Intelligent Design science education

Arizona education change: Parts of evolution theory termed “not proven.” Meltdown among Darwin’s faithful.

Spread the love

Image result for public domain test tube From Catherine Offord at The Scientist:

Arizona’s Department of Education is considering new school science standards that would replace or alter references to evolution. School officials behind the change have argued that the wording of the standards, which are available in draft form for public comment until May 28, should be adjusted to reflect uncertainty in the theory.

Although [state superintendent of Education Diane] Douglas has publicly expressed her support for creationism and intelligent design in the past, she emphasizes that there are no moves to include any reference to them in the new standards. “My personal belief and my professional opinion are two very different things,” she tells 3TV/CBS 5.

The draft standards have not been well received by many school officials, teachers, and parents in Arizona. “Parents like me should be concerned because our kids need to be prepared to compete in a scientifically-sound world,” Tory Roberg, director of government affairs for the Secular Coalition for Arizona, tells The Arizona Republic. “Colleges and universities use evolutionary basics and build on this in advanced science classes. We can’t give our kids a second-rate education. We must demand the best.” More.

As a matter of fact, there is considerable ferment around many areas of evolution, as anyone who reads Uncommon Descent will know. Why does Mr. Roberg think that kids will be better “prepared to compete in a scientifically-sound world” if they are encouraged to treat science as a set of dogmatic truths as opposed to its usual state – especially today? As one minor instance, just think what genome mapping has done for hallowed truths about various species? What epigenetics is doing to genetic fundamentalism? Anyone heard from junk DNA or Dollo’s Law lately?

No supporters of the changes were interviewed for the Scientist article.

Draft for public comment until May 28.

See also: Phylogenetic of plants is a mess

Epigenetics: “[n]ew ideas closely related to Lamarck’s eighteenth-century views have become central to our understanding of genetics”


Grand evolution theory for complex animals in ruins; fossil is, in fact, a jellyfish

21 Replies to “Arizona education change: Parts of evolution theory termed “not proven.” Meltdown among Darwin’s faithful.

  1. 1 says:

    “Not proven”?!?
    The only proven fact about “evolution” is that it’s a nonsensical theory:

    1. “Design by multiple choice” is full retard
    2. “Multiple choice from ALL random answers” is full retard
    3. “Designing without trying” is full retard
    4. “Self design” is full retard
    5. “Design by incremental optimization” is full retard

    Sensitive ones should replace ‘full retard’ with ‘ridiculous’.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    As far as mathematics and experimental science are concerned, both natural selection and random mutations are shown to be grossly inadequate as a explanation for ANY of the amazing integrated complexity being found in life..

    The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17
    John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner
    Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,,
    Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information.
    While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man.
    It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years.

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013
    Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
    1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696.
    2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19.
    3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.
    4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.
    5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47.
    6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117.
    8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526.
    9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685.
    10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079.
    11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.

    Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics

    Moreover, since Darwinian evolution is not based on any known law of the universe, as all other major scientific theories are based on known laws, Darwinian evolution does not even really qualify, at least for how science is usually practiced, as a testable/falsifiable scientific theory, but is more realistically classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscience, (again, at least how science is usually practiced).

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification

    By any reasonable measure one may choose to use to determine whether a theory is scientific of not, Darwinism fails all of those reasonable measures:

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17

    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis

    Shoot, with advances in quantum biology, it is now found that Darwinian evolution, since it is based on reductive materialism, is not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order properly understand biology in the first place:

    Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    Excerpt: the failure of reductive materialism to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than DNA itself.
    In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    etc.. etc.. etc.. As Dr. Jonathan Wells stated the other day, (paraphrase) “Darwinism is believed to be true, not because of the evidence, but IN SPITE of the evidence.”

  3. 3
    forexhr says:

    The Simplest Possible Falsification of the Evolution Theory –

  4. 4
    polistra says:

    “Considering” the change and “asking for public input” are grave mistakes. If you want something good to happen, you need to make it happen FAST without any warning. Fait accompli.

    And you need to pre-stage the defense against the NGOs and black-robed demons who will instantly squash it. You need to have nasty lawyers and sleazy private investigators doing oppo-research on the NGOs and demons, so that you can block their actions with implied blackmail before they even start to block your action.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    It is also very important to note that, in grade school textbooks, Darwinists use misleading evidence, and/or straight out deceptive evidence, to try to indoctrinate children into believing Darwinian evolution is true.

