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) 20 Thru 25


SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 20


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 revert to claiming that the “theory” of molecules-to-man evolution must be true because of its popularity among the alleged majority of scientists. You thus treat the search for truth in science as if it were a popularity contest. Thirteen times in your short book, you appeal to group-think as alleged proof of your theory:

. . . the overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the basis for modern biology (p. xii).

. . . there is no controversy in the scientific community about whether evolution has occurred (p. xiii).

Because of the immense body of evidence, scientists treat the occurrence of evolution as one of the most securely established of scientific facts (p. xiii).

Biologists also are confident in their understanding of how evolution occurs (p. xiii).

[Scientists] are investigating how evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur (p. 1).

. . . the overwhelming majority of scientists no longer question whether evolution has occurred and continues to occur  . . . (p. 3).

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 (p. 3).

. . . scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur (p. 11).

. . . [Scientists] are asking specific questions to learn more about how, not whether, evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur (p. 18).

Scientists’ confidence about the occurrence of evolution is based on an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence (p. 49).

Evolution is accepted within the scientific community (p. 49).

. . . evolution itself has been so thoroughly tested that biologists are no longer examining whether evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur (p. 50).

. . . [evolution] is supported by overwhelming evidence and widely accepted by the scientific community (p. 53).


The least suggestion that the truth concerning any certain subject is practically established because the majority, or a certain class, or a certain movement, find accord among themselves concerning it, is only a manifestation of foolishness and conceit. The great advances in the history of science have come from the inspiration and work of individuals, not from the opinions of the majority. The fact that you must bring in groupthink to buttress your “theory” is an implicit acknowledgement that your position cannot be maintained by direct empirical evidence.

Competent scientists rely upon empirical evidence, not upon the opinions of the reigning majority. Those who hold to valid scientific theories have no need to insist over and over that they are true, but rather, they let the evidence speak for itself.


SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 21


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 make the false claim that there are many proven mechanisms responsible for evolution, yet you mention none specifically because they do not exist. You write that “biologists no longer debate many of the mechanisms responsible for evolution (p. 50). If you could identify specific mechanisms responsible for the alleged evolution of one species into another, you would describe them in detail because therein would be the evidence you are lacking. But you do not list these allegedly established evolutionary “mechanisms” that “biologists [allegedly] no longer debate” because they do not exist.

You further contradict yourself by admitting that the alleged “mechanisms responsible for evolution” are, in fact, very debatable, writing, “Of course, there remain many interesting questions about evolution, such as the evolutionary origin of sex or different mechanisms of speciation (p. 52). If the alleged “different mechanisms of speciation remain as “interesting questions, how could they possibly be considered as established facts that biologists no longer debate?”

Competent scientists do not make false claims in an attempt to deceive the public and our school children.


SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 22


You intentionally misdefine and misrepresent what a Creationist is. You write, “Most broadly, a ‘creationist’ is someone who rejects natural scientific explanations of the known universe in favor of special creation by a supernatural entity (p. 37).

The truth is that a Creationist is someone who believes that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (Genesis to Revelation), in the original Hebrew and Greek, and translated concordantly, are the inspired word of the Creator God, and that at all levels, nature, a creation of God, does not contradict these Scriptures in any way. Creationists do not reject valid scientific explanations of the known universe, but rather, they reject atheist/materialist interpretations of nature and science, especially the unsubstantiated, implausible hypothesis of chance human reptile descent. Creationists do not reject “the atomic structure of matter, the genetic basis of heredity, the circulation of blood, gravitation and planetary motion, (p. 12), all valid scientific explanations to which you unjustifiably compare the alleged “process of biological evolution by natural selection” (See Scientific Incompetence Example Number 13, above).

Competent scientists do not intentionally misrepresent opposing hypotheses or theories.


SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 23


You fail to grasp the crucial difference between evidence and the interpretation of evidence. You write that “The ideas supported by creationists . . . are not supported by evidence (p. 53) and that “Intelligent design . . . is not supported by scientific evidence (p. 40). What you fail to understand is that the geology of the earth and all of the past and present living organisms of nature, are the evidence for any and all scientific theories of human origins. Creationists and ID (Intelligent Design) theorists have the exact same evidence available to them that you do. It is not that Creationism and ID lack evidence for their hypotheses and theories as you claim, but rather that you forbid any interpretation of the existing evidence other than your own atheist materialist interpretation (See examples of your incompetence 7 and 8, above). Here are two examples showing the crucial difference between “evidence” and “the interpretation of evidence”:


First, you interpret the Grand Canyon as showing gradual erosion over “a billion years” (p. 42). Creationists look at the same canyon and see it as showing a cataclysmic disruption in the earth’s upper crust (Genesis 7:11: “Rent are all the springs of the vast submerged chaos”) as a result of Noah’s Flood, an event remembered in some form by virtually every human culture, and written about in mankind’s oldest extant writing, The Epic of Gilgamesh. The evidence is exactly the same: the canyon itself. The interpretations of the evidence are very different.

