APPENDIX II EXAMPLES OF SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE AT THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (NAS) 26 Thru 30 SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 26 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: To the long list of evolutionist “missing link” hoaxes you add a fish called Tiktaalik, named from the Inuit language of northern Canada. You make the outrageously self-serving claim that the paleontologists who discovered the Tiktaalik fossil decided “to focus on northern Canada when they noticed in a textbook that the region contained sedimentary rock deposited about 375 million years ago, just when shallow-water fishes were predicted by evolutionary science to be making the transition to land” (p. 2). Most of us have difficulty remembering where we left our coffee cup or eyeglasses before lunch, but your paleontologists know exactly where to look for the first fish that allegedly crawled out of the water “375 million years ago”! You have no idea what happened on this earth 375 million years ago or how such vast stretches of imagined time can be measured, much less whether the earth even existed then—or if there even was a “then.” Having allegedly used “evolutionary science” to discover a missing link “critically important for confirming predictions of evolution theory” (p. 3), why is it that your paleontologists didn’t use the same “evolutionary science” to locate the fossils of the species from which and into which Tiktaalik alleged evolved? The answer: because they don’t exist. Competent scientists who have discovered the fossil of an amphibian do not automatically insist that it is an “evolutionary” link between a fish and a land animal. Competent scientists also know the difference between arrant speculation and evidence. SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 27 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 give your theory of chance human reptile descent false credit for today’s advances in medicine. You do this because without faking some kind of alleged benefits of evolutionary “theory,” as you do in this example of scientific incompetence and the two that follow, you cannot name a single genuine contribution that evolutionist “theory” has made to the well-being of humanity. You write that “The rapid advances now being made in the life sciences and in medicine rest on principles derived from an understanding of evolution” (p. xi), and that “An understanding of evolution was essential in the identification of the SARS virus” (p. 5). Both statements are utterly false. What kind of “understanding of evolution” can one have when the “theory” lacks a “plausible hypothesis” for the origin of life (in other words, is founded upon an implausibility), and cannot produce empirical evidence for the alleged evolution of the sexes or for the alleged evolution of one specific species into another? Further, how can evolution’s key tenet, natural “selection,” a figure of speech that cannot be “satisfactorily defined” (Ayala, p. 52) help medical scientists with their understanding of life processes? If there were such things as “principles derived from an understanding of evolution,” you would be happy to share them with the rest of us. But you do not share them with us because no such “principles” exist. In that alleged Darwinian evolution is not an observable characteristic of living organisms, an alleged “understanding of evolution” could not have been “essential in the identification of the SARS virus.” New methodologies and instruments used by molecular biologists and geneticists, not an alleged “understanding of evolution,” make possible today’s advances in the life sciences and in medicine. Medical doctors who deal with bacterial or viral resistance to drugs are not engaged in anything resembling molecules-to-man evolution; none of these examples involves brand-new information added into the genes. They only involve variation based on the information already present. Competent scientists do not take false credit for advances in other fields. SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 28 You present, as a purported example of natural selection at work in industry, a process that is, in reality, an obvious example of intelligent design. Next to an image of a gas station ethanol pump, under the heading “Evolution in Industry: Putting Natural Selection to Work,” you write: The concept of natural selection has been applied in many fields outside biology. For example, chemists have applied principles of natural selection to develop new molecules with specific functions. First they create variants of an existing molecule using chemical techniques. They then test the variants for the desired function. The variants that do the best job are used to generate new variants. Repeated rounds of this selection process result in molecules that have a greatly enhanced ability to perform a given task. This technique has been used to create new enzymes that can convert cornstalks and other agricultural wastes into ethanol with increased efficiency (p. 9). Intelligent chemists begin the process you describe by creating variants, not by waiting for a personification of nature (natural “selection”) to begin to operate on random mutations. In the above process, an intelligent chemist, with a specific purpose, creates new enzymes. In that natural “selection” is not intelligent, creates nothing, and has no specific purpose, we can be sure that it is not in any way involved in your example from industry. The “chemical techniques” you describe and their results are unmistakably the product of intelligent design. Competent scientists do not present examples of intelligent design as if they were examples of natural “selection,” an indefinable figure of speech. SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 29 You falsely claim that modern advances in the domestication of wheat rely on “an understanding of evolution” (p. 6). Advances in modern wheat production are a result of advances in molecular biology and genetics, and not in any way a result of your “theory” of evolution. As mentioned in Scientific Incompetence Example 27, you must make transparently fake claims about the alleged benefits to mankind of your “theory” of chance human reptile descent because your “theory” of chance human reptile descent, in reality, has never contributed a single genuine benefit to mankind. Competent scientists do not present evolutionary “theory” as providing concrete benefits to mankind when it does no such thing. SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 30   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 ignore and deny the valid and relentless scientific challenges to your “theory” of chance human reptile descent. You write that “there is no controversy in the scientific community about whether evolution has occurred” (p. xiii). Please see Incompetence Examples 1 – 29, above. Competent scientists do not ignore or deny the existence of controversy in order to make their “theory” appear to be an established “fact.” I trust you will give your most earnest consideration to the above thirty examples of your scientific incompetence, and share them with the various committees, councils, and individuals who assisted you in the preparation of your book’s content. Every part of your “theory” crumbles away to nothing when examined. Your attempt to validate your atheism through your “theory” of chance human reptile descent fails every test of truth and logic. I can think of nothing more disgraceful than your attempting to poison the minds of our school children with such empty atheistic seduction. I therefore call upon you to resign your position as President of the National Academy of Sciences. Yours truly, Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.

