Search This Blog

Friday, July 30, 2010

Science versus Pseudoscience, or, Creationism versus Darwinism

(alternate title) The tan strepsipteran ran in haste to leap into space lest it lose its place in the larval nest of the insect pest in which it is a guest but at Whose behest?


I am going to give us a nice piece of meat to gnaw on here.  First I will give you a secular science article concerning "strepsipteran", that world-famous parasitical insect.  I may reach out to Karl Priest to comment later on this.  For now, as oftentimes I do, my words will be in this color when I comment within an article.  The article itself in both cases will be normal copy.

We begin with a News in Science article:

Raspberry eye looks like living fossil

Monday, 8 November 1999 

eyes

A highly unusual type of multi-faceted eye - resembling a tiny raspberry and not seen since trilobites disappeared hundreds of millions of years ago - has been discovered in a tiny parasitic insect.

Scanning electron micrographs show a) head of the strepsipteran b) eye of a fruit fly c) eye of the strepsipteran Pic: Cornell University
picture credit (notice that a mantis shrimp has a structural resemblance to a strepsipteran?  Design template? The mantis shrimp picture is mine and not from the article).

I could be unkind like Jon Woolf and label the opening statement a "lie", since the author certainly cannot prove that trilobites disappeared hundreds of millions of years ago.  The evidence that they perished in the Noahic Flood is better supported by the evidence in my opinion but certainly this author cannot make this claim with any authority!

Cornell University biologists report, in the latest edition of Science, their discovery that the composite eyes of the parasitic insect, strepsipteran, have only 50 facets compared with the compound eyes of most insects which have many hundreds of lens facets, each sampling only one small point in the insect's visual field.

"No other insect that we know of has eyes quite like this," said Ron Hoy, professor of neurobiology and behavior at Cornell and co-author, with Elke Buschbeck and Birgit Ehmer, of the report. "The only place one may see a comparable eye structure is in the fossils of some kinds of trilobites," he says, referring to the extinct arthropods that lived in shallow seas during the Paleozoic era.
I hope you noticed the second assumption.  Ron Hoy has no proof that there ever was a "Paleozoic era" but rather is presenting someone's educated-in-the-1800's guess.  Typical Darwinist thinking.

Fewer facets does not mean poorer vision, the Cornell biologists believe. The strepsipteran lenses are larger, and each has about 100 receptors, forming an individual retina behind each lens. According to the investigators, this kind of eye is well equipped to sample not points but "chunks" of the visual field, greatly improving visual capability.

"This composite lens arrangement allows the insect to have many more photoreceptors in a given area than would be possible with a compound eye. If you only have so much space on your head for eyes and you want to gather the most light, you want a composite lens eye," says Buschbeck. "The larger lenses of the strepsipteran insects are similar to a large lens of a camera, large insect lenses admit more light, support more photoreceptors and permit higher resolution."
I have previously pointed out that the trilobite eye is/was highly sophisticated, which in and of itself tends to falsify the upward myth of evolution.  But here is a massive problem for Darwinists which is no problem for creationists.  Suppose this eye was passed from trilobite to insect according to Darwinism.  How did a parasitic insect evolve from a bottom-dwelling sea creature and why are there no transitional forms along the way?  Did trilobites just decide to "hopeful monster" themselves from lying in the mud to burrowing into abdomens?  How did such a sophisticated eye appear in such "primitive" arthropods, then reappear in a parasitic insect?   

Actually, we will discover that the parasitic insect has had the same kind of sophisticated eye for "millions of years" in Darwinspeak or "both before and after the Flood" in actual science based on best evidence.  Therefore it is logical that neither organism is primitive at all or an ancestor to the other.  One of the untold lies of Darwinism is the idea that creatures like a trilobite are primitive.  But from what we can tell from the fossil record, the trilobite would be right at home in the ocean today and is simply an organism that got buried by the Flood to the point that none have survived (as far as we know).  Perhaps, like many other "lazarus" organisms, a population of trilobites will be found off the coast of Indonesia or Suriname?  If so, it is unlikely to be much different from the fossilized version. Living strepsipteran specimens resemble those preserved in amber so no evolution there, either.

The seldom-seen parasites are hidden in the bodies of common paper wasp. Females never leave their host. When males do, they are on a specific, hurried mission. In the approximately two hours before they die, the males have to find another wasp that is parasitised by a female, mate and depart.

"Sex pheromones from females probably help males to locate the general neighborhood of a wasp with a female parasite," Ehmer says, "but the male presumably relies on his vision once he is close to the wasp." She said that the importance to the insect of the visual system also is apparent from the volume of optic lobes dedicated to processing visual information, which Ehmer estimates to be 75 percent of the insect's brain.
How could such a process evolve?  There is much more to this, as the next article will point out.  These creatures are highly specialized and the entire process is complex and exacting. 

An insect viewing the world in fewer but larger chunks of the visual field would have an inverted, mirror-image problem. Like any simple lens, each facet inverts or reverses its individual portion of the overall image.

The correction comes about, the Cornell biologists believe, because of chiasmata, X-shaped nerve crossings. The biologists found that behind each of the facets is a nerve that connects it to the brain. The nerve exhibits a chiasma, rotating the nerve 180° around its own axis and re-inverting each portion of the image.

Evidence flies in the face of evolution

So as it happens, while Darwinists struggle to find even one piece of objective evidence for evolution, it would appear they have managed to falsify their own hypothesis.  One hundred years of tests...You see, Darwinists can talk a good game, they just can't actually play.  From the ICR website:

 

100 Years of Fruit Fly Tests Show No Evolution

July 22, 2010, marked the 100th anniversary of genetic investigations using fruit flies. The first such study appeared in Science in 1910 and described the unexpected appearance of a male fruit fly with white eyes after generations of flies with pigmented eyes.1 This began a century of focused studies on fruit fly mutations, but what has really been learned by all this tinkering?

For most of the past century--and especially since the discovery of DNA as a physical molecule carrying heritable information--the prevailing concept of neo-Darwinian evolution has held mutations to be the central generator of new and useful information. Thus, mutations have been given ample opportunity to prove themselves, if they are naturally selected, as having "the power to drive the evolution of all living things in the direction of positive improvement."2

Fruit flies, with their short generation times and only four pairs of chromosomes, presented prime testing ground for evolution. In laboratories worldwide, they have been subjected to all manner of mutation-inducing phenomena, including hosts of chemicals and radiation treatments, to try and accelerate evolution-mimicking mutations. After all this, fruit flies should have certainly exemplified evolution by now.2 But they haven't.
So, having achieved no evolutionary progression in fruit flies by these random means, researchers made them the focus of countless purposeful gene manipulation studies. The most popular, from an evolutionary perspective, were experiments with what are called HOX genes.

HOX, an abbreviation of "homeobox," are genes used by the organism during embryonic development. Many reasoned that it would be simpler for evolution to operate by mutating these genes, since a small alteration could produce a large effect in the fly's body. However, this was before recent studies showed that embyronic development is more heavily influenced by regulatory DNA, not genes. And mutating (through substituting, deleting, or duplicating) developmental genes like HOX has only ever yielded a dead fly, a normal fly (if the mutation happened to have no noticeable effect), or a tiny monster. None of these results match the "positive improvement" expected of Darwinian evolution.

Extra body segments, an extra set of wings, or legs in the place of antennae characterized the weird forms that were generated. Three generations of specifically designed DNA alterations were required to produce fruit flies with four wings--but they couldn't fly. The extra wings had no muscles and were dead weight. One recent exploration of neo-Darwinism remarked:
The mutants that produce four-winged fruit flies survive today only in a carefully controlled environment and only when skilled researchers meticulously guide their subjects through one non-functional stage after another. This carefully controlled experiment does not tell us much about what undirected mutations can produce in the wild.3
In his book Evolution, Colin Patterson summarized the lost hope of finding evolution from HOX investigations:
The spectacular effects of homeobox gene mutations were first seen in Drosophila, early in the history of genetics. Carriers of some of these mutations certainly qualify as monsters--though without much hope.4
Whereas fruit fly studies have provided critical information about how genes, nerves, longevity, and other biological machines and processes operate, no progress whatsoever has been made in the quest to accelerate these insects' "evolution" by ramping up their mutations. The survivors of 100 years of lab torture are still just fruit flies.
References
  1. Morgan, T. H. 1910. Sex Limited Inheritance in Drosophila. Science. 32 (812): 120-122.
  2. Dawkins, R. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York: Free Press, 31.
  3. Meyer, S. C. et al. 2007. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism. London: Hill House Publishers, 105.
  4. Patterson, C. 1999. Evolution, 2nd ed. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 114.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Batting cleanup, Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. the impossibility of Evolution...

Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo has graciously consented to allow me to present portions of his material as I deem fit.  If you are not aware of the man, then you probably are not a devout Darwinist.  Joseph has been challenging Darwinists to back up their long list of mythologies for many years.  Many individuals and groups have been challenged to put up or shut up.  Sadly, they do neither. Gee, you would think the chance to pick up an easy ten grand would have them lining up at his front door, as sure as they sound of themselves, right?
There is also a one thousand dollar prize available:

$1000 Reward for finding an evolutionist that completes a Life Science Prize Mini-Trial.

$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical. It is predicted that this prize also will go unclaimed indefinitely because there is no such thing as a homologue, or an evolution sequence, or micro-evolution, or macro-evolution, or mosaic characteristics, or a common ancestor, by reason of the fact that all living things are devolving, dynamically engineered, unique inventions of omniscient originality. See Biology for the 21st Century and the Life Science Prize Tested Devolution, Evolution, and Genesis, 2005, p. 16. (Originality Prize offered on 3-18-07.)

"Default-judgment. Judgment entered against a party who has failed to defend against a claim that has been brought by another party." -Black's Law Dictionary.



It is still a free country.  If you want to preach the message of Darwinism you are free to do so.  But what is shockingly wrong is that young minds are being brainwashed in that the faith of Darwinism is being taught as established scientific fact.  That the atheist mindset does not have any reason to adhere to God's moral code means that they have no compunctions when it comes to what they say or do.  They will freely call the truth a lie and claim that a lie is true, for they do not concern themselves with eternal consequences.  

Ecclesiastes chapter three is pretty well known in the popular culture, as the Byrds wrote a song derived from the first nine verses of the chapter (ah, the days of bangs and girls ironing their hair and trying to look like Twiggy and Patty Boyd).   I am going to present verses 10-14 in the NIV:

"I have seen the burden God has laid on men.  He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.  I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live.  That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God.  I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him

Far wiser men than I have studied Ecclesiastes.  It was written by King Solomon, the son of David the King, the Psalmist and also the tragic.  Solomon sought wisdom from God and received it in abundance.  But he then sought pleasures under the sun.  "Under The Sun" is the key phrase to take from this book.  Solomon presents the experience of man during this present life.  He understands the vanity of temporal pleasures and the joys of eternal understanding.  Within the book he presents both carnal and spiritual worldviews of God and life on Earth.  I highlighted the above verses because even in this book clues to the brilliance of God's creation are found and also the spot within every heart that is aware that they belong to a Creator God.  Some of us drown out that still small voice within and some of us seek it and some of us, like me, run from it for many years before taking the time to listen.

credit



Now let us present, from Dr. Mastropaolo, a post I would term an oldie but a goodie:  Batter up!


Evolution Is Biologically Impossible
© Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D., 1999.2


Published in Acts and Facts 28 (11): i-iv, Impact #317, November 1999, Institute for Creation
Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cahon, CA 92021.

Charles Darwin was daydreaming when he wrote that he could visualize “in some warm
little pond,” with all sorts of salts and electricity, the spontaneous generation of the first living
cell.2 Darwin’s dream of the magical powers of salts and electricity may have come from his
grandfather. Mary Shelley in her introduction to Frankenstein reveals, “They talked of the
experiments of Dr. Darwin . . . who preserved a piece of vermicelli in a glass case, till by some
extraordinary means it began to move with voluntary motion.” She goes on to speculate that
galvanism (electricity) was the extraordinary means.9 All theories need testing so I bought some
vermicelli pasta, kept it in salt water in a test tube for a month and never saw any motion,
voluntary or otherwise. I also used a tesla coil to conduct “galvanism” through it to a fluorescent
bulb. The bulb lit and the vermicelli eventually began to cook, but never came to life.

“ Darwin’s bulldog,” Thomas Huxley, had a vision of himself on the early Earth as “a
witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from non-living matter.”6 In Huxley’s day, the cell
was blissfully considered simply a blob of protoplasm. Huxley also may have read Mary
Shelley’s subtitle to Frankenstein, “The Modern Prometheus.”9 Prometheus was the Greek
mythical Titan, who formed a man of clay then animated it. This myth may be the earliest
reference to abiogenesis, the animation of inorganic materials. In order not to leave that
possibility untried, I fashioned a clay man and directed the tesla coil spark over it to light the
bulb. The clay man was not animated.

Evolutionists currently invoke the “primeval soup” to expand the “warm little pond” into
a larger venue, the oceans. They aim to spontaneously generate the first cell so they must
thicken the salt water with (take a breath) polysaccharides, lipids, amino acids, alpha helixes,
polypeptide chains, assembled quaternary protein subunits and nucleotides, all poised to selfcombine
into functional cellular structures, energy systems, long-chain proteins and nucleic
acids.1 Then during an electrical storm, just the right mix of DNA, mRNA, ribosomes, cell
membranes and enzymes are envisioned in the right place at the right time and the first cell is
thunderbolted together and springs to life.5 That marvelous first cell, the story goes, filled the
oceans with progeny competing in incredible polysaccharide, lipid, amino acid, nucleotide and
cannibalistic feasts. The predators thereby thinned the soup to the watery oceans we have today
while the prey escaped by mystically transmuting themselves into the current complex animals
and plants, or perhaps vice versa because no one was there to record it. We are assured by the
disciples of Darwin and Huxley that the “once upon a pond” story to obtain a blob of
protoplasm is still sufficient for the spontaneous generation of the cell as we know it today. All
demur when asked for evidence. All balk when asked to reverse-engineer a cell in the laboratory
in spite of the fact that laboratories rival nature and reverse engineering is orders of magnitude
easier than engineering an original design. One wonders why they balk if cell stuff is so easily
self-generated and carbon molecules seem to have such an innate tendency to self-combine.

To test simply the alleged self-combining tendency of carbon, I placed one microliter of
India (lampblack) ink in 27 ml of distilled water. The ink streaked for the bottom of the test tube
where it formed a dark haze which completely diffused to an even shade of gray in 14 hours. The
carbon stayed diffused, not aggregated as when dropped on paper. At this simple level there is
no evidence that the “primeval soup” is anything but fanciful imagination.
In science, the burden of evidence is on the proposer of the theory. So although the
evolutionists have the burden of providing evidence for their fanciful tales, they take no
responsibility for a detailed account or for any evidence demonstrating feasibility. Contrarily,
they go so far as to imply that anyone holding them to the normal requirements of science is
feebleminded, deranged or evil. For example, Professor Richard Dawkins has been quoted as
saying, “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in
evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”7
Instead of taking proper responsibility for the burden of evidence, the evolutionist propagandizes
by the intimidation of name calling.

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist’s burden of evidence to see where
it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based
largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the
microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by
mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the
microbiology, information theory and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat.
Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein
common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion.
The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion
has 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second
from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of
the way to completion. Yockey concluded, “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is
impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in
probability.”10

Richard Dawkins agreed with Yockey by stating, “Suppose we want to suggest, for
instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery
spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an
extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not
exceed 100 billion billion to one.”3 The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins’ own criterion for
impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of
magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined
the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself
“ ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.”

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with
very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in
1050 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that
evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of
magnitude.4

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those
highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to
something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small
probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that
it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many
times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of
seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one
billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of
Small Probability.

I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski’s one chance in 10150.
Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any
time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic
history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not
chance, as Dembski’s criterion and Yockey’s probability may prove it is not, then it must have
happened by design, the only remaining possibility.

Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in
1075, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski’s criterion of one chance in 10150. The
simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they
would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000
proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,8 If these raw materials could be
evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-
cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell’s construction site, then we
may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That
probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has
4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the
evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that
standard.

Reproduction may be called a regularity because billions of people have witnessed billions
of new individuals arising that way, and in no other way, for thousands of years. The origin of
life was a unique event and certainly not a regularity. Therefore, according to the mathematical
logicians, the only possibilities left are that life either was generated by chance or by deliberate
design. The standard for impossible eliminated evolution so the only remaining possibility is that
life was designed into existence. The probability of the correctness of this conclusion is the
inverse of the probability that eliminated evolution, that is, 104,478,296 chances to one.
Although the certainty of design has been demonstrated beyond doubt, science cannot
identify the designer. Given a designer with the intelligence to construct a cell and all life forms,
it is not logical that he would construct only one cell and leave the rest to chance. The only
logical possibility is that the designer would design and build the entire structure, the entire
biosphere, to specified perfection. That seems to be as far as science can go.
Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these conclusions is 104,478,296 (1
followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one. This evidence suggests a Designer who designed and built
the entire biosphere and, for it to function, the entire universe. Primary and secondary sources
from history properly provide additional information on the Designer because the biological
sciences are not equal to that task .

