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!

Advertisements

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!

Special Interests Gets Rebuked Over False Claims

What is the role of special interest groups like the NCSE? It’s an organization which gets paid to lobby lawmakers on a full-time or part-time  basis into passing certain policies that it supports. For example, Louisiana Revised Statutes 17:285.1, known as the Louisiana Science Education Act, was passed and enacted in 2008. The fight for a particular slant of a law doesn’t stop there. Three years later lobbyists push lawmakers into filing a bill which is to repeal the law.

Why are special interest groups like the NCSE opposed to the Louisiana Science Education Act? Here is what they claim

“The LSEA features language that could be used for the insertion of religious or unscientific views in science classrooms. The bill disingenuously implies that particular theories, including evolution, are controversial among scientists.”

Isn’t “critical thinking” a common practice among scientists who endorse evolution? So why can’t students in the United States do the same? There is a great deal controversial ideas within evolution, however this bill doesn’t question whether or not evolution is a true ‘theory’ but rather it specifies that evolution is only to be taught in the public schools.

Here is another accusation which expands on the previous one against the bill implying a ‘conspiracy theory’…

“Since 2008, antievolutionists have not only sought to undermine the law’s provision allowing challenges to unsuitable supplementary materials but have also reportedly invoked the law to support proposals to teach creationism in at least two parishes — Livingston and Tangipahoa — and to attack the treatment of evolution in biology textbooks proposed for adoption by the state. Meanwhile, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology urged Louisianans to repeal the law in 2008, and the Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology decided to hold its conferences elsewhere while the law remains on the books.”

Then there is California’s attorney Larry Caldwell who Eugenie Scott targeted for her ‘conspiracy theory’ accusations back in 2005. She wrote an article entitled “In My Backyard: Creationists in California,” which appeared in such places as online editions of the Academy’s California Wild magazine, and was also linked on the NCSE website.

Here is Caldwell’s rebuke found on Post-Darwinist

“Contrary to false statements and implications in Scott’s article, I never asked the district to ban or limit the teaching of evolution in biology classes, or to present the Bible or the Genesis account of creation in biology classes, or to teach creation science, or young-earth creation, or intelligent design theory in biology classes, and our district’s board of trustees never considered implementing any such policy for its biology classes. Contrary to Scott’s claim, our board also never “declared that . . . [any] creationist materials would be ‘recommended’ but not required.”

Eventually Eugenie Scott was sued, and she had to retract her false accusations against Caldwell, but did the likes of Eugenie learn her lesson. Remember, this is something special interests get paid to do on a full-time basis and provide information to lawmakers as well as the public. Here is a story which started back in 2009, which has been brought to the forefront…

“It was guest-edited by Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, and James H. Fetzer, a former editor of the journal. They included an essay by Barbara Forrest, of Southeastern Louisiana University, condemning the work of the philosopher Francis J. Beckwith, who believes it is constitutionally permissible, although not advisable, to teach intelligent design in public schools.”

“But Dr. Beckwith says he is no ally of the intelligent design movement, whose mainly Christian proponents argue that certain features of the universe are best explained by a “designer,” perhaps a god or deity, rather than by natural selection or other scientific theories.”

The Beckwith-Forrest-Synthese controversy escalated when Forrest invoked the ‘conspiracy theory’ using circular reasoning based on her bias much like Eugenie Scott did with Caldwell.

“Dr. Forrest said this week that she suspected that intelligent design theorist William A. Dembski “was involved in this, because his work was mentioned” in her article, too. Reached by phone, Dr. Dembski said that he had not contacted Synthese and knew of no specific campaign to influence the journal.”

The philosophy journal disassociated itself and rightfully so with the tone and ‘conspiracy theory’ used in the article. It was great to see false accusations such as these exposed for what they are. This doesn’t mean, these types of special interests have learned a lesson, it just restrains them from carrying out more outrageous false claims. Here is Eugenie Scott’s ‘conspiracy theory’ which is an embarrassment to the pro-evolution community that ended in retraction when she wrote this to the editor…

“Further investigation suggests that the books Refuting Evolution and Life: How Did It Get Here? were submitted to the Roseville school board by other residents, not by Larry Caldwell, and were not considered after submission.

How Evolutionary Science Is Being Used Today

With creationism and intelligent design being at the forefront of alternative views on science other controversies have surfaced with evolution. Reporter, Suzan Mazur sums it up this way as she tells her story…

“The National Center for Science Education director Eugenie Scott told me that her organization does not support self-organization because it is confused with intelligent design “design-beyond laws” as Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehign University describes it. NCSE also pays lucrative fees to conference speakers who keep the lid on self-organization by beat the drum of Darwinian natural selection.”

“NCSE and its cronies completely demonize the intelligent design community, even those who agree with evolution happened. Religion is not a target since even National Academy of Science embraces religion. So it seems the real target is those who fail to kneel before Darwinain theory of natural selection and prevent the further fattening of the Darwinain industry tapeworm.”

