Godless Evolution...the psychological manipulation of God's work



“It is unbelievable what unbelievers have to believe to be unbelievers.”

Counterpoint Part 1
Roseann Salanitri @ The Daily Rant
Introduction

Charles Darwin

After agonizing over the condition of America today, I have realized that many of our problems are attributable to an increasingly godless culture rooted in the teachings of evolution. It is illogical to expect our children to live by God’s moral codes established in Genesis, or that our rights come from God, when they are taught that His creation account is nothing more than a myth. It is also disturbing that the “evidences” for evolution were founded upon fallacious interpretations of observable data and the successful censoring of opposing points of view.
Therefore, it has become my mission to present a counterpoint to what is being taught in order to rescue our children from being led down an academic path that mocks our faith with innuendos and inferences based on a worldview that is neither scientifically supportable nor logical. The atheistic theology being presented to our children disguised as authoritative and empirical science through twisted conclusions and cleverly constructed insinuations is as much an insult to our intelligence as it is to our faith.

In this series I will be evaluating Pearson/Prentice Hall’s Biology textbook, 2006, written by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine that was adopted by the state of Texas, which asserts significant influence on textbook selections throughout the nation. Additionally, Pearson’s website also acknowledges that the mirror-like Miller & Levine iBiology Textbooks are the world’s bestselling high school biology programs.

The first article in this series will focus on the basics of Darwinian evolution presented in Chapter 15 of the book. It sets the stage with psychological coercion and straw men arguments that sophomores in high school lack the critical thinking skills to defend against. Direct quotes from the book will appear in italics prefaced with the page numbers for easy reference. The bold lettering included is copied as it appears in the textbooks. Subsequent articles will focus on the Miller Urey experiment, Haeckel’s embryos, the evolution of birds, homology, and possibly other subjects as I may deem appropriate as this project develops.

Evaluation

Page 369-

What scientific explanation can account for the diversity of life? The answer is a collection of scientific facts, observations, and hypotheses known as evolutionary theory. Evolution, or change over time, is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient organisms. A scientific theory is a well-supported testable explanation of phenomena that have occurred in the natural world.

Counterpoint – The answer provided to the question above is presented as the only credible explanation for origins. The way it is structured dismisses the growing and overwhelming support for creationism as being a legitimate possibility. The claim that evolution is credible becomes authoritative in the students’ minds, who are led to believe that it is well-supported by facts. They are not told that the data that will be discussed neither supports nor denies evolution or creationism. It is simply data that is subject to interpretation. In evolution, the theory drives the interpretation of the data to fit a naturalistic worldview as opposed to a supernatural worldview that requires intervention. In order to twist the data to fit the theory, impartiality is sacrificed – many times in a tortured manner, as this work will reveal.

Although it is true, as the book states, that natural selection occurs and the fittest do survive better than those that are unfit, survival is not a proof of evolution, as the students are led to believe. Dr. Walt Brown in his book In the Beginning, stated it best. He said: Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics.” He goes on to say, “While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved, and in fact, some biodiversity was lost…In other words, while natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest…” I will add to Dr. Brown’s critique by saying that not only doesn’t natural selection explain the origin of the fittest, neither has Darwin nor any of his successors ever proposed a mechanism that adds information to the genetic code that would result in the evolution of a new creature.

Since the scientific criteria for a good theory requires that it should be repeatable, observable, predictable , and falsifiable, obviously any theory regarding origins cannot fully comply with this standard. Regardless, the authors of this textbook do their best to make the student believe that their theory is beyond challenge and is observable. To be sure, there is observation but it is the observation of impartial data that can be used to support Intelligent Design just as easily as it can be used to support Evolution, as will be discussed in a future article on homology. When data supports two conflicting theories, it is deceptive to claim that it proves only one of the theories.

Pg. 372 –

Darwin observed that the characteristics of many animals and plants varied noticeably among the different islands of the Galapagos. After returning to England, Darwin began to wonder if animals living on different islands had once been members of the same species. According to this hypothesis, these separate species would have evolved from an original South American ancestor species after becoming isolated from one another. Was this possible? If so, it would turn people’s view of the natural world upside down.

Counterpoint – The observations being made are not proof of evolution in progress but observations of diversity within the plant and animal kingdoms. The book also draws the conclusion that this observation alone was an assault on the prevailing view at the time – inferring “creationism.”

Furthermore, diversity within a family (phyla) can be observed and is NOT evolution at all. For instance, it is believed by both creationists and evolutionists that all the breeds of dogs known today have descended from the gray wolf – with many of the breeds being the result of selective breeding over the past century. This “observable” diversity that resulted from breeding – whether selective or natural – is not evidence of evolution, since the traits of the resulting animals were traits that existed in the gray wolf from the beginning. Breeding just “selects” certain heritable traits over others. However, evolutionists would have you believe that the diversity that we can observe in progress in dogs, represents evolution of other animals in the fossil record. This defies logic.

Ironically, diversity in the animal kingdom resulting from natural or selective breeding supports the biblical account of Noah bringing two of every animal into the Ark. Creationists have long argued that Noah only had to bring the original type of the animal into the ark and not all the species of the animal that have been developed over time. This theory reduces the number of animals necessary to repopulate the planet. Once again, the data used to support the theory of evolution also supports the theory of the Noah’s Flood, and therefore cannot be used as proof for either.

373-

Explorers were traversing the globe, and great thinkers were beginning to challenge established views about the natural world…

Most Europeans in Darwin’s day believed that the Earth and all its forms of life had been created only a few thousand years ago…Rocks and major geological features were thought to have been produced suddenly by catastrophic events that humans rarely, if ever, witnessed.

Counterpoint – If students are led to believe that the evolutionists represent the “great thinkers”, does that imply that creationists represent the “backward thinkers”? This is also a direct reference to Noah’s Flood as being the catalyst for the geological features. It seems references to intelligent design can be censored based on separation of church and state and the inferences of a “Designer” but derogatory remarks that insinuate creationists are intellectually challenged are permissible.

Additionally, this is also a blatant lie. We can “observe” in the scientific sense, that catastrophic events produce many of the geologic features we see today. Case in point: Mount St. Helens. This observable eruption in May of 1980 produced much of the strata layers that evolutionists claim are the result of successive layers of sediment deposited over long periods of time – and it did it in a 24-hour period! Additionally, the flume experiment produced the same laboratory results (see: http://www.icr.org/article/experiments-stratification/) which can be repeated, observed, falsified, and predicted.

Page 380-

The Struggle for Existence …Darwin realized that high birth rates and a shortage of life’s basic needs would eventually force organisms into competition for resources. The struggle for existence means that members of each species compete regularly to obtain food, living space, and other necessities of life…This struggle for existence was central to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Counterpoint – Direct observation of Darwin’s realizations stated in the above text contradicts this statement. For instance, human beings gravitate toward cities to live in, where they do not compete in the ways described above. Their gathering together enables them to share resources. This is also true in the animal kingdom. There are flocks, herds, packs, colonies, etc., etc. In all these instances animals live together and do not compete with each other but cooperate for survival, all of which disproves Darwin’s central premise.

Page 381-

Over time, natural selection results in changes in the inherited characteristics of a population. These changes increase a species’ fitness in its environment.

DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION Darwin proposed that over long periods, natural selection produces organisms that have different structures, establish different niches, or occupy different habitats…Each living species has descended, with changes, from other species over time. He referred to this principle as descent with modification.

Counterpoint – Survival of the Fittest does not equate to evolution. The fittest do survive but they do not evolve. A fit cat will never become any other type of animal, no matter how many years pass by. The developing science of genetics as well as direct observation supports the biblical claim that animals reproduce after their own kind.

AND.. “descent with modification” remains an atheist’s dream. The modifications – or diversity – within any living species is dependent upon the genes that exist within their gene pool. As stated previously, neither Darwin nor any of his followers, have ever proposed a mechanism that adds information into a gene pool that would allow for the procreation of an animal or plant that differs from the options that exist within the gene pool of their parents. If it did, every pregnant woman would have cause for concern.