References

1 Behe, Michael J. (1996) Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, New
York: Touchstone, pp. 262-268.
2 Darwin, F., ed (1888) The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, London: John Murray, vol. 1, p. 83.
3 Dawkins, Richard (1996) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a
Universe Without Design, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., p. 146.
4 Dembski, William A. (1998) The Design Inference:Eliminating Chance Through Small
Probabilities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5, 209, 210.
5 Denton, Michael (1986) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Bethesda, Maryland: Adler&Adler, p. 263.
6 Huxley, Thomas H. (1870) “Biogenesis and Abiogenesis” in (1968) Collected Essays of Thomas.H.
Huxley, vol. 8, Discourses Biological and Geological, New York: Greenwood Press., p.256.
7 Johnson, Phillip E. (1993) Darwin On Trial, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, p.9.
8 Morowitz, H.J. (1966) “The Minimum Size of Cells” in Principles of Biomolecular Organization,
eds G.E.W. Wostenholme and M. O’Connor, London: J.A. Churchill, pp. 446-459.
9 Shelley, Mary W. (1831) Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus, London: Henry Colburn and
Richard Bentley, Introduction, p.9.
10 Yockey, Hubert P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 255, 257.


~~~~~~~

The thought of Darwin imagining life starting in some little pond in the indeterminate past reminds me of another 60's song, which began, "What a day for a daydream, what a day for a daydreamin' boy..."  John Sebastian and the Lovin' Spoonful.   Too bad Charles Darwin could not have confined his daydreams to a girl rather than a hypothesis which has been rendered an instrument of evil by antitheists around the world. 

This is just one tidbit from a terrific site that Darwinists avoid like the plague.  None of them have dared follow through on the challenge from the good doctor lest they lose a great deal of money!  Imagine that.

Let us clarify the differences between objective and subjective evidence.   What if I wander the North side of Chicago and ask people "which is the best baseball team, Cubs or White Sox?Most will name the Cubs.   Should I wander off to the South side of the city, the answer would normally be White Sox.   These people would have opinions and express their beliefs.   Now, if we had done this in the year 2005, after everyone gave me their subjective opinion, I could have provided objective evidence - The White Sox won 99 games out of 162 versus the Cubs 79 victories in 162 games.  The White Sox won through the playoffs to the World Series, where they were victorious and were crowned MLB Champions for the year 2005.  Objectively, in 2005, the Sox were better.  As I write this, in 2010 the White Sox have won 55 games and are in first place in their division, while the Cubs have won 46 games and are in fourth place in their division.  So both then and now, I would have objective evidence that the White Sox are a better team.   Objective evidence for evolution would be, for instance, a demonstration of life arising from non-life or one kind of animal having become another kind or for a simple organism to become a more complex organism via chance occurrence.  All of these things are part of the Darwinist belief system but not one of them has been observed to happen. 

You Darwinists make assumptions that you prefer to believe and call it theory or even fact.  When asked to present one piece of objective evidence for evolution actually happening, you fail completely.  You simply come up with longer and more convulated subjective just-so stories.  Then you jump up and down and call names and write in big bold letters while continuing to "epic fail".  Common sense and statistics and Occam's Razor and abiogenesis and the Biblical account of creation all stand on one side of the question.  Findings about the inner workings of the cell and the amazing inherent abilities of various kinds of organisms that defy random chance are all around us.   Not one piece of objective evidence for Darwnism can be found to exist.  Not one commenter has provided any observed macroevolution or other objective evidence that Darwinism might be labeled anything other than a failed hypothesis of a less-informed generation of men unfamiliar with modern science and the actual concept of the complexity of the cell and the reproductive process.

Why do I bother writing this blog?  A recent quote noted at creation.com is the answer:

“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school's meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?” (Charles F. Potter, “Humanism: A New Religion,” 1930)
and from Karl Priest's website:
By the time a child graduates from high school, they will have spent 14,000 seat hours in school; the largest block of time spent doing any one activity in their life, other than sleeping. Whoever controls those 14,000 hours effectively controls how the child's world-view is shaped. John Dewey, Charles Potter, and other political radicals have known this since the 1930's, and this is a major reason that so many social radicals have gone into education (Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorne are good examples); they knew whoever controlled the school curriculum controlled the worldview of the kids going through it. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "The philosophy of education in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." Thus, these radicals knew that the way to change the course of government was to indoctrinate the school children into their way of thinking. ( get in the battle

As it was in 1930, so it is in 2010.  Darwinist ignorance still prevails in public schools, but parents and church leaders and individual scientists of all disciplines are rising up against the ruling paradigm.  Tyranny is the enemy of freedom in all of its forms and by any label.   I am thankful for guys like Joseph Mastropaolo who have drawn specific lines in the sand and dared Darwinists to cross so that the world can see, should they care to look, who actually has science on their side and who is simply propped up by mounds of propaganda.

I taught my children to think critically, learn everything that the school teachers teach you and compare it to what I teach you.   I taught them to regurgitate the nonsense they were given on tests but to speak up for themselves in class and in essays.   All of my kids were honor roll students and I did not mind sending them to the local public school because it had a Christian principal and teachers allowed students to speak their minds (or the Dad was going to come down for a talk one on one) without being penalized with an F.  Most public schools are simply humanist thought factories and there are forces at work to change our local schools but thankfully all of my kids are graduates of high school (and two of them intend to teach in public schools as believing Christians in the fields of English and History, yahoo!) and have moved on to college or beyond into careers and marriages and begun cranking out grandchildren.   Grandchildren who are being taught to learn the Darwinist propaganda but believe the truth.  The responsible parent makes sure he is involved intimately in the education of his children or he is foolish indeed!


Children want rules and limits, even if they fight about them.  They want to be taught a set of rules and a belief system based on absolutes.   It is innate within us to want the parents to set a standard of both knowledge and behavior.   If you teach your children and care about them, you will instill within them the values that will allow them, as adults, to set their own rules and then teach their own children from their own core value set.  I am most happy that my children read my blog and that my students read it as well.  


This blog sometimes serves as part of a lesson plan for students and occasionally I publish part of a lesson on the blog since I am making up a powerpoint anyway.   Yes, commenters, I am one of those pesky creationists, teaching children and even adults to believe in creation by God rather than Chance, the Evolution Fairy!

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Hawkeye up to bat!

Being the home team, I was pitching to the Darwinists for awhile as they tried in vain to get a hit against information, life and design.  I even let them know a couple of pitches were coming (here comes your chance to give me even ONE piece of objective evidence!) but they mostly swung and missed.   They ended the top of the first inning scoreless.

We let the Insect Man, Karl Priest, bat second after I led off the inning with a lo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ong (I am tempted to spell this incorrectly just to give Jon Woolf something to crow about) double post that made the point that all that cladogrammatterofphylogenuttic Darwinist nonsense about lines of descent are absolutely indefensible when investigated thoroughly.  The Horse Chart (famed, although infamous is more appropriate) has the poor horse adding and subtracting rib bones and backbone segments as it supposedly gets a bit bigger as millions of years go by.  Not that Darwinists had good evidence for any of it, as horses continue to vary in sizes today.   Darwinists take species of kinds that were wiped out by the Flood and try to build a continuum of creatures from a representational slice of creatures.   Their attempt to make a horizontal sprinkling of speciated kinds into a vertical climb up a ladder hundreds of millions of years long has been pounded into young brains for decades and yet the evidence for their propaganda remains a big fat zero.

Imagine if you will that the Noahic Flood had occurred today.   A few thousand years later Darwinists would be making up the Dog Chart from Chihuahuacanis to Great Danis and building the myth of the long climb of dogs from simple ankle-biters up to big friendly super hounds.   But the Flood took place over four thousand years ago and the world that existed then was intentionally destroyed.  The ecosystem was overhauled.  Naturally the kinds of organisms that could survive a flood event were not taken upon the Ark and those that could not survive without divine intervention and rode the Ark were released into an alien environment unlike what they had known.   Some kinds apparently did not make it all the way to the time of Darwin, such as the dinosaurs (unless there are still a few in the Congo River areas that are largely unexplored or perhaps living in deep and isolated waters) and some kinds speciated quite a bit while some kinds, such as the crocodile, have pretty much stayed the same. 

The commenters intentionally walked Karl by refusing to even try to deal with the points he made in their mad rush to (here it comes, creeper) launch their various ad hominem attacks upon him.  They probably are particularly anguished by his spearheading of the evidence over propaganda during the Textbook War.

Before our formidable cleanup man comes to bat, batting third, you can call him Jim but you doesn't have to call him Johnson, Hawk - EYE!!!!!   As it happens, when some of the Darwinists managed to popup a question or give a weak groundball response, Hawkeye was there to swoop the ball up and make the play.  So I thought a replay of Hawkeye on defense AND offense was appropriate by taking a set of his comments, in order, from the Nothing can be reasonable or beautiful unless it's made by one central idea post and presenting them as his time at bat as the broadcasting crew comments on his great defense:

Hawkeye, fuzzy, but smiling

Hawkeye® has left a new comment on your post - in fact, a lot of them - (he is an active and accomplished blogger, you know)

1) Jon Woolf,
The word "informatio" is 2000 years old and has had a firmly fixed meaning for almost all of that time. We worked out the nature of DNA less than fifty years ago. Are you really so ignorant of philology that you think you could take such an ancient word and apply it to a brand-new concept without causing some confusion in sloppy thinkers like creationists?

A few things...

First, if the definition of a word has remained constant for almost 2000 years, then it is well established and accepted. We need not change it, but we may expand it, as per Wikipedia.

And, as an analysis of the Wikipedia article will reveal, all information -- including sensory input -- shows evidence of intelligent causation. [Humans design sensors to collect information about all sorts of things].

Second, if the discovery of DNA less than 50 years ago results in a finding that DNA shows evidence of "information" which falls in line with the generally accepted understanding of the term "information", then why would you propose a new definition for the term "information"... unless the recent finding contradicts your "theory" of evolution?

2) creeper,

I've been looking for the post and comments in question, but I can't find them. I've even put the phrase "Methodological naturalism...

I don't think a site search looks at the comments section, but only at the articles. I've had that problem in the past at my own blog.

The two are rather closely related. The scientific method is based on methodological naturalism.

They may be closely related, but they are not identical. And I disagree with your assertion that "scientific method is based on methodological naturalism." The scientific method was around long before methodological naturalism. People were using scientific method who never in their wildest imagination would have considered that the some causes are not "natural". According to methodological naturalism, ALL causes can ONLY be natural. That is a more recent concept.

In the link to the Wikipedia article on the scientific method that you posted, could you point me to the part where indeterminate miracles are permitted as part of the inquiry?

Your sarcasm is duly noted. But you miss the point entirely, again. You are confusing "inquiry" and "causation". Scientists use "scientific method" to perform their "inquiry", which does not of course permit the use of any "indeterminate miracles". They make observations, establish facts, hypothesize, and perform experiments to test those hypotheses using only established methods, materials and procedures.

"Methodological naturalism" on the other hand, is a philosophical concept. It is in fact "an epistemological view" as per Wikipedia. It is not a method of "inquiry", scientific or otherwise. According to the philosophy of methodological naturalism, ALL "causation" must be "natural" and ONLY natural. That's a nice philosophy to adhere to, if you are so inclined, but it is not the only one.

Your confusion therefore, is the basis for your obvious mis-statements. And there is no point in discussing your responses to the remaining points I made, because they are likewise based on the same misunderstanding.

3) creeper,

"If they find a human artifact which bears some evidence of design or information, they can conclude that it did not have a "natural" cause. It happens every day."

There are some mixed messages going on here. You mention "evidence of design or information" twice in your comment. What exactly do you mean by "evidence of information"? It seems to me you're confused about a pretty major concept here. Information itself is not inexplicable by modern science - quite the opposite. And it certainly isn't evidence of a supernatural cause, or even indicative of such.


I didn't say that it was. Reread what I said, and then consider the automobile. It contains "evidence of design or information". In this case both. The automobile has clearly been "designed" because its complexity and artificiality are found nowhere in nature. There is also evidence of information in the automobile. Many automobiles contain a set of symbols "P R N D L" and "0 20 40 60 80 100 120", which are recurring in automobiles but not in nature. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the automobile did not have "natural" cause.

Now, I will not argue that its cause was "supernatural", but I will argue that after observing any number of automobiles, it is logical to conclude that the "cause" of these objects was NOT "natural". Why? Because there is evidence of "design" and "information" in the automobile.

If there were actual evidence of design (such as, say, an instance of specific complexity that is not related to functionality...

Why do you speak of "non-functional" complexity? An automobile is very complex, and it can be argued that virtually every component has a function (including hood ornaments and paint jobs). Yet, there is plenty of evidence for "design" in an automobile.

and can therefore not be explained by the theory of evolution...

Why would you assume that "functional" complexity can be explained by the theory of evolution, but "non-functional" complexity cannot be? And how can you tell the difference? As in the case of the automobile, some observers might not understand the functionality of certain components, yet a functionality is there and was contemplated in the design process.

evolution (which favors beneficial functions)...

Oh really? Sort of the way I favor one food over another? Or the way you favor one beverage over another? Do you realize how silly that sounds? What drives this "favoring" mechanism in evolution? To favor something requires "choice". To favor something requires a repository of knowledge where the results of experimental data are stored and called upon to make a "decision". Do I choose "A" or "B", "white" or "green", "left or right"?

In animals, to favor something, even food, still requires a repository of knowledge. It's called the brain. The lowest forms of life may appear to "favor" things, but they do not. They only react based on instinct or sensory input: temperature, humidity, sunlight vs. darkness, pH, the presence of a chemical, etc.

So, I reiterate. What drives this "favoring" mechanism in evolution? Where is its repository of knowledge? How does it make "choices"? Are you now describing evolution in human terms? Let's see, something with a brain that stores up lots of information favors "beneficial functions". I know... it's the "evolution god"! Am I right?

My God created all life. Your god evolved all life. OK, you have your religion. I have mine. So be it.

4)  Jon Woolf,

hawkeye: Why would you assume that "functional" complexity can be explained by the theory of evolution, but "non-functional" complexity cannot be?

He doesn't. He concludes it based on the fact that the evolutionary process continually tests an organism's functional phenotype for fitness within its current environment. Evolution does not produce or preserve non-functional traits.


Now there you go again (to coin a phrase). Not "you" specifically, but "you" collectively... "the evolutionary process continually tests an organism's functional phenotype..." Again you assign human traits to a "process". First, evolution "favors" things. Now evolution "tests" things, eh?

In order to "test" something, an "intelligence" must have a repository of knowledge in which it can compare new data with previously acquired data through a set of controlled sequences. The purpose of the "testing" in your scenario, is to determine if the results obtained compare favorably or unfavorably to data in the repository.

I reiterate. Where is this repository of knowledge?

"What drives this "favoring" mechanism in evolution?

Natural selection.


And therefore, you must admit that "natural selection" has an intelligence with a repository of knowledge whereby it can compare past data to new data and make a "decision" in favor of "X" versus "Y"? If not, please explain the process.

The lowest forms of life may appear to "favor" things, but they do not. They only react based on instinct or sensory input: temperature, humidity, sunlight vs. darkness, pH, the presence of a chemical, etc.

As do you.


I beg to differ. I might absolutely hate "humidity", but if I "decide" to endure that environmental condition in order to attain some higher purpose, then I have "chosen" not to "react" as my normal "instincts" would dictate. I might even endure suffering and death (the highest breach of the "self-preservation" instinct) if my personal "values" are brought into question.

Last time I checked, mosquitoes don't have "values". But I could be wrong. Maybe Richard Dawkins has proved such things exist.  

(radar question - If Dawkins discovers values within himself or within mosquitoes I wonder what absolutes such values would be based upon?  Hmmmm...Do you suppose if we sent Richard off to explore mosquitoes he would quit writing all these religious diatribes against actual science?)

5)  creeper,

Hawkeye,
I'm a little surprised by the last few paragraphs of your comments above...


Glad that I could "surprise" you. It's not good to be too predictable.

as well as the thought process leading up to it.

Are you a mind reader? You know my thought processes now?

You've made intelligent comments in the past...

Don't start to flatter me. I might get a big head.

but this present set of questions you've posed indicates a state of knowledge on your part that entirely predates the theory of evolution itself about 150 years ago. It's a conversation I would imagine some learned gentlemen would have had in some boudoir or absinthe joint around the beginning of the 19th century.

Ahh yes. You may think of me as a Renaissance man.

Hawkeye, I don't think you're unintelligent...

Thank you. With two college degrees, I would hope not.

but I do think you're - most likely intentionally - maintaining a certain ignorance of certain subjects...

No. Just asking the tough questions that need to be answered.

and I think you would find it an enriching experience to actually read up on the theory of evolution some day...

"Enriching"...? How about "boring"? Besides, evolutionary theory only raises more questions than it produces answers. And which version should I read? Evolutionary scientists can't even agree among themselves.

if only to come up with more convincing arguments.

Your arguments have not exactly been "convincing".

Just to clarify this point -

"Oh really? Sort of the way I favor one food over another? Or the way you favor one beverage over another? Do you realize how silly that sounds? What drives this "favoring" mechanism in evolution?"

Simply put: the ability to survive and reproduce in greater numbers. This is pretty elementary biology, btw. I wonder if you're capable of now realizing how silly your comments re. favoring one food or beverage or another sound.


Not silly at all. I completely disagree with your logic. There is still no "favoring" mechanism involved. The "ability to survive and reproduce in greater numbers" is a function of the creature. Because one creature is more hardy or adaptable than another, it survives. That does not mean that it has been "favored" in any way by some outside process or "evolution god".

I reiterate. To "favor" something requires a repository of knowledge and an intelligence which allows it to make a "decision" based on acquired experiences. Where is the repository of knowledge in evolution? How does it make decisions? These are rhetorical questions of course. Obviously, there is no evolutionary repository of knowledge and no intelligence which allows it to make a decision. Therefore, there is no "favoring" mechanism. QED.

God can "favor". You and I can "favor". But evolution cannot "favor" anything.

"Why would you assume that "functional" complexity can be explained by the theory of evolution, but "non-functional" complexity cannot be?"

Jon's addressed the functional complexity part.


Not to my satisfaction.
(continued...)

What about non-functional specific complexity though? Well, what if we found a verse from the Bible inscribed in DNA? Or in someone's teeth? (That was my earlier "A Serious Man" allusion, though I doubt anyone caught that one, since it's not exactly a movie everyone has seen.)

You are 100% correct. I have not seen the movie, therefore I do not understand the implications of your questions.

Evolution selects for beneficial functionality

There you go again. Applying human traits to your "evolution god". First evolution "favored" something. Now it "selects" something. For all practical purposes there is no substantial difference between "favoring" and "selecting". Each requires a repository of knowledge, a database if you will, a selection criteria, and an intelligence to make a "decision". Evolution does not possess such instruments, therefore it does not "favor" or "select" anything. Therefore it does not exist. QED.

regardless of whether YECs are capable of comprehending that or not, that has no effect on it.

In other words, you don't need to be able to explain it to me in terms that I can understand logically, or for that matter, prove its existence. It still exists despite its being neither provable nor explainable. In other words, it requires "faith". OK.

But if we did find, say, a verse from the Bible inscribed in DNA, that would be it: you guys would win. Instantly. And at that point I would draw the appropriate conclusion and indeed conclude that the personified God of the Bible was the real thing.

Hardly. You guys would say it was "a hoax". Just like the dinosaur and human footprints together. You won't believe that. What makes you think you would believe a DNA Bible verse? Don't kid yourself. You wouldn't believe it if somebody came back from the dead and told you to believe in God (which someone named Jesus has already done btw).

But as long as all you guys do is iterate an argument from incredulity...

Well, as long as you guys keep making "incredulous" statements, then our response is likely to be incredulity.

and a whole bunch of ignorance of the theory of evolution...

Now, now, now. No need for name calling. Just because you can't explain it in a way that makes sense logically, does not imply my "ignorance". Don't try to dazzle me with "brilliance" or baffle me with "BS". Just explain it to me as a "natural" mechanism which does not require human traits like "favoring" or "selecting". If words really matter, then find the right ones.

I don't really see what there is to discuss. You're coming up blank.

There's plenty to discuss. You want me to disregard my faith and accept yours. Well, if you're going to do that, then you've got to be VERY convincing. And you ain't there yet.

6) creeper,

... which would mean adhering to methodological naturalism.

From Wikipedia:

"Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new[1] knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[3]"


How quaint. I tell you that you are confusing "scientific method" with "methodological naturalism" and you quote to me the definition of "scientific method" to explain "methodological naturalism". D'OH!

7)  creeper,
"According to the philosophy of methodological naturalism, ALL "causation" must be "natural" and ONLY natural."

Same for the scientific method, see above.


No kidding. Sometimes talking to you is like talking to a brick. I have already acknowledged that point. But what I said, was that "scientific method" is what forms the basis of "inquiry", while "methodological naturalism" does not. It is a "philosophy", not a "method".

I reiterate. The "scientific method" forms the basis of "scientific inquiry". No problems. Methodological naturalism DOES NOT form the basis of scientific inquiries. According to the philosophy of methodological naturalism, ALL "causation" must be "natural" and ONLY natural.

Can you name a modern scientist who uses anything other than methodological naturalism in their work or can't you? Keeping in mind that modern science stretches back to Newton?

Yes. Sir Isaac Newton. Newton used "scientific method" but did NOT believe that ALL causation was natural ONLY. He believed that God was the Creator (ie, the non-natural cause) of gravity. He believed that God was the non-natural cause of the planetary movements. He believed that God was the non-natural cause of all the "natural laws". Therefore, I contend that he did not subscribe to the philosophy of methodological naturalism which demands that ALL causes be natural ONLY!

Radar came up with a long list of other modern scientists who come to the same conclusions as Newton.

Can we just agree that you and Radar can't come up with one?

Nope.

8)  Jon Woolf,
"It really is rather surreal to see someone referring to methodological naturalism, but applying the definition of philosophical naturalism -- when the whole point of adding the adjectives is to distinguish between naturalism as a philosophy and naturalism as a method of investigation."

It was not I who defined "methodological naturalism" as a philosophy. It was Wikipedia...

"Naturalism (philosophy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Methodological naturalism)

Naturalism is divided into two philosophical stances:

* Methodological naturalism (or scientific naturalism) which focuses on epistemology..." (etc.)

I have simply been trying to tell creeper that he is confusing a "philosophy" with a "method".

9)  Radar,
"Normal scientists used to look for natural causes first and then, when natural causes failed, look to the supernatural."

I'm not sure I agree with that statement 100%. I would maintain that early scientists attributed the orderliness they found in nature to "laws", and ultimately to a "lawgiver".

Because they were well acquainted with the scriptures, they remembered that "God is not the author of confusion". They remembered that God created the sun to rise each morning, and the seasons to happen at their appointed times. They remembered that God gave "the law" to Moses on Mt. Sinai.

They associated orderliness in nature with "laws" and they logically concluded that those laws were authored by the Great Lawgiver Himself.

Many of today's scientists have no such education in the scriptures, therefore they worship the creature rather than the Creator. They worship "nature" rather than Him who created "nature". They look for "laws" but not a "lawgiver".


(I found myself agreeing with Hawkeye, replying - "Hawkeye, you and I are on the same page. It was more common in the past for the scientist to both expect and look for evidences of the Creator in creation. Someone with a Darwinist mindset does not "grok" this. So I didn't bother to speak to that mindset.

Fortunately for mankind, there is a rapid growth of scientists who have studied the evidence and concluded that naturalism cannot account for the design of organisms and the fine-tuning of everything and therefore they have abandoned naturalism and accepted the idea that organisms were designed. With that thought in mind, they continue to use the same scientific method that worked for Newton or Bacon or Von Braun but without the arbitrary and unscientific addition of "natural causation only."

Microengineers/nanoengineers are working from the premise that tiny systems are a design that can be copied and utilized whether they admit to it or not or even care. Operational science does not need to have Darwin included and in fact operational science tends to focus on the evidence and only puts the Darwin label on the finished product to get by the "censors". "


10) Jon Woolf,

Radar and Hawkeye have both been engaging in a rather flagrant bit of doubletalk: they assault "methodological naturalism" while claiming to use and approve of "the scientific method." What they don't understand .. or perhaps they do understand, but think the rest of us won't .. is that "methodological naturalism" and "the scientific method" are the same thing. This isn't open to debate. It's a plain and simple fact. The two terms are synonymous. You can't support one and reject the other.

Call it "doubletalk" if you wish, but they are NOT the same thing. (See, I can use bold too.)

I reiterate. Methodological Naturalism is a philosophy and Scientific Method is a method. There is an obvious difference between philosophy and method. I may philosophize that the walls in my house need painting, but there is a method for actually doing the painting. I may philosophize that the lawn needs cutting, but there is a method for actually doing the cutting. And likewise, I may philosophize that "science" requires the cause of everything in the universe to be 'natural' ONLY, but there is a method for actually doing science. I might also philosophize that "science" does NOT require the cause of everything in the universe to be 'natural' ONLY, but there is still a method for doing science.

Scientists do not use a philosophy to conduct experiments, they use a method.


11)  creeper,
I understand where "you" (meaning all Darwinists) are coming from, better than you think. I understand "natural selection" better than you think. But I've been trying to make a point. That is, that Darwinists have a tendency to apply human characteristics and attributes to "nature". And you do it subconsciously.

"Natural selection" is a misnomer, and a deceitful one at that. Nature "selects" nothing. Nature "favors" nothing. Nature "chooses" nothing. Nature "breeds" nothing. Nature simply is. Creatures are "born". Creatures exist. Creatures die. Some creatures are "healthy", and others not so much. Nature may appear to "favor" certain creatures, but it does not. Creatures with big teeth do not always eat smaller creatures because sometimes the smaller creatures are faster or more agile... but sometimes they do. Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you.

Some creatures adapt to new environments, others do not. Those that adapt to new circumstances remain similar to their predecessors. They may change from one type of mosquito into a slightly different type of mosquito, or from one type of fish into a slightly different type of fish. But they do not change from reptiles into birds, or even from toads into salamanders. God created all these creatures to "be fruitful and multiply... according to their own kinds".

But Darwinists seek to remove God from the equation. Nothing "supernatural" allowed. No Creator permitted. Not even an "Intelligent Designer" (despite the less than supernatural ramifications such a label might theoretically imply). And why? Because Man is sinful. Man wants to be God. He is great in his own mind. Man aspires to be the zenith of all living things. The existence of God, a Creator, or even an "intelligent designer" would deny such an aspiration. The existence of God might even require such distasteful things as "obedience" and "worship".

Therefore, they choose to believe that everything "evolved" (the alternative would be too horrifying). They don't believe in "devolution", which implies degradation. They believe in "evolution", which implies improvement. They believe that Man ultimately "evolved" from a single cell creature, and that life in turn "evolved" from lifelessness. By its very nature (no pun intended), the concept of "evolution" is a "progressive" process (with a few admitted occasions of "regressive" evolution or "devolution" to explain things that don't otherwise make sense to them). Man then becomes the zenith of all living things. He is the preeminent being on the planet.


(continued...)
But how can this occur? How can nature "improve itself"? What kind of "natural process" might we conceive of whereby God and the supernatural can be eliminated from the equation? And thus, Darwinism... "natural selection"... survival of the fittest. So be it. And Man saw what Darwin had created, and said that it was good.

Therefore, the concept of "natural selection" is of paramount importance to Darwinists. It is the mechanism whereby nature can "improve itself". It is a "process" that goes from "goo to you". Agonizingly slow: conveniently too slow to observe and prove. Relentless: it doesn't stop when one form of life reaches perfection, otherwise evolution might have ended with the bacteria. Adapting: learning to live without this, or in spite of that. Progressive: adding scales and flesh, eyes and ears, arms and legs, wings and feathers, brains and minds.

And along the way, I've noticed how Darwinists have this tendency to apply human traits to the process of "evolution". Evolution seems to take on a personality of its own. It "favors" things. It "selects" things. It "chooses" things. What causes this tendency?

I believe it is because of what Darwinists do. They are desperately trying to prove a theory that is seriously flawed. They are trying to prove a theory which is almost entirely unsupported by the facts. Therefore, they have to keep asking themselves over and over again: "If I could explain this process, how would I do it? If I were "nature", what would I do? How would 'I' achieve evolution"? The result is that they tend to impose their own personalities onto nature. "This animal is 'the fittest' because, if 'I' were nature, I would favor this animal over that one, or this trait over that one." It started first with Darwin, and continues to this day.

Nature "selects" nothing. Nature "favors" nothing. Nature does not seek to "improve itself". Nature does not tend to "improve itself". Nature does NOT "improve itself". If anything, nature tends to degrade or "devolve".



~~~~~~

Hawkeye,  there are many commenters (and some on our side, even), but I thought this set of comments by you on that particular post were a wonderful example of a learned and logical mind carefully dissecting and exposing the errant thoughts of the propagandized and illogical BUT STILL ABLE TO CAPITALIZE AND BOLD Darwinists who buzz about.  I believe you have made a blog post for me, thank you!




Monday, July 26, 2010

Spotlight on the Insect Man!



It is my honor to introduce Karl Priest to the readers.   Karl is a great educator and an expert on insects who has taught all over the country to a wide variety of audiences as well as having been a guy who took on the Darwinists and defeated them!

Karl's blog has numerous articles that touch on evidence rather than myth.  Before I allow a compatriot to help me with the Darwinists who are rabble-rousing in the comment threads, allow me to present just one of Karl's numerous well-presented essays:  Let’s Squash Natural Selection 
By Karl C. Priest 11-8-2008 (revised 1-10-2010) 

(Originally titled “Let’s Select Out Natural Selection” on 23 October 2007)

“Natural selection” is a vital (perhaps the most vital) premise upon which evolution depends. In their own words: “Natural Selection: applies to all organisms but insects provide perhaps the best model.” (college science class lecture http://ucdnema.ucdavis.edu/imagemap/nemmap/ENT10/slides1.htm)

The change in coloration of peppered moths, to use a phrase from Dr. Jonathan Wells, is an “icon of evolution”. That "icon" is just a stick figure with no substance. For comprehensive information about peppered moths see my article “Moth Marathon”.

The observable phenomenon of insect development of resistance to various chemicals was probably the first argument I heard supporting evolutionism. It was presented by an individual in an audience of intellectuals at the University of Charleston in one of the first engagements of my local creation group (the Kanawha Creation Science Group). The “intellectuals” were mostly evolutionists who thought the creationists would be humiliated if given an opportunity to present our case. The fellow who spouted this attempt to rebut us “ignorant” creationists probably had read something like this: “Insects become resistant to chemical insecticides very rapidly. This can happen in as few as five generations – natural selection at work.” (http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/foodag/concernresistance.html)

It doesn’t take much to respond to this “major proof” of evolution. We start out with a particular insect (a grain beetle for example) and you end up with a grain beetle that is immune to the effects of a particular insecticide. Let me say this s-o-l-w-l-y for the benefit of evolutionists. It...was...and...is...a...grain... beetle.


It works like this. A few of the original beetles have a gene that is resistant to the chemical. The next population of insects will have those individuals and some will be more resistant than others. The third population will have those that are the most resistant and so on.
Evolutionists preach the doctrine of “natural selection” in all kinds of scenarios. Following are two examples that could easily be placed in my article “BWAH HAH HAH HAAAA!”.
“By moving some insects from their customary host plant and protecting others from predators, Nosil found that colour pattern alone could initiate speciation, while natural selection on other traits (like the ability to detoxify host-plant chemicals) were needed to complete the creation of a new species.” (http://www.science.ubc.ca/news/95)

“When a blood-sucking insect 'bites' a sensitized host it must, if it is to survive, depart before the host is alerted by the irritation that accompanies or precedes the 'immediate' reaction. There is a safety period between initial salivary injection by the insect and onset of irritation in the host during which the insect's meal must be completed; immunity from attack by the host must, therefore, depend partly on the speed at which the insect can tap the blood supply and complete its meal, and partly on an adequate delay in the onset of irritation in the host. In mosquitoes, and other insects that depend on a blood meal for egg production, only those that complete the meal within the safety period can lay a full complement of eggs; the others will either be killed or injured by the host before egg development begins, or they will be disturbed before completion of the meal and so lay fewer eggs. Thus, fast feeders and those producing a delay in the onset of irritation will tend to lay more eggs, and these two properties will be maintained by natural selection, with the onset of irritation in the host acting as the main selection force.” ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967RSPSB.167..316G)

Poor old Charles Darwin used insects as a major explanation (using his immense imagination) of natural selection in the evolutionist bible, Origin of Species. In Chapter IV Darwin wrote, “Thus I can understand how a flower and a bee might slowly become, either simultaneously or one after the other, modified and adapted to each other in the most perfect manner, by the continued preservation of all the individuals which presented slight deviations of structure mutually favourable to each other…Natural selection acts only by the preservation and accumulation of small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave, so will natural selection banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure.” 


Actually, the evidence supports a “diluvial wave” (i.e. Noachian flood) and there is no evidence for evolution—even by chanting the magic words “natural selection” three times while standing in the middle of a pentagram.

In Chapter VII Darwin is at his best at spinning yarns, but makes some telling admissions which I have placed in bold print in the following quotation. “I have now explained how, I believe, the wonderful fact of two distinctly defined castes of sterile workers existing in the same nest, both widely different from each other and from their parents, has originated. We can see how useful their production may have been to a social community of ants, on the same principle that the division of labour is useful to civilised man. Ants, however, work by inherited instincts and by inherited organs or tools, while man works by acquired knowledge and manufactured instruments. But I must confess, that, with all my faith in natural selection, I should never have anticipated that this principle could have been efficient in so high a degree, had not the case of these neuter insects led me to this conclusion. I have, therefore, discussed this case, at some little but wholly insufficient length, in order to show the power of natural selection, and likewise because this is by far the most serious special difficulty which my theory has encountered.” (See my article “Ants Make Evolutionism Sterile”.) 

Darwin is dead and the concept of “natural selection” needs to die a natural death.
In "Going to Extremes: The Design Question" (http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=148) a leading apologist for evolutionism, Michael Ruse, attempts to debunk Paley's argument for design Ruse says, "So much for tradition. Darwin exploded a bomb right under it. Not so much thanks to evolution per se but rather because of the mechanism of natural selection." "Selection shows why it is that you have teleology (Ruse defines teleology as the "distinctive aspect of organisms — that they invite a form of forward-looking thought") in the living world without the need for recourse to supernatural origins."

Then he quotes Richard Dawkins, arguably the most prolific evolutionist propagandist, from The Blind Watchmaker: "Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."

After sharing Dawkins' thoughts about adaptation ("the appearance of design"), Ruse states unequivocally, "You cannot get adaptive complexity without natural selection."

Ruse offers support for a theistic evolutionist (TE) position by claiming, "If you do not want to believe in the existence of God, then natural selection shows that you are not compelled to do so on grounds of design." Then he explains how Dawkins would counter a TE: "Natural selection is a mechanism dependent on the struggle for existence — and this means pain and despair. How then could it be that the Christian God — all loving and all powerful — makes the world in a way that necessarily causes evil?"

That opens up the always used atheist argument of "The Problem of Evil" to which Ruse uses Dawkins' conclusion (based upon natural selection) that "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

He says Dawkins has argued, "that adaptation is the mark of the living and that the only way to bring life about was through natural selection. In other words, since God cannot do the impossible, the only way in which God could have created the living world — including us humans — was through natural selection, that is to say through a process causing pain and misery."

In his concluding remarks Ruse clearly equates Natural Selection and Darwinism. "Natural selection (Darwinism) (bolds are mine-KCP) is pertinent, showing that (if anyone ever would claim this) you simply cannot say that such teleology in itself necessitates a belief in the Christian God (or a god with some of the Christian attributes). However, it does not make belief in such a god impossible, and there are Christian traditions (the Augustinian particularly) which might welcome the evolutionary approach." Ruse's thesis is wishy-washy, but that is not the subject of my argument.

In "Rebelling Against Our Selfish Genes" (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/136/story_13698_1.html) Dawkins adds weight to my argument that Christians should avoid using the term "Natural Selection". He says, "As Darwin clearly understood, blindness to suffering is an inherent consequence of natural selection..." Then goes on to elaborate, "A process of trial and error, completely unplanned and on the massive scale of natural selection, can be expected to be clumsy, wasteful and blundering." Dawkins stresses that "natural selection is the dominant force in biological evolution...As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian, believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature."

Even some evolutionists have taken issue with the concept of Natural Selection. In The Great Evolution Mystery (Gordon Rattray Taylor Harper & Row 1983) we find the following.

135: "In an earlier chapter we came across cases where new structures seemed to have appeared before they were needed. If this really happens it completely explodes the theory of natural selection and we need no further evidence to undermine it. What we need is a new theory."

142: "The word 'adaptation' is therefore ambiguous, since it is cheerfully used to mean fitting better into a niche and, on the other hand, modifying, to fill some different niche as when we say, for example, that the mole is adapted for a life underground."

182: "Such cases must mean one of two things, either fatal to the concept of a slow accumulation of variations. Either the same mutations occur repeatedly (in which case they can hardly be due to chance), or the genes are there all the time, but are unmasked in appropriate circumstances."

Pierre P-Grasse' (Evolution of Living Organisms-For A New Theory of Transformations, Academic Press. 1977)devoted an entire chapter to Natural Selection. From that chapter I found the following criticism of Natural Selection.

107 “Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshiped.”

109 “Natural selection remains the foundation of Darwinism, which postulates its universality and makes of it the agent responsible for the evolution of all living organisms.”

115 “In some environments and for some species it takes a great deal of imagination to discover selection at work”.

121 “Natural selection acts as a regulator of the genotype, performing a function of genetic hygiene. As to its role as effective agent of evolution, this is not certain. In fact, if it had the full power attributed to it, it would soon stop evolution.”

128 “Assigning to natural selection the effective execution of evolution means explicitly and implicitly attributing to it a meaning and end.

138 “If selection consciously oversees evolution, how is it possible that, through the ages, so many lines have taken paths which endangered them?”

Someone on the Creation Research Society listserv (CRSnet) once proposed that we avoid the use of the term "microevolution". A good summation of that argument is in the article "Avoid Using These Terms" (http://creationwiki.org/Macroevolution#Avoid_Using_These_Terms under the theme). The author points out, "While either use of microevolution or macroevolution by creationists might be true for some specific examples, as a general rule, the use of these terms should be done with care. Many creationists caution against using either term on the grounds that they detract from the real issue, the gain or loss of information, and are misleading in talking about the size of the change instead of the direction of the change...many evolutionists argue that there is no real difference between the two terms." (There is much more on this subject at the aforementioned link and Answers in Genesis supports this strategy.)

I concur with the need to avoid the use of "microevolution" and add that we now should follow the same strategy with "Natural Selection". (Note: I capitalize "Natural Selection" because it is actually the deity of evolutionists.) But, using Natural Selection as an adjective, I propose that Natural Selection is to Supernatural Creation as atheism is to theism.


Two November 2005 Live Science articles reveal just how important Natural Selection is to evolutionism. Under the title "Behind the Controversy: How Evolution Works" (http://www.livescience.com/othernews/051109_evolution_science.html) Ker Than asserts “Darwin's theory of evolution by Natural Selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.”

Mr. Than elaborates that in order to “understand the origin of whales, it's necessary to have a basic understanding of how natural selection works: It is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring.”

Mr. Than points out the obvious observation that organisms have variations (“Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called "microevolution.") and provides support for my argument that “Natural Selection” should suffer the same fate as “microevolution”.

Not willing to stop with a semblance of scientific rationality, Mr. Than proceeds to make an incredible claim: “But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species. It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales.”

In a separate article ("Darwin's Natural Selection Still at Work in Humans" http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/051102_natural_selection.html) Mr. Than personifies the concept of Natural Selection by claiming “Darwin's natural selection is the process by which nature rewards those individuals better adapted to their environments with survival and reproductive success. It works at the level of genes, sections of DNA that encode for proteins serve as the software of life.” Finally Mr. Than attempts to bolster Natural Selection with a quote from a Cornell biologist who says, “"Our study suggests that natural selection has played an important role in patterning the human genome."

Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo
, in private correspondence with me, provides the fatal blow to the need to use the term Natural Selection. I provide Dr. Mastropaolo’s reasoning verbatim and heartedly say, "Amen!” to his final sentence.

“There is no natural selection because the environment has no effect on the hereditary material. The hereditary material produces vast variation, no two are the same, and that provides for some always surviving.”


“God designed the DNA (and other genetic material) to yield a population with vast variation for each life form. Each individual carries the blueprint for the whole population so that if even one breeding pair survives, the whole population may be reconstituted. It does not matter whether conditions favor big dogs for several decades, then small dogs for several decades, then repeated in any pattern whatsoever, because every dog carries the plan for the entire population.’ 

“There is no 'natural selection' that comes from what the environment does and supposedly directs the "evolution" of the life forms. The plan is in every life form and it could care less what the environment will do because some individuals will survive and from them the whole vastly variable population will survive.”

“This is proven by the definition of lethal, which is the demise of 50% of the population. It takes too long to try to kill 100%. Besides the vastness of the variation in the population, the reason is that each individual is dynamically designed. If the environment turns hot, then unmanifested heat shock proteins will be synthesized from built-in genetic reserves to permit survival in the heat. As the environment changes, the individual appropriately manifests new proteins from its genetic reserves because it is dynamically, not statically, designed."
“All of the above can be experimentally verified with commonplace observations and only God could even conceive of such engineering, let alone make one iota of it work."

"Natural selection is all evolutionist brainwashing." (See pp. 6-20, Biology for the 21st Century.)”

Let’s squash “natural selection”.

Addendum
1. Sincere Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design Advocates fear they will be maligned by scientists if they (YEC’s and IDers) express doubt about the purported powers of Natural Selection (As stated above, I capitalize the term because Natural Selection is deified by Darwinists.) First of all, the two groups (who represent real science verses the anti-science of evolutionism) could hardly be mocked much more maliciously than they are already. Secondly, YEC’s and IDers need to realize that compromise leads to confusion and continues to collusion. For example, the original Methodists would never have imagined how far the denomination has slide since their first compromise with standing for truth. 

(Radar note:  We creationists view natural selection as a description of the speciation that is provided for by the design of the cell by a Creator, who allowed for both contingencies and redundancies to keep kinds able to reproduce and survive in varying circumstances.  Not a power.)

2. The rationale for believing in Natural Selection is that a great Christian scientist, Edward Blyth, is the one who first proposed the concept. But, did he? If he did, does it help the creationist cause? 

The evolutionists could easily embrace Blyth as having first described the basis of Darwinism. One already has, as reported in the Institute for Creation Science article “ Natural Selection - A Creationist's Idea” (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=412). “According to Loren C. Eiseley, Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania before his death, ‘the leading tenets of Darwin's work — the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection, and sexual selection — are all fully expressed’ in a paper written by creationist Edward Blyth…Eiseley, not a creationist, wrote that ‘Blyth is more than a Darwinian precursor, he is, instead, a direct intellectual forebear. . . ." In Eiseley's estimation, Blyth ‘belongs in the royal line . . . one of the forgotten parents of a great classic’…Darwin for some reason chose not to credit creationist Blyth with the key element in his theory — natural selection.”
Blyth “never actually used the term ‘natural selection’” (Dobzhansky, Theodosius 1959. "Blyth, Darwin, and natural selection". The American Naturalist 93 (870):204-206). Other evolutionists try to separate Blyth’s view of selection from Darwin’s. "Blyth's theory was clearly one of elimination rather than selection. His principal concern is the maintenance of the perfection of the type. Blyth's thinking is decidedly that of a natural theologian..." One prominent evolutionist claimes that Blyth “became a strong friend and supporter of Darwinian evolution”. (John Wilkins (2003). "Darwin's precursors and influences: 

4. Natural selection" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth) Even if the last claim is false, there is still no reason for creationists to compromise with a tenet so vital to evolutionism. 

Then there is the argument that “William Wells had actually written of natural selection in 1813…(but), the basic concept of natural selection had been around since ancient Greek time.” http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm)
It is unfair to saddle scientist Blyth with laying the foundation upon which anti-scientist Darwin built. 

Blyth was talking about the same thing as Dr. Mastropaolo was quoted at the conclusion of the above article. Consider how Blyth referred to the Creator.
Blyth’s concept of what he observed was the antithesis of Darwin’s. What Blyth saw pointed to “design , which so clearly and forcibly attest the existence of an omniscient great First Cause”. 

(Bold and italics are mine. KCP)

(http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm


3. I propose that creationists quit playing into the hands of evolutionists. We need not prop up the false science that props up the anti-science of evolutionism.
Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo coined (To the best of my knowledge he is the originator.) “omniscient originality”. That is the correct creationist and scientific term to describe the observations of the survival of living things. 

The following are some snips from Dr. Mastopaolo’s explanation of “omniscient originality”.
“The law of omniscient originality states that each living organism is an original. No living organism was identical to it in the past and no living organism will be identical to it in the future.  Further, each of its parts is an original. Furthermore, each entity in the nonviable universe is an original and each of its parts is an original. 

“The only question remaining may be the source of the omnipresent bounded omniscient originality fact. Evolution cannot do it. It has no brain and omniscient originality requires mega-intelligence. Nature can't do it because it has no brain either and every event devolves, degenerates, the opposite of what is wanted. What is wanted is continual unlimited novelty that is constrained and functional not only for the individual but also for its population and for the byproduct sharing requirements for the survival of the interdependent biosphere.
“There is only one candidate omnipresent omniscient originator.”
 
4. More evolutionists see problems with Natural Selection.
Dr Pagel said that the research shows speciation is the result of rare events in the environment, such as genetic mutations, a shift in climate, or a mountain range rising up. Over the long term new species are formed at a constant rate, rather than the variable rate Pagel's team expected, but the constant rates are different for different groups of species.
The work suggests that natural selection may not be the cause of speciation, which Pagel said "really goes against the grain" for scientists who have a Darwinian view of evolution. The model that provided the best fit for the data is surprisingly incompatible with the idea that speciation is a result of many small small events, Pagel said.
http://www.physorg.com/news179737267.html



The Insectman
INSECTS:  INCREDIBLE AND INSPIRATIONAL

Exterminate Evolutionism
www.insectman.us