Tennessee School For The Blind

EVOLUTION IN EDUCATION



------------------------------...

"It is the height of bigotry to teach only one view of origins."
-quote from Clarence Darrow, ACLU lawyer, during his defense of John Scopes


------------------------------...

Before the 1930's, creation was the accepted explanation of origins and was taught as fact in American public schools. In 1925, a young science teacher named John Scopes wished to teach evolution to his class. He was forbidden to do so by the Dayton, Tennessee school board, so he took his case to court. In July of that year, an event which shook the foundations of our country took place in the Dayton courthouse, the Scopes "Monkey" Trial. This was the great turning point in our country concerning the creation/evolution in education debate. Even though John Scopes lost his case and was forbidden by law to teach anything other than creation in the classroom, by 1933, evolution was taught alongside creation in American science classes. Today, creation is out, and only evolution is allowed to be taught in the classroom.

Evolution today is taught in schools as a fact. Some institutions may refer to it as theory, but not very many. What is the truth? The truth is, evolution is only a theory, if you approach it via the scientific method. The scientific method allows for the progression of observations into a scientific hypothesis, from there into a theory, and potentially into scientific fact or law. This method is used throughout the scientific community to prove findings. Without this method, anyone could propose any silly idea, and call it fact. For instance, I could observe the fact that slugs here in the Pacific Northwest are larger than slugs in drier climates. From there, I could claim the reason for this anomaly is due to the slugs drinking great northwest coffee and thriving on it. Of course it's nonsense, but that's why scientists use this "scientific method" -- to find objective support for their claims. However, in their rush to embrace evolution - the humanist view on the origins of man, they seem to have bypassed this method. The truth is, evolution has not been subject to direct observation, and cannot be supported or reproduced in experiments. Oh, some will tell you they've observed evolution, but all they've truly observed is small mutations within a species -- quite different from evolution. For all their grand claims, an HONEST scientist will have to agree that evolution is a theory only, and barely one at that.

So why is evolution taught in school as a fact, or at best, a theory? Because the majority of the scientific community will do anything they can to deny the existence of a benevolent, supernatural Creator. They want to believe that all power and divinity in the universe can be found within each person, not in a powerful Almighty God. They wish to deny Him, to deny His power, to deny that we are all subject to someone greater and more powerful than anything we can see, feel, or touch. They miss the fact that evidence of His existence is all around us. They miss the fact that to accept evolution as a fact requires a leap of blind faith. To accept creationism, for which there is an abundance of scientific evidence, requires no blind faith. In order to maintain their comfort and sense of power over self and nature, they must indoctrinate our children at an early age. They teach our children in a religious doctrine though - a doctrine of religious humanism. The first amendment protects us against the government establishment of religion, but religious humanism is taught in our public schools every day, while the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Education Association, and humanists everywhere successfully block creationism from being taught. In other words, your children's first amendment rights are violated every day they attend school, with full knowledge and support of your government.

Does it bother you that your children's constitutional rights are violated by their teachers at schools supported by your tax dollars? It should. It doesn't have to be this way. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who should be bothered by this, choose to remain a "silent" majority? If you ARE bothered, then do SOMETHING about it! As one person, you may not change the system. But by adding your voice to millions of others, things CAN change. Please take the time to write to those who represent you in Washington D.C. Follow the link below to contact your congressional representatives. If you wish to email our president directly, please do that as well. However, don't forget to contact your representatives with the votes to legislate. We don't expect to expel the teaching of evolution from public schools. But we must get educators to teach evolution as a hypothesis as opposed to fact, and allow the schools to teach creationism as well. Get involved now, for the sake of your children!
http://www.contenderministries.org/evolu tion/education.php
added note, as expected most are not agreeing. This only proves the words of Jesus. Many in the latter days will come as false prophets.
He also said the wide path to hell will be taken by most.
In the beginning was an unexplained puddle of goo. Suddenly, an electric arc shot out of nothingness, creating amino acids. These acids, through pure chance, developed into proteins and eventually the first single-cell organism came into being. Over the course of time, chance favored this cell, and eventually its offspring became every mammal, fish, bird, amphibian, reptile, microbe, and plant on earth today. According to evolutionists, this is the most likely scenario for our existence today. If this were the case, we should be able to go backwards in time and conceptually deconstruct every organism to get to this original cell. However, in nature, certain things defy this deconstruction. Some biological structures are irreducibly complex, which means this theoretical devolution cannot work on them. Irreducible complexities are one of many evidences in nature against Darwinian evolution.
If you pick it, it will bleed: Scabs can be a great source of pride for children, or even adults who are children at heart. A large scab indicates a wound suffered in action – a fall from a bicycle, a tumble down a rocky slope, or a skiing accident on ice-crusted snow. The larger the scab, the more one can savor telling the story of its origin, with rights to embellish the story implicitly given. As children, we were told to not pick our scabs, but such advice was akin to “don’t look down,” invariably producing the result Mom wanted to avoid. These hardened blood clots are also indicative of an irreducibly complex system. While the blood clot itself is relatively simple, the system that regulates the clotting consists of ten finely tuned processes. Says, Behe: “If you make a clot in the wrong place – say, the brain or lung – you’ll die. If you make a clot twenty minutes after all the blood has drained from your body, you’ll die.
If the blood clot isn’t confined to the cut, your entire blood system might solidify, and you’ll die. If you make a clot that doesn’t cover the entire length of the cut, you’ll die. To create a perfectly balanced blood-clotting system, clusters of protein components have to be inserted all at once. That rules out a gradualistic Darwinian approach…”[3] In order to explain how blood-clotting could have developed gradually, evolutionists are forced to paint vague word pictures with generalizations indicating that components “arose” or “sprang forth.” No scientists have effectively described how the components arose, and nobody has performed experiments to show empirically how this gradual development might have occurred. Moreover, the issue of how animals kept from bleeding to death while blood-clotting processes evolved is problematic for the evolutionists. The evidence points toward a creator, rather than evolution.
There are many more examples of irreducible complexity in biology, including aspects of protein transport, closed circular DNA, electron transport, cilia, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and much more. However, the examples given above are enough to show that Darwin’s theory of slow, successive changes fails to pass the acid test. Do irreducibly complex systems prove the existence of God? No, of course not. However, they are a major hurdle for Darwinian evolution, the pet theory of those who seek to eliminate God as the Creator of life. Good scientists will not allow pre-conceived notions to taint their work, and evolutionists will wag a finger at creationists and intelligent design proponents and accuse them of biased research.
However, evolutionists eliminate the possibility of a supernatural Creator at the outset, and discard evidence that points strongly toward design in nature. While almost every scientist will have a personal bias, the evolutionists are most profoundly known for letting their bias influence their work, rather than objectively following the facts to their most logical conclusion. These men and women on their humanist campaign of junk science will eventually learn the error of their ways, and they will be found without excuse: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse…. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles” (Romans 1:20,22-23)

I fully agree with you. Here is all the Assumptions and denials I found from their own mouths.

One main reason evolutionists and creationists differ in opinion is because they have a different premise. Evolution scientists believe everything originates from a series of changes and can be explained by time, chance, and continuing natural processes that are inherent in the organization of matter and energy. (Creation X) Evolution is commonly applied to the historical development of life and has been expanded into virtually any subject matter all the way to the development of the universe itself. Like most ideas, the Theory of Evolution has evolved into something it was not originally believed to be.

Creationists believe in evolution, but not to the extreme that every living thing evolved from a single cell into the complex organisms of today. In essence evolution means change. Micro-evolution (small changes) within species is a scientific fact that Creationists readily acknowledge (120). However, macro-evolution (tremendous changes) is a belief that is simply not evident in nature.

There are two kinds of Creationism; scientific and Biblical. Scientific creationism bases its beliefs upon the scientific data. In fact, creation scientists believe that scientific creationism and Biblical creationism should be taught independently of each other. Some of the most brilliant scientists in the history of the world were creationists: Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Galileo, Faraday, Kepler, and so on.

While it is often asserted that Creationism is based on religious beliefs, evolution has its beliefs based in atheism and secular humanism. The Supreme Court has classified atheism and secular humanism as religions. The evolution model is atheistic in nature while the creation model is theistic. One evolutionist wrote an article titled, "Creation 'Science' Is Dishonest." On the contrary, scientists who assert evolution as a "fact" only need to look at the history of their false findings and hoaxes of man's "missing links" to see their hypocrisy (156 and 159). It is one thing to personally believe in evolution and relate it and all evidence associated with it as circumstantial, but to assert it as a "fact" is unethical and prejudicial.

Another reason why creation scientists view things so differently from evolutionists is simply a matter of differing interpretation of the data. Even evolutionists do not agree with one another because of differing interpretations of the data, especially when it comes to biological classifications. So, why are creation scientists shunned?

Evidence for evolution can be interpreted in different ways. Comparing anatomical similarities between different organisms can provide evidence for evolution. The forelimb in vertebrate animals can be compared bone for bone. The upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand, and fingers are distinguishable (53 and Britannica 7:9). While evolutionists contend that this is evidence of, "descent from a common ancestor (evolution)" creationists believe that this is no more than proof of, "a common design (creation)."

