THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES' SINISTER SCHEME TO TEACH OUR CHILDREN THEY'RE DESCENDED FROM REPTILES
The Atheists' Nest
"The evolutionary transition from reptiles to mammals is particularly well-documented in the fossil record."
From the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism published by the National Academy of Sciences, 2008
Imagine yourself standing in the administrative offices of your local junior high school. You are there to bring a forgotten lunch to one of your children. Two tall, forbidding men enter wearing black business suits with red-letter NAS (National Academy of Sciences) armbands. They sneer and brush past you. They ignore the receptionist and the other people working there, and head straight for the principal's office. Just as the startled educator looks up at the intruders, both slam their fists on his desk. In unison, they cry, "We represent infallible science. You must teach these children that they are descended from reptiles. It is impossible to disprove our findings, and wrong to challenge them; therefore, no other point of view will be tolerated."
When these men disregard you again on their way out, you follow and yell down the hall, "What evidence do you have that we are descended from reptiles?" They reply, "We don't need any evidence. All we have to do is say we have it in abundance. We are the philosopher kings of science."
Like any parent, you'd be outraged at such a scare tactic, and fuming at such an inexcusable display of coercive arrogance on the part of what you had considered to be a respected American scientific organization. And you'd be even more incensed when you found out that the principal had caved into the browbeating and, just as the bullies demanded, ordered the science department to teach your children that they are, indeed, descended from reptiles.
But don't worry, those goons aren't going to march into your school any time soon. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has achieved the same result in another way—by promoting their new book, Science, Evolution, and Creationism. The book, published in January of 2008 in response to continuing challenges to Darwinism, targets "school board members, science teachers and other education leaders, policy makers, legal scholars, and others in the community who are committed to providing students with quality [reptile-based] science education" (my brackets). They sent a copy to every public school principal and every science teacher in America.
This NAS book is not about real science—an open-ended search for truth in nature and the cosmos. It is about promoting the philosophical and religious world-view of the NAS in the science classroom, and throughout the rest of the academic world, and ultimately, throughout our culture as a whole. It is about preventing any consideration, any mention in the science classroom, of a Creator or evidence for intelligent design in nature.
What exactly is the philosophical and religious world-view of the NAS? Atheism is their foundational belief. A survey conducted in 1998 by the science journal Nature of 517 members of the NAS, of which half replied, revealed that 7% believed in a "personal god," 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism," and 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief."
The percent of outright atheists at the NAS is now even higher according to its own members. The following excerpt from the Beyond Belief Conference held in San Diego in November of 2006 is from Session Two, which began with a presentation from Neil deGrasse Tyson, the Director of the Hayden Planetarium, and one of the eighteen committee members responsible for producing the NAS book:
Tyson: I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don't. That's really what we've got to address here. Otherwise, the public is secondary to this. [Moderator then turns to the panel for responses.]
Larry Krauss: It's hard to know how to respond to Neil, ever. But the question you asked about, "Why 15%," disturbs me a little bit because of this other presumption that scientists are somehow not people and that they don't have the same delusions—I mean, how many of them are pedophiles in the National Academy of Sciences? How many of them are Republicans? [laughter] And so, it would be amazing, of course, if it were zero. That would be the news story. But the point is I don't think you'd expect them, in general, to view their religion as a bulwark against science or to view the need to fly into buildings or whatever. So the delusions or predilections are important to recognize, that scientists are people and are as full of delusions about every aspect of their life as everyone else. We all make up inventions so that we can rationalize our existence and why we are who we are.
Tyson: But Lawrence, if you can't convert our colleagues, why do you have any hope that you're going to convert the public?
Note that Larry Krauss uses the word "delusions" three times as he refers to the beliefs of the 15% of the members of NAS who maintain some kind of faith in God; that is, those who are not outright atheists like the rest. In another part of his speech on this same subject, Tyson vehemently demands to know, "How come this number [the 15% who believe in God] isn't zero?" Tyson is quite correct to raise this question. He wants to know why all the members of NAS aren't atheists because logically, they should be. Atheism and evolutionary Darwinism are inextricably bound together. To maintain otherwise is to enter the realm of, as Krauss says, "delusions."
