Why Christian Women Should Stand Against Feminism

If you consider yourself a feminist, please read on. All of the nice principles you think you are supporting may have been misrepresented to you.

To begin with, I would like to suggest something that isn’t widely known or accepted. It is this:

The feminist movement was never meant to benefit women. Its goal has always been to use the discontent of women to destabilize society.

It is important to realize that, when the feminists talk about “women’s rights,” they don’t mean fair treatment for women in jobs, school, or home. When feminists talk about “women’s rights,” they mean a radical restructuring of society, with government using its power to force feminist goals on all the rest of us.

Phyllis Schlafly

Feminism doesn’t work. It’s destructive, and it’s headed for your peace and well-being via your own discontent.

I know a lot of effort has been put into trying to convince us the movement isn’t all that bad, that it is being demonized, that it’s really all about making things fair for everyone. Especially recently, it’s been presented as the kinder, gentler sort of women’s lib.

Then the women’s marches on Washington DC happened. All it took was one of these rallies to pull off the veneer and expose the wormy wood underneath.

Unfortunately, these efforts are familiar to those of us who were alive during the last half of the 20th century. Here is a description of the movement in earlier years:

In consciousness-raising sessions, women exchange their horror stories about men and, with this kind of mutual sharing and encouragement, little slights are magnified into grievances, small grievances are transformed into bigger grievances, and women are able to blame “society” or “all men” for their own failures, mistakes, and disappointments… This is the psychology of producing bitter – but dedicated – women activists.

Phyllis Schlafly

It doesn’t matter how much perfumed “niceness” they try and spread over it, today’s feminism is the rotting carcass of a failed idea, and it’s stinking up the world.

It’s one thing for the world to stink, it’s another for the church to follow suit.

In the very places the Bible is held up as the ultimate authority on everything, women can’t encourage homemaking, they can’t talk about submission, they aren’t allowed to celebrate women choosing motherhood as their ministry. No, they have to cow-tow and carry the party line even in the sanctuary. Any reference to reverencing the men in their lives will associate them that awful, horrible, demeaning label of “patriarchal.”

(Never mind that God is THE Patriarch.)

We who know the truth have been bullied into silence. We’ve been told that to speak out is not “nice,” or “Christ-like,” so we stand to the side and watch it happen.

But we are being spineless and selfish. We care more about our own reputations and looking “loving” than really loving others by telling them the truth. Sometimes I think we women are the most destructive when we are “loving.” We stroke and soothe and “nice” people right down the corridor to hell.

The Lord never said that love would set us free. He said that TRUTH would be our liberator:

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

John 8:32

I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough. With God’s help, I’m going to use this post right here to speak some truth, and I hope there are many listening.

I’m not speaking up as a princess in an ivory tower. I can converse with “gender equality” on a first-name basis due to my stint as a soldier in the US army. The myth of women’s lib was destroyed for me the first time I slid on my back through mud under a net of barbed wire.

So I’ve decided to explain things in a form we can all relate to; an open letter to feminism. I hope you will help me fight for the freedom of women everywhere. I hope you will take it and copy and share it with as many people as you can.

Dear Feminism:

I’ve been quiet for much too long. I’ve allowed you to intimidate me into silence via a million accusations. But I’m done. I’m through apologizing to you for the way I live.

I honestly don’t know why I ever had to apologize to you for anything. I’m not the one with the problems, you are. I’m tired of playing “nice” out of fear. I’m finally going to tell the truth about you and I don’t even care if it hurts your “feelings.”

Why?–because too much is at stake, because Jesus told me to love, because only the TRUTH sets us free.

And I am so free, and you are such a slave-driver. It must burn you that women like me still exist. It must gall you that we encourage each other via the Internet. It must eat you alive when you have your vulgar, screaming rallies that there are hoards of us still at home kissing our husbands and nursing our babies.

I am old enough to remember your bra-less “coming out” party in the 60’s and 70’s. I was one of those vagabond children tossed to the side to make room for the “freedom” of immorality. Dad was out, boyfriends were in. Good Housekeeping subscriptions were canceled, Playgirl was in the mailbox.

