This would be an interesting exercise in logical thinking if readers had not already been signaled that something is amiss. Also, the text used has been circulating in one form or another since at least 2015 (that is the earliest I could find). Take a look and see what is wrong with the text in this picture:
First of all, look at your calendar. It’s on a Monday. Second, Halloween isn’t a floating observance, but is always on the last day of October.
The Julian calendar was in use for a mighty long time, but became increasingly accurate. It was replaced by the Gregorian calendar beginning in 1582. So, there are not 666 years in this calendar system, and the typical “meme” maker does not bother with details involving calculating dates between Julian and Gregorian calendars.
Now, don’t be letting this put a burr under your saddle because I seem to be taking this a mite serious. That caption was clearly a prank, and kind of funny at that. This child wonders how many people believed it without bothering to use their think bones. What we have here is a very small example of how critical thinking applies in many areas of life.
Strange title, I know. The word evolution is constantly thrown around and assumed to be true. We are bombarded by assertions of particles-to-paranormal researcher evolution at every turn, and numerous things are simply assigned to it. Evidence? Naw, just say “it evolved” and look intellectual.
In an article a spell back, I discussed some of those paranormal videos popular on YouTube and elsewhere. They can be fun, but boring. Many are of unknown origin, the locations are not disclosed, cameras happen to be pointing at the right place at the right time (which strongly suggests they were staged), clips suddenly end, and all that good stuff. This child lacks belief that many are authentic, and that is one reason many are boring to me.
Something else that is troubling is how people do not use critical thinking skills, seeming to prefer confirmations of their biases. A video of lights in the sky is proof that aliens are visiting Earth, sounds and a wispy figure are definitely the lingering spirit of someone who died there, yada yada yada. I think y’all can figure out the questions that need to be asked, beginning with, “How do you know?”
On the Slapped Ham channel, Kallen (who seems like a nice guy and I would like to spend some time talking with him) has a segment involving pareidolia. That is where people see faces, shapes, and other things that do not actually exist. (I can “see” Charles Darwin’s profile in a tree just outside.) Similarly, musical ear syndrome is where someone is “hearing” a musical tune that does not really exist. In both cases, the mind is trying to make sense of what is seen or hears. I am greatly oversimplifying, but you can look these up your ownselves if you’ve a mind to.
He had a clip about a creepy face in a tree, and people were recording how they switched headlights on and off to change the visibility. You can see it here at the 1 min. 49 sec. mark. It’s fun for a while and includes a discussion of pareidolia, then Kallen tainted it with, “This ability to see faces has evolutionary advantages. It helped our ancestors to survive by allowing them to quickly identify friends and foes.” Sorry, Kallen, but how do you know? Were you there? Got evidence? Not possible, because that is a Just-So Story told by fundamentalist evolutionists and you’re probably simply repeating it.
As you see, even in our entertainment we get evolutionary propaganda. I could make a series on this stuff. Purveyors of evoporn may not even realize that they’re spreading misinformation because they’ve been successfully indoctrinated. The rest of us must remain alert, ask questions, and use critical thinking to avoid being humbugged.
This article may appear to be one of those “atheists are nasty to me so I will pay them back” things, but if you’ll stay with me on this trail, you’ll see where it leads. (Edited for wording 1 September 2022.)
After all these years dealing with misotheists, I should no longer be amazed at their vitriol and bigotry. It seems to be increasing. (It may be a sign of the Last Days, but I will not delve into eschatology this time.) Many professing atheists (Romans 1:18-23) claim to believe in freedoms of speech, expression, and thought, but they seek out and ridicule Christians for doing those very things.
They frequently try to put us on the defensive by dodging what we discuss, introducing new subjects, ignoring replies, more dodging, and attempting to intimidate. They get furious — furious, I tell you — when we don’t let them manipulate us and play “Gotcha!” games.
If you study on it, you may also notice that Christians and biblical creationists are not “allowed” to argue from our own worldview. Those atheists insist that we engage on their terms and accept atheistic naturalism, but they call it “neutral ground” or some such. Christian, if you agree to “leave the Bible out of it”, you’ve just agreed with the atheist that God’s Word is incorrect when it discusses them and their rebellious condition! There is no neutral ground. You savvy that, Pilgrim?
There have been times where I have read comments such as this one: “My atheism is a side effect of being intelligent, rational, logical, and basing my conclusions on evidence.” However, they show an extreme lack of knowledge of science, evolution, logic, and Christianity. Then they make statements about God, the Bible, Christianity, Christians, biblical creationists, etc. Such remarks are simply prejudicial conjecture, indicating that those making them are not interested in serious discussions.
The one I quoted above has frequently stated that he already knows that the Bible, creation science, and other things presented by Christians are “wrong” and will not read them or watch the videos. This is being informed? No. I think that kind of arrogance is a cover for cowardice.
Indeed, he even reacted to a post and said that I don’t “understand what a theory is in science.” Boskus, the Page owner, humiliated himself yet again because he not only attributed the article to me, but if he had read it, he would have learned that it was written by a scientist. Scientists know what a theory is in science, if I recollect rightly.
Over and over, we get proven right by the atheistic goat rodeo denizens who do not display original thought, and especially their lack of critical thinking. F’rinstance, see how alleged Bible contradictions are shredded. Objections to Christianity and especially biblical creation are contumeliously thrown about by those with Atheism Spectrum Disorder, but for those of us with experience, we read and hear the same old nonsense. Mr. Bentley has a short, humorous article on the responses of atheists that I suggest you read.
My previous article on this weblog was a retooled post from Fakebook that examined alleged logic and morality from certain misotheists. It prompted reactions. One was built on complete dishonesty, including putting words in my mouth. I saw that he was just another angry bigot who was justifying his rebellion against Almighty God, and not worth my time. (I reckon he sent about ten visits here with his link.) If you go there, note that he doesn’t exactly enforce the comments policy for his sycophants.
A second reaction was written by an acolyte of the first writer. His comments on this weblog were the same old boilerplate rhetoric. When I stopped responding and allowing his disingenuous comments, he wrote his own post. I was a mite irked when I gave one reply:
To show the brilliance of The Mighty Atheist™, you begin with an ad hominem, using cowboy as a pejorative. This is followed by a hasty generalization about my knowledge of atheists based on just one article. I’ve got some bad news for you, Sunshine, I’ve been writing about atheists, theology, and other things for somewhere around fifteen years. That means I won’t fall for tricks. So, have fun with your argument from silence and other logical fallacies in your vindictive, petty post. Mayhaps when your frontal lobes develop and you can have a rational discussion, I’ll let you comment on my posts again, mmmkay?
I didn’t bother to read any responses.
There are a couple of things I’ve said on other occasions: The days of “You believe, I don’t, let’s turn on the game and watch it,” are long gone. Also, since evolution is foundational to the religion of atheism, they really get on the prod when fish-to-fool evolution is doubted. Things can be going well between a misotheist and a Christian, but express evidence against evolution and supporting creation (especially the Genesis Flood), and they’re ready to slap leather.
I know this trail is a mite long, but the end is in sight.
The secular science industry is dominated by atheists. Although the adored peer review process is saturated with difficulties and some even want it scrapped, they stay with it. A spell back, someone used a vile word and secularists rode into town and shot up the saloon. It began with a “c”. Yep, someone said “Creator“, and it wasn’t even meant in reference to the real Creator that we will all stand before in Judgment.
I mentioned earlier about a post that was written by a scientist. That atheist discussed earlier was angry because the title was, “Many Scientists Believe Scientific Theories Religiously.” It’s true. While they claim to believe things because of evidence, there is no empirical support for many of those things. Just-So stories (here’s a passel of them for example), inferences, bad science, fraud — sure. We get a prairie-schooner full of that. But nothing helpful.
Also, atheists and evolutionists hate presuppositional apologetics, but they are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves! Christians are to presuppose the truth of the Bible, but atheists and Darwin’s disciples presuppose evolution, deep time, that everything came from nothing, and materialism. There is precious little empirical evidence, and it is dragged down by the stones of all of those assumptions.
A post I saw this morning brought all these things together for me. There is a firefight among materialists about the Webb telescope and the Big Bang. Essentially, “Liar! I never said what you said I said!” Meanwhile, accusations against Eric Lerner were shallow, since he has rejected the Big Bang for decades. (His own belief has no evidence, however.) This link is to a secular article that affirms the “facts” of the Big Bang, but I present it here with a coarse wording warning.
