APPENDIX II EXAMPLES OF SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE AT THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (NAS) 7 Thru 12 SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 7 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 arbitrarily exclude from scientific consideration the valid Creator and Intelligent Design (ID) hypotheses based on your faith in atheism, and on that alone. The apparent design in nature is obvious: the birds and the trees and the flowers and the bees. Anyone who is familiar with the structure of living cells can see the apparent design in them at the molecular level. From that standpoint, then, a detailed examination of nature at all levels is fully justified, to determine if, in fact, nature is the result of a Creator or Intelligent Designer. In other words, both the Creator and ID hypotheses are plausible, based on what we see in nature, and thus they are valid starting points for scientific investigation. You, on the other hand, admit that you lack a “plausible hypothesis” for the existence of life: “Constructing a plausible hypothesis for life’s origins will require that many questions be answered” (p. 22). By your own admission, whatever foundational speculative notions you may have for your molecules-to-man “theory,” they remain implausible. Thus, you have no valid starting point for your scientific investigations. Without a plausible scientific hypothesis, you yet proceed with your “theory.” How are you able to do that? The answer is that the starting point for your “theory” is not scientific, but religious, based as it is on your belief in atheistic materialism, and your concomitant arbitrary exclusion of the possibility of a Creator or Designer. Your insistence upon molecules-to-man evolution is based upon this speculative premise and inference from it: There is no Creator or Designer; therefore, atheistic/materialistic molecules-to-man evolution must be true. In your closed system, no other hypotheses and no other conclusions are permitted. Competent scientists do not arbitrarily exclude valid hypotheses (in this case, the Intelligent Design and Creator hypotheses) from their work, especially when they acknowledge that they have no plausible hypothesis of their own for the origin of life. SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 8 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 turn the scientific method on its head. Competent scientists begin with a plausible hypothesis, then experiment and analyze data to develop the theory, and last, look for others in the scientific community to reproduce their experiments independently, so that what they have uncovered may be considered a more valid theory, a fact, or a law. You proceed backwards. First, you assert that molecules-to-man evolution is a “fact” (pp. xii, xiii, 1, 11, 12, 39, 49, 51, and 52). Your repeated assertions that evolution is a “fact” are based solely on your scientifically unsubstantiated atheist/materialist religious assumption. Then you try to develop the theory to back up your assumed “fact”: “[Scientists] are asking specific questions to learn more about how, not whether, evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur” (p. 18, my emphasis). Last, you engage in efforts to develop a “plausible hypothesis” for the foundation of the theory. Again: “Constructing a plausible hypothesis for life’s origins will require that many questions be answered” (p. 22). Competent scientists work from plausible hypothesis, to theory, to fact. You do the reverse, going from assumed fact based solely on your atheistic/materialist bias, to your alleged development of a theory, to your unsuccessful attempt to construct a plausible hypothesis for it. This is a priori Dark Age pseudo-science. SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 9 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 protect your “theory” of evolution, and your theory alone in all of science, as sacrosanct dogma. You write: “Scientific knowledge must be subjected to continued reexamination and skepticism for human knowledge to continue to advance” (p. 52), but then you add one caveat: “However, 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). If all “Scientific knowledge must be subjected to continued reexamination and skepticism for human knowledge to advance,” and yet the “science of evolution” is to be arbitrarily exempted, then the “science of evolution” must not be part of the category “scientific knowledge.” Further, insulating the theory of evolution from “continued skepticism and criticism,” by your own statement, retards the advance of human knowledge. As for your alleged “overwhelming evidence” for evolution, please see Incompetence Examples 1, 2, 3 and 4 above. If you had empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution, you would never need to make such a restricting statement. If we take out the dependent clauses of your sentence, leaving just the subject and predicate, we have “arguments . . . are unwarranted.” The “unwarranted” arguments to which you refer are those posited by scientists who hold to the valid Creator and Intelligent Design hypotheses. To you, they are “unwarranted” because you cannot refute them scientifically, and they challenge your arbitrary atheist/materialist premise. Competent scientists seek the truth, and thus they welcome skepticism and criticism of their ideas. You reject skepticism and criticism of your molecules-to-mankind evolution because it is a matter of sacrosanct religious dogma, not truth-seeking science. The way to get to the truth is through an open and serious contest of ideas. You are not interested in getting to the truth, but rather, through the pseudo-science of Darwinism, in justifying your own atheism. Competent scientists do not attempt to forbid skepticism, open debate, and controversy: They welcome it. You and your hierarchy at the NAS cannot tolerate controversy or skepticism, both part of the life-blood of true science. SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 10 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 call upon on the opinions of religious leaders, apostate and otherwise, in an attempt to bolster your unfounded evolutionist belief in chance human reptile descent. You use an atheist professor named Michael Zimmerman to supervise what he calls “The Clergy Letter Project.” Zimmerman has rounded up more than 12,000 apostate Christian ministers to sign a letter, an edited version of which you include on a full page in your book. The Clergy Letter includes this phrase: “the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth” (p.14). You devote three and a half pages of your book (pp. 12 – 15) to document the support you receive from these apostate ministers, and from other religious sects as well. Why do you covet the approval of religious leaders? What qualifies them to validate your opinions in the field of science? What empirical evidence have they contributed to validate their statement that “the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth”? Competent scientists do not need to organize religious leaders, apostate or otherwise, in support of their “theories.” Can you imagine Albert Einstein, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, writing: “Energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared, and hundreds of pastors from the United Church of Christ totally agree with me on this”? No. In this instance also, you demonstrate your incompetence as a scientist. SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 11 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 teach our school children to mock as fools those who in any way challenge or disagree with you and the rest of the NAS hierarchy about your atheist dogma of chance human reptile descent. On page 14, you feature an edited version of atheist Michael Zimmerman’s Clergy Letter. You intentionally include this statement: “To reject this truth [that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth] or to treat it as ‘one theory among others’ is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.” The logical fallacy you encourage here is called Argumentum Ad Hominem, literally, “argument toward the man,” rather than toward the issue. It is also referred to as “poisoning the well,” attacking the character and intelligence of those who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsity of any proposition. Competent scientists do not attempt to discredit differing opinions by discrediting those who hold them. Competent scientists do not attack all who disagree with them as ignoramuses who willfully make ignoramuses of their children. Competent scientists rely on empirical evidence and logical thinking, so there is no reason to attack the character and intelligence of those who hold a different viewpoint or interpretation. SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 12 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: Your own statements preclude molecules-to-man evolution from being a bona fide, testable scientific explanation for life on earth. You write, “Any scientific explanation has to be testable — there must be possible observational consequences that could support the idea but also ones that could refute it. Unless a proposed explanation is framed in a way that some observational evidence could potentially count against it, that explanation cannot be subjected to scientific testing” (p. 10, emphasis in original). You define your explanation for the existence of mankind (molecules-to-man evolution) as a “fact” nine different times (pp. xii, xiii, 1, 11, 12, 39, 49, 51, and 52), and write that challenges to it are “unwarranted” (p. 52). How can any “observational consequences” refute a “fact,” especially a “fact” against which criticism is “unwarranted” or forbidden? Furthermore, in accord with your insistence that chance human reptile descent is an unchallengeable “fact,” it is not just that some evidence cannot count against it, but that no evidence at all can count against it. Thus, according to your own words, molecules-to-man evolution is not testable, and thus it is not a “scientific explanation.” Molecules-to-man evolution is not a product of the testing of empirical evidence, but rather, the product of conclusions drawn from an atheistic religious premise. Competent scientists recognize the inherent contradiction in claiming that their “theory” is an unchallengeable “fact” while at the same time insisting that it is “testable” with some possible “observational consequences” that could refute it. NAS Incompetence Examples 13-19