You made modesty prudish and inhibitions neuroses. You declared children a necessary nuisance better relegated to the babysitter. Under your influence housecleaning became optional, as did makeup and fixing one’s hair. You told us it was OK to please ourselves no matter how it affected others.

You told us selfishness was a virtue.

“Oh, it’s all for the greater good,” you touted, as you watched the limbs of live babies being severed by doctors’ scalpels and children going home after school to emptiness.

If a woman should dare speak up against your new arrangements, you labeled her a judgemental bitty, or religious fanatic, or something else equally awful. The men who tried to counter you were muzzled via a number of strategies. The least was to declare them ungentlemanly, the greatest was to verbally and emotionally emasculate them.

And just like the wicked wasp you are, society has felt your repeated stings.

Why Christian Women Should Stand Against Feminism

We are not better off in any way. Single moms are just as poor, fatherless children are just as lost. Domestic violence is higher than ever, as is substance abuse of every kind, and has actually increased among the female population. So many babies have died the numbers are in the hundreds of millions.

But now we are experiencing a new set of tragedies you have created for us. You have confused boys and girls and allowed them to be mutilated by sadistic adults. You’ve made people so afraid of marriage that they push it out of their lives. You have robbed from women the satisfaction and fulfillment of becoming mothersThe result? A huge increase in despair and suicide.

If this is the “women’s utopia” you promised, I defect.

I defect to home, to the sweet sighs of newborns and the happy hullabaloo of childhood play. I choose the accolades of a husband who returns from work to an order and a warm, delicious meal. I choose being there when my neighbor needs a ride to the hospital in the middle of the day.

And, even though I may be as tough as nails, I’m not afraid to show softness, sweetness, and kindness. These characteristics are more valuable to the world than a million banshee screaming women’s rights rallies.

Instead of destroying, I spend my time building, cultivating and coaxing the beauty out of my environment. I do this with every fiber of my being, all for the benefit of the significant others in my life.

I use polite language and am respectful because I care about others and I respect myself. I see all people as being equally valuable in the sight of God.

And I choose to love men. I find they are decisive, and strong, and straight-forward, and I like that. Yes, they have lots of warts, but so do women. As we learn to look past their faults and appreciate their strengths, our own worth will rise to the top, naturally, no vitriol required.

This is the way Jesus taught us by His life.

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:5-11

Yes, Jesus was a man, too, and I like that. I like that because He calls the Church His Bride, and He sacrificed everything for her, to cover her and bless her and show her His undying love and care.

And when He comes back He won’t even take a second glance at you. All that you have tried to do will be obliterated by the Light of His being. It will be the backwards, old-fashioned souls who dared to believe God that He will reach His hand out to.

The royal daughter is all glorious within the palace;
Her clothing is woven with gold.
She shall be brought to the King in robes of many colors;
The virgins, her companions who follow her, shall be brought to You.
With gladness and rejoicing they shall be brought;
They shall enter the King’s palace.

Psalm 45:13-15

So go ahead and screech your vulgarities. Walk around holding your profane signs. March right up to the President’s door if you like.

But if I were you I would be trembling with fear. The Ultimate Patriarch, God the Father, is not impressed.

And neither am I.

 

 

 

print

32 thoughts on “Why Christian Women Should Stand Against Feminism

  1. The following quotes were taken from Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia:
    Distinctive to Margaret Sanger, “…the 19th century Free Love Movement sought to separate the state from sexual matters such as marriage, birth control, and adultery.”

    “In the 1950s the book On the Road, a novel written by Jack Kerouac, was based on the travels of Kerouac and his friends…” who endorsed a pseudo self-styled “…freedom by traveling across the United States. It is considered a defining work of the postwar Beat and Counterculture generations, with its protagonists living life against a backdrop of jazz, poetry, and drug use.”

    “The Beatnik era was a media stereotype prevalent throughout the 1950s to mid-1960s that displayed the more superficial aspects of the Beat Generation literary movement. Elements of the beatnik trope included pseudo-intellectualism, drug use, and a cartoonish depiction of real-life.”

