CREATIONISM TAUGHT AS SCIENCE IN SOUTH AFRICAN STATE SCHOOLS

September 22, 2009

Prof George Claassen makes a number of important points in his September 18, 2009 blog post “State schools contravene law on religious instruction“: (http://web.archive.org/web/20090926081603/http://prometheusongebonde.wordpress.com/2009/09/18/state-schools-contravene-law-on-religious-instruction/#comments ).  South Africa has yet to publicly debate the proper line to be drawn between religious freedom on the one hand, and abuse of state institutions to promote religion, on the other hand.  In mature democracies like the USA and France, this delicate issue was settled shortly after the founding of these democracies some centuries ago.  So perhaps the time is now ripe to put this subject on the agenda of South African public discourse, as George has done.

The subject of my post is however not the (illegal) promotion of religion in state schools, but rather the teaching of Creationism in Natural Science classes in South African schools – a very clear case of the abuse of institutions of state to promote the personal religion of the teacher.

Creationism can be defined as the doctrine that the universe, (presumably including the Milky Way galaxy and our solar system – items strangely enough omitted from the prosaic descriptions in holy books), the earth and all life were created in their present forms by a personal, omnipotent, deity.  All as described in a specific holy book, the title and date of compilation depending on which flavour of Middle Eastern monotheism the believer happens to subscribe to.

The Christian “Young Earth Creationists” believe this Creation event occurred approximately 6000 years ago.  Historically, many attempts at calculating the date of Creation were made, amongst others by Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler and Joseph Scaliger.  In one of the best known of these calculations, Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656) figured out that Creation must have occurred in the third week of October 4004 BCE.  Ussher’s specific choice of starting year may have been influenced by the then-widely-held belief that the earth’s design life was 6,000 years, 4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after, corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8).  Needless to say, Archbishop Ussher’s implied prediction that Planet Earth would expire in 1997 CE did not come true.

The latest South African “Revised National Curriculum Statement for Grades R-9 (Schools) Natural Sciences” was published in Gazette No. 23406, Vol 443, in May 2002.  The Curriculum Statement provides a definition of “Science” on p4 from which the following extract forms part: “To be accepted as science, certain methods of inquiry are generally used. They promote reproducibility, attempts at objectivity, and a systematic approach to scientific inquiry. These methods include formulating hypotheses, and designing and carrying out experiments to test the hypotheses. Repeated investigations are undertaken, and the resulting methods and results are carefully examined and debated before they are accepted as valid.”  The Curriculum Statement proposes four core knowledge areas in Natural Sciences, to wit (1) Life and Living, (2) Energy and Change, (3) Planet Earth and Beyond and (4) Matter and Materials.  I have not studied the whole Curriculum Statement in detail, but have no objections to what I read there.

My youngest child attends a state primary school in an established middle class neighbourhood in Pretoria, Gauteng Province.  Natural Sciences is an obligatory subject.  Earlier this year (2009) the origin and evolution of life was the subject in class for a couple of weeks.  The teacher (let’s call her Mrs D) distributed class notes containing the following:

“How did the universe originate?

  • There are many beliefs and scientific theories regarding this.  The one that is generally accepted is the “Big Bang” theory.
  • Cosmologists believe that between 15 and 20 billion years ago a huge explosion known as the Big Bang took place.  Everything shot out of nothing and formed solar systems.  Our own sun and its planets were also born in this manner.”

(My translation.  The original reads: “Hoe het die heelal ontstaan?  Daar is baie gelowe en wetenskaplike teorieë hieroor.  Die een wat algemeen aanvaar word is die “Oerknalteorie”.  Sterrekundiges glo dat daar sowat 15 tot 20 biljoen jaar gelede ‘n baie groot ontploffing bekend as die Oerknal plaasgevind het.  Alles het uit niks uitgeskiet en sterrestelsels gevorm.  Ons eie son en sy planete is ook op hierdie manier gebore.”)

The objection against the above is of course that it is expressed in the typical creationist vocabulary usually applied to conjure up the straw man version of the Big Bang.  “There are many beliefs…”   “Cosmologists believe…”   “…a huge explosion…”   “..everything shot out of nothing…”   “…born…”   and of course the wide window of uncertainty implied by the “…15 to 20 billion years…”, as opposed to the current scientific estimate of 13,7 billion years.

The central theme of the lesson was however not contained in these printed class notes.  Mrs D proceeded to read from Genesis 1, explaining to the children that the biblical version is what actually happened, as opposed to what those ignorant cosmologists “believe”.  So light and darkness were created on the first day, the firmament separating waters above from waters below on the second day, dry land and sea on the third day, and eventually the lights in the firmament, the sun and moon on the fourth day.  It was not mentioned at all to the class that the bizarre sequence of events described in Genesis stands diametrically opposed to the scientifically well-understood and actual sequence of star and planet formation.

Needless to say, my child was mortified.

In a next Natural Sciences class, still on the origin and evolution of life, Mrs D once again had the Bible open at Genesis 1.  This time the different life forms were being discussed.  No class notes were used, for reasons that will immediately become obvious.  Mrs D proceeded to draw a huge table with six blocks on the black board – respectively titled “Day 1” to “Day 6”.  The species as “created by God” on the appropriate days were written into the blocks – grass and trees on the third day, fish and birds on the fifth day, and reptiles, mammals and humans on the sixth day.  The evolution of life and speciation by means of natural selection was never mentioned, except by oblique reference to the effect that “…many people believe different things about the way life on earth developed.”

A pupil asked Mrs D where dinosaurs fitted into the table with the six blocks, only to be told that they were merely one of the “walking / crawling” animals created on the sixth day.  The scientific fact that the descendants of dinosaurs are still alive today in the form of birds, was never mentioned.  Mrs D did however make a rather big fuss about the “huge difference” between humans and animals.  According to her, the latter were called into existence by God’s divine command, whereas homo sapiens was apparently sculpted “in the image” of the Creator.  The fossil record, the DNA evidence for common descent, the factors that promote speciation and the process of evolution by natural selection were not mentioned.  Not a word on the overwhelming evidence for the descent of homo sapiens from earlier hominid species and his relatedness to other big apes alive today.  Nothing.  Only Genesis.

When my child reported these strange events from the Natural Sciences class to me I was furious.  A person like Mrs D is clearly guilty of gross dereliction of duty and wilful misrepresentation.  In my opinion, she ought to be summarily dismissed.  But how does one address this while one’s child is still in the school?  If the parents were to object to this type of “scientific” instruction, the child will almost certainly be subject to ostracism and possibly even stronger forms of censure.  The power of an old myth book is alive and well in 2009, in at least one South African state school.  I suspect the same holds true for most.

Advertisements

64 Responses to “CREATIONISM TAUGHT AS SCIENCE IN SOUTH AFRICAN STATE SCHOOLS”

  1. Renier said

    ” Mrs D proceeded to read from Genesis 1, explaining to the children that the biblical version is what actually happened, as opposed to what those ignorant cosmologists “believe”.”

    In science class??? Holy shit!

    Perhaps you can take this info to George? Let the media know?

  2. Con-Tester said

    Are you willing to name publicly the school and the grade at which this outrage against reason was committed? If so (and with your consent of course), I would be happy officially to draw the school principal’s attention to this blog entry.

  3. Hendrik said

    Con-Tester, no unfortunately not – my child still attends the school. And I have no idea where the principal stands on this – for all I know he approves of Mrs D’s approach to Science.

  4. I’m horrified!

    Hendrik, have you thought of trying to discuss this with the teacher concerned? If it were me, I most certainly would have a talk to her first before taking it further. I understand your concerns about your child being victimised by the teacher, and would feel the same way too, but I wouldn’t leave it and let her get away with what she is doing.

  5. Hendrik said

    Skeptic Blacksheep, talking to the teacher did cross my mind. From my perspective the risk of negative consequences to my child outweighed the potential benefits of such a discussion. The teacher would, at best, have stopped her outrageous lessons but still resented me/my child for undoing god’s work. At worst, the teacher would have found support for her position from other teachers/parents/the headmaster. No win situation for me. My child knows what science teaches. Hopefully other parents care enough to make sure their children do too.

    • Perhaps talking to the other parents may help, if a group of you confront her, it may be better and the fallout might not affect your child. If not as a group, then can you not send an anonymous letter to the principal and the school governing body, reporting the teacher and voicing your concerns? Either way, something needs to be done.

  6. Con-Tester said

    Okay, I understand your reservations. However, if George Claassen’s latest blog entry is to be trusted (and I see no reason not to trust that the man has properly done his homework in this regard), the teacher Mrs D seems to be acting in blatant contravention of the National Education Act. According to George, it states inter alia

    • Reading from the Bible (or any other religious holy book) and praying in general class-time is illegal

  7. Peter Grant said

    I can see how you might be worried about you kid getting picked on if you complain, but you might just be surprised by the result. I remember back in the 90s one of my teachers got sacked for pushing religion in music class. Even better, is there a kid of another faith who’s parents might be amenable to the idea?

    • Hendrik said

      Peter, I doubt if there are any kids of other faiths in the school. The school is as *tradisioneel Afrikaans* as you can get, so at most there will be a few agnostics and atheists – who no doubt are as apprehensive as I am about confronting the teacher. No muslims or Hindus that I am aware of.
      You must have been in a private school? Or one with a very enlightened management?

      • Peter Grant said

        Nah, not really, it was a normal English primary school. No one really liked the guy though, that may have had something to do with it.

  8. Pierre said

    This is one of the serious forms of child abuse! This must clearly be stopped. I understand your position regarding your child still in her class, but your conscience or moral sense, your sense of what is right or wrong should prevail. I’m sure you will find a way to deal with this serious misconduct! She’s a real fucking puddenhead!

  9. Renier said

    Hendrik. If CT took it up with the principle, then perhaps it would not be traced to your child? If the principle agrees with her stance then perhaps it can be escalated even further?

  10. Objective said

    After reading your post i made a point of asking my granddaughter about her natural science (in which she scored 100% whatever that means) and she informed me of a similar scenario to the one you paint above. They at least werent fed Genesis 1 but the teacher made no bones about her preference for religion in explaining the demise of the Dinosaurs and creation. So i shall tell George to take the bull by the horn (so to speak) and ill certainly contribute some bucks to get rid of this stupid practice.

    I did ask my granddaughter what she had to say to the teacher – to which she replied: “Ek se niks want sy stel nie belang om te hoor van ewolusie nie.”

    • Hendrik said

      Objective, you confirm (or rather, provide more data) that my suspicion expressed in the last sentence of the post is accurate. Contributing bucks to fight this sounds also to me like the way to go.

  11. Objective said

    Hendrik,

    I didnt mention that she is in a primary school on the East Rand. So the problem seems to be all pervasive in South Africa and not limited to Pretoria.

  12. Objective said

    I also am aware that a group of teachers were recently brought together at a local university to be taught how to teach evolution by a lecturer in zoology. How general this approach is i do not know but i suspect there werent too many, if any teachers from traditionally Afrikaans schools. My granddaughter’s school btw is also traditionally an afrikaans school.

  13. Renier said

    I chatted a bit to my kids last night as well. Son says they (all of them) had to sit and listen to a prayer (to Jesus) before exams, to “calm their nerves”. Daughter says there is praying and Bible reading in classes. I’ll see if I can find out about the natural science over the weekend.

  14. Renier said

    What happened to George’s blog?

  15. Renier said

    Is it just me, or is the new Prometheus blog also deleted? WTF is going on?

  16. Objective said

    It is dem hackers again…. 😀

  17. Great post — shocking tale.

    Glad to have found your blog.

  18. Midd said

    My child has had similar experiences at a public school in the East Rand. Christian songs are sung at music class, and during assembly.
    The school is putting on a stage production of the nativity, children were given a form of consent to be filled in by their parents.
    Children may not participate for religion reasons but will be made to sit and read quietly separate from the children who are rehearsing.

    Like you, I am reluctant to confront the teacher for fear of my child being ostracized by the staff and children. This seems to be a fairly common position.

    Its absurd.

  19. Shelley said

    I am Midd’s wife. Our child is only in grade 1, so we haven’t gotten to the science class as yet. I am disgusted that we parents are too scared to put a stop to this illegal and abusive behavior from public schools because of a very legitimate fear of our kids being made to pay for it one way or another.

    It is evident that even the principle supports Christianity being taught and reinforced in his school; leaving us no-one within the school to address the matter with. The sad thing is that this is a really good (public) school, and i have a feeling that this sort of practice takes place in the majority of schools, public and private. We wouldn’t even be able to move him as there’s no-where to go!

    There must be a way to address the problem on a national scale, as this is just not acceptable – there must be a way that we can keep this bullshit away from our young gullible kids who believe what teachers say as fact.

  20. Renier said

    Midd: “Children may not participate for religion reasons but will be made to sit and read quietly separate from the children who are rehearsing.”

    My son reported the same. Hindu girl in his class. When the rest are doing Christian activities it seems like the non-Christian kids are simply made to feel left out. Peer pressure in short. Imagine a child made to sit all by her own while the other kids participate in an activity. It’s cruel.

    As for the consent form, it’s nonsense, in my opinion. Seems like these people know they are pushing their luck but wants to cover their asses in case someone takes them to court.

    Shelley: “There must be a way to address the problem on a national scale, as this is just not acceptable – there must be a way that we can keep this bullshit away from our young gullible kids who believe what teachers say as fact.”

    Sceptic SA said they were going to take up the cause and then dropped it like a hot potato. George’s two blogs are no more, one of them that had a big thread and post that dealt with this.

    Good luck to you to anyhow. It is not easy not being able to do something while religious myths gets crammed down the throats of children.

  21. Balanced Truths said

    Has Prometheus and George thrown the towel in?

