OVERVIEW
I taught the typical textbook evolution curriculum for a few years after I began teaching, until it occurred to me that I was teaching unmitigated dogma. This was confirmed when I read Darwin’s admission to doing biased research in the Origin of Species. He decided not to consider alternative points of view (counterinduction) for any of the evidence he presented. He apparently was unaware or did not care that “science could not exist” without counterinduction. He justified that brazen bias by claiming it is impossible to consider alternative points of view. What audacity! He is asking readers to do him the favor of suspending any perceptions they may have about scientific objectivity so that he may formulate a credible evolution scenario. By the way, there are six editions of the Origin, all with extensive revisions, deletions and additions from previous editions.
It is a curious thing about alternative points of view regarding the evolution data, the alternative non-evolutionary interpretations of the data are ordinary while the evolution interpretations are extraordinary. That explains Darwin’s notion that it is impossible to consider alternative explanations; readers would most likely choose ordinary over extraordinary explanations. The one exception is comparative anatomy, in which case, both the evolution and non-evolution interpretations are extraordinary. Students are capable of working in small groups to formulate alternative interpretations for the untestable/circumstantial evolution evidence, but they need help with the fossil record. It is commonly thought that fossils are strung out from simple to complex because that is the order in which they evolved into existence. What is a possible counterinductive, non-evolutionary explanation? If we apply this qualitative equation, habit + population size + size and structure = relative fossil production potential (RFPP), we see that small, aquatic organisms with hard tissue are most likely to be buried in sediment and become fossilized, while large terrestrial organisms are not. In other words, in deep rock strata one is most likely to find clam rather than horse fossils. RFPP is the ordinary explanation for stringing out and evolution is the extraordinary explanation. Darwin’s dilemma becomes apparent; it was impossible to include counterinduction without simultaneously undermining the credibility of evolution. Darwin’s biased method of presenting evidence is called authoritarianism, which expired in the Middle Ages; it does not represent legitimate science.
Another problem with the typical evolution curriculum is the censorship of information that is downright unfavorable to evolution. Turning to page one hundred and seventy eight in the Modern Library 6th edition of the Origin of Species, we discover this remarkable admission: "I have now considered enough, perhaps more than enough, of the cases selected with care by a skilful naturalist, to prove that natural selection is incompetent to account for the incipient stage of useful structures; and I have shown, as I hope, that there is no great difficulty on this head." That admission is not in the five previous editions of the Origin. The naturalist to whom Darwin is referring is St. George Mivart who pointed out that all organs, according to the evolutionary scenario, would have to begin as useless, rudimentary or incipient structures that provide no survival advantage. In other words, if natural selection cannot account for the origin of structures before they have a use, it cannot account for the existence of fully functional organs either. Darwin agreed, essentially admitting that natural selection is a figment of a fertile imagination and survival of the fittest is a meaningless slogan.
Nevertheless, the quote puzzled me for awhile because the wording after the semicolon seems to directly contradict the first part of the quote. Darwin suffered from an anxiety caused psychosomatic illness most of his adult life. The symptoms were severe enough to cause him to live a reclusive life style. I am inclined to believe that a major cause of the anxiety was the incipiency problem. I think Darwin was aware of the incipiency problem from the start but chose not to address it. It is difficult to believe that Darwin could write and rewrite the Origin through six editions from 1859 to 1872 and not have the incipiency problem occur to him. Mivart forced his hand. By finally admitting to the incipiency problem, Darwin relieved his anxiety and lived the rest of his life, from 1872 until 1882, free of the symptoms that had previously plagued his health.
But, in condemning natural selection, Darwin would be leaving his followers without an evolutionary mechanism to believe in. He overcame that difficulty by promoting alternative mechanisms, which would account for the last part of the quote in question. A careful reading of the pages in this section reveals Darwin promoting Jean Lamarck's now defunct idea of use and disuse; if a trait is needed or not needed, it will somehow come into existence or go out of existence. Darwin also suggests a vague "variations without natural selection" and an "acceleration and retardation of the period of reproduction" as mechanisms for evolution. It worked for Darwin, but apparently not for anyone else. The reaction of the inner circle of Darwinists was to ostracize Mivart and sweep the incipiency problem under the rug. They did not do the scientific thing and address the incipiency problem, as a theorist would do. Natural selection has some credibility as long as the incipiency problem is kept under wraps. Thus, began a conspiracy of silence that continues to this day. I doubt that the incipiency problem has ever seen the light of day in a textbook or the popular media. The consiparcy of silence is positive proof that evolution is comprehended as a religious doctrine and not a scientific theory.