The section on Darwinian evolution ends with the following statements:

Page 387-

Scientific advances in many fields of biology along with geology and physics, have confirmed and expanded most of Darwin’s hypotheses….researchers still debate such important questions as precisely how new species arise and why species become extinct. There is also uncertainty about how life began.

Counterpoint – The advances referred to in this statement are as convoluted as the “evidences” detailed in this book. The last sentence, however, does contain a modicum of truth for evolutionists. In fact, they will remain uncertain about how life began for as long as they refuse to acknowledge the existence of a supernatural Creator.

________________________________________

Counterpoint Part 2
Roseann Salanitri

As discussed in Part 1 of this series, it has become my mission to present a counterpoint to what is being taught in high school biology classes in a manner designed to challenge the faith of students. In an effort to accomplish this mission, I will be reviewing the most popular biology book in America, Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2006, Biology, written by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine.

Part 1 focused on Darwinian evolution, which presented the theory with much psychological manipulation and innuendos designed to make the student believe evolution is well-supported by the facts and any other theory is for the mentally-challenged. Part 2 will focus on the teachings of the origination of organic molecules, and the misrepresentations and downright lies associated with the Miller-Urey experiment.

Charles Darwin acknowledged the need for a way for organic matter to “evolve” from inorganic matter. In other words, he recognized that there had to be a way for life to evolve from non-life – or a bunch of chemicals. The book tries to address this problem by discussing the Miller-Urey experiment in a way that is both misleading and intellectually dishonest.

On page 424, in the first two sentences in the section entitled THE FIRST ORGANIC MOLECULES, the problem is accurately presented. The book acknowledges that atoms cannot assemble themselves into living cells, and that the oxygen in our atmosphere would destroy many kinds of organic molecules that are protected within a cell. That’s just about where the honesty ends. The next sentence declares that the early Earth was different – inferring that the atmosphere was different. The first paragraph ends with a sentence: Could organic molecules have evolved under those conditions?

Counterpoint – First, the problem is acknowledged, then the student is cleverly led to believe that the problems we observe today may have not have existed in the past. This is an important assumption, since circumstances would have to have been different in order to support different experimental observations: that the oxygen in our atmosphere would not allow such an evolution to occur.

But is the assumption correct.

In order to circumvent the oxygen problem, evolutionists have proposed that the early atmosphere did not contain oxygen. Then they go on to assume that the oxygen problem would gradually change as primitive life produced oxygen through processes such as photosynthesis. Aside from the fact that geological and paleontological research has revealed that an oxygen-based atmosphere must have existed from the earliest times, the argument is circular at best. In other words, if the presence of oxygen in the early atmosphere would prevent the evolution of life from non-life and the argument is that oxygen would have slowly been produced from primitive life, you should be asking: if you can’t produce life with oxygen in the atmosphere, how can life produce the oxygen? If you’re confused, you should be.

Page 424 – presents the Miller-Urey experiment as a possible answer to their dilemma. In this experiment back in the 1950s, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey designed an experiment where they added hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water to represent the atmosphere of the early Earth. They did NOT add oxygen. Then they passed an electrical current through the mixture to simulate lightening.

The book goes on to say that the results were “spectacular” because the experiment produced several amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. Then it declares:

Miller and Urey’s experiments suggested how mixtures of the organic compounds

necessary for life could have arisen from simpler compounds present on a primitive Earth.

Page 424 continued – Under Figure 17-8 of the experiment, the book states in an egregiously misleading way (a downright lie, actually):

This and other experiments suggest how simple compounds found on the early Earth could have combined to form the organic compounds needed for life.

It concludes this section by admitting that the simulations used by Miller-Urey were inaccurate but goes on to say:

However, similar experiments based on more current knowledge of Earth’s early atmosphere have also produced organic compounds…

Counterpoint – Oh – where to start! Let’s begin with a logical question:

If the unsuccessful Miller-Urey experiment was succeeded by successful experiments, why did the authors go into detail about the unsuccessful experiment and exclude any information about the “similar experiments” that they imply were successful?