    “By the mid-1960s the Flower Child Movement began (originated as a synonym for hippie). The Flower children were also associated with the flower power political movement.” Civil disobedience and rioting especially against the Vietnam War and societal norms were its primary objective. The 1960s and 1970s generation rallied behind slogans such as The Generation Gap, Free Love, and Sex, Drugs and Rock n’ Roll. Living together, outside of the bonds of marriage, became more acceptable. A considerable percentage of this movement became increasingly anti-social and ultimately developed into the extreme left of Liberalism.

    At this period, the Feminist Movement came into its own, which affected a desire to promote women’s equality in order to push an underlying agenda. “Former Feminist activist, Sara Fernanda Giromin ‘SHE was the pioneer of modern-day girl power, responsible for countless topless protests to highlight women’s rights.

    But now, Sara Fernanda Giromin has backflipped, declaring war on the ideals she once so proudly bared her breasts for, describing the feminist movement as ‘a completely toxic environment, filled with gossip, intrigue, humiliation and persecution.’

    Introducing herself to the world in 2012 under the alias Sara Winter, Ms Giromin was the founding face of Femen Brazil, a subsidiary of the Femen movement.

    A group of topless activists who protest against sexism, religion, homophobia, and other social issues, the organization says it is ‘fighting patriarchy in its three manifestations — sexual exploitation of women, dictatorship and religion.’

    But just three years later, Giromin has decried feminism and abortion, saying it ‘promotes the destruction of the traditional family and all moral values of society.’”

    So just what were the fruits of the Feminist movement: A frontal assault on the American family’s social structure by means of an increased disrespect for conventional norms, infidelity, divorce, the war on men, promotion and acceptance of abortion, latch key children, violence in schools, gender confusion, all with an end goal of the destruction of America!

  2. But what about those of us who in the 60’s had mothers who were abandoned by their children’s fathers? That happened to my mother in 1963 when she was pregnant with my brother, her fourth child. She had a high school education, but had never worked a day in her life. Through sheer grit she managed to take care of us and teach my sisters and me that we had to be able to take care of ourselves as adults. She wanted us to marry, I’m sure, but she would rather have had single children rather than children who had been hurt as she had been. She had been assured a life of security staying home with her children while her husband worked and supported those children. And she loved that role because she had chosen it. She was promised this security by the society of her time – and she grew up in a Christian home (and so did my father). I watched as that same church community ignored her and our needs at a time when there were not yet the social services we have now for those who are down on their luck. Her parents couldn’t help and also judged her somewhat for the mistakes of my father. The hypocrisy I saw in these church-goers and family members led me far away from religion in general and towards feminism, college and a career I knew would support me and a family if I chose to marry and have children. Many, many years later I don’t at all regret those decisions. I have had a successful and fulfilling career, I maintain an orderly home, my husband and I have raised an amazing child, and I have been married to an exceptional man for 25 years. I waited a long time to marry, and have no regrets on that score either. We have both taught our daughter to be wary and to be prepared by getting a good college education that will lead to a career where she will be able to take care of herself. My long-winded point is that I would never consider living a life without the freedom feminism provided for me to choose my own path. What I chose did not happen to include being a SAHM, but that doesn’t mean I judge those who choose differently. To each her own. Everyone has a different story, and it is important to always keep that in mind.

    • Your story is a sad one, but feminism has not made it more rare, just more common. Your mom was abandoned in an age when it was uncommon for a woman to have to fend for herself. Today it is almost the norm. That’s what feminism has done for us. In all honesty, I think you’ve bitten the bate hook, line, and sinker.

  3. I took the bait willingly. Sadly, Christianity had nothing to offer me but hypocrisy, as I mentioned above. I’m quite happy with my decisions and believe it’s the only way to achieve the kind of equality I think is best for men and women.

    You and I will not change each other’s minds, but I wanted to present another point of view – one that works for me and my family and many others in this world.

    • The Christianity you saw represented, yes. But the true Christianity of Jesus, never. We can settle for what “works,” or we can reach for the best.