  22. Cathy said

    I think there is enough support amongst reasonable free-thinking people in this country, and we should take this up with the Education department. We have a constitution which guarantees freedom of religion, or no religion if that is your preference. It is illegal to promote christianity above other religious views in classrooms, and as for promoting creationism over evolution – that is just ridiculous.
    My own children, having atheist parents and growing up with those views, were separated from the other children during religious instruction classes, but they survived (read my daughter’s blog: skepticdetective.wordpress.com for her views on the issue.) Perhaps she was just more level-headed than most children her age!
    Being an agnostic or an atheist is nothing to be ashamed of. Wishing to have our children taught real science in science class is nothing to be ashamed of.
    Come on, guys, let’s not roll over and take this! We have rights, and so do our children.

    • Hendrik said

      Cathy, I agree with you that something needs to be done. But exactly what and how is not yet clear to me. My concern is that all teachers and most parents (at least in the schools I get to deal with) are so infected by the religious virus that they are not even open for a rational discussion on the subject.

      I am impressed by the fact that your kids endured the ostracism and survived without scars. Good for them (and their parents), for being rational in an age of irrationality!

      • Cathy said

        Perhaps we can’t change the education system, but we CAN educate our children, and help them grow up clear-thinking and rational. Maybe we should focus on that?

        Why not set up a database of suitable books for children, and introduce them to scientific enquiry and skepticism through the web? I don’t know whether you’re familiar with “Here be Dragons” a free video by Brian Dunning (www.skeptoid.com)? It’s a wonderfully clear introduction to rational thinking. How about Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” series? There’s an awe-inspiring view of the world if ever I saw one!

        Even young children can be taught to question ideas that don’t make sense, and to try to find out for themselves.

        It starts with us, as parents and grandparents – don’t buy into the “woo-woo” that’s out there, and if you see your kids being influenced in that direction – stamp it out with rational argument. Help them to be proud of their independent thinking, not hiding in a corner, ashamed to be different.

        You can tell I’m very passionate about this!

    • No religions views should be taught in a public school. Evolution and Creation should be taken out. Creation should be taught in private Christian schools and Evolution should be taught in private Atheist schools.

  23. Objective said

    I had an opportunity to ask my granddaughter if they had a map of the world or South Africa in a classroom in their school. The answer was negative. I then said: I will bet there are bible verses about jfc and/or his daddy pasted. The answer was affirmative. Demonstrates the level of education of their teachers and of course what the majority of parents are prepared to accept.

    There is not much one can do. The majority of teachers have pigshit for brains as do the parents and issues of truth are decided on by means of a majority vote. We already know that Jesus was voted a god at the synod of Nicea and the hollow spirit was included as part of the christian gods by the same means about a 100 years later. And as George noted in his parting gift in Rapport….all knowledge is held tentatively….and god may exist after all.

  24. BalancedTruths said

    Thank you Hendrik – it is a pity.

  25. Renier said

    Objective: “And as George noted in his parting gift in Rapport”

    Link please? I still wonder WTF is going on with ScepticSA.

  26. Alan said

    I really don’t think there is enough support among reasonable free-thinking people in this country. We have to really pick our battles in the defence of our constitution. I am very confident that a survey would demonstrate that the majority of South Africans do not support the principles of our democratic constitution.

    Furthermore, I believe that the overwhelming majority do not accept the theory of evolution, and a large proportion believe in a literal interpretation of their religious texts.

    We have to decide what to throw in the faces of a majority of South Africans, black and white, who would love to see the constitution thrown out once they understand that it forces certain restrictions on their superstitious traditionalism. We’re aware already how much the majority resents it for prohibiting their favourite instrument of pointless scape-goating – the death penalty.

    First and foremost, we need to use it to protect the basic security of citizens at risk from the massive prejudices and 18th century attitudes that are mainstream in SA: women, gay people, and disabled people, for example. We also need to use it to hold our leaders to account when they defraud the citizenry – as in the arms deal – and fail to deliver the rights guaranteed to the poor under it.

    At this point, I actually think we should shut up, and calmly explain to our kids that what they say about evolution is idiotic. When the constitution is less vulnerable, then we should haul these ignorant fools over the coals.

    We live in an overwhelmingly bigoted, uneducated country. Trying to fight this battle could easily see our forces absolutely routed and broken. Education is in such a gob-smackingly poor state that we should be more worried anyway about whether our children are taught to read and do sums rather than whether they receive a particular piece of religious brain-washing.

  27. We need to get a neutral school setting and remove the religion sciences of evolution and creation out of school and only teach science.

  28. Jan Bergh said

    The reason I’m writing this letter is simply the following: Freedom of religion in our public schools is being threatened by the Evolution Theory which in itself is a form of religion.
    The claim that belief in creation is religious, is, of course, true, but no more religious than belief in evolution. Both are based on similar, but opposite religious assumptions. The two concepts are on equal religious footing, and to mandate the teaching of only one (i.e., evolution), while censoring the other, “establishes” a state religion, and certainly prohibits the “free exercise” of the religious practice held by creationists. To make matters worse, “free speech” is frequently abridged in such one sided forums.
    Evolution is Built Upon Lies!
    Every so-called scientific fact in support of the general theory of evolution from scientists is not testable-repeatable. Weigh what they say with the dictionary definition of a fact: (1) A real occurrence, an event (2) Something having a real demonstrable existence.
    The famous evolutionist, Richard Lewontin had this to say about lying: “Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.”

    “Creation is unscientific and evolution is science.” Variation of this lie abounds in the rhetoric of the evolutionists. Creation by God supports every one of the laws and principles of science. Evolution violates every one of them. Evolutionists are naturalists and insist that the present natural laws of chemistry and physics can explain the origin of the universe in defiance of the present laws. Creationists accept the present laws as valid for present operations and contend that these laws predict a Transcendent Power that used creative processes, not present non creative processes, to bring about the origin of the universe, life and man.
    We have learned that micro-evolution is an undisputed fact of science. Macroevolution though is a highly controversial metaphysical belief that involves unnatural, speculative processes, outside the domain of physics and chemistry. Religion is also a metaphysical system, outside and beyond the domain of physics and chemistry. Since both macroevolution and humanists deny the role of God in the creation of the universe and Christianity affirms it, both systems of belief are metaphysical and equally religious.
    It is noteworthy to observe that there are religious systems today that embrace macroevolution or that the world is self-existent: Buddhists, New Age, Hindus, atheists, pantheists and all other non-Bible-based religions. They all view the cosmos as self-existent.
    The government schools teach macroevolution dogmatically, exclusively and without dissent. Therefore, they sanction and endorse all religions of the world, including atheism, except those based on the Bible. In other words, our government is picking winners in religion in spite of the protection given religion in our Constitution.
    Teaching scientific creationism in our public schools, not the Bible version, would be an acceptable alternative model of origins. The preferred solution would be simply teaching all of the scientific evidence, both positive and negative, about macroevolution. In spite of the unconvincing assumptions by the evolutionists that the earth is billions of years old and that macroevolution actu-ally happened or is even possible, there is no empirical proof for it.
    Here are just some examples of “Scientific Laws” which contradict each other:
    The Law of Cause and Effect declares that every effect requires a competent cause and the effect cannot be greater than its cause. Nothing, for instance, cannot be the cause of something as postulated by Big Bang advocates. A person is a living, feeling and thinking effect and must have been caused by at least a living, feeling and thinking cause. No cause other than parents has ever been observed to produce offspring. Parents of one kind have never been observed to produce offspring of a different kind. Lifeless chemicals cannot cause the greater effect of a living cell that in turn causes millions of even greater effects to cause people. This one law of science, not a speculation, is sufficient to nullify all speculation about evolutionism. But there is much more.
    The First Law of Thermo-dynamics declares that the matter and energy of the universe is constant. This means that the processes of science (physics, chemistry, etc.) are non-creative and non-destructive and cannot explain their own existence. These processes can neither increase nor decrease the matter and energy content of the universe. We observe the vast effect of matter and energy in our universe but no competent cause for it. This law demands an Uncaused First Cause not bound by the laws of science to explain the origin of matter and energy unless, of course, the universe is eternal and did not need a cause as claimed by the evolutionists, atheists and the non-Bible-based religions of the world. The graphic below pictures the First Law superposed with the idea of macroevolution.