Outing the

MORONOCRACY

ENDING THE RULE OF THE BLIND, THE STUPID, AND

THE DISGRACEFUL IN AMERICAN SOCIETY

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) 26 Thru 30

SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 26

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:

To the long list of evolutionist “missing link” hoaxes you add a fish called Tiktaalik, named from the Inuit language of northern Canada. You make the outrageously self-serving claim that the paleontologists who discovered the Tiktaalik fossil decided “to focus on northern Canada when they noticed in a textbook that the region contained sedimentary rock deposited about 375 million years ago, just when shallow-water fishes were predicted by evolutionary science to be making the transition to land” (p. 2). Most of us have difficulty remembering where we left our coffee cup or eyeglasses before lunch, but your paleontologists know exactly where to look for the first fish that allegedly crawled out of the water “375 million years ago”! You have no idea what happened on this earth 375 million years ago or how such vast stretches of imagined time can be measured, much less whether the earth even existed then—or if there even was a “then.”

Having allegedly used “evolutionary science” to discover a missing link “critically important for confirming predictions of evolution theory” (p. 3), why is it that your paleontologists didn’t use the same “evolutionary science” to locate the fossils of the species from which and into which Tiktaalik alleged evolved? The answer: because they don’t exist.

Competent scientists who have discovered the fossil of an amphibian do not automatically insist that it is an “evolutionary” link between a fish and a land animal. Competent scientists also know the difference between arrant speculation and evidence.

SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 27

You give your theory of chance human reptile descent false credit for today’s advances in medicine. You do this because without faking some kind of alleged benefits of evolutionary “theory,” as you do in this example of scientific incompetence and the two that follow, you cannot name a single genuine contribution that evolutionist “theory” has made to the well-being of humanity. You write that “The rapid advances now being made in the life sciences and in medicine rest on principles derived from an understanding of evolution” (p. xi), and that “An understanding of evolution was essential in the identification of the SARS virus” (p. 5).

Both statements are utterly false. What kind of “understanding of evolution” can one have when the “theory” lacks a “plausible hypothesis” for the origin of life (in other words, is founded upon an implausibility), and cannot produce empirical evidence for the alleged evolution of the sexes or for the alleged evolution of one specific species into another? Further, how can evolution’s key tenet, natural “selection,” a figure of speech that cannot be “satisfactorily defined” (Ayala, p. 52) help medical scientists with their understanding of life processes? If there were such things as “principles derived from an understanding of evolution,” you would be happy to share them with the rest of us. But you do not share them with us because no such “principles” exist.

In that alleged Darwinian evolution is not an observable characteristic of living organisms, an alleged “understanding of evolution” could not have been “essential in the identification of the SARS virus.” New methodologies and instruments used by molecular biologists and geneticists, not an alleged “understanding of evolution,” make possible today’s advances in the life sciences and in medicine. Medical doctors who deal with bacterial or viral resistance to drugs are not engaged in anything resembling molecules-to-man evolution; none of these examples involves brand-new information added into the genes. They only involve variation based on the information already present.

Competent scientists do not take false credit for advances in other fields.

SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 28

You present, as a purported example of natural selection at work in industry, a process that is, in reality, an obvious example of intelligent design. Next to an image of a gas station ethanol pump, under the heading “Evolution in Industry: Putting Natural Selection to Work,” you write:

The concept of natural selection has been applied in many fields outside biology. For example, chemists have applied principles of natural selection to develop new molecules with specific functions. First they create variants of an existing molecule using chemical techniques. They then test the variants for the desired function. The variants that do the best job are used to generate new variants. Repeated rounds of this selection process result in molecules that have a greatly enhanced ability to perform a given task. This technique has been used to create new enzymes that can convert cornstalks and other agricultural wastes into ethanol with increased efficiency (p. 9).

Intelligent chemists begin the process you describe by creating variants, not by waiting for a personification of nature (natural “selection”) to begin to operate on random mutations. In the above process, an intelligent chemist, with a specific purpose, creates new enzymes. In that natural “selection” is not intelligent, creates nothing, and has no specific purpose, we can be sure that it is not in any way involved in your example from industry. The “chemical techniques” you describe and their results are unmistakably the product of intelligent design.

Competent scientists do not present examples of intelligent design as if they were examples of natural “selection,” an indefinable figure of speech.

SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 29

You falsely claim that modern advances in the domestication of wheat rely on “an understanding of evolution” (p. 6). Advances in modern wheat production are a result of advances in molecular biology and genetics, and not in any way a result of your “theory” of evolution. As mentioned in Scientific Incompetence Example 27, you must make transparently fake claims about the alleged benefits to mankind of your “theory” of chance human reptile descent because your “theory” of chance human reptile descent, in reality, has never contributed a single genuine benefit to mankind.

Competent scientists do not present evolutionary “theory” as providing concrete benefits to mankind when it does no such thing.

SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 30

You ignore and deny the valid and relentless scientific challenges to your “theory” of chance human reptile descent. You write that “there is no controversy in the scientific community about whether evolution has occurred” (p. xiii). Please see Incompetence Examples 1 – 29, above.

Competent scientists do not ignore or deny the existence of controversy in order to make their “theory” appear to be an established “fact.”

I trust you will give your most earnest consideration to the above thirty examples of your scientific incompetence, and share them with the various committees, councils, and individuals who assisted you in the preparation of your book’s content. Every part of your “theory” crumbles away to nothing when examined. Your attempt to validate your atheism through your “theory” of chance human reptile descent fails every test of truth and logic. I can think of nothing more disgraceful than your attempting to poison the minds of our school children with such empty atheistic seduction. I therefore call upon you to resign your position as President of the National Academy of Sciences.

Yours truly,

Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.