Perhaps the answer is that the organic compounds that were created over the past 60 some odd years were just as unsuccessful for the origination of life as the experiment in question. What the students are not told is that the amino acids produced in the experiment were the wrong types of proteins to produce life and that the atmosphere created was basically irrelevant, as were the rest of the conditions produced in the experiment.

Here’s another critical question that demands an answer regarding the origination of a cell:

If somehow we were able to create in a laboratory experiment a situation where carbohydrates (the proteins necessary for life), lipids, and nucleic acids were produced, would we have created a living cell?

The answer is still a loud and resounding NO!!!!!!!!

Today we know that cells are much more than an assemblage of chemicals. They are complex machines that perform a myriad of functions to produce and sustain life. You see, the question is not whether organic molecules can be synthesized in a laboratory, the question is how can molecules (first inorganic, which then evolve into organic) produce living cells – or how can life evolve from non-life?

Much to the chagrin of many hopeful evolutionists who have had to abandon their Miller-Urey-types of experiments for lack of success, the programming of information into a cell will continue to be their ultimate downfall. For more information on the failure of the Miller-Urey experiment, see a secular opinion at: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/03/21/scientists-finish-a-53-year-old-classic-experiment-on-the-origins-of-life/#.VTEwSNLBzGc or a credentialed believer’s opinion at: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/evidence-for-evolution-mainmenu-65/51-the-miller-urey-experiment.html. I also suggest the book “Icons of Evolution” by Jonathan Wells.

After over a half of a century of experimentation, evolutionists still can’t create the right types of proteins in the right conditions to produce life, never mind trying to figure out how genetic codes are created. But somehow – someway – they manage to present their failures to our children in a manner that makes them seem credible. However, it is the responsibility of parents to teach truth to their children. Somehow – someway – we have delegated that responsibility to strangers, and then we are surprised by the strange ideas that our children have been indoctrinated into believing. Hence, this series is being written to assist parents in teaching the truth. Hopefully, they will do just that – for if they do, the truth will most definitely prevail.

__________________________

 

Counterpoint, Part 3

Roseann Salanitri

As discussed in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, I will be reviewing the most popular biology textbook in America, Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2006, Biology, written by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine. I am doing so to offer a “counterpoint” to their interpretation of origins, which has been cleverly designed by the authors to mislead students through psychological manipulations, tortured interpretations of the facts, and downright lies. It is my hope that this work will serve as an instrument for parents and church leaders in defending the biblical account of origins that is being assaulted in academia and used as a tool to tear down the students’ trust in the Word of God – and subsequently to challenge their faith in the existence of God Himself.

Before beginning my counterpoint argument against Punctuated Equilibrium, as presented on page 439 of the textbook, it is necessary to establish the importance of qualifying something as a “theory.”

Page 14 – correctly defines how a theory is developed. It states:

In science, the word theory applies to a well-tested explanation that unifies a
broad range of observations. A theory enables scientists to make accurate predictions
about new situations. (Emphasis as it appears in the textbook.)

Counterpoint – The book mentions but cleverly does not stress the importance of making accurate predictions that testing is supposed to verify. And it also does not address the many predictions Darwin made about his “theory” that the evidence has disqualified. Most noteworthy, Darwin made several predictions that can be found in his Origin of Species, 6th edition, chapters 6, 10, 15. He correctly predicted:

If my theory be true, numberless varieties, linking closely together all the species
of the same group, must assuredly have existed…

The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct
species, must have been inconceivably great…

An interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed…

Darwin’s predictions were legitimate and logical. If his theory was true, certainly there would have been an enormous amount of transitional fossils for all categories of life. At the time Darwin made these predictions, the fields of paleontology (the study of the history of living organisms) and geology were young and burgeoning sciences. Over a century and a half later, that is no longer the case.

So what about the “well-tested” explanation of the theory mentioned on page 14 of the textbook? Has science documented in the quantities Darwin predicted the gradual transition from one living species to another referred to as Descent with Modification? The answer is a loud and resounding NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Despite the facts, evolutionists will tell you that there are numerous transitional fossils that have been found as evidence of evolution. I will devote another segment of this series to examine the so-called “evidences of evolution”, and argue that they should more properly be called “evidences of deception.”

What does the real evidence show?

In 1999, Prof. Steve Jones of University College of London published his own version of Darwin’s Origin of Species. On page 252 of this publication, Almost Like a Whale, he stated:

The fossil record – in defiance of Darwin’s whole idea of gradual change – often makes
great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be
expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without
warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and
gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.

Contrary to the predictions made by Darwin, gradualism from a common ancestor in the fossil record is nowhere to be found. After over a century and a half of paleontological and geological research, the fossil record shows that there was a sudden explosion of life forms at what evolutionists call the Cambrian period and these life forms continue the same as we observe them today. In light of strong evidence to the contrary, the theory of evolution has not abandoned its suppositions; instead it has attempted to explain the evidence in a way to make it conform to their theory.

How have evolutionists tortured the evidence to fit their theory?

They have proposed that life continues in a static way until there is a sudden and rapid genetic change in a small period of time. The idea was first proposed by German geneticist Richard Goldschmidt in the 1940s and 50s. It was called the Hopeful Monster Hypothesis. Aside from the laughable suggestion that lacks logic as well as a mechanism, the idea that all of a sudden one species rapidly changes enough to give birth to another species in a small period of time is beyond ridiculous – aside from which there is no supporting evidence. And if it were true, these “hopeful monsters” would have to mate with other hopeful monsters to survive as a species – the odds of which are exponential at best. Additionally, if true, all pregnant women would have cause for concern.

Evolutionists realized they had to explain the sudden appearance of life forms in the Cambrian geologic level in a more scientific-sounding manner. So, rather than abort their theology in light of contrary evidence, they re-invented the Hopeful Monster Hypothesis and now call it Punctuated Equilibrium.

Page 439 –
…Some species, such as horseshoe crabs, have changed very little from the time they
first appeared in the fossil record. In other words, much of the time these species are in
a state of equilibrium. At several points in the fossil record, changes in animals and plants occurred over relatively short periods of time. Some biologists suggest that most
new species are produced by periods of rapid change.

Counterpoint – Saying “some” species have changed very little in the fossil record is disingenuous at best, as is the claim that the fossil record bears evidence of rapid change. It does not. Every species that survived did so as it first appeared in the fossil record. The book goes on to try to explain how this rapid development may have occurred after mass extinctions. Again, this suggestion is made as a way of proposing a logical way for this evolutionary problem to be solved, and it is totally based on faith and not evidence.

Page 439 (continued) –
Scientists use the term punctuated equilibrium to describe this pattern of long, stable periods interrupted by brief periods of more rapid change. (Emphasis as it appears in the textbook.)

Counterpoint – Again: there is no evidence to support these “brief periods of more rapid change.” Additionally, the obvious problems with this theory are many:
• There is a sudden explosion of life forms in the fossil record in the Cambrian period, and they continue to exist today as they did back then.
• One species giving birth to another is genetically and observably unsupportable – even if the change happened rapidly.
• If the impossible happened and a “hopeful monster” did exist, another hopeful monster would have to exist at the same time and in the same geographical location in order for the species to reproduce.
• An explanation for the mechanism that produces this type of rapid genetic change has evaded even the most creative evolutionist’s mind.
• Intermediate or transitional forms from a common ancestor in the fossil record have not been found in over 150 years of research – even evidence of rapid change should have been discovered in this length of time. And the ones they claim to be “evidence” have all been discounted or just plain stretches of the imagination.

In conclusion, the explosion of life at the Cambrian period not only contradicts any plausible explanation for evolution but supports the biblical account wherein we are told that every life form was created in the first week of the creation. A prediction to support the biblical narrative would state that we can expect to find a sudden explosion of life at one point in time, which is just what the evidence reveals. So while unbelievers scramble to create a theory to explain the facts that somehow seems believable to unbelievers, they must rely on faith NOT evidence.
In the words of the late Dr. Duane Gish: “It is unbelievable what unbelievers have to believe to be unbelievers.”  And to that, I say AMEN!