"Because the idea of evolution has become so entrenched within biology in higher education, high schools, and even in elementary schools, many students are under the impression that it must be an incontrovertible fact. Naively, students and parents presume these false "teachings" must be based on rigorous investigations" (Biddle, Bisbee, & Bergman, 2016, Introduction page).

Additionally, it is ubiquitous that, "From grade school on up, children are falsely taught about "cavemen," adroitly and gradually conditioned, without factual basis, to the idea that we evolved from lower forms of life. " http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch18a.htm.

FALSE NON-FACTUAL TEACHINGS Image Credit: http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch18a.htR

What do Reputable Scientists think ?

Professor Louis Bounoure said:

“‘Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless. — Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of and Director of the Strasbourg Zoo­logical Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in The Advocate, Thursday 8 March 1984, p. 17.”

Another scientists, Dr. Tahmisian, explained:

“‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact. ‘ — Dr T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in ‘The Fresno Bee’, August 20,1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor”s New Clothes, Roydon publications, UK, 1983, title page.” (Emphasis ours).

Furthermore, “‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct func­tional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. ‘ — Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontol­ogy, Harvard University), ‘Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127.”

Then Why do schools and other scientists continue to teach "Evolution"?

Our of fear. - "When the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, in August of 2004, published the first peer reviewed article explicitly advancing the theory" of origin of human and life design, or Intelligent Design, angry and unscrupulous evolutionists demanded the editor's censure. As a result Richard Sternberg, lost his office and access to his scientific samples and, to his demise, was given a job working for a "hostile supervisor" (Meyer, 2009, p. 1)

Please note that - "After Sternberg's case was carefully investigated by the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel" - it was found out that Sternberg's, senior administrators unscrupulously interrogated his colleagues, and engaged in a misinformation and vile campaign in order to damage his scientific and personal reputation to encourage his resignation. Sternberg never regained his research appointment. (Meyer, 2009, p. 2) .

What are "evolutionists" afraid of?

Who would want to be in his position? We understand what happened to Sternberg.

Another well known professor of organic chemistry at Rice University, James M. Tour, expressed that many of his peers hide from Explaining Evolution. Why? Because they are afraid to loose their jobs and their tenure.

"James M. Tour, is a synthetic organic chemist, received his Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Syracuse University, his Ph.D. in synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry from Purdue University, and postdoctoral training in synthetic organic chemistry at the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University."

Dr. James Tour expressed his concerns regarding this fear

"Hence, by my observation, the unfair treatment upon the skeptics of macroevolution has not come from the administration level, at least at Rice University. But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with theories of evolution, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers , unless you’re one of those champions for proclamation " (Tour. Ph.D., 2018) (Emphasis ours).

"James Tour agrees that microevolution (adaptation) is common, sometimes helped along by plant and animal breeding to enhance the desired characteristics. But, as he questioned colleagues in his rarified academic atmosphere, he concluded that there is no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution (changing from one species into another.) " (emphasis ours). http://www.chick.com/bc/2017/world-famous-chemist-...

Definition of Macro and Micro Evolution

Macroevolution (changing of the species into another species) presumes there were evolutionary changes- guesswork. Berkely University in this definition describes macroevolution as pure guess work, never observed, when it says:

"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution , such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life."

Berkley university continues with its definition of macroevolution by saying: "It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms." (Emphasis ours) https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/...

Note how this definition by Berkley "encompasses" guess work. The word "Encompasses" is not an observational process, it is a guess, assuming terminology, and a process, that has never been observed nor proven. It does not imply evidence. It is a loose term.

* The FREE DICTIONARY describes "encompass" as: " To form a circle or ring around; encircle."

Thus, "if there are no first hand accounts to be read" or if "it is not necessarily easy to see", then why do they define it as a "history".

Would you buy a house or a car whose title and or deed was "not necessarily easy to see"? Only someone naive would carry on such a transaction.

Then, why do we allow "institutions and teachers" to lead us into believing something that does not exist ? Macro-Evolution is a hoax.