A second piece of evidence for evolution is shown in the development of organisms. The embryonic stage of development is so similar that a frog, chicken, salamander, or human embryo are virtually indistinguishable. Evolutionists believe these amazing similarities show how organs and structures have changed their form and function with evolution. Creationists show what evolutionists call "useless evolutionary leftovers" are in reality necessary functional structures (62 and 66).

A third source of evidence that evolutionists use comes from chemical evolution or "hot soup" as Dr. Stanley Miller calls it. In 1953 he conducted an experiment using a "primordial solution" along with an electrical discharge to simulate lightning. He became successful in producing amino acids commonly found in nature. Creationists hold that it is no more than science fiction that would make a scientist conclude that life could result from a hypothetical chemical evolutionary process. There is no evidence to support this kind of speculation.

A forth source of evidence is related to genetics. This evidence relies on the process of mutation in order to validate the theory of evolution. In the documentary Genetics: Patterns of Diversity it concludes, "But still, the controversy remains. The challenge to Darwin's theory is to explain these molecular changes in terms of natural selection." There are many other challenges to Darwin's theory. Creationist Dr. Parker states:

Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a "genetic load" of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers.

...The creationist mechanism works and it's consistent with what we observe. The evolutionist assumption doesn't work, and it's not consistent with what we presently know of genetics and reproduction. As a scientist, I tend to prefer ideas that do work and do help to explain what we can observe. (Creation 115)

It is an established fact that mutations can not be the mechanism that explains the process of evolution because it leads to the destruction of the organism.
Now, the creation model for variety that Parker refers to is the genetic square (114). This is the mechanism which is believed to have caused differences among people at the Biblical "Tower of Babel" incident. "Variation within created types" is a scientific fact (107). This is the (creationist) mechanism by which we observe such diversity among organisms. Evolutionists try to exaggerate this scientific fact to further their claims. The fact is, as Dr. Gary Parker wrote, "Creationists don't believe that frogs turn into princes... but rather that frogs and people were separately created from the same kinds of molecular 'building blocks'". The creationist mechanism works!

The fifth and most popular source of evidence used by evolutionist stems from the fossil record. Evolutionist Jay Savage states, "We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution..." (V). Encyclopaedia Britannica (14:376) under a section called "The speculative nature of phylogeny [via fossil record]" states, "...judgements of relationships among organisms are almost always based upon incomplete evidence..." This means assumptions are used to fill in the missing pieces of evidence. Britannica also states, "The overwhelming majority of species that have ever lived have long since been extinct and with them the connecting links necessary for the direct demonstration of the descent of modern organisms from common ancestors." This statement shows that the evidence does not exist for Savage to "demonstrate the fact of evolution." He sidesteps the scientific process and logic thereby showing his bias thereby discrediting himself, his profession and the theory.

2006-11-05 12:57:35 by Jeff C

Buck Norris sings "Tennessee Stud" by Doc Watson. Early in his childhood in Deep Gap, Watson was struck by an illness that restricted ...

I love sports and I love discussing sports, so I think sports writing would be best for me. That means going to a school with a journalism program. I live in Tennessee, so Western Kentucky and UT are the first options, but I'm not sure that they are the best options. I've also looked up Appalachian State, which I really like the look of, but I'm still blind in all of this. What are some other good journalism schools in the south? Keep in mind, I don't want to have to break the bank on paying for school.

UNC-Chapel Hill has an excellent journalism program. One of my friends goes there now.

2008-07-26 08:35:23 by fartmonkey723

For those of you who question my credentials of how I know the Christian Extremists...I spent 4yrs at Tennessee Temple University....(a school not unlike Bob Jones University) 3yrs at Cedarville College, (comparitively liberal to TTU, but way right of a school like Wheaton) and was cast out of a legalistic group @ a Grace Brethren Church in Columbus, Ohio. I've been on the receiving end of Christ's "Love" as it has been doled out by those blinded by extremist insanity....don't tell me I don't know the inside crap!! I've got a list a mile long of pastors and professors at these institutions who are either cheaters on their wives and/or closested homosexuals...and yes,...I know some of them "first hand" you might say!! Don't assume that because I criticize, I know nothing of which I speak. I know way more of it than I'd like to know. And apparently, way more than some of you want me to know.
By the way...for those of you who suggest i'm hang'n w/ pot smok'n professorial types...I don't smoke, don't chew, don't run w/ those who do...(that's a standard in "Christian" college lingo) NOR do I even drink....how's that match up to your idea of a bleeding liberal? Face it...thank God the haydays of the "fundamentalists" in this country is quickly waning and those of you who still choose to be allied w/ them are pissy and just don't know what the f***k you're going to do when you have to think for yourselves.

