COUNTERPOINT   PART  I





















COUNTERPOINT, PART 1 
by RoseAnn Salanitri

TPATH Contributor

Introduction

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.

PG. 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. 


Contact RoseAnn  HERE


Contact TPATH HERE


****************************


COUNTERPOINT PART II

CLICK HERE



CSS font