Berkley University is engaging in inaccurate teaching and false advertising regarding "evolution".

Adaptation

On the other hand, microevolution is simply nothing more than "Adaptation of the species" - reversible changes- within the same species. Not changing of the species into another.https://sites.google.com/site/dnageneticsresearch/...

Here is the definition of micro evolution:

it is an observable process - not guesswork. It is an actual process that agrees with true science: "Microevolution is a process of a series of changes in a single species of living things that are observable within a lifetime. "Microevolution leads to small changes in the same species. (see a loose definition of both terms.) "https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-betwe...

Additionally, Microevoution could be defined as: Simple adaptation of the species - minor yet, reversible changes in DNA- Not a change from one species to another. In other words -Not evolution of the species. https://sites.google.com/site/dnageneticsresearch/...

The "finches" of Darwin in the Galapagos Islands in Ecuador, during a dry season, went through microevolution of their beaks. However, when rain returned their beaks grew back to their original state, never did they turn into a turkey or a tortoise or a rabbit. Never in a billion years ! they remained finches for ever.

What this course teaches you and your children

This course teaches our children and adults that "evolution" is nothing more than a hypothetical "idea" from theists, atheists, and secular educators based on suppositions, and a conglomeration of mixed non-convergent ideas and findings, based on "scientific" fabrication (Biddle, Bisbee, & Bergman, 2016). * This is a picture of a true fossil record. Nevertheless, that does not mean that any organisms "evolved" from these beautifully strong animals. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.org (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil) (1).

Image of the Human Eye with Rods and Cones Pointing toward Epithelial Cells

Rods have a protein called rhodopsin and cones- This point to an Intelligent-well-thought-out Design behind it.

Why are Rods and Cones pointing to the back of the retina toward the epithelial cells?

The eye is perfectly designed. Cones and rods point to the back of the eye for a specific reason. The "backwards" organization of rods and cones is helpful for a few different reasons. Find out why? (Dr. Biology, 2010)

"The "backwards" organization of rods and cones is helpful for a few different reasons.

First of all, the discs containing rhodopsin or photopsin are constantly recycled to keep your visual system healthy. By having the discs right next to the epithelial cells (retinal pigmented epithelium: RPE) at the back of the eye, parts of the old discs can be carried away by cells in the RPE.

Another benefit to this layout is that the RPE can absorb scattered light. This means that your vision is a lot clearer. Light can also have damaging effects, so this set up also helps protect your rods and cones from unnecessary damage".

Image and definitions in quote credit: https://askabiologist.asu.edu/rods-and-cones

Introduction to our class

“96% the of state education system”, including private and even some Christian denominations schools are now teaching the “evolution” of man as a historical account or "fact". This inaccurate - pseudo-scientific based- teaching has many parents worried, because the majority of people in the USA and all over the world- as well as recently- thousands of scientists today, know and write about the fact that man was created by intelligence intervention, and not by chance. (Biddle, Bisbee, & Bergman, 2016, p. 145; CMI, 2017).

Thus, parents ask, why is it being taught as a "fact" in our public and some private schools? The answer as stated above is: FEAR ! Dr. Bergman, a renown biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology professor at a Community College stated: “It is obvious that apes and humans were created differently..” (Biddle, Bisbee, & Bergman, 2016, p. 145).

Another reason - A scientist said: The "evolution of man" is a religious belief taught by modern day atheistic - and albeit, some times, well meaning but misinformed theistic educators. (Wells, 2002). (Echeverria, 2017). “This type of thinking has led many otherwise excellent scientists astray” (Biddle, Bisbee, & Bergman, 2016, introduction pages).

Since the naive, yet misinformed idea that man “evolved” from apes is so much part of today’s educational system, many students, parents and even teachers continue to be confused, and take this as a fact, when in reality is nothing more than a false, and fabricated “idea” based on naturalistic philosophy (Luskin, 2015).

