Science Disproves Evolution
- Thread starter Pahu
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Fossil Gaps 11
“It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present.” Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947), p. 7.
“... to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell [the death signal] of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink.” E. J. H. Corner, “Evolution,” Contemporary Botanical Thought, editors Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Of course secular scientists are going to criticize Hovind. I have a 7 DVD set produced by Dr. Kent Hovind and 95% of it is spot on. There are some better theories out there concerning plate tetonics and time/space but most of the earth science and evolution stuff Hovind puts out is accurate. The point is secular evolutionists won't debate Kent or his son or any Christian Creationist because the fact is the Evolution theory is a joke and they know it. Evolution is right up there with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. It's a cute little fairy tale and nothing more.
You cannot have complex designs such as the human body without a designer. Man in all his wisdom cannot create life from non life. Man may have been able to create some amino acids and other building blocks but man so far hasn't been able to create even the simplest forms of life. Even if man is able to one day produce a basic life form, all that will prove is that it took a ton of research and intelligence and the most perfect of conditions. If this should ever happen, it would prove that it took a creator not a spontaneous springing up of life from nothing in a very inhospitable environment with no intelligence behind it.
Evolution is a 19th century theory over 150 years old. Is that the best modern secular science can come up with to explain how we all got here?? What an embarrassment.
You cannot have complex designs such as the human body without a designer. Man in all his wisdom cannot create life from non life. Man may have been able to create some amino acids and other building blocks but man so far hasn't been able to create even the simplest forms of life. Even if man is able to one day produce a basic life form, all that will prove is that it took a ton of research and intelligence and the most perfect of conditions. If this should ever happen, it would prove that it took a creator not a spontaneous springing up of life from nothing in a very inhospitable environment with no intelligence behind it.
Evolution is a 19th century theory over 150 years old. Is that the best modern secular science can come up with to explain how we all got here?? What an embarrassment.
D
The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution - from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced - the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?"
The full Corner Quote.
I can't verify the Arnold one as the only copy of this book that I can find is missing the first 10 pages.
The full Corner Quote.
I can't verify the Arnold one as the only copy of this book that I can find is missing the first 10 pages.
I must refer you to Answers in Genesis "arguments that should be avoided" number 4 in the list.
Arguments Creationists Should Avoid - Answers in Genesis
Explanation:
Feedback: Are There Beneficial Mutations? - Answers in Genesis
Also,
CB101: Most mutations harmful?
1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
Want more? Ok
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think
Don't you just love the internet?
Arguments Creationists Should Avoid - Answers in Genesis
Explanation:
Feedback: Are There Beneficial Mutations? - Answers in Genesis
Also,
CB101: Most mutations harmful?
1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
- Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
- Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
- Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
- A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
- Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
- In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
Want more? Ok
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think
Don't you just love the internet?
A few things here...
1. Seashell fossils in a mountainous region may be explained by tectonic activity: the land previously was beneath the sea, but the shifting and grinding of the plates could have raised the seabed above the water. Mountains could have formed afterwards due to further plate activity. This is why seashells are found mostly inside the mountain, not simply on it as if they were deposited there. They were laid down in layers under water before the mountains were mountains in the first place.
2. Even if all the ice on Earth melted, there is not enough water on the planet to submerge the highest mountains.
3. If fossil seashells were deposited on mountains due to a global flood, then they would be badly damaged due to severe water turbulence, and, if the shells comprised of more than one component (i.e., brachiopods, or clams), the component pieces would be disarticulated and scattered far and wide. And as such, a global flood fails to explain why there are beds of fossil clams and brachiopods throughout the world, filled with intact, articulated individuals.
4. This contradicts another creationist claim: That High mountains were raised during the Flood. How exactly do shells get deposited on high mountains during the Flood, if the same Flood rose those exact same mountains at the same time?
5. This also contradicts another creationist claim, that animals were sorted by escape ability. This particular claim alleges that the slower animals died first and can be found in lower areas, while more faster ones died later and are found at the top. This would imply that the original occupants of those shells, such as clams, oysters, lampshells, snails and cephalopods were much faster than a mere human.
1. Seashell fossils in a mountainous region may be explained by tectonic activity: the land previously was beneath the sea, but the shifting and grinding of the plates could have raised the seabed above the water. Mountains could have formed afterwards due to further plate activity. This is why seashells are found mostly inside the mountain, not simply on it as if they were deposited there. They were laid down in layers under water before the mountains were mountains in the first place.
2. Even if all the ice on Earth melted, there is not enough water on the planet to submerge the highest mountains.
3. If fossil seashells were deposited on mountains due to a global flood, then they would be badly damaged due to severe water turbulence, and, if the shells comprised of more than one component (i.e., brachiopods, or clams), the component pieces would be disarticulated and scattered far and wide. And as such, a global flood fails to explain why there are beds of fossil clams and brachiopods throughout the world, filled with intact, articulated individuals.
4. This contradicts another creationist claim: That High mountains were raised during the Flood. How exactly do shells get deposited on high mountains during the Flood, if the same Flood rose those exact same mountains at the same time?
5. This also contradicts another creationist claim, that animals were sorted by escape ability. This particular claim alleges that the slower animals died first and can be found in lower areas, while more faster ones died later and are found at the top. This would imply that the original occupants of those shells, such as clams, oysters, lampshells, snails and cephalopods were much faster than a mere human.
Figure 42: The Grand Canyon. Probably the most spectacular of the seven wonders of the natural world is the Grand Canyon. It is awesome when viewed from its rim, but even more so from the air. From above, new insights become obvious, as you will see. For example, have you ever wondered how the Grand Canyon formed? Since the late 1800s, the standard answer has been that primarily the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon over millions of years. If that happened, wouldn’t you expect to find a gigantic river delta where the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California? It’s not there. Nor have geologists found it anywhere else. Where did all the dirt—800 cubic miles of it—go?
Notice the four segments of this river near the center of the picture. Compare the thin river with the canyon’s vast expanse. Could that relatively small river carve such a huge, wide, and deep canyon? If so, why hasn’t the same thing happened along dozens of faster and larger rivers? Why do hundreds of large side canyons, with no visible water source to erode them, enter the Grand Canyon?
In first studying this overview chapter and then the chapter on the Grand Canyon (pages 201–235), you will see a gigantic, focused water source and a surprisingly simple, but complete, explanation for the Grand Canyon’s rapid formation as well as where all the dirt went. As you might expect, the Grand Canyon’s origin is directly related to the origin of many other amazing and mysterious sights in the southwestern United States.
The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under earth’s crust. Standard “textbook” explanations for many of earth’s major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below and briefly described in the next 11 pages, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined. Entire chapters are devoted to the italicized topics listed below.
Earth’s Major Components
Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire (pages 150–183)
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil
Methane Hydrates
Ice Age
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Metamorphic Rock
Plateaus
The Moho and Black Smokers
Salt Domes
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Changing Axis Tilt
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
world look like the Grand Canyon?
D
I have seen a lot of material produced by both Kent and Eric Hovind and to be honest - it is at best misleading and wrong. I have seen Kent Hovind in a debate with Hugh Ross (another creationist but Hugh is an astrophysicist) where Kent has told Hugh that is mathematical modelling was incorrect - this coming from someone with ZERO math or science training or background. Kent's doctorate was issued by an uncredited college and is also highly suspect - even if it was legitimate - the doctorate was in Divinity NOT math, science or engineering. Neither man knows what they are talking about when it comes to science, math or engineering.
Most mutations are harmful (Talk.Origins)
Response ArticleThis article (Most mutations are harmful (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:
- Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
- Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
CreationWiki response:
This is a case where Creationists and Evolutionists mean different things by the same terms.
When Creationists speak of the harm, neutrality or benefit of mutations, it is a reference to general harm, neutrality or benefit. Being random, mutations represent a loss of genetic information and they often result in a loss of specialization. Such mutations actually produce an organism that is generally weaker than the non-mutant, but in some cases a mutation happens to allow the mutant to survive an unusual situation because the mutants have lost something the situation targets for destruction.
When Evolutionists speak of the harm, neutrality or benefit of mutations, they refer to specific harm, neutrality or benefit. A claim that some mutations are beneficial, neutral or harmful to an organism is always environment specific. They see no absolute benefit or harm, but see it as relative to a specific environment.
Furthermore Evolutionists see all genetic variation as coming from mutations. They often ignore other sources of genetic variation such as Genetic recombination, Natural Genetic Engineering and Gene transference
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
As a result this study has no basis in reality.
2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
- Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
- Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
While the data needed for certainty is not available, it is likely that these plants lose something in the process, such as the ability to survive without human care. For example, the same trait or lack of a trait that keeps away pests may keep away fertilizing insects as well.
In these cases the resistance to AIDS results from a genetic deletion, and thus is unquestionably a loss of information. The resistance to AIDS results from that person's lacking an enzyme that is used by the AIDS virus. This type of mutation is expected under the Creation model.
or to heart disease.
