Constitutional law permits public school teachers to discuss scientific evidence that contradicts evolution. (Supreme Court case, Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 2582, 1987.)

But, evolutionists are now convincing many judges that discussing any of the weaknesses of evolution violates the First Amendment because it could be construed as establishing a state religion:

• “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Evolutionists even now claim that the words “critique,” “assess,” or “evaluate” are “dangerous” words for teachers to use because it “directs the student to judge the validity of evolution.”

• “A second strain of creationist language is perhaps more dangerous because it is more subtle. This strain directs the student to judge the validity of evolution—to “critique,” “assess,” or “evaluate” it. The Louisiana Science Education Act over-egged the pudding by urging teachers to help their students to “understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner.”
  Evolution: Education and Outreach, Volume 2, Number 3, 359-371, DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0155-y, “Why Science Standards are Important to a Strong Science Curriculum and How States Measure Up”, August 2009, National Center for Science Education.
  http://www.springerlink.com/content/9u0610162rn51432/fulltext.html

On April 7, 2011, House Bill #368 passed the house and evolutionists are furious and claim this is NOT about science, but about religion:
“Please, do not be fooled: This is just the latest attempt by politicians to replace scientific principle with religious ideology.”
Ted Rayburn, “Science legislation makes monkeys of all of us,” March 30, 2011, The Tennessean.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110330/OPINION01/103300339/Editorial-Science-legislation-makes-monkeys-all-us

This is an excerpt from the bill and report back if you can find its missing “religious ideology”:
“Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being
taught.”
Tennessee HB0368
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf

Ironically, in “The National Science Education Standards,” published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), students are encouraged to use “critical and logical thinking” after all (but only if it’s NOT for evaluating evolution):

• “Inquiry requires identification of assumptions, use of critical and logical thinking, and consideration of alternative explanations.”
  http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962&page=23
• “The new vision includes the “processes of science” and requires that students combine processes and scientific knowledge as they use scientific reasoning and critical thinking to develop their understanding of science.”http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962&page=105

Public education has been taken over by zealous Humanists and they are indoctrinating your children into their own religion of Humanism, which is the belief that “nature is self-existing”:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III

Unable to present empirical evidence that substantiates the Theory of Evolution, zealous Humanists resort to accusing those who resist their religion as having “conceptual difficulties, methodological issues, and coherence problems that derive from the intuitiveness of alternative theories.”:

• “Abstract: Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is central to modern biology, but is resisted by many people. This paper discusses the major psychological obstacles to accepting Darwin’s theory. Cognitive obstacles to adopting evolution by natural selection include conceptual difficulties, methodological issues, and coherence problems that derive from the intuitiveness of alternative theories. The main emotional obstacles to accepting evolution are its apparent conflict with valued beliefs about God, souls, and morality. We draw on the philosophy of science and on a psychological theory of cognitive and emotional belief revision to make suggestions about what can be done to improve acceptance of Darwinian ideas.”
  Special Issue: Darwin and Darwinism. Part Two: Pedagogical Studies, “Science and Education: Getting to Darwin: Obstacles to Accepting Evolution by Natural Selection”, August 2009, Volume 19, Numbers 6-8, 625-636, DOI: 10.1007/s11191-009-9204-8, SpringerLink Online.
  http://www.springerlink.com/content/7p67063384331217/

What is their ultimate goal? To remove God from ANY possible thought derived from public and private education. It has been a long, purposeful, and deliberate attack on Christianity and the scientific truth of creation:

• “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?”
  Charles F. Potter, “Humanism: A New Religion”, 1930.
• “The battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: A religion of humanity — utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to carry humanist values into wherever they teach. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.”
  John J. Dunphy, Humanist Magazine, January-February 1983.
• “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it.”
  H. S. Lipson, FRS, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution”, Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, page138.