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) 7 Thru 12

SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 7

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 arbitrarily exclude from scientific consideration the valid Creator and Intelligent Design (ID) hypotheses based on your faith in atheism, and on that alone. The apparent design in nature is obvious: the birds and the trees and the flowers and the bees. Anyone who is familiar with the structure of living cells can see the apparent design in them at the molecular level. From that standpoint, then, a detailed examination of nature at all levels is fully justified, to determine if, in fact, nature is the result of a Creator or Intelligent Designer. In other words, both the Creator and ID hypotheses are plausible, based on what we see in nature, and thus they are valid starting points for scientific investigation.

You, on the other hand, admit that you lack a “plausible hypothesis” for the existence of life: “Constructing a plausible hypothesis for life’s origins will require that many questions be answered” (p. 22). By your own admission, whatever foundational speculative notions you may have for your molecules-to-man “theory,” they remain implausible. Thus, you have no valid starting point for your scientific investigations.

Without a plausible scientific hypothesis, you yet proceed with your “theory.” How are you able to do that? The answer is that the starting point for your “theory” is not scientific, but religious, based as it is on your belief in atheistic materialism, and your concomitant arbitrary exclusion of the possibility of a Creator or Designer. Your insistence upon molecules-to-man evolution is based upon this speculative premise and inference from it: There is no Creator or Designer; therefore, atheistic/materialistic molecules-to-man evolution must be true. In your closed system, no other hypotheses and no other conclusions are permitted.

Competent scientists do not arbitrarily exclude valid hypotheses (in this case, the Intelligent Design and Creator hypotheses) from their work, especially when they acknowledge that they have no plausible hypothesis of their own for the origin of life.

SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 8

You turn the scientific method on its head. Competent scientists begin with a plausible hypothesis, then experiment and analyze data to develop the theory, and last, look for others in the scientific community to reproduce their experiments independently, so that what they have uncovered may be considered a more valid theory, a fact, or a law. You proceed backwards. First, you assert that molecules-to-man evolution is a “fact” (pp. xii, xiii, 1, 11, 12, 39, 49, 51, and 52). Your repeated assertions that evolution is a “fact” are based solely on your scientifically unsubstantiated atheist/materialist religious assumption. Then you try to develop the theory to back up your assumed “fact”: “[Scientists] are asking specific questions to learn more about how, not whether, evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur” (p. 18, my emphasis). Last, you engage in efforts to develop a “plausible hypothesis” for the foundation of the theory. Again: “Constructing a plausible hypothesis for life’s origins will require that many questions be answered” (p. 22).

Competent scientists work from plausible hypothesis, to theory, to fact. You do the reverse, going from assumed fact based solely on your atheistic/materialist bias, to your alleged development of a theory, to your unsuccessful attempt to construct a plausible hypothesis for it. This is a priori Dark Age pseudo-science.

SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 9

You attempt to protect your “theory” of evolution, and your theory alone in all of science, as sacrosanct dogma. You write: “Scientific knowledge must be subjected to continued reexamination and skepticism for human knowledge to continue to advance” (p. 52), but then you add one caveat: “However, 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). If all “Scientific knowledge must be subjected to continued reexamination and skepticism for human knowledge to advance,” and yet the “science of evolution” is to be arbitrarily exempted, then the “science of evolution” must not be part of the category “scientific knowledge.” Further, insulating the theory of evolution from “continued skepticism and criticism,” by your own statement, retards the advance of human knowledge. As for your alleged “overwhelming evidence” for evolution, please see Incompetence Examples 1, 2, 3 and 4 above.

If you had empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution, you would never need to make such a restricting statement. If we take out the dependent clauses of your sentence, leaving just the subject and predicate, we have “arguments . . . are unwarranted.” The “unwarranted” arguments to which you refer are those posited by scientists who hold to the valid Creator and Intelligent Design hypotheses. To you, they are “unwarranted” because you cannot refute them scientifically, and they challenge your arbitrary atheist/materialist premise.