  4. Caroline, If I may….

    I was raised from 6 yrs of age without a father due to his death. My mother did not remarry. She raised her daughters to be strong, self-sufficient women. Without the Feminist Movement. I was empowered to be me! I ride a motorcycle, can unlock my keys from a locked car, painted cars, can back a 25′ trailer in a three-point turn! Was taught the value and goodness of MEN and WOMEN. I was taught to love my children and I was thankfully able to stay home while they were young. My mother could have hated men, her father was not always very nice, her 1st husband cheated with her sister and then he married her….family gatherings could be awkward!! My mother forgave them and when my father died her 1st husband was a pallbearer at my dad’s funeral.
    The “Christians” you speak of, if they are/were in fact Christ followers…what they did was wrong and did not portray the loving and forgiving God and Father they claimed to know. A child of God should not have done that. Christians are as flawed as anyone else and make foolish mistakes. I am sorry for the pain that was caused. With that said I still agree wholeheartedly with the original post. Feminism has done exactly what it was intended to do….the hurt and harm of women, men and families.

    • Hi Teresa:

      I never said my mother hated men or was even a feminist. In fact, she never spoke against my father, her family or the church. She never became involved with other men when we were children. She concentrated on raising us to the best of her ability.
      She was an exceptional woman. She did teach us to be self-sufficient, and for that I am grateful. She also taught us to forgive, and I reconciled what happened to us long ago. I just don’t agree that Feminism has caused the downfall of civilization. And that’s why I’m happy to live in a country where I can express that sentiment.
      If your life is happier following a religious path, that’s awesome. What my family and I are doing brings us joy and contentment. In fact, I have always felt more compelled to help others because of the things I experienced as a child. I’m pretty sure that’s what true Christianity is all about.

  5. Wow.. wow… what about all girls and women that are killd and sloutherd in africa and all asien countrys… I think feminism is born out of male chauvinism agains women.. If men would be loving and kind to women there would not be any feminism..

    • Feminism doesn’t save women. The influence of Jesus has saved more women and set more women free. Review your history and look at it through new eyes.

  6. Amen a hundred times. Preach it!!

    If feminism had never done any of the other things which it has undoubtedly done, I would hate it for the millions of slaughtered babies (and those denied existence at all through birth control). Planned Parenthood – enough said.

  7. Spot on, my dear sister in Christ. Biblical womanhood and femininity are so beautiful and prescious to God. I’m thankful I’ve been shown and am learning the truth of His word concerning this matter. In addition to the irate women we see on TV, marching and screaming, there are also tons of women who are “caught” in limbo. I’ve seen it countless times in family and friends who feel they have to”choose” between career and family. They believe they MUST have a career, but then are stressed out because family life is out of order. Both husband and wife work outside the home and both come home tired and arguments begin because why should the woman be the one to cook and clean and nuture the little one who was in day care all day? So I’ve seen women “make” their husbands tend to those things, while they sit back and relax… cause that’s freedom, right? Or, I’ve seen the opposite happen where the wife is trying to “do it all” working outside the home and in the home and feeling overwhelmed because one imposes in the other. When she gets work life straight, home life suffers and vice versa. It’s so sad. I use to feel like this… wondering how it would look to people if I didn’t “use” my education at a job somewhere. So glad God has shown me that education belongs to Him and that I can be highly educated and not sacrifice my family because of it. My husband and I are raising our daughters to know what God’s purpose for them is according to Scripture and that no amount of education should ever make them feel they have to choose between what the world says and what God says. This is a topic I could go on about for days and days. Thanks for giving me a little room to write, but even more, thank you for writing this post and spreading Truth.

    • I’m glad you took the time to share, Stacie. I know very well the feelings of being torn, since I had my first baby while I was a soldier in the Army. I actually had to leave her with my husband and go overseas when she was only ten months old! Talk about feeling fractured! Yes, we need to let the Word of God dwell in us richly 🙂

  8. All I can say is AMEN,AMEN,and AMEN.
    This is BRILLIANT, sister. To GOD be the glory and I pray there is a revival of housewives in our country, In JESUS name.
    GOD BLESS YOU.
    MRS.O

  9. A Call to Defend Honest Inquiry By David M. Hayes
    Posted:Sun, 04 May 2014 02:22:00 +0000

    It would seem small-minded to call it a conspiracy, but there is clear-cut evidence that numerous agencies are working in unison to prevent the dissemination of what are considered “dangerous” alternate interpretations of the available evidence (Gould 950). By definition, inquiry is the seeking after truth and knowledge and is a derivative of the word “inquire,” which means, “to question.” All throughout history man has been asking questions, and the scientific method has become the accepted means whereby answers to these questions can be uncovered. However, a gradual takeover of the scientific community by ultra-evolutionists (Darwinians) has guaranteed that only certain types of questions are allowed, and all others must be silenced. Despite the arrogance of this small camp of theorists, there are other voices which must be heard. It is time the public (which is not absolutely convinced of the legitimacy of origins-evolution) rise up and demand that in all quarters, including universities, journals, and even public school classrooms there be an open forum for sound, empirically based alternate views of intelligent-design by qualified young-earth scientists.
    The University of California System, for instance, was sued because it refused to admit students who had been previously taught via Christianscience textbooks, even though these texts were found to be scientifically sound (it was suggested these tomes might be acceptable if the Bible verses they contained were removed) (DeWitt). Scientists with PH.D.s such as Richard Sternberg (DeWitt), Martin Gaskell (Luskey, Evidence), and Guillermo Gonzalez (Luskey, Design) have all faced discrimination in one form or another, and some have brought suits in which the underlying prejudices have been clearly exposed when interoffice communications were examined.

    The Privileged Planet
    Scientists the world over rely on peer-reviewed journals as a means to publish their findings and share them with the scientific community. However, these periodicals have become bigoted and quite closed-minded. Andrew Kulikovsky, writing in the Journal of Creation, laments the rejection of creation-based scientific papers by evolution-controlled journals in his own paper, “Creationism, Science and Peer Review,” stating that:
    A. S. Kulikovsky
    …creationist scientists generally do not bother submitting papers that directly support a creationist interpretation of the natural world. Any such papers would be dismissed out of hand as being unworthy simply on the basis that they advocate a creationist interpretation. The quality of the research, the soundness of the arguments presented, and the validity of the logical conclusions would not even be considered (Kulokovsky, 49).
    According to Kulikovsky, creation scientists are regularly criticized for their lack of published articles in the evolution-controlled journals by Darwinian scientists who suggest that if young-earth research papers were really sound they would be able to pass muster by old-earth scientists, however, young-earth scientists have had no hope of having their papers even considered for publication by such periodicals. Kulikovsky considers this type of thinking to be filled with “glaring inconsistencies,” and quips:
    …if young-earth research should only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of non-young-earth scientists, then shouldn’t old-earth research only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of young-earth scientists? Are the ‘peers’ of old-earth scientists not also proponents of an old earth? Would this not cast serious doubt on the validity of their research (44)?
    The Garden of Eden
    Of course, pro-evolutionists claim to have real reasons for the rejection of scientists who are pro-creation. They claim first that creation science is not true“science”; that it is sloppy and is not empirical (Gould, 950). They also claim that abiogenesis (the idea of a spontaneous origin of life), homology (the idea that all living things are similar and so they must have originated from a single source), and the geologic column (upon which the geologic ages are based) are all tenets that cannot be refuted, and, since creationism rejects these tenets, it cannot be valid. Creationists, meanwhile, assert that facts and proofs are neutral until interpreted in accordance with the observer’s premise. One thing is for certain; no one alive today witnessed the dawn of the universe or the advent of life. Although some Darwinians confidently demand that their theories be unquestionably treated as “fact” by creation “dissenters,” (Gould 949), honest evolutionists concede that the evidence does not always support their assumptions:
    Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori [relating to what can be known through an understanding of how certain things work rather than by observation] adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door (Lewontin, 39).

