OTHER FALLACIES FROM THE TEACHERS OF EVOLUTION
Information for this essay was taken from OpenStax Physics online book
“OpenStax Online book on Physics for College Students”
This is what the Physics author in OpenStax erroneously states (bear with me, it is a long example):
“Life, Evolution, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics”
“Some people misunderstand the second law of thermodynamics, stated in terms of entropy, to say that the process of the evolution of life violates this law. Over time, complex organisms evolved from much simpler ancestors, representing a large decrease in entropy of the Earth’s biosphere. It is a fact that living organisms have evolved to be highly structured, and much lower in entropy than the substances from which they grow. But it is always possible for the entropy of one part of the universe to decrease, provided the total change in entropy of the universe increases. In equation form, we can write this as
ΔStot = ΔSsyst + ΔSenvir > 0. (15.66)
Thus ΔSsyst can be negative as long as ΔSenvir is positive and greater in magnitude.
How is it possible for a system to decrease its entropy?
Energy transfer is necessary. If I pick up marbles that are scattered about the room and put them into a cup, my work has decreased the entropy of that system. If I gather iron ore from the ground and convert it into steel and build a bridge, my work has decreased the entropy of that system.
Energy coming from the Sun can decrease the entropy of local systems on Earth—that is, ΔSsyst is negative. But the overall entropy of the rest of the universe increases by a greater amount—that is, ΔSenvir is positive and greater in magnitude. Thus, ΔStot = ΔSsyst + ΔSenvir > 0 , and the second law of thermodynamics is not violated.
https://cnx.org/contents/jQSmhtXo@13.77:qmhggndY@2/Entropy-and-the-Second-Law-of-
Image courtesy of OpenStax.
End of Quote.
(Bold and Underlines in author’s statements have been emphasized).
Thank you for your patience. Here is the explanation of that entire illustration fallacy:
THE FALLACY EXPLAINED
The author’s explanation of entropy as related to the second law of thermodynamics totally contradicts itself”.
The author insists that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated by “evolution of life”, by stating that while the entropy on one part of the Universe may decrease (such as in the case of “evolution of life” from a disorderly one celled instrument into a very complex human system), other parts of the Universe may increase in entropy at a larger rate thus giving us a total entropy, ΔStot increase of >0 (greater than zero). Specifically, the author uses the simple Entropy equation:
ΔStot = ΔSsyst + ΔSenvir>0
ΔSsyst in this case being the entropy decrease due to “life evolutionary processes”, and ΔSenvir being the greater part of the entropy in the universe. Thus, erroneously showing that the overall ΔStot entropy of the universe would, then greater than 0.
Why is the author of OpenStax’s logic wrong ?
What the author leaves out is the means by which the ΔSsyst entropy actually decreases (The entropy reduced as a result of “evolution”).
Let us follow the author’s example of how ΔSsyst entropy would decrease. Author says:
“If I pick up marbles that are scattered about the room and put them into a cup, my work has decreased the entropy of that system. If I gather iron ore from the ground and convert it into steel and build a bridge, my work has decreased the entropy of that system”.
Now, curiously we ask :
Who “picked up”, who “put them”, who “gathered”, who “converted” the marbles and the steel into bridge?.
In this particular case it was The author of OpenStax’s physics textbook who put all those items into an orderly fashion and thus reduced the entropy of the system.
It was not mere chance that picked up the marbles or created the steel bridge ! Not in a billion years.
What the author, fails to, willfully or naively, leave out of the picture, is that it took him, a human agent to “pick up the marbles… put them into a cup” and to arrange them in order to decrease the actual entropy of that particular set of marbles.
Those are active actions coming from an intelligent agent. They did NOT activate themselves on their own. That is not called chance, that is called INTELLIGENT intervention.
As his illustration shows, it took the author of OpenStax some energy AND and, some act of INTELLIGENCE in order to put those items in order. Unless the author considers himself or herself and UN-INTELLIGENT agent or at the moment, in which case the illustration, we concur would fit, but this assumption would not make sense also. Why?
Because, we believe the author is highly intelligent. Otherwise, he would not be writing this textbook, which for the most part makes some mathematical sense, nor would we be able to understand him or her.
