To Students: Evolutionists Bluff In Their Explanation

Eugenie Scott is finally retiring from her long 26 year mission of trying to destroy how science is being taught in the public schools. She was praised by Science Magazine as a crusader focused against “anti-evolution forces.” Which means creationism, intelligent design, or anything else even it’s naturally based (like self-organization which she believes resembles too much to intelligent design) that criticizes or questions Darwinian evolution.

She endorsed her own version of ecumenism between the Bible and evolution, in order to persuade others into her line of thinking including policymakers.  She also endorsed making an example out of those who went against her policy by punishing teachers who taught both sides of evolution (its supposed strengths and factual weaknesses). In other words, treat evolution differently from other scientific theories for the purpose of trying to sway people’s beliefs.

On celebrating the 60th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s elucidation of the DNA molecule, the world’s leading science journal when it comes to evolution, “Nature” rebukes certain scientists and there are a lot of them who are bluffing in their explanations like they have it all figured out within the evolutionary framework!  He writes…

We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level…Yet, while specialists debate what the latest findings mean, the rhetoric of popular discussions of DNA, genomics and evolution remains largely unchanged, and the public continues to be fed assurances that DNA is as solipsistic a blueprint as ever.”

One has to applaud Philip Ball who wrote the article on this count, he is telling scientists to be more honest about their findings rather than hype it up with bluffs of knowing it all when in fact they don’t. Another reason for the bluffing going on, is funding. By stating pretensions which makes their work appear more important, they are attempting to sway public opinion and policymakers that their work is worth more funding!

Students should learn how to recognize what they are being fed, and if you are in a public school realize that you will be on unequal footing when it comes to evolution especially if you are a creationist or intelligent design proponent. That teacher could make or break your great or perhaps even your career! You don’t have to go along with his or her views on evolution or science but be respectful! Complete the requirements of the class, and get a good grade!

In Darwinism, it’s self-refuting, what appears to be truth now is most likely false with new discoveries. After 60 years of research of DNA, they still don’t know much about what it does! Let alone try and explain how it supposedly evolved! Learning about DNA for example, is real science which has nothing to do with evolution. Operational science is something you should embrace and feel comfortable about. It’s historical science which is troublesome because of evolution!

It’s faith vs faith. Ask tough questions, be respectful in your challenge to your professor! Learn what you can about the debate between creationism and evolution. Do not accept the idea that natural selection, which is a mindless, random, and purposeless process fulfilling God’s work in creating nature. When you learn more about its weaknesses of evolution, you realize it is not a strong as you were being taught and that is because evolutionists tend to bluff in their explanation!

New Laws Allow Creationism And Critical Thinking

New controversies over the teaching of science have become center stage where two states have created legislation which changes the monopoly of teaching Darwinian evolution only while enacting a provision that allows the teaching of students on how to be critical thinkers which includes evolution. Other theories in science the general practice of critical thinking is never challenged, only when it comes to the framework regarding evolution does it then stir up controversies.

Can a public school teach about other inferences concerning origins that is not connected with evolution such as creationism or intelligent design? The U.S. Supreme Court in its 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard struck down a Louisiana statute that required instruction on evolution to be accompanied by teaching on “creation science.” However, it left a provision where it says, “religion may be taught in public school if it serves “a secular educational purpose.”   Secularists claim, in science, it serves no secular educational purpose because it violates the establishment clause of “separation of church and state,”  however some think it’s alright to teach it in a history course rather than science which is like claiming that science involves no history.

John Adams happens to be on of the founding fathers of America and he said, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity.” The principles of faith were incorporated into the United States governing documents. The phrase, “separation of church and state” is not found in any of the governing documents like the First Amendment.  What it does say is, “Congress shall make no law  respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

In the congressional record where 90 founding fathers of the United States were recorded in their discussions that framed the First Amendment where they repeated many times over that the clause was to prevent what they had experienced living in Europe under religions like Catholicism or Anglicanism which were elevated to a state religion.  James Madison proposed the First Amendment this way, “nor shall any national religion be established.”   On September 3, 1789, the Senate introduced the First Amendment this way, “Congress shall not make any law establishing any religions denomination.”

All the proposed versions of the First Amendment had a pattern and that was prohibiting the government from establishing a particular denomination in preference to another.  Religion and denomination were used interchangeably throughout their discussions.  And it may surprise some but early in American history, the Bible was used in the  classrooms. Fisher Frames, the one who offered the final wording for the House version of the First Amendment who was committed to sound education noticed fables of moral stories were starting to replace a very important book, he said this… “Why then, if these [new] books for children must be retained as they will be-should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book?” Ames believed the Bible should not be separated from the classroom.

Clearly Fisher Ames’s view of the First Amendment who was also responsible for the wording of it, continued to believed the Bible should remain in the classroom. Rush who signed the Declaration of Independence and who served under three Presidents (Adams, Jefferson and Madison) and was known to be one of the leading educators of that time said this in a 1791 educational policy paper, “In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, (if we remove the Bible from the schools) I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them.”   

