(Sourced from a concerned parent who wishes to remain anonymous)

NSW schools have a “Special Religious Education” class: even the title is a lie. It should read “Standard Religious Indoctrination Fraud”

Reproduced in full later in this article is a handout from a recent NSW High School SRE (Special Religious Education) class. The handout purports to examine the “discipline” of Biology but it distorts the science, lies about known facts and equates Natural Selection with Hitler’s program to exterminate the Jews.

Sample:

Corliss Lamont said “The processes of natural selection and survival of the
fittest, with the many mutations that occur over hundreds of millions of
years, adequately account for the origin and development of the species.”
The problem with such a statement is ethical: if the above statement is true
then the ultimate ‘moral good’ is survival, it cares not for the weak or the poor
or the helpless.
As one would expect; Hitler’s “Aryan Policies” and Engels’ “Marxism” were based
on this belief.

I continue with my informant’s submission:

Spelling and grammatical errors are as they appear in the original document.

There’s plenty wrong with this document. Rationality has been mangled beyond all recognition. Let me count the ways:

  • It’s wrong to suggest that biology or any other science must be interpreted according to one’s existing worldview.

Who is it that forms a conclusion then looks for confirming facts?
Oh, I remember now, it’s Creationists. As a science, Biology works the opposite way -
gathering facts, making a hypothesis about how the world works based on those facts, making predictions based on that hypothesis, and looking for further evidence both affirming and contradicting.

Science works as a way of knowing about the world because it continually tests its own conclusions and refines them over time.

  • Nobody who knows anything about biology says that life on earth is the result of “time + matter + chance”: it’s a complete straw man.
  • Various mentions of humanists and the “Humanist Manifesto I & II” add to the confusion. I thought the topic was biology, not philosophy.
  • Quoting scientists from decades or hundreds of years ago, particularly when they talk about what they did not know, is misrepresenting the current state of scientific achievement. The proffered quote by George Gaylord Simpson seems reasonably accurate even today, but could be quite misleading to junior High School students who have little background knowledge about the facts of evolution. Presented without explanation as it was, a student might infer that Simpson said what he did for some philosophical reason. After all, the humanists were just mentioned. Nowhere does it say that Simpson was a respected Paleontologist, nor that his career spanned the discovery of the structure of DNA (1953) and our understanding is progressing by leaps and bounds due to the study of molecular biology.
  • “Atheistic evolution” is used to ad-hominem evolution. The clear inference here is that believers should reject evolution because it is a philosophy which requires atheism. Sorry but that’s not how rational minds think. The theory of evolution should stand or fall on its own merits. Fortunately there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution.
         An understanding of evolution may well lead a person toward atheism.
         After all, evolution contradicts the Christian mythology. If there was no Adam and no Eve, then there was no Original Sin. With no Original Sin, there’s no reason for Jesos to die on the cross for you. Oh dear. And what about Noah and his Ark? How do they think he got all the marsupials to Australia without leaving any kangaroo fossils in the Middle East?
    This is yet more mangling of the science. And it’s dumbing down kids. The student participation for this class required only filling in the blanks in the above words. No critical thinking, no investigation, only a directed result. By filling in the missing words, this implicitly validates the descriptions underneath each.

The document then goes on to list 6 factors which it claims are fundamental to so-called atheistic evolution:

  1. Spontaneous Generation
  2. Natural Selection
  3. Struggle for Existence & Survival
  4. Mutations & Adaptations
  5. The Fossil Record
  6. Punctuated Equilibrium
  • Evolution deals only with the change in life over time, not the transition between non-life and life. That’s called Abiogenesis.
    Spontaneous Generation was disproven a couple hundred years ago: am I asking too much that Creationists should keep up with scientific advancements which occurred since the development of the motor car?
    A 150 year old quote from Darwin is followed by an assertion that the lack of a supernatural creator is “a problem”. It’s a lie, and it ignores 150 years of subsequent science.
  • Natural Selection is an important factor in evolution, but this document earns no accolades for recognising this fact. This and the former process were characterised as “random” which is certainly false.

I hope I’ve shown how thoroughly this document has got major
concepts wrong and deliberately misinformed students in other
areas. If Science this is, it is the Science of the Ignoramus
or of Artful Deceit. Creationists keep trying to have
Creationism (or its bastard sibling Intelligent Design) taught
in Science classes, and they have been rejected. Now I see that
there is also a need to keep them from teaching their version
of “Science” in the religious classes.

Here is the offending bullshit lying fraudulent “document” that was presented to captive and vulnerable minds:

(It was originally presented in the Comic Sans font, something that I am unable to reproduce easily in this WP website.

What is that internet law? “Anything presented in Comic Sans is WRONG!”.)

Imagine that it is written in green crayon.

SCRIPTURE 2010 : TERM THREE

The discipline we’ll examine today is commonly known as “the study of living things” or “Biology”.