If this is a mutation, it is likely that there are negative side affects that the researchers missed simply because they did not look for them.
Finally, since the gene in question existed long before being discovered, it is possible that that gene could be the original and the “normal” gene of the mutation.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]
- A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
These people have a genetic disease that causes deformities in the mouth, which probably make eating difficult. While one effect is increased bone density, the fact that the mutation also causes deformities in the mandible (lower jaw) makes it likely that the higher bone density is at least partly responsible for the deformities. To call this a beneficial mutation, without saying anything about the deformities, is at best poor scholarship and at worst deliberate fraud.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]
- Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Transposons are not mutations but Mobile genetic elements. They are segments of DNA that cut and paste or copy and paste themselves into other segments of DNA. While they can cause mutations in the process, transposons are a way for a cell to move genetic material around. This process can create new varieties within a created kind, by reusing existing genetic information.
- Reference: Transposon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Reference: Transposons/ Transposable Elements
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]
- In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The processes involved in this experiment were purely chemical in nature. The improved function of the RNA was in the form of faster catalytic and amplification rates. As such it has no bearing on the question of beneficial mutations.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Defining beneficial mutations in this manner allows any non-fatal mutation to be potentially beneficial, thus making the concept untestable. The simple fact is that with a little imagination a situation can be found were even the most degenerative mutations could have a survival advantage. Here are a few examples:
- A mutation in a bird that prevents its wings from developing, thus rendering it flightless, would protect that bird from being hit by a plane or being sucked into a jet engine. According to Talk Origins’ definition this would make it a beneficial mutation.
- A deer born without legs would be unable to cross a road. Such a mutation would protect that deer from being hit by a car. According to Talk Origins’ definition this would make it a beneficial mutation.
- Chihuahuas are basically degenerative mutant dogs, particularly when compared to wolves. Lock a dozen wolves and chihuahuas in a room; give them water but no food. In a week you will only have wolves, because they would have eaten the chihuahuas. Now let’s redo this experiment by mounting a bunch of remote controlled machine guns around the room at about 2 feet high. Within seconds of turning on the guns the only living dogs in the room will be the chihuahuas. All the wolves would have been shot. According to Talk Origins’ definition, the chihuahuas would be a beneficial mutation when the machine guns are on.
In all three cases the mutants are clearly inferior to and less likely to survive in nature than the non-mutants, yet their degenerative mutant state prevents them from being exposed to something that will kill the non-mutants.
When Creationists say that there are no beneficial mutations, they mean mutations that are generally beneficial to the organism and not the odd case where the degenerative condition prevents them from being exposed to some source of harm. This type of mutation would require producing new information, which is impossible for a random event such as a mutation.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Are they high mutation rates or actually high Natural genetic engineering rates? It makes sense that bacteria with high Natural Genetic Engineeringrates would do better in high stress environments than low stress environments.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Finding mutations that are beneficial in an absolute sense would be a failed prediction of the creation model, but this does not apply to the relative beneficial mutations that Talk Origins refers to. Falsification of the Creation model for mutations would require random mutations that actually generate information rather than destroy it as random mutations actually do.
Most mutations are harmful (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Last edited:
CreationWiki vs EvoWiki/TalkOrigins - Which one is more reliable? Why should I trust one over the other?
Oh yeah......
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Guess that's settled.
Oh yeah......
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Guess that's settled.
Last edited:
What was settled is teachers cannot be required to teach the truth concerning origins, although they apparently can be required to teach the lie of evolution.
Teaching scientific evidence for creation has always been legal in public schools.[SUP]1[/SUP] Yet, many teachers wonder how to do this. Schools should be places of inquiry, where students are taught to analyze all sides of an issue. Few academic subjects have greater inherent interest for high school or college students than the origins question. The fact that it is controversial is, therefore, not a liability but an asset.[SUP]2[/SUP] The origins question, then, is an ideal vehicle for developing analytical skills.[SUP]3[/SUP] An excellent way to develop these skills is “The Origins Research Project.”
Teaching scientific evidence for creation has always been legal in public schools.[SUP]1[/SUP] Yet, many teachers wonder how to do this. Schools should be places of inquiry, where students are taught to analyze all sides of an issue. Few academic subjects have greater inherent interest for high school or college students than the origins question. The fact that it is controversial is, therefore, not a liability but an asset.[SUP]2[/SUP] The origins question, then, is an ideal vehicle for developing analytical skills.[SUP]3[/SUP] An excellent way to develop these skills is “The Origins Research Project.”