Additionally, this would negate itself the idea that we live in an orderly universe, because everything we would see in life and in the universe, would be a total chaotic act of randomness that does not make sense.
The same logic applies to the idea of “gathering iron from the ground and converting it into steel and then into a bridge”.
Who converted it? Who turned the iron and the steel into a bridge? Who was it that made the conversion, the Sun, pure energy without intelligence, or was it not the author who made all those iron atoms into a bridge ?
We concur, it is absolutely true that the author’s work, his work did decrease the entropy of the system, but it took himself, or herself, in order to re-arrange the order to the atoms that were available on earth in the form of iron (that were created and or modified by the Sun at some time) and transform those atoms into a working bridge for a specific purpose and for the use of humans.
The contradiction, and fallacy, and extreme case of bias is more than evident as the author left the most important part of his illustration to the imagination and naïve imagination of the inexperienced reader or to the willing-to-believe reader and assume that in both cases the marble and the bridge would have taken an orderly course of action without the active intervention of a intelligent agent in order to reduce the entropy of both systems.
It is obvious that the author in his effort to actively introduce a false idea (evolution of life), he or she introduces statements and assumptions that ultimately lead to a totally false conclusion.
No amount of energy from any system, from the sun, of from billions of years will bring any system from a disorderly state into an orderly state unless influenced by an intelligent agent or its intermediary. Never in a billion years will disorder become orderly without the influence of someone, a person, or an intelligent agent.
Ultimately the author states:
“Energy coming from the Sun can decrease the entropy of local systems on Earth”.
This is true. However in order for the Sun to decrease the entropy of any system, there must already exist a living organism that makes use of the Sun’s energy, and convert it from total disorder into an orderly mechanism of life sustenance.
The author fails once again to be true to science, with his illustration, as energy that comes from the Sun is only constructive as long as it acts on already present process of synthesis of life, and or was or is intelligently and orderly directed by someone, not by chance.
The energy that was initiated by the Sun to create, perhaps the greatest Hurricane in the history of Florida in Sept, 2017, Irma, did not make things better for us, here in Florida. It destroyed property and lives, to say the least, in the billions of dollars.
Unless energy is directed and created by an intelligent agent for the better, it will not produce anything orderly. The energy created by the Hurricane Irma, through the Sun’s energy, left us with nothing more than devastation. It never improved the quality of life, nor much less reduce the entropy of life here in Florida and the rest of the States affected by its destructive force.
The Sun with all its energy can only produce destructive results, unless intelligently directed. It takes intelligence to produce something orderly from the Sun, just as a nuclear bomb dropped on a city, would not, in a billion years, create a better city with no destruction of life at all.
Furthermore, to show the false illustration of the author of Openstax we quote what he states:
Watch a reaction proceed over time. How does total energy affect a reaction rate? Vary temperature, barrier height, and potential energies. Record concentrations and time in order to extract rate coefficients.
“Do temperature dependent studies to extract Arrhenius parameters. This simulation is best used with teacher guidance because it presents an analogy of chemical reactions”.
We state, who has to “Do temperature dependent studies” in order to extract the Arrhenious parameters?
And how is it that “teacher guidance” needed in order for us to understand the “analogy of chemical reactions”.
Why do we need “someone”, some intelligent “teacher” in order to do temperature dependent studies and extract the necessary parameters in order to understand the 2nd law of Thermodynamics and its entropy?
The author of OpenStax is totally oblivious to the fact or prefers to leave the facts out that unless someone or something intelligent acts in the process to reduce the entropy of any system, the entire process would proceed to increase the disorderly (entropy) of the universe instead of reducing it.
Thus, we have proven that indeed the entropy of the Universe would never decrease unless the presence of an Intelligent agent was there at the beginning.
A second point erroneously made by the author’s of OpenStax on this Physics Course
OpenStax author(s) once again presumptuously assure us that:
“It is a fact that living organisms have evolved to be highly structured, and much lower in entropy than the substances from which they grow. But it is always possible for the entropy of one part of the universe to decrease, provided the total change in entropy of the universe increases. In equation form, we can write this as
ΔStot = ΔSsyst + ΔSenvir > 0.
