"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

Home
About
Articles
Audio
Videos
Podcast
Testimonies
Contact
Find More
Support Us

Contents: Science vs Religion What Does Evolution Teach? What is a Species? Excommunicated by the Evo-Church Final Thoughts and Additional Reading

Every day, students are lead to believe that evolution is part of science. Their teachers and parents believe it, so why would a student have any reason to question what he/she is being taught? However, what people believe is irrelevant in determining truth. We need to understand that evolution is a religion by definition, not part of science.

Many people will argue that scientists have worked hard in the labs, and that is why evolution is accepted. Well, by that same logic, Adolf Hitler worked really hard, so that must mean we should accept nazism right? Hard work does not determine truth.

Others will say that the textbooks are just teaching the best science of the day. Let's say the textbooks teach the moon is made of blue cheese, and it is called 'the best science of the day', should we just accept that as science? Just because evolution is mixed into a science textbook does not make it part of science.

When discussing this issue with evolutionists, many excuses are presented, but none of them are logically sound. In order to determine truth, we need to look at the facts and define our terms clearly; only then will we be able to see that evolution is a tax-funded religious institution that is carefully protected and lacks scientific merit.

science: systematic knowledge of the physical world gained through observation and experimentation
(See 'science', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2010; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2009)

Science has to do with things we can observe, test, and demonstrate within our physical world. For example, we cannot scientifically prove that God created the heavens and the earth because God creating anything goes outside the realm of science. Science is very limited, and so we are also limited in our understanding of the world around us.

Great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend.
-Job 37:5

nature: the material world as surrounding mankind
(See 'nature', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2010; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2009)

The natural world (nature) is observable, testable, and demonstrable. Nature, therefore, can be tested by the scientific method. To go beyond what we can observe, test, and demonstrate is super-nature.

supernatural: above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law; to go beyond natural forces
(See 'supernatural', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2010; See also American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition, 2009)

When God creates man and animals from the dust of the ground, that is supernatural because it is unexplainable by natural law. This does not mean it is not true, it simply means we cannot observe, test, nor demonstrate a creature being created from the dust of the ground. Something supernatural goes into the realm of religion.

religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe; belief in a supernatural power
(See 'religion', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2010; See also American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition, 2009)

In the few thousand years of mankind's recorded history, horses have produced horses. That is observable, testable, and demonstrable. That is science. There are a wide variety of horses today: Horses, Zebras, Donkeys, Hebras, Zedonks, etc. All of these are interfertile and produce after their kind. In all observations, tests, and demonstrations in horse breeding, horses have remained horses.

To say "Horses bring forth after their kind," is scientific. To say, "Horses evolved slowly over millions of years from a common ancestor, which was something non-horse," is NOT scientific. We do not, and cannot, observe, test, or demonstrate horses coming from anything but a horse.

Since we cannot observe, test, nor demonstrate horses coming from something non-horse, that idea is classified as "supernatural." It therefore goes into the catagory of religion. Evolution, as it is taught in the textbooks of America, and many other nations around the world, is a religious worldview by definition.





Evolution has a wide assortment of meanings:

evolution:
*any process of formation or growth
*a product of development
*progressive change
*a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action
*a pattern formed by a series of movements
*extraction of a root from a quantity (mathematics)
*a movement of troops, ships, etc, for disposition in order of battle
(See 'evolution', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2010; See also American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition Copyright, 2009)

Because evolution has such a broad list of definitions, it is subject to "bait n' switch" tactics, that is, baiting someone in with one definition, and then switching the definition mid-sentence. Since evolution is applied to geology, biology, astronomy, and many other fields of research, it is difficult to pin down an exact definition.

Though there are many ways that evolution is smuggled in to all areas of science, we will focus on six definitions pulled from the public school textbooks. These six definitions demonstrate what is taught to the students, and what is generally known to the public as "evolution."

