What About Public Education?

We may be testing the limits of civility now. Discussions of this topic are frequently known to degenerate into brawls. So let me say at the outset. I do not believe that all students should be forced to recite Bible verses. I do not believe that teaching of the creationist view of science is the only appropriate material for study. In fact, I am not at all sure I want public school teachers educating my children about anything to do with the Bible. In most cases that would be worse than the blind leading the blind.

I do believe, however in an honest, level playing field. As a scientist and a supporter of science education, I would far prefer honest admissions of where science is supportive of evolution theory and where it is not. I would appreciate sincere admissions, on the part of educators, that evolution is NOT in any way settled science.(1) Far from it. There is as much evidence contradicting the theory of evolution, as there is supporting evolution. (In my opinion there is actually vastly more contradictory evidence.) No right thinking science educator should allow students to be taught things that are untrue. But unfortunately, this is the state of affairs in public education today. Classrooms should be for facts, not propaganda.  And open minded discussions should be the rule when the facts are in dispute.

In schools and universities alike, students who question any of the underpinnings of evolution (for any reason) are often bullied and intimidated. They are often called science deniers, or anti-science Bible Thumpers. There are countless examples.  In describing his education, Dr Evan Jaimeson describes multiple occasions when, confronted with the scientific inconsistencies of the theory of evolution, “often there was an angry reaction and feeble, if any, explanations.”(2) He goes on to say “the lack of credible answers makes me quite skeptical of the theory of evolution.   After all it wasn’t an obscure theory; it was basically accepted worldwide and had been studied for many years.  Simple and obvious questions should have been given simple and obvious answers — so where were they?”(2)

But suppressing classroom debate does not advance the cause of truth. Just as suppressing free speech about other topics is counterproductive, taking an “evolution or else” approach is not good for students or for the educational system. There are many unknown effects that can occur with changes in worldview, and we are seeing many of these today. Few would say that the emotional and spiritual levels of peace of mind and satisfaction with life have increased in past decades. In fact, most would agree we are in the midst of a mental health crisis. Some part of this may be attributable to our feelings of meaninglessness and hopelessness as a result of evolutionary teaching.

Dr Ariel Roth , former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda California, writes, “When it comes to answering the great questions of origins, meaning, and destiny, science has lost its credentials.  This happened over a century ago when science decided to exclude God from its explanatory menu.  If God exists, science will never find Him as long as it refuses to consider God as a part of reality.”(3)

Any objective scientific examination of the texts used to teach science and to “debunk creationist nonsense” will find that most of the diagrams, facts, and statistics used to teach evolution are not only out of date, many are absolutely false. So perhaps the Bible-Thumpers and the Neander-Thumpers should all get together and choose a set of non-disputable facts that all can agree on. And perhaps that is what we should use to teach our children. When all else fails, stop to propaganda and teach the facts.

Isaiah 37:16  “O LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, who is enthroned above the cherubim, You are the God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth You have made heaven and earth.”

 

(1) Nicholas Satin, “Sorry USA Today, Evolution isn’t “settled” science. Crisis Magazine, January 20, 2014

(2) Evan Jamieson, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, Jan 2001, P. 324

(3) Ariel Roth, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, Jan 2001  p. 99.

 

Evolution, God, and Probability

When evolutionary thinking was in its ascendancy, the arguments were often augmented with “anti-creation” factoids. One of the most common was “where did the universe come from?”  Another was “you can’t even explain where God came from!” Of course, if any creationist is honest and forthright, it seems impossible to “prove” creation or “prove” the existence of God. (Nor could any being on earth (created or evolved) ever be expected to understand or explain the origin of an almighty, ever-present, omniscient being such as God.)

This “where did God come from” argument seemed to blossom into a full-blown “anti-God movement” as society (and particularly the West) became ever more affluent and less dependent on God’s daily provision. There is something about living on a farm, or in the country, where you can see the summer rains come and watch the crops grow, that suggests a dependency on something higher. There is something about sunrises and sunsets, spring and fall, summertime and harvest, crickets and whippoorwills, that suggests we are not here by accident.

Nevertheless, at this time in history, in the fast-paced, fast food, fast internet 21st century, everyone fancies themselves a “scientist”. Everyone who has watched Star Trek or Star Wars fancies themselves an expert on black holes and quantum physics. We don’t need God. We have Science. We don’t need farms and rain, we can create our food in a lab. We don’t need marriage and monogamy. We can treat our STD’s with antibiotics and grow our babies in a test tube… if not now, in just a few years. We don’t want restrictions or responsibilities. We want freedom.

So if we are indeed scientists, and if we indeed believe in the power of the human mind to understand all things, we must believe all our scientific findings. Including those that do NOT support our presuppositions. Open-minded scientific inquiry is the basis of scientific advancement. Always. Foundationally. Except when it comes to evolution.

Evolutionists are quick to disallow the Law of Biogenesis (life only comes from life), proven by Louis Pasteur, stating it is only applicable today (not in the past). They will inevitably, when faced with the impossibility of their position (scientifically, biochemically, or statistically) resort to TIME as the explanation. TIME it seems can do the impossible. Life cannot come from non-life… unless you wait a really long TIME. Positive mutations are vastly outnumbered by neutral, negative, and lethal mutations, making evolution (of even ONE SINGLE organism) statistically impossible, unless you wait a really long TIME. The complexity of 3D folding proteins makes repeated sequential DNA point mutations incapable of advancing any organism with more and more complex features, unless, you guessed it… you wait a really long TIME. Time, it seems, can do anything.

There are just two areas that are absolutely out of bounds in modern institutes of higher learning. We are encouraged to study and advance virtually every possible area of inquiry except these two. We must keep our minds open to every possibility and aggressively pursue knowledge (with these two glaring exceptions.) We must not under any circumstances invoke the possibility of God, or a Creator, or a Higher power, and we must NEVER question the doctrine of evolution. We are our own gods. We created ourselves and raised ourselves up from the muck. We make our own rules. We bow to no one. Even when the evidence points to God, we cannot allow our minds to bend in that direction. God is anathema.

The trouble with this approach is it is unscientific. Even if you worship at the altar of the god of science, you will find the god of science pointing to a higher God. Take for example the writing of Julian Huxley, one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century. He notes that at least a million positive mutations were required for the modern horse to evolve (although in reality, his understandably minuscule understanding of genomics and proteins resulted in a woefully gross under-estimation of this number of mutations, in reality, it is in the tens or hundreds of millions). Nevertheless, using this number he calculated the probability of a single cell to horse evolution to be “impossible” Of course he believed that Natural Selection was the answer (See prior post on Natural Selection). And thousands of “true believers” in evolution have done the same. For decades we have heard that although evolution would have been impossible otherwise… Natural Selection is the answer.

But can Natural Selection operate without mutation? No. It would still require single point DNA mutations (which it has been shown cannot bring about evolution). (See prior blog) What would it “select”? Those who attribute such power to natural selection understand neither natural selection nor mutations. Of course, for generations, scientists have been loath to admit that the ratio of positive to negative mutations is so astoundingly, infinitesimally small that this statistic alone should disallow evolution. But that is another topic entirely. In fact, negative, neutral, and lethal mutations are vastly more likely than positive mutations. Yet “science” believes in the process of evolution NOT because of the evidence, but IN SPITE of the evidence.

So much for an open-minded scientific approach. Even when all the scientific evidence says that the complexity of living systems could NEVER evolve by chance, that there are thousands of systems and proteins which are examples of irreducible complexity, and that life absolutely cannot evolve from non-life… our schools teach evolution.

As written by Brian Thomas, “Coded information in living things gives the full appearance of being purposefully programmed to resist just the kinds of DNA alterations that would harm organisms. Unfortunately for evolution, these are also just the kinds of DNA changes that would be required to turn microbes into man. Evolutionists have yet to find any realistic resolution to this problem, but for creationists it is no paradox at all. Instead, it is another cellular signature from the Creator.“(1)

Psalm 8:3-8  When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained; What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!
2 Peter 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,

What is Natural Selection?

 

Fact. Natural Selection (NS) exists.

Fact.  NS does not, has not, and will never cause evolution.

In reality it has nothing to do with Evolution.  Natural selection is conservative (of genetic material) not creative. Natural selection can only increase or decrease the number of certain cats, dogs, moths, or bacteria in a larger population. It cannot alter, evolve, or morph them into different creatures. Scientifically studying natural selection will not lead to a conclusion of Darwinism or evolution being true. It is merely an observation which can be thought of as equally as supportive of a created world or an evolved world.

For decades, evolutionists and liberal educators have used the peppered moth as “proof” of evolution. Sewall Wright called it “a conspicuous evolutionary process”. But while the peppered moth does provide evidence of natural selection, it in no way supports evolution.

Creation and Evolution advocates can agree, the light colored phenotype (of the moth) may confer a survival advantage where light colors blend in, and the dark phenotype may be beneficial in a darker or more polluted environment. However, that is where the agreement (and the science) ends and the conjecture begins. The dark and light alleles may just as easily have been created or evolved, and neither side can scientifically prove (to the satisfaction of unbiased observers) that their side must be correct. But every scientist should readily agree that when the light phenotype becomes more prominent, NO NEW GENETIC MATERIAL is produced or created.

Isaiah 45:7 states, “The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.”

It should be noted that whatever you believe about evolution and the tree moth, the dark and light alleles have never changed or evolved. No new moth has been created, and no new color has been documented. Both colors have been present through all of the recorded history of the tree moth. Thus Natural Selection is NOT Evolution. Evolution requires a gradual change in the genetic material over time. Natural selection is simply a mechanism by which members of a population best suited to the environment may survive and pass on their genetic material. These are vastly different concepts.

Or as written by Biochemist John Marcus, “The key fact to note here is that natural selection simply cannot act unless there are functional, self-replicating molecules present to act on.”(1) NS does not create life, or create molecules, or create DNA.  NS simply allows one already created creature to thrive over another created creature. There is much more we will discuss about NS.  But for know just know this.

NS is real.  Evolution is not.

 

Job 12:7-9 “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?
(1) John P. Marcus, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, 2017.