Rush believed that if the Bible were to be removed from education the crime level would raise nation wide.  Compared to others of today verses people who lived in the early history of America, there  is a huge contrast to what people think of the First Amendment and how it is being used for example, prohibiting even the mentioning of Christianity or religion in public schools under conditions they see fit. So do you think the founding fathers of the United States would be against teaching creationism in public schools? No! Also, most likely the founding fathers of America would not like the idea of Darwinian evolution being taught in public schools. But this is to show the true intent of the First Amendment on how it was framed and worded when controversies in science come up.

This begs the question, does Science Daily teach religion in its science section, if read in class, would it be advancing the supernatural for a secular purpose? Well let’s see…

“Launched on Aug. 5, 2011, Juno is 182 days and 279 million miles (449 million kilometers) into its five-year, 1,740-million-mile (2,800-million-kilometer) journey to Jupiter. Once in orbit, the spacecraft will orbit the planet’s poles 33 times and use its collection of eight science instruments to probe beneath the gas giant’s obscuring cloud cover to learn more about Jupiter’s origins, structure, atmosphere and magnetosphere, and look for a potential solid planetary core.”

“Juno’s name comes from Greek and Roman mythology. The god Jupiter drew a veil of clouds around himself to hide his mischief, and his wife, the goddess Juno, was able to peer through the clouds and reveal Jupiter’s true nature.”

Exploring Jupiter will be an amazing and exciting mission! But what about NASA naming the spacecraft after a pagan God from Baal Worship that was passed on through the Greeks then Romans? Why not calling the spacecraft Jesus? Or would that be a violation of Church and State? Look at Science Daily teach us about paganism in its science section! Just when you thought you heard it all! Could this be read in a science classroom in a public school in the United States?

Ok, one of the new laws which will allow creationism and critical thinking is SENATE BILL No. 89 from the great state of Indiana!

It says…

“Sec. 18. The governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.”

Here is what a well-known and very good creationist site, Answers in Genesis had this to say about this new bill…

“The amendment requiring any school opting to teach alternative viewpoints to teach the views of multiple religions in science class adds to the problems with Senate Bill 89. The point of academic freedom in science class is not to turn science into a class on comparative religions and suggest a multiple choice scenario for origins. With all due respect to the well-intentioned boosters of the current bill, to require teachers present material in the way now described in the amendment will not improve students’ scientific understanding but instead will likely cause more harm than good. Biblical young earth creationism offers models consistent with observable evidence, but treating it as a “religious option” will just obscure its consistency with science and make all ideas but the evolutionary fairy tale look foolish.”

I agree with Answers in Genesis, but I like the science standards in Texas as well which came out better than expected and the Louisiana’s Science Education Act which allows critical thinking that includes evolution. This particular law is in its fourth year. And the other new law Senate Bill 1742 from the great state of Oklahoma!

It says…

“An Act relating to school curriculum; creating the Oklahoma Science Education Act; providing short title; providing legislative intent; providing for the assistance of teachers in teaching scientific curriculum; promoting critical thinking; allowing for open discussion of scientific theories; directing teachers to teach certain material; allowing supplemental material to be taught; prohibiting the promotion of a particular belief system; directing the State Board of Education to adopt rules; providing for codification; providing for noncodification; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.”

And that is not all in the great state of Missouri the HOUSE BILL NO. 1227, 96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY says…

“If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a textbook, the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught.”

Then it goes into detail on what it means by biological intelligent design

“Intelligence-directed action is necessary to exceed the limits of natural species change, which is a combination of autogenous species change and environmental effected species change,”

“The lack of significant present-day observable changes in species due to random variation, mutation, natural selection, adaptation, segregation, or other naturalistic mechanisms implies intelligence as the cause for all original species.”

This new law in Missouri is not a good science standard to teach kids. While the modern intelligent design movement has valid points against Darwinism, it is basically the same in essence, old earth, species turning into other species and so on. The only difference is where the information comes from, the intelligent design movement says from intelligent agents while Darwinism says information comes from errors in the genetic code. This may confuse students on what is creationism and what is in the modern intelligent design movement.

It is not advocated that public school teachers be required to give some sort of version of creationism or intelligent design as a course, on the other hand, it doesn’t hurt to mention alternatives in the classroom and show the many weaknesses in evolution when presented all the positives about it as well as teaching critical thinking in science.

Senate Bill 1742 from the great state of Oklahoma which is modeled after Louisiana’s Science Education Act is much better than the one from Indiana or Missouri. Certainly the monopoly of Darwinism only should be changed!

Why Are Lobbists Against Being Critical About Evolution?

Back in 2008, Louisiana passed a law that was very controversial in the minds of some, which states the following…

C.  A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

D.  This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

The battle then turned to Texas science standards. The focus was on the strengths-and-weaknesses requirement for evolution and other theories. Lobbist Eugenie Scott and others lead the charge to remove the clause. They were successful! The language was removed but with something way better than anyone expected and to the horror of Scott! The new clause states as follows…

in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”

“Analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life…analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.”