Second, you and those who embrace Intelligent Design both recognize the existence of the bacterial flagellum, a whip-like cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. You and ID proponents both agree that its microscopic motor includes a water-cooled rotary engine, forward and reverse gears, a direction-reversing capability within one-quarter of a turn, a hard-wired signal transduction system with short-term memory, a proton motive-force drive system, and self-assembly and repair.

ID proponents interpret this natural evidence as demonstrating the existence of an Intelligent Designer. They say that this “outboard motor” with all of its interdependent parts is “irreducibly complex,” similar to a mousetrap that cannot function if any of its pieces are missing, and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. Such a complex system, they say, could not evolve piece by piece, but must have come into existence all at once. Thus, they interpret the bacterial flagellum as pointing to a transcendent intelligence.

You explain your interpretation of the same evidence (the bacterial flagellum) on page 40 of your book. I have read your interpretation over and over and still do not understand it, and am thus unable to summarize it. You seem to be claiming that if one part of the flagellum can perform some other function, then irreducible complexity is somehow refuted. The point is that your explanation of the bacterial flagellum, my inability to understand it notwithstanding, is your evolutionist interpretation of the evidence, and not the evidence itself.

The valid Creator and Intelligent Design hypotheses both have as much evidence available to them as you do, be it inside living cells or in the fossil record, or elsewhere. They have the exact same evidence. Thus, your statements that Creationism and Intelligent Design are not supported by scientific evidence are utterly false. The reality is that you interpret all the evidence in nature from an atheistic/materialistic perspective. Creationism and Intelligent Design do not.

Competent scientists understand the crucial difference between evidence and the interpretation of evidence. You do not.


SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 24


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 make a speculative inference appear to be a factual conclusion through an intentional violation of grammar. In your evolutionist interpretation of the bacterial flagellum (pp. 40-41), an effort to refute the ID interpretation of its microscopic motor, you write that “
some bacteria inject toxins into other cells through proteins that are secreted from the bacterium and that are very similar in their molecular structure to the proteins in parts of flagella. This similarity indicates a common evolutionary origin, where small changes in the structure and organization of secretory proteins could serve as the basis for flagellar proteins. Thus, flagellar proteins are not irreducibly complex (my emphases). The most that one can conclude from your statement that “secretory proteins could serve as the basis for flagellar proteins,” is that the “flagellar proteins may not be irreducibly complex.” Yet, you conclude erroneously that “flagellar proteins are not irreducibly complex.” You jump from the subjunctive mood, the mood of possibility, in one sentence, to the indicative mood, the mood of fact, in the next sentence, without any justification.

Competent scientists do not violate the rules of grammar and logic in order to make a contingent conclusion appear to be a final and factual one.

SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 25


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 define the variations that occur within species as microevolution, when these variations have nothing to do with the alleged “evolution” of one species into another. In order to falsely associate observable variations that occur within a species with the never-been-observed alleged evolution of one species into another, you define the “Changes in the traits of a group of organisms that do not result in a new species” as Microevolution (p. 7). You also unjustifiably refer to the variations within a species as “incremental evolutionary changes” You thus plant the false idea in the minds of our school children that any variations within a species are somehow related to Darwinian theory.

The examples you cite of variations occurring within species, calling them “microevolution” and “incremental evolutionary changes,” have nothing to do with Darwinism (molecules-to-man evolution). Darwin thought that the finch beaks that he observed in the Galapagos Islands were evidence for his theory. They were, in fact, an example of genetic variation within that species. Giving variations within a species the name of “microevolution” is an a priori evidence-empty ideological preference. This ruse enables you to make the following utterly unsubstantiated statement: “Incremental evolutionary changes can, over what are usually very long periods of time, give rise to new types of organisms, including new species” (p. 7). You present no evidence for this unfounded statement because there is none.

     Competent scientists do not engage in sophistry. Competent scientists base their findings on evidence, not on a priori atheistic dogmatism.


NAS Incompetence Examples 26-30