Search This Blog

Monday, January 31, 2011

Only propaganda props up Darwin and science doesn't need him...

How often do Darwinists claim to have published evidence "falsifying YEC and ID science?"   Then the same commenters will say that YEC and ID cannot be science because they are not testable!   Then I ask them to test Darwinism...that is when they change the subject.  Can you falsify something without testing?

Simple speaking, we cannot go back either 7,000 years when I believe God created the Universe nor 13.7 Billion years (approximately) when a Big Bang occurred.   We have no home movies of God creating Adam from the dirt of the Earth nor some primordial soup being hit by lightning and coming to life (unless you can find some old Mud Monster comics from the 1960's).    Origins science, such as it is, requires speculation and presuppositions.

So as an historical or forensic science,  Origins science must propose solutions that could possibly account for the present circumstances.   The Genesis account gives us the start to a finite Universe, the beginning of life and the problem of sin and death.   The Noahic Flood explains the sedimentary rock layers and the multitudes of fossils.   But it is those things we see today within organisms that seal the deal.   Organisms are designed.   Somebody had to design them.   The Discovery Institute is happy to say that no one knows who designed life.  But the Christian has a Bible account that gives credit to God.

But the whole Darwinist science is broken because the game is rigged.   Go to Wikipedia and look for abiogenesis, for instance.  

"In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis."

Wikipedia assumes that abiogenesis occurred even though it does not occur today and each of the processes this paragraph describes has been shown to have problems that cannot be resolved so that this entire paragraph is a fairy tale and yet it is what the students in the USA are taught.   Nonsense!!!

Now I think that respectable science respects the Law of Biogenesis until it is broken and it has never been shown to be broken, so the ludicrous fairytale Darwinist proposals are unscientific and they have been debunked one by one.   If you respect science, you say that the Law of Biogenesis falsifies classic Darwinism because every time you attempt any test to get life from non-life it fails!

Then we have a guy telling us that a program written on software by a software engineer and running on a computer designed both hardware and software to do certain functions - designed by intelligence, every bit of it, that this program proves that Darwinism works?!   How can anyone miss the irony there?   A designer programs a program that is supposed to produce information and then wonders why we shake our heads...Come back and see us when the program and computer and software program all evolve from random materials and we will talk!   Darwinists have no respect for information theory, either.  

Everything is secondary to the mad attempt to fool ordinary folks and convince them that Darwinism is scientific and proven.    It violates scientific laws, folks, it is an unproven hypothesis and it's assertions are nonsensical.

As usual, the Big Lie often succeeds where the little lies fail.   If you suggest that a Porsche 911 made itself, that it just came together when someone knocked a big stack of junk over at a junkyard, you would not believe them.  

Yet a human being came from undirected random processes, a series of accidents, over the course of time?
  • Darwinists have no idea where life comes from at all, there answers are all unsupported guesses.
  • Darwinists have no idea where DNA came from for much the same reasons.
  • The typical human cell is more complex and does far more operations per minute than the largest and busiest factory in the world.
  • Humans have about 100 trillion cells in their body.   Just the cells, not considering all parts of the systems and functions and emissions thereofe.
  • Humans probably have 10 to 20 times as many microflora (like bacteria and fungi) living on them and in them, including 500 to 1000 species of bacteria in the digestive tract alone.
  • Humans are packed full of information within those cells, much of it contained in the DNA, and a human DNA strand usually contains a gig of useful information as far as we know now.
  • There are millions of intricately designed systems doing millions of different functions within your body as you read this post.
And you think all that just accidently happens when a few atoms bump into each other over the course of time?    You call that SCIENCE????!!!! 


Jerry Bergmann doesn't and it wasn't that long ago he basically proved it:

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
© 2006 by Jerry Bergman.

Abstract

It is commonly claimed that Darwinism is the cornerstone of the life sciences and that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” To evaluate this claim I reviewed both textbooks used to teach life science class at the college where I teach and those I used in my university course work. I concluded from my survey that Darwinism was rarely mentioned. I also reviewed my course work and that of another researcher and came to the same conclusion. From this survey I concluded that the claim “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is not true.

Introduction

The dean of American biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975), claimed that “evolution” is the cornerstone of biology and is central to understanding both living and extinct organisms (1973).  His statement that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” has been repeated in thousands of articles in order to argue that Darwinism must have a central place in all areas of science education, including medicine, agriculture and biotechnology (for example, see Antolin and Herbers, 2001, p. 2379).  A recent Google.com search revealed over 50,000 hits for this single quote.  Consequently, Darwinists argue, evolution must be a central part of all public school and college life science classes.  In the words of the National Academy of Science, evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things” (1998, p. viii, emphasis mine). Prosser concludes that this claim is made because
The Origin of Species has had more influence on Western culture than any other book of modern times.  It was not only a great biological treatise, closely reasoned and revolutionary, but it carried significant implications for philosophy, religion, sociology, and history.  Evolution is the greatest single unifying principle in all biology (1959. p. 539).
Dawkins opines that, without Darwinism, “biology is a collection of miscellaneous facts” and before children “learn to think in an evolutionary way” the information that students learn
will just be facts, with no binding thread to hold them together, nothing to make them memorable or coherent.  With evolution, a great light breaks through into the deepest recesses, into every corner, of the science of life.  You understand not only what is, but why.  How can you possibly teach biology unless you begin with evolution?  How, indeed, can you call yourself an educated person, if you know nothing of the Darwinian reason for your own existence? (2002, p. 58).
The argument that evolution is central to biology has been around for a few years.  For example the Scopes Trial decision quoted the following words penned by Dr. E. N. Reinke, professor of biology at Vanderbilt University: “The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences.  To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach ... physics without assuming the existence of the ether” (Scopes v. State of Tennessee.  Opinion filed January 17, 1927 page 8).  The ether idea has now been fully refuted, a fact that illustrates the fallibility of the biology claim.

Although Darwinists often talk about the central importance of “evolution” in gaining a basic understanding of the natural world, my research reveals that in the daily work of both scientific education and scientific research, evolution is rarely mentioned (or even a concern).  This has been my experience as a research associate involved in cancer research in the department of experimental pathology at the Medical University of Ohio and as a college professor in the life and behavioral sciences for over 30 years.  As Conrad E. Johanson, Ph.D. (Professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Physiology and Director of Neurosurgery Research at Brown Medical School in Rhode Island) noted, in the world of science research on a day-to-day basis, scientists
rarely deal directly with macroevolutionary theory, be it biological or physical.  For example, in my 25 years of neuroscience teaching and research I have only VERY rarely had to deal with natural selection, origins, macroevolution, etc.  My professional work in science stems from rigorous training in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, not from world views about evolution.  I suspect that such is the case for most scientists in academia, industry, and elsewhere (2003, p. 1).
National Academy of Science Member and renown carbene chemist, Professor emeritus Dr. Philip Skell of Pennsylvania State University (see Lewis, 1992), did a survey of his colleagues that were “engaged in non-historical biology research, related to their ongoing research projects.”  He found that the “Darwinist researchers” he interviewed, in answer to the question, “Would you have done the work any differently if you believed Darwin's theory was wrong?” that “for the large number” of persons he questioned, “differing only in the amount of hemming and hawing” was “in my work it would have made no difference.”  Some added they thought it would for others (2003. p. 1).  Of interest is Molecular, Cell and Development Biology majors at Yale University graduate school will no longer be required to take courses on evolution (Hartman, 1997).  I have noted from my own research that many of the subscriptions to journals focusing on evolution at both the Medical University of Ohio and Bowling Green State University have been dropped (to both my frustration and over my objections).

I also interview several biology professors.  Typical is Tony Jelsma, who obtained his Ph.D. in Biochemistry in 1989 and did postdoctoral research for almost eight years before landing a position teaching at the Dept. of Biology, Dordt College (Sioux Center, IA. 51250).  His B.Sc. (1983) and Ph.D. (1989) were both completed at McMaster University, just down the road from University of Guelph.  He stated that he did not encounter Darwinism in his work or studies except in one undergraduate biochemistry class where he studied the abiotic synthesis of adenine.  If his degrees were in biology instead of biochemistry, he would likely have been exposed to much more Darwinism material.

A Survey of Textbooks

Having taught biology, psychology and related courses at the college level for the past 30 years, I evaluated this claim by examining the content of the major textbooks that we have used to teach science courses.  Most of the biochemistry/molecular biology, genetics, and cell biology texts we have used never, or hardly ever, mentioned Darwinism (see Appendix I).  The only courses that covered it in any detail was Biology 101, Zoology and Anthropology (and even in these classes, in my experience, many instructors skip this section).
Even those chapters labeled “evolution” often spend much time on non-evolution topics, such as basic genetics, human development, population genetics, and similar areas.  None of the anatomy and physiology textbooks we have used ever mentioned evolution.  The only reference to it in the microbiology texts we have used is the development of bacterial resistance (which is not a problem for intelligent design or even creationists. See Bergman, 2003).