-The Alternberg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry, p. 132.

The philosophy of evolution which is practiced as a religion and valued enormously by those hardcore evolutionists like Dawkins that consists of the following: corner the market and control the flow of information. Is this really about origins, God vs. evolution?

Yes and no. If it was just about God being the creator, self-organization (putting necessity into evolution) would be an widely accepted long ago as an alternative that would be discussed and reported by secular media outlets and secular science journals. But according to militants, the public is not smart enough for them and fear it might sway public opinion even further away from evolution.

This is why a closed system is a problem with the advancement of science! Instead of ideas being freely given and expressed, it has a one-party system that lacks accountability, that also lacks the tough questions which are seldom asked by the media.

A one-party system that doesn’t like to discuss weaknesses in evolution that can be observed by the public because of creationism and intelligent design while hanging on to their market share. Public money is being used to pay people to control information about science while attacking the public’s Christian or religious beliefs or in some cases using religion to get people to accept evolution to a desired level and create the most expensive story that holds no relevant  knowledge, the world has ever seen. It’s in desperate need of reform!

NCSE: Eugenie Scott And Science Standards

In her review, How Science Works: Evolution. A Student Primer by R. John Ellis (Springer, 2010) Eugenie Scott states her concerns that Americans are not embracing evolution as she would like, “The public misunderstands and mistrusts the scientific explanation of evolution more than any other branch of research, particularly in the United States.”

Back in 2006, there was a report from the U.S. National Academy which stated something similar…

“Most people in this country lack the basic understanding of science that they need to make informed decisions about the many scientific issues affecting their lives. Neither this basic understanding—often referred to as scientific literacy—nor an appreciation for how science has shaped the society and culture is being cultivated during the high school years.”

It’s important to note, the NSF believes that students need to embrace evolutionary science to a level where countries like the United States can avoid an economic and security meltdowns!  However, recent meltdowns have really nothing to do with science at all. European countries are known to embrace evolution more so than the United States, but problems with deficit spending has no connection with evolution.

For example, the Greek economy is failing because it’s government is spending more than it can raise in taxes so other countries are offering bailout money so they don’t default on their loan. Ireland proposed a second budget in 2009 by putting away six billion dollars in an attempt to control it’s deficit.

What about the United States?  It’s market crashed two years ago and it wasn’t because of people being skeptical of evolution rather it was the government, private businesses and house buyers who were all at fault in crashing the United States market.

The government used sub-prime loans as a way to boost on how many people owned houses, businesses didn’t care who they gave a loan to because houses would sell so quickly and normally higher than what a person asked thus making a huge profit. People were able to afford houses beyond their wildest dreams which was really beyond their means of what they could actually afford. So it’s not a refusal to embrace evolution that brings down an economy, it’s greed and socialism.

Eugenie Scott basically believes in the same philosophy she did back in the 1980s saying that Science is not an ideology, but science requires methodological naturalism, the only methodologically naturalistic view of biology available is Darwinian evolution, because it does not involve supernaturalism, therefore according to her worldview people must teach Darwin in the schools and keep out creationism and intelligent design.

However opposition to her view point came from Casey Luskin who is an intelligent design proponent stated these excellent points about how science should be taught…

1. The inquiry method of teaching science stresses process over content.
2. There are no legal obstacles to teaching scientific critiques of prevailing theories.
3. There is ample evidence of controversy in evolutionary literature.

A surprising agreement came from Science magazine which stated…

“Argument and debate are common in science, yet they are virtually absent from science education.  Recent research shows, however, that opportunities for students to engage in collaborative discourse and argumentation offer a means of enhancing student conceptual understanding and students’ skills and capabilities with scientific reasoning.

“As one of the hallmarks of the scientist is critical, rational skepticism, the lack of opportunities to develop the ability to reason and argue scientifically would appear to be a significant weakness in contemporary educational practice.  In short, knowing what is wrong matters as much as knowing what is right.  This paper presents a summary of the main features of this body of research and discusses its implications for the teaching and learning of science.”

Instead of indoctrination of evolution as Eugenie Scott proposes, abductive reasoning is also part of science which was used quite a lot in such books as Signature of the Cell by Stephen Meyer.  A creationist rarely agrees with science magazine but in this case, the writer is correct on science standards which include challenging theories and critical thinking among students.

Eugenie Scott: No Weaknesses In The Evolutionary Paradigm

Testifying before the Texas School Board of Education, Engenie Scott head of the special interest group says there are no weaknesses in evolution. First time ever a scientific theory has been proclaimed such status since Newton’s Law of Physics.

Conflicting data has often arises in the theory of evolution. For instance, evolutionists say the fossil record depicts one story while on other hand biological molecules tell a different story, as a result, it has lead to the dismantling of the Darwin Tree for some Darwinists who are looking for alternatives in the structure of evolution.  This is most certainly a weakness in evolution (fossils saying one thing, and biological molecules saying another) which ought to be taught to school children who attend public schools.

