Teaching and the End of Darwinism

It's my contention that the current 'success' of evolutionary theory is due to the fact it is taught to people in a dishonest way. (Not to be cute about it; by lies, bullying and deception.) I think we could send Darwinism back to the intellectual rubbish heap where it belongs if it were taught in an honest manner.

Here's what such an account might (in outline form) look like.

A. Most cosmologists (those working within a materialist framework) believe the universe emerged from some kind of big bang; that is from some kind of explosion. The theory tells us that once upon a no-time a no-thing exploded into being. No one knows how something can come from nothing, but this is the best idea cosmologists have been able to come up with. This theory (or speculation) would seem clearly to defy what we know about the physical laws of the universe; but cosmologists see no other alternative so they claim this must have been possible. This idea would seem to violate the 2nd law, and so violate the most basic law of the universe... but we're told it happened anyway.

B. After this explosion the universe (if we can call it that) somehow formed itself into galaxies, planets and stars. No one knows how this could have happened, but it obviously did... just look up at the night time sky.

C. After planets formed living organisms somehow emerged. No one knows how life can come from non-life, but it obviously happened... as R. Dawkins is out on tour giving lectures for big money. That this violates the most basic law of biology is a problem; no one knows how this could have happened. (So called 'Miller' or origin of life, experiments have consistently failed for over 80 years.) That code doesn't happen by accident is acknowledged; but somehow it happened... as if it didn't materialism wouldn't be true, and we know it is true, therefore it happened.

D. Somehow this original product of cosmic Accidentalism managed to 'evolve' upward, creating ever new species. This was done through the brilliant strategy of making a lot of copying mistakes. That mutations can't create information, but only destroy it would seem to make this impossible. No one knows how this can happen.

E. Then one day, an ape decided to evolve into a human being. It did this by using the old technique of copying mistakes. No one has a clue how this is possible... but it surely did; and R. Dawkins is evidence of it.

Summary;
I've been heavy handed here I admit, but this is (in my opinion) an honest account of true evolutionary theory. All the basics of the 'theory' are impossible. Students should be taught that these basic elements violate what we know about physical laws; that the theory is inherently anti-scientific. They should be told that the theory cannot be proven, and that it is essentially metaphysical speculation... that it is basically an ancient bit of greek philosophy. (And no doubt precedes the greeks.) They should be told that it is basically a necessary conclusion of a world view called Materialism. (i.e. if one adopts materialism one must adopt evolution as an explanation for living forms.)

If E. were taught this way the air would go out of the evolutionary balloon. It would not mean the end of evolution as a theory of course. There have always been theists and atheists, and there always will be. There have always been covenant people, and there have always been non-covenanters. If the bible is the word of the creator god, this will always be the case.

I find it sad that people can speak honestly in this debate. Teachers have a special duty to be honest I believe, and it's horrible that they are willing to lie to students about the Origins issue. Teach the theory of evolution by all means; but teach it honestly. It is most assuredly not a fact. In my opinion it's not even a theory, but I'm no doubt in a small minority on that score. What's called 'evolution' in our day is basically just old fashioned atheism in a fancy dress. Darwinism gives people a way to pretend the religion of materialism is really science.

Is it science to think the universe came from nothing... and without a cause? (That denies everything we know about physics.) Is it science to believe life came from non-life? (That denies all we know about biology.) Is it science to believe intelligence comes from matter? (That denies all we know about intelligence and about matter.) Is it science to believe personality comes from the non-personal? (That denies all we know about psychology and about matter.)

Notes;
1. Is there any way to get people to teach evolutionary theory honestly? Not that I know of. Is there any way to reduce the influence Darwinism has in our colleges? Sure; stop giving them State funding; reduce the amount of socialism; turn all schools private.
2. I wrote this post mainly in jest. As long as we have a socialist State dominating all things I see no way of defeating Darwinism. A limited government model would reduce the influence of evolutionary ideas greatly; so I see this as the best hope. Until then people must be diligent about refuting the absurdities of Materialism in any way they can. (As well as presenting a positive model of creation; showing how it is essential to renewing the arts and sciences, which under Darwinism have gone so horribly astray.)
3. Just as there will always be creationists, there will always be materialists. People are different for one thing, and because they are they will view vital issues differently. (It's mainly collectivist policy that demands we view all people as the same, when clearly they are not. As an aside I'd point out that evolutionists assume people are all the same when they demand everyone believe in evolution. They do this though they cannot prove it, and in fact know it's false.)