Darwin's stratagy for making natural selection convincingly real to the reader was to use imaginary examples of natural selection and making natural selection analogous to the artificial selection by humans of domesticated plants and animals; he substituted the observed artifcial selection for the unobserved natural selection. Darwin's attempt to make natural selection analogous to artificial selection is a triumph of preverse reasoning; the names themselves tell one that they are not analogous, but antithetical. For one thing, all humans manage to do is emphasize traits that are already present. By identifying selectors, one can actually turn the analogy around to reveal the impossibility of evolutionary natural selection. Humans are persistant and consistent selectors who absolutely control the reproductive process of the creatures with which they are working. No natural selectors can match the persistency and consistency of humans. Therefore, natural selectors always allow random mating to occur, which mitigates the possibility of evolution. I always enjoyed analyzing the natural selection/artificial selection analogy with students. A complete analysis of the natural selection/artificial selection analogy is in the book.
Darwin was able to play fast and loose with scientific methodology because origins research is metaphysical. Unlike real time research, origins research has no compelling practicality, such as a labor saving or monetary reward, that would dictate how evidence is interpreted. Origins research, on the other hand, invites bias because the only criterion is a preconceived belief in what the investigator is trying to prove. Objective science requires that the incipiency problem be part of the evolution curriculum. There must be some religious reason why it is not part of the curriculum. Ultimately, the origins question is a religious question. Come to think of it, evolution does serve as a doctrine for Religious Humanism, an atheistic religion.
The typical evolution curriculum is devoid of critical thinking, consequently, it is ideal for teaching critical thinking. I taught a scientifically objective evolution curriculum for many years, during which time no parent or student complained. The school administration protested, but they had no scientific grounds for doing so. Some of the science teachers protested while others submitted the following statement in my support: “If a theory or point of view is treated only as a doctrine to be validated, and not one to be challenged, it is not within the realm of science.” Evolution is purported to be a scientific theory; therefore, all teachers have an unassailable right to question the evidence in the classroom. Not only an exalted right but a common sense expectation and an invulnerable obligation to students and true science.
The purpose of the book is to defend the youth of America against a curriculum that represents the epitome of biased tailoring while hiding behind a façade of objective science. The Origin of Species was written for adults who can do as they will with the way the book is formatted. But, when the essence of the book is entered into the biology course, student advocates are needed to reformat the unit to represent legitimate science. Investigative methodology is the common denominator among all scientists. Darwin's methodology is blatantly flawed. Creation scientists, where are you? The youth of America need you to bring evolution science up to standard. The typical evolution curriculum has no redeeming qualities, it is unethical, unscientific, violates educational idealism and is particularly designed to take advantage of students’ youthful trust and ignorance.
The typical evolution unit is unconstitutional as well. In the case of Edwards v. Aguilard, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against tailoring a curriculum to enhance the credibility of a point of view. That decision was aimed at a proposed creation science curriculum and, as a result, prevented it from gaining access to public education. No special dispensation was granted by the Court that allows the tailored evolution curriculum to be taught to unsuspecting students. Defenders of the Constitution should take note.
Finally, the book is meant to raise the issue as to whether or not the question of origins should even be addressed in biology. Because the science establishment lacks the capability to unequivocally prove any explanation for origins that would cause it to be universally accepted, it also lacks the authority to focus on one particular explanation for origins and must, therefore, consider all explanations for origins or none at all. After all, the Earth’s origins evidence is public domain. No pressure group has the authority to claim exclusive ownership of that evidence and impose their interpretations on the rest of society.
What is the true identity of evolution? That is the question. It is not heresy to question a theory, yet evolution proponents react as though it is heresy to question the evidence. It is considered heresy to question a doctrine, an article of faith, yet evolution proponents insist that evolution is a theory. One cannot have it both ways. If evolution is an unquestionable religious doctrine, it cannot be taught in public education. And, if evolution is a theory, the evidence must, by scientific standards, be questioned. Pray tell, is evolution a doctrine or a theory? That is the crux of the issue.
The following is an addition dated 9/16/11
How does one teach evolution as theory? That is the question that preoccupied my thinking. It is a fact that the information presented in the Origin of Species is doctrinal evolution, not theoretical evolution. Evolution is a theory when held accountable to investigative protocol and a doctrine when it is not held accountable to investigative protocol. Evolution as doctrine is alienated from protocol, while theories follow protocol. Theories are questioned, while doctrines are evangelized. An innate, common sense investigative protocol seems to have always existed in the human psyche. Ancient cultures advanced their technologies up to the limits of the versatility of the materials available to them. Iron ore smelting and the subsequent availability of that strong versatile metal was instrumental in initiating the great technological and industrial revolution that began in the seventeen and eighteen hundreds. That is when science came into its own.
