Skip to content

Zack Kopplin’s Crusade to Insulate Microbes-to-Man Evolutionism from the Self-Correcting Mechanisms of Scientific Inquiry

May 3, 2011

Recently, atheist Dr. Michael Zimmerman has been giving a lot of press to a young man named Zack Kopplin. Kopplin, a product of the microbes-to-man evolution propaganda machine that is our public educational system, wants to repeal the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act [LSEA] which encourages critical thinking in science education. Young Mr. Kopplin believes he is doing us a favor, that he is in effect repealing creationism, but this LSEA allows for no such thing, as the following exchange further eloborates upon:

“Mr. Kopplin,

The legislation you’re fighting doesn’t tell anyone they can teach creationism in schools. If some are doing that, then address those who are in violation of Edwards v. Aquillard – don’t toss the baby out with the bath water. The LSEA does teach students to approach science skeptically even if certain theories or models are now widely accepted; geocentrism was widely accepted by scientists in Galileo’s day but skepticism and critical analysis caused it to go the way of phlogiston! By attempting to insulate the theory of microbes-to-man evolution from critical inquiry, you’re actually leaving science and even education far behind. When you insist on presenting fish-to-philosopher evolution in schools in an uncritical, rosy, and one-sided manner, you’re engaging in indoctrination, not education. Instead of teaching science, you’re relating dogma.

It’s hubris to suggest that no one has legally challenged the LSEA because such an act would apparently require an act of martyrdom. No courage is required to initiate something that would only gain you the backing of the major scientific organizations with a presuppositional commitment to microbes-to-man evolution – only thick skin. It hasn’t been challenged because it’s not unConstitutional; it contains specific language to forbid teaching religion. But the Darwin Faithful cannot allow their theory to suffer critical analysis and that’s why folks like you and atheist Dr. Michael Zimmerman fight against a key concepts of the scientific method [skeptical and critical analysis and the non-static nature of scientific knowledge] in order to maintain a High Wall of Protection around the it!

As to your charge that evolution and Christianity are compatible, you could not be more mistaken. Evolutionary views may be imposed upon Scripture but only at the expense of tossing out traditional, apostolic doctrines. In other words, it is not compatible with historical Christianity nor with Biblical revelation. Those who impose evolutionary interpretations upon Scripture must do so by significantly editing Scriptural revelation and therefore by significantly altering Christian doctrine and theology. I’ve exposed the fact that the signatures on atheist Dr Michael Zimmerman’s pro-evolution Clergy Letter are all largely from liberal, mainline denominations who long ago abandoned historical Christianity (some of the “clergy” on his letter do not even meet the basic requirements of a Christian, such as a belief in the historical, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, and thus are clergy in name only) and from recognized cults like the Unity “church.”

I urge you to stand up for reason, education and science by abandoning this misguided quest to keep science from being taught critically in the classroom. It should not matter in the slightest whether you feel there is a scientific alternative to evolution; if a scientific claim cannot stand up to critical analysis it should be thrown out with phlogiston and geocentrism!

You’re not fighting against creationism, you’re fighting against skeptical scientific inquiry.

Rev Tony Breeden
Founder of and the Creation Sunday Movement”

He responded with the following:

“Rev. Breechen (sic), you know as well as I do that the intent of this law is to sneak creationism into the public school science classroom. You don’t need to look further than Sen. Ben Nevers’ quotes to find proof.”

This was rather dismissive. In light of Edwards v. Aguillard, the law could never allow creationism to be taught. He seemed to suppose intent trumps ability somehow, so I clarified my objection:

“Mr. Kopplin,

You have in fact ignored my points. You appear to be commiting an ad logicum, supposing that by refuting one piece of my rebuttal that you need not address other independent supports. Since you do not value critical thinking [at least where it concerns microbes-to-man evolution], I’ll forgive you the fallacy of logic and instea dpoint out that even if Sen. Nevers had intended this legislation to sneak in creationism, such a Trojan horse action would be futile, precisely because Edwards v. Aguillard negates the possibility of the LSEA being used to teach either ID or creationism; thus, even if Nevers intended the LSEA as a Creation Trojan Horse, his efforts were doomed from the get-go. The language of the LSEA especially coupled with Edwards v Aquillard does not allow for the teaching of either creation or ID. In a nutshell, your objection concerning Nevers’ motives is irrelevant to the point.

Therefore to allege that this bill allows for the teaching of creationism and to characterize the repealing of the LSEA as a repealing of creationism is hubris. What are you fighting against then? Oh, for the uncritical acceptance of microbes-to-man evolution. Yet the scientific method is built of skeptical inquiry and critical analysis from which no theory or model is supposed to be exempt. It is this aspect of the scientific method that has allowed us to progress from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics, and from geocentrism to heliocentrism. You’re being a puppet in the hands of those who want to enforce an evolutionary dogma and illegitimately protect it from criticism. This insulation of a favored model is unscientific and, if the Galileo affair has taught us anything at all, ill advised. By repealing the LSEA, you will give the rest of the country the impression that some models and theories should be insulated from the self-correcting mechanisms of scientific inquiry and you will thus do true science a great disservice.

Please come to your senses, sir.

Rev Tony Breeden
Founder, &”

As I noted to Mr. Kopplin, the self-correcting mechanism of science requires that all models and theories be subject to scrutiny at any time. Evolution enforcement advocates (don’t be fooled when they call themselves science advocates, especially when they wish to insulate their pet theory from critical examination) don’t want microbes-to-man evolution dogam questioned. At all!