Recent DNA discoveries, fossil records, genetics study and research have rendered the idea of "evolution" completely false, indicating that any “evidence linking humans and apes has been exaggerated (and sometimes even fabricated)”. It lacks solid scientific evidence and it continues to be “exaggerated to this day” (Biddle et al., 2016, p. introduction.)

Examples of Fabricated Ideas

For instance, Wikipedia.org said, "The humanzee (Homo sapiens sapiens × Pan) is a hypothetical chimpanzee/human hybrid. An unsuccessful attempt to breed such a hybrid was made by Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov in the 1920s. There have been occasional reports of human-chimpanzee hybridization, notably regarding a performing chimp named Oliver during the 1970s, but none of them have been confirmed. Similarly, the possibility of a chimpanzee–gorilla hybrid, known as koolakamba, also remains unsubstantiated". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee).(2) (Emphasis ours).

Why can't Wikipedia bring itself to say that these two tales are simply "lies?

Nevertheless, Wikipedia.org, in a futile attempt to convince the public of the human-chimp "evolution" ancestry, said, "While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been ongoing until as recent as 4 million years ago (Pliocene)" (3) (Emphasis and Italics ours).Image courtesy of "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93h...".

Although the above idea and image appear to have a scientific ring, it is clearly evident that it is simply another example of "fabrication" and exaggeration of facts.

That is why we have decided to dedicate ourselves to teach the truth of science to the community - To teach this course, and other subjects that expose the truth about the universe. We decided to teach children and parents the true science behind the false teaching and invented idea of man's "evolution".

Thousands of scientists are no longer accepting the idea that we arrived to this world as a result of a mixture of chemical compounds that started billions of years ago via a single cell (CMI, 2017).

As we study this course you will discover the beautiful and marvelously complex make of our body compared to chimps, and its differences. Animal kind, humankind, the earth and the universe speak volumes of intelligence origins and not chance - like five differences between humans and animals, and twelve human design features that apes do not share with us humans.

The chemical composition of gases in the Earth that bespeak of perfect design, for humans, plant and animal kind - all designed to be at the right altitude, and the right mix. Why does the electron charge have to be one billionth of 1 percent accurate? The answer to these questions are given in this course.

This course is based on a collection of science based textbooks, and years of research on the "evolution of man".

You will learn why the human brain and its skull is so much different than that of the chimpanzee. Additionally, why is are the ear canals different between the two species, the face, the mouth, the scleras of the eyes, the spine, the legs, etc, These are all totally different between humans and chimps.

Finally, you will, among a plethora of other lessons, learn why is this unsustainable idea of "evolution" being taught in our schools all over the world ? And the fact that some public textbooks that teach "evolution" are or have been completely outdated, yet they continue to teach "evolutionary facts" and ideas that have been completely proven to be fabrication, yet they are referred to as "science".

Is it true that chimps and humans are 98% similar in genetic makeup ? If so, what about the so called "Junk DNA" that some geneticists said were vestiges of past "genetic" leftover from "billions of years of evolution" ? Is there really Junk in our human genes ?

Would a designer, of a sophisticated program application today, include "junk" in its programming code?

What about the so called "chromosome fusion" theory, that "two of ape-like chromosomes" joined together, over millions of years, to form the human chromosome number two ? Is this idea true ? Or is it another "invention" of "evolutionists" that has no facts behind it ?

How to confront, intelligently and wisely - the "Human-Chimp" accepted propaganda ? And many other questions will be answered in this magnificent class under the text: "Debunking Human "Evolution" Part I, as taught in Public and some Private Schools".

Register to take this course, you will be pleasantly enlightened.

The basic teaching material can be purchased at: https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Evolution-Taught-...

Your instructor

References

1)The "Ichthyosaurus communis" (1), its vertebrae (2) and "Plesiosaurus dolichoderes" courtesy wikipedia.org: from the 1834 Czech edition of George Cuvier's "Discours sur les révolutions de la surface du globe et sur les changements qu'elles ont produits dans le règne animal"

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93h...