The investigative protocol that I am referring to consists of two components, counterinduction and the subservience of theories and hypotheses to the facts revealed in the investigation. Those two components are requirements, not options subject to the investigator’s discretion. Any investigation dedicated to discovery is an exercise in futility if those two components are not followed. Because evolution is not held accountable to investigative protocol, it exists as a preconceived doctrinal conclusion with an overriding religious imperative, searching, with extreme bias, for confirming environmental evidence. That describes the evolution curriculum currently in the textbooks. Conversely, the purpose of the protocol is to make investigations impersonal and to insure open-mindedness. Darwin rejected counterinduction in the following incredible sentences: “For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done.” In the annals of science has any other investigator announced his intention to dispense with counterinduction? I think not. It is intellectually backward for discovery and certainly not the curriculum strategy one would want to follow in the classroom. Scientifically, Darwin’s rejection of counterinduction discredits everything that follows. The science establishment’s failure to condemn Darwin’s biased methodology is tantamount to their stamp of approval. It makes a mockery out of the much-heralded scientific objectivity. To me it is a de facto admission that Darwin could not formulate a credible evolution scenario within the parameters of objective science. As expected, the textbook evolution unit is unabashedly biased. The statement reads like an invitation to teachers that, if they want to be fair, they must include alternative points of view for each item of evolution evidence; teachers must do what was impossible for Darwin to do.
The investigative protocol making theories subservient to facts is brought to our attention by W. Stanley Jevons in his book, The Principles of Science: A Treatise on Logic and the Scientific Method, in which he states: “A single absolute conflict between fact and hypothesis is fatal to the hypothesis; falsa in uno falsa in ominibus.” A theory may agree with dozens of facts, but it takes only one conflicting fact to discredit it.
When confronted with a doctrinal evolution curriculum it is the responsibility of the classroom teacher to convert it to theoretical evolution because the doctrinal evolution curriculum is…..well, indoctrinating. This is done by introducing protocol into the curriculum. I find it useful to begin by categorizing the evolution evidence on the basis of quality, into those that are untestable/circumstantial and those that are testable. The untestable/circumstantial evidence, like comparative anatomy, geographic distribution and comparative embryology, are poor quality and obviously have counterinductive, non-evolutionary explanations. Darwin, in his dogmatic mindset, refused to consider non-evolutionary alternative explanations for the obvious reason that it would undermine the credibility of evolution.
Textbook authors, following Darwin’s lead, are dedicated to leaving student with the impression that all of the evolution evidence is top notch. Categorizing the evidence dispels that notion and instills students with a critical frame of mind, the proper scientific frame of mind. For example, the evidence of skulls for alleged human evolution is untestable/circumstantial evidence. The ordinary, everyday counterinductive explanation is that the skulls are the remains of extinct primates or races of human beings and have nothing to do with an alleged evolution process. Conversely, evolution is the extraordinary explanation for the skulls. The counterinductive explanation is also untestable, but protocol has been followed and objectivity achieved.
The fossil record, on the other hand, is testable evidence. It is a case where fact contradicts theory. Darwin attempts to avoid protocol by discrediting the fact: “The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.” Darwin, as the quote indicates, was aware of Jevons’ investigative rule of logic, although Jevons expressed it long after Darwin had died. Jevons was merely stating the obvious.
Asa Gray, a contemporary of Darwin and Harvard professor of botany, takes the fossil record at face value and ridicules Darwin’s excuse for the absence of intermediate fossils: “Why it is asked, do we not find in the earth’s crust any traces of transitional forms? The lame answer is that extinction and natural selection go hand in hand. In other words, traces of the higher forms exist, but the transitional ones, having served their ends, are lost! You might as well say that, when in after ages the site of a battle between the Cafferes and British shall be disturbed, there will be found only the traces of the superior, conquering race. But it will not do to plead imperfection of the geological record. If any data may be relied on in this question, those supplied to us by the paleontologist may be so. The truth is that if the author has wholly and signally failed to produce even one unquestioned corroborative proof of true transitional variety among present forms of life, he cannot discover material in the geological record for a chapter on transitional varieties in paleontology.” It is not the skeptic’s responsibility to try to prove a negative that intermediate fossils do not exist, it is the theorist’s responsibility to prove that they do exist. The upshot is that, taking the fossil record at face value and following protocol, the unavoidable conclusion is that evolution was a disproved theory at the outset.
After more than one hundred years of digging in the Earth’s crust, Darwin’s excuse that the fossil record is incomplete fell prey to the test of time. So, sometime in the nineteen eighties something called punctuated equilibrium was conjured up and entered into the textbooks.
