Justin Jelincic

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Why we MUST REJECT evolutionary instruction

with 2 comments

While there IS evidence of species adaptation, we must reject establishing a blind, whole-hearted embrace of evolution as the means by which mankind has come into existence.   The hidden agenda of political Evolutionist is to establish their viewpoint that all are not created equal, and there is a supreme race.

Evolutionists teach the survival of the best adapted, and the theory of progression from single cell to complex mankind without a creator’s intervention.   While rejecting Creation and a Creator as the source of mankind’s existence, in favor of a theory of progressive adaptation, they arrive at the required result of accepting this theory as fact, and lay a foundation for a hidden political agenda of some. Teaching evolution as the single fact to explain the existence of mankind, is to establish these two statements:

1) All men (mankind) are not created equal.  Evolution has chosen the adaptations that lead to superiority and survival, and therefore we must accept the recognition of a supreme race.  

2) Rights are granted by the leaders of the supreme race to whomever they choose to grant rights, and rights are denied to whomever they choose to deny rights.

Creationist believe there is a Creator and that 1) All men (mankind) are created equal and 2) That the Creator has given all people certain inalienable rights, that no man or government may properly deny.

The contrast can not be more profound.  Superior vs Equal     Rights granted by Government or Rights given by the Creator.

The conclusions of the Creationist lead to equality. 

The conclusions of political Evolutionist, lead to slavery and servitude, by some, of the highest evolved people group.  Evolutionist thinking must be rejected as the fact to explain mankinds existence.


Written by Justin Jelincic

October 20, 2011 at 7:19 am

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Justin,

    I realize we’re a diverse group of people and I’m definitely not on board of a lot of the current Democrat DC politics, but I’ve not really figured out what you’re FOR other than unseating the “status quo” Democrats.

    Evolution recognizes adaptation, sure, and even speciation created by isolation of populations, but you’d be hard pressed to get serious evolutionists to admit that we have anything close to that in homo sapien.

    Also, as a female, I find it particularly ironic (yet unsurprisingly typical of religious men) that you just refer to “men” in your diatribe. Call it semantics, but this kind of language is why WOMEN have been second class citizens for much of religious history.


    Disgusted in Minnesota


    February 16, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    • Thank you for your input. I will go back and look at the gender usage, and attempt to correct for that, or at least comment on “generic terms”. ( I tried)

      I always understood Democrats to be the party that wanted a level playing field, instead of one that favored big interests. Unfortunately the Democrats have increasingly become a party that is focused on power for party leaders, instead of a level playing field for the the common citizen.

      I remain true the original ideals of the Democratic Party.

      While you are right that scientists do not use evolutionary theory to champion the theme of a superior race, it has been used by political powers to champion that agenda. Without a Creator, there are no Creator given rights, and governments become the source for granting, and taking away, rights.

      I agree with you that history is filled with accounts of religious people, and nations, doing what was “right in their own eyes” to the destruction and abuse of many. Sadly religion has been used for good and evil, and continues to be used that way around the globe. That is why I think the founders, were keen on prohibiting the new Federal government from endorsing, or supporting an established Federal religion.

      Government religion is often tied in history to evil. There was already diversity of religious thought in the colonies, and establishing ONE form of religion as part of the American culture was to be avoided. Personal religion is often (but not always) tied to good and charity, therefore religious freedom was to be maintained, while governmental religion was, and is, to be avoided.

      Sadly I believe that while calling for separation of Church and State (a misdirection from the 1st right) we have established Federal beliefs, and undermined personal charity. Federal charity has caused many to become like Scrooge, contributing taxes to the poorhouse and prisons, instead of contributing time, compassion, and money to help their common human being.

      What am I for?
      I am for the full protection of our creator given rights, from an abusive federal government that would crush the God given rights of anyone, to appease the demands of the majority

      Justin Jelincic

      March 5, 2012 at 10:26 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: