DARWIN IS DEAD (Leave Him in the Grave)

EducationNews.Org ^ | 01/26/2009 | Karl Priest

[Sopater]

Darwin is dead and his unscientificracist ideas should to be buried also.

Led by the atheistic and misnamed National Center for Science Education and enabled by the main-stream media, colleges, museums, and public schools have launched a last ditch effort to salvage Darwinism.The theme is a yearlong celebration based upon Darwin's 200^th birthday on February 12 and the 150^th anniversary of the publication of his famous book (see blow) on November 24.

In my state, West VirginiaUniversity has already placed a newspaper add listing events WVU will use to honor Darwin.Revealing consummate hypocrisy is the fact that WVU evolutionist professors are exposed as Debate Dodgers at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/.

Universities and, museums, if public funded, are using tax-payer money to celebrate a man whose ideas have led to the destruction of untold numbers of human lives.What is even more objectionable is that it is a certainty that the public schools, nationwide, will be a focus of this avalanche of propaganda.As a recently retired public school teacher, I find that thought quite disturbing.

For the last five years of my full-time career, with the full knowledge (and dismay) of state and county school officials, as well as the ACLU, I demonstrated to my students that mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense.  The students saw that the evidence clearly shows that every item associated with humans, animals and plants are Intelligent Designs and Intelligent Design is science.  I always let the students figure it out for themselves and allowed them to believe what they chose, but at least they were exposed to the scientific facts that extremists want to censor from the minds of public school students.

Few teachers will dare do what I did, especially with today's political situation.Therefore, public school students remain brain-washing subjects for atheists who use cowardly or uninformed educators to propagate their dogma of evolutionism.

Evolutionists use a "bait-and-switch" method of hood-winking gullible children as well as adult products of public schools.Depending on the success of public school brain-washing and the tendency of public school graduates to be too lazy to investigate the facts for themselves, evolutionists mix the term "evolution" with real scientific facts that have nothing to do with the evolution from a particle to a president.

While they put on a good show, behind the scenes evolutionists are scurrying to find a way to explain life without Darwinian references.

Darwinism is all a facade. Darwin's icons (such as the finch beaks) are shams and his disciples want to censor scientific facts about those icons from students.Even the famous Miller-Urey experiment was scientifically debunked years ago.Public school students will not see that in their textbooks or hear that from their teachers.

Public school students are being misled by the imaginative art and wishful thinking of Darwin devotees.A small (25 page) booklet, Biology for the 21^st Century (Mastropaolo, 2005.Available from the author at Mastropaolo@surfside.net.) clearly exposes the forgeries and frauds that have accompanied evolutionism throughout history.Bio21C also points out that the exact opposite of evolution is scientific because "billions of people for thousands of years have seen…that all things, viable and nonviable alike, are ravaged by time and that process is found with absolute consistency throughout the universe and is called, devolution." (pg.3)Also, "from trillions of observations by billions of observers for thousands of years, all life forms are fixed…" (pg. 20)In other words, evolution is the exact opposite of reality.

This article began by declaring that Darwin's ideas were racist.The complete title of Darwin's book is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. There is ample proof that evil men, following what Darwin believed, have committed atrocities upon humans.Even the liberal Washington Post recently ran an article on this subject (Basest Instinct,January 3, 2009; Page C01.Available on line.)

Amazingly, many Christian (in name) churches are being willingly recruited to align themselves with Unitarians, atheists, and other left-wing true-believers in Saint Darwin.The NCSE knows that one "collar" is worth ten Ph. D.'s in persuading the people in the pews that Darwinism is compatible with biblical beliefs. To counter the propaganda pastors are encouraged to sign the Creation Letter at http://kcsg.wordpress.com/.Also, churches are encouraged to invite speakers from local Creation Science groups and have a Creation Sunday..

To celebrate the life of a theology student (Darwin) in the public schools is equivalent to endorsing an "inverted-fantasy religion taught in the public schools in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America" (Mastropaolo).

Someone said:  "Evolution is bad science, bad thinking, bad logic, and certainly bad theology".Society and public schools would be much better served by celebrating the real scientists such as Louis Pasteur orFrancesco Redi.

Let's dump Darwin's beliefs and leave his memory buried with him in the English churchyard.

Published January 26, 2009

[BJClinton]

I was wondering if you could point out the specific truth and facts from the accompanying article

Well if the middle school math exercise on probability doesn't convince you I don't know what will.

[dmz]

Well if the middle school math exercise on probability doesn't convince you I don't know what will.

Likely something from the field of science would be a good bet. I won't hold my breath, though. If creationists and/or IDers had scientific evidence that evolution is false, we wouldn't be discussing mathematics.

[alstewartfan]

DMZ, mathematics IS science. It’s patently clear why evolutionists ignore probability. Just imagine the odds of three incredibly complex tissues within a body, muscles, bones and tendons, “evolving” at the same time in such a way that all three became functional to an organism. Obviously, unless all three vital cogs were randomly “completed” concurrently, the entire mechanism collapses! Do you *really* imagine that there existed a time when organisms flopped around gelatinously, like fish in a frying pan? C’mon! Bob

[Darwin Fish]

Tagline bump.

[Coyoteman]

DMZ, mathematics IS science. It’s patently clear why evolutionists ignore probability. Just imagine the odds of three incredibly complex tissues within a body, muscles, bones and tendons, “evolving” at the same time in such a way that all three became functional to an organism. Obviously, unless all three vital cogs were randomly “completed” concurrently, the entire mechanism collapses! Do you *really* imagine that there existed a time when organisms flopped around gelatinously, like fish in a frying pan? C’mon! Bob

No, mathematics is not science.

Mathematics can be applied to science, and to the extent that it models the variables correctly, it can produce useful results. But that's the key--did that mathematical model use the correct variables correctly, and did it weight them correctly? Mathematicians are good at math, but not necessarily at biology.

Here is a counter example, a biologist who is pretty good at math. And he comes up with entirely different results:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
Online lecture by Professor Garrett Odell

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=2513

Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

How are you going to deal with that?

[oldmanreedy]

Coyoteman is exactly right about mathematics.

The central activity of mathematics is applying strict formal rules of logic to produce theorems from arbitrary human-invented axioms. Theorems are proven, and once proven are eternally valid.

The central activity of science (as I understand it) is applying the scientific method to produce theories from data gathered in experiments. Theories are tentative, and are eventually replaced by "better" theories.

I say this mostly as an excuse to point out a particular idiocy of the idiot Karl Priest. From his monumentally idiotic lesson plan:

"1. Students will comprehend that the science of mathematics proves that life could not have developed by natural (evolutionary) means.
...
4. Discuss the scientific method (use the school’s science book definition). Emphasize that evolutionists have failed to follow the scientific method. Middle school teachers will see a cross-content teaching opportunity here."

So this Priest, this harebrained hairball, contends that biologists have failed to follow the scientific method. But somehow his remedial grasp of the subject he claims to teach has prevented him from realizing that the scientific method shows up nowhere in mathematics. How can any semi-educated person swallow this bull excrement?

And some biologists are absolutely amazing mathematicians: Ronald Fisher.

[dmz]

Do you *really* imagine that there existed a time when organisms flopped around gelatinously, like fish in a frying pan? C’mon! Bob
_____

You mean like jellyfish do today?

[kcpriest]

To all of the critics of my article:

“Evolutionists have no evidence, not Star Wars, not swords, not pitchforks, not pointed shoes, nothing. When they wisely default on the Life Science Challenge it proves they are all bluff and no science, or as they say in the Southwest, all hat and no ranch. Now, you say you have a jumping frog that can beat our jumping frog but you refuse to put you money where your mouth is. Or you say you have a runner who can beat our runner or a jumper who can jump higher than our jumper. Well, let’s put them on a level playing field and see. The proof is in the results of the contest. The contest settles the issue with finality. Hot air contests never end. The Super Bowl and the World Series are not decided with hot air on web sites. If you are so sure of your position you would debate.” (Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo)

There are enough of you true-believers listed at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ to raise the ten grand needed to undergo the mini-trial referred to as the “Life Science Prize”. Not only could you take Dr. Mastropaolo’s money, but you could shut my mouth.

The only problem is, the LSP would be based on observable objective SCIENTIFIC evidence, not Never Never Land “just-so” stories.

Evolutionists have bragged, got “called out” on their bragging, and have lost by default. Even six-year-olds know what to call something that struts around clucking. That’s why you don’t want school children to hear anything other than your propaganda.

I suggest you take a pilgrimage to Westminster Abbey and chant around Darwin’s tomb. At least you’d be leaving alone innocent public school students.

Karl Priest

[Zero Sum]

I suspect that the author is a very good mathematician who is a bit confused about evolutionary biology.

The author is not a mathematician at all. He is a middle school teacher who seems a bit confused about how mathematical models are applied to the real world.

[alstewartfan]

SO..... the jellyfish of today may become the humanity of tomorrow! Neptune rules! Best, Bob

[Captain Beyond]

Sorry to break it to you dude but I have not been a critic of your article or an evolutionist.

[Zero Sum]

Mathematicians are good at math, but not necessarily at biology.

Here is a counter example, a biologist who is pretty good at math.

In the video that you linked, the biologist giving the lecture had his formal education and training in mathematics (he has a Ph.D.) and has 13 years experience as a mathematics professor. Perhaps instead you could say that he is a mathematician who is pretty good at biology. :)

The author of this article, on the other hand, is a middle school teacher. The difference in competence between the two is not limited to the biological sciences.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

And some biologists are absolutely amazing mathematicians: Ronald Fisher.

Ronald Fisher was not a biologist. He was a statistician and a eugenist. He held the Galton chair of eugenics for 10 years. His main work The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection is an application of statistics to develop a theory about differential reproductive rates to solve a problem (an idiotic problem) in eugenics.

[Angostura]

I was trying to be generous to avoid starting a flame-war, but I don’t disagree.

[Angostura]

What are you actually arguing against old chum? Are you arguing that no evolution ever occurs (i.e there is no change in genetic make-up of a population over time)? Are you arguing that speciation doesn’t occur? That new organs do not arise over time?

You need to be more specific? I’m not surprised no-one has ever applied for the life-sciences prize, the wording is so vague, the terms left undefined, the site so bedecked in rhetoric - no-one is ever going to believe it is a real challenge.

If I can demonstrate the evolution of anti-biotic resistance in a bacterial colony over a few thousand generations, does that win the prize? Can’t really tell from those rules.