Should You Teach Lies to Protect Your Beliefs?

I have not written unto you because you don’t know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. I John 2:21 

Some time ago I wrote about a kindergarten teacher’s guide to introducing Evolution to little kids. She had no problem using resources she knew didn’t match the truth because it still gave the general idea she wanted the kids to know. In the past few days I’ve run into some more articles which show just how big a problem fudging the truth is.

First, a shout out to my facebook champion, Cowboy Bob, the founder of The Question Evolution Project. I didn’t find out about his work until last Spring, but someone else shared one of his posts from earlier which was a share from a Creation Ministries International article from 2008! Here’s the direct link to their article:

Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution

Here are some highlights:

Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE [one of the top evolutionary journals] said, ‘You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.’

That first bit in English means, if you insult Jesus outright, kids are smart enough to figure out what’s going on. “NOMA” stands for the idea that science talks about completely different things than “religion” does. The whole point of early introductions to evolution is to get kids to believe you even when you tell them they are the sons of stupid animals.

Here’s the conclusion:

Many Christians expect evolutionists to be honest and fair. Indeed many are. But we should not be too surprised whenever someone who denies an absolute moral Lawgiver chooses to transgress moral/ethical bounds deliberately, and what’s more, proclaims it as a worthy act.

We do rely on evolutionists to be honest in their journals. Creation scientists don’t have nearly enough research money to find out all the things we need to know. Thank God, a number of areas we’re interested in are considered worthwhile by the Evolutionary community as well. At least in jargon filled papers adults have a hard time following they will put enough facts in for us to work with.

But such information isn’t allowed to get out to kids. Check it out for yourself by asking them if they’ve heard of all the soft tissue we’ve found in dinosaur fossils. Be sure you have plenty of facts for them to learn about!

The other example of this kind of deceitful thinking was on an article about how to fit organisms into Darwin’s Evolutionary tree of life.

Creation Evolution Headlines: Darwin’s Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush

All they do is quote a press release from Vanderbilt University summarizing a paper in Nature from May, 2013. It’s chock full of of science speak, but here are some of the best bits:

In broad terms, Rokas and Salichos found that genetic data is less reliable during periods of rapid radiation, when new species were formed rapidly.

The researchers found the genetic information we are collecting isn’t trustworthy when trying to describe a time when bunches of creatures changed from one to another quickly.

Do they tell kids this?

A case in point is the Cambrian explosion, the sudden appearance about 540 million years ago of a remarkable diversity of animal species, without apparent predecessors.

Complex fossils make a “sudden appearance” at a certain point in the sedimentary layers with no sign of a simpler organism to have evolved from.

Do they tell kids this?

Here’s the part kids and parents need to really get:

CEH editors say, “The authors not only advised throwing out some standard practices of tree-building, but (amazingly) proposed evolutionists throw out the “uninformative” conflicting data and only use data that seems to support the Darwinian tree: “the subset of genes with strong phylogenetic signal is more informative than the full set of genes, suggesting that phylogenomic analyses using conditional combination approaches, rather than approaches based on total evidence, may be more powerful.”” (emphasis added)

They’ve already had to throw out “conflicting data” to get people to look genetically close to chimps. Why stop there? To keep Evolution from looking as impossible as it is, they will have to do this more and more.

We expect no less from people whose worldview requires them to be blind to any evidence of the Creator God. But, all of us, and especially young people, need to know what is really going on before intrusting our eternal souls into people’s hands.

But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Romans 1:18-20 NLT