Punctured equilibrium is a complete reversal of Darwinian gradual evolution. It postulates that evolution occurred rapidly thus leaving few if any transitional fossil to be discovered. That explanation presumes that natural selection is a viable mechanism, But, Darwin belatedly discredited his evolutionary mechanism when he admitted that natural selection cannot account for the minute beginning of organs before they have a use. Therefore, natural selection as a creative mechanism is fiction and the idea of intermediate fossils must be fiction as well. The title of Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, is a false title. I have never read an account of natural selection in which the alleged mechanism is credited with creating an organ from scratch. The slogan, survival of the fittest, must be interpreted as survival of the fittest organs already in existence. If there is such a thing as student scholastic abuse, the withholding of natural selection’s fatal incipiency problem from the curriculum is it. From an education perspective, that constitutes a conspiracy to indoctrinate.
It is not protocol, but zeal for the religious imperative that guides evolution research. Darwin stated it this way: “I entirely reject, as in my judgment quite unnecessary, any subsequent addition “of new powers and attributes and forces”, or of any “principles of improvement” except insofar as every character which is naturally selected or preserved is in some way an advantage or improvement, otherwise it would not have been selected. If I were convinced that I required such additions to the hypotheses of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish…I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection if it required miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.” Obviously, theistic evolution cannot be tolerated by evolution proponents any more than creation because neither one fulfills the religious imperative for an atheistic explanation for origins under the auspices of science. Atheistic evolution has to be the orthodox version, the version taught in public education. Punctuated equilibrium is an abrupt appearance explanation for organisms designed to explain the absence of intermediate fossils. Creation is also an abrupt appearance explanation for organisms that accounts for the absence of intermediate fossils, but, because it is a theistic rather than an atheistic explanation, it is heresy and cannot be taken into consideration. Actually, there are no boundaries to counterinductive thinking in science.
Although not mentioned in the book, an interesting sidelight to the issue is the John Scopes trial which took place in Dayton, Tennessee. The Tennessee legislature passed the Butler Act in 1925 which forbade the teaching of evolution in public education. The penalty for teaching evolution was a one hundred dollars to five hundred dollars fine. Scopes was found guilty and fined, but the statute turned out to unenforceable in the long run. Yet, the folks in Tennessee cannot be faulted for attempting to defend a supernatural belief in origins the only way they knew how. The trial was a complete farce. All of the participants in the trial made the false assumption that evolution is a product of objective science, which made the trial one of science versus religion. The trial was pointless because the protagonists should have been pseudo-science versus education. The trial should have focused on whether or not students should be taught an evolution curriculum so indoctrinating that it defies investigative protocol. First and foremost the professionalism of two institutions, science and education, are at odds and must be reconciled. That is the primary issue.
It all comes down to an issue of learner outcomes. Darwin’s learner outcome, encompassed in the Origin, is to create a belief in evolution. His problem was that he could not possibly accomplish that learner outcome if he followed investigative protocol. Yet, the science establishment embraced that learner outcome wholeheartedly. It is immaterial to education whether or not students acquire a belief in evolution. The learner outcome for education is a well rounded evolution curriculum and that means including both favorable and unfavorable information. In other words, include protocol. Science aims for indoctrination by avoiding protocol, while education avoids indoctrination with a curriculum that holds evolution accountable to protocol. Education is not subservient to the science establishment; educators cannot be expected to lower their professional standards in order to accommodate a fraudulent evolution presentation.
In the case if Edwards v. Aguilard, which was decided in 1987, the court concluded that “the teaching of creation science and creationism, as contemplated by the statute, involves teaching tailored to the principles of a particular religious sect or group of sects. The District Court therefore held that the Creationism Act violated the Establishment clause either because it prohibited the teaching of evolution or because it required the teaching of creation science with the purpose of advancing a particular religious doctrine. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed.” In a previous case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Humanism is a bona fide religion. Evolution serves as a doctrine for Humanism. Obviously, the motivation as to why evolution is presented to students and the public without accountability to protocol by the science establishment is to evangelize Humanism. It is a betrayal of their profession. It is highly presumptuous of the science establishment to think that educators will betray their profession and violate a Supreme Court ruling in order to accommodate the science establishment’s betrayal of their profession. Educators can preserve their professional integrity by holding the evolution curriculum accountable to protocol. Evolution without accountability to protocol is just so much propaganda tailored to enhance its credibility. One can rightfully conclude that Edwards v. Aguilard prohibits tailoring in creation science as well as evolution science.
In truth, professionally, constitutionally and ethically, in what ever context one wants to put it, educators cannot teach science devoid of protocol anymore than scientists can legitimately practice it.
The book includes a critique of a typical secondary school evolution unit.
The author has a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction.