    The horizontal parallel lines represent the unchanging quantity of matter and energy of the universe. The upward diagonal line represents the assumed increase in order and complexity in the universe by evolutionary processes. If evolution is true, time’s arrow points upward.
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics disputes the point that the universe may be eternal or self-existent or that order and complexity of natural systems increased via macro-evolution.
    This law declares that every energy transformation (applying the brakes on your car, for example) will result in a loss of some energy in the form of heat. This heat radiates out into space to be lost forever though not destroyed in compliance with the First Law. This means that the universe is running down like a spring-wound clock It is becoming less ordered and complex and eventually will reach a state of equilibrium when all of the stars turn dark and when all energy in the universe will be at the same low level. The universe will have suffered a heat death. This law demonstrates that the universe is degenerating downward, becoming less orderly and not evolving upward as claimed by the evolutionists.
    The following graphic shows the Second Law (diagonal line) superposed over the First Law (horizontal lines). The Second Law clearly shows that time’s arrow points downward, not upward as evolutionists claim. Both cannot be true.

    Equilibrium has not arrived, so the universe is not dead and cannot be eternal. It must have had a beginning. Since it had a beginning and could not cause itself according to the First Law, a transcending metaphysical process must have caused it. At least, the God of the Bible is a possibility. Why, then, should our government schools endorse the beliefs of the Buddhists, Hindus, pantheists and atheists that the universe is eternal or self-existent to the detriment of the Bible-based Religions?
    The Law of Biogenesis teaches that life comes only from life, not lifeless chemicals. An atom does not have an attribute of life. A lifeless chemical cannot cause an effect (life) that it does not possess itself which then causes additional millions of greater effects to end as people. No such event has ever been observed. If a living cell were ever created from nonlife by human design, i.e. using intelligent input … it would not prove macroevolution since it would not have been a spontaneous, random event.
    The Law of Inertia declares that an object at rest or in motion will remain at rest or in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. What was the outside force that caused the so-called Big Bang explosion and gave us something out of nothing or near nothing? Physics and chemistry have no answer.
    The Law of Angular Momen-tum declares that radial motion as produced in an exploding bomb or the so-called Big Bang explosion cannot change into orbital or circular motion or condense into lumps in space without an outside force. What is the outside force that gave us condensing, spinning planets and revolving galaxies? Physics and chemistry have no answer.

    Evolution Requires Billions of Years of Time for which there is no empirical proof. The most popular natural clock is the decay of Uranium 238 into Lead 206 that is assumed to give an age of 4.5 billion years for the earth. For this to be true, several assumptions have to be made:
    1. The clock was set to zero (no lead) at the start.
    2. No uranium leeched into or out of the sample during all that time.
    3. No lead leeched into or out of the sample during all that time.
    4. No catastrophic events occurred which would reset the clock.
    5. The decay rate has remained constant during all that time.
    Academic Freedom, Religious Liberty Are The Issues
    The public schools do not mention the negative scientific evidence about evolution. Negative evidence is censored or blacked out. Proof: Were YOU ever exposed to the above evidence? Many teachers are not informed about the serious scientific objections to evolution and are unwitting conspirators to deceive our children. The wise parent will seek out the truth about this false doctrine and teach it to his child at home. The public school has violated the parents’ trust in matters of family values and has deceived them by leading their child towards atheistic evolutionism. Better yet, teach everything at home. Christian parents wonder why their religious beliefs may be trashed by a government agency when there is no empirical proof to support the policy.

    In summary, we have found evolution and exclusive evolutionary teaching to be unscientific, unconstitutional, religious, frequently dishonest, unpopular, and undesirable. The time has come for better teaching on origins.

    I’ll be glad to send you a couple of books & scientific documentation on the subject.

    Greetings

    Jan Bergh

    • Hendrik said

      Hallo Jan Bergh, thank you for commenting on the article above which I wrote more than five years ago.

      I am glad to say that my daughter referred to in the article, who was in primary school back then, is now a university student.

      Your “letter” is of course nothing of the sort – it is in fact a hodgepodge of blatant copy and paste from two creationist websites (icr dot org and creationism dot org), respectively authored by the late Messrs Morris and Griggs. For the benefit of other readers here, Henry Morris (1918-2006) was considered “the father of young earth creationism” and Jolly F Griggs was founder and head of the “Creation Science Association of California” in the 1970’s. The above two gentlemen were contemporaneous to the generation that fought in WWll, only slightly younger than my own late grandparents were. Neither was a scientist.

      Jan, you do realise that failing to attribute lengthy quotes to the author/s thereof constitutes the delict (tort in civil law) known as plagiarism? Perhaps in this specific case the late authors would not have minded, but we will never know. Nevertheless, it is still morally wrong to use the words of others and falsely present them as your own – you are certainly not doing the image and reputation of Christian fundamentalists any good, or impressing me with your own intellectual ability.

      The only appropriate response to the “arguments” against evolution contained in your letter (actually Griggs’ 25 lessons) is booming, derisive laughter. In 1974 or whenever Griggs wrote his nonsense, people could perhaps still have been forgiven for accepting them at face value. In 2015 however, someone with access to the Internet like Jan Bergh has no valid excuse for accepting and propagating them as the truth. In Jan’s case, he even failed at copying and pasting: He left in two references to graphs that appeared in Griggs’ original lessons, but nowhere in his own “letter”. Quite sad, really.

      To address just the most trivial one of the “arguments”: the Second Law of Thermodynamics – argument: The Second Law namely only applies to a closed system (i.e. where no external energy flows into the system). It may or may not come as a surprise to Jan, but planet Earth is not a closed system. It just so happens that there is a gigantic external energy source located 150 million km away from us. This energy source provides approximately 1340 Watt/square meter continuously at the surface of our atmosphere. It generates this energy through a process very well understood by scientists, known as nuclear fusion (as opposed to fission, the process by which nuclear reactors function). This external stellar energy source goes by the name of “the Sun”. I am struggling to accept that Griggs (and Jan) missed this little detail through colossal ignorance, leaving only the alternative explanation of wilful deception. Was someone perhaps lying for Jesus?

