Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Showing posts with label Textbooks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Textbooks. Show all posts

Monday, February 15, 2021

The "One Gene, One Trait" Myth

For many years, it has been taught that our traits are the result of our genes. Did Ellen touch the cleft in your chin after you were putting up the Christmas lights, Sparky? That crease was caused by a gene, they say.

One of the many outdated myths that persist in textbooks is of one gene for one trait. Handy for evolution, but we were created and it is complicated.
Credit: RGBStock / Helmut Gevert

Eye and hair color, straight or curled, sizes of various body parts, other things — a gene for each. While this idea is useful to advance the particles-to-paralegal storyline, it is not true. Unfortunately, bad science ideas (especially those that support evolution) tend to remain in textbooks.

The truth is much more complicated; Dr. Robert Carter said, "If life were really simple, evolution might be possible"; evolution is increasingly less possible relative to the complexity of life. Several genes are involved in traits and trait expressions, and other factors come into play. Indeed, our Creator likes variety, and he gave us many factors to express our individual characteristics.

I taught college level human genetics and was chagrined to learn that the textbook/workbook I used for a decade until 2017 incorrectly claimed the older, now-refuted, view that common examples of traits were produced by a single gene was valid. A number of claimed examples were researched, finding the expression of all of them were influenced by many genes. Of these examples, 10 were selected and summarized. This finding supports the fact that to produce new traits, even seemingly simple ones, requires several genes as a set, increasing the complexity significantly and reducing the likelihood of producing these new traits by random changes in the genotype as postulated by evolution.

Although this is a bit technical, I reckon that people trained in biology as well as us reg'lar folk can get something out of it. To do that, click on "Common examples of ‘one gene, one trait’ exposed".

Thursday, October 22, 2020

Another Failed Darwin Theory Still Taught

Not only did Papa Darwin plagiarize other people and hijack Edward Blyth's idea of natural selection in his presentation of evolution, but he also tinkered with the formation of atolls, which was based in incomplete science. It is malarkey, but still taught to students.

Darwin's failed atoll formation theory is still in textbooks, along with other discredited ideas.
Palmyra Atoll, NOAA photo by Erin Looney
Secular science indoctrination centers (schools) are famous for providing false and outdated information regarding evidence for evolution and the age of the earth. Indeed, they use fraud. (This is "education".) We've covered Haeckel's drawings that are used to support both abortion and evolution already, and the Miller-Urey experiment has been thoroughly refuted. Darwin's ideas on atoll formation is known to be junk science, but that and the others are still in the textbooks. Maybe it's because it makes secularists feel good, and they need to make the books bigger?
Darwin investigated other questions than evolution, such as the nature of barnacles, pigeons and things, but they all attempted to promote views of long ages and the gradual accumulation of small changes. His theory on coral atolls has now been criticized as “fatally flawed” – i.e., dead. Schools, however, are still teaching this dead yet “deeply ingrained” theory.

Marine geologist and oceanographer André Droxler knows Charles Darwin’s theory about atolls is incorrect. But Droxler, who’s studied coral reefs for more than 40 years, understands why Darwin’s model persists in textbooks, university lecture halls, natural science museums and Wikipedia entries.

To read the rest, see "Darwin’s Flawed Atoll Theory Still Taught". You may also be interested in "Coral Reefs and the Young Earth".

Saturday, September 26, 2020

Examining the Scopes Trial Textbook

Way back in 1925, John Scopes of Dayton, Tennessee, was arrested and put on trial for allegedly teaching evolution. The whole thing was a set-up by the falsely-named American Civil Liberties Union to put creation on trial. Dr. Robert Carter investigated what was actually in the textbook, A Civic Biology, Presented in Problems by George W. Hunter.

#liar4darwin George William Hunter wrote the textbook that was a big part of the Scopes Trial.
Modified from an illustration in the textbook (public domain)
As mentioned, the case happened in 1925, but A Civic Biology was written in 1914. It was not only outdated, but loaded with evolutionary and secularist views. Some of the evolutionary material was deceitful (equivocating change with evolution, plus a passel of outright false statements). Scientific racism and eugenics are also included in the textbook.

George William Hunter wrote the textbook that was a big part of the Scopes Trial.
Public domain photo via Wikimedia Commons
There are a couple of things for which I would have liked to have seen references or further explanation. One is that the word Caucasian is outdated and no longer in use. Actually, it still has limited use for some classifications, but the correct word is simply white. I didn't know that, especially since I still am presented with check boxes on forms that include Caucasian as an option. (One fellow quipped that he is white but has no ancestry from the Caucasus Mountains.) The other part I would have liked documentation is about why the harmful “Jukes” and the “Kallikaks” stories.

