The Government has handed atheists a Darwin Day present by promising to indoctrinate primary school children with evolutionism.
Education Secretary of State Rt Hon Michael Gove MP has decided to force primary schools in England to teach evolutionary theory. The announcement was made as part of last week’s English Baccalaureate climb-down statement.
It will be another triumph for the overwhelmingly-secularist arts world to chink the champagne glasses over as they celebrate the quite proper increase of status of humanities subjects such as music and art in secondary school examinations.
However, the decision raises questions about issues of conscience for primary school teachers, who cover more subjects than their secondary colleagues and cannot simply keep out of the biology department.
Shortly after being appointed two-and-a-half years ago Michael Gove bowed to pressure from evolutionary biologists including Richard Dawkins and banned from Secondary School biology classes any talk of a possibility that organisms show signs of having been designed. If last week’s statement is followed through, it will be the first time evolution has been taught as a subject in primary schools.
The decision can be seen as an act of desperation by secularists, who are worried that the holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution are becoming increasingly visible and talked-about, not least in the scientific community.
Today, 12th February 2013, is the 204th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and is promoted as ‘Darwin Day’ by atheist bodies such as the British Humanist Association. The BHA website boasts a ‘campaign against the teaching of Creationism in British schools’, which has been successful beyond their wildest dreams, and a ludicrous ‘international campaign’ to turn ‘Darwin Day’ into a public holiday. These pages are worth clicking on to for intelligence as to what the enemies of Jesus Christ are up to.
Sadly, a link on the BHA website to ‘answers to 21 anti-evolutionary questions and arguments’ sends the visitor to the schools campaigning page instead and a google search reveals no such document.
Interestingly, there are webpages elsewhere claiming to answer creationist’s questions, but they fail to do so. Here is one attempt; I love the admission that evolution needs time – lots and lots of time.
Yeast reproduces every 15 minutes. Over the course of a day that is almost 100 generations, 35,000 generations in a year. In human terms that amounts to 876,000 years, taking 25 years for a generation, or over a million years if you ascribe 30 years for a generation.
The yeast Saccharomyces carlsbergensis is named after the Carlsberg Brewery in Copenhagen, where it was first isolated in 1883, 130 years ago. Carlsbergensis has gone through 4,550,000 generations and it is still the exact same strain of yeast as in 1883. It hasn’t mutated into anything else for 4-and-a-half million generations. One might say it hasn’t needed to, but where is the evidence that it could even try? In human terms those generations amount to 130 million (130,000,000) years.
New Scientist, a bastion of evolutionism, claims our ‘evolution from apes’ began ’6 million years’ ago. But the evidence from the yeast is that 130 million years would not be enough time even to start the process. 6 million years of human ancestry is like expecting yeast after 6 years of brewing to jump out of the vat and become a mushroom. No doubt it shares just as much of its DNA with something else as we do with monkeys. But that genetic information relentlessly reproduces it as yeast.
Here is an attempt to answer a whole bunch of questions posed by the American creationist Kent Hovind. Astonishingly, barely one question is actually answered.
I don’t have a lot of questions for evolutionists, I just have one. Well, actually, I do have a lot, but one will do, and it is this:
What is the evolutionary purpose, or what advantage is conveyed to the species, as a species, by the tuft on the head of the tufted duck? And if I am allowed a supplementary or two: If there is no advantage to the species, what is the tuft on the head of the tufted duck actually for and how and why did it evolve?
You see, I know the answer, from a creationist point of view, at least.
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.