To order the book write to: Master Books
P.O. Box 726
Green Forest, AR 72638
Phone: 1(870)438-5288
email: www.masterbooks.net
$11.99 plus shipping and handling. 158 pgs
I taught the typical textbook evolution curriculum for a few years after I began teaching, until it occurred to me that I was teaching unmitigated dogma. This was confirmed when I read Darwin’s admission to doing biased research in the Origin of Species. He decided not to consider alternative points of view (counterinduction) for any of the evidence he presented. He apparently was unaware or did not care that “science could not exist” without counterinduction. He justified that brazen bias by claiming it is impossible to consider alternative points of view. What audacity! He is asking readers to do him the favor of suspending any perceptions they may have about scientific objectivity so that he may formulate a credible evolution scenario. By the way, there are six editions of the Origin, all with extensive revisions, deletions and additions from previous editions.
It is a curious thing about alternative points of view regarding the evolution data, the alternative non-evolutionary interpretations of the data are ordinary while the evolution interpretations are extraordinary. That explains Darwin’s notion that it is impossible to consider alternative explanations; readers would most likely choose ordinary over extraordinary explanations. The one exception is comparative anatomy, in which case, both the evolution and non-evolution interpretations are extraordinary. Students are capable of working in small groups to formulate alternative interpretations for the untestable/circumstantial evolution evidence, but they need help with the fossil record. It is commonly thought that fossils are strung out from simple to complex because that is the order in which they evolved into existence. What is a possible counterinductive, non-evolutionary explanation? If we apply this qualitative equation, habit + population size + size and structure = relative fossil production potential (RFPP), we see that small, aquatic organisms with hard tissue are most likely to be buried in sediment and become fossilized, while large terrestrial organisms are not. In other words, in deep rock strata one is most likely to find clam rather than horse fossils. RFPP is the ordinary explanation for stringing out and evolution is the extraordinary explanation. Darwin’s dilemma becomes apparent; it was impossible to include counterinduction without simultaneously undermining the credibility of evolution. Darwin’s biased method of presenting evidence is called authoritarianism, which expired in the Middle Ages; it does not represent legitimate science.
Another problem with the typical evolution curriculum is the censorship of information that is downright unfavorable to evolution. Turning to page one hundred and seventy eight in the Modern Library 6th edition of the Origin of Species, we discover this remarkable admission: "I have now considered enough, perhaps more than enough, of the cases selected with care by a skilful naturalist, to prove that natural selection is incompetent to account for the incipient stage of useful structures; and I have shown, as I hope, that there is no great difficulty on this head." That admission is not in the five previous editions of the Origin. The naturalist to whom Darwin is referring is St. George Mivart who pointed out that all organs, according to the evolutionary scenario, would have to begin as useless, rudimentary or incipient structures that provide no survival advantage. In other words, if natural selection cannot account for the origin of structures before they have a use, it cannot account for the existence of fully functional organs either. Darwin agreed, essentially admitting that natural selection is a figment of a fertile imagination and survival of the fittest is a meaningless slogan.
Nevertheless, the quote puzzled me for awhile because the wording after the semicolon seems to directly contradict the first part of the quote. Darwin suffered from an anxiety caused psychosomatic illness most of his adult life. The symptoms were severe enough to cause him to live a reclusive life style. I am inclined to believe that a major cause of the anxiety was the incipiency problem. I think Darwin was aware of the incipiency problem from the start but chose not to address it. It is difficult to believe that Darwin could write and rewrite the Origin through six editions from 1859 to 1872 and not have the incipiency problem occur to him. Mivart forced his hand. By finally admitting to the incipiency problem, Darwin relieved his anxiety and lived the rest of his life, from 1872 until 1882, free of the symptoms that had previously plagued his health.
But, in condemning natural selection, Darwin would be leaving his followers without an evolutionary mechanism to believe in. He overcame that difficulty by promoting alternative mechanisms, which would account for the last part of the quote in question. A careful reading of the pages in this section reveals Darwin promoting Jean Lamarck's now defunct idea of use and disuse; if a trait is needed or not needed, it will somehow come into existence or go out of existence. Darwin also suggests a vague "variations without natural selection" and an "acceleration and retardation of the period of reproduction" as mechanisms for evolution. It worked for Darwin, but apparently not for anyone else. The reaction of the inner circle of Darwinists was to ostracize Mivart and sweep the incipiency problem under the rug. They did not do the scientific thing and address the incipiency problem, as a theorist would do. Natural selection has some credibility as long as the incipiency problem is kept under wraps. Thus, began a conspiracy of silence that continues to this day. I doubt that the incipiency problem has ever seen the light of day in a textbook or the popular media. The consiparcy of silence is positive proof that evolution is comprehended as a religious doctrine and not a scientific theory.