      The other “arguments” are equally inane, typically aimed at a straw man created by Griggs’ wrongful misrepresentation (or perhaps gross misunderstanding) of what science actually states on any particular topic. The fact that Jan presents them here with a straight face only proves how badly the South African school system has failed in teaching science to children.

      Jan please forgive me if I do not accept your offer to send me “books and scientific documentation” on this, or on any other subject. My access to scientific literature on the Internet is virtually limitless, as is your own. Now go and read the actual science, not the creationist nonsense generated in the sterile echo chambers that you frequent. I suggest you start with basic concepts and work your way up to a book aimed at literate laymen, “Why Evolution is True”, by prof Jerry Coyne. But be careful, your head might just explode.

      • Jan Bergh said

        Good day

        It is true that I copied comments/writings from other writers.

        Do you perhaps have any idea how, why, when and under which circumstances I retrieved the information? Well I guess not so please do not try to intimidate/threaten me with “tort in civil law”!

        By the way thanks for mentioning the original authors, hope others will notice their names and research their work!

        Indeed I agree that the school system is failing in educating our children in true science because what is currently being put out there is lies/theories. Are we as creationists not allowed publish the Truth but you are allowed to propagate your so-called “science” as the truth?

        As for doing the image and reputation of Christian fundamentalists not any good…., the Lord knows what I’m doing and what my true intentions are. Please believe me unlike so-called intellectuals I do not need to impress you or any other person. Maybe that is what is wrong with society today, trying to impress people instead of fulfilling our purpose on this earth. If what you believe is true then there is no purpose in life! What are you living for?

        Your so called “science” with regards to evolution (notice it is not spelled with a Capital letter), has NEVER been proven as fact. It still only remains “Theory” and will not and cannot be proven. I dare you to prove me wrong, maybe as an educated person you will see the truth some day.

        Let’s just think about evolution vs Creationism for a while….. Evolutionists have a theory that the universe came into existence by itself, in other words creating something from nothing (scientifically not possible!). From a single cell to a multi cell organism (once again scientifically impossible), a little ball of “slime”?

        I surely don’t have to tell you what Creationists believe but I’m going to anyway. I believe in a Creator namely God (Trinity) of the Bible whom in his grand design Created all thing!!!

        By comparing abovementioned believes tell me who’s believe sounds the silliest/stupidest/most unlikely?

        Just remember that God loves YOU very much! I pray for you and your family in the hope that the Holy Spirit will convince you about the Truth which is Jesus Christ. (I sincerely mean it).

        Greetings
        Jan Bergh

      • Jan Bergh said

        Good day

        Just a couple of references….

        Keith, A., 1947. Evolution and Ethics, Putman, New York
        Guide to the Bible, Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, IL, USA.
        Geisler, N.L. and Nix, W.E., 1986. A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody Press,
        Chicago.
        McDowell, J., 1972. Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol. 1, Campus Crusade for Christ,
        San Bernadino, CA.
        Ramsay, W., 1953. Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New
        Testament, Baker Books, Grand Rapids.
        See Gitt W. 1997. Counting the stars.
        In The Beginning, Walt Brown Phd
        The Vanishing Proofs of Evolution, Thomas E Heinze
        Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, Dennis R Petersen
        The Evolution Handbook, Ferrell Vance
        It’s a Young World After All, Dr Paul D Ackerman
        Darwin’s Enigma, Luther D Sutherland
        Celestial Catastrophism Bibliography & Handbook, William I. Thompson III, M.Sc
        SPADING UP ANCIENT WORDS, Dr. Erich A. von Fange
        The Predicament of Evolution, George McCready Price
        TIME UPSIDE DOWN, Dr. Erich von Fange Ph.D.
        The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved, Rev. William A. Williams, D.D.
        Darwin and the New World Order, Ian T. Taylor
        Genesis and Science, Rev Walter Lang
        Creations Tiny Mystery, Robeert V Gentry
        Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution Michael J. Behe
        The Evolution of a Creationist: A Layman’s Guide to the Conflict Between … Dr. Jobe Martin
        Creation: Facts of Life Gary Parker
        The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery by Gonzalez & Richards
        Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe Dembski, Behe & Meyer
        Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution Michael J. Behe
        The Scientific Case for Creation, Bert Thompson, Phd
        The Revolution Against Evolution, Douglas B Sharp
        Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, Robert E Kofahl Phd
        “Evidence for a Young World” & “Mars Global Surveyor Confirms Creation!” by D. Russell Humphreys
        “Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million Years Old?” by Keith Swenson (4 pgs.)

        Scientific Evidence that God Created Life (Booklet – May 2003, by Thomas F. Heinze)
        Geology (Booklet – Revised June 2004, by Thomas F. Heinze)
        Where Did Life Come From? (Booklet – July 2004, by Thomas F. Heinze)
        Here are five articles adapted from information presented in my book, How Life Began
        Brief Overview – Did life start when amino acids made proteins?
        Did God Create Life? Ask a Protein
        Where Did the Information in Cells Come from?
        Redefining Science to Eliminate the Creator
        Did Life Come from Space?
        Also read:
        How the Universe Began
        Proofs of Evolution Examined
        How Could Evolution Take Place?
        Present Day Examples of Evolution
        Who Designed Woodpeckers?
        Appearance of Design
        Evolution Whoppers and Bloopers
        Flippase: Complex Enzyme Machines
        The Bible on Homosexuality
        Evolutionists – Out of Eden
        Up in Arms – Over Arm Evolution
        The Big Bang
        Creation Controversy & the Cells
        “Creation vs. Evolution Handbook” by Thomas F. Heinze
        “Bats and Evolution” by Ron Lyttle
        “Evolution 101” (25 Free Lessons) by Jolly F. Griggs (50 pgs.)
        12 Quotes from Leading Evolutionists
        This page may be freely copied: http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm
        Evolution is science? It is admittedly unobservable, lacking fossil evidence, dependent upon scientific consensus, and essentially a belief system about past life on Earth. The following 12 quotes are from leading and well known scientists and researchers. A larger work with 130 similar quotes is available: “The Revised Quote Book”, edited by Dr. A. Snelling, PhD, pub. by: Creation Science Foundation, Australia
        ________________________________________
        “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
        Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), “Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?” Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127
        ________________________________________
        “Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”
        Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), “Paleoecology and uniformitarianism”. Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216
        ________________________________________
        “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein’.”
        Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in “Hoyle on Evolution”. Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105
        ________________________________________
        “Echoing the criticism made of his father’s habilis skulls, he added that Lucy’s skull was so incomplete that most of it was ‘imagination made of plaster of Paris’, thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to.”
        Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3
        ________________________________________
        “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, … the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. …but ever since Darwin’s work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man.”
        John Reader (photo-journalist and author of “Missing Links”), “Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?” New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802
        ________________________________________
        “A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, …He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig’s tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or ‘Piltdown Man,’ the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the ‘earliest Englishman’.
        “The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'”
        Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson “Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin’s rib”, in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199
        ________________________________________
        “We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. …Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution.”
        Pierre-Paul Grassé (University of Paris and past-President, French Academie des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88
        ________________________________________
        “The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.”
        Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), “The return of hopeful monsters”. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-Jule 1977, p. 28
        ________________________________________
        “And in man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.”
        Dr. Isaac Asimov (biochemist; was a Professor at Boston University School of Medicine; internationally known author), “In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can’t even break even.”. Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 10
        ________________________________________
        “Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better … ‘Absolute’ dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.
        “No matter how ‘useful’ it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.”
        Robert E. Lee, “Radiocarbon: ages in error”. Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Reprinted in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19(2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125)
        ________________________________________
        “The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.”
        J. E. O’Rourks, “Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy”. American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47
        ________________________________________
        “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

        Please feel free to reply with any of your scientific books and authors after reading and comparing the facts on both sides of the argument.