All of this is to say that misotheists and evolutionists fiercely guard their origins myth, and despise freedoms of speech, expression, and thought. It is not about evidence, because they really don’t have any! It is a spiritual problem. God exists, they know it, but suppress the truth. Many hate his followers, like this sidewinder:
Many feral atheists have repented and become Christians. There are several in the biblical creation science organizations. Sin affects all areas of one’s thinking, and with salvation and the entrance of God’s Word comes light.
On occasion, I would write a “Note” on Facebook for fans of my Pages. Since Fakebook took away the Notes and made them very difficult to find, I’m putting a few on my weblogs. This one was originally posted in 2020. It’s been edited.
Those “freethinkers’ marching in lockstep, getting their “facts” from atheopath talking points clearinghouses, seem determined to argue with Christians and creationists about practically everything. Can’t let those st00pid dujmb theist be right, especially when they have corrected us on science, logic, theology, or anything else. Nosiree! Although I should not feed these attention-craving trolls, this is a good opportunity to do a bit of teaching.
Many professing atheists seek their identities in denying the existence of God, which is galactically stupid even on the surface. Study on it a spell. How many a-Easter-Bunny-ists write and sell books, form groups, make videos, have people pay money to join their “reason circle” to combat the Easter Bunny, use anti-Bunny profile icons, and more? It’s because there is no Easter Bunny, but they know God exists and suppress the truth! For some inexplicable reason, ridicule is an acceptable substitute for rational discourse and proves them right. Contradiction and ridicule are not refutation. You savvy that, pilgrim?
It is amazing that so many of Satan’s handmaidens reflexively contradict us, thrusting their atheopathy into the bright spotlight. For example, informed creationists often have to correct evolutionists and professing atheists on their own belief systems and scientific truth. Also, you would think that people who claim to believe in reason, science, and logic would have at least some skill in using those things. Instead, we are subjected to bullying and malarkey. Most are all hat, no cattle.
When caught making errors or lying, some simply double down.
Take a look at this example from an atheopath (whose biggest fan ridicules under a fake name) and pretends to be anonymous. He doesn’t even have the courage to read or view the creationist materials he assumes are wrong or lies (a fallacy of relevance that is called Bulverism):
Scientists know that dark matter exists because they can calculate the amount of mass and it doesn’t account for the amount of gravity.
No, that’s a talking point (an erroneous one at that) based on presuppositions of the Big Bang. It has been Frankensteined over the decades, saw a bit off here, add something there…it has little resemblance to the “theory” of long ago. Biblical creationists reject it for both scientific and theological reasons. A few renegade secular scientists also reject it. (By the way, ever read The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner? I thought he was making a case for creation, but instead, he was spinning a yarn for something even more outrageous than the Big Bang.) For that matter, evidence for the Big Bang is so poor, some scientists say that the universe itself should not exist! No wonder that dark matter, a critical component of the failed Big Bang, cannot be found.
So they know something is out there.
Of course, by limiting other possible explanations and seeking to confirm a bias, evidence can be tortured so much, it will confess to anything. People like this should know that God exists because the evidence is all around them.
They just haven’t yet figured out exactly what it is.
Similar to Darwinian Evolution of the Gaps, wishful thinking and hoping that maybe perhaps possibly scientists think that some day, evidence will be found — that ain’t science, girlfriend, that’s blind faith.
But leave it to creationist knuckleheads to deny it.
We’re “knuckleheads” for denying something that scientists admit has no evidence other than something that is occasionally inferred? Makes perfect sense on your planet, but not in reality. They keep searching, but keep failing to detect dark matter. Here is just one example, which I used as a screenshot in the original.
For those who engage the genetic fallacy and reject material from biblical creationists, here is one example from a secular source. Do your homework, there are more.
In their rabid hatred of God, Christians, and especially biblical creationists, bigots like this are fond of perverting Scripture. It’s who they are and what they do, even when the truth applies to them — and they end up proving God right yet again.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)
There are several aspects to Question Evolution Day that many people can support, such as biblical creationists and even professing atheists or agnostics who believe in freedoms of speech, expression, academic, and thought. Fundamentalist evolutionists and atheists find it execrable. They attempt to silence this day as well as creationists themselves through ridicule, misrepresentation, outright lies, and more. I thought an important part of rational and scientific inquiry is to allow the examination of contrary evidence, but I’m just a nobody. It is easy to think that those who claim to believe in freedom of speech only support it if the material supports the consensus.
Here’s an area that I must confess to having inconsistency. There have been several misotheists and anti-creationists who want to slap leather with me over the years, and several times I have pledged to stop featuring their comments and such as examples of bad logic and bigotry. I was giving them the attention they seem to crave. Then they give me something else that needs to be used. C’est la guerre.
The above image was posted on Fakebook and these misotheists did the usual: share for the purpose of mockery. First, I want to point out that the owner of that Page and his few fans complain when creationists point out that Charles Darwin was a blatant racist, they falsely claim that we are engaging in ad hominem attacks. Then they hypocritically use their own. Frequently.
By the way, notice the “ha ha” emoji. Atheists love those, even when they’ve been caught lying or given irrefutable evidence for something. No intelligent response, just a childish retort.
The two sentences in the comment on the “share” are chock full o’ fallacies, so let’s give them a look-see.
As I said, they usead hominems frequently. This one has “idiots”, “moronic”, and “clowns”. Some people defend the use of insults and say that are not ad hominems when not used in the course of an argument, but I disagree. It is still to the man and is a way to dismiss what another person or group has to say.
For that matter, an insult can also be a form of poisoning the well to discredit what the other says before any statement is made. If someone states, “No, that’s not an ad hominem, I simply insulted you”, it should not be allowed to stand. It does nothing to advance an argument or position, and is harmful.
Note the viperine conflation of evolution with science, which is common among anti-creationists. This is frequently expanded so that, if we reject atoms-to-atheist evolution, we reject science. Not hardly!
If you study on it a mite, you’ll see that their attitude is anti-science. You betcha, since those who
One need not be a creationist or Intelligent Design proponent to have doubts about evolution. It is in no wise “settled science” or “proven”, since science can’t prove anything, and a true spirit of science it so seek knowledge (which includes adjusting or even rejecting bad theories), not protecting the prevailing paradigm.
Dissent from Darwin has been signed by over 1,200 scientists (and MDs who are also professors of medicine). As discussed at Piltdown Superman, this is essentially blaspheming Darwin and, therefore, hazardous to their careers. If there were more professional, academic, and other freedoms, there would undoubtedly be more signers.
I am once again reminding people that there are many credentialed scientists in the creation community that have published in refereed journals in their own fields. Of course, evidence refuting evolution and supporting creation is not allowed in the secular science industry. It makes Darwin frown.
Implicit in the line, “As if a bunch of Creationist clowns are going to cause science to abandon evolutionary theory”, is an appeal to motive fallacy. Since that Admin uses the genetic fallacy as an excuse to avoid reading creationist material, he doesn’t know what Question Evolution Day is about in the first place.
When I started QED, I never said that it would cause the secular science industry to abandon one of their foundations. (Indeed, glance through this collection of Darwin Day images and notice the religious fervor. Somehow, a couple of QED images made it into the mix.) I am a nobody. Fact. I wasn’t being facetious before. And I know I don’t have much influence or power. This is a movement by and for the people who actually care about getting out the truth and prompting people to think for themselves instead of floating down the stream of “consensus science”.
This may put some people off, but mayhaps some of my history will be useful.
Creation Ministries International had a Question Evolution! campaign that included several videos and questions that evolutionists cannot answer. I made a comment that there should be a Question Evolution Day. Didn’t happen, so, being a cowboy at heart, I took the initiative and started the observance. Not much happened.
I asked for other people to participate, and had a boost a few times from Creation Today. Ian Juby promoted QED on Genesis Week a couple of times. Many other people wrote weblog articles (Duane Caldwell has done several at Rational Faith), and people on social(ist) media had their own material as well as sharing hash-tagged #questionevolutionday posts.
Writing that stuff makes me uncomfortable because I have long said (and pray to remind myself) to seek glory to God, not glory to Bob.
Even so, one point to QED is that a passel of us common folk can get together and spread the world. We can hope and pray that people will realize that they are not getting all the facts from atheistic materialists. They may question evolution and realize that the God of the Bible is the Creator — that means he makes the rules and we should find out what he has to say.
As for angry atheists…they can’t hurt us. Sure, ridicule and say all sorts of evil things, it’s who they are and what they do. But they can’t stop the truth, and people don’t need to spend much time on hard-hearted trolls, you savvy?