Darwin's stratagy for making natural selection convincingly real to the reader was to use imaginary examples of natural selection and making natural selection analogous to the artificial selection by humans of domesticated plants and animals; he substituted the observed artifcial selection for the unobserved natural selection. Darwin's attempt to make natural selection analogous to artificial selection is a triumph of preverse reasoning; the names themselves tell one that they are not analogous, but antithetical. For one thing, all humans manage to do is emphasize traits that are already present. By identifying selectors, one can actually turn the analogy around to reveal the impossibility of evolutionary natural selection. Humans are persistant and consistent selectors who absolutely control the reproductive process of the creatures with which they are working. No natural selectors can match the persistency and consistency of humans. Therefore, natural selectors always allow random mating to occur, which mitigates the possibility of evolution. I always enjoyed analyzing the natural selection/artificial selection analogy with students. A complete analysis of the natural selection/artificial selection analogy is in the book.
Darwin was able to play fast and loose with scientific methodology because origins research is metaphysical. Unlike real time research, origins research has no compelling practicality, such as a labor saving or monetary reward, that would dictate how evidence is interpreted. Origins research, on the other hand, invites bias because the only criterion is a preconceived belief in what the investigator is trying to prove. Objective science requires that the incipiency problem be part of the evolution curriculum. There must be some religious reason why it is not part of the curriculum. Ultimately, the origins question is a religious question. Come to think of it, evolution does serve as a doctrine for Religious Humanism, an atheistic religion.
The typical evolution curriculum is devoid of critical thinking, consequently, it is ideal for teaching critical thinking. I taught a scientifically objective evolution curriculum for many years, during which time no parent or student complained. The school administration protested, but they had no scientific grounds for doing so. Some of the science teachers protested while others submitted the following statement in my support: “If a theory or point of view is treated only as a doctrine to be validated, and not one to be challenged, it is not within the realm of science.” Evolution is purported to be a scientific theory; therefore, all teachers have an unassailable right to question the evidence in the classroom. Not only an exalted right but a common sense expectation and an invulnerable obligation to students and true science.
The purpose of the book is to defend the youth of America against a curriculum that represents the epitome of biased tailoring while hiding behind a façade of objective science. The Origin of Species was written for adults who can do as they will with the way the book is formatted. But, when the essence of the book is entered into the biology course, student advocates are needed to reformat the unit to represent legitimate science. Investigative methodology is the common denominator among all scientists. Darwin's methodology is blatantly flawed. Creation scientists, where are you? The youth of America need you to bring evolution science up to standard. The typical evolution curriculum has no redeeming qualities, it is unethical, unscientific, violates educational idealism and is particularly designed to take advantage of students’ youthful trust and ignorance.
The typical evolution unit is unconstitutional as well. In the case of Edwards v. Aguilard, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against tailoring a curriculum to enhance the credibility of a point of view. That decision was aimed at a proposed creation science curriculum and, as a result, prevented it from gaining access to public education. No special dispensation was granted by the Court that allows the tailored evolution curriculum to be taught to unsuspecting students. Defenders of the Constitution should take note.
Finally, the book is meant to raise the issue as to whether or not the question of origins should even be addressed in biology. Because the science establishment lacks the capability to unequivocally prove any explanation for origins that would cause it to be universally accepted, it also lacks the authority to focus on one particular explanation for origins and must, therefore, consider all explanations for origins or none at all. After all, the Earth’s origins evidence is public domain. No pressure group has the authority to claim exclusive ownership of that evidence and impose their interpretations on the rest of society.
What is the true identity of evolution? That is the question. It is not heresy to question a theory, yet evolution proponents react as though it is heresy to question the evidence. It is considered heresy to question a doctrine, an article of faith, yet evolution proponents insist that evolution is a theory. One cannot have it both ways. If evolution is an unquestionable religious doctrine, it cannot be taught in public education. And, if evolution is a theory, the evidence must, by scientific standards, be questioned. Pray tell, is evolution a doctrine or a theory? That is the crux of the issue.
The following is an addition dated 9/16/11
How does one teach evolution as theory? That is the question that preoccupied my thinking. It is a fact that the information presented in the Origin of Species is doctrinal evolution, not theoretical evolution. Evolution is a theory when held accountable to investigative protocol and a doctrine when it is not held accountable to investigative protocol. Evolution as doctrine is alienated from protocol, while theories follow protocol. Theories are questioned, while doctrines are evangelized. An innate, common sense investigative protocol seems to have always existed in the human psyche. Ancient cultures advanced their technologies up to the limits of the versatility of the materials available to them. Iron ore smelting and the subsequent availability of that strong versatile metal was instrumental in initiating the great technological and industrial revolution that began in the seventeen and eighteen hundreds. That is when science came into its own.
