Recommended Reading: Dr. Cornelius Hunter, Author of Darwin’s God, Darwin’s Proof and Science’s Blind Spot is reviewing the newly-revised NAS booklet Science, Evolution and Creationism at Access Research Network.It’s so well written, we are speechless. Dr. Hunter has saved us a lot of work, because the NAS booklet was crying out for rebuttal. This response is timely, thought-provoking and valuable. Print it out for teachers who received the NAS propaganda.(Visited 9 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
(Visited 480 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Darwinists are adept and commandeering evidence contrary to their theory to make it look like support for their theory.Watch how Darwinians take observations that have nothing to do with evolution and twist them into support for evolution. To an unbiased observer, some of the evidence would actually support intelligent design.Why women – including feminists – are still attracted to ‘benevolently sexist’ men (The Conversation). This pseudo-scientific website, ostensibly advocating science, has become a hotbed of hot air where evolutionists run rampant with speculative just-so stories. If you are a man, do you mind your manners and do nice things for women, like holding the door for them? If you are a woman, are you offended by such acts of kindness, calling them instances of ‘benevolent sexism’? Good grief, can’t we all grow up? Nobody need give offense or be offended; just learn the right responses, ladies, like “Thanks, but I can handle it.” What gets really intolerable is when the clueless authors of this stupid article, Pelin Gül and Tom R. Kupfer, conjure up the Bearded Buddha to explain why we act that way.During much of human history, a woman’s ability to choose a mate who was able and willing to assist in this process – by providing food or protection from aggressors – would have increased her reproductive success.Evolution, therefore, shaped female psychology to attend to – and prefer – mates whose characteristics and behaviors reveal the willingness to invest. A prospective mate’s muscular physique (and, today, his big wallet) certainly indicate that he possesses this ability. But opening a car door or offering his coat are signs that he may have the desired disposition.Corel Pro PhotosUndoubtedly, if men acted with no ‘benevolent sexism’ or even with ‘malevolent sexism,’ these evolutionists would be able to explain that, too. But probing further, we can ask, who are the real sexists here? Is it not these Darwinians, who have just pigeonholed all men and all women into stereotypical categories? Feminists should be outraged, because these two (one male, one female) have just destroyed feminism! They turn willful feminists into blind subjects of evolutionary forces that evolved in some cave somewhere a hundred thousand years ago. We can even laugh louder. If Gül and Kupfer were correct, they themselves would have no control over the kinds of nonsense they write, because products of natural selection engage in behaviors molded by selfish genes – not out of convictions of logic or moral choices.Oldest-known aquatic reptiles probably spent time on land (Science Daily). Fossil marine reptiles have been shown with the ability to lay eggs in the water or on land. How does that support Darwinian evolution? It doesn’t. These are assumed to be the oldest of the mesosaurs, and apparently they could reproduce either way. That sounds like a better design than being obligatory aquatic or terrestrial. Actually, Professor Graciela Piñeiro of Uruguay, a.k.a. Miss Information, cannot even prove that the juveniles spent time on land, because the bones are “almost always disarticulated, very weathered and badly preserved.” Who knows; maybe they were buried in some global watery catastrophe or something. Asserting that the fossils are important “for the understanding of reptile evolution” and “the evolution of the amniotic egg” doesn’t make it so.Human influences on the strength of phenotypic selection (PNAS). The geniuses behind this theory, Vincent Fugère and Andrew P. Hendry, surmise that humans are making animals evolve faster. “This synthesis provides new insights into the evolutionary response of populations to global change, and suggests that only some human disturbances might have large immediate evolutionary impacts in nature,” they say in Darwinese Jargonwocky. So much for free will. Humans are just products of evolution affecting the environment. Well, guess what! So are Fugère and Hendry! Unless they can account for truth and morality, they don’t really mean anything they say, because as products of evolution themselves, they blindly follow the Stuff Happens Law. You can tell they are evolving when their lips are moving.Artificial genes show life does not have to be based on DNA (New Scientist). You have to think about this one to see the error. Reporter Michael Marshall thinks that “artificial genes” provide support for evolution. He thinks that astrobiologists who have tinkered with possibilities beyond DNA (extra bases, for instance) have demonstrated that other molecules can store genetic information. Therefore, he speculates with his astrobiologist buddies, life could evolve on other planets without the familiar form of nucleic acids