The serious Darwinists have always known this. Sir Julian Huxley, considered by some to be the primary architect of Neo-Darwinism, called evolution "religion without revelation." In 1964, Huxley wrote, "Evolution is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth." Later in the same book he passionately argued that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern," going on to say that "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place." 1
As we'll see in Chapter 6, the NAS hierarchy, in order to bolster and "prove" its atheism, has constructed a closed, sacrosanct, counterfeit philosophy of science which completely eliminates the valid God hypothesis, along with any possibility of bringing it up again. Atheists need a Godless science, and that's exactly what Darwinism gives them. Cornell University evolutionist Will Provine has acknowledged this obvious inference:
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. 2
In his speech, part of which is cited on the previous page, Tyson referred to the members of the NAS as "the most brilliant minds the nation has." Such atheist elitism implies contempt for the non-elite, and it goes hand-in-hand with condescension towards those who worship the Supreme Spirit of Light and Love as their Creator and God.
Shortly after Neil Tyson spoke, Oxford professor and strident evolutionary atheist, Richard Dawkins, took the podium, heaping his usual scorn on all who believe in God. Dawkins entitled the first chapter of his latest book, The God Delusion, "A Deeply Religious Believer in No God." He is widely known for asserting that Darwinian evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. His disdain for believers is total. He had asserted in the past:
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). 3
The literature of evolutionary atheism is rife with such contempt and condescension. Stephen Law wrote in 2002:
. . . the only way children can be taught that creationism is true and supported by the available evidence is by instilling in them such twisted conceptions of logic and evidential support that they are likely to remain gullible idiots for the rest of their lives.
As I say, teaching that creationism is respectable science means teaching children to think in ways that are, literally, close to lunacy. 4
These are farmers of darkness, plowing into the minds of our children, planting their poisonous seeds of elitist atheistic evolution. Their deception is so systematized, so interwoven with bits of truth, that it is difficult for unwary readers to see with immediate clarity the false syllogism which animates the entire content of the NAS book:
All intelligent and competent scientists believe in evolution.
Creationists do not believe in evolution.
Therefore, creationists cannot be intelligent and competent scientists.
Science, Evolution, and Creationism is anything but an appeal to open-minded readers to use their powers of discernment to carefully consider the evidence. It is a cleverly disguised all-out, direct attack on the authority of the Word of God, and on all other challenges to their philosophical and religious dogma of evo-atheism (evolutionist atheism). In his speech, Tyson referred to himself and the other atheists of the NAS as "truth seekers." You'd think that these "truth seekers" would be somewhat forthcoming in their book about the institutional atheism at the NAS. But no, not a word, not an overt hint of the rank atheism governing every aspect of their examination of the natural world. The self-proclaimed elitist atheists in the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences know full-well that a candid presentation of their atheistic beliefs would only stir up resentment in America's Christian heartland. They can seek their atheistic "truth," they can even privately revel in it—they just can't be honest about it in a book designed to manipulate educators, teachers, and school children into it. And so in Science, Evolution, and Creationism, they expediently avow, for the benefit of gullible educators and teachers, that no conflict need exist between the Christian faith they despise and their brand of atheistic, evolutionary "science."
In Chapter 5, we'll examine this subterfuge in much detail because it is the most sinister part of their very sinister book. Let me give you a little foretaste of their deceitful hypocrisy now. The writers of the NAS book put forward the ruse that they are just thrilled that a few of their members embrace some kind of faith:
Many [evolutionary] scientists have written eloquently about how their [evolutionary] scientific studies have increased their awe and understanding of a creator. The study of [evolutionary] science need not lessen or compromise faith (my brackets). (p. 54).
Isn't that sweet! Come on in, everybody, especially you kids, and join the great evolutionary festivities! Learning about your descent by chance from worms and reptiles will strengthen your faith in "a creator," with a small "c," whoever he is.
But we've already seen the true thoughts that the members of the NAS hierarchy share with each other about those scientists who stubbornly retain some kind of faith in God:
I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don't . . . How come this number isn't zero? (Neil deGrasse Tyson, from above).
In that same chapter, we'll see how the evo-atheists of the National Academy of Sciences conceal their rabid atheism behind a band of religious apostates who, having gutted and perverted the essential truths of Christianity, now act as willing shills for evo-atheistic propaganda. This is the black heart of their book.
We'll see in Chapter 7 that evo-atheism is fundamentally and intrinsically a belief-system, a religion—as opposed to genuine science. By insinuating their religion into public school science classrooms as the only approved belief-system in that environment, the NAS hierarchy violates the intent and spirit of the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
We'll see in Chapter 8 that the NAS violates the spirit and intent of the First Amendment in another way. Their book is an instrument structured to suppress free speech and free thought in the science classroom and beyond. We'll see that their technique fits a pattern of suppression with which you already may be familiar, and one with which I am very well-acquainted through personal experience with another powerful group of word- and thought-tyrants.
Nothing good can come from teaching our children they are descended from reptiles. Nothing. It is one of those things that is always all bad.