        Would you mind if I post our conversation on social media seeing as you made a public statement?

        Greetings
        Jan

      • Con-Tester said

        Jan, cretinism is to science as Lego bricks are to the construction industry.

        That’s all, really. Please carry on playing with your Lego.

      • Jan Bergh said

        Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (KJV)

        “Life is not a game” Quote by Jan Bergh

      • Hendrik said

        Jan Bergh (February 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm): It is true that I copied comments/writings from other writers.
        Yes, without acknowledgement – proof that you are dishonest.

        Jan Bergh (February 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm): Do you perhaps have any idea how, why, when and under which circumstances I retrieved the information? Well I guess not so please do not try to intimidate/threaten me with “tort in civil law”!
        Uhmm, you completely misunderstood. Firstly, the how, why when etc are irrelevant for the purpose of determining plagiarism. Secondly, my statement was not a threat (it cannot possibly be, as only the copyright owner can act on your infringement). Thirdly, my statement was purely for the benefit of foreign readers who are not familiar with the SA common law term “delict” (“onregmatige daad”). In civil law countries like the UK, the equivalent term is “tort”. Fourthly, you seem to suffer from a persecution complex. The only point I made was that you were dishonest.

        Jan Bergh (February 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm): By the way thanks for mentioning the original authors, hope others will notice their names and research their work!
        You are very welcome. While doing such “research”, readers will make up their own minds as to the trustworthiness and academic standing of those authors.

        Jan Bergh (February 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm): Indeed I agree that the school system is failing in educating our children in true science because what is currently being put out there is lies/theories.
        What, to your mind, would constitute “true science”? Science is merely an extremely successful method to gain new knowledge and insight, and does not claim to be the ultimate “Truth” (with a capital T) that you refer to below. Where did you hear this nonsense? Whoever told it to you was either ignorant, or was lying for Jesus.

        Jan Bergh (February 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm): Are we as creationists not allowed publish the Truth but you are allowed to propagate your so-called “science” as the truth?
        Aaah, there is that “Truth” (with a capital T, nogal) again. Jan, do you even acknowledge and understand the subjective process by which you decide whether something is “true” or “false”? Are you able to give an example of data that would convince you, for example, that creationism is “false”, or that evolution is “true”? Do you even allow such a possibility?

        Jan Bergh (February 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm): As for doing the image and reputation of Christian fundamentalists not any good…., the Lord knows what I’m doing and what my true intentions are.
        Yes we know, as long as you ask for forgiveness, it is OK to be dishonest. Lying for Jesus is a noble pastime. That is why I pointed out your dishonesty.

        Jan Bergh (February 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm): Maybe that is what is wrong with society today, trying to impress people instead of fulfilling our purpose on this earth. If what you believe is true then there is no purpose in life! What are you living for?
        Wait, what? Does harbouring true beliefs rob one of all purpose? Please rephrase the above word salad in English.

        Jan Bergh (February 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm): Your so called “science” with regards to evolution (notice it is not spelled with a Capital letter), has NEVER been proven as fact.
        Nowhere in my above comment did I spell it with a capital letter. Are you lying for Jesus or is your persecution complex acting up again?

        Jan Bergh (February 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm): It still only remains “Theory” and will not and cannot be proven. I dare you to prove me wrong, maybe as an educated person you will see the truth some day.
        You are grossly (and sadly) mistaken. Evolutionary theory is as much a fact as gravitational theory.
        Let me point out a few things that should be of immense concern to you (but probably are not, due to the fact that you simply keep your fingers in your ears and go “Lalalaaaaa, I can’t hear you!” whenever you get presented with any data that does not fit your puerile weltanschauung):

        1. For creationism to be “true” (with a small t, i.e in the dictionary definition kind of way) there would need to be a decades long, multi-generational, global, conspiracy between literally thousands of universities and laboratories and tens of millions of people located in disparate countries reaching from the US in the West to Japan in the East, Sweden in the North to New Zealand in the South. These tens of millions of conspirators would have to be working in, and have total management and media control over, subjects as diverse as astronomy, geology, molecular biology, animal genetics, palaeontology, evolution (there is that dreaded evilution!!eleventy! aaaarghhh!), antibiotics research, radiometric dating, plant and crop genetics, to name but a few. Can you even imagine the logistics of maintaining and furthering such a conspiracy? All those secret meetings (often at night, because of time zone differences, with rooms full of translators, because the conspirators are from all over the globe), the exchange of large sums of money (inevitably from satanic, evil, corporate funders) to buy the silence of those who, say, found Eve’s skeleton and confirmed that it contains exactly the same DNA as Adam’s rib, and can be dated to the year 4024BCE (Before the Common Era)? All those researchers continuously lying, hiding their inability to write articles that pass peer review, or come up with new medicines, or diagnose genetic diseases, all because “evolution does not work for realsies”.
        My own view: One would need to be certifiably insane to seriously contemplate the existence of such a conspiracy. But that is what would be required for creationism to be “true”.

        2. Young Earth Creationism (“YEC”) is disproven by every picture ever taken by the Hubble space telescope of a galaxy outside the Milky Way. There are thousands such pictures. In fact, one does not even need the Hubble space telescope – YEC is disproven every time I look through binoculars at Messier 31, (the Andromeda galaxy, low in our Northern sky in January), or at the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, located near Canopus and the South Celestial Pole. I looked at the Magellanic clouds as recently as last week and can confirm that they are still there.

        3. If Darwin never existed and never wrote The Origin of Species, evolution and common descent (there is that dreaded evilution again!!eleventy! aaaarghhh!) would have become absolutely unavoidable conclusions the moment that the human genome was sequenced and compared to that of other animals.

        4. More specifically, creationism was disproven the moment the human GLO gene (the one that is broken in primates, causing the scurvy mentioned in the next point) was compared to the GLO genes of other primates, and of other mammals. Here is a hint: the human and chimp GLO genes are broken in exactly the same locus, which happens to be a completely different locus from the one broken in guinea pigs or bats. Other mammals have functioning GLO genes, meaning they do not have to ingest vitamin C as part of their diet.

        5. Therefore, creationism was disproven every time a sailor in earlier centuries developed scurvy, while other mammals on board the ship did not.