used by all life on Earth. Does this support evolution? Steve Benner thinks so; “It implies that extraterrestrial life might be based on alternative genetic molecules.”Actually, no, for two reasons. One, what the researchers at Scripps and other labs demonstrated was intelligent design. They applied their minds to achieve goals with molecules that did not happen naturally on Earth. Two, they proved that nature does not ‘have’ to use DNA. This implies contingency; there was no natural law requiring DNA be the only carrier of genetic information. Evolutionists cannot say, therefore, that natural laws drove the use of DNA at the origin of life. If it was due to contingency and not necessity, it becomes a matter of probability – not natural law. Illustra Media showed in its documentary film Origin that the probability of getting a single protein by chance is equivalent to zero, even assuming an Earth running constant trials under ideal conditions for many, many times the assumed age of the universe (see “The Amoeba’s Journey” in the film clips).This is kind of fun, isn’t it, when you get the hang of it. The only question is why so few students get the hang of it. Why are they such gullible dupes for Miss Information? We need more Baloney Detectors!
At the White House today, President Obama talked robots, hung out with the guys from MythBusters, and launched a campaign designed to create smarter, techier American kids. “I believe that robotics can inspire students,” he said while introducing a student project designed to collect and throw moon rocks. “I also want to keep an eye on those robots in case they try anything.” We officially love you, Mr. President. And yes, let’s get those kids into labs and in front of glowing screens – for the right reasons this time. And for those of you with an inclination to volunteer, check out this National Lab Day website matching classroom needs to volunteer expertise. American kids apparently need to learn about phone app programming, entrepreneurialism and plain old hardware just as much as they need to focus on engineering robots – a favorite topic of teachers, students and the President, as well. The President doesn’t think so, and he’s directing funds accordingly. He further announced that the $4.35 billion Race to the Top school grant program will give preference to states that commit to improving STEM education. A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… “If you win the NCAA champtionships, you get to come to the White House… We’re going to show young people how cool science can be.” Related Posts 8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting Check out some of the implementations of the partnerships Obama references above on the Digital Media and Learning Competition website, and look out for Discovery Channel’s commercial-free block of science programming for kids launching next year. Tags:#news#web Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… In the recent past, we’ve told you about Obama’s financial and moral support for startups, his masterful use of the social web – both as a candidate for the office and as President – and the change, recovery, data, and health care reform initiatives he’s conducted online. He may not personally use Twitter (yet), but he does use a Creative Commons license for his Flickr photos. It seems fairly clear to us that Obama cares about where the country is going technologically, and we hope this focus on STEM education will help us all in the long term. “Reaffirming and strengthening America’s role as the world’s engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation is essential to meeting the challenges of this century,” said Obama.” That’s why I am committed to making the improvement of STEM [science, technology, engineering, and math] education over the next decade a national priority.” The campaign involves key partnerships with organizations from Sesame Street to Sony (whose PlayStation 3 console will be used for strengthening young minds through game design competitions), and it also features help from individuals such as Sally Ride (the first female astronaut) and a handful of digitally focused CEOs. And why do American kids need this level of convincing? Brace yourselves for bad news, patriots: Kids in the U.S. rank in the mid-twenties when scored against 30 other nations for math and science literacy. We are being drastically outperformed in these areas; in a time when technological innovation is the foundation and impetus for a lot of other cultural and economic factors, can we afford to not develop competencies in tech and science? Check out the President’s 18-minute address, which outlines his plan to use the $260 million-valued campaign to bring struggling American students into world domination: jolie odell Obama hopes the campaign will increase STEM literacy for students, improve the quality of teaching in these areas, and promote better education and work opportunities for underrepresented groups – such as women and minorities – in tech. The Geek-In-Chief is also starting an annual science fair at the White House to inspire and promote young geeks who are doing great things in hardware, software, technology, science and robotics. We need, he said, to teach children to “be makers, not consumers.