This was one of the most important victories on how science should be taught in the public schools and a major blow to the opposition. Why would the likes of lobbist Eugenie Scott and the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology who voted to not hold their convention in Louisiana as a result of the bill being passed, would be so against it? Why would there be opposition for the likes of Don McLeroy who was chairmen on the state board of education in Texas? Why were there attempts to kill his nomination?

“Shapleigh said there is a perception that McLeroy is using the chairmanship of the State Board of Education as a bully pulpit for promoting his religious point-of-view and pushing it into the public arena.

The nomination was eventually voted upon, and Don McLeroy was not confirmed as chairmen. So why the fuss? Obviously part had to do with critical thinking and the other part had to do with a creationist pushing for its teaching to students rather than an evolutionist. But doesn’t critically analyze mean to criticize and if one criticizes evolution in light of this three-year law, does this mean public schools like in Louisiana and Texas now teaches the overturning of evolution’s status as a ‘theory’ by consensus? No! So why then was there and still continues to be so much opposition that even lead to the removal of a well qualified chairmen?

Eugenie Scott tries to give her own rational on why students at the public schools cannot be taught critical thinking when it comes to evolution…This was posted in youtube on July 7, 2011…

In the video at 46:29, she says…“Okay, what else can you not do? I have a little asterisk here. You cannot teach evidence against evolution. There have been some court decisions that have talked about this including Kitzmiller, but there has not been a really clean test of this idea of teaching evidence against evolution…”

Later on in the video she clarifies why you can’t teach evidence against evolution, “There is no evidence against evolution…Nothing out there is running a big neon light saying, ‘Whoa! Evolution fails here! We have to toss it out!’ But “critical thinking” which has been passed has nothing to do with that statement. And it can’t be replaced by creationism because it’s outlawed in the public schools!

So the only thing she can get paid for in this battle is being afraid on what students believe in evolution if they are taught to be more critical about it and find out it’s not as solid as they try to make you believe. But like one scientist told me in here, scientists are always critical of “theories” and finds no logical reason why students can’t be either. The fact of the matter is, Christians are way more tolerate of other people’s beliefs than what is demonstrated with the creationism vs evolution debate.

The fact of the matter is, it took a creationist to get the best science standards which allows students to critically analyze every theory including evolution!

Wanted: More Critical Thinking In Science

While in-state and out-of-state teachers protesting a bill in Wisconsin, that would require them to pay more out-of-pocket costs for heath-care and pensions, that would also give them the option to pay or not to pay union dues, and allow the government unions to negotiate wages but not benefits…There has been a few articles that are concerned about the lack of critical thinking with students concerning science.

But can this be done with evolution, after all when state science standards come up, critical thinking is labeled a creationist viewpoint that hinders a student from having the full enlightenment of Darwinism. Interesting enough, these articles say there is not enough critical thinking going on…

For example, phys.org

“Richard Arum of New York University conducted a study of more than 2,300 students between fall 2005 and spring 2009 examining test data and student surveys at 24 U.S. colleges and universities. Results, published in the book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, revealed 45 per cent of students made no significant improvement in critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years, and 36 per cent showed no improvement after four years of schooling.

With such negative results, academic professionals are left to consider whether student apathy is to blame or if the study reflects a fundamental failing in the post-secondary education system.”

The study was a surprise for other because they believe that students are motivated and curious as ever, spending a great deal of time on their studies.  However, they missed the point, this wasn’t about how much time or motivation students have in science rather critical thinking abilities.

Science educators at times will conflate knowledge with acceptance. Only 37 adults accepted biological evolution in 2008 which was a result of a decline the past twenty years, reports…physorg. There should be an understanding of evolution that distinguishes itself from accepting evolution. If critical-thinking students are able to judge the evidence and accept or deny a theory, they should do so on the basis of sound reasoning!

For instance, evaluating evolutionary logic about it’s common ancestral doctrine….

“In the following photos of plants, the leaves are quite different from the “normal” leaves we envision. Each leaf has a very different shape and function, yet all are homologous structures, derived from a common ancestral form. The pitcher plant and Venus’ flytrap use leaves to trap and digest insects. The bright red leaves of the poinsettia look like flower petals. The cactus leaves are modified into small spines which reduce water loss and can protect the cactus from herbivory.”

According to evolutionary logic, how do designs so radically different from one another come from the same ancestral form? Well the designs are homologous, that’s that happens, they say.  How does this demonstrates their common ancestry? There is no evidence, all they show is a bunch of pictures with different plants and animals and then claim it’s common ancestry!  The evolutionary framework is so confined to a particular idea that it forces any resemblance no matter how small it is as compelling evidence that demonstrates evolution.

A tree has leaves, a flower has petals, a rose-bush has thorns, so evolution must be true, how absurd is this? The explanation is cult-like, new revelations from the prophets trying to explain their complexity. This is why students are lacking abilities in this area! Wanted: real critical thinking skills!