    In fact, young-earth scientists who believe in a literal creation by an intelligent God have different interpretations of the data evolutionists use to substantiate their claims. First and foremost, according to creationism, there is very little actual, provable evidence to support abiogenesis, since no one was around billions of years ago, and the exact culmination of all the elements necessary for the spontaneous advent of life is impossible to recreate. They further counter that homology is not the evidence of evolutionary theory, but evidence of a single Creator who stamped all of His creation with His own personality. They are also quick to point out the irregularities in the geologic column and offer an alternate theory of a global flood as an explanation (including sudden burials of living organisms, which would account for the plentiful amounts of fossil remains available today) (Creationist).
    While Darwinians are busy maligning their contemporary creationist peers, they fail to realize that the very foundations of modern scientific discovery are replete with the contributions of creation
    Sir Isaac Newton
    scientists. In fact, if there was a banquet to be held in honor these benefactors and only the pro-evolution originators of all of the major scientific branches were to be invited, the hall would almost be empty! Invitations could not be sent to Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Lord Kelvin, all of which developed and advanced the field of physics. The 17th century chemist Robert Boyle would not warrant a place card, nor would his colleagues John Dalton and William Ramsay. Biologists Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, and Aggasiz would not be allowed to join in the festivities, and even Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler would have to dine elsewhere (Creationist). Even today, the list of serious scientists, most of them Ph.D.s, who have contributed heavily to scientific understanding and yet who reject Darwinism, is vast. The website entitled “A Scientific Dissent from Darwin” includes a petition signed by approximately 840 distinguished individuals! The heading of the petition reads:
    We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged (Scientific Dissent).
    Dr. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis
    Even in the face of such overwhelming support by active, contributing scientists, others, such as Bill Nye in his recent debate with Ken Ham (president and founder of Answers in Genesis-U.S.) have expressed the concern that giving credence to young-earth science will lead to the cessation of scientific discovery (Nye). However, creationists assert the opposite opinion; that belief in the Biblical narrative has accounted for increasesin understanding. It could actually be said that one of the greatest physicists of all times, Johannes Kepler, best known for discovering the three mathematical laws of planetary motion, received the inspiration for his discoveries directly from God, since he often is eminently quoted as saying, “O God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee.” Even recent discoveries in the areas of geology, astrophysics, and medicine can be directly attributed to a belief in the authority of Christian Biblical scriptures. For instance, Dr. Russell Humphreys believed that the earth was young in accordance with the Genesis account and based his theory of the strength of magnetic fields surrounding the earth and other planets on this assumption. His hypothesis based on the Biblical narrative was later corroborated by empirical data that was transmitted back to earth by Voyager 2. Accordingly, Physicist John Baumgardner’s predictions of the state of plate tectonics, which he based on the Bible account of Noah’s flood and formulated in the early 1980s, has recently been proved to be exactly as he had theorized (Successful). Regrettably, given the antagonistic stance taken by the conventional science of today, even the beneficent research of such great scientists as Louis Pasteur, a devout Christian who disproved the evolutionary theory of spontaneous generation, would have been rejected, which would have had disastrous results (Lamont)! Who can say what other discoveries are currently being suppressed by such short-sighted discrimination?

    Johannes Kepler
    Given the substantial amounts of unfavorable data, as well as the overwhelming criticism of absolute Darwinism, how is it possible that this body should rule the scientific community? Kulikovsky asserts it is due to a “coercive consensus.” He explains that current science is built on the suppositions of previously accepted theories, many of which have been questioned or disproved (Kulikovsky). Take the account of the peppered moth, for instance. Every public school uses biology textbooks which include this story of moths which changed color in response to environmental changes as convincing proof of evolution. However, it has been brought to light that the moths remained mothsthroughout the entire incident, and that the original data contained in the moths’ DNA never changed; new information was never introduced, so “evolution” never occurred (Mitchell, Much Ado).

    Another inaccuracy that is widely distributed and accepted is the chart created by German biologist Ernst Haeckel in 1868. Haeckel, in keeping with his Darwinian beliefs, wanted to demonstrate that, “the human embryo supposedly goes through a fish stage, an amphibian stage, a reptile stage, and so on.” Even though reputable scientists almost immediately began refuting this assertion and it has been verified that Haeckel’s drawings were falsified, students are still being taught that, “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (Mitchell, Something).
    No matter that many of the tenets of evolution have been disproved, students are required to continue to operate as if they are true, even building their own theories on such flawed foundations and giving the heavy-handed impression that evolutionary theories are proven fact, when they are actually unproven hypotheses.
    Kulikovsky further explains that, besides the continuous propagation of what is essentially misinformation or downright myth, most scientists capitulate and feign a support of evolutionary ideas because they want to be employed.
    Whether we want to admit it or not, there is a remarkably comprehensive scientific orthodoxy to which scientists must subscribe if they want to get a job, get a promotion, get a research grant, get tenured, or get published. If they resist they get forgotten (Bauman).
    All of this coercion gives the impression that there is a consensus among scientists, but this is merely unsubstantiated fiction.