1. In 1987, the Supreme Court of the United States held:
Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. “Edwards, Governor of Louisiana et al. v. Aguillard et al.,” Supreme Court of the United States, No. 85–1513, argued 10 December 1986, decided 19 June 1987, p. 1. Also see the first paragraph of page 8.
u On 13 June 2001, the United States Senate passed the following resolution by a vote of 91 to 8.
It is the sense of the Senate that—
(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and
(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject. Senator Rick Santorum,Congressional Record, Vol. 147, No. 82, 13 June 2001, pp. 1–2. See also Constance Holden, “Senate Gives Nod to Creationists,” Science, Vol. 292, 29 June 2001, p. 2429.
u “Several benefits will accrue from a more open discussion of biological origins in the science classroom. First, this approach will do a better job of teaching the issue itself, both because it presents more accurate information about the state of scientific thinking and evidence, and because it presents the subject in a more lively and less dogmatic way. Second, this approach gives students greater appreciation for how science is actually practiced. Science necessarily involves the interpretation of data; yet scientists often disagree about how to interpret their data. By presenting this scientific controversy realistically, students will learn how to evaluate competing interpretations in light of evidence—a skill they will need as citizens, whether they choose careers in science or other fields. Third, this approach will model for students how to address differences of opinion through reasoned discussion within the context of a pluralistic society.” David DeWolf, as quoted by Senator Rick Santorum, Congressional Record, 13 June 2001. p. 2.
u “I think, too often, we limit the best of our educators by directing them to avoid controversy and to try to remain politically correct. If students cannot learn to debate different viewpoints and to explore a range of theories in the classroom, what hope have we for civil discourse beyond the schoolhouse doors? Scientists today have numerous theories about our world and its beginnings. I, personally, have been greatly impressed by the many scientists who have probed and dissected scientific theory and concluded that some Divine force had to have played a role in the birth of our magnificent universe. These ideas align with my way of thinking. But I understand that they might not align with someone else’s. That is the very point of this amendment—to support an airing of varying opinions, ideas, concepts, and theories. If education is truly a vehicle to broaden horizons and enhance thinking, varying viewpoints should be welcome as part of the school experience.” Senator Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 13 June 2001, p. 6.
2. Richard Alexander, evolutionist and professor of zoology and curator of insects at the University of Michigan, proposed a similar idea.
No teacher should be dismayed at efforts to present creation as an alternative to evolution in biology courses; indeed, at this moment creation is the only alternative to evolution. Not only is this worth mentioning, but a comparison of the two alternatives can be an excellent exercise in logic and reason. Our primary goal as educators should be to teach students to think and such a comparison, particularly because it concerns an issue in which many have special interests or are even emotionally involved, may accomplish that purpose better than most others. Richard D. Alexander, “Evolution, Creation, and Biology Teaching,” American Biology Teacher, Vol. 40, February 1978, p. 92.
u “We who teach introductory physics have to acknowledge, if we are honest with ourselves, that our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments or evidence that support the currently accepted theories, and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary. We give short shrift to alternative theories, introducing them only in order to promptly demolish them—again by appealing to undemonstrated counter-evidence. We drop the names of famous scientists and Nobel prizewinners to show that we are solidly on the side of the scientific establishment. ... Of course, we do all this with the best of intentions and complete sincerity.” Mano Singham, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today, June 2000, p. 54.
3. Analytical skills in science include observing; classifying; measuring; explaining; predicting; applying mathematics; designing investigations and experiments; collecting and analyzing data; drawing conclusions; identifying assumptions; contrasting alternative explanations; formulating definitions, questions, hypotheses, and models; and retracting prior conclusions when the evidence warrants it.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - How Can Origins Be Taught in High School or College?Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. “Edwards, Governor of Louisiana et al. v. Aguillard et al.,” Supreme Court of the United States, No. 85–1513, argued 10 December 1986, decided 19 June 1987, p. 1. Also see the first paragraph of page 8.
u On 13 June 2001, the United States Senate passed the following resolution by a vote of 91 to 8.
It is the sense of the Senate that—
(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and
(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject. Senator Rick Santorum,Congressional Record, Vol. 147, No. 82, 13 June 2001, pp. 1–2. See also Constance Holden, “Senate Gives Nod to Creationists,” Science, Vol. 292, 29 June 2001, p. 2429.
u “Several benefits will accrue from a more open discussion of biological origins in the science classroom. First, this approach will do a better job of teaching the issue itself, both because it presents more accurate information about the state of scientific thinking and evidence, and because it presents the subject in a more lively and less dogmatic way. Second, this approach gives students greater appreciation for how science is actually practiced. Science necessarily involves the interpretation of data; yet scientists often disagree about how to interpret their data. By presenting this scientific controversy realistically, students will learn how to evaluate competing interpretations in light of evidence—a skill they will need as citizens, whether they choose careers in science or other fields. Third, this approach will model for students how to address differences of opinion through reasoned discussion within the context of a pluralistic society.” David DeWolf, as quoted by Senator Rick Santorum, Congressional Record, 13 June 2001. p. 2.
u “I think, too often, we limit the best of our educators by directing them to avoid controversy and to try to remain politically correct. If students cannot learn to debate different viewpoints and to explore a range of theories in the classroom, what hope have we for civil discourse beyond the schoolhouse doors? Scientists today have numerous theories about our world and its beginnings. I, personally, have been greatly impressed by the many scientists who have probed and dissected scientific theory and concluded that some Divine force had to have played a role in the birth of our magnificent universe. These ideas align with my way of thinking. But I understand that they might not align with someone else’s. That is the very point of this amendment—to support an airing of varying opinions, ideas, concepts, and theories. If education is truly a vehicle to broaden horizons and enhance thinking, varying viewpoints should be welcome as part of the school experience.” Senator Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 13 June 2001, p. 6.
2. Richard Alexander, evolutionist and professor of zoology and curator of insects at the University of Michigan, proposed a similar idea.
No teacher should be dismayed at efforts to present creation as an alternative to evolution in biology courses; indeed, at this moment creation is the only alternative to evolution. Not only is this worth mentioning, but a comparison of the two alternatives can be an excellent exercise in logic and reason. Our primary goal as educators should be to teach students to think and such a comparison, particularly because it concerns an issue in which many have special interests or are even emotionally involved, may accomplish that purpose better than most others. Richard D. Alexander, “Evolution, Creation, and Biology Teaching,” American Biology Teacher, Vol. 40, February 1978, p. 92.
u “We who teach introductory physics have to acknowledge, if we are honest with ourselves, that our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments or evidence that support the currently accepted theories, and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary. We give short shrift to alternative theories, introducing them only in order to promptly demolish them—again by appealing to undemonstrated counter-evidence. We drop the names of famous scientists and Nobel prizewinners to show that we are solidly on the side of the scientific establishment. ... Of course, we do all this with the best of intentions and complete sincerity.” Mano Singham, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today, June 2000, p. 54.
3. Analytical skills in science include observing; classifying; measuring; explaining; predicting; applying mathematics; designing investigations and experiments; collecting and analyzing data; drawing conclusions; identifying assumptions; contrasting alternative explanations; formulating definitions, questions, hypotheses, and models; and retracting prior conclusions when the evidence warrants it.
D
So what you are saying - or the site you took this information from is trying to say is that the only way to disprove creation is to prove an something that would disprove evolution. You appear to be still misunderstanding what evolution is - There is no sudden random mutation that changes an animal from one form to another - or gives an animal some sudden new powers - evolution is adaptation to the environment -a way for an organism to survive an ecological bottleneck. I carry a mutation in the MC1R protein of chromosone 16. This mutation allowed my ancestors to survive better in northern climates where there was less sunlight, it means I have red hair and fair skin, was it beneficial to my ancestors - yes but it also means that I am more susceptible to sun burn and melanoma. Mutations are beneficial in specific circumstances that will allow certain organisms to adapt to their environment and will get passed on. Random mutations do not create new animals or super organisms out of nothing - that is not what evolution science teaches - that is what creation teaches
Fossil Gaps 12
“The absence of any known series of such intermediates imposes severe restrictions on morphologists interested in the ancestral source of angiosperms [flowering plants] and leads to speculation and interpretation of homologies and relationships on the basis of the most meager circumstantial evidence.” Charles B. Beck, Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 5.
“The origin of angiosperms, an ‘abominable mystery’ to Charles Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today.” Colin Patterson et al., “Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24, 1993, p. 170.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
M
How about teach science that isn't bad science according to science textbooks? I remember when I was dogmatically taught the big bang in science class, and I proved it was actually bad science according to the same science textbook.
You don't know squat about events from "billions of years" ago. The billions of years ago story is just your own creation myth that you like to perpetuate as absolute fact. The only fact here is that you know anything about events from "billions of years" ago, despite how much you may claim to know that it's true.
You don't know squat about events from "billions of years" ago. The billions of years ago story is just your own creation myth that you like to perpetuate as absolute fact. The only fact here is that you know anything about events from "billions of years" ago, despite how much you may claim to know that it's true.