Absent actual evidence for their alleged chance reptile descent, the NAS uses in its booklet, among other empty techniques of seduction, repetitive false affirmations:


“The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the basis for modern biology.”


“There is no controversy in the scientific community about whether evolution has occurred.”


“Biologists also are confident in their understanding of how evolution occurs.”


“The overwhelming majority of scientists no longer question whether evolution has occurred and continues to occur.”


“Scientists’ confidence about the occurrence of evolution is based on an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence.”


“Evolution is accepted within the scientific community.”


“Evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence and widely accepted by the scientific community.”


“Because of the immense body of evidence, scientists treat the occurrence of evolution as one of the most securely established of scientific facts.”


Scientists are confident that the basic components of evolution will continue to be supported by new evidence, as they have been for the past 150 years.”


Etc.


Science to the NAS is nothing more than a popularity contest among atheists.

APPENDIX II


EXAMPLES OF SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE AT THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (NAS) 13 Thru 19


SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 13


Absent a “plausible hypothesis” for the origin of life, absent empirical evidence for the alleged evolutionary origin of the sexes, for the alleged evolution of one specific species into another, and absent any explanation for the origin of the complex encoded instructions within each living cell:


You attempt to establish the validity of your “theory” through a false and arbitrary association with established sciences. You write, “The atomic structure of matter, the genetic basis of heredity, the circulation of blood, gravitation and planetary motion, and the process of biological evolution by natural selection are just a few examples of a very large number of scientific explanations that have been overwhelmingly substantiated (p. 12). One may take a drunken derelict from the street, bathe and groom him, dress him in a tailored three-piece suit, place him on a chair at a board of directors table, take his picture, and send it to the media. Such a publicity stunt, however, does not make him a qualified, functioning member of the board of directors. Likewise, arbitrarily placing molecules-to-man evolution in the same category as valid sciences does not make it a valid science. Each science must stand or fall based on the empirical evidence and valid principles that do, or do not, support it. In that regard, please see Scientific Incompetence Examples 1 – 12, above and 14 – 30 below.

Competent scientists do not try to disguise their lack of empirical evidence for their “theory” by falsely claiming an equal association with established sciences that are genuinely based on empirical evidence and upon valid, literal, testable scientific principles.


SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 14


Absent a “plausible hypothesis” for the origin of life, absent empirical evidence for the alleged evolutionary origin of the sexes, for the alleged evolution of one specific species into another, and absent any explanation for the origin of the complex encoded instructions within each living cell:


You take it upon yourself to transmute evolutionist speculation into alleged “fact” just by saying it is such. You write, “Each species that lives on Earth today is the product of an evolutionary lineage — that is, it arose from a preexisting species, which itself arose from a preexisting species, and so on back through time (p. 24). Given that you cannot produce any empirical evidence for the alleged evolution of the sexes or for the alleged evolution of one specific species into another, your statement that “each species arose from a preexisting species,” is illogical and unfounded. You posit an alleged chain of evidence from an original cell to the millions of species that exist today. The glaring problem is that you cannot provide empirical evidence for any one link in this alleged chain.

Competent scientists do not posit the existence of a chain of any kind when there is no empirical evidence for even a single link. Competent scientists do not arbitrarily transmute speculation into “fact” to suit themselves, and competent scientists know the difference between merely saying something is true and actually proving it is true.


SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 15


Absent a “plausible hypothesis” for the origin of life, absent empirical evidence for the alleged evolutionary origin of the sexes, for the alleged evolution of one specific species into another, and absent any explanation for the origin of the complex encoded instructions within each living cell:


You use circular reasoning in order to make it appear that your “theory” has merit. You write, “Evolution provides a scientific explanation for . . . how all organisms on this planet are part of an evolutionary lineage” (p. 4). Writing that there is a scientific explanation for an evolutionary lineage because of evolution is fallacious because it assumes that evolution is true and uses that in support of itself.

Competent scientists do not employ circular reasoning.


SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 16


Absent a “plausible hypothesis” for the origin of life, absent empirical evidence for the alleged evolutionary origin of the sexes, for the alleged evolution of one specific species into another, and absent any explanation for the origin of the complex encoded instructions within each living cell:


You violate the principle of inductive logic by drawing general conclusions without having the specific empirical evidence required to do so. You write, as one example among many, that “evolution is both a fact and a process that accounts for the diversity of life on earth” (p. xii), and yet, as noted above, you cannot identify with empirical evidence the species from which any one specific species allegedly evolved. Nor can you demonstrate, with empirical evidence, how the sexes allegedly evolved. How could Darwinism possibly account “for the diversity of life on earth,” when it cannot account for the origin of the sexes, or for the alleged evolution of one specific species into another?

Competent scientists do not violate the principle of inductive logic.


SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 17


Absent a “plausible hypothesis” for the origin of life, absent empirical evidence for the alleged evolutionary origin of the sexes, for the alleged evolution of one specific species into another, and absent any explanation for the origin of the complex encoded instructions within each living cell:


You falsely claim that molecules-to-man evolution is a comprehensive and thoroughly tested explanation for the life we see around us today. You write that “evolution itself has been so thoroughly tested that biologists are no longer examining whether evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur (p. 50), and that “it is the only tested, comprehensive scientific explanation for the nature of the biological world today that is supported by overwhelming evidence and widely accepted by the scientific community (p. 53). If these statements were true, you would present the results of these alleged confirming tests in some detail, perhaps replacing the pages of your book now devoted to acclaiming approval from religious leaders (pp. 12 -15), as well as those touting the biographies of your book committee members and staff (pp. 60 – 65).

Competent scientists do not lie about the evidence for their work.


SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 18


Absent a “plausible hypothesis” for the origin of life, absent empirical evidence for the alleged evolutionary origin of the sexes, for the alleged evolution of one specific species into another, and absent any explanation for the origin of the complex encoded instructions within each living cell:


You lie about evolution having been extensively tested for over a hundred years. You write: “Evolution is accepted within the scientific community because the concept has withstood extensive testing by many thousands of scientists for more than a century” (p. 49). The concept of chance human reptile descent has never withstood extensive testing by even a single scientist, much less “many thousands of scientists.” The history of Darwinian “theory” over the past century and a half is one of successive “missing link” hoaxes and nothing more. Evolution is accepted within the pseudo-scientific community because it is the logical inference from evolution’s arbitrary primary premise: There is no Creator or Intelligent Designer—and not because any valid tests have been conducted.

Competent scientists do not give the false impression that valid tests have been conducted in the past when, in fact, they have not.


SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 19


Absent a “plausible hypothesis” for the origin of life, absent empirical evidence for the alleged evolutionary origin of the sexes, for the alleged evolution of one specific species into another, and absent any explanation for the origin of the complex encoded instructions within each living cell:


You propagandize our school children and the public by repeating the utterly unsubstantiated claim that the alleged evidence for molecules-to-mankind evolution is “overwhelming” (my italics):


. . . the evidence supporting descent with modification, as Charles Darwin termed it, is both overwhelming and compelling  (p. xiii).


. . . the process of biological evolution by natural selection [has] been overwhelmingly substantiated (p. 12).


This contention that nobody has seen evolution occurring further ignores the overwhelming evidence that evolution has taken place and is continuing to occur (p. 39).


Scientists’ confidence about the occurrence of evolution is based on an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence gathered from many aspects of the natural world (p. 49).


. . . arguments that attempt to confuse students by suggesting that there are fundamental weaknesses in the science of evolution are unwarranted based on the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory (p.52).


Scientists and science educators have concluded that evolution should be taught in science classes because it is the only tested, comprehensive scientific explanation for the nature of the biological world today that is supported by overwhelming evidence and widely accepted by the scientific community (p. 53).


Competent scientists know the difference between the words “nonexistent” and “overwhelming,” and they do not arbitrarily substitute the latter for the former. Competent scientists have no need to rely upon repetitive false statements or to propagandize anyone.


NAS Incompetence Examples 20-25