Rice University and OpenStax & Texbooks Deceive Biology Students
Biology online TextBook at OpenStax
This online “textbook” suffers from the same misconception derived in our earlier essay.
While the author(s) believes that “evolution” is a product of “natural selection” it is quite evident that he or she or them do not understand or know the difference between true “evolution” and natural selection.
It is assumed by them that “millions or billions of years” brought about the appearance of life to earth, with no particular purpose of evidence of intelligence behind it.
OpenStax online biology textbook, is attempting to inculcate in us that their on line book is a simple result of the “evolution” of letters with no particular reason or purpose or anyone to give credit to.
Other False Claims
The author(s) of OpenStax biology textbook claim that 97% of scientists today believe in “evolution” and that most scientists who believe in Creation are not biologists.
This is simply not true as evidenced by this web page and the remaining of this essay. https://creationhomeschooler.blogspot.com/p/some-scientists-alive-today-who-accept.html
And additionally by what Dr. Friar states here:
Wayne Friar, Ph.D., AIIA’s Resource Associate for Science and Origins, says this:
Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power.
OpenStax states that many of the scientists who believe in Creation are not biologists.
This is totally false. Please see the bottom of this page for names of bio-molecular, biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, cell biologists, biochemists, Ph.D.(s) and others among the throng of true scientists who believe in Creation, who refute the false hypothesis of “evolution”.
The director of the Human Genome Project Dr. Francis Collins, is a physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project.
Dr. Collins believes in a God of the Bible. Dr. Collins, recently stated:
I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God’s majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.
Why this scientist believes in God. POSTED: 9:37 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007
By Dr. Francis Collins. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) is an American physician–geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project. He is director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Before being appointed director of the NIH, Collins led the Human Genome Project and other genomics research initiatives as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the 27 institutes and centers at NIH. Before joining NHGRI, he earned a reputation as a gene hunter at the University of Michigan. He has been elected to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science.
Textbooks , such as the one found in OpenStax’s biology and physics publications, carry false statements should not be permitted to circulate throughout the learning and scientific community. By thus allowing false statements to circulate our schools and into the minds of our innocent students, we are not teaching our children and our college students to be honest. We are blatantly teaching them to follow and to print dishonesty and to propagate it in the scientific community with total immunity.
Earlier we showed that it is not 97% the number of scientists who believe in mindless “evolution”.
Regarding the number of scientists who actually discredit mindless evolution is about 40%, and not 3% as Wayne Friar Ph.D, put it:
Wayne Friar, Ph.D., AIIA’s Resource Associate for Science and Origins, says this:
Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power.
There is a huge mathematical error on the part of OpenStax author(s) as 100%- 40% does not add up to 3%. Is it just a slight oversight or is it on-purpose deceit ?
Why should anyone trust what OpenStax says even throughout the remaining of the book on biology and physics figures? Do they teach truth ?
Additionally, the fact that some scientists believe in “evolution” does not mean that “evolution” is true. The fact that a majority believe in something, does not necessarily mean they are right. The 2016 USA elections were overwhelmed by the idea that another candidate was to win. Nevertheless, the shocking surprise was that less likely candidate won those elections, to the surprise of millions, tens or even hundreds of millions. Perhaps even billions, if we include the rest of the shocked world.
Thus, the majority is not always right.
On the other hand there are also hundreds, if not thousands of well known, practicing professors, and reputable scientists who believe in Creation. Here is a web page write up to prove that. https://creationhomeschooler.blogspot.com/p/some-scientists-alive-today-who-accept.html
OpenStax author(s) are not telling the public the truth.
Dr. Emery S. Dunfee openly discredited OpenStax’s false statement when he said:
Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington:
One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.
We concur, that evidence of such fear is obvious as many scientists who finally retire admit to believing in Creation, but not making it known earlier due to fear of loosing their jobs.
That is why Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31 said:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled “The Biologist,” that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between “G: (Caylor) and “J” (the scientist).
(Credit http://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-scientists.html).
G: “Do you believe that the information evolved?”
J: “George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise.”
G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”
J: “No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.
G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest…..
Another False Statement by the Author of OpenStax Biology Text
He or she stated that there are no peered reviewed articles that reflect scientific facts about “evolution”.
Peer review does not guarantee truth of material does not it prevent fraud
OpenStax author(s) claim that not many creationist scientists publish peer reviewed magazines and articles. This is another false statement.
First of all, peer review does not prevent fraud, and yes creationists scientists do publish in many peer reviews magazines, and articles.
Richard Smith the former editor of the British Medical Journal showed that fraud appears regularly in over 30,000 scientific journals. Thus, peer reviewed articles does not prevent writers from printing false research they present as scientific findings.
We quote the following:
Fraud is a substantial problem in scientific research and the attitude toward it has changed little over the years.4
Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal and chief executive of the BMJ publishing group, admitted that fraudulent research regularly appears in the 30,000 scientific journals published worldwide. However, ‘[m]ost cases are not publicised. They are simply not recognised, covered up altogether or the guilty researcher is urged to retrain, move to another institution or retire from research.’ He also acknowledged that even when journals discover that published research is fabricated or falsified they rarely retract the findings,12 usually out of fear of lawsuits.4
Well known cases of fraud include the Piltdown man hoax, an obvious fraud that was not exposed for 40 years; and more recently, the Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk, who falsified data relating to his embryonic stem cell/cloning research;13 as well as a series of papers on superconductivity by Jan Hendrik Schön published in Nature from 2000 to 2001 period, but had to be retracted in 2003 because they contained falsified data and other scientific fraud.14
David Buckna, states the following in his web page:
” Many critics perpetuate false claims to the effect that no genuine scientist would be a creationist.
The Institute for Creation Research refutes this myth here, as does Answers in Genesishere.
Additionally David Buckna writes:
Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch creationist and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on developmental anomalies in fruit flies (“Developmental genetics of homoeosis,” Advances in Genetics, 16 [1976], 179-248).
Herpetologist Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on turtle systematics and serology in such journals as Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica.
In their study of creationist publishing practices (“The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation ‘Science’,” Quarterly Review of Biology 60 (1985): 21-30), Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980-1983, looking for creationist submissions. Out of an estimated 135,000 submitted papers, Scott and Cole found only 18 that could be described “as advocating scientific creationism” (p.26).
Scott and Cole were not looking for papers like the following: In 1983, the German creationist and microbiologist Siegfried Scherer published a critique of evolutionary theories of the origin of photosynthesis entitled “Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 104 [1983]: 289-299, one of the journals Scott and Cole surveyed.
Only an editor who had a complete roster of European creationists, and the insight to follow the implications of Scherer’s argument would have flagged the paper as “creationist.”
How many papers did Scott and Cole miss? Let’s look at 1984, one year past the end of their survey. Would Scott and Cole have turned up “Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer,” by the creationist biochemist Grant Lambert (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107 [1984]:387-403)?
Lambert argues that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would have been swamped by extremely high error rates. But the editing enzymes are themselves produced by DNA.
And David Buckna continues,
Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. As mentioned previously, the article by Scott & Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.
In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had a “hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.” Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, “It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.” This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent “the range of opinions received” (e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions).
Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.
Humphreys’ letter and Ms. Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)
On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article *“Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps” to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature.
The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review.
Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a “slight bias” exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.
The fossil record allegory
What about the false attributions from OpenStax that “Fossils provide solid evidence that organisms from the past are not the same as those found today; fossils show a progression of evolution”. How true is this ?
On the fossil record, OpenStax author(s) once again, erroneously state:
Fossils provide solid evidence that organisms from the past are not the same as those found today; fossils show a progression
of evolution.Scientists determine the age of fossils and categorize them all over the world to determine when the organisms lived relative to each other. The resulting fossil record tells the story of the past, and shows the evolution of form over
millions of years..
We respond to the author (s) that it this totally false and incorrect.
Reputable scientists have shown that “No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationalist, uses the fossil record in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation” (Ridley, M New Scientist 90:832 1981)
We quote one of them here:
The view that the earth (and its “fossil record”) is hundreds of millions of years old is highly questioned by reputable scientists, and the idea that we were formed in those hundreds of millions of years is FALSE. Geologic systems are far from certain and riddled with contradictions.
(See also Radiometric Dating: Back to Basics.)
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-back-to-basics/“No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationalist, uses the fossil record in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation” (Ridley, M New Scientist 90:832 1981)
OpenStax once again makes another false statement when speaking of the “evolution of the horse”
OpenStax uses the horse as an example of evolutionary process.
(Illustration taken from: https://cnx.org/contents/IPVfEpUB@3/181-Understanding-Evolution).
The truth about horse “evolution”.
That is another false statement as Dr Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History boldly, in stark contradiction to Openstax assertions, stated:
“I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable..” https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/whats-happened-to-the-horse/
Peter Hastie, writing on this subject then said. “The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 43 centimetres (17 inches) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other”.
Hastie concluded. “Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false? Why do they continue to teach our kids something that is not scientific?”
Also, “In 2001, staunch evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote the following”:
| “ | Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution? http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution_and_the_fossil_record |
Thus, many reputable scientists refute the veracity of OpenStax’s author(s) and show the stark reality that OpenStax and its writers of, at the very least, its Biology and Physics textbooks have published statements that are simply false.
Another magazine emphasized the idea that OpenStax’s “fact of evolution” is wrong as we quote from them:
The Nature News article under “Does evolutionary theory need a major rethink?” stated the following:
Evolutionary ideas need a major rethink
A Nature News article in 2004 asked a profound question, “Does evolutionary theory need a major rethink?”
One group of scholars said, “Yes, urgently.” The other group reassured readers not to worry, asserting, “No–all is well.”This means that Darwin’s unique ideas, which serve as the core of evolutionary theory, are coming in for brutal questioning.“Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to (evolutionary) science.”(Italics ours)[1]https://crev.info/2017/05/darwin-design-art-shocked/
https://creationhomeschooler.blogspot.com/2017/05/teach-science-while-defending-gods-word.html
What is Obvious
One thing is very obvious, and that is that the authors are atheists minded writers that do not in any way want to give credit to the True author or Life.
Should we give no credit to the author(s) of OpenStax?
Likewise, we can also say that the on line textbook put there by OpenStax was written by no-one and therefore, we give credit to the “evolution” of letters all of the information found in such textbook. That such textbook was created with no specific purpose and it was not designed for the betterment of anyone.
It is simply there for the sake of being there.
Obviously, this does not make sense. And neither does any of the writings that support “evolution” from the author(s) of those two textbooks of OpenStax.
Summary
It is obvious that the author(s) of this textbook are not teaching the reality of the truth about true science, instead they concentrate on the idea of “evolution” as a fact. We have shown this is the farthest from the truth.
It is evident that, once again that “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 and origin 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 other fallacies found in these on line 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, and 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 generous Foundation’s gift today, is being used to teach false doctrines, the pseudo or non-scientific 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 to 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”.
To the generous Foundations that make OpenStax a publication riddled with false statements and lies, we convey the following thought: Unfortunately, all of your money is being used to dissipate and propagate non-scientific lies.
With great concern and humility we request, please correct the use of your precious gifts. Please help propagate the truth about science. “Evolution” as described by OpenStax is anything but accurate and true.
Footnotes:
No reliable scientific measurements were used to make to following statements in page 212 of the OpenStax Biology textbook:
“ 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
Once again we are re-living the times when people thought the world was flat and the gold could be manufactured in the labs
“ 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 the newly invented science of abio-genesis.
We shall look back in dismay some day
Some day we will look back in embarrassed disappointment and wonder with shame and dismay, at how books like these were ever allowed to be published without anyone in a position, including Rice University, to veto such non-sense, and to speak up to expose these books for what they are, preposterous lies and imaginary stories with no positive humanitarian value.
What will be even more astounding and shameful is to realize in dismay with hindsight, that the Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard and the rest of the philanthropist Foundations with a capacity to donate thousands or millions of dollars, were so easily duped, by the high priests of false science, into funding, and or allow the printing of such lies despite what true science really stands for.
Only a child with an imagination of non-accountability, as children so wonderfully are, could allow himself to dream the senseless preposterous ideas that OpenStax published in these textbooks.
My six year old child recently stated to his mom and I that in a “perfect” world he should be able to breath under water without any oxygen, just like a fish. His imagination vivid and wonderfully made to dream up things that at time, are impossible. But, that is the imagination of a child and we bless that wonderful mind.
Evolutionists, on the other hand are grown up people who apparently do not have the ability to determine the difference between fact and fiction.
The “evolutionary” textbooks that OpenStax carelessly produced and spread on the Internet, under the demise of “free education”, is a great disfavor to those who naively read and believe their “stories”. These “wild stories” are simply the product of a wild and highly unaccountable imagination.
True science is built on facts and truth, not on lies and allegories as printed by the OpenStax founders and author(s) of those pseudo science fiction textbooks.
It will be similar to the shame we feel today at not saying anything when Hitler began its conquest of Europe while no one in the Western World spoke up against his disastrous and non-sense plans.
It will be similar to the imaginary ideas that the world was flat and was carried by elephants on its back. It will be similar to the time when the Church was willing to burn Galileo on the stake for stating that the earth revolved around the Sun.
It will be similar to the idea that once it was imagined that life arose out of rotting potatoes until Pasteur discovered the real reason why maggots develop apparently from “nothing”.
It will be similar to the time when alchemists thought that we could create gold from a simple combination of chemical atoms and other elements in the periodic table.
Today, we have given a license to the high priests of “evolution” and pseudo science, with a childish and overly active non-sense producing minds and ideas, who irresponsibly publish and rant about anything they want, even if that anything is the most non-sense type of material that intelligent humans could have been exposed to.
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://http://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/2017/05/teach-science-while-defending-gods-word.html
Copyright Computer Integrations, Inc. ©, 2017
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 