Biddle, D., A.Ph. ., Bisbee, D., A., & Bergman, J., Ph. . (2016). Debunking Human Evolution Taught in Our Public Schools. Gemesis Apologetics, Inc.

CMI, I. (2017). Scientists today* who accept the biblical account of creation. Retrieved January 1, 2018, from https://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-ac...

Dr. Biology. (2010). Rods and Cones of the Human Eye. Publisher: Arizona State University School of Life Sciences Ask A Biologist. Retrieved from https://askabiologist.asu.edu/rods-and-cones

Dr. Mitchell Tommy. 2015, T., 2015. (n.d.). Introduction to Anatomy and Physiology. (Vol. 1).

Echeverria, F. (2017, May 16). The World Crisis in Education. Retrieved September 8, 2017, from https://creationhomeschooler.blogspot.com/

Luskin, C. (2015). The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution. Discovery Institute. Retrieved from https://www.discovery.org/a/24041

Meyer, S., C. (2009). Signature in the Cell. Harper Collins Publishers.

Plourde, K., M. S., McManamy, M. M., Ph. ., Snyder, C., Ph. ., Meier, B., M. A., & Simpson, D., M. S. (2014). Exploring Creation with Chemistry (3rd ed.).

Wells, J. (2002). Darwinists Answer “Ten Questions” with Evasions and Falsehoods.

"the Miller-Urey experiment used a simulated atmosphere that geochemists now agree was incorrect, it was not the “first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth.” When conditions are changed to reflect better knowledge of the Earth’s early atmosphere, the experiment doesn’t work."

"Stanley Miller himself reported in 1983 that the most he could produce in the absence of methane was glycine, the simplest amino acid, and then only if free hydrogen were present. But free hydrogen is precisely what geochemists now agree was essentially ABSENT.

So the Miller-Urey experiment was unsuccessful, and NCSE’s (National Center for Science Education) claim that it was the “first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth” is false.

Why don’t textbooks discuss the “Cambrian explosion"?

"Why don’t textbooks discuss the “Cambrian explosion,” in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor–thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?"

"NCSE’s (The National Center for Science Education) Answer: " fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian"

1. The NCSE (The National Center for Science Education) is wrong: Fish DID make their first appearance in the Cambrian explosion.
2. The “major groups” to which my question refers are the animal phyla. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are sub-groups (classes) of a single phylum. The NCSE is using semantics to give the illusion that the Cambrian explosion never happened.
3. It is through assumption and extrapolation, not “fossils” and “data from developmental biology,” that Darwinists are supposedly “linking” the Cambrian groups."

Discovery Institute. Retrieved from

http://www.discovery.org/a/1106

Footnotes:

Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks — Here’s a List

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/haeckels_fraudu/

additional Interesting textbooks

Book Author: Dave Woetzel, illustrated by Richard Dobbs Jr.

Master Books

https://www.alibris.com/Chronicles-of-Dinosauria-D...

2) Excerpts of this course will eventually become a textbook- which contains a compilations of facts from the literature and will be called - "How to teach our children that evolution is a hoax ".

Other books reviewed by Kathy Duffy

The Harsh Truth about Public Schools

""Why are you educating your children at a pagan seminary?" He explodes the myth that government schools are religiously neutral, even in the best of circumstances. With this worldview orientation in mind, it is easier to follow along as Shortt chronicles a lengthy list of problems evident in government schools, problems stemming from values clarification, sex education, dumbing down academics, sexual abuse by teachers, medicating children for ADHD, teacher incompetence, violence in schools, endless "educational reforms," and much more."

"He acknowledges that many of the present problems have arisen because Christians were willing to accept an unholy compromise to create government schooling in the 1800s—they were willing to dilute religion to its lowest common denominators to placate the Unitarians and the Socialists. This compromise, bolstered by Supreme Court decisions regarding separation of church and state, made the present situation with schools inevitable."

https://cathyduffyreviews.com/general-interest-boo...