This article is useful on a number of levels, including perspectives of science over a hundred years ago. We can trace the harmful effects of evolutionary thinking on societies, and must realize the truth of special creation and that man is created in God's image.
Hunter’s A Civic Biology was the textbook at the centre of the famous Scopes Monkey trial in 1925. The author, George William Hunter, was a college professor, prominent member of the ACLU, and a former high school teacher in New York City. The book was published in 1914 and had been adopted as the high school biology textbook by the state of Tennessee in 1919. By the time of the trial, it was more than a little outdated. The neighbouring state of Kentucky had adopted Hunter’s New Essentials in Biology in 1923. But Tennessee held back, letting its citizens re-use the older book and not have to buy new ones. The book included material on human evolution, which was not supposed to be taught in Tennessee schools due to the recently passed Butler Act. Even though teacher, John Scopes, had not taught anything about evolution, his use of the textbook became the catalyst for this landmark trial. Thus, the struggling little town of Dayton, which had shrunk from 4,000 to 1,500 people over recent years, became the epicenter of world events.
To read the rest, visit "A long-overdue review of Hunter’s A Civic Biology".

Monday, February 25, 2019

Christian Textbooks — Not Entirely

This post is courtesy of the "Through the Side Door" department. That is, I wanted to post this on Fazebook (which is linked to Twitter) "as is", but they were unable to validate the link. I already did that. No, I am not going to claim censorship or anything because that is not warranted.

Whether homeschooling or at Christian schools, parents and administrators who believe in biblical creation need to be careful of textbooks. Just because it has the name "Christian" is no guarantee of actual Christian content.
School Teacher by Jan Steen, 1668
Many Christian parents do not want their children attending the state-run indoctrination centers (often called "schools"), so they opt for alternatives. Those of us who reject evolution and millions of years because of both theology and science do not want to deprogram children and teach them the truth. After all, the government has control of them for several hours a day most of the year. Anti-creationists get furious when we undermine their indoctrination that is, in many cases, falsely called education.

Christian schools? Possibly, if they are affordable. Unfortunately, having Christian in the name does not guarantee Bible-believing content.

How about homeschooling? That is actually a very old method of instruction, but secularists keep a close watch on attendance and educational materials. Ironically, people who criticize homeschooling parents as "fundamentalists" (using it as an emotive epithet) often do not know what a fundamentalist really is. Also, homeschooling was popular with leftists before Christians began partaking; they wanted to fight The Establishment, man! Now those people are the establishment. (To borrow a line from Blue Öyster Cult, "I am the one you warned me of". Well, they are!) Also, fundamentalism has not been especially friendly to biblical creation!

So anyway. Christians must be careful about the textbooks they select. Sure, we can use secular books and then provide better information when the textbooks get highfalutin about origins and leftist ideas, but wouldn't it be better to simply use Christian textbooks? Not necessarily.  

Again, just because something has the word "Christian" on it is no guarantee that is good to use. Many publishers, music distributors, and so on are owned by secular companies. Not only do they want to make a few grotzits, but many support leftist and other anti-Christian causes. This is why you find formerly reliable Christian publishers releasing drek that needs to be analyzed and refuted by people who actually believe the Bible.
It is no secret that evolutionary teaching and the religion of naturalism run rampant in public education. The idea that life has been evolving on earth for millions of years is taught as fact from the earliest ages. Kindergarteners are taught that dinosaurs never lived with man, and high school biology courses teach that we evolved from single-celled organisms. What is the solution for parents who strongly disagree?

For many, the plan is to homeschool their kids from kindergarten through senior high and then send them to a Christian college.

Easy enough, right?

Not quite.

Christian parents have good intentions. Unfortunately, the reality is that Christian curricula and colleges that teach a literal 6-day creation around 6,000 years ago are the exception, not the norm.
To finish reading or to download the audio version, click on "Hidden Dangers of Christian Textbooks".

Saturday, October 13, 2018

The Joy of Rewriting Textbooks?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A while back, someone sent me a link to a short article in Forbes, "Why Do Scientists Get Excited About 'Rewriting The Textbooks?'", which I last accessed on October 13, 2018. It was written by contributor Carmen Drahl, an evolutionist. She had some enthusiastic things to say about the idea, but they were a mix of both realistic and idealistic concepts.

Some people may get excited about rewriting textbooks.
Credit: Freeimages / Zsuzsa N.K.
First of all, the title tells us that scientists write textbooks. Mayhaps that's why they keep getting their atoms-to-author evolutionary research fouled up, as they spend so much time writing textbooks? Do a search and you'll find that many different kinds of people can write and publish textbooks, then committees review them. Some scientists write them, many do not.
I’m one of the lucky folks who was trained to see science as a process, as a way of looking at the world. And when you see science that way, you realize that while the concepts and definitions that emerge from research may eventually be proven wrong, the process for gaining new knowledge — the scientific method — is the best way we have of learning about the world around us. That’s what’s wondrous to a scientist— to know that we understand the periodic table, or our solar system, or the animal kingdom, a little bit better, because someone has come up with a new idea that’s a better fit for all the data points that have been gathered over the years.
It sure is nice to have a sense of wonder about science and knowledge. Many of us do. I wonder about the first part of that quote, where she's "one of the lucky ones who was trained to see science as a process". How are other people trained, then? Also, she said that science is "a way of looking at the world". That sounds to me like an empirical worldview, which is rather sterile. As many creationists (and others) have said numerous times, people interpret data according to their presuppositions.