#1 - Cosmic Evolution: Origin of Time, Space, and Matter

Many textbooks teach that 18-20 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was concentrated in a tiny, hot region smaller than a period on a page. How could someone possibly know such a thing? These ideas are based on pure imagination, with lot of mental gymnastics for glue.
(Read The Big Dud Theory here at creationliberty.com for more details)

The textbooks are teaching students that a dot exploded and made everything. Where did the dot come from? What exploded? Where did the energy come from? How did the laws appear? (gravity, inertia, centrifigal force?) The entire theory is built on pure speculation. Remember that science is observable, testable, demonstrable. I believe in the beginning: God. That is a belief and a religion by definition because I cannot scientifically prove that belief, but I have faith that His Word is true the way He said it happened. The evolutionist believes in the beginning: dot. That is a belief and a religion by definition because they cannot scientifically prove that belief, and worse still, they have no historical documentation to back it up.

#2 - Stellar Evolution: Origin of Stars
-Prentice Hall: Exploring the Universe, Prentice-Hall Inc, 1993, p. 42, ISBN: 0-13-977331-2

Despite evolutionists trying to say that Big Bang astronomy is not part of evolution, here we see an example where textbooks are teaching that the definition of evolution includes Big Bang astronomy. When they stop teaching it as part of evolution, I'll stop talking about it as part of evolution.

"There are between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars in the Universe."
-Fraser Cain, "How Many Stars?," Universe Today, Jan 28, 2009, retrieved Apr 20, 2011, [www.universetoday.com]

To put the numbers into perspective, every person on the planet could individually own 11 trillion stars. With so many stars out there, they had to get there somehow, but no one has ever witnessed the formation of a star.

When we look out into space with the strongest telescopes available, all we see are dots of light. So what the evolutionist will do is look out into a section of black space and see a dark spot get brighter, and claim that a star is forming. We cannot tell anything about a dot of light, and it is never even considered that the dust may be clearing and there was a star behind it that we did not know was there. We have limited knowledge about stars in general (i.e. size, distance, etc) and there has never been any scientific evidence presented for star formation. (Read The Big Dud Theory - Distance to the Stars here at creationliberty.com for more details)

In fact, there is not even a good theory about how a star could form on its own from random gases in space. Boyle's gas law would prevent a star from forming naturally on its own. As gas particles come together in open space, temperature would increase as the pressure increases. Kinetic energy and brownian motion would then drive the gas molecules apart, preventing the natural formation of a star. Helium, for example, does not force itself into a ball, which is why we need a container, like a balloon, to make that happen. The balloon does not blow itself up. To conceive of a star forming on its own would require creative imagination that defies known laws of physics.

#3 - Chemical Evolution: Origin of Elements
I have yet to see an evolutionist even attempt to address this topic, either in writing or public debate. If evolutionists want to start out with hydrogen and helium from the Big Bang, how did we get all the other elements? This is an insurmountable obstacle for the evolutionist, and is, from this author's experience, rarely mentioned. The only response I have ever heard to this is fusion in stars, but this creates two more problems:

Which came first?

1) All known experiments have shown us you can't get past iron [Fe-26] with fusion. (attempts past iron are not stable) 2) The stars themselves are made of chemicals on the period table. So which came first? The chemicals to make the stars? Or the stars to make the chemicals? From the evolutionists' purely naturalistic explanations, fusion in stars is an unsolvable chicken-egg problem.

#4 - Abiogenesis Evolution: Origin of Life
"4.5 billion years ago... the Earth's surface... was so hot it was liquid. By a little less than 4 billion years ago, the surface had cooled enough for a solid crust to form. [i.e. rocks formed] Water condensed in the atmosphere and fell as rain." [i.e. it rained on the rocks for millions of years]
-George Johnson & Gary Brusca, Holt Biology: Visualizing Life, "Life's building blocks can form spontaneously," Rinehart and Winston Inc, 1994, p. 200, ISBN: 0-03-053817-3

Textbooks generally teach that about four and half billion years ago, the earth cooled down and formed solid rock. It rained on the rocks for millions of years, creating a prebiotic soup from which the first living cell appeared.