People are a product of their environment and that
environment is 100% liberal and corrupt.

2007-05-18 14:52:58 by choirboy

In Texas, it's against the law for anyone to have a pair of pliers in his or her possession.

In Philadelphia, you can't put pretzels in bags based on an Act of 1760.

Alaska law says that you can't look at a moose from an airplane.

In Corpus Christie, Texas, it is illegal to raise alligators in your home.

In Miami, it is forbidden to imitate an animal.

It is against the law to mispronounce the name of the State of Arkansas in that State.

In Illinois, the law is that a car must be driven with the steering wheel.





If your interested in the strange laws in this country then you should strive for an online paralegal certificate. Picture yourself enrolling in a paralegal institute for some online paralegal training ! Online programs that offer distance learning opportunities are great for people who work full time jobs or simply work better outside of a classroom environment. Go to Paralegal Tech today.




California law prohibits a woman from driving a car while dressed in a housecoat.

In Memphis, Tennessee, a woman is not to drive a car unless a man warns approaching motorists or pedestrians by walking in front of the car that is being driven.

In Tennessee, it is against the law to drive a car while sleeping.

In New York, it is against the law for a blind person to drive an automobile.

In West Virginia, only babies can ride in a baby carriage.

In Georgia, it is against the law to slap a man on the back or front.

A barber is not to advertise prices in the State of Georgia.

In Louisiana, a bill was introduced years ago in the State House of Representatives that fixed a ceiling on haircuts for bald men of 25 cents.

In Oklahoma, no baseball team can hit the ball over the fence or out of a ballpark.




In Rochester, Michigan, the law is that anyone bathing in public must have the bathing suit inspected by a police officer !


In Kentucky, it's the law that a person must take a bath once a year.

In Utah, birds have the right of way on any public highway.

In Ohio, one must have a license to keep a bear.





In Tennessee, a law exists which prohibits the sale of bologna (sandwich meat) on Sunday.

In Virginia, the Code of 1930 has a statute which prohibits corrupt practices or bribery by any person other than political candidates.

In Providence, Rhode Island, it is against the law to jump off a bridge.

In the State of Kansas, you're not allowed to drive a buffalo through a street.

In Florida, it is against the law to put livestock on a school bus.

In New Jersey, cabbage can't be sold on Sunday.



In Galveston, Texas, it is illegal to have a camel run loose in the street!


In North Carolina, it is against the law for dogs and cats to fight.

In Singapore, it is illegal to chew gum.

In Cleveland, Ohio, it is unlawful to leave chewing gum in public places.

In Virginia, chickens cannot lay eggs before 8:00 a.m., and must be done before 4:00 p.m.

In New York, it is against the law for children to pick up or collect cigarette and cigar butts.

In Massachusetts, it is against the law to put tomatos in clam chowder.




If you have considered entering the legal profession, consider earning your online law degree. Choose from a wide range of programs, including online paralegal degrees, and many more.



In Washington State, you can't carry a concealed weapon that is over 6 feet in length.

In San Francisco, there is an ordinance, which bans the picking up and throwing of used confetti.

In Kentucky, it is illegal for a merchant to force a person into his place of business for the purpose of making a sale.

It is against the law in Connecticut for a man to write love letters to a girl whose mother or father has forbidden the relationship.

In Michigan, married couples must live together or be imprisoned.


In the state of Colorado, a pet cat, if loose, must have a tail-light !


In Phoenix, Arizona, you can't walk through a hotel lobby with spurs on.

In California, a law created in 1925 makes it illegal to wiggle while dancing.

In Utah, daylight must be visible between dancing couples.

In Michigan, it is against the law for a lady to lift her skirt more than 6 inches while walking through a mud puddle.

In North Carolina, it is against the law for a rabbit to race down the street.

In Georgia, it's against the law to spread a false rumor.

In West Virginia, one can't cook sauerkraut or cabbage due to the odors and the offence is subject to imprisonment.

In Missouri, a man must have a permit to shave.

The law states that more than 3000 sheep cannot be herded down Hollywood Blvd. at any one time.

In Texas, it is still a "hanging offense" to steal cattle.

To me this is wired but too others it might be OK,but i guess because i don't live in U.S.A i live in Canada. Which by the way is a fantastic place to live in ........well...... most of the time . So if i lived in one of those states it would be different that's because I'm not use to wired law well that's my opinion. thanks

2008-01-04 22:27:04 by HeyyGurlHeyy