The investigative protocol that I am referring to consists of two components, counterinduction and the subservience of theories and hypotheses to the facts revealed in the investigation. Those two components are requirements, not options subject to the investigator’s discretion. Any investigation dedicated to discovery is an exercise in futility if those two components are not followed. Because evolution is not held accountable to investigative protocol, it exists as a preconceived doctrinal conclusion with an overriding religious imperative, searching, with extreme bias, for confirming environmental evidence. That describes the evolution curriculum currently in the textbooks. Conversely, the purpose of the protocol is to make investigations impersonal and to insure open-mindedness. Darwin rejected counterinduction in the following incredible sentences: “For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done.” In the annals of science has any other investigator announced his intention to dispense with counterinduction? I think not. It is intellectually backward for discovery and certainly not the curriculum strategy one would want to follow in the classroom. Scientifically, Darwin’s rejection of counterinduction discredits everything that follows. The science establishment’s failure to condemn Darwin’s biased methodology is tantamount to their stamp of approval. It makes a mockery out of the much-heralded scientific objectivity. To me it is a de facto admission that Darwin could not formulate a credible evolution scenario within the parameters of objective science. As expected, the textbook evolution unit is unabashedly biased. The statement reads like an invitation to teachers that, if they want to be fair, they must include alternative points of view for each item of evolution evidence; teachers must do what was impossible for Darwin to do.
The investigative protocol making theories subservient to facts is brought to our attention by W. Stanley Jevons in his book, The Principles of Science: A Treatise on Logic and the Scientific Method, in which he states: “A single absolute conflict between fact and hypothesis is fatal to the hypothesis; falsa in uno falsa in ominibus.” A theory may agree with dozens of facts, but it takes only one conflicting fact to discredit it.
When confronted with a doctrinal evolution curriculum it is the responsibility of the classroom teacher to convert it to theoretical evolution because the doctrinal evolution curriculum is…..well, indoctrinating. This is done by introducing protocol into the curriculum. I find it useful to begin by categorizing the evolution evidence on the basis of quality, into those that are untestable/circumstantial and those that are testable. The untestable/circumstantial evidence, like comparative anatomy, geographic distribution and comparative embryology, are poor quality and obviously have counterinductive, non-evolutionary explanations. Darwin, in his dogmatic mindset, refused to consider non-evolutionary alternative explanations for the obvious reason that it would undermine the credibility of evolution.
Textbook authors, following Darwin’s lead, are dedicated to leaving student with the impression that all of the evolution evidence is top notch. Categorizing the evidence dispels that notion and instills students with a critical frame of mind, the proper scientific frame of mind. For example, the evidence of skulls for alleged human evolution is untestable/circumstantial evidence. The ordinary, everyday counterinductive explanation is that the skulls are the remains of extinct primates or races of human beings and have nothing to do with an alleged evolution process. Conversely, evolution is the extraordinary explanation for the skulls. The counterinductive explanation is also untestable, but protocol has been followed and objectivity achieved.
The fossil record, on the other hand, is testable evidence. It is a case where fact contradicts theory. Darwin attempts to avoid protocol by discrediting the fact: “The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.” Darwin, as the quote indicates, was aware of Jevons’ investigative rule of logic, although Jevons expressed it long after Darwin had died. Jevons was merely stating the obvious.
Asa Gray, a contemporary of Darwin and Harvard professor of botany, takes the fossil record at face value and ridicules Darwin’s excuse for the absence of intermediate fossils: “Why it is asked, do we not find in the earth’s crust any traces of transitional forms? The lame answer is that extinction and natural selection go hand in hand. In other words, traces of the higher forms exist, but the transitional ones, having served their ends, are lost! You might as well say that, when in after ages the site of a battle between the Cafferes and British shall be disturbed, there will be found only the traces of the superior, conquering race. But it will not do to plead imperfection of the geological record. If any data may be relied on in this question, those supplied to us by the paleontologist may be so. The truth is that if the author has wholly and signally failed to produce even one unquestioned corroborative proof of true transitional variety among present forms of life, he cannot discover material in the geological record for a chapter on transitional varieties in paleontology.” It is not the skeptic’s responsibility to try to prove a negative that intermediate fossils do not exist, it is the theorist’s responsibility to prove that they do exist. The upshot is that, taking the fossil record at face value and following protocol, the unavoidable conclusion is that evolution was a disproved theory at the outset.
After more than one hundred years of digging in the Earth’s crust, Darwin’s excuse that the fossil record is incomplete fell prey to the test of time. So, sometime in the nineteen eighties something called punctuated equilibrium was conjured up and entered into the textbooks.
