12. What Should be Taught in Schools
The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.
The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.
The other dayI was kind of thinking on a math and philosophy bent when I was considering the two major notions of how all of modern nature formed. I came to a few conclusions. First of all evo-illusionists say all of modern nature including all species and bio-systems were brought into existence by random mutations and natural selection very slowly. Random mutations and natural selection are entities that are completely devoid of intelligence. Looking at the configurations of nature, one can only conclude that they show design. For example when studying anatomy, one is studying the design of the human body. Design is undeniable. Design requires intelligence. But, according to evo-illusionists, there is no intelligence in evolution’s progenitor for all of modern nature. So here we have an unsolved conundrum. Evolution’s designs of nature require intelligence for their design. However, evolution’s progenitor of all of modern nature, random mutations and natural selection, is devoid of intelligence.
Intelligent Design says all of modern nature including all species and bio-systems were brought into existence by an intelligent entity. The designs produced by that intelligence are undeniable. So here again, we have an unsolved conundrum. The designs of nature require intelligence for their design. However, the progenitor of all of those intelligent modern natural entities cannot be objectively and scientifically found to exist. We cannot locate an intelligent source with our space satellites, imaging machines, night vision goggles…..
The speed of the formation is not significant in this formula. Either way, the end results are exactly equal. Both schools of thought have unsolvable flaws which haunt both of them. Evolution’s unsolvable flaw is the absolute fact that entities completely devoid of intelligence cannot invent and construct designed entities. Virtually every person on Earth knows that as fact. Intelligent Design’s unsolvable flaw is the absolute fact that the progenitor cannot be scientifically located or be “existence proven”. I do know emotions and beliefs will get in the way of these unsolvable flaws, but both are easily supported by every experience mankind has ever had. Evolutionauts will try to get around their unsolvable problem by pretending they can’t see any design at all in nature; or that the design is so terrible that it actually isn’t design. Either way, they lose. Either stance is absurd, and quickly puts them in quicksand. Even a simple tube requires design. It is not possible to design a functional tube badly. They either work as tubes, or they don’t. The human body, and the bodies of all multicellular species are filled with tubes. The religious will say they “feel” God, their intelligent source, and that they talk to God, and that they have a book……. But of course I am discussing scientific discovery and observation, so this tack won’t work in this venue.
The starting point for both schools of thought is the same and exactly equal: a sterile Earth. The finish line for both schools of thought is the same and exactly equal: a modern Earth teeming with life, complex bio-systems, and conscious intelligent mankind. So here is a little philosophical math.
Euclid, was an ingenious Greek mathematician who lived around 300 years BC. One of the oldest surviving fragments of Euclid’s Elementsmade is at left. Euclid wrote this axiom: “Things which are equal the same thing also equal one another.”
So here is how a Euclidean formula describing this information would look:
Evolution+major flaw= Earth teeming with life+complex bio-systems+conscious intelligent humans
Intelligent progenitor +major flaw= Earth teeming with life+complex bio-systems+conscious intelligent humans
Substituting using Euclid’s axiom:
Evolution+major flaw= Intelligent progenitor +major flaw
Folks, were in a dead heat. Both of these schools of thought are exactly equal when looking at them on a purely scientific basis. That equality should be considered when deciding what to teach our students in school.
Actually this is how I see the battle between ID and evolution: we are toddlers in the scheme of the universe. If we could imagine (here is my “suppose”) ourselves as two year olds who are trying to figure out the engineering and assembly of a 747. One group of toddlers thinks some great mysterious being suddenly made them. The other group thinks they simply evolved into existence, but doesn’t know how the raw materials got here. A huge battle rages. In actuality, neither group or individual two year olds has anywhere near the brainpower to figure out how 747′s were created. So what they have is a tempest in a toddler teapot. They could never figure it out, due to a severe lack of brainpower. We as adults have the same problem. In actuality, toddlers may be much more able to figure out the 747 than we are at understanding how species originated.
Reality is that science classes are no place for religious, philosophical, or belief systems. That is why teachings from religious books should be left to parents, religion and philosophy classes, and churches. The same is true of Darwinian evolution, which is no more than a belief system. It is not objective science, and it should not be taught as such. The fossil record, current accepted biological timelines, the scientific origins of earth, solar system, and universe (Big Bang), the fact that species are truly related genetically and biologically are provable objective science with good back up evidence. Biological timelines should say when species “appeared” not that they “evolved” or were “created”. Figments of people’s imaginations, cartoon drawings showing speciation, and fake evidence should be expunged from science texts. Biological sciences need to become objective and purely scientific, which would, of course, be a giant leap. Real science should teach: “We cannot at this time discern why the Big Bang occurred, why it occurred when it did, how life began on earth, or how species happened to appear. But here is the evidence that we have so far:”
If biologists give up Darwin, the great concern is that Adam and Eve and a 6,000 year old earth will creep into science classrooms. Creationism and religious teachings should be absolutely banned from school teaching. Evolutionists are too focused on fighting Adam and Eve, and Darwin is their only weapon. They are desperate to keep Darwin going because if they lost evolution, they would have nothing to battle Biblical creation.
Evidence for intelligence in nature is overwhelming. Even the most radical evolutionist would have to admit that. Eyes, hearts, and lungs cannot be copied by the greatest engineering minds in the world. However, the source of this intelligence cannot be found scientifically, so ID should also not be taught in science classrooms. Both Darwin and ID would be good subjects for philosophy classes. The advantage of doing this would be not only to give students a real objective look at our origins, but also open the door to real scientific research that would give science a new look at other possibilities for the origin of species. It would also eliminate any more ridiculous court battles between evolutionists and creationist-ID’ers that are so costly, and provoke so much hatred. The amount of money spent on court cases and the infighting between Evolution and Creationism could certainly be put to better use.
There are certain things that we humans know to be facts; undeniable facts. So if evolutionauts want to force their thinking and theories into school science classrooms, these facts should be a criteria and taken into consideration. Here is a partial list:
2. Over one billion species have inhabited the earth since the beginning of life,3.7 billion years ago .
3. Of the 117 atoms represented on the periodic table, the design of the carbon atom, no matter what the source, is uniquely amenable to the formation of life.
4. Different species have “appeared” suddenly at different times in the fossil record, and over 97% have become extinct.
5. Fossils within species or groups of species demonstrate very little change over tens to hundreds of millions of years.
6. Many species or groups of species that first appeared hundreds of millions of years ago in the fossil record are still thriving today with little change. Sharks, coelacanth, crocodiles, centipedes,…………
7. No person who has ever lived on the planet earth has observed or experienced the invention, design, and assembly of any utilitarian device of any kind, be it living or man-made, without the absolute need for intelligence.
8. No person who has ever lived on the face of the earth has ever observed natural selection et al in the process of inventing, designing, and assembling any bio-system or organ of any kind.
9. Random mutations have never been observed forming new healthy specific tissue types, and placing that tissue in just the right location, shape, and amount for utility in any organism.
10. No intelligence whatsoever can be credited to natural selection and/or random mutations.
11. No fossils have ever been found that demonstrate the evolution of wings and development of flight, or any biological system.
12. All bio-electromechanical devices and systems can be considered inventions far more than any human device ever invented. Nature’s inventions were formed from a complete lack of the prior art used by virtually all inventors, zero intelligence, and non prior existence. They were formed on an immense sterile ball (earth) covered with dirt, rock, chemicals, and water, and completely devoid of any utilitarian devices whatsoever. The inventions of ball and socket joints, vision, pumps (hearts), auditory systems, sonar, cells, consciousness, intelligence, …..are the truest of inventions. Far more than any invention ever made by any human.
13. No person on the planet earth has the power to declare that any organ or bio-system is not an invention.
Here is another problem for evolutionauts. When they say there is no design involved with the entities, species, and bio-systems of nature, they run into the problem of entities that existed before life existed. Do they show design? Just like living nature, they could not. Because if there were a design in the entities that made up living organisms, and entities that were necessary to support new life, then there IS DESIGN for which there must be some source. Evolution must not only say there is no design in living nature, they must also then say there is no design in the entities that existed before life began. So here is a partial list of entities that must not have any design, but must have been configured by Dumb Luck which made a Piggley Wiggley Mess (as one evolutionaut told me what he sees when he looks at nature’s entities). If an evolutionaut admitted to seeing design in ANY entity in nature, the whole theory goes up in smoke. If one entity was designed, they all were. So, evoloutionauts will have to do some heavy duty pretending to support their belief. And that can get exhausting, constantly saying they can’t see what they do see. Do any one or all of these entities show design?:
1. configuration of the carbon atom
2. the atoms of two thin gasses (at STP) combining 2:1 and forming a heavy liquid compound absolutely necessary for life
3. solar system
4. fusion of H to He
5. strong force stronger than electromagnetic force by 100x
6. configuration of all atoms
7. mathematics required to understand quantum mechanics
9. light/electromagnetic waves
10. gravity being one trillion trillion trillionth as strong as the strong force
A note for real science: Make a theory taking these absolutes and pre-life entities into account. When you can make that theory that fits these, then teach it in schools. Until you do, leave our school children alone. Tell them the truth. “We don’t yet know”.
BTW: Intelligence and design are already taught in science classes. Where is Intelligence in natures designs taught? In every science class. So those of you who are supporters of ID should not feel like you are getting the short end of the stick. If you evolutionauts who want any hint of intelligent design removed from the classrooms, you are too late. When we study the human body in anatomy, we ARE studying its DESIGN. And the human body is certainly intelligently DESIGNED. It’s unimaginable that one could look at a Gray’s Anatomy book and not see how all of those pipes, tubes, pumps, ball and socked joints, digital cameras, audio systems, et al, are not incredible DESIGN. When we study genetics, we are studying the DESIGN of genes, chromosomes, DNA, RNA, and the entire DESIGN and function of the genetic bio-system. When we study histology, we are studying the cells that make us up, and their DESIGN, which is intelligent beyond belief. Botany is a study of the DESIGNS of the plant kingdom. Biochemistry is the DESIGN of our biochemical systems, such as clotting mechanisms, the Kreb’s cycle which ingeniously results in the energy that drives our cells. Physiology is the study of the working and designs of our bio-systems: how our vision functions, how our hearts operate, our hearing……. Nothing has to be overtly stated about intelligence in the design of all entities of nature. Their study is ALWAYS a study of DESIGN; real design, not the figment of someone’s imagination who wants to call it APPARENT DESIGN. The intelligence in nature’s designs is obvious and beyond anything we can imagine. Of course we don’t scientifically know the source of that intelligence so that source has no place in the science classroom. The designs speak for themselves. No teachers should tell their students the idiotic notion that these designs they are studying are not designs; or that they were designed by some entity. The conclusion are obvious. Students DO study the designs, and there is no need to lie about the source of those designs. No scientist has that answer.
It is unlikely that Darwinian evolution will ever be removed from the classroom. So, to be purely scientific, the evidence that Darwin my not have been correct, and there is plenty of that, should be taught. If evolutionauts are purely scientific, they should have no qualms about a textbook chapter showing scientific evidence against Darwin. Dream on. Since both major schools of thought are equals in their scientific veracity, and both are certainly powerful and important as far as their affect on mankind goes, both should be taught in philosophy and history classes. If the day ever comes that mankind has found an undeniable answer the this Puzzle, then teach THAT in science classes.