The evolutionists ultimately believe they come from a rock four billion years ago.
At this point, textbooks typically refer to the Miller-Urey experiment that attempted to create life in the laboratory.
"Miller and other scientists have been able to generate... nucleotides found in DNA... The basic building blocks of life can assemble spontaneously, requiring no force more mysterious than simple chemistry."
-George Johnson & Gary Brusca, Holt Biology: Visualizing Life, "Life's building blocks can form spontaneously," Rinehart and Winston Inc, 1994, p. 200-201, ISBN: 0-03-053817-3

The textbooks deceptively make it sound like the experiment was a success, when in reality, it was a complete failure and only served to prove that life cannot arise spontaneously by itself. In other words, these authors are either ignorant of the facts and should not be teaching biology, or they are purposefully lying to the students to push the evolution religion.
(Read The Incredible Edible DNA - Has Life Been Created in the Laboratory? here at creationliberty.com for more details)

#5 - Macro-Evolution: Common Ancestry
Macro-evolution is a belief that the boundaries of mutation have no limitations. Evolutionists believe that creatures can move past their genetic boundaries; that one kind of creature into another kind of creature. There are around 250 varieties of dogs in the world today and they all obviously had a common ancestor. All the scientific studies have shown that dogs produce dogs. So scientifically, we would conclude that all the dogs in the world today descended from dogs. Sometimes you get big dogs, and sometimes you get little dogs, but it's still a dog.

However, the evolutionist takes step further outside of science to say that, long ago and far away, all the dogs in the world came from a creature that was not classified as a dog. They then continue backwards, claiming that this non-dog creature (which somehow produced a dog), came from some other kind of creature, which long ago came from soup, which ultimately came from a rock 4 billion years ago. That's not science.

The evolutionist is stuck believing in a mystic religious concept that dogs and bananas share a common ancestor. Darwin himself believed this concept and proposed it:
"It is a truly wonderful fact-the wonder of which we are apt to overlook from familiarity-that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other..."
-Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859, p. 109

#6 - Micro-Evolution: Variations
Micro-evolution simply means a variation within different kinds of animals. I prefer not to use the term "micro-evolution," becasue it can be misleading. As we saw above, there are around 250 varities of dogs in the world today. This is observable, testable, and repeatable, I fully agree that micro-evolution takes place because the Bible says they would bring forth after their kind. Now that we see the story mapped out in the textbooks, we can see that only #6 is science. Numbers 1-5 are RELIGIOUSM. Evolutionists must believe in numbers 1-5 because there is no scientific evidence for them. I challenge every person to look carefully at the scientific evidence that an evolutionist will present because they will give scientific examples of #6, and then tell you that's proof for #1-5. Do not be fooled into thinking #1-5 is part of science.

Today, evolution has become a very deceptive word. When someone asks you, "Do you believe in evolution?" we have to ask, "Would you define what you mean by evolution?"





Species is a term that has been around for a long time, but to date, no one has ever come up with a good definition for it. I am fully aware that most evolutionists CLAIM it is clearly defined, but claiming something does not magically make it true. Let's take a look at the definition:

species: an individual belonging to a group of organisms, or the entire group itself, having common characteristics and usually are capable of mating with one another
(See 'species', Biology Online Dicionary, [http://www.biology-online.org], July 24, 2008, retrieved Mar 17, 2011)

Let's break this down slowly: "having common characteristics" The common characteristic could be hair, breathing oxygen, color, or anything else you could image.
"individual... or the entire group itself" It may or may not be an individual. It may or may not be a group.
"usually capable of mating with one another" IF it's not an individual... it may or may not be capable of mating with one another.