We had a character in our Chesapeake Bay community several years ago who was known for his deceitfulness. Among other fraudulent dealings, he'd sell unsuspecting souls a bushel of what he said were live, all-male blue crabs for what seemed like a good price. On the top, he'd put a layer of big crabs. But once a buyer got the bushel home and went through it, he or she would find female crabs underneath and, at the bottom of the bushel, many illegal (too small) males. Sometimes, half the crabs would be dead and unsteamable. People called this character "the weasel."
In Science, Evolution, and Creationism, the NAS offers us several bushel baskets of what they say are evidence for evolution. But once we get past the top layer of rhetoric and go through the rest of the bushel piece by piece, as we do in Chapter 3 of this book, we find no actual evidence at all for the notion that we are descended from reptiles. When we look carefully, we find that the weasels from the NAS have presented us with bushel baskets empty of evidence. You may say here that I am name-calling. I most decidedly am not. What do you call people with a hidden, shameless agenda who try to sell you something that's not really there—who try to sell something to your children that's not really there—if not weasels?
When my daughter, Beth, reviewed my first draft of the manuscript for this book, she pointed out that the NAS book writers are worse than weasels. "They are more like termites," she said, "because with termites, you don't see the damage, you don't notice how thoroughly the truth has been undermined until it's too late."
The evo-atheists have fabricated what they call an "evolutionary tree." They maintain that any two living species today can be traced back to a common ancestor on their tree. According to their speculation therefore, a weasel and a termite can be traced back to the same ancestor. This is the fossil the geniuses at the NAS should be out in the field digging for. They are its first cousins.
Once we have established in Chapter 3 that the evo-atheists cannot produce any actual evidence for the origin of life, for the emergence of the sexes, or for the evolution of one distinct kind of organism into another, we go on in Chapter 4 to explain how, then, they and their "theory" are able to dominate the minds of so many. The answer is categorically and emphatically: seduction and deception.
Atheism thrives in academia. In Chapter 6, we're going to search out the origins of academia in the philosophy of the ancient academy of Plato in Athens, and learn how it connects to the NAS's seduction and deceit. We'll see that the philosophy which animates their atheistic religion came through the mind of Plato's mouthpiece, Sokrates, a totalitarian, elitist snob.
In Chapter 9, I present my own documented theory of the meaning of ancient Greek art, including the meaning of the sculptures of the Parthenon, and those of the temple of Zeus at Olympia. I maintain that the record shows that the Greeks have left us an account of their origins which matches in convincing detail the key events described in Genesis. If my theory is true, it completely confounds the tenets of atheistic evolution from an unexpected direction. But please, examine my evidence and judge for yourself.
Jesus said that it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but rather, what comes out of a man. What has come out of the leadership of the NAS most recently is Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a book which demands that the atheistic religious philosophy embraced by its hierarchy be taught exclusively and unchallenged in every public school science classroom in America. The evo-atheists attempt to disguise their true motives, but the very words and phrases they use in their book expose and defeat their own abominable purpose. They try to hide their atheism, but their associates betray them. They try to hide their lack of evidence, but their own language gives them away. They try to destroy creationism, but it emerges stronger than ever. They try to misrepresent Bible-believing Christians, but their scheme backfires. They try to use enchantment to overcome their lack of truth, but it winds up ensnaring them instead. Their book thus becomes a tad more "educational" than they had intended.
I love the English language and what it can reveal. In their preface (p. xii)—right from the get-go, so to speak—the NAS writers unconsciously concede that their evo-atheist viewpoint is false. They write that their booklet "shows how evolutionary theory reflects the nature of science" (my emphasis). A reflection does not produce a true picture. When you look in the mirror, your right eye becomes your left eye; your right arm becomes your left arm, etc. A reflection produces a false image, a backwards image. The NAS writers are quite correct: their "evolutionary theory" does, in fact, reflect "the nature of science;" that is, their "evolutionary theory" gets "the nature of science" exactly backwards. Their own words are thus the very thesis of this book. Whether you've looked into the issues dealt with here in any depth or not, you are in for some more exciting surprises in the chapters that follow.
- Julian Huxley, "Essays of a Humanist" (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p.125.
- Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in "Catching Up with the Vision", ed. by Margaret W. Rossister (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123. Thanks for citations 1 and 2 to Henry M. Morris in "The Scientific Case Against Evolution," icr.org.
- Richard Dawkins, "Put Your Money on Evolution," The New York Times (April 9, 1989), section VII, p. 35.
- Law, Stephen, "Is Creationism Scientific," in "Darwin Day Collection One", ed. by Amanda Chesworth, et. al (Albuquerque: Tangled Ban Press, 2002), p. 291.