sunday newspaper interview.
		+
		+	"Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with. The Government could do more, but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about [[multiculturalism]] and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2494397/Richard-Dawkins-Muslim-parents-import-creationism-into-schools.html ''Richard Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into schools''], ''The Telegraph''</ref>}}

	== See also ==		== See also ==

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 "And this doesn't just apply to young Muslims as many people might think. Christian groups are also recruiting young people...
-Creationism has particularly been on the rise in step with the internet, which according to Peter Kjærgaard has made it much easier for people to become activists...<ref>[http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-warn-creationism-rise-europe  Scientists warn: creationism is on the rise in Europe], February 24, 2015 - 06:25]</ref>}}
+Creationism has particularly been on the rise in step with the internet, which according to Peter Kjærgaard has made it much easier for people to become activists...<ref>[http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-warn-creationism-rise-europe  Scientists warn: creationism is on the rise in Europe], February 24, 2015 - 06:25</ref>}}
 In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class.<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html</ref> In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9851</ref>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled ''Belief in [[Evolution]] Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumps facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling] by Live Science Staff, January 20, 2012 04:31pm ET</ref>  In January of 2012, the  ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref><ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]</ref> The January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: "They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs."<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref>
+In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled ''Belief in [[Evolution]] Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumps facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling] by Live Science Staff, January 20, 2012 04:31pm ET</ref>  In January 2012, the  ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref><ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]</ref> The January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: "They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs."<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref>
 Evolutionism is established in people through indoctrination and not evidence.
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 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]]er, 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>
 * Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
 * [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].<ref>[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed]</ref>
-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>
+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]]er, 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>
 For more information please see: [[Evolution|Evidence against evolution]]
 == Evolutionist indoctrination losing its effectiveness ==
 [[File:View from Levering Plaza.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."
-<br /><br />
 <small>Picture above was taken at Johns Hopkins University</small>]]
 [[Johns Hopkins University]] Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2015/03/johns-hopkins-university-press-reported.html Creationism spreading in Europe]</ref>
@@ Line 40: / Line 42: @@
 Creationism has particularly been on the rise in step with the internet, which according to Peter Kjærgaard has made it much easier for people to become activists...<ref>[http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-warn-creationism-rise-europe  Scientists warn: creationism is on the rise in Europe], February 24, 2015 - 06:25]</ref>}}
-In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. <ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html</ref> In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9851</ref>
+In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class.<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html</ref> In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9851</ref>
 == See also ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, December 26, 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled ''Belief in [[Evolution]] Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings ~~trumped~~ facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling] by Live Science Staff, January 20, 2012 04:31pm ET</ref> In January of 2012, the ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref><ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]</ref> The January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: "They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs."<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref>	+	In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled ''Belief in [[Evolution]] Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumps facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling] by Live Science Staff, January 20, 2012 04:31pm ET</ref> In January of 2012, the ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref><ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]</ref> The January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: "They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs."<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref>
	Evolutionism is established in people through indoctrination and not evidence.		Evolutionism is established in people through indoctrination and not evidence.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:13, December 26, 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumped facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling] by Live Science Staff, January 20, 2012 04:31pm ET</ref> In January of 2012, the ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref><ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]</ref> The January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: "They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs."<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref>	+	In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled ''Belief in [[Evolution]] Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumped facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling] by Live Science Staff, January 20, 2012 04:31pm ET</ref> In January of 2012, the ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref><ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]</ref> The January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: "They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs."<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref>
	Evolutionism is established in people through indoctrination and not evidence.		Evolutionism is established in people through indoctrination and not evidence.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:13, December 26, 2015
Line 19:		Line 19:

	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>		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>
−
−	In May of 2011, [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign\|Question evolution! campaign]] which is a [[grassroots]] campaign encouraging students and others to "question the evolutionary [[pseudoscience]] peddled to them". The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot answer. (see: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]).<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref>

	For more information please see: [[Evolution\|Evidence against evolution]]		For more information please see: [[Evolution\|Evidence against evolution]]