Discussion

Judging by these textbooks, Darwinism is often totally ignored in most science classes.  Based on my review of new textbooks, the evolution content, especially of introductory textbooks, is increasing, likely in response to the intelligent design and creationist movements.  Because I have much interest in the subject, I usually cover it in more depth than, in my experience, is usual.  Many of the instructors at the colleges where I have taught largely ignore the sections on evolution, partly because there is a great deal of other material that must be covered and something has to be cut—and many teachers elect to skip evolution because it is one of the least-important subjects in most majors.  How many health care workers need to understand Darwinian theories?  (No concern exists over the development of antibody resistance, something I stress in my microbiology class.)  In short, at least judging by the major textbooks used, the often repeated claim about Darwinism being central to natural science is false.

If, as Dobzhansky stated, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973 emphasis added), why is it rarely, if ever, mentioned in most natural science books?  We usually use the leading college texts in each area (for example, the A&P text we use is the 10th edition of Hole, a standard text).  And why is it a minor topic even in most introductory biology books that cover the subject in more depth than most all other courses except formal classes on evolution?

While developing a college-level course on evolution, I surveyed most 4-year colleges and universities in Ohio and many in Michigan.  Biology majors at the schools surveyed were required to take only one class in evolution (and all schools surveyed used the same text, that by Freeman and Herron, a fairly good text that I also considered for my own evolution class, which is now being developed).

My experience also conforms to the results of the research in this area.  Several studies have found that most future science teachers do not complete courses that focus on evolution as part of their training (Rutledge and Mitchell 2002; and Rutledge and Warden, 2000).  Moore found that “many of todays high school teachers don’t recall hearing the word evolution in their college biology courses, apparently because many biology professors do not teach evolution (Moore, 2004. p. 864).  I am now surveying college biology students and have found that most schools either skip the chapters on evolution, or cover them in only a class or two.  About 30 percent cover both creation and evolution and 20 percent in the students words, “try to jam evolution down our throats” and succeed primarily in turning off students to biology (and often science as well).

Another problem is many who teach Darwinism objectively are accused of not teaching it at all when in fact they cover it in much more depth then most teachers (see Moore, 2004a).

Coverage of Darwinism in My College Science Course Work

I also reviewed all of my graduate and undergraduate college course work in science to determine the time spent on Darwinism in each class.  The review includes course work taken at Wayne State University, Medical University of Ohio, Bowling Green State University, University of Wisconsin, Miami University (Oxford, OH), University of Toledo, University of California, Berkeley, and several other colleges.  All hours were converted to quarter hours, and some classes are in process.

The review of my own course work (over 1,000 quarter hours) completed at seven universities and five colleges conforms to my teaching experience.  Except in courses devoted to evolution, the subject was rarely covered in science classes although it did come up occasionally in other classes (see Appendix II).  I found that during my biology/natural science education, which entailed over eight years of full-time college, Darwinism was rarely mentioned.  For my graduate degree in biomedical science, it never came up either in class or in the textbooks except to note that a gene was “evolutionary conserved” (meaning only that the gene sequence is very similar in most life forms, both advanced and primitive).

Because this is a topic in which I was very interested when in college, whenever it was discussed, I listened attentively (and would have remembered if it was discussed in the class).  Based on detailed notes that I have retained, even the course that I took on evolution covered mostly the history of the creation-evolution conflict, genetics, animal breeding, and related topics.  Darwinism actually was probably more often discussed in behavioral science classes and texts compared to natural science classes—and in these cases it was often assumed to be true.  The evolutionary world view dominated, and Darwinism, including naturalism, was rarely questioned, even in my Bible as Literature class.

Dr. Scott Hanson also reviewed his course work at a major Canadian University, the results of which are found in Appendix III.  The results of his survey were very similar to those found for my study.
The message that Darwinists convey to the public is often very different than what they recognize as true among themselves.  Although they state to the public that, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” most scientists can “conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas” (Witham, 2002, p. 43).  One “notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution.  It’s day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology” (Witham, 2002, p. 43).
Darwinists “are loath to display publicly their internal divisions.”  An exception is a challenge by mathematicians at Philadelphia's Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology that “drew evolutionists of some note.”  The result of the conference was “the mathematicians and the biologist agreed to disagree” (Witham, 2002, p. 37).  In short, the mathematicians believed that, in contrast to the evolutionists, it “seemed improbable that the mere shuffling of genes could yield such combinations as a DNA molecule of the human brain, or move through populations and produce dramatically new species” (Witham, 2002, p. 37).

The fact that presenting both sides may convince many students to reject the Darwinist side is a major motivation for the almost fanatic efforts by Darwinists to ensure that only one side of the controversy is taught.  Eugenie Scott, in contrast to the empirical literature (and the experience of most teachers), argues that only pure unadulterated evolution should be taught (and should be taught as fact) because “using creation and evolution topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution.”  Her real concern is that teaching both sides “may lead them to reject one of the major themes of science” i.e. Darwinism (Witham, 2002, p. 23).  In this she is probably correct.

Conclusion

My review agrees with Adam S. Wilkins’ conclusions published in the journal BioEssays.  Wilkins’ flips Dobzhansky’s quote upside down, concluding that
evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole.  While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas.  ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one (2000, p. 1051, emphasis mine).
O’Leary adds that the reason why
evolution is “highly superfluous” is that, in reality, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of biochemistry, which is what gives biology its place in the linked chain of sciences.  Evolution is a form of history, a history that may or may not have happened as described in any current work on the subject (2004, p. 100).
Many scientists are aware of the fact that Darwinism is largely ignored in science instruction.  One good example provided by Dawkins involved an after lunch discussion with the teachers. He concluded that almost every teacher
confided that, much as they would like to, they didn’t dare to do justice to evolution in their classes.  This was not because of intimidation by fundamentalist parents (which would have been the reason in parts of America).  It was simply because of the A-level syllabus.  Evolution gets only a tiny mention, and then only at the end of the A-level course.  This is preposterous, for, as one of the teachers said to me, quoting the great Russian American biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky ..., Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’ (2003, p. 58).
This statement is ideologically not factual.  Biology makes perfect sense without ever mentioning Darwinism.  Likewise Shanks’ (2004 p. 228) claim that “evolutionary biology is the veritable glue that holds all the disparate branches of biological inquiry together and gives common focus to their collective endeavors” could hardly be true if it is not even covered in most science course work.  Shanks argument that if you take away evolution “the biological sciences would degenerate into an incoherent collection of rudderless ships” is irresponsible because evolution is often not in either course work or textbooks.  The problem is, as recounted in The Harvard Crimson:
Although the postmodern era questions everything else—the possibility of knowledge, basic morality and reality itself—critical discussion of Darwin is taboo.  While evolutionary biologists test Darwin’s hypothesis in every experiment they conduct, the basic premise of evolution remains a scientific Holy of Holies, despite our absurd skepticism in other areas.  Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins writes: “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who does not believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane.”  Biologists continue to recite the worn credo, “the central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution.”  But where would physics be if Einstein had been forced to chant, “the central unifying principle of physics is Newtonian theory,” until he could not see beyond its limitations? (Halvorson, 2003, p. 4).
My conclusion also agrees with Wells, who also concluded the claim
that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is demonstrably false.  A person can be a first-rate biologist without being a Darwinist.  In fact, a person who rejects Dobzhansky’s claim can be a better biologist than one who accepts it uncritically.  The distinctive feature and greatest virtue of natural science, we are told, is its reliance on evidence.  Someone who starts with a preconceived idea and distorts the evidence to fit it is doing the exact opposite of science.  Yet this is precisely what Dobzhansky’s maxim encourages people to do (Wells, 2000, p. 247).

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Bert Thompson Ph.D., Jody Allen R.N. and Eric Blievernicht B.S. for their very helpful feedback on an earlier version of this article.

References

Antolin, Michael F. and Joan M. Herbers. 2001. “Perspective: Evolution’s Struggle for Existence in America’s Public Schools.” Evolution, 55(12):2379-2388.
Bergman, Jerry. 2003. “Does the Acquisition of Antibiotic Resistance Provide Evidence for Macroevolution?” T.J. Technical Journal 17(3):89-95.
Court Case. 2002. “Does a Science Teacher’s Right to Free Speech Entitle Him or Her to Teach “Evidence Against Evolution”?” LeVake v. Independent School District #656, 625 N.W. 2d 502 [MN Ct. of Appeal 2000], cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1081 [2002].
Dawkins, Richard. 2002. A Devils Chaplain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1973. “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.” American Biology Teacher, 35:125-129.
Freeman, Scott and Jon C. Herron. 2001. Evolutionary Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.
Halvorson, Richard. 2003. “Confessions of a Skeptic.” The Harvard Crimson, April. 7, p. 4.
Hartman, Noel. 1997. “MC&D Biology Eliminates Evolution Requirement.” Yale Daily News, Thursday, March 27.
Jelsma, Tony. Letter to author.
Johanson, Conrad. 2003. Personal communication to the author dated September 2, 2003.
Lewis, Ricki. 1992. “Metal Atom Vapor Chemistry: A Field Awaits Its Breakthrough.” The Scientist, 6(3):22, Feb. 03.
Moore, Randy 2004. “How Well do Biology Teachers Understand the Legal Issues Associated with the Teaching of Evolution” BioScience. 54(9):860-865.
__________. 2004a. “When a Biology Teacher Refuses to Teach Evolution: A Talk with Rod LeVake.” American Biology Teacher, 66:246-250.
O’Leary, Denyse. 2004. By Design or Chance. Kitchener, Ontario: Castle Quay Books
Prosser, C.L. 1959. “The ‘Origin’ after a Century: Prospects for the Future?” American Scientist, 47(4):536-550, Dec.
Rutledge, M.L. and W.A. Warden. 2000. “Evolutionary theory, the Nature of Science and High School Biology Teachers: Critical Relationships.” American Biology Teacher, 62:23-31.
Rutledge, M.L. and M.A. Mitchell. 2002. “High School Biology Teachers’ Knowledge Structure, Acceptance, and Teaching of Evolution.” American Biology Teacher, 64:21-28.
Shanks, Niall. 2004. God, the Devil. and Darwin. New York. Oxford University Press.
Skell, Philip. 2003. Personal communication to the author dated September 3, 2003.
National Academy of Science. 1998. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Wells, Jonathan. 2000. Icons of Evolution. Washington, D.C.: Regnery.
Wilkins, Adam S. 2000. “Introduction (issue on Evolutionary Processes).” BioEssays, 22(12):1051-1052, December.
Witham, Larry. 2002. Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Appendix I

The College Natural Science Texts I Have Used in
the Past 20 Years and their Evolution Coverage
Text Biological Evolution Content
1. Introduction to Biology  
Biology (Sylvia Mader)
McGraw Hill 6th edition.1998.
A total of 4 chapters cover evolution out of 51, occasionally mentioned in the other 47 chapters.
Life (Ricki Lewis, et al.)
McGraw Hill 4th edition. 2002.
One unit on evolution (5 chapters outof 45), occ asionally mentioned elsewhere.
Essential Biology. Campbell, Reece, and Simon.
Pearson. 2004
Mentions Darwinism in almost every chapter, and one whole unit on evolution (unit 3, chapters 13 to 17 plus parts of chapter 18).
2. Anatomy and Physiology  
Anatomy and Physiology (Hole, et al.)
McGraw Hill 10th ed 2003.
None.
Principles of Anatomy and Physiology
(Tortora and Grabowski) Harper Collins. 1996.
None.
3. Biochemistry/molecular Biology  
Biochemistry, A Foundation (Peck Ritter)
Brooks Cole. 1996.
A few sentences or very short paragraphs added, seemingly as an afterthought, in a few sections.
General, Organic, and Biochemistry
(William Brown and Elizabeth Rogers) Brooks Cole 1987.
None.
General, Organic, and Biological Chemistry
(Sally Solomon) McGraw Hill. 1987.
None.
Foundations of Life: An Introduction of General, Organic, and Biological Chemistry. Third Edition.
(Feigl, Hill, and Erwin Boschmann) Macmillan. 1991.
None.
Fundamentals of General, Organic, and Biological Chemistry. 2nd Edition.
(McMurry and Castellion) Prentice-Hall. 1996.
None.
4. Microbiology  
The Microbial Perspective (Nester, et al.)
Saunders. 1982.
Mentioned only in relationship to bacterial resistance.
Microbiology (Jacquelyn Black)
Wiley N.Y. 5th ed. 2002.
Microevolution briefly discussed (such as in the section of the development of bacterial resistance).
5. Genetics  
Human Genetics (Ricki Lewis)
McGraw Hill 5th ed. 2003.
Parts of 1 chapter out of 22, a few sections elsewhere.
6. Zoology  
College Zoology (Richard Boolootian and Karl Stiles)
Macmillan 10th edition. 1981.
One chapter (chapter 41, pp. 664-686); also mentioned in a few other places.
Zoology (Hickman et al.)
McGraw Hill 12th edition. 2003.
Parts of 1 chapter and short sections in several other chapters out of 38 chapters.
7. Anthropology  
Anthropology (Ember and Ember)
Prentice-Hall 5th edition. 2003
Parts of 5 chapters out of 22 chapters
Anthropology (Konrad Kottak)
McGraw Hill 10th ed. 2003.
Major parts of 3 chapters and small sections of 2 other chapters out of 25 chapters
8. Chemistry  
Fundamentals of Chemistry (Ralph Burns)
Prentice-Hall 4th ed. 2003.
None.
Chemistry and Society (Jones et al.)
New York: Saunders 5th ed. 1987
None.
9. Geology  
Essentials of Geology (Chernicoff and Fox)
Houghton Mifflin 2nd edition. 2003.
Rarely mentioned. Coverage mostly in last chapter.
10. Physical Science  
Physical Science Principles and Applications (Payne, Falls and Whidden)
Dubuque, IA: Wm. C Brown. 1992.
None. (Mentioned only once on page 320 in reference to DNA.)

Appendix II

Undergraduate and Graduate Sciences Classes Completed by Jerry Bergman at Wayne State University; Medical College of Ohio; University of California, Berkeley; University of Toledo; University of Wisconsin; Bowing Green State University and other Colleges and Universities
Number Course Title (Credits.) Darwinism Content
Biology/Science  
BIO 0161 Anatomy & Physiology I (5) None
BIO 0162 Anatomy & Physiology II (4) None
BIO 0151 General Biology I (6) Some in chapter II of text (Kimball)
BIO 0152 General Biology II (6) All of chapter VII (p. 540-614) but was not covered in class
BIO 0507 Genetics (4) Mentioned briefly (the professor often mocked creationists)
BIO 0220 Introduction to Microbiology (4) None
BIO 0271 Comparative Vertebrate Zoology (6) Almost none
BIO 0509 Evolution (4) Topic of class, mostly covered history, genetics, and other topics that did not review evidence for the theory
BIO 137 Surface Phenomena in Physical and Biological Systems (4) None
PSY 0330 Psychophysiology (4) None
HYG 0281 Individual Hygiene (3) None
PER 0172 First Aid (4) None
SCE 3561 Science in the Elementary Schools (4) None
GEG 0652 Field Study (4) None
GEG 0390 Directed Study (2) None
PHY 0191 Physics and Astronomy (4) None
GSC 0156 Physical Science/Chemistry (4) None
GEO 0110 World and Regional Geography (4) None
GEO 0210 Elements of Geography (4) None
U420-100 General Geology (4) None
U640-100 Meteorology (3) None
U736-101 Introduction to Philosophy (5) Discussed very briefly in several units
U224-103 General Chemistry I (4) None
U224-104 General Chemistry II (4) None
CHM 698.0 Organic Chemistry (3) None
CHM 698 Topics in Biochemistry Technology (3) None
20.879 Basic and Advanced Light Microscopy (4) None
PSY 0490 Biology of Learning (4) None
BIO 2805 Substance Abuse (3) None
U694-132 Nutrition Today (4) None
NV 0502 Topics in Nutrition (8) None
BIO 0332 Nutrition and Health Habits (3) None
BIO 0523 Studies in Literature (Biological Evolution) (4) Topic of class
BIO 0507 Evaluation Concepts and Methods (Eugenics) (12) Topic of class
BIO 0508 Biometry (12) None
BIO 0515 Human Development (Brain & Communication) (8) None
BIO 0521 Holism, Concept: Its Origins and Implications (4) None
BIO 0522 Ecology (4) None
BIO 0523 Health and Healing Perspectives (4) None
BIO 0507 Parasitology (4) None
BIO 0573 Neuroscience (4) None
BIO 0503 Cell Ultrastructure (4) None
BIO 0502 Cell Biology (4) None
MM 0311 Materials and Methods (3) None
MM 0512 Doctoral Supplement: Materials and Methods (1) None
IS 0542 Ph.D. Diss. (noninvasive biology research/diagnostic tech.) (12) None
10.651 Basic Science Interdepartmental Seminar (1) Mentioned briefly
03.521 Recombinant DNA Methodology (2) None
156898.02 Computed Tomography (4) None
03.673 Research in Biochemistry (14) None
03.657 Readings in Biochemistry (2) None
03.672 Current topics in Biochemistry (3) None
03.672 Current topics in Biochemistry (2) None
20.886 Transmission Electron Microscopy (5) None
20.877 Scanning Electron Microscopy (4) None
15.889.09 Radiology: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (4) None
CHM. 698 Separation Science (3) None
20.611.01 Human Genetics (3) None
15.898.02 Computer Tomography (4) None
20.673 Research, Biomedical Science (4) None
50.699 Thesis Research (8) None
50.699 Thesis Research (4) None
10.672 Current Topics in Pathology (Cancer) (4) None
IND1500 Structure and Function of Normal Body (12) None
IND1699 Thesis Research (10) None
CHM 699.7 Research in Chemical Education.(1.5) None
NERS 856 Readings in Neural Science. (1.5) None
DENT 656 Readings in Oral Biology. (1.5) None
PUBH689 Independent Study in Environment Health. (4) None
CHM 698.M Risks and Choices (5) None
OCCH 501 Occupational Health (4) None
CHM 699V Industrial Chemistry follow-up (1.5) None
PUBH 601 Public Health Epidemiology (4) None
OCCH 673 Research in Occupational Health (4) None
PUBH 603.01 Advanced Epidemiology (4) None
CHM 698.P Foods and Flavors (3) None
CHM 698.T Science of Pyrotechnics (3) None
PUBH 698 Capstone Seminar (4) None
HEAL 6600 Health Behavior (4) None
PUBH 605 Intro to Environmental Health (4) None
PUBH 696 Public Health Internship (3) None
CI 5950 Foundations of Grant Writing (4) None
PATH 620.10 Principles of Toxicology (4) None
PUBH 696 Public Health Internship (1) None
CHM 689 Microscope (4) None
PUBH 604 Public Health Administration (4) None
PUBH 515 Principles of Environmental Health (4) None
PUBH 550 Public Health Microbiology (4) None
CHM 629 Chemical Aspects of Forensic Science (4) None
CHM 628c Pharmacology (4) None
HEAL 6640 Issues in Public Health (4) None
OCCH 561 Physical Agents (4) None
OCCH 689 Independent Study (Mutations)(4) None
OCCH 510 Human Systems and Occupational Diseases (3) None
OCCH 640 Environmental and Occupational Health Law (3) None
CHM 689 Safety (2) None
CHM 689 Artful Chemistry (3) None
OCCH 505 Principles of Occupational Safety (3) None
OCCH 520 Air Monitoring and Analytical Methods (4) None
CHM 627 Chemistry Research (5) None
CHM 689 Chemistry of Corrosion (3) None
OCCH 699 Thesis Research (4) None
OCCH 535 Human Factors and Ergonomics (3) Several sections alluded to evolution as being a reason for back and other health problems
OCCH 525 Chemistry of Hazardous Materials (3) None
MAT 0151 Comparative Mathematics (4) None
ELE 3315 Methods & Materials in Mathematics (4) None
PSY 0310 Statistical Methods (4) None
EER 6660 Field Studies in Research (4) None
EER 9666 Directed Research (4) None
EER 7661 Evaluation and Measurement (4) None
EER 7664 Fundamental Research Skills (4) None
EER 9668 Advanced Research and Experimental Design (4) None
EER 7663 Fundamentals of Statistics (4) None
EER 8663 Advanced Problems in Measurement (4) None
EER 7665 Computer Use in Research (4) None
EER 8664 Variance and Co-Variance Analysis (4) None
EER 9666 Research Problems (4) None
EER 9669 Doctoral Research (Evaluation and Research) (45) None
Total hours: 549
In my experience, Darwinism is often discussed in non-science classes. For this reason I also evaluated my nonscience course work, mostly in the behavioral science area.
Psychology  
PSY 0251 Introduction to Psychology (4) mentioned in several chapters
PSY 0340 Developmental Psychology (4) briefly mentioned
PSY 0305 Psychology of Perception (4) none
PSY 0335 Theories of Personality (4) none
PSY 0310 Statistical Methods Psychology (4) none
PSY 0460 Social Psychology (4) briefly mentioned
EDP 3731 Introduction to Study of Child (4) briefly mentioned
PSY 0330 Psychology of Adjustment (4) none
PSY 0430 Abnormal Psychology (5) none
PSY 0111 Industrial Psychology (3) none
EDP 5745 Child Psychology (3) none
EDP 7735 The Learning Process (3) none
CP 7830 Environment and Child Psy. (6) none
CP 6831 Intro. to Psychological Testing (3) none except eugenics was covered unobtrusively
EDP 7741 Human Developmental Psychology (4) briefly mentioned
EDP 5741 Mental Hygiene and Education (3) none
EDP 7731 Advanced Educational Psychology (6) none
EDP 5742 Juvenile Delinquency and Schools (3) none
EDP 5745 Adolescent Psychology (3) none
EGC 7701 Role of the Teacher in Guidance (3) none
EGC 7704 Case Problems in Guidance (3) none
EGC 7705 The Counseling Process (3) none
EDP 7749 Terminal Master Dissertation (4) was encountered in my research.
PSY 0303 Intro to Experimental Psychology (6) briefly mentioned
PSY 0562 Psychology of Influence (4) none
PSY 0628 Psychoanalytic Theory (4) none
PSY 0330 Psychophysiology (4) briefly mentioned
PSY 0480 Concept Dev. in Children (4) none
PSY 0508 Behavior Pathology I (5) none
PSY 0509 Behavior Pathology II (5) none
PSY 0440 Social Issues in Child Dev. (4) none
PSY 0580 Psy of Chiliastic Movements (4) none
REH 0567 Community Approach to Counseling (4) none
PSY 0682 Issues in EEOC Compliance (3) none
REH 0558 Psychosocial Aspects of Disability (3) none
Total hours: 137
Sociology  
SOC 0251 Introduction to Sociology (4) none
SOC 0514 Social Stratification (4) none
SOC 0541 Juvenile Delinquency (4) covered briefly
SOC 0202 Social Problems (3) discussed in connection with biological theories of crime.
SOC 0506 The Family (4) covered in class, not in textbook
SOC 0600 Methods in Social Research (4) none
SOC 0616 Industrial Sociology (4) none
SOC 0508 Race Relations in the U.S.A. (4) none
SOC 0550 Marriage & Family Problems (4) none
SSC 0151 Foundation of Modern Society, I (4) covered briefly
SSC 0152 Foundation of Modern Society, II (4 ) covered briefly
EDS 7621 Educational Sociology (3) none
EDS 7623 Intergroup Rel. Comm. & School (4) none
POL 0511 Public Opinion & the Political Process (4) none
POL 0151 American Government (5) none
SOC 0460 Social Psychology (4) none
ECI 0251 Basic Economics (5) social Darwinism covered briefly
ANT 0210 Introduction to Anthropology (5) covered rather extensively in both reading and lectures.
SOC 0612 Community (4) none
SOC 0680 Women and Institutions (4) none
SOC 0670 The Sociology of Homosexuality (4) none
SOC 0540 The Sociology of Education (4) none
SOC 0561 Corrections (4) discussed in connection with biological theories of crime.
SOC 0599 Master's Thesis (10) none
SOC 0590 Juvenile Delinquency (4) none
SOC 0544 Deviant Behavior (4) none
SOC 0682 Issues in Criminology (4) none
SOC 0570 Studies in Suicide 4) none
SOC 0652 Collective Behavior (4) none
SOC 0504 Development of Modern Sociology (4) none
SOC 0680 Ethnic Groups in America (4) none
SOC 0562 Criminal Law (4) none
SOC 0523 Sociology of Organization (4) none
SOC 0525 Demography (4) covered as related to population problems.
SOC 0535 Proseminar in Social Psychology (4) none
SOC 0680 Police and Community (4) none
SOC 0580 Social Gerontology (4) none
SOC 0580 World Poverty (4) none
SOC 0580 Theories of Social Problems (4) none
SOC 0580 Sociology of Sport (4) none
SOC 0580 Applied Social Research (4) none
SOC 0502 Modern Social Theory (4) none
SOC 0460 Family and Sex Roles (4) none
SOC 0660 Theories of Criminology (4) none
SOC 0670 Male Sex Roles (4) none
SOC 0660 Myth and Myth Making (4) some coverage as related to world myths
Total hours: 191
Education/Library Science  
ED 3015 Schools and Society (4) none
SSE 4571 Methods Social Stud. Ed. (4) none
SSE 4572 Student Teaching Seminar--High School (4) none
ELE 3321 Literature for Children (4) none
ELE 4312 Student Teaching (Elementary) (16) none
SSH 4572 Student Teaching (Secondary) (16) none
SPE 5404 Diagnostic Speech Improvement (3) none
ELE 3317 Methods & Materials of Lang. Arts Ed. (4) none
EDP 3601 Introduction to the Philosophy of Ed. (4) covered both in the text and in class
LIB 0101 Introduction to Library (4) none
LIB 0103 Introduction to Audio-Visual Material (5) none
IT 5761 Technology in Education (4) none
Total hours: 72
History  
HIS 0201 American Democracy to 1815 (4) none
HIS 0202 American Democracy 1815-1885 (4) none
HIS 0110 The World and the West-Foundations (4) covered briefly
HIS 0120 The World and the West 800-1700 (4) covered rather extensively in both the text and classroom lectures.
HIS 0130 The World and the West-Modern (4) covered in relation to the Scopes trial.
Total hours: 20
Other Course work  
DRT 0111 Lay Out Drafting (4) none
DRT 0112 Production Drafting (4) none
ENG 0205 Composition and Literature (4) none
ENG 151 English I (4) covered indirectly.
ENG 152 English II (4) covered indirectly
ENG 261 Public Speaking (4) not covered
GER 0090 German Ph.D. Reading Requirement German(6) not covered
GRK 0101 Elementary Greek (4) not covered
ENG 0234 English Bible as Literature (4) covered in class discussions
ART 0156 Art Appreciation (4) not covered
PE 0134 Handball (1) none
PE 0135 Archery (1) none
PE 0136 Bowling (1) none

Appendix III

Undergraduate and Graduate Biological Sciences Classes completed in the University of Guelph Honors Program
Course Title Darwinism Content
Fundamental Chemistry None
Organic Chemistry None
Biochemistry None
Introductory Zoology Darwinism discussed or implied in text, at best a minor part of the course
Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy Text contained some discussion of evolution, assumed to be true
Biophysics I None
Biophysics II None
Calculus None
Advanced Calculus None
Introductory Statistics None
Genetics None
Electives None
Preveterinary Year (Major course work only)  
Health Management I None
Health Management II None
Animal Nutrition None
Veterinary Embryology None
Year One, Doctor Veterinary Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph  
Veterinary Biochemistry None
Veterinary Anatomy None
Veterinary Physiology None
Veterinary Histology None
Veterinary Bacteriology None (did mention antibiotic resistance)
Veterinary Virology None
Veterinary Parasitology None
Veterinary Medicine I None
Veterinary Genetics None
Health Management I None
Clinical Medicine I None
DVM Year Two  
Health Management II None
Veterinary Pathology None
Clinical Medicine II None
Theriogenology None
Veterinary Anesthesiology None
Principles of Veterinary Surgery None
Veterinary Epidemiology None
DVM Year Three  
Clinical Pathology None
Food Animal Medicine and Surgery None
Bovine Medicine and Surgery None
Equine Medicine and Surgery None
Small Animal Medicine and Surgery None
Surgical Exercises None
Clinical Medicine III None
Exotic Animal Medicine and Surgery None
Veterinary Clinical Rotations None
Veterinary Internship None

Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo.  He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, Medical College of Ohio and at other colleges and universities.  He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics.  He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals.   


~~~~~~~~

Also you will want to check out the site below:



Take a look at Ian Juby's index page for his online representation of his Creation Museum.   He has all sorts of interesting evidence and representations of tests that have been done.   My page cannot display his properly so you want to go there!

you are taking the virtual tour of the

Creation Science Museum of Canada

on Ian Juby's website

 

Index of displays in the virtual tour

These are displays, fossils and artifacts in the collection of the Creation Science Museum of Canada, each with a brief description.  They are all available to come to your group or facility along with a presentation.
Display #1:  The Bacterial Flagella
Display #2:  Fossil Ammonite & design in nature
Display #3:  The Hydroplate globe
Display #4:  Fossil Replicas
Display #5:  Archaeopteryx Lithographica cast
Display #6:  Pot in coal
Display #7:  Hammer in creataceous rocks (The London Artifact)
Display #8:  Fossilized human finger in Cretaceous gravels
Display #9:  Fast growing stalactites
Display #10:  The Paluxy tracks, track #1, the "Becky" track
Display #11:  The Paluxy tracks, track #2 & 3, the Burdic tracks
Display #12:  The Hadrosaur skull with T-Rex bite marks
Display #13:  The Tylosaur skull
Display #14:  Hearts of organisms
Display #15: Dinosaur Egg Nests



51 comments:

Anonymous whatsit said...

"How often do Darwinists claim to have published evidence "falsifying YEC and ID science?""

Certainly frequently mentioned in the comments on your own blog.

"Then the same commenters will say that YEC and ID cannot be science because they are not testable!"

You're confusing two things here. ID is not testable and therefore a dead end, scientifically speaking. YEC is testable and falsified.

"Then I ask them to test Darwinism...that is when they change the subject."

If by "Darwinism" you mean the theory of evolution, then this is a flat-out lie. Your response to quite a number of falsifiable claims that confirm the theory of evolution was met with a lame evasion to an ad hominem.

"Can you falsify something without testing?"

Testing is done by observation and/or experimentation. You can falsify something by demonstrating that the observation does not live up to the falsifiable claim.

For example, if the global flood story portrayed in the Bible were true, we would expect to see fossils either all jumbled up or sorted according to some physical similarities. Test: we look at the fossil record. We don't find this at all. Instead we find fossils in a sequential progression exactly as predicted by the theory of evolution and an old Earth.

Anonymous said...

"Then we have a guy telling us that a program written on software by a software engineer and running on a computer designed both hardware and software to do certain functions - designed by intelligence, every bit of it, that this program proves that Darwinism works?"

Do you ever actually read the comments on your blog? How can you have misunderstood them so completely?

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, it's ironic that you would post this steaming mass of drivel from Bergmann the day after a study was published that demonstrates how wrong his conclusion is.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/scopes-weeps/

Most students never find out how important evolutionary theory is to the life sciences because most teachers don't teach it -- thanks largely to the influence of Radar and his ilk. The vitriol and venom that are directed at evolutionary theory, the coordinated effort to discredit and destroy it and anyone who supports it -- the large majority of teachers look at this and say to themselves "it's not worth it," and simply avoid the whole subject. (Not to mention the one-in-five biology teachers who are themselves creationists and themselves tell their students that evolutionary theory is wrong.)

As for the 'testability' issue: remember, the definition of 'testable' is that some observation exists, or some experiment can be done, that all observers agree can show unequivocally that the hypothesis is wrong. To any rational person, the accumulated mass of evidence does falsify YEC. The fact that Radar still defends YEC in the face of the no-young-isotopes phenomenon, and fossiliferous LIPs, and the highly sequential fossil record, and numerous other observed facts -- shows pretty clearly that in his mind there's no observation that could falsify YEC ... and so, he isn't doing science.

Anon asked: "How can you have misunderstood them so completely?"

Because Radar holds rigidly to a 'fruit of the poisoned tree' doctrine: any involvement by intelligence, at any stage, in any way, makes the entire product a direct result of intelligent, intentional action.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Simple speaking, we cannot go back either 7,000 years when I believe God created the Universe nor 13.7 Billion years (approximately) when a Big Bang occurred. We have no home movies of God creating Adam from the dirt of the Earth nor some primordial soup being hit by lightning and coming to life (unless you can find some old Mud Monster comics from the 1960's)."

We do, however, have overwhelming evidence that the world is well over 10,000 years old. This is where you're supposed to put your fingers in your ears and start dissembling.

"Origins science, such as it is, requires speculation and presuppositions."

As does all science. But that's not where it ends. (Except for ID, which is stuck in a dead end as it can not test for its own claims, and YEC, which is falsified quite easily.)

"So as an historical or forensic science, Origins science must propose solutions that could possibly account for the present circumstances."

... and then test them against observable evidence.

"The Genesis account gives us the start to a finite Universe, the beginning of life and the problem of sin and death."

How are sin and death a "problem"?

"The Noahic Flood explains the sedimentary rock layers and the multitudes of fossils."

It does not explain the arrangement of the multitudes of fossils in those sedimentary rock layers and is in fact falsified by their arrangement.

"But it is those things we see today within organisms that seal the deal. Organisms are designed. Somebody had to design them."

"Organisms are designed" is unsupported speculation.

"The Discovery Institute is happy to say that no one knows who designed life. But the Christian has a Bible account that gives credit to God."

And other cultures and religions have other creation myths. This in itself is not terribly remarkable.

"But the whole Darwinist science is broken because the game is rigged. Go to Wikipedia and look for abiogenesis, for instance. [...] Wikipedia assumes that abiogenesis occurred even though it does not occur today and each of the processes this paragraph describes has been shown to have problems that cannot be resolved so that this entire paragraph is a fairy tale and yet it is what the students in the USA are taught. Nonsense!!!"

Sloppy reading, Radar. The processes that this paragraph describes have not "been shown to have problems that cannot be resolved", since they don't describe the processes of abiogenesis, but life as we know it today. No fairy tale. Read more carefully next time.

radar said...

Transference - look it up.

Darwinism means nothing to operational science and it is not used. ID is now a given in several disciplines. We know the cellular structures and processes are designed because of how they are produced and how they are regulated.

Sedimentary rock layers - real world investigation completely falsifies a uniformitarian causation. Commenters who say otherwise are counting on the ignorance of the audience. The rock layers are consistent with the flood event, period, but have features impossible to explain by Darwinists. I have done many posts on this and you gotta be stuck on duh to believe otherwise.
Unless you believe hundreds of miles of rock layers can agree to shuffle themselves, trees can grow without root systems for millions of years or grow upside down, boulders can hover in midair for millions of years, a whale carcass can spend several generations standing straight up waiting for sediments to form around it and it goes on and on. The real story of the rock records is flood during the start, actions of currents during the flood event, and the dynamic and dangerous world of the post-flood runoff and ice age.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

This investigation you mention, does it prove a WORLDWIDE flood?

radar said...

There are sedimentary rock formations that span much of North America and then reappear in Europe. I've traveled all over the USA and found time and time again the cake-layered sedimentary rocks typifying a flood event only on an immense scale. Mt. St. Helens was a tiny miniscule fraction of what that event would have been like but we saw how catastrophic mixed with flooding works and the evidence left behind. The surprising number of quickly-formed separate layers, the trees uprooted and then aggregated, ready to become polystrate fossils had it been a bigger flood, the canyon formed in rapidity resembling a miniature Grand Canyon.

All the fossils preserved so nicely and so many bottom-dwellers buried too fast to begin to be scavenged, the dinosaur eggs haphazardly dumped and buried, the more advanced and larger animals leaving trackways apparently fleeing floodwaters and even partially scavenged and then buried fossils all speak to a 40 day catastrophic flood buildup, followed by about half a year of completely submerged Earth and huge mats of vegetation and one Ark navigating the surface.

There was another long period of water receding into deepening ocean chasms and the tectonic plates that buried themselves under the surface still show up as inexplicably "cold" temperatures in the mantle. The plates separated and formed the puzzle-piece continents we see now.

After the flood came the ice age for the non-equatorial regions, with massive secondary flood events as dikes broke, quick and terrible storms raged (some animals are found buried in dust or silt storms) and huge snowfalls built glaciation all over, thus leading to huge lakes as temperatures normalized. Then came more floods as those lakes escaped through mudrock breaks. Huge mudslides happened and very strange formations were left behind like arches in rocks.

radar said...

Whoever is proclaiming his knowledge of what floods do is no hydrologist.

Macroevolution has never been observed, so if things must be testable you had better throw Darwin away. Unless you consider that failure to observe it is failed testing, in which case you had better throw it away.

Anonymous said...

Oh come on, not the whale lie again Radar. Will you just stop peddling proven falsehoods already!?!? You were challenged on this only a few days ago. Why don't you do yourself a huge favor and actually read this article?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

As I pointed out before, once you sift through some of the creationist BS you'll find that this whale you talk about was actually sitting at about a 45% angle and was laying PARALLEL to the surrounding strata. Why would you purposefully weaken your already precarious position with yet another proven YEC lie? You're just so weird sometimes. That said, that's what keeps a lot of us coming back.

Oh and, you were also recently asked to provide a single verifiable example of a polystrate fossil (aside from a simple picture showing evidence of rapid burial) and we're entirely unable to do so. Yet here you are again letting your keyboard print cheques that your but can't cash.

Radar, you so crazy.

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

"Macroevolution has never been observed, so if things must be testable you had better throw Darwin away."

Easily falsified by the fossil record, where macroevolution is observed in abundance. Next.

Anonymous said...

"Whoever is proclaiming his knowledge of what floods do is no hydrologist."

Funny, I thought that would be just the kind of thing a hydrologist would do.

So you're saying we should just ignore this Ian Juby dude?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Transference - look it up."

If this is your way of trying to say that others are projecting, that's up to you. Transference is interesting. I've always thought that that was what was behind religion in the first place, in that humans transfer the emotions they feel in childhood toward a powerful parental figure to later life, when they feel the need for support or answers to questions they struggle with. A powerful psychological need.

"Darwinism means nothing to operational science and it is not used."

Darwinism as you use it is an ill-defined catchphrase, so whatever rocks you want to throw at it will only hit something akin to a strawman. The theory of evolution is used in operational science, and certainly the usefulness of natural selection working on mutations has been amply demonstrated in genetic algorithms. If you don't get that, then that's on you, but you've never even come close to mounting a coherent response to this.

Anonymous said...

"ID is now a given in several disciplines. We know the cellular structures and processes are designed because of how they are produced and how they are regulated."

ID is neither "a given", nor is it something "we know". Unsupported assertions. Recall that What you're presenting here is an argument from credulity, which if you recall is a logical fallacy.

"Sedimentary rock layers - real world investigation completely falsifies a uniformitarian causation."

Not in any way you've ever been able to demonstrate. I can see where part of your problem lies though. It's a simple logical error: you think an instance (or several instances) of rapid burial proves a global flood and disproves uniformitarianism. Except it doesn't. Rapid burials are included in uniformitarianism. What you need to do, logically speaking, is demonstrate the complete absence of non-rapid burials in between the rapid burials.

And given the evidence to the contrary - Large Igneous Provinces, for example - the Noah's Flood story is toast.

Anonymous said...

"Commenters who say otherwise are counting on the ignorance of the audience."

The ignorance of the audience? Then you should have no problems answering all of Jon Woolf's question on the subject. Why so shy?

"The rock layers are consistent with the flood event, period,"

Period nothing, this is false. Evidence that contradicts the flood event: sequential nature of the fossil record, scavenged fossils in the middle of the fossil record, Large Igneous Provinces. Period.

"but have features impossible to explain by Darwinists."

Name even a single one. Just one. What feature is impossible to explain by "Darwinists" - or even mainstream science?

Anonymous said...

"I have done many posts on this and you gotta be stuck on duh to believe otherwise."

... and all were debunked in the comments. You should check out the comment section on your blog sometimes (other than dismissing it as "rabbit trails" or, lest we forget, deleting comments).

"Unless you believe hundreds of miles of rock layers can agree to shuffle themselves,"

They don't "shuffle themselves". There are folds and other phenomena, but all are easily explained by modern geology.

Which part of this do you find so incredible?

"trees can grow without root systems for millions of years or grow upside down"

Millions of years? You've been called on this before, never had the evidence to back it up. You've pasted pictures of petrified/fossilized trees spanning undefined "layers". Newsflash: layers aren't subject to some kind of uniform thickness / time ratio.

That's where your ice core rebuttal (yet another way in which YEC has been falsified) blew up in your face as well, IIRC.

Anonymous said...

(continued)

Rapid depositions do happen. In that case, a tree can be covered in "layers" in a short time. That doesn't mean those layers represent millions of years.

"boulders can hover in midair for millions of years"

Say what? Link please.

"a whale carcass can spend several generations standing straight up waiting for sediments to form around it"

Oh so recently debunked on your very own blog. Please catch up.

"and it goes on and on."

Well I hope it gets better, cos so far this is just one enormous dud.

"The real story of the rock records is flood during the start, actions of currents during the flood event, and the dynamic and dangerous world of the post-flood runoff and ice age."

Sadly contradicted by the evidence.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"As I pointed out before, once you sift through some of the creationist BS you'll find that this whale you talk about was actually sitting at about a 45% angle and was laying PARALLEL to the surrounding strata. Why would you purposefully weaken your already precarious position with yet another proven YEC lie?"

Radar, please provide evidence to the contrary... or retract your claim.

Barring that, you're just another website spreading lies.

Jon Woolf said...

"I've traveled all over the USA and found time and time again the cake-layered sedimentary rocks typifying a flood event only on an immense scale."

Radar, you have no training in or understanding of geology, and you doggedly refuse every attempt to provide you with some. How do you know what you were seeing in the rocks?

radar said...

Jon Woolf is a guy I have never met and have nothing against personally but he sure is good at being wrong about just about everything.

Talkorigins again? Talkorigins is a place where people who don't know what to say find answers to things they don't understand to pass on to people who shake their heads at the stupidity of it all.

Jon asks rabbit trail questions quite often. I don't do rabbit trails, I do main points unless the rabbit is interesting.

Anonymous said...

Um, "derision is not an argument"?

Remember?

Although, I do enjoy seeing the point at which you flat-out admit that you're just going to stick your head in the sand on a certain topic. Like with your "final" information post. You know, the one where you deleted all existing comments and disabled any further commenting? I think you know the one I'm talking about, Radar.

Read the article I posted and tell me, specifically, what your problem is with THAT article. Do a blog post on it. I dare you.

Double dog dare you?

Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

"Talkorigins again? Talkorigins is a place where people who don't know what to say find answers to things they don't understand to pass on to people who shake their heads at the stupidity of it all."

Creation.com spreads lies. You don't have any problems with that. So why attack talk.origins?

Double standards, the Radaractive way!

Anonymous said...

"answers to things they don't understand to pass on to people who shake their heads at the stupidity of it all"

Not just double standards, but double helpings of projection as well.

Anonymous said...

"As usual, the Big Lie often succeeds where the little lies fail. If you suggest that a Porsche 911 made itself, that it just came together when someone knocked a big stack of junk over at a junkyard, you would not believe them."

Nor would that have anything to do with the theory of evolution.

"Yet a human being came from undirected random processes, a series of accidents, over the course of time?"

Again, nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

"Darwinists have no idea where life comes from at all, there answers are all unsupported guesses."

All the explanations for the origin of life, whether in creation myths or scientific papers, are "guesses" to an extent. And then confirmation is sought in observable evidence.

"Darwinists have no idea where DNA came from for much the same reasons."

"No idea" is overstating the case, as quite a bit is known about RNA and DNA. But in any case, why would this be an argument against this thing you call "Darwinism"? It's not as if there's a better answer to hand at this time.

"The typical human cell is more complex and does far more operations per minute than the largest and busiest factory in the world."

Argument from incredulity.

"Humans have about 100 trillion cells in their body."

Argument from incredulity.

Anonymous said...

"Just the cells, not considering all parts of the systems and functions and emissions thereofe."

Argument from incredulity.

"Humans probably have 10 to 20 times as many microflora (like bacteria and fungi) living on them and in them, including 500 to 1000 species of bacteria in the digestive tract alone."

Argument from incredulity.

"Humans are packed full of information within those cells, much of it contained in the DNA, and a human DNA strand usually contains a gig of useful information as far as we know now."

Argument from incredulity.

"There are millions of intricately designed systems doing millions of different functions within your body as you read this post."

Argument from incredulity.

"And you think all that just accidently happens when a few atoms bump into each other over the course of time?"

Strawman argument. This is not what modern science claims.

"You call that SCIENCE????!!!!"

No, I'd call it a series of logical fallacies topped off with a wild-eyed rant.

Anonymous said...

cake-layered sedimentary rocks

... surely at the very least compatible with uniformitarianism, so no proof of Noah's flood in this.

Anonymous said...

Jon asks rabbit trail questions quite often. I don't do rabbit trails, I do main points unless the rabbit is interesting.

I can't tell if this is just plain dishonesty or willful ignorance. Either way, it is a telling statement. We have all seen Jon's list of question. Most of us know, you can't answer them.


lava

radar said...

My point is that I cannot tell if Jon Woolf and some other commenters are willfully ignorant or dishonest. It seems the comment threads are typically:

Asking me to answer the same question over and over when I have made one or more entire blog posts on the subject.

Making authoritative sounding statements about blog posts with no content behind them. These comments often include the word, "debunked" in them. Debunk must be Darwinspeak for "we cannot actually answer the question so we make a long series of statements that never get to the point that sound science-y."

LIPS, for instance. They appear to have been catastrophic in nature, happened fairly quickly and are not a problem for those who propose the Noahic Flood events took place. So why does he keep harping on them and other such questions? Because he cannot answer the fundamental ones.

I will continue to demonstrate that the underpinnings of macroevolution and abiogenesis are mythical chimeras. I will continue to present evidence that organisms and the Universe are designed. I will continue to show the insurmountable barriers to life coming from non-life and for one kind to evolve into another kind. I will continue to show that the organisms of the world are actually devolving as information loss and mutation brings about negative changes.

I will continue to present evidence that science and history both point to a human history of less than 10,000 years and that the Bible is far and away the most relevant book of history from the BC period. I will continue to cite historical documents.

I will continue to post pictures and information about cross-beds and paraconformities and megabreccias and polystrates and footprints and other very delicate fossils preserved all over the globe in stark contrast to the expectations of uniformitarianism. I am providing proofs and evidence. When you go off on tangents I will not follow.

radar said...

"Double dog dare you?"

What, are we in grade school? I don't go to talkorigins or Dr. Dino as I have explained ad nauseum. They are both sites (one on each side) who do not seem to care whether what they say is true but rather can they get people to believe it?

Kindly don't aim Ian Juby at me, that gun will backfire in your face. He has already demonstrated by actual testing that the rock layers on Earth best fit a catastrophic scenario. The great hydrologist Dr. Henry Morris was one of the first scientists to begin to realize that Darwinism was unscientific in part because the rocks testify against the hypothesis.

I suspect you commenters are aiming at the most ignorant of readers. Me, I respect the reader and follow the good old rule of journalism (so many of them have been tossed aside by liberal ideologues, but anyway) that the main points should be comprehensible to an average 6th grader but you can then go in depth for the more well-informed individuals.

Whereas it is possible I have made a mistake during a post, I have never lied. My judge is God and not you. When you claim that I personally have lied then you are lying, so keep that in mind. I must answer to a Higher Power than a NCSE wonk or someone from talkorigins. The One who made everything? He is the One I report to...

radar said...

"How often do Darwinists claim to have published evidence "falsifying YEC and ID science?""

"Certainly frequently mentioned in the comments on your own blog.

"Then the same commenters will say that YEC and ID cannot be science because they are not testable!"

You're confusing two things here. ID is not testable and therefore a dead end, scientifically speaking. YEC is testable and falsified."


See, authoritative bs is continually being stated in the comments. ID is just as testable as Darwinism and YEC are, that is, you can test current organisms and processes and make forensic observations about the past but you cannot go back into the past and test. So you cannot test origins you can only make observations.

You can test for the biochemical possibilities of life forming from non-life and the Law of Biogenesis remains, thus falsifying the basis of Darwinism. So you are then stuck with ID, which fits the evidence instead of Darwinism, that doesn't. Organisms cannot have evolved, so all the claims associated with it are meaningless. It is like arguing with a child about how many colors her imaginary friend is wearing. Let her think what she wants. I mean, Darwinists can believe that stuff if they like...free country. In fact, no one is censoring you!

But as far as real life goes, ID has demonstrated that life is designed. Do you wish to investigate the identity of the designer or not? Up to you.

Jon Woolf said...

"LIPS, for instance. They appear to have been catastrophic in nature, happened fairly quickly and are not a problem for those who propose the Noahic Flood events took place. So why does he keep harping on them and other such questions?"

Because the question is not "how do Large Igneous Provinces fit the Flood scenario?" The question is "how do the fossiliferous strata in between layers of Large Igneous Provinces fit the Flood scenario?"

To recap yet again, a typical Large Igneous Province contains multiple layers, which were laid down by multiple lava flows. In a number of LIPs around the planet, we find that these lava flow layers are separated by ordinary sedimentary layers, and in those sedimentary layers we find perfectly ordinary assemblages of fossils -- plants, animals, trees, insects, preserved soil layers, etc. The whole thing looks something like this:

--------------------
lava flow A
--------------------
sedimentary rock (with fossils)
--------------------
lava flow B
--------------------
lava flow C
--------------------
sedimentary rock (with fossils)
--------------------
sedimentary rock (with fossils)
--------------------
lava flow D
--------------------

Now, since it takes time for:

a) the lava to flow and then cool and harden

b) soil to form

c) plants and animals to colonize the area

the question is simply this: how could all this happen in the less-than-a-year that the Flood fantasy allows?

The answer, of course, is that it couldn't.

radar said...

A - LIPS don't matter because Darwinism is impossible.

B - The Noahic Flood is a long-term event including many years after the Earth had gone through the inundation and the waters had mostly gone into ocean basins. There were many fossil-forming storms and mudslides and ice storms as a long ice age occurred and treacherous mudrock took many years to harden. That there was volcanic activity during the first stages of the Flood is certain. That there was a great deal of volcanic activity and earthquakes and huge storms long after the Ark landed is part of the entire Flood scenario.

Scientists are trying to get a good age for the ice age/mudrock/storm portion of the Flood event but it was many years. Stay tuned, we will get to that subject. Meanwhile I guess you could bite your LIPS?

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, do you really believe any of that?

(Hmm, now which answer, yes or no, would be more frightening?)

Anonymous whatsit said...

"A - LIPS don't matter because Darwinism is impossible."

Holy cow. If that isn't a spit-your-coffee-all-over-the-keyboard moment, I don't know what is.

Wow.

I thought Radar deleting comments was bad. This comment alone is some serious, serious competition for that.

Wow.

Debbie, if you're reading this - please make sure Radar's keeping sober or finds his way back to sobriety. Seriously.

"B - The Noahic Flood is a long-term event including many years after the Earth had gone through the inundation and the waters had mostly gone into ocean basins. There were many fossil-forming storms and mudslides and ice storms as a long ice age occurred and treacherous mudrock took many years to harden. That there was volcanic activity during the first stages of the Flood is certain. That there was a great deal of volcanic activity and earthquakes and huge storms long after the Ark landed is part of the entire Flood scenario."

Did you just make this up on the spot?

Radar, please - in your own words - tell us how fossils are formed.

Please.

Not some cut-and-paste from some lying website.

Your own words.

Can you do it?

"Scientists are trying to get a good age for the ice age/mudrock/storm portion of the Flood event but it was many years."

Many years indeed. Well over 6,000 if you're keeping count.

Kindly point us to the actual research using observable evidence being conducted by these so-called scientists.

"Stay tuned, we will get to that subject."

Seriously, who's going to hold their breath over this one?

And will it be just another copy-and-paste? Of course it will!

"Meanwhile I guess you could bite your LIPS?"

Nah, it's clear you lost this one. Sorry. On with the show.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"(Hmm, now which answer, yes or no, would be more frightening?)"

Well, "no" wouldn't be frightening at all.

It's the obvious "yes" that's so unfathomable.

Anonymous said...

A - LIPS don't matter because Darwinism is impossible.

See John, don't you get it? None of the answers to your questions really matter, because Darwinism is impossible.

What does Darwinism mean today?


lava

radar said...

So the latest tactic is incredulity? Pretty much anything other than deal with the insurmountable problems of Darwinism, I suppose.

Fossils primarily formed in these ways:

1- Bottom-dwelling sea creatures were buried under sediments created by the massive catastrophic events happening during the first stages of the Flood.

2- Ordinary aquatic life would at times be overwhelmed by a flow of sediments and buried above the bottom-dwellers.

3- Catastrophic events on the surface buried some more advanced creatures and plenty of ordinary air-breathing creatures during the period between the beginning and ending of the forty days of torrential rainfall and the waves caused by tides and extremes of weather that washed over and sealed in place large numbers of trackways, such as we find in abundance in the Paluxy river area and for that matter around the Grand Canyon.

Many creatures survived for a time on huge mats of flotsam, and much of the amber fossils were preserved as part of the mat scenario. More to come,

radar said...

BTW I only erase posts for profanity, if Blogger erases you then it is because it thinks you are spamming.

Many fossils were formed by plants and animals trapped in huge mats of materials that eventually sunk and were then covered by sediments and silt.

There are massive chalk formations that speak to huge blooms of organisms that had to have lots of water and unusual warmth to form in such numbers, BTW, chalks that are quite pure so they formed quickly and not over thousands or millions of years.

After the flood burials by mudslides and earthquakes happened. Massive floods post-Noahic Flood happened as glaciers formed and then produced enormous lakes that eventually broke through dikes and made formations such as the Grand Canyon. Many animals were buried in silt storms, as is often the case with Mammoths and Mastedons which are now more rare. There was a time a couple of centuries back where people were finding frozen Pachyderms and selling the meat! Or at least people were fooled into thinking it so. Would meat be frozen for 2,000 years still be edible? Yech. But if we are talking millions of years it would not even be meat anymore!

So burial from sediments, being caught and buried in fast-moving currents, being buried on the ground during the first 40 days, being trapped and preserved in mats and being buried catastrophically in the time of ice age and mudrock and storms more violent than normally occur now are the primary way fossils have been formed.

Church Mouse said...

"You can test for the biochemical possibilities of life forming from non-life"

Great!

How?!

radar said...

Good grief, Church Mouse, read the articles, not just the comment threads! At every hand there are biochemical barriers to forming the basic building blocks of DNA and life. I post entire articles going through these things. You cannot fit all that into a comments thread. If you do not read the articles then you are going to be lost in the comments thread.

Anonymous said...

Radar says,

"BTW I only erase posts for profanity"

Just stop now you lying liar. As we all know from recent first hand experience on this Blog, you also erase all comments in posts and disable further commenting when you "want to have the last word" on topic. Don't tell me you've forgotten already, Radar? Hmmm... maybe you are drunk.

Oh and not even your precious "big three" creationist websites make any mention of that "polystrate whale" you like to talk about. So maybe it's time to give that one up. I also think the fact you wont even go to TO to check out the whale article to be beyond ridiculous. Its as if you believe that your PC would be somehow "tainted" if you went to that site. Weird, weird stuff.

- Canucklehead.

PS, this quote "A - LIPS don't matter because Darwinism is impossible", was truly awesome. You are outdoing yourself today Radar. Keep it up.

Jon Woolf said...

"chalks that are quite pure so they formed quickly and not over thousands or millions of years."

Non sequitur.

Mammoths and mastodons were alive as recently as ten thousand years ago. Some people think they may have survived into prehistoric times -- there's a painting from an Egyptian tomb that may represent a dwarf mammoth, and cryptozoologist Bernard Heuvelmans reported folklore from the Siberian taiga that told of living herds of elephant-like animals, although he couldn't put a definite year to them.

"enormous lakes that eventually broke through dikes and made formations such as the Grand Canyon."

And so we come full circle ... my article on the Grand Canyon demonstrates clearly that the 'breached dam' claim doesn't work.

radar said...

Nope. Canucklehead is a lying lying liar. Hahahahahaha! Are we going to be in third grade all day? Nyah nah nah nah nah!

I only erase for bad language but Blogspot has a spam detector and sometimes you must post stuff it doesn't like. Talk to Blogspot, which is owned by Google to see if they will make an exception to you.

Anonymous said...

"Are we going to be in third grade all day? Nyah nah nah nah nah!"

Sometimes I really think you've completely lost it, Radar.
Be that as it may; you removed an entire article here, including the comments and re-posted the article on a private blog MINUS the comments. No matter which way you spin it: unilaterally removing comments that didn't violate any predetermined rules equals censorship.

If you want to prove you're not in third grade you should just man up and own up to it.

radar said...

SD, you do not have any authority when it comes to the Grand Canyon as you have demonstrated previously by failing to recognized the interbedding and not even being aware of the nature of the dinosaur trackways in addition to being wrong about the Muav and Redwall formations.

radar said...

As to me choosing to set one post aside as a monument to the inability of Darwinists to address the issue of information? Would you like some cheese with that whine? All my posts allow for comments and there are over 900 of them. I made that post and quickly put it at the top of my links where it will remain.

Anonymous said...

"As to me choosing to set one post aside as a monument to the inability of Darwinists to address the issue of information?"

If you had included the comments with it, that could have been seen as an attempt to show the inability of "Darwinists" to address the issue of information. But since those comments did address that issue, you had to delete them, so all you've managed to set a monument to is that you have to resort to censorship to pretend you're right about something.

Epic fail, Radar.

Church Mouse said...

"Good grief, Church Mouse, read the articles, not just the comment threads! At every hand there are biochemical barriers to forming the basic building blocks of DNA and life. I post entire articles going through these things. You cannot fit all that into a comments thread. If you do not read the articles then you are going to be lost in the comments thread."

Relax man. But:

You said "You can test for the biochemical possibilities of life forming from non-life"

I asked how.

Because AFAIK know science doesn't have such a test.

Now you tell me it does. But you don't answer the question. So:

Where are the posts that you've put up about this subject?;

Dying to read them!

Church Mouse said...

"SD, you do not have any authority when it comes to the Grand Canyon as you have demonstrated previously by failing to recognized the interbedding and not even being aware of the nature of the dinosaur trackways in addition to being wrong about the Muav and Redwall formations."

Hey Radar, have you ever heard of ad hominem?

It's when someone tries to avoid an argument by attacking the person who said it instead. Perfect example here.

So why you evading the argument?

Scared?

Church Mouse said...

"I only erase for bad language"

But there was no bad language in the comments you deleted couple weeks ago, so there must be other reasons too no?

Anonymous said...

So who, exactly, do you think you are talking to when you say,

"Nope. Canucklehead is a lying lying liar. Hahahahahaha! Are we going to be in third grade all day? Nyah nah nah nah nah!"?

All of us are currenlty calling you on the fact that you deleted all comments on the information post. Are you now saying that there was profanity throughout the comments section (other than the handful of times you called Jon a "fool", of course)?

Maybe you should take a break from all this "sciencey" stuff, Radar, like maybe try some kind of screed on a topic where you feel some serious moral superiority. I'm sure that will make you feel better. Oh wait, it looks like you've already done that.

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

Church Mouse, there is no test for the biochemical possibilities of life forming from non-life, at least none that could confirm the impossibility of this happening. Radar made that up.