This discipline will be interpreted in accordance with the foundation, upon which, your worldview is based. For example, from the religious perspective; life was created by a ‘higher power’ or ‘divine being’. From the non-religious perspective biology is entirely naturalistic, life in the differing forms are merely the products of the equation “Time + Matter + Chance” resulting in the same atoms rearranged in complex forms. So it makes sense that the various humanists througout history cling to a biological origin without the necessity of a transcendent ‘Creator’

“Man is the result of a PURPOSELESS and NATURAL process that did not have him in mind. He was not PLANNED. He is a STATE of matter, a
FORM of life, a SORT of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material.”
George Gaylord Simpson

According to the Humanist Manifesto I & II atheistic evolution is not one option among differing thoughts but rather THE ONLY option compatible with their worldview.

THOUGHT #1: Discuss how knowing your ‘origins’ affects your life, influence & conduct?

In looking at atheistic evolution we find there are 6 factors that must be adhered too!!

They are:

1. S_p_o_n_t_a_n_e_o_u_s G_e_n_e_r_a_t_i_o_n

Humanist biology accepts that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter by natural, random, processes.

Ironically Charles Darwin was not willing to postulate a theory on this idea; ”Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from on primordial form, INTO WHICH LIFE WAS FIRST BREATHED.”

Darwin himself felt the need to rely on some ’supernatural force’ to explain the existence of life … a problem for the Humanist, for the supernatural does not exist.

2. N_a_t_u_r_a_l S_e_l_e_c_t_i_o_n

This is the mechanism proposed by Darwin that, through competition and other factors such as mutations, predators, geography, and time, naturally and randomly allows those life forms best suited; to survive, live and continue. Essentially it is the ’survival of the fittest’; a theory Darwin came up with by observing the breeding of horses.

3. STRUGGLE FOR E_x_i_s_t_e_n_c_e & S_u_r_v_i_v_a_l

Corliss Lamont said “The processes of natural selection and survival of the fittest, with the many mutations that occur over hundreds of millions of years, adequately account for the origin and development of the species.” The problem with such a statement is ethical: if the above statement is true then the ultimate ‘moral good’ is survival, it cares not for the weak or the poor or the helpless.
As one would expect; Hitler’s “Aryan Policies” and Engels’ “Marxism” were based on this belief.

4. M_u_t_a_t_i_o_n_s & A_d_a_p_t_a_t_i_o_n_s

This aspect of atheistic evolution explains the ability to adapt to the environment. It explains why some life forms developed specialized abilities that allow them to survive in their particular situations.
Now ‘micro-evolution’ is widely accepted (the various improvements within a species) ‘macro-evolution’ (the changing of one species transforming to a completely different species) has still yet to be proved. An interesting point must be made regarding the meaningless adaptations that exist.

5. THE F_o_s_s_i_l R_e_c_o_r_d

This aspect reportedly gives us the physical evidence of the macro-evolution of one species to another. It is of note that there was no physical evidence when Darwin made his theory and there is no major divisions displayed by the fossil record that reveals a gradual crossing over of species (i.e. fish->amphibians-> ->reptiles->mammals). Due to this lack of evidence it has often been classed as an area of ‘faith’ this Julian Huxley says “Most of evolution is thus what may call short-term diversification. But his kaleidoscopic change is shot through with a certain proportion of long-term diversification in the shape of long-range trends revealed in fossils by the palentologist…”

6. P_u_n_c_t_u_a_t_e_d E_q_u_i_l_i_b_r_i_u_m

Chris McGowan, after admitting that the fossil record does not contain evidence of macro-evolution, jumps to the conclusion that a theory that allows for evolution and gets around the dilemma presented by the fossil record must be the scientific solution: “New species probably evolve only when a segment of the population becomes isolated from the rest. Speciation occurs relatively rapidly in a matter of only a few thousand years and possibly less.
So in other words it happens too quickly for any accurate fossils to be created.

My source ends with:

“no major divisions … reveals a gradual crossing over of species” is another lie. See Tiktaalik. Every fossil is transitional between one species and another.

Of course DNA analysis shows that no life is “completely different” from any other life; many of the genes are the same or can be traced back to progenitors.

* “The Fossil Record” gives this document a wide opening to get a lot of lying done. Fossils “reportedly” give physical evidence.

* “Struggle for existence & survival” seems out of place whether the topic is evolution or biology. It was included only as a bridge to compare evolution to Hitler’s policy of exterminating Jews, Homosexuals and other undesirables. As if being compared to Hitler wasn’t bad enough, Marxism is thrown in too.

* “Mutations & Adaptations” are a part of evolution – again, not explained (and this is one of the most interesting and complex areas within evolution) but seem to be listed merely so the author can tell some lies about so-called “macro-evolution”.
Firstly speciation never results in “the changing of one species to a completely different species”. The resulting species is actually “completely similar” and it’s only through the action of millions of years/generations that species diverge to be ”completely different”.

“There was no physical evidence when Darwin made his theory” and that’s just a lie. Fossils have been recognised as the remains of living organisms for several hundred years, even Da Vinci figured out that fossils contradicted biblical stories. Darwin himself collected fossils.

Finally we get to “Punctuated Equilibrium” and there’s another quote from a person of unknown position, made in an unknown year. It’s presented as a jumped-to conclusion – like a hunch or a guess. It ignores the thousands of scientists who did real, verifiable work cataloguing and investigating the fossil record. For the Creationist, these people may as well not exist.