She went on to give an illustration about "scientists getting excited" and discussed chemist Neil Bartlett. He made an important discovery, so textbooks had to be rewritten. Well, yes. When real discoveries are made, textbooks need to be rewritten. Not so much with evolutionary "discoveries" — certain examples of fraud, such as Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, are still in the textbooks. Other examples of bad evolutionary science are frequently found in textbooks.

We keep hearing about new discoveries that frustrate believers in deep time and evolutionists:
There are many more on this site alone.I reckon the reasons folks might get excited about rewriting textbooks is that they can get paid for it. Another is that secularists can cover their tracks and try to hide their embarrassment. Of course, some evolutionists will still manage to lie outright, since the end justifies the means as a long as people can be made to believe in evolution.

Science is exciting and fun. When used to appreciate and understand the work of our Creator, the sense of awe deepens. Biblical creationists in scientific disciplines often say that they are motivated to know how God created something. Being excited about EvolutionDidIt and evosplaining with "it evolved" is fatuous. If textbook writers are excited about updating real science, good for them.

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Canals on Mars Prove Evolution!

Yes, it's true. A famous astronomer built on the work of a previous astronomer and saw canals on Mars. What, you didn't know? It was in the newspapers, even the New York Times. Except that the big news was in 1907. Seems that fake news is not a new phenomenon, only the moniker is new.

Life on Mars fake news  abiogenesis  has been around a long time
Making use of the Breaking News Generator again
This is where someone might object that scientists makes mistakes, but things got fixed because science is self-correcting. No, not really. Secularists often use the reification fallacy and act like science is a sentient being that makes choices (especially regarding muck-to-mechanic evolution), which is a form of pagan nature worship. Giovanni Schiaparelli thought he saw channels on Mars, and the Italian word was translated as canals (which strikes me as an easy mistake), and Percival Lowell "saw" canals on Mars. He even wrote a book or three on the subject.

Those mistakes were corrected with additional research and improvements in equipment. It also didn't hurt for us to go to Mars and look. Well, not in person, but those space probes, Rover, and stuff sent back some mighty interesting information. No signs of canals or life, thought. The search for life on Mars and elsewhere way out yonder continues, based on the a priori assumption of evolution: they believe that since life evolved here, it must have evolved out there. Scientists think that maybe perhaps it could be that abiogenesis worked somewhere else, since it couldn't happen here. Chance and luck aren't exclusive to us. Yes, some folks really believe that way.

We've seen propaganda reporting from the science news industry in recent times. Dreadful stuff makes it into the textbooks and sets up camp for far too long, including the known fraud of Haeckel's embryo drawings. Secular science media only exacerbate the situation, jumping the corral fence in their excitement and galloping away with misconstrued "evidence", especially for evolution, ignoring reports where the evidence supports special creation. After the dust settles and better information is available, you may have to dig for more accurate material. Meanwhile, Darwin's followers continue to spread fake science news, especially on the internet. Remember hearing that Columbus was told not to take that trip in 1492 because he'd sail off the edge of the earth, and Christians were guarding that flat earth myth? Started and perpetuated by anti-creationists and atheists. They lie, it's their nature. Watch what you're reading and hearing, old son.

Here is a music video by ApologetiX that is based on "Don't Tell Me You Love Me" by Night Ranger. This improved version is "Don't Tell Me We're Lucky".

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Does the Genesis Flood Explain Order in the Geologic Column?

The geologic column exists in many textbooks, but is not found in nature. It is presented in a nice, tidy order where simple life forms are at the bottom, with more complex evolving up to the top. However, the geologic column and index fossils are constructs of the imagination. Some owlhoots have trolled, "The geologic column proves evolution, and there are no fossils out of order". They don't know what they're talking about, there are fossils "out of order" according to evolutionary timelines. So, it exists, but not in the way microbes-to-mechanic evolution want us to think.

The geologic column exists in textbooks but not in reality. While there is a general order, many fossils are out of place. Can biblical creationists explain the geologic column more accurately than uniformitarian geologists? Yes.
Modified from an image from the US Geological Survey
Do biblical creation models do a better job of explaining what we find in the fossil record? That's a mite difficult. There is a general order to be had in the fossil record, and the Genesis Flood models explain a great deal. Yes, there are disagreements among Flood geologists as to the details — which is not much of a surprise, scientists disagree about details and put forward differing models all the time. More research is needed in this are, but the basics are agreed upon.
Order in the fossil record is one of the most popular arguments for evolution. If the fossil record has a consistent vertical order it’s claimed the fossil record reflects eons of evolution. Evolutionists also think it’s a powerful argument against the Bible and young-earth creationism. If most of the fossils formed catastrophically during Noah’s Flood, then that supposedly means that the Flood would produce a random order in the fossil record.

However, flood geologists have long rejected this caricature of Noah’s Flood as physically unrealistic. Even large catastrophes need not produce completely random patterns. Creationists have developed several explanations for that order in the context of Noah’s Flood.

In today’s correspondence, CMI’s Shaun Doyle explores some of these factors to show how they might forge an explanation of fossil order consistent with the Bible.
To read the rest, click on "Order in the fossil record — How can Noah’s Flood explain it?"

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Makes a Compelling Case

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In yesterday's post, points were made that atheists and evolutionists blatantly misrepresent the biblical creationist position in their efforts to control education. They present evolution as indisputable scientific truth. One of the main problems with this is that people will simply accept such statements as accurate, and then expect creationists to defend positions that we do not hold.

Educators present only the good side of evolution, often including (sometimes from ignorance) outdated and inaccurate information from textbooks. Indeed, some textbooks also contain fraudulent material. Creation science and Intelligent Design materials are actively suppressed, and evolution is sometimes required to be presented with no contrary information. Add this indoctrination to the additional problems that people tend to "think" with their emotions, and that students are not taught to think critically. Then we have Darwinoid Drones arguing with creationists using bad information and worse logic, not even knowing what creationists teach!

There are many testimonies of people who did not know anything about creation science, and when they investigated the information for themselves, they realized that they had been misled. (Of course, there are others who will read creationist material and chant their mantra, "Creationists are liars", so there is little hope for their minds.) The majority seems to have little chance of learning or thinking, since they get the material presented in the biased evolutionary way.

I remember an old cartoon.

A big dumb hound dog that is hunting a fox so he can cut its tail off, so Bugs Bunny puts on a fox costume. Later, he's using an ink pad and rubber stamp to make fox tracks. We see the dog sniffing along and comes across the stamped tracks. He says, "Fox tracks!" and follows them, sniffing along. 
Suddenly the fox tracks stop and train tracks begin. The hound says, "Train tracks!", sniffing along again. He finds Bugs in the fox costume leaning against the entrance to a train tunnel, grabs and shakes him. "Daaaah, now I gotcha, ya little old fox! I'm gonna cut your tail off!" 
Bugs slaps the hound's hands away from him. "Just a minute there, Bub! Just what type o' tracks was you followin'? 
"Uh...uh...uh...train tracks!" 
"Now then. If yer followin' train tracks, you must be trying to catch a train. Right?" 
"Yahyuh, yahyuh, dat makes good sense!" 
"Then if it's a train you're after, he went thataway!", pointing into the tunnel. 
"He did?", the dog says. Then he shakes Bugs' hand. "Gee, thanks a lot, pal, thanks a lot!" He "catches" the train and is extremely pleased with himself.
(If the embed works below, you can see this cartoon. The bit I'm quoting starts at the four minute mark.)

My point with this fun stuff is that people will learn "evolution", then go try to cut off the creationist's tail, use bad reasoning and then think they've done something spectacular. Learning only the evolutionists' skewed and false views will give them an unrealistic sense of accomplishment when they attack creationists.

Many of us have similar experiences when someone is given one side of a story by a biased presenter, then learns that there is more to the story after all. For instance, the cultist "creationist" that I wrote about was railing about me, and someone simply accepted the cultist's account without bothering to see my side of the story:

Translation: Yahyuh, yahyuh, dat makes good sense!

Evolution "education" is biased indoctrination. That's right, I said it! They suppress contrary evidence, misrepresent opponents and even present false information. (The logical conclusion of their evolutionary "we're all just bundles of chemicals that happened by chance anyway", so almost anything goes.) The rest of us will strive to present the truth (I'm doing so from behind my unregistered assault keyboard), hoping and praying that people will examine the evidence that we present and realize that the things that seemed to make sense about evolution do not withstand scrutiny. God is the Creator, the evidence supports this conclusion, he makes the rules, we are accountable. And that is something the Evo Sith fear.

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Evolution Thought Police Increase UK Creation Censorship

Evolution, under the guise of "science", is not taught with the evidence and critical thinking. Only one side of the evidence for evolution is presented in textbooks, which is nothing less than indoctrination. "Humanist" organizations and "science education" groups campaign to have any semblance of creation science removed from the classrooms. Groups like the NCSE and Australian Skeptics claim to be religiously neutral, but that is the opposite of the truth. The NCSE's activities show that they are opposed to free speech and are willing to indulge in emotional manipulation. The BCSE is also blatantly disingenuous

Darwin's Stormtroopers, the evolutionists who pa-TROLL the Web in the name of "science", display the same kind of intellectual acumen and integrity of their masters. That is, attack the person, equivocate evolution with science, protect "science" (as if science really needs protection!), misrepresent the positions of creation science and Intelligent Design adherents, use numerous logical fallacies and more.

A small example of the misrepresentation, libel and defamation fest on the BCSE forums.

Misrepresentation, prejudicial conjecture and arguing from incomplete or suppressed information.
So, we're supposed to believe that these organizations and their supporters believe in science, but they strive to suppress evidence against evolution. Guess what? We all that the same facts! Some people interpret them differently. Louis Pasteur had resistance and opposition to his ideas, but I do not see people seeking to suppress them or calling him a liar because he went against current opinions.

In the UK, these anti-creation evolution fundamentalists are getting even more outlandish in their efforts to suppress academic, speech, thought, religious and other freedoms.
CMI have frequently published articles regarding the unbalanced way in which creationism is dealt with at Government level, and in some instances banned in the UK education system. Only a few weeks ago, we ran with an article, appealing to End bad science and discrimination in education policies. The attacks are relentless and display a level of aggressive intolerance that is hard to stomach, coming as they do from the self-proclaimed ‘voices of reason’.
Four recent news stories from the UK demonstrate the manner in which the offensive continues:
Not so fast, Freddie. You can read the rest of the unpleasant truth at "The attack on biblical creation in UK schools continues".

Monday, December 23, 2013

Haeckel — Worse Than We Thought

People say that "science corrects itself". (But "science" is not an entity, so right away, they are guilty of the fallacy of reification.) This is not completely true. When it comes to evolutionism, proponents will resort to various tricks to keep their worldview going despite the evidence.

There are anti-creationists who insist that creationists (especially biblical creationists) are "liars" and "fact deniers". Their basis for such accusations? It is primarily because we do not believe in the atheistic, old-earth, evolutionary interpretations of the evidence. Further, we promote evidence that refutes evolution and affirms a young earth. This is contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry.

Interestingly, those who call us "liars" are guilty of blatant hypocrisy, promoting not only bad science, carelessness (by people who should know better), deception and even outright fraud. Worse than this, shoddy research and dishonest pronouncements in attempts to rehabilitate dishonesty and bad research prove the accusers to be the liars, not us!

In a previous post, we heckled Haeckle's blatant fraud in embryonic recapitulation. And it is still in textbooks today. While creationists make honest mistakes, they are not in the habit of defending untruths. Nor are we in the habit of trying to make up our own "facts" to promote a fundamentally flawed worldview.

Perhaps one reason people keep Haeckel in the spotlight is because his pseudoscience has been used to justify abortion. After all, why worry when it's not human, but just a fish, right?

E. van Niekerk continues the exceptional analysis of Haeckel's material, and demonstrates that not only was there more problems with his stuff than we knew, the attempts to rehabilitate, excuse and even reinstate him (by people who know the facts) are misleading at best. For example, the blatant proven fraud is brushed aside in this Wikipedia article.
Ernst Haeckel is well known for his fakery of embryos in the tailbud stage of development. There is also the earlier issue of where Haeckel illegitimately reprinted the same woodcut three times, alleging these three illustrations represent different animals, while drawing conclusions from the (artificially created) similarities. One historian makes a serious attempt to excuse Haeckel, yet further analysis shows Haeckel’s deception is even worse than was previously thought.
You should delve into "Countering revisionism—part 2: Ernst Haeckel and his triple-woodcut print".

Monday, December 16, 2013

Evolution, Age of the Earth and Deceitful Education

Evolution requires an old earth. Most of the scientific evidence supports a *young* earth, but evolutionary propaganda ignores that. Worse, they put bad science in textbooks and deceive students.The good folks over at Creation Ministries International (easy to remember the site, creation.com)
have thousands of articles to help people see that microbes-to-microbiologist evolution is not supported by actual science. Actually, the science supports biblical creation. Regular readers know that it is one of my regular "go to" sites for information on these subjects.

It is vital that organizations like this exist, because the Evo Sith are doing their best to obfuscate the facts, "spin" their interpretations of observable evidence, and even resort to deceit. (This is natural for their worldview, since it is rooted in materialism, time, random chance and mutations; they have no consistent moral standard and fight evidence for the Creator.) Textbooks are inaccurate, and evolutionist organizations actually tell people what and how to teach, and to tell the students what to think and believe. Sorry, Skippy, that is not education, it is indoctrination.

The book Refuting Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati can be read online. It was written as a response to the indoctrination handbook Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science by the US National Academy of Sciences. But I want to focus on one particular aspect: The age of the earth. Proponents of the General Theory of Evolution require huge amounts of time, mistakenly believing that given enough time, anything can happen. So they ignore or excuse away all of the abundant evidence for a young earth and propagate the bad "science" used to establish their article of faith that the earth is very old.
For particles-to-people evolution to have occurred, the earth would need to be billions of years old. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science presents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36–37: man’s existence is in such a tiny segment at the end of a 5-billion-year time-line that it has to be diagrammatically magnified twice to show up.
On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end. If we took the same 15-inch (39 cm) time-line as does Teaching about Evolution to represent the biblical history of the earth, man would be about 1/1000 of a mm away from the beginning! Also, Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6), which would make sense with the proposed biblical time-line, but is diametrically opposed to the Teaching about Evolution time-line.
This chapter analyzes rock formation and dating methods in terms of what these two competing models would predict.
If you're willing to drop your uniformitarian presuppositions and learn something, take a look at "Refuting Evolution chapter 8: How old is the earth?" If you're a biblical creationist, this information should prove very useful when dealing with Darwin's Cheerleaders.

Monday, October 14, 2013

Don't Contaminate My Textbooks

Darwin's Cheerleaders are continually on patrol to protect their material from serious scrutiny. Ironically, they use all sorts of logical fallacies to do this. These include equivocating "evolution" with "science, saying that "Intelligent Design" is religion, and using emotionally-loaded terminology such as, "We don't want textbooks contaminated by creationism", or, "Ray Comfort's video is biblical porn". We had a troll at The Question Evolution Project use a fake name on a recently acquired account, telling us that creationists are stupid and dishonest. Uh, yeah...

What would happen if people were trained to think critically and honestly examine the evidence without evolutionary assumptions and presuppositions? They might see that "proofs" of evolution still fail, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings are still used, outdated and fraudulent materials are used in evolutionary indoctrination, lying to students for the purposes of evolutionary indoctrination is acceptable, that there are indeed peer-reviewed papers supporting Intelligent Design, that creationist scientists publish in journals and much more. Nope, can't have any facts that are contrary to evolutionism creeping into textbooks, can we?

No, it is much easier to malign the opposition and protect evolutionism from examination.
Some evolutionists see anything less than 100% pure Darwinism as a kind of contamination, like unpasteurized milk, a threat to public health.
Andy Coghlan wrote for New Scientist, “Texas Creationism Showdown May ‘Contaminate’ Textbook.”  It appears that the only changes proposed by the textbook committee are to “cast doubt on the scientific validity of evolution.”  Coghlan is worried, however, that a decision by the 15-member Texas State Board of Education “may contain creationist arguments.”  He did not provide any examples.
You can read the rest of "Creationism As 'Contamination'", here

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Haeckel, Fraud, Deceit and Evolutionary Education

We have already shown that textbooks contain bad and even fraudulent material. Although the secret is out, it is still happening: Junk is still in textbooks (as you can see in the articles here). Worse, people like Eugenie Scott and others encourage "educators" to lie to their students. The end justifies the means, ja mein herr? One of the perpetually perpetrated propaganda pieces is the use of the Haeckel drawings that have been known to be fake for years.

Let's not let false similarities deceive us.
And yet, the topic is still controversial; not only is the subject a huge embarrassment to evolutionists, but some are still trying to defend the fraud! (One guy Tweeted to me that it didn't matter that the drawings were fake, they were still true — *facepalm*). While creationists may make mistakes, we do not resort to defending, rehabilitating and excusing outright fraud.

It would help curtail the embarrassment if they did not keep putting this nonsense in the textbooks!

I learned about the following article and video from a friend of the ministry. It is by E. van Niekerk, who has studied zoology and completed a degree in engineering.
For more than a century, one of the foremost bastions of Darwinian evolution has been that embryos of different animals pass through a similar stage in which they resemble one another very closely. Although embryologists had long known this to be false, a bomb exploded in 1997 when an embryologist actually published real photos of embryos, showing many more differences than previously thought. The embarrassment to the evolutionary community was severe. But now a historian has made a serious attempt to rehabilitate Haeckel by revising both the history and the science around his claims.
You can finish reading "Countering revisionism—part 1: Ernst Haeckel, fraud is proven", (Part 2 about Haeckel is here if you wish to see it now) and then see this video:

Monday, November 19, 2012

Using Fraud in Evolution Education? You Betcha!

We have explored the willingness of evolutionists to indoctrinate children, even though their critical thinking skills suffer. (After all, belief in evolution is more important than thinking, yes?) Eugenie Scott has been downright dishonest in her crusade to attack creation science and Intelligent Design, and textbooks contain outdated and fraudulent material. It should not come as a surprise that students are presented with the long-debunked drawings of Haeckel and told that they are real. In addition, their reasoning skills are hindered with question-begging exams!
 A government education institution recently provided a textbook example of how evolutionary dogma blinds the eyes of educators, crushes the ability of students to think critically and hinders the progress of true science.

The biology paper in the Higher School Certificate exam on 19 October 2012, a major public matriculation exam in New South Wales, Australia, contained a question featuring Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings.

Ernst Haeckel’s peers, well over 100 years ago, knew his embryo drawings were fraudulent, and this has been widely publicised, even by notable evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould.2 Yet they are still widely used in education, as the NSW exam question reveals, although some professional evolutionists claim that they are not.

Note that the drawings on the exam paper are simply labelled “fish”, “amphibian”, “bird” and “human”. This seems to be deliberately vague. Apart from the human, there is no indication of which species the drawings were supposed to represent. In reality there are substantial differences within a class. Nor is there any indication of the stage of development. In this way the students are left with the impression that embryos are far more similar than they really are, and the authors seem to be more protected against criticism for inaccurate drawing.
You can continue reading "Biology Exam Fraud", here.

Monday, October 15, 2012

No Wonder Evolutionists Are So Fouled Up!

When having what passes for discussions online, Darwinoids often resort to "proof" or "evidence" that is jaw-droppingly dreadful in their efforts to stifle creationists. Those of us who have a grasp of scientific thinking and news are baffled that nonsense is offered.

They should be thinking things through and asking questions in science classes. But what good is "should be" when we must deal with what actually happens? People like Mohamed Noor will offer bad logic and outdated science to his students. Since they trust him to deliver material that their parents are paying for, they accept the stuff and pass it along.

Not good.
Today’s first set of lectures in Mohamed Noor’s Introduction to Genetics and Evolution course would seem downright bizarre to anyone not familiar with evolutionary thinking. Noor is teaching this course via through the coursera on-line service and the Earl D. McLean Professor and Associate Chair of Biology at Duke University is maximizing accessibility to his material by minimizing the course prerequisites. Non specialists are welcome and many newcomers to evolutionary thought, now seeing what it is—or should we say what it isn’t—have sunk back in their chairs with blank stares wondering what in the world evolutionists such as Noor are thinking.
You can read the rest of "Mohamed Noor: Evolution is True Because We Say So", here.

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Removing Evolution from Textbooks: Good for the Seoul?

Hilarious! The Republic of Korea (also called South Korea) is correcting evolution in textbooks [1]. They are removing the same kinds of things that we point out that do not belong in American textbooks.

Fundamentalist evolutionists are having a hard time dealing with this development. Note the loaded terminology: "It appears that the United States is not the only country having a hard time accepting evolution" [2]. "Evolution Under Assault in South Korea’s Schools" [3]. "South Korea outlaws evolution: Publishers remove examples from school textbooks after protests from creationists" [4]. "...South Korea, where the anti-evolution sentiment seems to be winning its battle with mainstream science" [5].

Note not only the hysteria, but the loaded terminology and propping up evolution as a victim. Further, they commit the fallacy of equivocation [6] by elevating evolution (philosophical historical science, beliefs about the past) with actual, practical science. Here is a real winner:
Until now, says Dayk Jang, the scientific community has done little to combat the anti-evolution sentiment. “The biggest problem is that there are only 5–10 evolutionary scientists in the country who teach the theory of evolution in undergraduate and graduate schools,” he says. Having seen the fierce debates over evolution in the United States, he adds, some scientists also worry that engaging with creationists might give creationist views more credibility among the public [5].
That is something that I have encountered several times before: If we engage creationism and ID, we'll give it credibility. Some of maintain that if there is no credibility to creationism and ID, then let fly with the debates, publicly humiliate them and make us all go away. Actually, evolutionists and atheists decline scientific debates with creationists because they keep losing them! [7, 8] An excuse is that the evolutionists are scientists and the creationists are expert debaters, but that is dishonest because the creationists have other things to do than try to be full time debaters; many are full-fledged scientists doing real science stuff [9].

This may come as a shock to orthodox evolutionists, but most of us who are creationists and ID proponents are not interested in eradicating evolution from public schools! No, we want the evidence properly presented for both sides, strengths and weaknesses. Then people could learn to think scientifically, critically, and make their own decisions.

Evolutionists are not willing to relinquish their hold on education in the United States [10]. Deception is permissible in propaganda as long as evolutionism is accepted [11]. Perhaps their deception is why they consider creationists a threat [12] ?

Addendum: Did any of you see what I saw? The emotional tone (an "evolution is doomed!" tone) and the biased reporting in the articles made me suspicious. How much was being changed in the textbooks? Readers might get the impression that all evolution was being removed, but that is not the case. Dr. Georgia Purdom gives us some more information [13].

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Evolutionists React to the Truth about the Failed "Tree of Life"

 Several times, I have pointed out that evolutionists feel the need to protect science, even resorting to dishonesty. And "science" is equivocating historical science philosophies with actual, practical, experimental science. This happens even when their answers only prompt more questions, and other explanations fall to the ground like lead zeppelins. Yet, somehow, evolution is a fact, and if you dare question it (or worse, show some of the many failings and follies of evolutionism), you are the subject of ridicule. After all, they believe in science, and anyone who does not is not only stupid, but needs to be told so.