        6. Creationism is disproven by even the most superficial comparison of endogenous retroviruses (ERV’s) occurring in the genomes of humans and different animals.

        7. Creationism is disproven every time a human gets goose bumps on a chilly night or when watching a scary movie.

        Are you able to formulate the logic behind each of the above proofs (note that there are many more)? If not, you are probably doing that “Lalalaaa, I can’t hear you!” thing again.

        8. The only alternative would be that huge global conspiracy amongst tens of millions of people that I described above. Let me repeat: One would need to be certifiably insane to seriously contemplate the existence of such a conspiracy.

        Jan Bergh (February 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm): Let’s just think about evolution vs Creationism for a while….. Evolutionists have a theory that the universe came into existence by itself, in other words creating something from nothing (scientifically not possible!).
        No Jan, you are lying. That subject is called cosmogony. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the beginning of the universe. Where did you hear this nonsense? Whoever told it to you was either ignorant, or was lying for Jesus.

        Jan Bergh (February 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm): From a single cell to a multi cell organism (once again scientifically impossible), a little ball of “slime”?
        Aahh, scientifically impossible you say? Well, you yourself managed that same journey in only nine months, and all that without divine intervention. The evolutionary journey is well understood and clearly described for the layman in a book titled “Climbing Mount Improbable”.

        Jan Bergh (February 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm): I surely don’t have to tell you what Creationists believe but I’m going to anyway. I believe in a Creator namely God (Trinity) of the Bible whom in his grand design Created all thing!!! By comparing abovementioned believes tell me who’s believe sounds the silliest/stupidest/most unlikely?
        So many caps, so many exclamation marks, no content. Any proof for any of this? I thought not. Hint: a person’s subjective belief or disbelief does not determine whether something is “true” or “false”. By the way, have you met the invisible unicorn that lives in my garage?

        Jan Bergh (February 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm): Just remember that God loves YOU very much! I pray for you and your family in the hope that the Holy Spirit will convince you about the Truth which is Jesus Christ. (I sincerely mean it).
        Gee, thanks dude. Am just not that into cosmic zombies myself. (I sincerely mean it).

      • Con-Tester said

        In addition to Hendrik’s several compelling reasons why cretinism (or at least its Young Earth variant) is false, there’s the plain fact that cretinism is scientifically sterile. It explains nothing. It contributes no new knowledge. It is not testable. It doesn’t show the way to new research. It suggests no experiments. In the words of theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, cretinism “is not only not right, it is not even wrong.” Rather than offer any kind of verifiable what-happened-when-by-which-mechanism descriptions of its own, all that cretinism does is to point out imaginary “weaknesses” and confabulated “flaws” in evolution.

        But what really gives the game away is that there are many dozens of different and conflicting creation myths, none of them supported by any actual evidence, whereas there’s only one evolutionary science, supported by several different lines of evidence that all converge on the same narrative. Moreover, there are bible-thumping evolutionary scientists who have no problem with evolution, e.g. Ken Miller and Francis Collins, the latter of who, having headed up the Human Genome Project, said that all other evidence aside, interspecies genome comparisons are more than sufficient to establish common descent as a cold, hard fact. Yet more, even within the subgroup of Holey Babble cretinists, there are many mutually exclusive options: YEC, OEC, day-age, omphalos, IDiotology, deistic, etc. As a YEC, shouldn’t you also rebuke all those other cretinist heresies with equal fervour?

        Jan, like Hendrik suggested, you really and quite urgently need to read a book on evolution by a mainstream evolutionary scientist, rather than lap up the fanciful and infantile BS, contrived distortions and dishonest quote-mining dished up at various cretinist websites. That way you might learn for yourself what evolution actually says, not what other agenda-driven ignoramuses claim it says.

  29. Johann (Objective) Enslin said

    Jan Bergh: you can add to your post:

    Objective wrote: All religions were developed from envy; envy of the successful people of this world: the disciplined, the thinkers the achievers, the rich, the competent. The desire of religion has always been and remains to this day a desire for power: the power to destroy what is good namely the disciplined, the productive, the wealthy, the educated. In fact it goal has been and will always be to destroy those values of men that correspond to reality.

    To destroy life.

    Religion is evil and it must be destroyed. I do not agree with my friends who have responded to you that they should spend their valuable and productive time; their intelligence acquired through discipline and study on assholes such as you whose hate of life and the good is as obvious as that of a muslim or any other mystic. Fuck allah god liitle boy god jesus fucking christ and uhmmm spooky god… and fuck you for posting your shit in order to elicit discussion in order to gain a semblance of respectability for your philosophies of hatred and destruction.

    • Jan Bergh said

      Wow!!!

      Now these comments were productive and intelligent. Confirming what I expected (please give scientific proof as to what I thought). Unfortunately you won’t be able to, some things just cannot be explained, it has to be felt.

      For intellectual people all of you seem to miss the point I was trying to make in my initial letter. Isn’t science proven by exploring?

      If what I believe isn’t true and what you believe cannot be proven, take it all out of the school system and let parents educate their children and let them decide for themselves. THAT IS THE POINT!!! Nooo, rather point out others so called “lies” to cover up your own. Let’s focus on others not on ourselves. Why? The only thought that make sense to me is to cover up your own inabilities and shortcomings to give honest truthful answers.

      Instead I’m being attacked on a personal level and received no real answer from any of you (none that can be proven). I feel sorry for anybody seeking the truth from you. Do you really think anybody will believe you if they seek the truth and gets criticized for not outright believing what you believe?

      If you really want people to believe what you believe perhaps you should try to convince them instead of criticizing their believe.

      I’ll be a changed person if you could answer and prove the following questions”

      1. How did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
      2. How did the DNA code originate? What other coding system has existed without intelligent design?
      3. How could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?
      4. Why is natural selection taught as if it explains the origin and diversity of life?
      5. How did new biochemical pathways originate?
      6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists “know” that they were not designed?
      7. How did multi-cellular life originate?
      8. How did sexual reproduction originate?
      9. Why are the expected countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
      10. How do “living fossils” remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
      11. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
      12. Why is evolutionary story-telling tolerated?
      13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
      14. Why is evolution a theory about history taught as if it is the same as operational science?
      15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea taught in science classes?

      If you are only going to criticize me on what I’ve wrote, spare your precious hard intellectual studying minds, otherwise prove me wrong with facts!

      I’ve read the replies to my AND other Creationists views. Once again have your theories ever been proven by different independent well known scientists? If so I bet the outcome of individuals differed even “if” conducted under the same circumstances.

      In future I will only respond to proven facts not petty insulting thoughts and lies. Think what you may…..

      Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (KJV)

      Blessing
      Jan

      • Con-Tester said

        More plagiarism, Jan?

        Here are 15 answers for ya, some of which address closely related issues. Can you match the answers to the questions?

        For those questions that are only partially answered or which remain entirely open, “We don’t know yet.” is a perfectly acceptable answer. (It’s important to note here that a knowledge gap is a gap in knowledge, one that probably will be filled in the future, and not a warrant to insert a god as a pseudo-explanation.)

  30. Pierre said

    I am sure the above mentioned word “Cretinism” was put out there for a purpose, meaning a physical and mental condition where there is a congenital deficiency of Thyroid hormone. It was widely used in England in the 19th and 20th Century, and according to Wikipedia….. ” the term spread more widely in popular English as a markedly derogatory term for a person who behaves stupid!” Now that’s exactly the synonym with the word Creationism, and I’m sure that is what Con-tester meant! These debates just exposes the superior ignorance and stupidity and intellectual laziness of the creationists, and therefore also all the other clueless religious fundamentalists!

  31. Johann (Objective) Enslin said

    Jan Bergh: you have nothing to offer.

    • Jan Bergh said

      I know, I’m only human! But the Lord have plenty on offer to you!!! You won’t know if you don’t give Him a chance.

      Have you ever experienced the Holy Spirit? It is larger than life, it gives peace beyond compare, it’s magnificence will astonish you beyond believe!

      Once you’ve experienced it you will NEVER go back or be the same!

      What do you have to loose? Absolutely nothing. What do you have to gain? Eternity with our Creator!

      Blessings
      Jan

      • Objective said

        As I said: you have nothing to offer….

      • Jan Bergh said

        Good day all.

        Direct quote from someone: “In future I will only respond to proven facts not petty insulting thoughts and lies. Think what you may….. ”

        No facts during the whole discussion! But don’t worry, it only confirmed what I expected and by the way I WILL be using these letters to educate people on how so-called intellectuals argue…. with no facts.

        May the Lord bless you all with WISDOM!!!

        See you all on judgement day.

        Jan Bergh

      • Con-Tester said

        Jan Bergh wrote (February 3, 2015 at 5:54 pm)—

        No facts during the whole discussion!

        Oh dear, Jan has seen right through our deceptions where plenty of facts were mentioned and linked to (verifiable facts, nogal!). But Jan is too adept at sniffing out deceit. At least there remains one fact, a slightly puzzling one, now beyond dispute: Jan presents us with something of a medical mystery. He is simultaneously allergic and immune to facts.

        Jan Bergh wrote (February 3, 2015 at 5:54 pm)—

        But don’t worry, it only confirmed what I expected…

        Yes, Jan’s perceptive and penetrating insights are indeed imposing, especially his a priori ones.

        Jan Bergh wrote (February 3, 2015 at 5:54 pm)—

        … by the way I WILL be using these letters to educate people on how so-called intellectuals argue…

        We should all be greatly grateful for Jan’s graceful generosity. Goodness knows, there’s certainly much substance to what intellectuals, not the so-called ones, have repeated here for the umpteenth time.

        Jan Bergh wrote (February 3, 2015 at 5:54 pm)—

        See you all on judgement day.

        I think Jan is missing, among other pertinent things, a few capitals here.

  32. Hendrik said

    Jan (February 2, 2015 at 5:59 pm): Now these comments were productive and intelligent. Confirming what I expected (please give scientific proof as to what I thought). Unfortunately you won’t be able to, some things just cannot be explained, it has to be felt.
    Irrational mysticism. ”Feeling” has no place in the advancement of human knowledge.

    Jan (February 2, 2015 at 5:59 pm): For intellectual people all of you seem to miss the point I was trying to make in my initial letter.
    Jan, you are lying again. You never wrote an initial letter. You copied and pasted old Mr Griggs’ nonsense as if it were your own. And the point you now want to make does not even appear there.

    Jan (February 2, 2015 at 5:59 pm): If what I believe isn’t true and what you believe cannot be proven, take it all out of the school system and let parents educate their children and let them decide for themselves.
    You are projecting your own irrational outlook on life onto others. I do not “believe” in evolution. I do not earn my living from it. I have no emotional or other attachment to it or to any other scientific subject. The TOE’s accuracy has been proven over and over, so you are doing that “Lalalaaaaa, I can’t hear you!” thing again. The creationist fascination with the TOE stems from the fact that it blows special creation of homo sapiens out the water, destroying the life’s purpose of people like Jan. To the rest of us it is merely an interesting fact.

    Jan (February 2, 2015 at 5:59 pm): Instead I’m being attacked on a personal level and received no real answer from any of you (none that can be proven). I feel sorry for anybody seeking the truth from you. Do you really think anybody will believe you if they seek the truth and gets criticized for not outright believing what you believe? If you really want people to believe what you believe perhaps you should try to convince them instead of criticizing their believe. I’ll be a changed person if you could answer and prove the following questions”
    Projection of your own wish to “convert” others. I frankly do not care what you believe and have no wish to change your “believe”. Your beliefs are as far out on the looney tunes scale as can be, and I say good for you – that’s right, screw astronomy and evolution and everything else that gets between you and baby Jesus and the everlasting circle-jerk you boys are going to have. I fully support your right to immense ignorance, only not the forcing of that ignorance on children in school. Jan, you are also lying again: Nothing will turn you into a changed person, especially not factual information. Btw, you forgot to delete the quotation marks at the end of the piece you copied again from somewhere.

    Jan (February 2, 2015 at 5:59 pm): I’ve read the replies to my AND other Creationists views.
    Your copy and paste skills are simply breath-taking. I do not see any replies to other creationists on this thread. Lying for Jesus is such an honourable pastime.

    • Johann (Objective) Enslin said

      The problem with these people is that they ask for proof and speak about facts as if they understand the meaning of these concepts. They themselves and millions of similar Cretans that preceded them and share the current time frame with them have absolutely no proof and no evidence for their beliefs and yet they are the humanoids that insist on asking for proof and evidence as if they will recognise if they smell it and recognise the shit in their brains when they use it. 3YO.

  33. Johann (Objective) Enslin said

    Correction: You would not engage a 2YO in a discussion of concept formation and meaning would you? You would understand that explaining to it that it lies is meaningless – that its sounds have absolutely no relationship with the state of things in the world. Why do you do it with the infantile Cretans who believe in spooks?

    Religion is absolutely impotent as “evil” is impotent. Nobody can succeed with irrationality |(faith/belief/spooks) and that is all that the creationists have on their plate. The worst of it is that they do not even realise it. I think that engaging them in discussion on a public board provides their irrationality with a semblance of respectability that it does not deserve.

    • Hendrik said

      Objective, you ask a very valid question, one that I will have to think about – and perhaps it warrants a separate post. For now, the reason that comes to mind is that if there is no communication from the rational side of the fence, even the (admittedly remote) possibility of comprehension disappears.

    • Con-Tester said

      This comment has been moved here

    • Hendrik said

      Love it. My personal favourite is Ken Ham’s unassailable dating methodology: “Because there are fossils of carnivorous dinosaurs and some with physical defects, this must place it after “the Fall” and humanity’s expulsion from the garden of Eden. Therefore dinosaurs lived 6000 years ago. Ding, ding, ding! QED! Whoopee!”

  34. […] Today’s post is by a guest author, Con-Tester, who has been exposing irrationality and dishonesty, whenever and wherever encountered, for many years. It was initially posted as a comment on this post>. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: