There are several journals and magazines and publications I receive and plenty of online resources are at my fingertips. The glory of the still-free internet is the plethora of information that the ruling paradigm has not yet managed to control and censor to any extent. Therefore truth is still to be found here in the USA and most other nations where the government does not censor the internet. We know that Communist China filters the internet and Google helps with the process, which is one reason I do not post Google ads despite the fact that I would be paid to do it. I believe it would be wrong to do. Wrong. Do you know that word? Of course, what I think is wrong and what atheistic naturalists think is wrong are two different things. I believe that God decides right and wrong.
by Jerry Bergman
February 8, 2012
AbstractDarwinists commonly claim that evolution is the foundation of all of the sciences, especially the ife sciences and that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” To evaluate this claim I reviewed both the textbooks used for life science classes at the college where I teach and those that I used in my past 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 conclusions. From this survey I concluded that the claim “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is false.
IntroductionIn 1929, an article in Popular Science was written to encourage the teaching of the theory of evolution in spite of the laws that were passed by several states to curb the teaching of Darwinism. The article claimed that “The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences” (Armstrong 1929, p. 135). The most popular biology book in the 1920s by Dr. Truman Moon, entitled Biology for Beginners, stated that the theory of evolution is “the cornerstone of all recent science and the foundation of all modern thought” (quoted in Armstrong 1929, p. 133). Almost a half-century later, the eminent American evolutionist, Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975), claimed that “evolution” is the cornerstone of biology and is central to understanding both living and extinct organisms (Dobzhansky 1973, p. 125).
His statement that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” has been repeated in thousands of articles to argue that Darwinism must have a central place in all areas of life-science education, including biology, anatomy, medicine, agriculture, and biotechnology (for example, see Antolin and Herbers 2001, p. 2379). Orthodox Darwinism is defined as the evolution of all complex life forms on earth from a single common ancestor as a result of natural selection acting on random mutations in the genome over vast periods of time through strictly naturalistic processes. A recent internet search revealed over 50,000 hits for Dobzhansky’s quote. As a result of this oft-repeated assertion, many argue that 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” (emphasis mine) (National Academy of Science 1998, p. viii). This claim is made because Darwin’s
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 (Prosser 1959, p. 539).Dawkins opines that, without Darwinism, “biology is a collection of miscellaneous facts.” He adds before children “learn to think in an evolutionary way” the material 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? (Dawkins 2002, p. 58).The claim that evolution is central to biology has been around for decades. For example, the Scopes Trial transcript included the following words penned by Vanderbilt University biology professor Dr. E. N. Reinke:
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 (Reinke 1927, p. 8).
The ether idea has now been fully refuted, a fact that illustrates the fallibility of the biology claim if the analogy were true. The evolution-is-central-to-biology belief has even made the Doonesbury cartoon; the lead character stating that “Evolution is the foundation of all life sciences. Without it, whole fields from genetics to ecology can’t exist!” (Trudeau 2011).
Although Darwinists often talk about the central importance of “evolution” in gaining a basic understanding of the natural world, 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, research 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 (Johanson, pers. comm.).Renowned chemist and National Academy of Science Member, Dr. Philip Skell, Professor Emeritus of Pennsylvania State University (see Lewis, 1992), surveyed his colleagues “engaged in non-historical biology research, related to their ongoing research projects.” He found, in answer to the question, “Would you have done the work any differently if you believed Darwin’s theory were wrong?” that “for the large number” of the Darwinist researchers he interviewed, “differing only in the amount of hemming and hawing” was “in my work it would have made no difference.” Some added they thought it may make a difference for other researchers (Skell, pers. comm.).
Another scientist, Professor Henry F. Schaefer III, the Graham-Purdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia, added that
Darwinian assumptions are not needed for the day-to-day work of science. If you look at the biochemical literature for scientific papers that try to explain how biochemical systems developed step-by-step in Darwinian fashion, there aren’t any. It’s startling. Most biologists completely ignore evolution in their work, and the ones that think about it simply look for relationships and don’t bother with Darwinism. My University of Georgia colleague in biochemistry, Professor Russell Carlson, has expressed the same sentiment to me privately (Schaefer 2004, p. 102).From 1981 to 1997, Professor Schaefer was the sixth most highly cited chemist in the world out of a total of 628,000 chemists whose research was cited at least once. The Science Citation Index reported that, as of December 31, 2010, his research had been cited over 47,000 times.
Of interest is that the fact that molecular, cell, and developmental biology majors at Yale University Graduate School are no longer required to complete courses on evolution (Hartman 1997). I have noted from my own research, both to my frustration and over my objections, that many of the subscriptions to journals focusing on evolution at both the University of Toledo Medical College and Bowling Green State University have been dropped. I was told by the reference librarian that there was little demand for them.
I also interviewed 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 Department of Biology, Dordt College (Sioux Center, Iowa). His B.Sc. (1983) and Ph.D. (1989) were both completed at McMaster University. 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 (Jelsma, pers. comm.).
A Survey of TextbooksHaving taught biology, genetics, zoology, psychology, and related courses at the college level for the past 40 years, I evaluated this claim by examining the content of the major textbooks that I have used to teach science courses. I found most of the biochemistry/molecular biology, genetics, and cell biology texts we have used never, or hardly ever, mentioned Darwinism (see Table 1). The only courses that covered it in any detail were Biology 101, zoology, and anthropology. In my experience, even in these classes, many instructors skipped the section on evolution.
Even those textbook 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 Darwinism in the microbiology texts we used was on the development of bacterial resistance (which is not a concern for intelligent design or even creationists because many of the mechanisms producing resistance are well known and do not support orthodox evolution, see Bergman 2003).
Read the rest at the original site:
Here are ten recent discoveries about plants and animals that are surprising and inspiring. Some of them may lead to technologies that can improve our own lives.
Fish-o-pus: Slinking through Indonesian waters is a master of impersonation: an octopus that can elude predators by imitating a fish. But that’s just part of the story. Scientists have now found a fish that imitates the octopus that imitates the fish! Story on Science News. The jawfish apparently hangs around with the mimic octopus to share in its protective strategy.
Mind meld with apes: German scientists studied the four anthropoid apes, chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans, Science Daily said, and found that some (but not all) appeared to be able to calculate risks before acting. Their experiment involved choices between small banana pieces in reliable spots, and larger banana pieces hidden behind variable locations. The gorillas didn’t do so well. It’s not clear whether readers will be as impressed with this as the researchers were, considering that birds seem to do even better at these kinds of brain teasers. Last month, Live Science reported that pigeon brains are on par with primates.
Brazilian worm-eating plant: A new kind of carnivorous plant has been found in the Cerrado of Brazil, a unique tropical biodiversity hotspot. Reported in PNAS (January 9, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1114199109), the plant Philcoxia apparently uses sticky underground leaves to trap and eat roundworms. PhysOrg has a picture and summary of the predatory plant.
Flower power: PhysOrg featured a researcher at Kansas State that is trying to untangle sunflower genetics. Different species living in different climates have apparently become successful through gene duplications, hybridization and mobile genetic elements – pieces of genetic code that can relocate and insert themselves in different parts of the genome. Although Mark Ungerer is couching his explanations in evolutionary terms, the article seems to indicate a kind of controlled adaptability that has occurred recently. It seems premature to credit unguided processes with success at adapting to climates as different as Texas and Canada, considering Ungerer’s humble admission, “Although virtually all plants and animals have these types of sequences in their genomes, we still know very little about what phenomena cause them to amplify and make extra copies of themselves.”
Rhinoceros foot puzzle: The Royal Veterinary College is playing footsie with rhinos to see how their “stumpy little feet” can support so much weight. Their weight-bearing strategy is apparently different from that of elephants. According to the BBC News article, Dr. John Hutchinson has another reason for investigating this unknown marvel: “From understanding the feet of rhinos, as an example of a big land mammal, we could draw inspiration and understand how to build devices that can handle heavy loads and carry them around while moving.”
Pause for paws: Speaking of feet, why don’t dogs get frostbite from walking in the snow? Think of those brave Alaskan huskies on the Iditerod. Actually, dogs can get frostbitten paws, depending on the breed, but they rarely do. PhysOrg told how scientists from Tokyo checked out the paws of four dog breeds and discovered an ingenious heat-exchanging system in the blood vessels that not only transfers warmth to the bare surfaces of paws but ensures blood returning to the heart is warm enough. Cool pet tip: spray the paws with cooking spray before taking your best friend into the snow.
Gecko fish: Ever heard of the northern clingfish? These are small fish on the north Pacific coast that have mastered the art of clinging to shoreline rocks as they search for food. Remarkably, their modified fins use a similar adhesion technique as geckos, reported Science Magazine (20 January 2012: Vol. 335 no. 6066 p. 277, doi: 10.1126/science.335.6066.277). Their modified belly fins have tiny hairs that make use of atomic forces, adhering to rough surfaces better than suction cups. An undergraduate student found that the clingfish can support 180 times their own weight.
Do the fish walk: The headline at Life’s Little Mysteries promises to show how “Discovery Reveals How Fish Learned to Walk,” but the article is actually about real living fish called Pacific leaping blennies that do the twist as they flip around the intertidal zones of Guam. These are not Darwin fish; they have no feet, and their muscles are really not different from those of other fish. Their flip-flop “walk” is more an adaptive behavior than evolution. Researcher Tonia Hsieh was astonished to find half her lab blennies walked out of the tank overnight. Then she found some of them on the wall.
Leaping lizards: Speaking of Tonia Hsieh, a biologist at Temple University who developed a childhood fascination with lizards and other animals, she has a cool lab to study lizard leaps in slow motion. She especially likes the basilisk, a lizard that stands up and runs fast, reported the Philadelphia Inquirer – so fast it can run over water, giving the nickname the “Jesus lizard.” You can watch these amazing lizards in action on Hsieh’s track at the Temple University website. “It’s important to realize that animals do not have a specific program to tell them how to react to each and every possible perturbation scenario in the real world,” she said, yet they manage to keep going even when encountering a slippery spot. Understanding their locomotion strategies, she believes, can help robot designers walk out of the wheel rut. Her research might also help the elderly prevent falls.
Miracle tree: Readers may remember Moringa oleifera, the “miracle tree” that not only provides food and fuel, but can actually disinfect water for poor countries (3/09/2010). Previously we learned that crushed Moringa seeds, sprinkled in turbid water, took out the turbidity and killed bacteria. One problem was making the process sustainable and affordable. Without proper techniques, the dissolved organic compounds could return to cloud the water again. Now, according to PhysOrg, clean drinking water for the poor is a step closer to reality. The American Chemical Society published a paper by scientists who identified the protein in the seeds that has the antibacterial effect. By attaching it to sand, they can attract both the bacteria and the dissolved organic compounds to the sand particles, which carry the impurities to the bottom, leaving clean water suitable for drinking. The paper is published in the ACS journal Langmuir. The new process is inexpensive and sustainable, said Science Daily, and a billion people stand ready to benefit from this one remarkable plant, “one of the world’s most useful trees.”
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
What would compel a person to ascribe the power of creation to just gravity? Perhaps it stems from the idea that gravity has an equal amount of "negative" energy to perfectly balance all other "positive" energies.2Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.1
Recent investigations into gravity--one of which questioned its very existence--left plenty of room for doubt about claims that depend on an accurate conception of this particular natural force.3
But even if "gravity" did provide such balance, it could hardly suffice as an adequate cause for the whole universe. Pointing out qualities of already-existing energies is no more an explanation for their origin than pointing out how the energy-of-motion in a rolling ball will be exactly matched by the energy-of-resistance from friction. Neither quantity answers where the ball came from and who or what pushed it.
On the other hand, for his hypothesis Hawking may have relied on the common cosmological concept that gravity supposedly can pull matter together from fine dust into nuggets, clumps, large conglomerates, nebulae, planetesimals, planets, stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, and superclusters. The physics, however, shows that gravity alone cannot do this.4 This is why the shockwaves of "nearby supernovae" or giant collisions are routinely invoked to jump-start star formation from dust clouds, where the gravity is too weak to overcome repulsive forces of hot gas particles.5
Extraordinary information also characterizes this vast universe. The three-dimensional placement of heavenly bodies in space and the particular--and peculiarly life-enabling--universal parameters, such as the speed of light and electromagnetic strength, are some examples of fine-tuned information.6 Also, there is the mountain of information in living systems to explain.
Since concerns over gravity and energy do not address the more obvious question of information--a massless yet ubiquitous fundamental entity--then statements about gravity or energy alone form insufficient grounds to reject a supernatural origin for the universe.
In addition, any assertion that a thing can make itself is self-contradictory. This is because in every case where something has actually been made, that which caused it existed prior to it. For example, an oak tree may have found its immediate cause in the planting action of a pre-existing squirrel and by the acorn production of a pre-existing oak tree. So, for the universe to have made itself, it would have had to exist prior to its existence--a contradiction of the undeniable first principle of causality.7
A classic argument for the existence of God holds that since something exists (say, the universe), and since something cannot make itself (without violating the first principle of causality), then a cause outside that thing must exist (God).8 In essence, Hawking has attempted to refute this reasoning by simply denying the second premise!
Did the oak tree come from an acorn? No, Hawking would say--it was just the result of "spontaneous creation" and there it is. Such reasoning makes no sense. Hawking's illustrious predecessor, Sir Isaac Newton, formed a more reasonable and accurate assessment of the universe's origins:
- Roberts, L. Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe. Telegraph. Posted on telegraph.co.uk September 2, 2010, accessed September 2, 2010.
- Gribbin, J. Are we living in a designer universe? Telegraph. Posted on telegraph.co.uk August 31, 2010, accessed September 2, 2010.
- Thomas, B. Physicist Questions Gravity's Existence. ICR News. Posted on icr.org August 6, 2010, accessed September 2, 2010.
- Coppedge, D. 2009. Bottom-up Science. Acts & Facts. 38 (11): 18.
- DeYoung, D. B. 1996. New Stars, New Planets? Acts & Facts. 25 (4).
- Coppedge, D. 2006. There's Only One Universe. Acts & Facts. 35 (12).
- The first principle of causality can be stated several ways, including "every effect has a cause," and "nonbeing cannot cause being." Geisler, N. L. 1999. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 120.
- Importantly, this argument requires that the "something" that exists is the kind of something that is contingent and finite, like an oak tree, person, or the universe. This is unlike the Creator Himself, who is self-existent, uncaused, eternal, and infinite. Infinite beings require no cause.
- Quoted in Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Isaac Newton. Acts & Facts. 37 (5): 8.