Still reading....

Interesting paragraph, given the issue of textbooks:
"Interestingly, the same year that the Johnson/Raven book was published, researcher Michael Richardson, in a letter to the editor of Science that appeared in the August 28, 1998 issue of that journal, lamented: “Sadly, it is the discredited 1874 drawings that are used in so many British and American biology textbooks” (281:1289). Yes, sadly, it is. Stephen J. Gould lamented: “We should not therefore be surprised that Haeckel’s drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of those drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks” (2000, 109[2]:44, emp. added). One would assume that a well-known publication like National Geographic would possess the ability to internally review and check such basic tenets, in an effort to present only the truth to its readers. Yet, that same long-discredited material—which even prominent evolutionists admit makes them “ashamed”—is exactly what David Quammen attempted to portray in the November 2004 issue of National Geographic as a “proof” of evolution. The question is: Why is the use of such material—which is known to be fraudulent—allowed to continue?"
National Geographic Shoots
Itself in the Foot—Again!

What is interesting is that these are probably some of the same textbooks that moral degenerates have such a problem with putting a label of "theory" on. Yet scientists, are they not the ones who will put a label on everything, making more money through government regulations and lawyers? For the safety of that! And the unity of everyone being treated like mental retards, too.

But apparently, they will not label their own textbooks. I call believers in evolutionism moral degenerates because they merge the categories of human and animal, male and female, etc. Their so-called science is more about an ancient subpagan rebellion against Natural Law and civilization and so almost all written codes of ethics. Natural Law condemns treating humans like animals, merging their being together and so on. Evolutionists do not tend to focus on history text and so they apparently overlook the stories of times when they put humans in zoos, etc., as part of the "missing link." (E.g., Ota Benga and others.)

Evolutionism tends to acts as a solvent to sexual ethics and taboos. Zoophiilia, homophilia, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc., are condemned by Natural Law. But if a culture can merge the categories of human and animal then Natural Law can be done away with in favor of ancient subpagan tendencies that are morally degenerate. You may not believe how bad religious hedonism can cause the mergings and perversions of natural categories to get, but just check your spam filters sometime. It is the process of the decline of civilization into animalization. Yet often, animals are not even as perverse as humans.

It seems that the only word left for it is Evil.