Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Why are Biology Teachers Unsure About Teaching Evolution?

With the help of compromising Christians who ceded science to secularists, particles-to-people evolution has monopolized education for a long time, especially in America. They even had Dobzhansky making the propaganda statement that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", the concept of which has been sent packing (except for some Darwinistas that didn't get the memo, and quote it like secularist scripture). So why isn't evolution propaganda education wildly successful?


Biology teachers are supposed to teach evolution. Many are not very enthusiastic about it, and there are still people who think for themselves and deny particles-to-people evolution. Why?


Surveys and speculations include morality and politics (no, the Democrats and other leftists do not own science, and Republicans are not anti-science), name calling, straw man arguments, placing blame, and more. What the surveys don't reckon with is that scientific evidence does not support evolution, and that some people are not exactly willing to accept the pronouncements of scientists without thinking for themselves.
Secular scientists are at a loss over how to get their favorite origins story, Darwinian evolution, a more confident presence in schools.

After nearly a century of one-sided control of education on origins, Darwinian scientists shouldn’t be faced with this dilemma. After all, their own theory presupposes that human beings are material entities that can be conditioned like other animals. And yet, despite a near total exposure to Darwinian evolution in textbooks, museums, educational TV – and often in the general culture, such as in many sci-fi movies – a substantial majority of the public doesn’t buy the completely materialistic evolution scenario. This includes biology teachers.

In Science Magazine on March 6, Jeffrey Mervis tries to understand “why many U.S. biology teachers are wishy-washy” about teaching evolution:
To read the rest, saddle up and ride over to "Majority of Biology Teachers Hesitant About Evolution".
  

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Noah's Ark and Biblical "Kinds"

Mockers of the Bible will often try to pretend that they're the smartest steers on the ranch. But when they play word games when attacking, they shoot themselves in the hoof. For instance, "The word 'dinosaur' isn't in the Bible!" Know why? Scriptures existed a long, long time before Richard Owen came up with the word. On a related note, they quibble about the biblical word "kind" (as in created kinds, such as in Genesis 1:24-25), insisting that the ancient texts conform to modern taxonomic classifications.

The biblical created "kinds" do not precisely match modern taxonomic classifications. What are the "kinds" referred to in the Creation and with Noah's Ark?
"The Entry of the Animals into Noah’s Ark", Jacopo Bassano, 1570
A reasonable question is, "What are the created kinds in the Bible?" We have some difficulties here because it is from an ancient text, and translation can be tricky. Most biblical creationists do not match them up with the modern word "species" (and it doesn't help that scientists are not in full agreement on the definition of that word), and reckon that it is closer to the "family" classification. For more information and additional links therein, kindly read "Feedback: What Does 'Two of Every Kind' Mean?"

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Where Did That Deep Gulf of Mexico Sand Come From?

There's a lot of sand in the Gulf of Mexico.

"Cowboy Bob is Captain Obvious!"

No, not the sand out where Susie finds seashells to sell by the seashore. I'm talking about way out yonder, where it's not expected to be. I reckon oil company geologists recon according to their presuppositions, and that can lead to problems. Uniformitarian assumptions of "the present is the key to the past", and that things happened very, very slowly have failed many times. (Sort of like the carbon-14 dating of dinosaur bones, diamonds, and so on. Why look for it when you "know" it's not there? Some people bucked the system, checked it out, and guess what? It is there!) You'd think scientists would realize that they need to upgrade their worldviews.


Uniformitarian geologists are at a loss explaining "Whopper Sand". Biblical creationist geologists have a far better explanation.
Gulf of Mexico oil rig / NOAA.gov
Sand is important for finding oil. There is an area called "Whopper Sand" in the Gulf of Mexico, and when it was finally found (which should have happened before, but didn't because of erroneous assumptions), sand-wiched in the Whopper Sand are various layers of materials that are inexplicable to uniformitarian geologists. They've offered up implausible and unsupportable conjectures to explain why it's out there, but the best explanations are from biblical creationist Genesis Flood geological models.
There’s a huge deposit of sand in the deep Gulf of Mexico, and no one seems to know how it got there—except maybe Flood geologists.

Early in my career as a geologist for an oil company, we were told not to prospect in water deeper than 2,000 feet. Most offshore oil is found in sand layers sandwiched between thick layers of mud and clay, and our management believed no sand could get that far offshore, and drilling costs were too high.


However, in 2001 the BAHA 2 well was drilled through almost 7,800 feet of water and into the Wilcox Sand at the base of the Tejas Megasequence. The drillers found 1,100 feet of nearly continuous sand. This discovery shocked geologists, who termed it the “Whopper Sand,” and paved the way for numerous nearby discoveries of billions of barrels of oil.
You can read the rest of the article by clicking on "The Whopper Sand". Me, I already read it, but have a craving to go get a burger. 
   

Wednesday, March 04, 2015

Limiting the Evolved Brain

To take amoeba-to-atheopath evolution to its logical conclusion, free will is impossible because we are only bundles of chemicals responding to our electrochemical impulses. Some atheists and evolutionists admit this, while others are resigned to their imagined naturalistic fates but still complain about free will in the Bible (based on their misconceptions). Another contradiction is that, although we are slaves to our chemistry in their eyes, some commit a category error by searching for areas in the brain where free will "resides" — but it is not physical, it is spiritual. And then, morality is evolved into our brains. My brain hurts.

If goo-to-you evolution were true, there would be no free will of any kind. Morality is evolved somehow. Yet some evolutionists contradict their worldviews by wanting us to overcome our alleged evolution.
"Evolved brain", modified from an original image from DARPA.mil
There is no ultimate, consistent basis of morality in evolution. (Some tinhorns will even call people "evil" and "liars" when they are disallowed from posting any libelous comment they feel like — their "morality" is based on their opinions and emotions, not facts.) There are more contradictions in the article linked below, where Darwinists say that we are what we are, including morality and prejudices, because of evolution. But we must overcome evolution to fit in with current societal trends. Makes as much sense as drinking downstream from the herd. To read about evolution, the brain, morality and more, get in the spirit of this date and march forth, click on "Can an Evolved Brain Choose Good and Evil?"

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Animal Rights — a "Non-Human Person"

Animal rights extremists have won a strange victory from a court that seems to be one saddle shy of a posse. An orangutan was ruled a "non-human person". Definitions are important, especially over concepts (such as evolution) that have multiple meanings. But person? (Ironically, the word "orangutan" comes from the Malay language, and roughly translates as "person of the forest"). How can an ape be rationally defined as a person at all? This nonsense is an extension of environmental extremism.

A court ruled that an orangutan is a "non-human person". Animal rights extremism is getting more off the rails every day, and it's rooted in evolutionary thinking.
morgueFile / bekkli
Extreme environmentalism and giving rights to animals (sometimes trying to give them more rights than humans have, especially unborn humans!) is based on a faulty view of origins from evolutionary thinking. Biblical creationists know that people are unique, created in God's image. Darwinistas need to believe we're all essentially the same because we all evolved from a common ancestor and humans got the luck of the draw. I reckon that anybody with a grain of sense can see that humans are unique.
An Argentine court made history when it granted an orangutan, ‘Sandra’, some legal rights that have traditionally been reserved for humans. The BBC reports:
Lawyers for Argentina’s Association of Professional Lawyers for Animal Rights (Afada) said Sandra was “a person” in the philosophical, not biological, sense. She was, they argued, in a situation of illegal deprivation of freedom as a “non-human person”.
The BBC did not include a comment from Sandra expressing her thoughts about her newfound rights.
To finish reading, swing on over to 'Should animals be given "human rights?"'

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Mosquitoes, Malaria, and Evolution

Because mosquitoes are showing resistance to insecticide, scientists claim evolution in action. No. This is selection, speciation, and variation, not evidence of molecules-to-man evolution.

The goo-to-you Darwinists are once again misusing the word "evolution". They claim that because humans are changing the environment of mosquitoes with insecticides, the wretched critters are evolving resistance and becoming super suckers. This is selection, speciation, and variation, not evidence of molecules-to-man evolution.

Is there new genetic information? In a way, yes, since hybridization (interbreeding) leads to adaptive introgression, where genetic information is transferred. Nothing to see here, folks, except observational science misusing that word (I don't think it means what they think it means). For that matter, it is suspected that malaria itself is a devolved relative of algae.
The war on malaria has made great strides by draping insecticide-treated netting over beds in endemic areas. Deaths worldwide have decreased by 47% since the year 2000, largely due to this innovative approach to keeping mosquito vectors away from people at risk. But a new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows this seemingly innocuous measure may have triggered the development of a new “super” insecticide-resistant mosquito that will not long be deterred by the nets.

“It’s ‘super’ with respect to its ability to survive exposure to the insecticides on treated bed nets, “ explains medical entomologist Gregory Lanzaro of UC Davis. He says his team’s work “provides convincing evidence indicating that a man-made change in the environment—the introduction of insecticides—has altered the evolutionary relationship between two species, in this case a breakdown in the reproductive isolation that separates them.”
I don't want to bug you, but to read the rest of the article, you need to click on "Malaria-Carrying 'Super Mosquitoes' Resist Insecticide".

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Do Creation Scientists Need to be in Lockstep?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

For Question Evolution Day 2015, I decided to address a fallacy that I've seen in anti-creationists. Some have observed that there is disagreement among creation scientists regarding the interpretation of observed data, and that viewpoints have been modified. Do they need to be in lockstep, marching together about everything all the time?


Some people seem to think that creation scientists need to be in full agreement on their models. Just like their secular counterparts, they hold to a starting point and can disagree on models and theories. Scientists are supposed to do that.
U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Josh Huebner/Released
Some atheist and evolutionist "logic" seems to go like this: "Creationists disagree. Therefore, creation science is false. Therefore, the Bible is not true. Therefore, there is no God!" Really, I've seen some sidewinders make amazing leaps in bad reasoning like that.

Let's take a gander at their evolutionary counterparts. Those scientists are constantly changing their views, rearranging evolutionary timelines, re-examining viewpoints, getting embarrassed when their "facts" are challenged, and more. True science changes to fit the facts, with faulty theories getting changed or even rejected. Fungi-to-farmer evolutionists will keep their worldviews despite the evidence, even trying to force-fit the data to fit their conjectures. Although Darwinoids will present their "science" as if the scientists were in agreement, there are secular scientists that doubt Darwin, reject the Big Bang, disagree that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and more.

Creation scientists also have their worldviews, and interpret the data accordingly, just like their secular counterparts. Biblical creationist scientists agree on the validity of Scripture, and will change their models when the need arises. (Unlike many secular scientists, they do not need to fudge the data, pass bad peer reviewed papers, and even resort to fraud to bolster their worldview.) Creationist scientists are not in lockstep, propping up bad theories and models despite the evidence. There are about four significant models dealing with distant starlight and creation, and differing models regarding plate tectonics and the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, and more. That's what makes science grow. Protecting failed models like those in evolution is an anti-science mindset.


#qed2015 For Question Evolution Day, some thoughts about how being in lockstep on theories and models is helpful to science, and being in lockstep is actually contrary to good science. Both creation and secular scientists are unchanging on their wordlviews, and modify other details as needed. Except that creationists don't need to resort to faking it.

Creation science ministries as well as individuals disagree with each other on some details. For that matter, I've disagreed with material presented from some major creationist organizations on some aspects of science and theology; thinking people do that.

So, no, creationists don't have to be in lockstep. Scientists as well as us regular folks freely disagree on some points, but uphold the important part: God's written Word is our foundation, and is true from the very first verse.