Punctured equilibrium is a complete reversal of Darwinian gradual evolution. It postulates that evolution occurred rapidly thus leaving few if any transitional fossil to be discovered. That explanation presumes that natural selection is a viable mechanism, But, Darwin belatedly discredited his evolutionary mechanism when he admitted that natural selection cannot account for the minute beginning of organs before they have a use. Therefore, natural selection as a creative mechanism is fiction and the idea of intermediate fossils must be fiction as well. The title of Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, is a false title. I have never read an account of natural selection in which the alleged mechanism is credited with creating an organ from scratch. The slogan, survival of the fittest, must be interpreted as survival of the fittest organs already in existence. If there is such a thing as student scholastic abuse, the withholding of natural selection’s fatal incipiency problem from the curriculum is it. From an education perspective, that constitutes a conspiracy to indoctrinate.
It is not protocol, but zeal for the religious imperative that guides evolution research. Darwin stated it this way: “I entirely reject, as in my judgment quite unnecessary, any subsequent addition “of new powers and attributes and forces”, or of any “principles of improvement” except insofar as every character which is naturally selected or preserved is in some way an advantage or improvement, otherwise it would not have been selected. If I were convinced that I required such additions to the hypotheses of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish…I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection if it required miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.” Obviously, theistic evolution cannot be tolerated by evolution proponents any more than creation because neither one fulfills the religious imperative for an atheistic explanation for origins under the auspices of science. Atheistic evolution has to be the orthodox version, the version taught in public education. Punctuated equilibrium is an abrupt appearance explanation for organisms designed to explain the absence of intermediate fossils. Creation is also an abrupt appearance explanation for organisms that accounts for the absence of intermediate fossils, but, because it is a theistic rather than an atheistic explanation, it is heresy and cannot be taken into consideration. Actually, there are no boundaries to counterinductive thinking in science.
Although not mentioned in the book, an interesting sidelight to the issue is the John Scopes trial which took place in Dayton, Tennessee. The Tennessee legislature passed the Butler Act in 1925 which forbade the teaching of evolution in public education. The penalty for teaching evolution was a one hundred dollars to five hundred dollars fine. Scopes was found guilty and fined, but the statute turned out to unenforceable in the long run. Yet, the folks in Tennessee cannot be faulted for attempting to defend a supernatural belief in origins the only way they knew how. The trial was a complete farce. All of the participants in the trial made the false assumption that evolution is a product of objective science, which made the trial one of science versus religion. The trial was pointless because the protagonists should have been pseudo-science versus education. The trial should have focused on whether or not students should be taught an evolution curriculum so indoctrinating that it defies investigative protocol. First and foremost the professionalism of two institutions, science and education, are at odds and must be reconciled. That is the primary issue.
It all comes down to an issue of learner outcomes. Darwin’s learner outcome, encompassed in the Origin, is to create a belief in evolution. His problem was that he could not possibly accomplish that learner outcome if he followed investigative protocol. Yet, the science establishment embraced that learner outcome wholeheartedly. It is immaterial to education whether or not students acquire a belief in evolution. The learner outcome for education is a well rounded evolution curriculum and that means including both favorable and unfavorable information. In other words, include protocol. Science aims for indoctrination by avoiding protocol, while education avoids indoctrination with a curriculum that holds evolution accountable to protocol. Education is not subservient to the science establishment; educators cannot be expected to lower their professional standards in order to accommodate a fraudulent evolution presentation.
In the case if Edwards v. Aguilard, which was decided in 1987, the court concluded that “the teaching of creation science and creationism, as contemplated by the statute, involves teaching tailored to the principles of a particular religious sect or group of sects. The District Court therefore held that the Creationism Act violated the Establishment clause either because it prohibited the teaching of evolution or because it required the teaching of creation science with the purpose of advancing a particular religious doctrine. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed.” In a previous case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Humanism is a bona fide religion. Evolution serves as a doctrine for Humanism. Obviously, the motivation as to why evolution is presented to students and the public without accountability to protocol by the science establishment is to evangelize Humanism. It is a betrayal of their profession. It is highly presumptuous of the science establishment to think that educators will betray their profession and violate a Supreme Court ruling in order to accommodate the science establishment’s betrayal of their profession. Educators can preserve their professional integrity by holding the evolution curriculum accountable to protocol. Evolution without accountability to protocol is just so much propaganda tailored to enhance its credibility. One can rightfully conclude that Edwards v. Aguilard prohibits tailoring in creation science as well as evolution science.
In truth, professionally, constitutionally and ethically, in what ever context one wants to put it, educators cannot teach science devoid of protocol anymore than scientists can legitimately practice it.
The book includes a critique of a typical secondary school evolution unit.
The author has a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction.
To order the book write to: Master Books
P.O. Box 726
Green Forest, AR 72638
Phone: 1(870)438-5288
email: www.masterbooks.net
$11.99 plus shipping and handling. 158 pgs
Click here to edit.