Meanwhile, another disturbing trend has come to light. Recent statistics show that U. S. high school students perform well below other developed countries in math and science.  Commenting on this, a trio of evolution-loyal scientists criticized Answers in Genesis’ Ark Encounter project back in January 2011, noting:

“Students in 17 countries, led by Finland, Hong Kong and South Korea, outperform U.S. students in mathematics, and those in 12 countries surpass our students in science. An interactive science technology theme park would be more appropriate to educate the public and inspire schoolchildren to be more competitive in math and science and to aspire to regain America’s leadership in the global market…We will not regain our pre-eminence in science and technology if we don’t teach our children how to distinguish faith-based myth from scientific fact.”

Ken Ham’s rebuttal of their attempt to pass the blame elsewhere is cogent to our discussion of Zack Kopplin’s efforts:

“Think about it: Creation, prayer, Bible, etc. have all basically been thrown out of public schools years ago. Evolution/millions of years is taught as fact in the public school system and secular (and even many Christian) universities—and has been for many years. These professors are bemoaning the poor science and math scores in U.S. schools and relating it to the Creation Museum/Ark Encounter! The illogic is incredible. The science and math scores have gone down as evolution has been taught as fact, and they blame creationists who have hardly any influence in secular education. Amazing!

Actually, it is obvious that the more anti-Christian the schools and curricula have become, the more the science and math scores have decreased.”

Think about it: Zack Kopplin is a product of the evolution-only propaganda machine which has had complete control over our science classrooms over  the past several decades of dropping science test scores… and Zack’s zeal for goo-to-you evolution (and the approval of Big Science) has blinded him to the reality that by insulating Darwin’s theory from critical inquiry he’s undermining the self-correcting mechanism of science and ensuring that dogma is taught rather than the prnciples of skeptical scientific inquiry. Meanwhile, he’s getting pats of the back from Big Science who will do anything to keep evolution’s weaknesses from being  exposed.

8 Comments leave one →
  1. Nick de Vries permalink
    May 3, 2011 1:50 am

    Love your work Tony. Mr Kopplin seems incapable of critically analysing his own thought processes, let alone anything as serious as origins science!

  2. Saganhill permalink
    May 10, 2011 10:19 am

    Rev.Tony, you are an idiot. You use large words to make it seem like you are intellegent and have a high IQ. But all you are is a parot of your religious dogma. You berate this kid who is trying to learn proper Science, but you would rather keep him and your people “stupid” for god. Not only keeping people stupid for god is good for religious business, its good for you pocket book. So I see your point in keeping people stupid. If no one beleives, you’re out of a job. Thinking that an invisible sky jockey that lives in the sky is true is not only insane but one of the biggest scams put on humanity.

  3. May 12, 2011 1:29 am


    [sigh]. I usually don’t allow comments like this on my site. Simple ad hominem attacks like these are discouraged in my Rules of Engagement.
    With due respect, I’m not an idiot and I use large words [with comprehension, I might add] precisely because I am intelligent and possess a moderately high IQ.

    I do not simply parrot religious dogma. I rejected the faith of my youth and came back to it rather reluctantly. Like G K Chesterton, I really did set out to create a heresy all my own and when I had put the finishing touches to it, I discovered it was orthodoxy.

    If you read my post, I’m not berating Mr. Kopplin for trying to learn proper science; I’m berating him for fighting against it, specifically by trying to insulate microbes-to-man evolution from the self-correcting mechanisms of science.

    As for your accusation that I’m in this for the money, well, I haven’t made any. I’ve never been in this for the money. I think truth is worth sacrifice. I’m not trying to keep people ignorant or stupid. No, the evos are doing that, insisting that we simply parrot their naturalistic dogma and not subject their model to skeptical inquiry. We want people to use their minds and critically examine what they’re saying. In short, I want people to examine the evidence and think for themselves, but Mr. Kopplin is being encouraged to fight against this concept.

    As for your final “point” regarding an “invisible SKY jockey” who lives (surprise!) “in the SKY” (apparently in a redundantly redundant fashion), why would you consider the idea of God to be insane? Why do you suppress the truth of your senses? This world gives ample evidence of a Creator for those who are not willfully ignorant of this fact! And when one examines the possible candidates for this Creator, we find that the Biblical Creator is the only rational choice. But to answer your point’s validity, the Christian God does not merely exist in an invisible, untouchable state somewhere in the ether; no, He came into this world in the form of Jesus Christ, dwelt sinlessly among us for 33 years, died for our sins and rose again that we might have eternal life. If you confess Christ as the Lord of your life, accept His sacrifice for your sin and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

    Consider it, sir.

  4. jesusknight permalink
    July 14, 2011 6:26 am

    You are absolutely right on, Tony! Keep up the good work in His name.


  1. PZ Myers on Why Creationists Believe, or A Look at an Evolutionist’s Double Standard |
  2. Zack Kopplin’s Crusade to Insulate Microbes-to-Man Evolutionism from the Self-Correcting Mechanisms of Scientific Inquiry (via |
  3. Question Evolution Day « Defending Genesis
  4. Atheist Michael Zimmerman Pleas For Consistency: How That Would Effect the Teaching of Evolution In Schools |

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: