Millions of people believe that evolution is true. TV programs, newspapers, technical research
journals, schools and universities declare that it is science. Thus many people and even theologians agree.
What is strange, is that there is a massive campaign to prohibit critical discussion of evolution. This is happening in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and many other European nations. They make laws to ‘protect’ evolution from criticism.
If evolution is proven science, why is nobody allowed to critically discuss it? Why are no laws made to prohibit discussion of the relativity theory of Einstein, gravity, magnetism and many other facts of biology, like the production of energy in the mitochondria? It is because laws of nature are normally proven (unless falsified) by many repeated experiments. So real or operational science does not need protection through laws. By operational science we mean physics, chemistry, biochemistry and biology, unfettered by all the imaginary evolution scenarios.
An established law of nature seldom comes under attack. Scientists do experiments and show the results if they think it is wrong. If there are questions about some aspect of a law of nature, a scientist can answer the questions, normally without excitement, since it is based on repeated experiments. Why would somebody query, for example, the law of gravity? Even the mechanisms of meiosis and mitosis have been established through pain staking laboratory experiments. Nobody ever questions them. They are ‘solid’ facts which were verified by repeated experiments.
So why does evolution need protection? What is sacred about evolution? Why is it so precious? How can many scientists do their work without ever calling on Darwin for help? Today, in our modern age, we have another Inquisition. There are a group of people who have taken it upon themselves to censor any criticism of evolution. It has become dangerous to attempt to discuss Darwinism negatively. Why? Why are the jobs of teachers and lecturers in danger when they question evolution? Those people never criticise the Krebs cycle, photosynthesis, or metamorphosis, because they are established facts.
The ‘protection’ of Darwinism, or evolutionism by law, is highly suspicious. The only conclusion is: if they have to use the courts to protect the teaching of evolution, they tacitly admit that it is not science, but a faith. A faith in what Darwin proposed, namely that molecules can change to men, over millennia, by chance and luck. Because it has never been proven that evolution is a scientific fact, it needs protection.
It needs protection, as evolution is not about teaching science, but about teaching atheism. There is no God. Accept it, and don’t question it (it is because if evolution is true, then it follows logically that there can be no Creator God). Evolution is the foundation stone of atheism. In the drive to convert society to atheism, schools are a good place to enforce it.
If evolution is not true (which atheists cannot allow), creation is a fact. Then God is real, and that is not what they want people to know.
Nobody has yet proven that evolution is true (we exclude the usual beak of the finch, and other normal adaptations). It must be protected, otherwise atheists will have to concede that their faith is without evidence. Rational people don’t want that, so use the courts of law.
Question: Do you think protecting evolution by law is good evidence that it is true?