We are still in complete confusion as to what a species is after going to an online biology dictionary. During my research, I found another online biology dictionary that was surprisingly honest about this issue:
"There is no general concensus among scientists concerning how to decide whether any given group of organisms should be so treated since there is no general agreement on the definition of the word species."
(See 'species', Macro Evolution Online Biological Dictionary, [http://www.macroevolution.net/biology-dictionary-sasi.html], retrieved Mar 17, 2011)

Let's look at another definition:

species: related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species
(See 'species', Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2011, [http://dictionary.reference.com], retrieved Mar 17, 2011)

It is surprising to note that many definitions use the word "species" to define the word "species." Let's say I made up the word "zigish," and when asked to define it, I said "Zigish is when someone is zigish." That gives us no definition whatsoever because we cannot use the word to define itself. However, this definition says that species should be able to breed among themselves, but not be able to breed with members of a separate species. This poorly crafted definition says that species should be able to breed among themselves, but not be able to breed with members of a separate species. A dog, a wolf, and a coyote are all classified as different species (canis domesticus, canis lupis, canis latrins), but they can, and have, bred together, so we are still left wondering what a species is.

If anyone should know the definition of a species, it would be 35-year veteran professor of biology, Dr. William Moore. Dr. Moore was asked to define "species" during a live creation/evolution debate, and here's what he said:
"This is my area of research, and to be honest with you, I don't know."
-Dr. William Moore, 35-year tenured evolutionary biology professor at Wayne State University, creation/evolution debate at Wayne State University, Sept 24, 1998

I appreciate Dr. Moore's honesty, but most evolutionists will NOT admit ignorance of a species because if they can't define it, they do not have a coherent theory. The definition of species is poorly attempted as a way of classifying the relgious idea of MACRO-evolution, and that is the major problem. Evolutionists want to believe that "species" can evolve all the animals we have today from a common ancestor, but that is a religious belief by definition. The reason why a species cannot be pinned down is because there is no scientific merit to support the religious concept of MACRO-evolution.

excommunicate: to exclude or expel from membership or participation in any group, association, etc; cut off from communion with a church
(See 'excommunicate', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2011; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2009)

In most of the scientific world today, it is ok to question how evolution might have happened, but it is NOT ok to question IF evolution happened at all. Evolutionism has become a carefully-protected, state-funded religion, harboring the public schools and universities as their church, and any conversions from their doctrine are quickly disposed of before the public is aware of what happened. (Even many evolutionists are unaware this is happening, and some prefer to remain willfully ignorant.)

Rod LeVake, Masters in Biology, High School Teacher in FariBault, MN "LeVake, who was removed as a biology teacher... said his fight is about 'whether a Christian can teach biology, and whether Darwin can be criticized.'" -"Teacher Caught in Evolution Debate," Duluth News Tribune, Associated Press, Faribault, MN, Aug 15, 2000

Rod LeVake confessed to the school board that he had doubts about Darwin's theory. He taught evolution, and pointed out the flaws in the theory. He never mentioned God or religion, and said "he had no interest in teaching creationism or making references to God or religion." Though LeVake was the only masters in biology in the department, he was relieved of his position because he questioned Darwinian evolution.

"Plaintiff in the instant case has no constitutional right to teach his proposed criticisms of evolutionary theory, though they may be scientifically meritorious."
(See Rodney LeVake vs ISD #656, Court file CX: 99-793, June 23, 2000; See also "Highlights of Rod LeVake's Brief Career Teaching Biology," Twin Cities Creation Science Association, June 15, 2010, retrieved Apr 5, 2011, [http://tccsa.tc/articles/levake_summary.html])

He was not allowed to honestly educate students on the flaws of evolution.

Rodger DeHart, BS in Biology, Completed course work towards Master of Science in Education, Biology Teacher for 30 Years "He [DeHart] dissected such scientific topics as bacterial flagella, fossil records and embryonic development. Examine the evidence, he told the students, and ponder the Big Question: Is life the result of random, meaningless events? Or was it designed by an intelligent force?" -Teresa Watanabe, "Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator," Los Angeles Times, Mar 25, 2001, [http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/25/news/mn-42548], retrieved Mar 28, 2011

This Los Angeles Times article reported that DeHart "never mentioned God" in his high school classroom, and "he has always stayed within the law by never discussing... theological questions." He simply wanted to help students see all sides of the issue, and reason for themselves what was true, and he was doing so by passing out current science journals and showing students the errors in the textbooks.

"Jerry Benson, a community leader who supports DeHart, said the science teacher was only doing what educators should be doing: stimulating students to think critically. 'The [intelligent-design] debate is exciting,' Benson said. 'I so want that excitement to be presented to our students and cause them to stop and say: Well, what do I think?'"
-Teresa Watanabe, "Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator," Los Angeles Times, Mar 25, 2001, [http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/25/news/mn-42548], retrieved Mar 28, 2011

However, despite DeHart's effort to give a real education and help them think for themselves, he was told by the principal that he could no longer mention intelligent design by passing out up-to-date science journals to correct bad information. The article reports, "Even though DeHart never overtly discussed religion in the class, Beth Vander Veen, Burlington-Edison High School principal, said she has grown wary of DeHart's real motivations. 'I don't think it's about showing holes in evolutionary theory anymore,' she said. 'I think it's about getting religion into the schools.'"

Even though DeHart never mentioned anything religious, and only helped the students by allowing them to think for themselves, his job was threatened if he ever again mentioned intelligent design in his classroom.

"If something in science suddenly becomes so sacrosanct that you can't question it, then it ceases to be science, and I really think that's what's become of Darwinism."
-Rodger DeHart, quoted by reporter Julie Foster, "Unnatural Selection: Science Teachers Under Fire for Criticizing Evolution Theory," World Net Daily [worldnetdaily.com], Mar 03, 2000, retrieved Mar 28, 2011

Forrest Mims, Commissioned Officer in the US Air Force, Graduated from Texas A&M University, Named one of the "50 Best Brains in Science" by Discover Magazine "Forrest M. Mims has been a science writer for 20 years." -"Hire a Creationist? A Nonbeliever in Darwin? Not at a Proud Science Journal," The New York Times National, Oct 24, 1990

Mims wrote articles for National Geographic, Science Digest, American Journal of Physics, and much more. Mims was denied a job at Scientific American just because he was a creationist.

Dr. Kevin Haley, Ph.D in Biology (Purdue University), Professor at Central Oregon Community College (COCC) "Kevin Haley was a biology professor at Oregon Community College until this spring, when the administration chose not to renew his contract. His only crime: to expose students to flaws in evolutionary theory." -Nancy Pearcey, "Creation Mythology: Defenders of Darwinism Resort to Suppressing Data and Teaching Outright Falsehoods," June 15, 2010, reprinted from World Magazine, June 24, 2000, Vol. 15, No. 25, retrieved Apr 4, 2011, [http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/self_correcting.html]

Dr. Haley simply showed his classroom some of the problems with the evolution theory, and the school refused to renew his contract. COCC refused to give any explanation of why they were getting rid of Dr. Haley.

"Kevin Haley in Oregon has been criticized by other faculty for questioning human evolution. Haley, who has been teaching biology for non-majors for more than three years, told WorldNetDaily new biology textbooks read like "sales pitches" for the theory, rather than presenting a discussion of facts."
-Julie Foster, "Unnatural Selection: Science Teachers Under Fire for Criticizing Evolution Theory," World Net Daily, March 3, 2000, retrieved Apr 4, 2011, [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17819]

This article goes on to talk about how Dr. Haley had numerous complaints and attacks on his class and his character, "But the college science department's former chairman, Bruce McClelland, wrote a letter recommending Haley be promoted from assistant to associate instructor last month." In addition, those religiously advocating for evolution lied to get Dr. Haley fired. Female students came forward to say that, "Haley tends to belittle women by questioning their intelligence," however, Dr. Haley "taught for seven years at the College of St. Mary in Omaha, an all-girls school. While there, Haley was selected by the pupils to receive the Student Senate award."

All this, just for showing flaws in the evolution theory.

Dr. William Dembski, BA in Psychology (University of Illinois), Masters in Statistics, Mathematics, and Philosophy (University of Illinois & Chicago), Masters in Theology (Princeton Theological Seminary), Ph.D in Mathematics (University of Chicago), Taught at Northwestern University, University of Notre Dame, and University of Dallas President of Baylor University, Robert Sloan, was pressured to fire Dr. Dembski simply because he advocated intelligent design.

(See Tony Carnes, "Intelligent Design: William Dembski fired from Baylor's Intelligent Design Center," Christianity Today, Dec 4, 2000, retrieved Apr 4, 2011, [http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/december4/18.20.html?start=2]; See also Fred Heeren, "The Lynching of Willaim Dembski," The American Spectator, November 2000, retrieved Apr 4, 2011, [http://www.wanderingcow.net/Written%20Analysis%20/thelynchingofbilldembski.pdf])

Dr. Nancy Bryson, B.S. in Biology (Mississippi University for Women), M.A.T. from Mississippi State University, Masters in Theology (Princeton Theological Seminary), Ph.D in Physical Chemistry (University of South Carolina), Taught College-level Chemistry for 20 Years "During a recent honors forum at Mississippi University for Women, Dr. Nancy Bryson gave a presentation titled 'Critical Thinking on Evolution' - which covered alternate views to evolution such as intelligent design... The next day, Vice President of Academic Affairs, Dr. Vagn Hansen asked Bryson to resign from her position as head of the school's Division of Science and Mathematics."

-Jim Brown & Ed Vitagliano, "Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs," Agape Press, Mar 11, 2003

Though Hasen hadn't even heard Bryson's talk, other faculty members pressured the school to fire Dr. Bryson. Though MUW denies that Dr. Bryson's talk had anything to do with her dismissal, there is evidence that suggests otherwise, and the school still refuses to give any explanation for the request of resignation and firing. Dr. Bryson filed a lawsuit against the school, and due to the pressure from the lawyers, and students supporting Bryson, the school reinstated her back to the head of Science and Mathematics.

"I have not received any negative feedback from any students here at MUW. It's all been positive."
-Jim Brown, quoting Dr. Nancy Bryson, "Reinstated College Prof Grateful for Support of Christians School Says Instructor's Criticism of Darwinism Not Linked to Request for Resignation," Agape Press, Mar 17, 2003

Though MUW was supposed to be well-known for "free thought and academic freedom," they are quick to silence anyone that suggests there is a logical option outside of evolution.

Dr. Dean H. Kenyon, BSc in Physics, Ph.D in Biophysics, Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University Dr. Kenyon was an evolutionist who wrote many publications on evolution, and co-authored a book on evolution (with Gary Steinman) called Biochemical Predestination. A few years later, he made the tragic mistake of getting converted to become a creationist, and wrote a book called Of Pandas and People. His book simply pointed out that everything is far too complex to have arranged itself, and there must have been an intelligent origin for life.

(See Dean H. Kenyon & Gary Steinman, Biochemical Predestination, published McGraw-Hill, 1969; See also Dean H. Kenyon & Charles B. Thaxton, Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, Haughton Pub. Co., 1993, ISBN: 9780914513407)

In 1993, Dr. Kenyon was removed from his teaching position at SFSU, and given the job of a lab assistant. He sued the school, and got his job back, but only because he was a tenured professor.

Dan Clark, Degree from Bob Jones University, Degree from Purdue University, High School Teacher in Lafayette, IN "Clark denies that he teaches creationism, but acknowledges highlighting natural phenomena that he thinks are incompatible with evolution." -Abe Aamidor, "Educator Quits Over Reprimand for Teaching Evolution Alternative," The Indianapolis Star, Sept 23, 2001

Teacher Dan Clark pointed out flaws in Darwin's theory, and received reprimands from Ed Eller, the school's superintendent. When Eller refused to take the reprimand off Clark's file, Clark quit his teaching position.

The article quotes Dan Clark saying, "You can't challenge evolution at Jefferson High... either you'll be fired or you'll have to move on."

These schools claim to be supporters of academic freedom, but they don't seem to practice academic freedom. There is a great myth of neutrality and tolerance. In the area of science, that freedom has been long disposed of and replaced with evolution.