I hope all y’all will get involved in Question Evolution Day, our protest against Darwin-mandated science philosophies can be heard!
It happens at The Question Evolution Project and other places on teh interwebs where professing atheists and evolutionists want to correct Christians and creationists of our “wrong” views. Many of us have encountered some tinhorn who is essentially communicating, “I tried so hard to talk sense to them, but my efforts are scorned. Oh, martyr me!” However, what they put in comments and the story they tell their friends are usually very different.
Everyone has a worldview, even if they haven’t done a systematic study and written a thesis about it. Evolution is a foundational aspect of the religion of atheism, and I have seen where seen where atheists may be having discussions with Christians, but when the Christian expresses doubt about evolution, the atheist is ready to slap leather and the civility was forced; one of the atheist’s main foundations was threatened.
Worldviews have presuppositions (things believed to be true without empirical proof), and evolutionists presuppose atheistic naturalism. One assumption is that evolution doubters are Fundamentalist Christians (although their definition of “Fundamentalist” is a vague pejorative), and that we are uneducated. When it is pointed out that there are people with advanced degrees who not only reject atoms-to-atheist evolution, the “No True Scotsman” fallacy is invoked, because no true scientist would even think of questioning evolution. Creationist scientist are not real scientists. Because atheism.
There is a serious problem with epistemology. and many of Darwin’s cheerleaders are shocked — shocked, I tell you — when creationists they come across know more about evolution than they do. Evolution defenders often use outdated and discredited information in their attempts to correct or refute us, but display massive ignorance of current evolutionary thinking (or even basic science itself). We are subjected to sanitized Darwinism without faults, errors, contradictions, and controversy among secular scientists. No, evolution is not a “proven fact”,
Instead of letting Christians and creationists have freedom of expression of our views (or even to have our beliefs in the first place), a typical village atheist is compelled to attack us. There are many screenshots I could add here, but that would be excessive.
I’ve got some bad news for you, Sunshine: disagreement is not refutation, and dehumanizing us does not make you right. Snarking at people who post or share creation science material instead of presenting cogent objections to the writers is absurd. Ignoring material about dishonesty in evolutionary propaganda (here is one example) is disingenuous. People who mock and ridicule out of hatred and bigotry don’t deserve much time. You savvy?
Also, engaging in groupthink to win approval from the tribe is not only the suppression of thought, but a losing proposition.
Trolling is common, and some atheists make a pretense at an intellectual approach, using various forms of philosophy. These are invariably red herrings that avoid the subject at hand. Many want to control the conversation, and become upset when knowledgeable creationists keep the pressure on and hold them to the subject at hand.
Sure, there are some Christians and creationists who should not be involved in online arguments. Some are prideful, and too many lack knowledge of theology and what creationists believe and teach. Passion is no substitute for a reasonable response, and those folks need to grow in grace and knowledge before trying to do apologetics.
Actually, I lack belief that most online atheists and evolutionists are being honest when they play the innocent victim card. Let’s face it, this is an attempt to gain points against the st00pid dumb creatards and salvage their egos. As many of us have seen, it is usually based on prejudicial conjecture, bigotry, and simplistic ridicule — which backfires when given an examination. We know the truth.
The mind likes to have complete information, and sometimes we fill in the blanks. When doing cloud gazing or looking into a distorted mirror, pareidolia can kick in so we “see” something that is not there (an extreme example is the lady on Mars). I have a problem with tinnitus as well as apophenia (musical ear), where people tend to “hear” distant music and similar things. Psychologically, we fill in the blanks with nonexistent details when data is missing, and then we create a story.
There are also times when people think they know something, but are really turning the details into hash. They may be drawing from incomplete memories, things they heard or read somewhere, assumptions, and so on. The secular science industry has a habit of sticking to the naturalism narrative, and they have often been baffled when observed facts conflict with the Bearded Buddha’s machinations. This makes for
People think they know about the Bible, but often get details wrong. Since we have classical art going, it’s interesting that Michelangelo knew enough about the subject to include the serpent before the Curse and gave it something resembling limbs. (It looks like Adam’s scolding it, which is not in the account.) Masaccio seemed ignorant of the details, having Adam and Eve leave the garden naked — Genesis tells us otherwise. Gustave Dore was pretty accurate, though.
It seems reasonable that the more important a subject, the more people should make an effort to be correct on the details. Sure, people speculate all the time. However, when faulty memories, a preferred narrative or bias, and other things are in our minds, it’s best to refrain from being insistent.
