The original post proves nothing. Oh, and by the way, public schools don't teach "anti-religion," they just don't bring religion into the science classes, as religion has absolutely nothing to do with science; science is only a "belief" system of an "invisible" deity that created everything. Science is only out there trying to show, via various observations and testing, why things are the way they are. Despite your protestations, just saying a deity exists, proves nothing and there is so far, ample evidence of hominids going through physical changes. Europeans clearly show via DNA, that we are part Neanderthal, a type of hominid and over time, we may find additional evidence of our origins via additional findings. When one jumps to causes being a result of deities, one just gives him/herself less credibility.Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:
1. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY
This is the basis, the explanation, for the anti-Religion view taught in government schools, and by the secular media.
2. Believers point to the most basic of fact: there is life on earth, most specifically a form that differs qualitatively from every other form. There's no denying 'life,' and, logically, as our Founders posited, a Creator of said life.
a. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)
b. In an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), Wallace [co-inventor of Darwinism] outlined his sense that evolution was inadequate to explain certain obvious features of the human race.
Certain of our "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection. These characteristics include the human brain, the organs of speech and articulation, the human hand, and the external human form with its upright posture and bipedal gait. Thus, only human beings can rotate their thumbs and ring fingers in what is called "ulnar opposition" in order to achieve a grip, a grasp, and a degree of torque denied to any of the great apes. So, too, with the other items on Wallace's list. What remains is evolutionary fantasy, of the sort in which the bipedal gait is assigned to an unrecoverable ancestor wishing to peer (or pee) over tall savannah grasses.
The Best Spiritual Writing 2010
3. If the Left can alter the focus from a Creator to some scientifically provable event that they can show in a laboratory, well....that would go far to end the belief in God.
Enter Charles Darwin. Simply put, Darwin posits changes- after life has begun on earth- from the simplest to more and more complex organisms, based on adaptations that enhance competitiveness.
Finally, ending with Homo sapiens.
Of course, that first and pre-eminent step, creating life, is omitted.
a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.
Every atheist and/or Marxist....communists, Liberals, whatever....was overjoyed to switch the focus of the origin of life, and diversity, from religion to some iteration of science.
"Whoopeee!" Now we can prove that no 'god' is necessary, and man, in the form of Leftists, can be god!"
But....not so fast.
Coming up next.....