More blogs about Creation Evidence.
Creation Evidence: Kansas Approves Questioning Evolution

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Kansas Approves Questioning Evolution

On Tuesday, November 8, 2005 the Kansas State Board of Education voted 6-4 to approve a new set of science standards that question the veracity of evolution theory. Why is it important to challenge the veracity of evolution theory? Evolution is promoted in a way that confuses students and the public. In popular culture evolution is not just characterized by adaptation within a species, but by growth into more advanced species. A small business evolves into a large business. A timid local basketball player evolves into a national star. Evolution implies growth, as in evolving from invertebrates to vertebrates, amphibians to mammals and dinosaurs to birds.

Could natural selection produce these kinds of results? Natural selection, often stated as the “survival of the fittest”, is in fact a scientific principle that can be tested and verified in the laboratory. Microbiologists observe it as antibacterial drugs are applied to cultures of bacteria. Through studies it is observed that certain strains of bacteria survive the harsh invasion of the antibacterial substance. Since some bacteria survive and reproduce, is that real, vertical evolution or simply minor variation? Is it evolution if they survive other antibacterial drugs? Evolutionists would say this is an example of evolution in action. Certainly it is an example of natural selection in action, but do the bacteria grow into a higher-level organism? No!

Natural selection, mutations and genetic drift bring but minor change, not new information; not growth as in bacteria becoming something other than bacteria. For evolution to be demonstrated as true we need to see examples of growth such as testable examples of bacteria that evolved into multi-cellular organisms. Bacteria are single celled; they’re asexual and reproduce quickly. E. coli reproduce approximately every 20 minutes. If vertical evolution is real, it should be observed in the laboratory through the countless worldwide experiments being performed with bacteria. How is it known that evolutionary growth has never been observed? If such an incredible process was observed and could be reproduced again and again in the laboratory, it would be front-page news for a very long time!

Rather, evolutionists provide evidence for small changes in organisms but do not provide direct evidence for large-scale changes. Biological evidence for evolution is an extrapolation from minor changes in organisms. But an extrapolation is not empirical science.

Biological changes from natural selection weed out (select out) information; they reduce the genetic information of the organism. The reduction of genetic information can be illustrated through artificial selection of breeding animals. Dogs, for example, can be bred to have no hair. In order to get this result the genetic information for hair is eventually bred out. The public is led to believe that natural selection produces new information-- "evolution". It does not.

Therefore, students and the public need to be made aware that natural selection, mutations, genetic drift and other natural mechanisms merely produce changes within an organism, but the changes are the result of a reduction of genetic information. This is a huge issue and evolutionists do not teach this kind of fundamental problem with the theory of evolution. Yes, plants can become hybrids and viruses can carry genetic information from one host to another, but none of this produces novel genetic information that did not exist before. The Kansas State School Board is correct in encouraging students to discover and discuss some of the major flaws in the foundation of evolution.

Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education said, "It will be marketed by the religious right ... as a huge victory for their side." This issue is not about "the religious right"; it is about a proper scientific understanding of where we came from. Since evolution merely produces changes within organisms and with it a reduction of genetic information, where is the biological evidence in favor of cells-to-humans evolution? Other than an extrapolation from a process that reduces genetic information, it does not exist. The Kansas State Board of Education is correct to encourage their students to see the real nature of evolution.

3 Comments:

At 10:41 AM, November 09, 2005, Blogger Jim Bendewald said...

Donato wrote to me via email. The following is his message and then my response.

Donato wrote:
I work as an engineer. Most of the engineers I work with are
from other countries because there is very little interest in this
country in the sciences. It’s funny that our science is what
keeps us safe from countries that would do us harm.

People that don’t believe in evolution won’t even if they were
given a time machine and able to go back in time, which is
basically what the fossil record is. Despite the staggering
evidence underlining evolution, many people feel better if they
thought we were “magically created”. What’s next, attacks on
geology, astronomy? Based on the criteria of “Intelligent
Design”, alchemy and astrology are both sciences.

I believe that the real problem is arrogance. Many people want
to believe that we are somehow so special, that God has an
interest in our every day lives and that he will do things for us
if we pray hard enough. My feeling is that God began the
universe to see what would grow there; he didn’t make us
above all others, but rather “among others”. I believe that people
denying “God’s Work” are the ones denying evolution,
which, to me, is “God’s master plan”. God gave us life. It’s
obvious that by giving us free will, he is waiting to see what we
will do with this precious gift and how that will evolve.
Donato

My response:

Donato,

Thank you for your response. What country you are from?

You said, "Despite the staggering evidence underlining evolution." Is the staggering evidence the minor changes within organisms? If this is what you mean then I would agree with you. But if you are saying there is staggering evidence underlining vertical evolution, from cells to humans, than I would like to learn what evidence you are referring to.

You said, "Based on the criteria of “Intelligent Design”, alchemy and astrology are both sciences." The Kansas State Board of Education recommends the following as the definition of science: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." I was unaware that alchemy and astrology makes use of the scientific method. However, Intelligent Design scientists definitely do.

You said, "My feeling is that God began the universe to see what would grow there; he didn’t make us above all others, but rather “among others". You fashion a god after your own imagination. He is big enough to create the universe but will not morally hold you accountable for how you live. That is convenient for now but the true God has revealed Himself through the Bible as hating sin and He will hold you accountable for your actions. Hebrews 10:31 "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

Jim

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 9:18 AM
Subject: Your article on TheRealityCheck.org

 
At 11:05 AM, November 09, 2005, Blogger Jim Bendewald said...

I said, "That is convenient for now but the true God has revealed Himself through the Bible as hating sin and He will hold you accountable for your actions."

I should have mentioned that God has provided a way for salvation. Go here to learn more: http://www.evidencepress.com/heaven.htm

 
At 1:17 AM, December 21, 2005, Anonymous dead eddy said...

yes god hates sin but god has shown he is not above a little genocide, war, and murder. and i do believe we should be accountable for our actions. thats why i am firmly rooted in my belief that so called "christians" like pat robertson are going to be in serious danger of hellfire due to their unforgiving, uncompromising, and unkind natures who have probably hurt evangelism more than any other outside religion.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home