Tuesday, May 29, 2012

How stale and boring is evolutionary indoctrination? Is the public fooled or are they suspicious? What is the trend?

Is the public tiring of hearing evolutionary bunk? How stale and boring is evolutionary bunk and evobabble? Is there a way to measure it? Can we see how much public interest in evolutionism has waned in the last 7 years?

You are going to be amazed on how boring Darwinism nonsense truly is!

Does the public want a change?

The year 2009 was the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth and it also was the 150th anniversary of the publication of his racist work On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

An October 27, 2009 article entitled The More They Know Darwin, The Less They Want Darwin-Only Indoctrination declared:
According to an international poll released by the British Council, the majority of Americans -- 60% -- support teaching alternatives to evolution in the science classroom. The percentage is the same for Britons, despite the fact that both countries have been inundated with pro-Darwin media coverage in this super-mega Darwin Year.

Of course, the British media reporting this are chagrined. Britain is the birthplace of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, and the official-sounding British Council, the UK group behind the "Darwin Now" campaign that commissioned the Ipsos MORI poll, have spent precious resources educating the world about Darwin. Now some believe the poll shows that efforts by Darwinist organizations aren't working.

Clearly many in the public are suspicious of the lies of Darwinists and believe something is amiss. Since the Scripture declares that the beauty. majesty and design of creation testifies to the existence of God, this is hardly surprising (Romans 1:18-22, Psalm 19:1-4).

Is atheism insipid and boring? Does it make people's eyes glaze over?

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent defenders of the evolutionary position which uses methodological naturalism have been atheists. This is the type of evolutionism promoted in public schools.

A few relevant quotes about atheism:

"Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?" - John Updike

"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." - Sir Isaac Newton

Google trends for the search evolution

As can be seen in the upper graph of the Google Trends graphs below, people are showing less and less and less interest in "evolution" during the period from 2004-2011:

As you can see in the upper graph of Google Trends graphs above, the public is showing less and less interest in evolution.

Granted there are products which incorporate the word "evolution" in their title so we will take a look at the searches theory of evolution, evolutionary theory and evolution using the service Google Insights for Search also.

Google Insights for Search Trends for the searches evolution, theory of evolution and evolutionary theory

With Google Insights for Search, you can compare search volume patterns across specific regions, categories, time frames and properties.

1. Theory of evolution, Google Insights for Search:

It also seems as if the evolutionists are having a hard time convincing people that evolution is a bona fide scientific theory.

2. Evolutionary theory, Google Insights for Search:

3. Evolution, Google Insights for Search:

World interest in Jesus keeps increasing while interest in barren and stale evolutionism and atheism keeps waning

In some previous posts, we demonstrate that world interest in Jesus is exploding while interest in the evolutionary and atheistic nonsense is declining.

Jesus vs. Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers - Jesus wins!

Round 2: Jesus vs. Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers - Jesus triumphs again! Onward Christian soldiers!

Internet atheism - The thrill is gone!

Decline of atheism: An established trend

Global decline of atheism

Christians, strike while the iron is hot!

Help spread the word about Question Evolution! Campaign and its 15 questions for evolutionists and watch the decline of world interest in the shallow foolishness of Darwinism and atheism accelerate!

Related resources:

Question Evolution! Campaign

15 questions for evolutionists

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1-3

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 9-15

Refuting evolution


Related posts at our Question Evolution! Campaign blog:

Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism

Cutting off the air supply of atheism

Why is evolution pushed by dogmatic evolutionists?

The high price of NOT asking the 15 Questions for Evolutionists in your classroom

Photo credits:

1. Snoozing man: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/results.aspx?qu=boring&ctt=1#ai:MC900196546|mt:0|


  1. As someone who lives in Britain, I'm very, very sceptical of '' 60% -- support teaching alternatives to evolution in the science classroom. The percentage is the same for Britons'' so help me out here, where are these well known British organisations against teaching evolution? I've only met two people who oppose evolution in this country, is everyone just keeping a low profile?

  2. Felix,

    Thank you for your reply.

    I will ask you some questions in order to convey my thoughts on this matter in a clear and succinct matter.

    Here are my questions:

    1. Can you satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and are you willing to engage in a public internet radio debate on these questions that would be recorded? A college biology student would probably be participating in the debate.

    2. Why did the well-known scientists in Galileo's time oppose him concerning the matter of falling bodies? See: http://www.vias.org/physics/bk1_05_01.html Did they allow mere philosophy to trump empirical science? Is it possible that atheist, agnostics, deists and others adherents of other worldviews, could be obstinately ignoring the clear evidence for biblical creation? If not, why not?

    3. Is true science a voting both and based on being well-known and/or popular or is it based on repeatable experiments and empirical evidence?

    4. Did Albert Einstein perform good science? How many of Einstein’s 300+ papers were peer reviewed?

    5. Daniel Shechtman won a Nobel Prize in chemistry. Why did he initially find it difficult to get his work published in peer-reviewed science journals?

