Back to School: Do You Know What Your Child is Learning?

Another school year is set to begin at high schools and colleges where the next round of biology students will be filled with evolutionary misinformation. At the center of this propaganda campaign are the many biology textbooks used to indoctrinate young minds with old dogma. These textbooks contain the latest evolutionary newspeak, but the underlying message is no different.

In their text The Living World (Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008) evolutionists George Johnson and Jonathan Losos rehearse the usual teachings. Students are told that “Microevolution Leads to Macroevolution” with the giraffe’s neck serving as the example of how small change is supposed to accumulate to the large-scale change evolution needs.

Of course this is a long-standing, well-known problem for evolution. Mechanisms for large-scale change are speculative for it does not appear merely to be the result of repeated rounds of microevolution. Johnson and Losos, of course, inform the student of none of this.

The giraffe example is also useful in explaining evolution’s concept of biological variation. The text explains that according to evolution variation arises independent of need or experience via mechanisms such as random mutation.

Contrary to such evolutionary dogma, it has been known for decades that variation is sensitive to experience and need. Evolutionists have resisted this and the text again leaves the student ignorant of the science.

Such misrepresentations of science, as damaging as they are, pale in comparison to Johnson’s and Losos’ next move. The apologists make a failed attempt to enlist the fossil record as powerful evidence for evolution, and end up with only the usual metaphysics. They write:

If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected.

Very interesting. And how do evolutionists know so much? From where did Johnson and Losos learn such ultimate truths? If evolution is not correct then such orderly change is not expected? Tell us more.

What are all the possibilities aside from evolution and why do none of them predict “such orderly change”? Why is it that evolution, and only evolution, predicts such an outcome? This is truly fascinating. If and only if evolution is true would we see such orderly change. Johnson and Losos are real geniuses—they have knowledge of all possible causes.

You cannot make this stuff up. In two and half pages the text’s chapter on evolution has gone from misleading to absurd. What will come next?

But this is nothing new in evolutionary circles. Only evolutionists teach such a biased version of science.

Courtesy of http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/07/back-to-school-do-you-know-what-your.html

Evolution and Atheists Big Dilemma:The Question of Beginnings

Explanations exist for the answer to “How did I get here”:

1. Evolution — first there was nothing, and then it exploded. Then goo formed, then amino acids, then life, then through mutations became what we see today.
2. God — an eternal being created the cosmos.
3. Aliens placed us here 10 minutes ago with all memories intact (we’ve heard that before, seriously).
4. We’re in the Matrix.

Evolution makes many assumptions about what may or may not have happened billions of years ago (“first there was nothing, and then it exploded”), simply because they’re required for evolution to occur. But that’s not science. The scientific method1 involves repeatable, experimental data. If you don’t have that, it’s not science — by definition. So where is the experimental evidence for the following? If you don’t have repeatable, verifiable experimental data for it it’s not science, and you can’t answer the question (via science) of how did I get here?

1. Matter comes from nothing.
2. Non-living material can spontaneously become alive.
3. Species can change from one to another.
4. Explosions produce order.

Evolution doesn’t work — even Dawkins admits a god exists2. If you believe “from the goo to the zoo to you” you need repeatable, scientific experiments for it. If you don’t have that, you accept evolution on faith, not science.

The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing—is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice. — Richard Dawkins “The Ancestor’s Tale” page 613

Dawkins states how the universe came into existence is evolution. And his theory about evolution is “first there was nothing, and then it exploded” followed by the goo … to the zoo … to you! All without experimental data to support it. Where are the experiments showing matter comes from nothing? For non-life becoming life? Of course, that’s not the only problem Dawkins and his disciples need to answer:

Nevertheless, it may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck, anthropically justified. — Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” page 140

Where’s the science? By Dawkins’ own admission, he’s postulated a lucky theory-of-the-gaps, where he has a start and end point, and in the middle only exists “poof—some magic happened” — completely without any scientific experimental evidence or observation in the lab. Where are the experiments proving life comes from non-life, or matter comes from nothing? Dawkins takes evolution on faith, not science.

Some say evolution doesn’t involve these questions concerning the beginning of the cosmos and matter itself (even though Dawkins disagrees), but we still need to answer the question: how did I get here? If you want to ignore the foundation and start on the 13th floor, fine. Where are the experiments showing massive quantities of mutations create new species? This gets to be an argument over what a species is, but for the bit we’ll gloss over that issue to focus on another problem — lack of information.

Courtesy of http://www.dyeager.org/book/atheism-agnosticism/question-beginnings

Darwin’s God: Playing With The Truth

I used to believe facts and figures counted. I thought that objective, obvious evidence would carry the day. But evolutionists have long since dispelled such silly notions for me. In one public debate with a professor, I read through a dozen or so objective, scientific failures of evolution. With a wave of the hand the professor easily dismissed the entire list. “Those,” he assured the audience, “are all fallacies.” It later became obvious he hadn’t the foggiest idea of what he was talking about.

Scientists have a duty to represent accurately what they know, and what they don’t know, to the public. They should not oversell their favorite ideas or undersell ideas they oppose. Those ideas probably don’t seem too controversial but a debate can take on a life of its own. In the heat of battle truth is the first casualty. Now new research confirms Aeschylus’ age old observation. The research concludes that it is right to overstate the validity of Darwin’s theory to ensure success in public debate. The ends justify the means.

But arch evolutionist PZ Myers objects as he rehearses the familiar “evolution is a fact” refrain. Echoing Joseph Le Conte who found that evolution is not merely as certain as gravity, “Nay, it is far more certain,” Myers explains that evolutionists’ high claims are entirely warranted:

The evidence for evolution really is overwhelmingly in its favor. It isn’t proven in a mathematical sense, there is no illusion that we have accounted for every single possible mechanism, and there is still active exploration of all the details, but there is no doubt anywhere sensible that evolution, that populations change over time driven by natural processes, and that all life on earth shares a common ancestry, is a fact, amply confirmed and tested.

That would be a difficult claim to defend. In fact, given the current state of science it would be impossible to defend as evolution’s predictions seem to be continually turning out to be false. For instance, the reconciliation of the molecular and the visible, morphological, features has been a major problem in trying to resolve the evolutionary tree. The molecular and morphological features often indicate “strikingly different” evolutionary trees that cannot be explained as due to different methods being used.

The growing gap between molecular analyses and the fossil record, concluded one researcher, “is astounding.” Instead of a single evolutionary tree emerging from the data, there is a wealth of competing evolutionary trees. And often what evolutionists conclude is downright strange. Over time insects must have evolved wings, then lost them in the evolutionary process only then later yet again to evolve them (or less parsimoniously, the wings could have disappeared over and over throughout the tree). Or again, bats must have independently evolved, in separate lineages, the same intricate echolocation capability.

As one researcher put it, “Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.” These are not minor statistical variations and the general failure to converge on a single topology has some researchers calling for a relaxation from “tree-thinking.”

A relaxation from tree-thinking? And this is but a sampling of the many falsified predictions of evolution. There are many more where these came from as evolutionists are constantly surprised. You can see 14 fundamental predictions that were falsified here. Predictions which evolutionists are absolutely sure of are routinely found to be false. “I about fell off my chair” is the typical refrain of evolutionists.

We can argue about the epistemological standing of evolution, but a scientific fact it is not. But for Myers it’s all so simple:

We tend to assume the creationists can’t really be that stupid, and figure they must have some legitimate complaint about some aspect of evolution with which we can sympathize. They don’t. They really are that nuts.

Truth is the first casualty.

Courtesy of http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/playing-with-truth.html