In the last post, I submitted a link to an article by Dr. Cornelius Hunter (Ph.D., Biophysics, Computational Biology). He received bad reactions, of course. And shows two from alleged professors. I say "alleged", because they acted like so many of Darwin's juvenile cheerleaders that are running around the Web.

Evolutionists proclaim that evolution is a fact as much as the fact that the Earth is round rather than flat, or that the planets circle the Sun rather than the Earth. Their favorite comparison is with gravity. As Joseph Le Conte explained a hundred and twenty years ago, evolution is not merely as certain as gravity, “Nay, it is far more certain.” Such claims have only escalated and today evolutionists are as certain as ever. But these claims go against everything we know from science. Indeed, evolution has failed every major test.
Read the rest of "When I Pointed Out the Evolutionary Tree Has Failed Two Professors Gave Me Pushback", here.

Monday, June 4, 2012

The Misleading, Failed "Tree of Life"

In a previous post, I brought up Darwin's so-called "Tree of Life". From what we saw about dishonest textbooks and bad science information in earlier posts, it should not be a surprise that this relic still has not been cut down. Although it is "misleading" and scientists admit to it, the tree is still used.
The fundamental thesis of evolution is that the species evolved according to the evolutionary tree. Students learn about the evolutionary tree in biology class and biologists use the evolutionary tree in their research. But in fact the evolutionary tree is based on a limited, and carefully selected, set of observations. Ever since Darwin, science has continued to document exceptions and anomalies—species that don’t fit neatly into the evolutionary pattern. These biological contradictions come in various forms and are found throughout the tree. For instance, species that in many regards appear to be quite similar, which evolutionists have placed on neighboring twigs of the evolutionary tree, are routinely found to have profound differences. On the other hand, species that are obviously quite different, which evolutionists have placed on distant limbs of the evolutionary tree, are often found to have profound similarities. And these various differences and similarities are found in every imaginable aspect of the species designs, ranging from the visible features of the adult form to the developing embryonic form to the underlying cellular and molecular structures. At this point, such cases are no longer exceptions and anomalies. For years evolutionists attempted to explain this growing list of contradictions using their evolutionary tree model. But it is obvious that this was an exercise in forcing the evidence to fit the theory rather than the other way around. The inexorable march of science has taken its toll and in recent years evolutionists have finally begun to deemphasize their iconic evolutionary tree model. What this does not change, however, is their insistence that evolution is a fact.

Thursday, May 31, 2012

If Schools Taught Evolution's Flaws

Casey Luskin considers evolution's top three flaws to be:
  •  (1) Tell students that the fossil record often lacks transitional forms and that there are "explosions" of new life forms, a pattern of radiations that challenges Darwinian evolutionary theory.
  • (2) Tell students that many scientists have challenged the ability of random mutation and natural selection to produce complex biological features.
  • (3) Tell students that many lines of evidence for Darwinian evolution and common descent are weak
The article itself is short, so I suggest that you click on the reference links and learn something. You can read "What Are the Top Three Flaws in Darwinian Evolution, as Taught Today in Public Schools?", here.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Evolutionary Icons in Textbooks Still Fail

In late 2001, Creation Ministries International did an article about the 2000 book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? that showed how several of the "proofs" of evolution fail. Even in 2012, we encounter "proofs" of evolution that are outdated, discredited and even fraudulent. Some of these are the Peppered Moths, Haeckel's drawings (someone said to me, "Even though they were faked doesn't mean it's still not true"...agonizing), the Miller experiment and more.

I maintain that some of Darwin's cheerleaders are victims of bad science and indoctrination, but they are also to blame for taking so much by faith and not investigating the flaws in evolution that so many of us are trying to get them to see.

To be blunt, presenting bad information is indoctrination, not education. The educational system appears to be more interested in promoting a worldview and misotheistic biases rather than educating and training students to think critically. These ideas are reinforced when we see that these icons of evolution are still present in textbooks.

“I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is sixteen tends toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.”— P. Blanchard, The Humanist, 1983

What follows is a brief overview of current problems in textbooks, with links to more in-depth analysis.
In his 2000 book Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells reviewed ten then-current biology textbooks for their treatment of what Dr. Wells calls the "icons" of evolution, well-known lines of evidence commonly used to support evolution...Now, in 2011, we present an updated 2011 textbook review that applies Wells's evaluation criteria to 22 recent biology textbooks, all published since 2005... 

This 2011 textbook evaluation also adds two new icons that have grown in popularity over the past decade. A series of fossils purportedly showing the evolution of whales from land mammals is now presented uncritically in many biology textbooks as an alleged "poster child" for macroevolution. Another new icon is "junk" DNA, with some textbooks claiming that noncoding DNA is functionless junk.