However, the explanation of this, is simply the reverse. Natural Selection is NOT “evolution”
First of all, evolution is NOT a fact, neither is the fact the living organisms “have evolved to be highly structured”.
There is a process called Natural Selection which simply acts on ALREADY existing traits that are stored in the DNA of each living creature. Natural Selection is responsible for the changes in the bird’s beaks of the Galapagos Islands, the moth colored changes and other naturally occurring transformations that are already pre-programmed in each creature’s DNA structure.
However, it is a well known fact that at NO TIME will any species of living creature change into another species.
Natural Selection and Natural Adaptation has NOTHING to do with “evolution”, as “evolution” demands that one specie change into another species thus giving us a different KIND of living organism. Unfortunately for the “evolutionists”, this is NOT what we observe in the phylogenetics and in the DNA structure of all living creatures.
Thus, “We have observed the change in dogs over time, but that doesn’t mean that evolution has occurred. You can breed wolves to get to chihuahuas, but you can’t breed chihuahuas to get wolves—variation in the genetic information has been lost. Darwin used this type of change as (false)evidence without an understanding of the limits of genetic change that are known today. (Italics ours) (Courtesy of Roger Patterson on March 8, 2007). https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/natural-selection-vs-evolution/
Illustration courtesy of http://www.answeringenesis.com
“Natural Selection” is NOT evolution, as much as “devolution” as it limits the gene pool and degrades and or ultimately limits the “selection”. http://creationwiki.org/Devolution
While it is perfectly scientific the fact that organisms and humans have gone through many forms of NATURAL SELECTION process, which is not the same a evolution, it is totally false to state that the same organisms have “evolved”. There is no a single piece of evidence in the fossil record to prove that evolution from lower forms to higher forms is a fat.
I think the point has been made perfectly clear. “Evolution of Life” is not a theory, it is not even a worthwhile hypothesis. It has no place in schools of TRUE SCIENCE.
“Evolution” as presented by “evolutionists” and wish-full thinkers, is a whish-full set of inventions, stories, and color full allegories, that have been forced on us, our children, and false science education and placed, unfortunately, in textbooks online and off-line in order to reject accountability to someone higher than ourselves.
The author of Openstax, apparently ultimately rescinds on page 666, and states:
“Disorder is simply vastly more likely than order”.
And, in this case we 100% agree with him or her.
Summary
It is obvious that the author(s) of this textbook have not been exposed to the reality of the truth about scientists and biologists who will not accept “evolution” as a fact.
This shows, once again that the “evolutionists” who publish textbooks today in favor of the absurdity of their evolutionary beliefs are not dealing honestly, or blatantly choose to ignore the fact that Creation is more than the obvious answer when explaining the Biology of Life.
Since all of the false statements written in this textbook have been previously dealt with in my previous essays, I will not proceed to refute any of the fallacies found in this online textbook. https://creationhomeschooler.blogspot.com/
Note of appreciation
I want to thank The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
I was privileged to know Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard. I knew them when they came to visit the New Jersey Plant in Rockaway, New Jersey. I had the privilege to work for both Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard for many years as an engineering technician and later on as a software engineer in the New Jersey, Rockaway Plant.
I am sure they would be embarrassed to know that their foundation today is being used to teach false doctrines, the doctrine of “evolution”.
“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation which claims they “work to help all people lead healthy, productive lives”.
However, their funds are being wrongfully used to dissipate doctrines that are doing exactly the opposite of what they intend to accomplish. The Truth of science is the only thing that will ultimately bring people lead healthy, productive lives, not lies and false stories that teach our children that we came from a rock.
The same goes for the “Twenty Million Minds Foundation”, “The Maxfield Foundation”, “The Laura and John Arnold Foundation”. Unfortunately, all of your money is being used to dissipate and propagate lies. Please, correct the use of your precious gifts.
No reliable scientific measurements were used to make to following statements in page 212:
“ If we compare animals living on land with those in water, you can see how drag has influenced evolution. Fishes, dolphins, and even massive whales are streamlined in shape to reduce drag forces. Birds are streamlined and migratory species that fly large distances often have particular features such as long necks. Flocks of birds fly in the shape of a spear head as the flock forms a streamlined pattern. In humans, one important example of streamlining is the shape of sperm, which need to be efficient in their use of energy”.
We can just as easily say the following- And it makes much better sense :
If we compare animals living on land with those in water, you can see how Creation was designed to influence their flights. Fishes, dolphins, and even massive whales are streamlined, and wonderfully created in shape to reduce drag forces. Birds are streamlined and migratory species that fly large distances often have been designed with particular features such as long necks.
Flocks of birds fly in the shape of a spear head as the flock forms a streamlined pattern . All evidence of Creation and not chance. In humans, one important example of design is the perfectly streamlined shape of sperm, which need to be efficient in their use of energy so that the purpose for which it was create will fulfill its task, to “be fruitful and become many”.
We know where we came from: Genesis 1:1. We were created as fully formed intelligent creatures. The Big Bang theory and its adherents do not know exactly where any of all of the “intelligent” matter ever came from.
Evolution give us billions of unknown years to guess with very little evidence of how their guess came through and produced a wonderful human body and a perfectly designed bird wing, and whale structure.
The V shaped flight of these birds shows evidence of design.
We can go on and on with the allegoric assumptions that the authors of OpenStax make in order to make a point of the so called “evolution of life” from abiogenesis or single cell evolution. (Page 527, 665).
Once again, I think the point that “evolution of life” is a hoax, has been perfectly proven
Footnotes:
“Figure 30.14 Niels Bohr, Danish physicist, used the planetary model of the atom to explain the atomic spectrum and size of the hydrogen atom. His many contributions to the development of atomic physics and quantum mechanics, his personal influence on many students and colleagues, and his personal integrity, especially in the face of Nazi oppression, earned him a prominent place in history. (credit: Unknown Author, via Wikimedia Commons”.
The same will be said, one day, of those true scientists who refused to agree with the mindless, senseless idea of “evolution of life” as imposed to the entire world by the godless cadre of pseudo scientists who believe in the non-proven, unscientific non-sense of the “evolution of life” from abio-genesis.
References
• Collins: Why this scientist believes in God. POSTED: 9:37 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html. Accessed September 16th, 2017
- Dr. Francis Collins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
- The Dating Game by Dr. David Menton on September 16, 2017 https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/dating-game/
- Why do so many scientists endorse Evolution? Accessed Sept 16th, 2017 http://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-scientists.html
- Creation is Scientific- See What Scientists Say – http://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-scientists.html.http://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-scientists.html. Accessed Sept 16th, 2017
- OpenStax Online Textbook. Accessed Sept 14, 2017 https://cnx.org/contents/jQSmhtXo@13.77:qmhggndY@2/Entropy-and-the-Second-Law-of-
- A new form of energy may have powered the Big Bang https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whatpowered.htm
• Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? David Buckna https://trueorigin.org/creatpub.php. Accessed Sept 16th, 2017
Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
• “https://cnx.org/contents/GFy_h8cu@10.115:noBcfThl@7/Understanding-Evolution
• https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/primordial-soup/attempts-to-trace-life-back-to-chemical-origins-still-flawed/
• Mike Riddle, “Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life,” in The New Answers Book 2, Ken Ham, ed. (Master Books, 2008). See also http://www.answersingenesis.org/go/origin
• Devolution. http://creationwiki.org/Devolution Accessed May 16th, 2017
• The Image in Mind: Theism, Naturalism, and the Imaginations. Charles Taliaferro and Jil Evans, The Image in Mind: Theism, Naturalism, and the Imagination, Continuum, 2010, 224ppl. $130.00 (hbk), ISBN 9781847064820.
• http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/29978-the-image-in-mind-theism-naturalism-and-the-imagination/
• Evolution: No Chance in a Billion Years. https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/probability/evolution-no-chance-billion-years/
• The ENCODE Project: ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elementshttps://www.encodeproject.org/
• Altruistic functions for selfish DNA.Geoffrey J. Faulkner & Piero Carninci
• Are There More Grains of Sand Than Stars? http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4161/cc.8.18.9536
• Censored Biology .Phil Johnson MCE- On the “the Miller-Urey experiments”
http://tasc-creationscience.org/article/censored-biology
• Information, science and biology
by Werner Gitt: http://creation.com/information-science-and-biology
(No Junk DNA, sic): – Mobile DNA Elements: The Seeds of Organic Complexity on Earth.
• Habibi L1,2, Pedram M3, AmirPhirozy A4, Bonyadi K4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26222789
• Dr. Jerome Lejeune:Found Cause of Down Syndrome
• http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/12/obituaries/dr-jerome-lejeune-dies-at-67-found-cause-of-down-syndrome.html
• Professor Gary Parker, PhD. The Evolution Crisis. http://www.theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony5.php
All web page references accessed above were between April and May 2017
• “Has Science Found How Life Began and Species Evolved? An Examination of the “RNA World” Hypothesis and Rapidly Changing Lizards” http://tasc-creationscience.org/content/has-science-found-how-life-began-and-species-evolved-examination-rna-world-hypothesis-and.Accessed May 11th, 2017.
• https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/worldview/state-of-the-nation-2/
• When a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form and cool in 1986) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated “age” of 350,000 years! Accessed May 22nd, 2017. https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/
◦ “Similarly, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand known to be less than 50 years old, yielded “ages” of up to 3.5 million years.”
• Odds of life evolving by change: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67884-what-are-the-odds-of-life-evolving-by-chance-alone/
• http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Isochron-Discordances.pdf
• Murphy et al., 2003. http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2009/index/contents.php
• State-of-the-art computer modeling of plate tectonics has demonstrated that the processes … occur catastrophically over a drastically shortened timescale [Baumgardner 1994a, b, 2003].
• Leslie Pray, Ph.D. © 2008 Nature Education
Citation: Pray, L. (2008) Transposons, or jumping genes: Not junk DNA? Nature Education 1(1):32 https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Transposons-or-Jumping-Genes-Not-Junk-DNA-1211
(Accessed May 26, 2017)
• “If physicists at Stanford and Purdue are correct in their findings, the whole theory of constant radioactive decay rates could be thrown out the door” https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-after-all/#789aaf34147f Accessed May 24th, 2017
• Plourde, Kristie.M.S. (2003, 2014). Exploring Creation with Chemistry. 3Rd Ed. Anderson, Indiana. Apologia International Ministries. Pg 156-162
• “students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant…But that assumption was challenged in an unexpected way by a group of researchers from Purdue University.” Accessed May 24th, 2017.http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html
• Helium evidence for a young world continues to confound critics
http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics. Accessed June 2nd, 2017
• New Dinosaur Fossils Shake Up the Consensus
“Darwinians are in retreat. ..Without their precious millions of years, Darwinism is dead. There would have to be a creation explanation… Theistic evolutionists: stop leaning on this broken reed of Darwinism and millions of years. Get ahead of the trend that’s coming, the realization that Darwin was wrong, and long ages are wrong, too.” https://crev.info/2017/06/new-dinosaur-fossils/Accessed June 7th,2017
• Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, P.H.D., F.M., Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax — it is a true bird, not a “missing link”
• Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information? http://creation.com/is-antibiotic-resistance-really-due-to-increase-in-information
• http://www.genesisalive.com/
See also: http://www.icr.org/article/260/.Accessed June 3rd, 2017
• Evolutionists say, ‘The unique characteristics of the human species can easily be explained.’http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-12-argument-evolution-of-mankind Accessed June 3rd, 2017.
• U.S. National Library of Medicine. Your Guide to understanding genetic conditions. Obtained June 16th, 2017. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/mutationscausedisease
• Ed Yong, “ENCODE: the Rough Guide to the Human Genome,” http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/09/05/encode-the-rough-guide-to-the-human-genome/#.V_AxDtx4yoI.
• Darwin, Design, and the Art of Being Shocked https://crev.info/2017/05/darwin-design-art-shocked/Accessed June 7th, 2017
• Evolution News and Science Today
Accessed June 8th, 2017 https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/could-atheism-survive-the-discovery-of-extraterrestrial-life/
• Scientific American. “Pssst! Don’t tell the creationists, but scientists don’t have a clue how life began.”https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/. By John Horgan on February 28, 2011 . (Accessed June 8th, 2017).
