Academic Indoctrination in the Scholastic Empire

Nine weeks. Supposedly, the baby is a little bigger than a kumquat. I was not sure what a kumquat was, so I had to do a Google (r) Image Search (TM). Considering that I grew up in the Orange/Citrus Belt, I was somewhat embarrassed when I saw the "gem of the citrus family." However, I think the baby website Amanda is referencing could have been a little more ecumenical in its description of the baby; perhaps it could have said "about the same size as a large mouse, or half a rat." That not only would have given an interesting visual, but it also keeps Gorthar and the description in the same general family and kingdom.

And speaking of fetal development, my Oceanography instructor brought up the tired old demonstration of evolution by comparing human fetal development to that of lizards and chickens, or Haeckel's "Ontology recapitulates Phylogeny." I couldn't believe a college-level class was still using this, and undoubtedly students were accepting it as fact.

The facts are that Haeckel deliberatley manipulated these embryonic graphic representations in order to vindicate his world view. The evolutionist W. R. Thompson, in his introduction to Darwin's Origin of Species, admitted this, saying, "What [Haeckel] did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series... When the "convergence" of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory... The "biogenetic law" as a proof of evolution is valueless."

Yet teachers have inculcated tens of thousands of students by repeating this fallacy as fact.

Evolutionists anger me, not because I disagree with their theory (although I do), but because they are as stubborn and obdurate as their opposition. This in itself does not bother me, since I am all for being obdurate, but theirs is a hypocritical sort of pertinacity in that they condemn theories based on faith while ultimately relying on the same for their own theory. Of course, they will argue that, while Creation can't be tested by the Scientific Method, evolution can.

But this in itself is problematic because the "Scientific Method" was "invented" by humans. It is ultimately conceived through human intervention, not Natural Law. In other words, the Scientific Method is not a constant like gravity is. Has it been important? Yes, but who is to say a future Bacon or Galileo will come along with a different scientific method that is able to test the metaphysical and teleological aspects of nature? Just because a theory can't be tested by our current scientific method does not mean it should be discarded. If scientists and philosophers had always followed that logic, we may still be operating under a geocentric theory.

The other problem is that, as shown above, certain concepts of evolution are continually disproven while the act of creation has never been disproven. Darwin thought the basic unit of life was the cell, and that it was very simple; however, we now know that in order for the simplest single-cell life to exist it must have about 600 different protein molecules. Statistically, it would be impossible for these proteins to form life. The chances of amino acids randomly merging to form a correct sequence for a protein--one simple protein--is about 1 in 10^450 (1 with 450 zeros). This would require about 10 random sequences per second for about 10 billion years in order to complete that probability. And that's just to form one protein... So yes, it must take a lot of faith to accept additional "random mutations" to perpetuate the progression of the species.

Science used to be considered a philosophy, but we now, in our arrogant assumption that we are capable of unlimited comprehension, consider it to be undisputed fact. I may be deemed a radical by saying this, but Science deservedly belongs back in the philosophic category. The Scientific Method does not prove anything, it just shows that a theory can't be completely disproven by known methods of testing. Ultimately, scientists--just like everyone--accept their undeniable facts on faith. But Darwinists have become so arrogant in their faith that they refuse to allow an alternative point of view.

Many scientists who advocate Intelligent Design (a euphamism for Creation) have been excommunicated by the "scientific elite." Creationists are persecuted daily for their faith and are forced to accept the faith of Evolutionists, or they are otherwise treated as a radical fringe, in some cases ruining their careers. Fundamentally, this is the same strategy the Catholic Church used against those who did not accept their man-made doctrines. It took a Catholic monk to recognize the evils of the dominating institution and to liberate millions of people from the accepted dogma of perverted Catholicism. (Martin Luther, in case I was too abstruse.)

I refuse to accept that my offspring is a statistical impossibility. I refuse to accept that he is half-lizard, half-bird in his fetal development, or even that the process is significantly comparable. He does not have gill slits as my learned college professor says he does. (The apparent "gills" are necessary for facial construction, aural development, and endocrine glands. They have nothing to do with respiratory function.) I also refuse to accept that a kumquat was the best description of my baby.