    6. Are you an atheist or agnostic? If so, do you have any proof and evidence that atheism/agnosticism is true?

  3. Probably a more interesting number in the survey is that only 7% believed the was not enough evidence to support evolutionary theories. Secondly, 54% believe that it is possible to hold the view that evolution and creationism both have merit. 54% also believe that it is OK to teach both the science of evolution and the belief of creationism. The 60% quoted originally is not stated anywhere

    June 10, 2012 5:52 AM

  4. Marc, while I do believe that creation science (not to be confused with Mary Baker's Christian science) has validity, at best evolution is a hypothesis strictly speaking from a scientific point of view.

    So I would reword your comment to read:

    "Secondly, 54% believe that it is possible to hold the view that evolution and creationism both have merit. 54% also believe that it is OK to teach both the belief of evolution and creation science."

  5. Marc,


    The 60% figure quoted from the article was derived by adding 51% in one relevant column and 9% in another relevant column (from the web page they linked to).

  6. "Creation science" in itself is an oxymoron, as the idea of creation is not able to be analyzed scientifically. The claims are set forth in a single source. There's no analysis of real evidence, or real evidence period. There's no repeatable tests being done on it. There's no peer review trying to tear the idea apart but still finding that it holds merit.

    Secondly, evolution is not strictly a hypothesis. Not only is there millions of years of evidence to be examined, but there are also decades of testing and analyzing. In fact, the principles claimed by evolutionists can be seen by analyzing groups of fruit flies. Evolution is a scientific theory, just as gravity and germ theory are scientific theories. Yet we don't see people trying to claim that gravity doesn't work like it's commonly accepted, or that germs can't cause disease. The only difference with evolution is that some holy book says it's wrong, so therefore a considerable portion of the population is willing to completely ignore science in favor of their holy book.

  7. Christina Pia,

    I have a few questions for you:

    1. Neo-Darwinist co-founder Theodosius Dobzhansky claimed that the major evolutionary events (ie. macroevolution) were "unique" and "unrepeatable" historical events, that were beyond the reach of "the experimental method".

    Do you agree with Dobzhansky concerning this matter?

    2. Can you satisfactorily answer the
    15 questions for evolutionists of the Question Evolution! Campaign? If so, are you willing to demonstrate this matter via a recorded debate which would be distributed to about 20,000 YouTube subscribers?

    3. What do you think about global atheism shrinking in terms of global market share and the expected acceleration of the shrinking of global atheism which is expected to significantly affect Western World atheism as per the Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufmann? Please see: Global atheism shrinking and the key years of 2012 and 2020

    Also, do you think this will have an effect in terms of the prevalence of evolutionary belief?

  8. Anyone can answer the 15 questions for evolutionists.


    Global atheism isn't shrinking. More millenials question the existence of god than any generation before them.


    Using an unscientific method such as google search trending to support an unscientific worldview... try again.

  9. Weasel,

    You made a good choice when it comes to a user name as you certainly are a weasel!

    Here is why:

    1. First, when a student takes a test and gives a poor or wrong answer, he fails. The same happens in the real world. The website RationalWiki certainly did not give satisfactory answers to the
    15 questions for evolutionists.

    The members of the website RationalWiki are certainly welcome to debate the owner of the YouTube channel Shockofgod and debate partner of Shockofgod's choosing which will probably be a creationist biology student.

    Also, the website RationalWiki isn't even notable to be given its own Wikipedia article despite the fact that Wikipedia is pro-evolution and/or pro-atheism in a great number of its articles.

    Next, you have a very myopic view of the world I regret to say. I would encourage you to expand your horizons. The world is made up of about 7 billion people and not merely the sub population your Mother Jones article is discussing. Your comment reminds me of the letters Richard Dawkins received which he mentioned in the movie Expelled (Ben Stein reminded Dawkins of the billions of people in the world and his letters were merely a drop in the bucket).

    Global atheism is shrinking in terms of its numbers and world market share and this is expected to negatively affect Western World atheism as per the scholar David Kaufmann as can be seen here: Global atheism is shrinking and the decline is expected to accelerate.

    In my next comment, I will elaborate further but suffice it to say, you are being very illogical and using what logicians call the fallacy of exclussion. You definitely need to step up your game as you are embarrassing atheism which can only serve to cause global atheism to shrink even faster than it is already.

  10. Consider this key information relating to the United States which is cited in this article: Why are the years 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?

    The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufmann wrote in his 2010 book Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? concerning America

    High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the culture wars towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.

    Of course, we expect the above tipping point in America to positively affect the proliferation of biblical creationism as well - especially with the aid of the Question Evolution! Campaign.

    In March of 2010, Eric Kaufmann wrote in Prospect Magazine:

    More recently, conservative American Protestants have increased from a 40 per cent minority of white Protestants born in 1900 to a two-thirds majority among those born in 1975. The slight fertility advantage of conservative over liberal Protestants accounts for three-quarters of the rise.