▪ Table 2 bellow. Courtesy of Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson and Jeffrey P. Tomkins on May 11, 2017Human Origins from Ape-Like Primates or Fully Human People?https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/origins/human-origins-from-ape-like-primates-or-fully-human-people/
Table 2. Factually erroneous evolutionary claims about human-primate ancestry
Evolutionary Claim and Actual Data
False claim: Human-chimpanzee genetic identity is 98-99%
Actual genetic identity is only 88% (i.e., 400,000,000 DNA differences exist between the two species)
Claim: Humans are genetically closer to apes than to other animal species, unequivocally demonstrating common ancestry
Fact : Relative hierarchies are characteristics of design
Claim: Human chromosome #2 arose via fusion of two ape-like chromosomes
Fact : The purported “fusion” site is actually a functional DNA element in a human gene
Claim: Gene order along chromosomes has no function, therefore shared gene order demonstrates common ancestry
Fact: Gene order along chromosomes does indeed perform a function
Claim: Humans and chimpanzees shared genetic mistakes (e.g., pseudogenes)
Fact : Pseudogenes appear to be functional DNA elements, not mistakes
Claim: Humans possess the broken remnants of an ancient chicken gene (vitellogenin)
Fact : No such remnant exists; instead the “fragment” appears to be a functional DNA element
Additional Refences
“Fuzzy words.” Words that evolutionists typically use when they have no observable evidence to support their claims. (Mike Riddle)
“In a recent issue of Science News magazine, for example, we find the first fuzzy words in the article’s title: “Bubbles may have sheltered early life.” Did you spot it? Yes, it’s the phrase “may have.”
In the second paragraph, we read: “Such a snug hideout could have shielded microbes from ultraviolet radiation.” Right – the words “could have”.
In the next paragraph, a geologist is quoted as saying that the work is “very plausible” – another way of getting you to accept the scientist’s wishful thinking.
In the remaining paragraphs, we find two more “could haves”, a “may have”, a “perhaps”, a “might have” and two instances of “appeared to be”.
“If microbes survived in these pockets on early Earth, they could potentially have done so on other planets such as Mars.
“The words “if” and “potentially” should have set off the critical thinking alarm bells in our minds.
http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/caution-fuzzy-words-ahead
Accessed June 9th, 2017.
DNA survey finds all humans are 99.9pc the same. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1416706/DNA-survey-finds-all-humans-are-99.9pc-the-same.html
Ocean Chemistry, Genetics and Biology http://www.logosresearchassociates.org/about
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Esejones/pattam01.html. Colin Patterson’s address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 1981, pages 1-5. Accessed August 25th, 2017.
Wells, 2002: Jonathan Wells, Darwinists Answer “Ten Questions” with Evasions and Falsehoods, 2002, http://www.discovery.org/a/1106
Darwinists Answer “Ten Questions” with Evasions and Falsehoods
Jonathan Wells – Discovery Institute- January 15, 2002
“The NCSE introduces its answers to my Ten Questions by calling many of my claims “incorrect or misleading,” and by maintaining that they are “intended only to create unwarranted doubts in students’ minds about the validity of evolution as good science.” The evasions and falsehoods listed above, however, make it clear that it is the NCSE’s answers that are incorrect or misleading. If students have doubts about the scientific validity of evolution, their doubts are amply warranted not only by the systematic pattern of misrepresentations in biology textbooks, but also by the false and evasive statements the NCSE makes in defense of those misrepresentations.
Good science is the search for truth, and it searches for truth by comparing theories with the evidence. A good science education should present the evidence truthfully–especially the evidence for and against a theory as influential as Darwin’s. Yet biology textbooks invariably present this evidence with a pro-Darwin spin, indoctrinating students rather than educating them. It seems that the National Center for Science Education, despite its title, wants students to inherit the spin”. http://www.discovery.org/a/1106
Some Modern Scientists Who Believe in
the Biblical Account of Creation
Credit : Answers in Genesis and http://www.truenews.org/Creation_vs_Evolution/scientists.html
|
|
Copyright : True Science HomeSchool https://creationhomeschooler.blogspot.com/
Fred Echeverria, MSc. Ph.D. (abd) Nova SouthEastern University
UNISA University of South Africa
No part of this article may be reproduced or copied without the author’s exclusive permission.
Evolution is Easy to Debunk 