dimanche 5 août 2012

Why Hate Creationism in Schools?

Just saw a video with the beautiful Autumn Lauber. The one about South Carolina primaries.

A lovely person, but ... Autumn, how come you hate Texas for saying Creationism should be taught alongside Evolution as two alternatives in science classes?

Are basically saying State should leave science class to each school and choice of school to each parent? Then I am with you. But somehow that sounds a bit more Tea Party than I heard you on politics so far.

You see, Southern Baptists do not have a monopoly world wide on not being used to people not thinking as they do. Growing up as a Creationist after my return to Sweden from Vienna, a return at age 11 and a half in 1980, and as a Creationist among Darwinists, I know something about people not being used to being with someone who thinks differently from them.

It is a trait which can work for good or for evil depending on which side has the upper hand. It is a trait that can be rationally motivated and limited to a proper use, or exaggerated, or abused.

If I am right, every time Darwinists use that trait and the upper hand against Creationists, they simply abuse it. If you are right, are you sure you do not exaggerate it?

Teaching Darwinism and up to Sarkozy very recently no creationism of any kind in French schools has not spared France some Islamist Terrorists, one could even say it has helped provoke the Islamic Sectarianism by its Secularist Sectarianism.

In Sweden it has bred a mentality among atheists where a Secularist like Anna Lindh could say that "Islam and Christianity are very close". True enough if by Christianity you mean the very watered down Lutheranism of Swedish State Church as it was up to year 2K, very different from the more traditional Lutheranism you know from your own family. I mean if they put up with doubts about Holy Trinity in some cases and put up with or even encourage a certain repressive teetotalism in others, are they very far from Muslims? No, but some Christians are.

Serbian Orthodox are pretty conservative as European Orthodox Christians go. Anna Lindh was foreign minister when Sweden decided to defend Kosova's Muslim Albanian majority against the Serbian attempt to drive them onto the Albanian side of the common frontier. And after Serbia was beaten, one Orthodox monastery had every monk killed, another the buildings burning.

Of course Serbia was to recently part of Yugoslavia where religious differences were played down Anna Lindh style. And where the Darwinism Anna Lindh believed in was taught in every school and Creationism was taught legally in no school. And Kosova was part of Serbia, and neighbouring Albania was even more Communist.

Anna Lindh was killed by a Serbian emigrant in Sweden. After he was declared criminally insane, a Serbian priest declared: "the word Kosovo" (I think he used the Albanian form, with -o) "was not mentioned in the process."

So, Anna Lindh for growing up like a Darwinist was neither exactly avoiding bloodshed in Kosova nor exactly avoiding it in Sweden, since her careless words provoked the killing of her.

If Darwinism is wrong, that is to be expected. If Darwinism is right, that doesn't help the fact that countries teaching it with obligation and excluding Creationism's scientific argumentations (or un-scientific, but scientific type) from science classes is in reality making for a trouble which it pretends to avoid. Albania, Serbia, Sweden. Cases in point. I suppose the gunmen at Columbine High School, Klebold and his pal, were Darwinists too.

If Christianity is true, some people risk an eternity in Hell for not hearing about it. If Darwinism is true, who risks what for not hearing about it? Intolerance on earth? But what if intolerance is being taught as much by Darwinism as by anything else? Is that a reason for the state to be intolerant in favour of Darwinism? Or do you think Evolution is part of some "Cosmic Enlightenment" necessary for the next "Nacaals" to avoid the next "Atlantis Catastrophe", or something? As you would kind of be guessing, we Christians do not agree.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou Library
10th Sunday after Pentecost

PS: I was going to write you a kind of love letter, but I think we might have these things to sort out - and if we do not it will not be appropriate.

PPS: I can realise why science teachers hate Texas. If they are, as most are for historical reasons, Darwinists. It would not be nice for them to voice the case against their convictions. And it would not be nice for them to hand over parts of their lessons to opponents. But is that a reason for everyone else to sympathise with them?

2 commentaires:

  1. Quote:Luciferianism is the product of religious engineering, which sociologist William Sims Bainbridge defines as "the conscious, systematic, skilled creation of a new religion" ("New Religions, Science, and Secularization," no pagination). In actuality, this is a tradition that even precedes Bainbridge. It has been the practice of Freemasonry for years. It was also the practice of Masonry's religious and philosophical progenitors, the ancient pagan Mystery cults. The inner doctrines of the Mesopotamian secret societies provided the theological foundations for the Christian and Judaic heresies, Kabbalism and Gnosticism. All modern Luciferian philosophy finds "scientific" legitimacy in the Gnostic myth of Darwinism. As evolutionary thought was popularized, variants of Luciferianism were popularized along with it (particularly in the form of secular humanism, which shall be examined shortly).

  2. Source of above quote

    In other words, Autumn, you could be one person within an environment dominated partly by that.