There are several views regarding the nature of the serpent in Eden. I thought I was entertaining a unique view that since Eve didn’t seem surprised that the serpent talked, that maybe Eden was like Narnia with talking animals, but that idea is as old as the apocryphal Book of Jubilees. But I was very tentative on that. Check the facts before being dogmatic on alleged scientific facts, about the nature of the serpent, and other things.
Now I would like to encourage you to read an article about things we think we know, and how we may use speculation as truth. This one focuses on the serpent. If you’ve a mind to, spare a few minutes and read “The Devil Is in the Details . . . or Is He?“
Something I have been emphasizing for years is the importance of definitions (see this 2013 article, “Science, Evolution and the New Golden Rules“). The simplest practical example is to have people to define their terms in a discussion so they will not end up talking past one another because they are working with different definitions of key words in their minds.
A favorite trick from anti-creationists, atheists, leftists and so on is to change definitions. The established definition of atheist, for example, is someone who believes there is no God or gods. They disingenuously redefined it to “lack of belief”. Another example is evolution. People who have read my work before may have noticed that I seldom write “evolution” at the outset, but qualify it (particles-to-paleontologist, dust-to-Dark Knight, universal common descent, etc.; but “the neo-Darwinian synthesis” and similar phrases are cumbersome). This specific word use is because there are sidewinders who conflate change, adaptation, variation, and others with evolution.
I disremember where I came across the article that inspired my own (linked below). It emphasizes the cultural and political aspects of definitions and redefinitions. People are not taught how to think. Instead, they are being told what to think. The danger is that people in positions of power and influence can appeal to emotions instead of reason to more easily control sheeple.
There are words that didn’t even exist a few years ago that are part of everyday speech (especially when leftists use it for propaganda with concentration and repetition). How often do you see or hear racist or related words used? While racism does exist, true racism loses its impact and believability when the claim is bandied around loosely. Also, the word homophobe is nonsense; I don’t phobe any homos, and neither do you. How about fascist? It is horribly overplayed as well — people don’t even know what it actually means, and is practically redefined as, “Someone I don’t like and want to have silenced”. These tinhorns may shout the loudest, but that doesn’t make them right.
Leftists use loaded terminology to color stories and people’s perceptions, and they also ignore or underplay news that is contrary to their agendas. A black man is killed by police, everyone in the media loses their minds. Black people beat and kill white people? Nobody bats an eye. A new discovery to support evolution is promoted, big excitement. When it is proven false, obedient lapdogs of the secular science industry are asleep.
The article I mentioned earlier also mentioned how social jargon is used for social signaling. That brought dog whistle to mind. It wasn’t that long ago that a dog whistle meant a dog whistle. Now, it’s a political and social way of sending signals to certain people. This child believes hashtags are dog whistles. Sometimes it is difficult to read a post because there are so man of them, and in different colors because they are also hyperlinks of sorts. (For #God so #loved the world, #salvation #Jesus #Bible #Reformed. Oh, please!) In one of my early experiences on Twitter, I was warned by an atheist that if I used the word atheist, I was risking “calling down the thunder”. It turns out that they would call for help by tagging #atheist in their comments and I would get swarmed. It’s happened many times.
Secular education systems are essentially extensions of the Ministry of Truth (if you don’t know what that is, look it up, I’ll wait here). Using emotional tactics, there is increasing ridicule of homeschoolers from the left. They also use boilerplate terms of disrespect such as lack of socialization skills. (Yes, poor kids are missing out on school shootings, rape, drug abuse, and all those fun things learned in socializing.) When children are taught about God, creation, the Bible, and other truths at home, secularists scream that we are “indoctrinating” them. In reality, children are not being indoctrinated as well when they are not at schools for much of their lives, and the left is incensed by that.
At this point, I’d be much obliged if y’all would do two things. First, read “On the Road to Newspeak” (why it’s Protestant Post, I have no idea, because the principles apply to more than just Protestants). When you read it, see how this applies to not only biblical creationists, but also to Christians in general.
The other thing I’m asking is for you to watch this video. (There’s a bit of profanity, but you’ll get past it.) Notice how reality is subverted for the sake of personal preferences, appeals to emotion, loaded terminology, and other things. The satire is not far from the truth.