Competent scientists seek the truth, and thus they welcome skepticism and criticism of their ideas. You reject skepticism and criticism of your molecules-to-mankind evolution because it is a matter of sacrosanct religious dogma, not truth-seeking science. The way to get to the truth is through an open and serious contest of ideas. You are not interested in getting to the truth, but rather, through the pseudo-science of Darwinism, in justifying your own atheism. Competent scientists do not attempt to forbid skepticism, open debate, and controversy: They welcome it. You and your hierarchy at the NAS cannot tolerate controversy or skepticism, both part of the life-blood of true science.

SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 10

You call upon on the opinions of religious leaders, apostate and otherwise, in an attempt to bolster your unfounded evolutionist belief in chance human reptile descent. You use an atheist professor named Michael Zimmerman to supervise what he calls “The Clergy Letter Project.” Zimmerman has rounded up more than 12,000 apostate Christian ministers to sign a letter, an edited version of which you include on a full page in your book. The Clergy Letter includes this phrase: “the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth” (p.14). You devote three and a half pages of your book (pp. 12 – 15) to document the support you receive from these apostate ministers, and from other religious sects as well. Why do you covet the approval of religious leaders? What qualifies them to validate your opinions in the field of science? What empirical evidence have they contributed to validate their statement that “the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth”?

Competent scientists do not need to organize religious leaders, apostate or otherwise, in support of their “theories.” Can you imagine Albert Einstein, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, writing: “Energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared, and hundreds of pastors from the United Church of Christ totally agree with me on this”? No. In this instance also, you demonstrate your incompetence as a scientist.

SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 11

You teach our school children to mock as fools those who in any way challenge or disagree with you and the rest of the NAS hierarchy about your atheist dogma of chance human reptile descent. On page 14, you feature an edited version of atheist Michael Zimmerman’s Clergy Letter. You intentionally include this statement: “To reject this truth [that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth] or to treat it as ‘one theory among others’ is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.” The logical fallacy you encourage here is called Argumentum Ad Hominem, literally, “argument toward the man,” rather than toward the issue. It is also referred to as “poisoning the well,” attacking the character and intelligence of those who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsity of any proposition.

Competent scientists do not attempt to discredit differing opinions by discrediting those who hold them. Competent scientists do not attack all who disagree with them as ignoramuses who willfully make ignoramuses of their children. Competent scientists rely on empirical evidence and logical thinking, so there is no reason to attack the character and intelligence of those who hold a different viewpoint or interpretation.

SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE EXAMPLE NUMBER 12

Your own statements preclude molecules-to-man evolution from being a bona fide, testable scientific explanation for life on earth. You write, “Any scientific explanation has to be testable — there must be possible observational consequences that could support the idea but also ones that could refute it. Unless a proposed explanation is framed in a way that some observational evidence could potentially count against it, that explanation cannot be subjected to scientific testing” (p. 10, emphasis in original).

You define your explanation for the existence of mankind (molecules-to-man evolution) as a “fact” nine different times (pp. xii, xiii, 1, 11, 12, 39, 49, 51, and 52), and write that challenges to it are “unwarranted” (p. 52). How can any “observational consequences” refute a “fact,” especially a “fact” against which criticism is “unwarranted” or forbidden? Furthermore, in accord with your insistence that chance human reptile descent is an unchallengeable “fact,” it is not just that some evidence cannot count against it, but that no evidence at all can count against it.

Thus, according to your own words, molecules-to-man evolution is not testable, and thus it is not a “scientific explanation.” Molecules-to-man evolution is not a product of the testing of empirical evidence, but rather, the product of conclusions drawn from an atheistic religious premise.

Competent scientists recognize the inherent contradiction in claiming that their “theory” is an unchallengeable “fact” while at the same time insisting that it is “testable” with some possible “observational consequences” that could refute it.

NAS Incompetence Examples 13-19