What is generally the response to such conflicting data with evolution? To them, it’s not the issue of what is not explainable, but rather it’s the progress of science which is currently unable to explain it at this time but eventually will be able to explain the conflicting data with evolution. On the other hand, creationists are more concerned about substance, because true science will always confirm God’s Word.

Although I believe advocating no weaknesses in a scientific theory known as evolution (or any other scientific theory) which has to explain an array and diverse complexities of nature is certainly misleading the public and certainly not teaching children all sides in the realm of science. It’s more like indoctrination of science (remains dogma until replaced) rather than just teaching science or in this case, evolution.

So why are defenders of evolution like Engenie Scott so against in wanting the as-yet unexplained problems being taught in the public schools? Are they fearful, the evolutionary theory wouldn’t hold up in the minds of children? The answer is, most likely “yes” because creationism according to the courts is not allowed in public schools so there is no real present threat of creationism to be afraid of replacing evolution or being taught alongside evolution. Even if creationism was scientific in their minds, it still could not be taught, because “it’s religion” the likes of Engenie Scott would say.

But some teachers also say they do teach “weaknesses” in evolution alongside the strengths. Sure there might teachers out there who select a few particulars what I call “safe” items which are controversial (a term they like to use instead of weakness) in evolution which some might mention in passing with approval of others but over all as-yet explained problems in evolutionary theory alludes practical and balanced teaching in the public schools.

Conspiracy Theorists In The NCSE Take Aim At Gov. Jindal and Creationists

Dedicated proponents of evolution who are part of a special interest group in one form or another, have formulated various conspiracy theories.

Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch who are part of the NCSE are still very much upset but still at war over Governor Jindal’s signing of a bill which teaches “critical thinking” in science. Both also like to get intelligent design and other general terms confused with creationism as stated in Scientific American

“As always in the contentious history of evolution education in the U.S., the devil is in the details. The law explicitly targets evolution, which is unsurprising—for lurking in the background of the law is creationism, the rejection of a scientific explanation of the history of life in favor of a supernatural account involving a personal creator. Indeed, to mutate Dobzhansky’s dictum, nothing about the Louisiana law makes sense except in the light of creationism.”

“Past strategies have included portraying creationism as a credible alternative to evolution and disguising it under the name “intelligent design.”

Eugenie Scott is the same woman who appeared in a movie where she advocates ruining careers if anyone dares to question Darwinism. She makes up stories, trying to demonize creationists and intelligent design proponents.

Now there are fundamental differences between Intelligent design and creationism…Intelligent Design advocates macro-evolution, common descent, and the very old earth hypothesis, the three fundamentals opposed in true creationism. So why are the conspiracy theorists such as Eugenie Scott telling the public it’s the same thing with a difference face?

In answer to that question, the courts on a federal level have ruled against creationism being taught in the public schools, while the Dover ruling against ID was local, it didn’t make law in other localities or states.

Here is another conspiracy theorist with a similar pattern in viewpoint, wrote in his blog

I think it is for this latter reason, combined with the fact that Texas is a socially conservative state, that proponents of an idea called “Intelligent Design” are making a big push to get that idea into the Texas state science standards. Further, they are on the verge of succeeding. Nearly half of the state school board, and fully half of the special commission set up to review science standards, publicly support Intelligent Design.

The funny part of all this, neither of these issues (creationism or intelligent design) brought up by the NCSE or this particular blogger  had anything to do with inserting “critical thinking” or “strengths and weakness” into science. Why? Because there is no evidence of teaching creationism or intelligent design as a result of those particular concepts! All these conspiracy theorists harp on is the fact that are either creationists or ID proponents.

In fact, these same conspiracy theorists impose the very same viewpoints when it comes to Texas Science Standards. They argue “strengths and weakness” of evolution is teaching creationism which is a myth. While it’s true, creationism is critical of evolution, this doesn’t necessarily make it creationism. Non-Christians have been critical of Darwinism.

Also, there is no evidence whatsoever in it’s 10 year history in Texas and I have even confronted a Texas science teacher over this issue. Granted she takes her teaching seriously, and wants the best for her students. But she is wrong on a number of issues including this one, because she believes in special interests like the NCSE.

Her response or lack thereof wasn’t surprising concerning because she can’t even find a notion that she believes is a real example of her concerns to even agree or disagree with, but she will write mainly about personal beliefs like the blogger whom I quoted, undermine people’s character who are creationists or ID proponents in such places like the school board and about so-called errors by creationists. To me, she is just as bad as Eugenie Scott!

Since there is no evidence, why keep repeating these myths about a conspiracy concerning creationists taking over the public schools to teach what they consider a religion?

Because it’s easier to attack intelligent design or attack critical thinking, or attack strengths and weakness of evolution. Evolutionary proponets do not like students to think outside the box. Many secularists like to think science can only destroy religion not confirm it, which is far from the truth!