If someone in a Muslim country stood up and said, "I have doubts about the muslim religion, and I think there may be a more reasonable explanation." He would be quickly outcast or most likely killed. We have the same censorship in America for daring to question the holy sacred cow of evolution.

There are HUNDREDS of examples like this in the United States alone.
The Los Angeles Times, in research on the Darwinian suppression of education in America, reported the following:
"Other scientists report receiving correspondence from colleagues who confess doubts about Darwin's theories but are afraid to go public for fear of career setbacks."
-Teresa Watanabe, "Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator," Los Angeles Times, Mar 25, 2001, [http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/25/news/mn-42548], retrieved Mar 28, 2011

Repeatedly, however, mainstream evolutionists insist that this kind of censorship is not actually happening. For example, when Ben Stein interviewed the well-known evolutionist author for Skeptic Magazine, Michael Shermer, and asked him about the censorship of intelligent design, he said:
"I don't know, but I think there had to be something else - people don't get fired over something like that."
-Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, quoted in Ben Stein's documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Ignorance is bliss.

vague: not clearly stated, expressed, or defined
(See 'vague', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2010; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2009)

As we saw earlier with the definition of species, if you make something vague and not well understood, then no one can argue against you. This is exactly why dirty politicians won't come out and define directly what they mean most of the time. Modern evolutionists, in an attempt to make Darwin's theory appear to be science, have tried to change the definition of science to "a way of knowing."
(See Dr. John A. Moore, Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology, Harvard University Press, 1993, ISBN: 9780674794825; See also Science, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, Union of Concerned Scientists [www.ucsusa.org])

"Science is a wondrously successful way of knowing... nothing in the world of nature escapes the scientific mode of knowledge, and that we owe this universality to Darwin's revolution."
-Dr. Francisco Ayala, Evolutionist Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of California, "Science as a Way of Knowing," Counter Balance: New Views on Complex Issues, [www.counterbalance.org], retrieved Mar 24, 2011

The reason the definition of science has to be changed is because evolution cannot match the qualifications of basic science. The claims of MACRO-evolution, and all stages prior, cannot be observed, tested, nor repeated, so to save the Darwinian theory, some things need to be changed:

*The definitions of science must be vague, so it is open to personal interpretation.
*Evidence that contradicts evolution must be distorted or hidden, so no one can see the truth.
*Anyone that says anything against Darwinian beliefs must be silenced.

This is exactly what happens with religious cults all over the world, and this is exactly what we have seen in this article. The parameters of the religion are setup so no one can fully understand it, and therefore, no one can challenge it.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."
-Dr. T.N. Tahmisian (US Atomic Energy Commission), "The Fresno Bee," Aug 20, 1959, quoted by N.J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, Title Page

"We have all heard of The Origin of Species, although few of us have had time to read it... A casual persual of the classic made me understand the rage of Paul Feyerabend... I agree with him that Darwinism contains 'wicked lies'; it is not a 'natural law' formulated on the basis of factual evidence, but a dogma, reflecting the dominating social philosophy of the last century."
-Kenneth J. Hsu, "Sedimentary Petrology and Biologic Evolution," Journal of Sedimentary Petrology #56, September, 1986, p. 730

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality... Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."
-Michael Ruse (evolutionary biologist), "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post, May 13, 2000, p. B-3

No matter how many people BELIEVE evolution is part of science, evolution is still a religion by definition and demonstration. Evolution does not become part of science just because someone believes it's part of science. I admire evolutionists' faith to believe that we evolved from a hot bowl of soup 3 billion years ago, but I don't have enough faith to believe in that. If I'm going to put faith in anything, it's in the Salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and not a swiss cheese theory made by men who hate God's Word.

---

Recommended books to learn more on this topic:

The Evolution of a Creationist, Dr. Jobe Martin
Biblical Discipleship Publishers, 2004, ISBN: 0-9643665-0-9

Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe
Simon and Schuster, 2000, ISBN: 9780743214858

The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris
Baker Book House Co., 1992, ISBN: 0-8010-6257-8

CLE Only