    In 2011, the Oxford University journal Sociology of Religion published an article by Eric Kaufmann, Anne Goujon and Vegard Skirbekk entitled The End of Secularization in Europe?: A Socio-Demographic Perspective which declared:

    “Silent” demographic effects can be profound in the long term. For example, Rodney Stark shows how early Christians’ favorable fertility and mortality rates when compared with Hellenistic pagans may have helped fuel a 40 percent growth rate in the Christian population of the Roman Empire over
    several centuries. This helped give rise to a population increase from 40 converts
    in 30 AD to 6 million by the year 300 leading to a “tipping point” which
    helped Christianity become institutionalized within the Empire (Stark 1996).

    In addition, Eric Kaufmann using a multitude of demographic studies argues in an academic paper entitled Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century the decline of atheism in terms of its global adherents is an established trend that will persist for the foreseeable future and the rate of decline will accelerate. In the Western World, which includes the UK, due to immigration and the higher birth rates of religious people, Kaufman writes: "Committed religious populations are growing in the West, and will reverse the march of secularism before 2050."

  11. I'm not an atheist but I have a reasonable knowledge of Evolution, so I'll try to answer the 15 questions.

    1. How did life originate? Unknown. Also completely irrelevant to evolution, it'd be like asking "According to creationism, why did Captain Kirk reverse the polarity to repel the boglodyte invasion?"

    2. Unknown, but assuming it did come into existence automagically, evolution dictates that it can change and replicate and whatnot

    3. It's a design process I like to call "extreme trial-and-error". It's obviously impractical to design a car by this process, since it would require the construction of billions, even trillions of cars, some with minor alterations that are completely random, and all must be shipped and road tested. If one of these random adjustments is useful, the design is taken, and another billion trillion cars is made from those blueprints, causing the process to repeat. Since there are billions and trillions of organisms constantly being created, and the success of their creation is dictated by the success of the design of their parents, the process tends to create well-adapted organisms in the long run, albeit with billions of failures.

    4. The question seems to know the answer, as Natural Selection is pretty much Survival of the Fittest.

    5. In the context of biological mechanisms, unlike mechanical contraptions, you do not need every single part to work together at the same time for it to perform a useful function. Evolution says that it is very unlikely that a useful mutation will come to be, but for two or more to come into existence at the same time is exponentially more unlikely. I would say it's impossible, but its more extremely extremely extremely extremely unlikely. (like winning 1000 lotteries in a row)

    6. Looks can be deceiving, but in this case they were, in fact, designed by extreme trial-and-error.

    7. They probably originated like a company would. A man selling apples finds a man who likes smashing things, together they start making apple juice and become very wealthy through their partnership. The same would work between a cell that processes X, and a cell that makes X, and it would only build up from there, making a group of cells that compensate for each other's deficiencies, becoming extremely strong compared to loner cells.

    8. Hard to say when and how it originated but like many things, it probably started small, and it is absurdedly unlikely that one evolves into a male whilst another evolves into a female simultaneously. One organism must have taken the lead here, by somehow altering the DNA of a bud, and then it takes off from there. The invention of sex is a big question that evolutionist scientists are working on. There can be many theoretical ways to make it happen, but it requires extensive observation and testing to find out what actually happened.

    1. Marlin,

      Evolutionists are full of bluster about their total nonsense until it comes to defending their foolishness in a debate distributed to a wide audience where they will be cross examined. Are you willing to engage in a debate that is recorded and distributed to tens of the thousands of people?

  12. 9. There are hundreds of thousands of fossils, and they are all transitional according to the theory of evolution. Every single organism, live or dead is a transitional organism, since the process is still ongoing. When you die, your skeleton will be a transitional fossil.

    10. "If it works, don't fix it." If a species is good at surviving in it's environment, it tends to stay that way. Why would a worm want to evolve when it's current form has been successful for millions of years?

    11. Believing in evolution is no excuse to be an asshole or a nihilist. One can still believe in God and meaning and yet be educated in evolution theory.

    12. Unlike God, we are incapable of knowing everything, so we must update the predominant theory again and again to explain things we discover, especially with such a massive field involving human behaviour.

    13. I think you'll find that most fields revolving around living organisms have branched out from the basic premise of evolution. Biology without evolution is like calculus without algebra.

    14. One of the basic rules about evolution is that it takes a very long time. A 100-million year experiment is obviously out of the question. I heard there was a fellow named Lenski who managed to cram it into around 10 years by using a bacterial culture. He managed to get it to mutate into a citrine metabolizing species. Be patient, we're getting there.

    15. That is a loaded question. Evolution has nothing to do with religion, dogmatism, faith, or metaphysics. There is no Church of Evolution, no Cult of Evolution, no Holy Book of Evolution (Origin of Species is not a religious text), no commandments of Evolution, no Evolution lifestyle, nothing of the sort. Evolution is not atheism, it is not naturalism, it is not nihilism. It does not propagate religion or anti-religion. One can believe in evolution and still subscribe to any religion. The claim that Evolution is a religion is just plain wrong, and no amount of philosophers is going to change that.

    Well, I tried. Take it as you will. God bless.

    1. Marlin,

      Evolutionists are full of bluster about their total nonsense until it comes to defending their foolishness in a debate distributed to a wide audience where they will be cross examined. Are you willing to engage in a debate that is recorded and distributed to tens of the thousands of people?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.