    Amazingly, given all of this maneuvering on the part of Darwinians, the American public is not convinced of the absolute integrity of evolutionary theory. In recent Gallup polls the numbers show that the majority of Americans (70%) would not be upset if creationism was taught in public schools (Carlson). Even more amazingly, the majority of Americans (46%) stated they were convinced that human beings were directly created by God without evolution (only 15% of respondents believed in a Godless evolution of man) (Newport), which begs the question, “Why is a minority of Americans dictating what is disseminated to the majority of Americans”(Bell, 48)? Christian evangelists would certainly be castigated for attempting to coerce the public and control information so that it was slanted to their bias, but evolutionists do this with impunity, claiming they have the “right” to be the “thought police” for a populace of uninitiated simpletons (Bell, 48).
    In conclusion, should Americans, should any people for that matter, accept such patronization? Why is it considered tolerable to replace closely held beliefs that have stood the test of time with the babblings of priests in white lab coats? If evolutionists are as honest as they claim to be, they should welcome examination by those with whom they do not agree, instead of silencing opposition while hiding behind their supposed adherence to “empiricism.” It is time the majority stand up and demand candid transparency of the minority; it is past time the free-thinking public demand of the scientific community what the scientific community demands of the rest of the world.

    Works Cited
    “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.”Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. n.d. 2009. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
    Bauman, M. “Between Jerusalem and the Laboratory.” Journal of Creation 11.1 (1997): 20. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
    Bell, Philip B., “The Portrayal of Creationists by Their Evolutionist Detractors.” Journal of Creation 16.2 (2002): 46-53. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
    Carlson, Darren K. “Americans Weigh In on Evolution vs. Creationism in Schools.” Gallup.com, May, 2005. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
    DeWitt, David A. “Do Creationists ‘Need Remediation’ in Science?”Answersingenesis.org, February 2007. Web. 25 April 2014.
    “Get Answers: Evolution.” Answersingenesis.org. n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
    Gould, Stephen Jay. ”Evolution as Fact and Theory.” From Inquiry to Academic Writing. 2nd ed. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martin, 2012. 947-954. Print.
    Kulikovsky, Andrew. “Creationism, Science and Peer Review.” Journal of Creation 22.1 (2008): 25 Apr. 2014.
    Lamont, Ann. “Great Creation Scientists: Louis Pasteur.” Outstanding Scientist and Opponent of Evolution. Answersingenesis.org. Dec. 1991. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
    Lewontin, Richard. “Billions and Billions of Demons.” Rev. of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan. New York Review of Books (1997): 31. Print.
    Luskin, Casey. “Design Was the Issue After All: ISU’s official explanation in Gonzalez case exposed as a sham (Updated).” Evolution News and Views. December 2007. Web. 25 April 2014.
    Luskin, Casey. “Evidence of Discrimination against Martin Gaskell Due to His Views on Evolution.” Evolution News and Views. December 2010. Web. 25 April 2014.
    Mitchell, Tommy. “Much Ado about Moths.” Answersingenesis.org.Apr. 2008. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
    Mitchell, Tommy. “Something Fishy about Gill Slits!” Answersingenesis.org.,Mar. 2007. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
    Newport, Frank. “On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution.” Gallup.com, Feb. 2009. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
    Nye, Bill, and Ken Ham. “Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham.” Debatelive.org. YouTube. 4 Feb. 2014. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
    “Successful Predictions by Creation Scientists.” Answersingenesis.org.Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
    “The Creationist Basis for Modern Science.” Answersingenesis.org.Jan. 1998. Web. 25 April 2014.

  10. Thank you. I needed to read this. I have been wrestling with how to be a Godly woman in a society that asks for something else. I don’t have many examples around me of women who fight against this movement, but it has never felt right in my heart and I understand why now. Thank you for these answers to my questions. God has put you in my path. Thank you. God bless you and your family.

    • Hallelujah! I’m so glad God used my words to help you fight the good fight–hope you can find some good examples here on the web, at least!

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.