The thought police have arrived and here are just a couple examples of just how insidious this has become:

• “Rodney LeVake, a former high school biology teacher, informally expressed doubts about evolution to a colleague who then reported him to the principal. LeVake ended up losing his biology position, not because he taught creationism or intelligent design, but because he committed a thought crime by doubting Darwinism. Listen to part one as he tells his story of clear academic persecution. Listen to part two as he continues his story, explaining the law suit and what happened afterwards.”
  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/10/recent_interviews_with_scienti.html
• Professor in Biochemistry at the University of Toronto, Larry Moran, thinks is perfectly fine to flunk passing students that don’t believe in evolution:
  “As we’ve seen time and time again on the blogs (and elsewhere), the Christian fundamentalists have erected very strong barriers against learning. It really doesn’t matter how much they are exposed to rational thinking and basic scientific evidence. They still refuse to listen.
  This is one of the reasons why I would flunk them if they took biology and still rejected the core scientific principles. It’s not good enough to just be able to mouth the “acceptable” version of the truth that the Professor wants. You actually have to open your mind to the possibility that science is correct and get an education. That’s what university is all about.
  Of course, we all recognize the problem here. How do you distinguish between a good Christian who is lying for Jesus and one who has actually come to understand science? It seems really unfair to flunk the honest students who admit that they still reject science and pass the dishonest ones who hide their true beliefs.”
  http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/12/do-fundamentalist-christians-actively.html
• Examples of students being forced to ‘pledge their allegiance to evolution’:
  • In her Introduction to Human Genetics class at Normandale Community College in Bloomington, Minnesota, student Priscilla Lundquist obediently wrote down the expected evolutionary answer for the following question:
    “Compare the following sequences. (Rat, chimp, human, rice, deer.) Which two organisms are the most closely related? Explain your answer.”
    In full accordance with evolutionary propaganda, she responded with, “The human and the chimp are supposedly the most closely related because their sequence here is the most similar.”
    But, because she wrote on the side of the paper, “However, I believe that God created these species separately and what I just answered was a lie,“ Priscilla’s professor denied her credit for the question. Only after pleading her case did she end up receiving full credit for her ‘proper’ answer.
  • “—the story of Don McDonald, who was forced to pledge allegiance to evolution while working on his sociology Ph.D., or he might not have been permitted to proceed onward with his dissertation.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/dr_don_mcdonalds_persecution_s.htm

Why was Who Is Your Creator listed under “Threats to Evolution Education” by the American Institute of Biological Sciences? (See PDF, scroll to ‘Minnesota.’)

Isn’t it interesting that evolutionists don’t have enough confidence in their own theory and feel threatened that people might actually engage in an open discussion about it?

The key mechanism that supposedly provides continual genetic change remains a mystery, but you would never know it from ‘scientific’ textbooks.

The most commonly used textbooks still present the unscientific and unproven notion that mutations and natural selection are the predominant mechanisms behind common descent. See the problems with figuring out how evolution supposedly works:
See http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/how_does_evolution_occur.html

In a new turn resulting from the frustration of realizing that there is NO genetic mechanism that has been shown to create new features to arise, the current mantra of Darwinism is now, “It’s all about natural selection!”

The ignorance is stunning, but unfortunately overlooked. We fully expect that new textbooks will adopt this strategy and almost completely ignore the mention of any genetic mechanism:

• “Indeed, most biologists now agree that natural selection is the key evolutionary force that drives not only evolutionary change within species but also the origin of new species. Although some laypeople continue to question the cogency or adequacy of natural selection, its status among evolutionary biologists in the past few decades has, perhaps ironically, only grown more secure.”
  Scientific American Magazine, “The Evolution of Evolution: Testing Natural Selection with Genetics,” December 18, 2008.
  http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=testing-natural-selection&print=true
• “The articles in this Insight testify to the success of Charles Darwin’s theory of descent with modification by means of natural selection, carefully detailed in his book On the Origin of Species almost 150 years ago. The most striking aspect of the theory is its simplicity. Given heritable variation, a superabundance of offspring, and environmental change, natural selection must happen, and evolution will follow. The natural world can be explained without invoking pre-existing germs, essential life forces, the great chain of being, Ptolemaic epicycles or a prime mover.”
  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457807a.html

In one of the biggest blunders in genetics, the practice of evolutionary-based science inhibited the scientific discovery of how genes operate. As of today, most textbooks still promote the gene-centered philosophy:
(Go to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/junk_dna.html )

“At a time that calls for scientific vision, scientific inquiry’s been hijacked by an industry of greed, with evolution books hyped like snake oil at a carnival …
Thus, the public is unaware that its dollars are being squandered on funding of mediocre, middle-brow science or that its children are being intellectually starved as a result of outdated texts and unenlightened teachers.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm#introduction

One of the most serious threats to science education is coming from California state colleges and universities that will NOT allow credit for biology courses that are not based exclusively on evolution.

In a recent ruling in California, the University of California (UC) claimed that, “the problem is not … that the creationist view is taught as an alternative to scientific explanations, but that the nature of science, the theory of evolution, and critical thinking are not taught adequately.”

So, here the irony:

1. Evolutionists claim that “critical thinking” is not explored within most Christian based science curriculum, but they won’t allow it for discussing the lack of empirical evidence for the theory of evolution.
2. Their complaint is NOT that creation is exclusively taught, but that the theory of evolution wasn’t presented as fact, thus no “critical thinking” is allowed.
   This recent ruling will, no doubt, embolden evolutionists in other states to submit their own legislation.
   http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/CA/
   782_victory_in_california_creation_8_12_2008.asp

For the ‘higher good,’ some evolutionists openly endorse the teaching of outright lies:

“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. If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives …”
Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think? …
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2008/08/why_teaching_evolution_is_dang.php

Note that evolutionists insinuate that students are so dumb that they would believe the earth is flat (which is contrary to Biblical teaching) if left without evolutionary indoctrination. They also claim that they desire students to “engage in critical thinking and serious analysis” but only if they can control the “necessary tools,” i.e. unscientific pro-evolutionary material.

(Read about the atheist author who started the myth that Christians believed in a flat earth. Go to: http://www.yecheadquarters.org/flat_earth.html)

“Now this is disingenuous at best. Education is not about having “kids debate both sides,” since most kids would probably conclude that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe (after all, the sensorial evidence is overwhelming in favor of the flat-earth, Ptolemaic system). Education is, at its core, about two things: a) We want our students to have access to the best of what humanity has produced, be that in science, philosophy, literature, economics or what have you. b) We want to provide students with the necessary tools to engage in critical thinking and serious analysis of whatever claim comes under their scrutiny.”
http://www.livescience.com/culture/080901-sb-palin-creationist.html

All in the name of ‘good science,’ did you know that your children are learning misleading and outright false information?

Included are inaccurate drawings of embryos, false claims that the universe resulted from the Big Bang, life was created from non-life, gill slits and tails grow on human embryos, Peppered Moths and Darwin’s finches are proof of evolution, birds evolved from reptiles, horse fossils prove evolution, and the utterly false claim that genetic and fossil evidence prove humans evolved from apes.

In 2007, the famous Australopithecus afarensis fossil named “Lucy” was found NOT to be our last common ancestor, yet evolutionists still parade it around as such:

• “Tel Aviv University anthropologists say they have disproven the theory that “Lucy” – the world-famous 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found in Ethiopia 33 years ago – is the last ancestor common to humans and another branch of the great apes family known as the “Robust hominids.”… Rak and his colleagues also wrote that the structure of Lucy’s mandibular ramus closely matches that of gorillas, which was “unexpected” because chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans, and not gorillas.”
  Tel Aviv University, Israel, “Israeli researchers: ‘Lucy’ is not direct ancestor of humans”, April 2007, Jerusalem Post Online.
  http://new.jpost.com/HealthAndSci-Tech/ScienceAndEnvironment/Article.aspx?id=58121

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152801536&pagename=
JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/new_york_times_rehashes_darwin.html
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/49/65/
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/51/65/
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/127/65/
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/55/65/
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/53/65/

The new ‘scientific’ journal called “Evolution: Education and Outreach” claims to be the new tool for students of all ages. It presents the standard lies, relies on evolutionary philosophy instead of scientific facts, and its first book review includes ridiculous, foul, and inappropriate sexual content, regardless of the student’s age:

In “Book Review / Evolution in Action,” the journal highlights their favorite book on sex called “Sex Advice to All Creation: The Definitive Guide to the Evolutionary Biology of Sex” by Olivia Judson, an Oxford Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Here’s an excerpt:
“For instance, at the start of chapter 6, “How to Make Love to a Cannibal,” she offers the following sensible advice. “Rule number one: Never get eaten during foreplay …
I’m a European praying mantis, and I’ve noticed I enjoy sex more if I bite my lovers’ heads off first. It’s because when I decapitate them they go into the most thrilling spasms. Somehow they seem less inhibited, more urgent—it’s fabulous. Do you find this too?” …
As she demonstrates with further examples, the central rationale behind “Rule Number One” is that, if one partner is eaten before fertilization (“during foreplay”), that partner will most likely not be able to transmit any genetic material to the next generation. After fertilization, of course, the situation is different.”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/44755h5t2387r02v/fulltext.html (Scroll to ‘Evolution by Example–by Example’)

The medical school entrance examination (MCAT) now indoctrinates students within its reading comprehension section. Its tirade against any evolutionary skepticism is absolutely hilarious:

“Creationism is not science and doesn’t belong in the science classroom. However, a frank discussion of creationism with students is also important. To avoid it may suggest that perhaps there is something there, lurking in the irrationality.
The late Carl Sagan, one of the staunchest advocates of rationality and reason in the increasingly irrational and superstitious world in which we live, has defended the importance of good science teaching by saying, “In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, [science] may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.” … Creation science, despite the apparent oxymoron, is a phrase that has been widely used by creationists to add legitimacy to their claims by stating that creationism is a scientific theory just as much as evolution. … This extremely dangerous idea has been at the forefront of battles waged by so-called “creation-scientists” since the early 1970s… “
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/evolution_indoctrination_on_th.html#more

Universities and scientific organizations openly discriminate against, terminate and refuse tenure, employment and memberships to scientists, educators, and students who dissent from the religion of evolution:

• Professors and scientists cannot ‘come out’ and admit to not believing in evolution and must do research and write papers under aliases:
  “*Ira S. Loucks is a pseudonym. The writer, who holds a Ph.D. in a field related to the topic of this article, is a scientist at a prominent research facility in the eastern part of North America. He prefers to keep his creationist credentials hidden for the moment until he achieves more seniority.”
  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/unique-fungal-rna-splicing
• “By this standard, Iowa State University (ISU) astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez has performed incredibly well, despite his denial of tenure by ISU. No matter how they spin it, one thing is clear, Gonzalez was professionally qualified for tenure. Intolerant Darwinists at ISU just didn’t want to give it to him because he’s a proponent of intelligent design.”
  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/in_further_attempts_to_try.html
• “In a bold move, the little-known group Florida Citizens for Science are excommunicating all scientists who raise any concerns about neo-Darwinism from the “scientific community.” … Proposed standards for seventh-graders, for example, would require that students should be able to ‘recognize and describe that fossil evidence is consistent with the idea that human beings evolved from earlier species.’”
  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/florida_citizens_for_science_e.html
• “A new report from the U.S. House of Representatives has condemned officials at the Smithsonian Institution for imposing a religious test on scientists who work there. And it suggests their attacks on a scientist who just edited an article on intelligent design are just the tip of the iceberg of an industry-wide fear of anything that suggests man might not have come from a puddle of sludge.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/the_house_government_reform_su.html
  http://www.rsternberg.net/
  http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53400
• “San Francisco State University decided that Professor Dean Kenyon, a leading national authority in chemical evolutionary theory, was no longer suited to teach introductory biology. Why? Allegedly because he exposed students to points of dispute among scientists on macro-evolutionary theory and to the fact that a number of biologists admit to the existence of evidence for intelligent design in the universe.”
  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34700
• “Dr. Abraham, a postdoctoral researcher in fish development at Woods Hole in Massachusetts, was let go in 2004 when he told his supervisor that he did not accept evolution. He was met by the comment that his beliefs of biological origins were incompatible with his position, and that he should resign or be fired.”
  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/12/10/abraham-affair
• “Mississippi University for Women asked Professor Nancy Bryson to resign as head of the Division of Science and Mathematics because she taught students the scientific flaws in Darwinian thought.”
  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34700

The Council of Europe passed Resolution #1580 warning that creationism is dangerous and could possibly spread into education:

“Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe …
There is a real risk of serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An “all things are equal” attitude may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.”
What is really appalling is that they have even rewritten history in hopes they can dupe people into thinking that evolution has always been the mainstay of public thought:“Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.”
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta07/ERES1580.htm

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) strongly advises schools and teachers not to discuss any inconsistencies in Darwinism.

When schools stray from evolution, NCSE threatens expensive lawsuits and, when that doesn’t work, they send in the ACLU. Who is the NCSE? It’s just a pro-evolution advocacy group that is fully and well funded by evolutionists. Their web site states, “Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools” and they boldly solicit members to “monitor” and inform NCSE if schools, libraries, museums, parks, etc. have any “anti-evolution efforts.”
http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/25-ways-to-support-science-education

NCSE Director, Eugenie Scott, even suggests that doctoral candidates with creationist views should be discriminated against because such students “would require so much remedial instruction it would not be worth my time.” Such ignorance and bias is inexcusable.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0216remediation.asp?vPrint=1
http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp

Other than special needs children, Sweden and Germany have now banned home schooling. Fines and possible loss of custody rights are two forms of penalties for parents that disobey:

• “Mike Farris says that Sweden will ban all home schooling except for children with medical exemptions and foreign workers with the appropriate work visas.
  “That’s it. People who have religious convictions or are home schooling for religious reasons will not be given one of these very rare exemptions,” he points out. “And so for all intents and purposes, home schooling is going to be banned in Sweden. They’re following the German statute, following the German model.””
  http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=648486
• “In Germany, parents face stiff penalties if they are caught illegally home schooling their children. The Romeike family recently left Germany and is seeking asylum in the U.S. after facing stiff fines and the potential loss of custody rights for home schooling their children. The Home School Legal Defense Association is offering them legal help.”
  http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=648486

Instead of winning students over by finding some actual facts or evidence that might prove evolution occurs, the new tactic is to brainwash them into thinking that evolution good for the ‘collective.’

“Wilson, a distinguished professor of biological sciences with a joint appointment in anthropology at Binghamton University, is convinced that evolution can become more widely accepted once its consequences for human welfare are appropriately understood.
“When evolution is presented as unthreatening, explanatory, and useful, it can be easily grasped and appreciated by most people, regardless of their religious or political beliefs and without previous training,” says Wilson.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070627120520.htm

Another pro-evolution advocacy group, Alliance for Science, ran an essay contest that pitted high school students against their parents and doctors.

Alliance for Science asked students to write an essay on, “Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution.” Not only does this indoctrinate children, it also urges children to question parental decisions.
http://www.allianceforscience.org/essay_winners.html All of the winners (including a 9th grade student) receive an annual subscription of SEED Magazine, which is known for its obsession with homosexuality. SEED is NOT considered a ‘scientific’ magazine and it’s puzzling that this type of publication would be selected other than using it to promote a social agenda.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=seed+magazine+homosexuality&btnG=Google+Search

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is another pro-evolution advocacy group and they have decided to change tactics so that your children will feel emotionally better about believing in evolution:

During the February 2008 AAAS symposium, evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller, announced to evolutionists that they need to win back the hearts of the people by telling them evolution is now based on design, not randomness after all:
“’The idea that there is ‘design’ in nature is very appealing,’ Miller said. ‘People want to believe that life isn’t purposeless and random. That’s why the intelligent design movement wins the emotional battle for adherents despite its utter lack of scientific support.
‘To fight back, scientists need to reclaim the language of ‘design’ and the sense of purpose and value inherent in a scientific understanding of nature,’ he said.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm

After its 2006 National Conference, AAAS unveiled several new strategies for promoting the teaching of evolution in schools. Their most successful plan was urging teachers to use the word ‘science’ instead of ‘evolution’ because, the more often people hear the word ‘science,’ the more people will associate evolution as being scientific. (Repeat a lie long enough and people will believe it.)

Enjoy your family vacation but prepare your children for the tales of evolution.

Almost without exception, informal learning environments such as National and State Parks, museums, and family entertainment centers such as Disney and Epcot are indoctrinating attendees with naturalistic explanations for geology and life sciences.

At the Grand Canyon National Park bookstore, evolutionists are having a fit over just ONE book that gives a biblical account of the canyon’s creation. Referring to A Different View and its ‘potential threat to science,’ the Director of PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) stated that, “…this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan.”
How ironic that park employees were the ones that initiated a censorship effort, not parents or patrons!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1214shenanigans.asp