    Must reading for anyone concerned about children being taught deceptive information about evolution in grade school textbooks is Jonathan Wells’s book ‘Icons Of Evolution’

    ‘Icons Of Evolution’ – Tenth Anniversary
    video clip playlist:

    Here are two articles defending Wells’s criticism against the Ten Icons of Evolution in detail here:

    Inherit the Spin: The NCSE Answers “Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Evolution”

    A Solid 10: Concluding My Review of Massimo Pigliucci’s Treatment of Jonathan Wells’s Icons of Evolution – June 6, 2014

    Dr. Wells has recently wrote a subsequent book, “Zombie Scince”, showing how Darwinists constantly recycle, or try to recycle, fraudulent evidence into grade school textbooks:

    Jonathan Wells Presents Zombie Science at National Book Launch – video – 2017

    Jonathan Wells Talks About His New Book — Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution- April 19, 2017
    Part 2

    The deceptive Ape transitioning to Man Icon has recently been dealt with, in detail, by John Sanford in his new book “Contested Bones”

    “Contested Bones” by Paul Giem – video playlist

    Not surprisingly, the indoctrination into Darwinian evolution with deceptive evidence continues after grade school. In the following interview, Dr. Cornelius Hunter discusses some of the misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course

    Selling Evolution To Young People Through Deception
    podcast – On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin sits down with CSC Fellow Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who recently signed up to take a free online course at Duke University titled “Introduction to Genetics and Evolution.” Tune in as Dr. Hunter shares about his experience & discusses the misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course.

    It is fairly easy to see why Darwinists don’t want any criticism of their theory to be taught in grade schools, and why they basically just want to indoctrinate children instead of truly educate children, the whole theory is basically a house of cards that comes tumbling down when it is scrutinized and criticized in a fair manner.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    One final note, Darwinists will often falsely claim that to teach Intelligent Design in school is to teach religion in school. What they don’t mention is the fact that Darwinian evolution, since it has no real time scientific evidence supporting its sweeping claims, is itself crucially dependent on faulty Theological presuppositions. That is to say, to teach Darwinism is schools is, ironically, to teach (a false) religion to your children in public school.

    Charles Darwin’s use of theology in the Origin of Species – STEPHEN DILLEY
    This essay examines Darwin’s positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin’s theological language about God’s accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin’s mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin’s positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin’s overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin’s science.

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.

    Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
    This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,

    podcast – Paul Nelson on Methodological Naturalism and the Big New Theistic Evolution Anthology – January 31, 2018

  7. 7
    bill cole says:

    It appears the NCSE is fighting this one hard. They are trying to demonize Dianne Douglas and have the local media behind them. I agree with BA that this is blatant indoctrination that has been working in the class rooms for the last 50 years.

  8. 8
    News says:

    bornagain77 at 6: You write, “One final note, Darwinists will often falsely claim that to teach Intelligent Design in school is to teach religion in school. What they don’t mention is the fact that Darwinian evolution, since it has no real time scientific evidence supporting its sweeping claims, is itself crucially dependent on faulty Theological presuppositions. That is to say, to teach Darwinism is schools is, ironically, to teach (a false) religion to your children in public school.”

    If facts mattered, it would be helpful to recognize that no one is asking for intelligent design to be taught in schools. What is sought is some acknowledgment that schoolbook Darwinism is out of date due to serious disputes within the discipline about the talking points taught to kids.

    Darwin-in-the-schools lobbies avoid the implications of that fact by working with media, including big science media, to portray every attempt to correct the record as a win for ID and/or religion in the schools. It’s another reason to take charter schools and vouchers seriously and to do as much private education as possible, for those who want to know what is really going on.

  9. 9
    OLV says:

    That’s an interesting article you linked to.

  10. 10
    OLV says:

    In the interesting webpage you pointed to, this paragraph is not very clear to me. Can you explain?

    “After about 31,000 generations, in a large population of bacteria, there was a single genetic mutation in a bacterium that ended up moving the citT gene and placing it under the control of a promoter (rnk) that is active under oxic conditions.”


  11. 11
    OLV says:

    Never mind. You may disregard my comment #10.
    Now I understand that paragraph.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, in truth students should be taught the inherent strengths and weaknesses of reasoning by deductive and inductive logic. The compounding issue of trying to figure out an unobservable actual past of origins should be faced. My guess is, most teachers, curriculum developers and nearly all journalists know very little of logic, epistemology and phil of sci. The curriculum debates turn on assumed credibility of authorities and the evolutionary materialistic ideologues are wearing lab coats and are backed by the scientific and general establishment. They try to smear questioning as imposition of religion, when in fact this is a turnabout accusation. While enough needs to be said to address the methods question, a major fight has to be made to show the ideological agenda and its bankruptcy. That, BTW, is why they fight so hard when Lewontin’s cat out of the bag comment is cited. It is also why they so commonly resort to slandering Dr Gish and his track record of 300+:0 in public debates pivoting on the systematic gaps in the fossil record and use that to pretend that when we cite evidence and key admissions, we are lying by half truth and are setting up and knocking over strawman arguments. Their point is to dismiss rather than address inconvenient truths and concerns, backed by the media steamroller. The pop genetics issue, interwoven codes and origin of FSCO/I challenges at OOL and OO body plans up to our own issues are serious matters but we are dealing with weight of fire and who controls the media and institutional high ground. The issue has to be broadened and the evolutionary materialism self-falsification and amorality inviting nihilism have to be exposed. But it is a long slow uphill fight here. The lie that people told a more accurate and balanced story on the nature and limits of scientific methods and knowledge claims will be ill suited for a sci tech world has to be hammered hard, too. KF

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: It is no accident that major science and scientism in society issues go untaught in school: eugenics, the impact of undermining the moral government of mind, the impact of undermining the value of life, the impact of the track record of ideologies that promoted atheism and social darwinism, the impact of undermining understanding of and respect for the Judaeo-Christian, Biblical, Theistic tradition are all suppressed. The ongoing abortion holocaust and its ties to the devaluing of life — including the impact of the notorious embryological recap notion are all suppressed.

    Here is where I would start, and I would raw out the connexions:

    . . . to put a correct [–> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people’s heads

    [==> as in, “we” the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making “our” “consensus” the yardstick of truth . . . where of course “view” is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]

    we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [–> “explanations of the world” is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised “demon[ic]” “supernatural” being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

    [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

    and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

    [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

    . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

    [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

    that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] 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 [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

    Challenge them to honestly answer to this on substance.

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: And no, it is not just one idiosyncratic crank (never mind Lewontin’s actual eminence). Here is the NSTA, the US National Science Teachers Association inadvertently letting the cat out of the bag:

    We may note the US National Science Teachers’ Association [NSTA] in a notorious July 2000 Board declaration:

    PREAMBLE: All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [–> ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, aka natural-ISM; this is of course self-falsifying at the outset] . . . .

    [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [–> loaded word that cannot be properly backed up due to failure of demarcation arguments] methods, explanations [–> declaration of intent to censor instructional content], generalizations and products [–> declaration of intent to ideologically censor education materials] . . . .

    Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [–> undermined by the question-begging ideological imposition and associated censorship] . . . .

    Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations [–> ideological imposition of a loaded definition] and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [–> question-begging false dichotomy, the proper contrast for empirical investigations is the natural (chance and/or necessity) vs the ART-ificial, through design . . . cf UD’s weak argument correctives 17 – 19, here] in the production of scientific knowledge.

    That is what we are not being told. Demand for natural-ISTIC explanations is censoring, ideological imposition tantamount to establishment of the anti-church of atheistical materialism.

  15. 15
    Seversky says:

    It is naive to deny that moves to remove references to evolution from science standards and curricula are being driven either by a perceived need to appease religious opponents of the theory or, more directly, by the opponents themselves.

    This excerpt from this article on the website exemplifies the kind of attitudes that underpin opposition to evolution.

    Ed Reitz, 92, testified in support of the changes at the community meeting.

    “The teaching of evolution is something that concerns me because it is a theory and it is not science,” stated Reitz.

    The great-grandfather read part of a book he wrote on the issue.

    “Over 70 years now we have been teaching our youth that we have came from pre-existing vertebrates and God, the creator, is not allowed to be taught in most of our public schools,” read Reitz. “The result is now what we are observing in colleges and universities throughout the land.”

    What is alarming is that this man believes that theories are not a part of science and that Christian creationism should be taught in public schools and I suspect he is far from alone in those beliefs in Arizona.

    What is alarming is that science standards and curricula could be influenced by people who are so ignorant of science as to believe that theories are not central to the process and so ignorant of the constitution they claim to uphold that they believe that the government may mandate the teaching of Christian creationism in public schools.

    There is a clear need to resist these changes every time there is an attempt to implement them, especially in the current political climate.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Earth to Seversky, Darwinian evolution does not qualify as a testable science but is more properly classified as a pseudoscience. See post 2

  17. 17
    LocalMinimum says:

    Seversky @ 15:

    I find it alarming, too; and it’s the association with materialistic sophistry like “evolutionary theory” that has separated science from fact for those who smell the corpse but can’t figure out where in the stack it’s hidden.

    Remove useless, counter-religious metaphysics from the curriculum, and the science proper that developing minds need will become far harder to assail (and won’t have to share learning time and effort with bad pop-sci trivia).

  18. 18
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 16

    Earth to Seversky, Darwinian evolution does not qualify as a testable science but is more properly classified as a pseudoscience.

    Evolution has Lenski’s LTEE, antibiotic resistance, nylon-eating bacteria, the finches beaks and the peppered moth to name but a few but which are way more than the Paleyist presumption of ID has to offer.

    See post 2

    See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    Evolution has Lenski’s LTEE, antibiotic resistance, nylon-eating bacteria, the finches beaks and the peppered moth to name but a few but which are way more than the Paleyist presumption of ID has to offer.

    Really??? Your list is such a sad joke!,,, In fact, all your examples support Intelligent Design not Darwinian evolution.

    Darwin vs. Microbes – video (2017)

    Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. – Minnich – Feb. 2016
    The isolation of aerobic citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli (Cit(+)) in long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) has been termed a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event. We hypothesized that direct selection would rapidly yield the same class of E. coli Cit(+) mutants and follow the same genetic trajectory: potentiation, actualization, and refinement. This hypothesis was tested,,,
    Potentiation/actualization mutations occurred within as few as 12 generations, and refinement mutations occurred within 100 generations.,,,
    E. coli cannot use citrate aerobically. Long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) performed by Blount et al. (Z. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, Nature 489:513-518, 2012, ) found a single aerobic, citrate-utilizing E. coli strain after 33,000 generations (15 years). This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved.

    Re-interpreting Long-Term Evolution Experiments: A Conversation with Dr. Scott Minnich – March 2017 – video

    Scientists unlock a ‘microbial Pompeii’ – February 23, 2014
    Excerpt: “…The researchers discovered that the ancient human oral microbiome already contained the basic genetic machinery for antibiotic resistance more than eight centuries before the invention of the first therapeutic antibiotics in the 1940s…”

    (Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics – April 2012
    Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.

    Antibiotic resistance genes are essentially everywhere – May 8, 2014
    Excerpt: The largest metagenomic search for antibiotic resistance genes in the DNA sequences of microbial communities from around the globe has found that bacteria carrying those vexing genes turn up everywhere in nature that scientists look for them,,

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Debate Debrief: The Two-Prong Canard Demonstrated Within 24 Hours – The Curious Case of Nylonase – March 20, 2016 – Cornelius Hunter
    Excerpt: Such adaptation to nylon manufacture byproducts has been repeated in laboratory experiments. In a matter of months bacteria acquire the ability to digest the unforeseen chemical. Researchers speculate that mechanisms responding to environmental stress are involved in inducing adaptive mutations.
    That is not evolution. In fact it refutes evolution.

    The Nylonase Story: When Imagination and Facts Collide – Ann Gauger – May 4, 2017
    Excerpt: Thus, EII? and EII did not have frameshifted new folds. They had pre-existing folds with activity characteristic of their fold type. There was no brand-new protein. No novel protein fold had emerged. And no frameshift mutation was required to produce nylonase.,,,
    Tests revealed that both the EII and EII? enzymes have carboxylesterase and nylonase activity. They can hydrolyze both substrates. In fact it is possible both had carboxylesterase activity and a low level of nylonase activity from the beginning, even before the appearance of nylon.

    The Nylonase Story: The Information Enigma – Ann Gauger – May 8, 2017

    Epigenetics and the Evolution of Darwin’s Finches – 2014
    Excerpt: The prevailing theory for the molecular basis of evolution (Neo-Darwinism) involves genetic mutations that ultimately generate the heritable phenotypic variation on which natural selection acts. However, epigenetic (Non-Darwinian) transgenerational inheritance of phenotypic variation may also play an important role in evolutionary change.,,,
    Genome-wide alterations in genetic mutations using copy number variation (CNV) were compared with epigenetic alterations associated with differential DNA methylation regions (epimutations). Epimutations were more common than genetic CNV mutations among the five species; furthermore, the number of epimutations increased monotonically with phylogenetic distance. Interestingly, the number of genetic CNV mutations did not consistently increase with phylogenetic distance.,,,

    Darwin’s Finches: Answers From Epigenetics by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. – August 29. 2014
    Excerpt: Just one year prior to this 2014 study,1 the epigenetic basis of speciation was demonstrated in birds in which the progressive geographical spread and ecological patterns of adaptation for a newly introduced songbird species were characterized by differences in DNA methylation patterns, not variation in the actual DNA sequence.2 In contrast, traditional Darwinian evolution alleges that random changes in the DNA itself generate new and useful variants that are then selected by the environment. In reality, researchers are now discovering that organisms can robustly adapt to different ecological niches without major changes in their DNA sequence.,,,
    What underlies this variation in finch beaks? In studies attempting to determine the molecular basis for beak variability in finches, researchers have found that very similar developmental genetic pathways among species can produce markedly different beak shapes.5 So if the genes are essentially the same, then what seems to be the major source of variation? In this current effort, the researchers studied two different factors in the genome. The first were short sections of non-coding DNA sequence that varied in the number of copies—repeated units—called copy number variants or CNVs. In humans, differences in CNVs form the basis for studying forensics and paternity testing. The second factor studied was epigenetically-based, using an analysis of DNA methylation patterns around the genome.
    From these analyses, the researchers found that epigenetics correlated well with increased diversity among species while CNVs, based on actual DNA sequences, did not. In addition, they also undertook a more focused study of the epigenetic profiles of specific genes involved in the morphogenesis of beak shape, immune-system responses, and coloring of the birds. Once again, the epigenetic profiles of the different bird species for all of these gene groups were different while the DNA sequences were nearly identical.
    In addition, the amazing cellular machinery that reads, regulates, replicates, and modifies epigenetic states in the genome is so incredibly sophisticated and complex that it can only be attributed to the work of an Omnipotent Creator.

    Peppered Moth: How Evolution’s Poster Child Became the Rebuttal – Cornelius Hunter November 27, 2016
    Excerpt:,,, The mutating of the protein sequence was the whole idea behind evolution: DNA mutations which lead to changes in a protein can lead to a phenotype change with fitness improvement, and there would be subject to natural selection.
    That is not what we are seeing in the much celebrated peppered moth example. The DNA mutation is much more complicated (~20,000 nucleotides inserted), and the fact it was inserted into an intron suggests that additional molecular and cellular mechanisms are required for the coloration change to occur.
    None of this fits evolutionary theory.

    Also see

    A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

  21. 21
    Axel says:

    I don’t know how they get away with theorising about the origin of life from matter, when they can’t even get any sort of ‘handle’ at all on the nature of life itself. It’s a bit like a synchronised swimmer pronouncing on the imagined intricacies of a sport that she hadn’t even heard of, until her interlocutor mentioned it, just before she began to hold forth on that literally vacuous basis.

    Bornagain77 @ your #19 and#20 … prefaced by :
    ‘Evolution has Lenski’s LTEE, antibiotic resistance, nylon-eating bacteria, the finches beaks and the peppered moth to name but a few but which are way more than the Paleyist presumption of ID has to offer. ‘

    ‘Really??? Your list is such a sad joke!,,, In fact, all your examples support Intelligent Design not Darwinian evolution.’

    You are one cruel, but hilariously knowledgeable dude !

Leave a Reply