I keep thinking of examples of how nature acts. One illustration is what happens if you would take a luxury car, drive it to the sand dunes at Port Aransas and remove the computer chip card from the controller. Actually all you have to do is walk away but leave it completely to nature. With the salt water, sun and air it would take only a few years for the car to completely deteriorate to scrap metal. With a good hail storm knocking out the windows, it will deteriorate even faster. Oxygen removes the rubber in the tires and the moisture and oxygen in the air converts the steel tire treads along with all of the metal in the car to iron oxide that becomes a mass of rust on the sand. The leather seats quickly combine with the air to form carbon dioxide and hydrogen oxide or water. If it is buried in the water or sand some of it may survive for a few years but out in nature it disappears. It will never become active and drive off in better shape than it is, unless it is taken to a shop where people would make it more able to perform like an automobile. Nature never improves but only degrades with natural forces. Am I wrong? How can evolutionists ever believe that random banging together of atoms would become more complex and create anything that would improve its condition.

I have seen planted crops with the heads all at reaper level and I know that if that field is ignored and left to nature the next year the heads would be a random heights and after only a few years with no person plowing or planting the field would become random plants with all kinds growing and dying. And this is with living plants that have been programmed from the beginning to reproduce according to their DNA instructions. Darwin saw changes and supposed survival of the fittest. I see continual deterioration without some intelligent action.

WONDERING ABOUT COMPLEXITY IN NATURE

I woke up from my nap wondering how anyone can believe that nature can create more complex entities using natural forces? The things that I observe is that when a living organism dies it decomposes into basic elements like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, calcium, sodium, etc. I have never seen basic elements get together to form more complex arrangements without help from people who can apply energy to cause combinations. Of course in nature volcanic activity that has excess energy is known to form diamonds somehow, we don't know. It is argued that high-energy solar radiation can cause all kinds of problems interacting with natural elements. The conversion of N to C is one example of that process. I remember when computers first came out and we were trying to develop ways to permantently record our digital records. It was argued that any method of using magnetically charged particles would be affected by high energy solar radiation that would strike the disk or tape or wire and disrupt one of the plus or minus dots and mess up the entire chain of data so that it would be meaningless. So it was argued that laser embedded data on plastic CDs would be more permanent but again we were told that it wouldn't last foreever but would be destroyed by high energy solar energy.

Recently the solar radiation has been a major news story as we worried about effects on the electrical distribution system, destroying satellites and harming the space shuttle occupants who moved into a protective shelter on the ISS. Predictions of solar storms and the variations of the appearance of them made me wonder how we could assume that solar radiation and thus the production of C14 from N has been constant. I would assume that it would fluctuate as we have observed variation in solar storms. This places any C14 dating technique in question in my mind.

Back to the question of nature growing more complex, I don't understand how any believer in evolution can see nature forming more complex when all I see is natural forces causing destruction of life and degradation from more complex to more simple. Trees die and decompose into mulch that continues to decompose more with time. Even an acorn that is roasted or otherwise killed will decompose into basic carbon molecules and simple elements. Basic chemicals can not organize into complex arrangements just left alone in nature.

As I have told before when I first started looking at creation science I was studying nuclear engineering and believed that nuclear dating would be the perfect way to settle the question of the age of the earth. 6000 years vs. 4.5 billion seemed to be too much difference that couldn't be solved by technology. I got the original journals on C14 dating and suddenly realized that there are assumptions that are basic to the testing. They assumed that the atmosphere and solar radiation had been constant for at least 100,000 years. I told myself that if the Biblical story of a vapor canopy and flood changing the atmosphere drastically would cause C14 dating to have unusual results and the early tests that I could find had anomalies as I expected.

This has led to my developing a paper or book on ASSUME. Here is the intro:
Our life is based on assumptions that we accept on faith and can not prove. Of course you have responded to someone who has stated "let’s assume...." with your response: "No, I can spell and assume makes an ass out of u and me." As much as we don’t want to admit it, we live by our assumptions.

The first basic assumption we hold is that we believe in God or we don’t or we are not sure. But we have all given it some thought. A concept that can not be proven but certainly affects everyone in the world. This is an example of one assumption and I want to look at what we assume in many areas in life such as religion, business, science and thinking.

Let’s start with one assumption example: When Christopher Columbus asked Queen Isabella for funds to support his voyage to find India by sailing West, the Queen said she would have to ask her Council of Bishops of the church who advised her. They recommended against funding the voyage. Why?

1. Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth.

2. Columbus’ ships would be destroyed by huge sea monsters.

3. India was located much further than Columbus was planning for and he couldn’t make it.

If you answered 3 you would be correct. Columbus had contacted the Scandinavian explorers who assured him that there was land where he planned to sail to and he assumed that it was India because he knew India was in that direction. He convinced the Queen that there was land to be explored and she finally agreed to fund the trip. However the stories that have come down into our assumptions have been muddled by those who want to challenge our intelligence.

An example of assumed beliefs is this statement from Wikipedia: The belief that the Earth was flat was typical of ancient cosmologies until about the 4th century BC, when the Ancient Greek philosophers proposed the idea that the Earth was a sphere, or at least rounded in shape. Aristotle was one of the first thinkers to propose a spherical Earth in 330 BC. By the early Middle Ages, it was widespread knowledge throughout Europe that the Earth was a sphere.

I would argue that the Biblical stories much earlier reflect a belief that the world was spherical. The contributors to Wikipedia reflect belief that modern thought came from the early Greek writings rather than the Hebrews.

I recently made the acquaintance of a Wester Writer of America member who read this blog and emailed me the following comment:

Carbon 14 is an interesting critter. I was in Antarctica in 1972 and 1973 working in a remote area named the Dry Valleys. There were mummified seals in the valleys. Carbon 14 dating was done on them and they were registering over 10,000 years. The scientists then did carbon 14 dating on live seal pups and they registered about 500 years old. So if nothing else Carbon 14 is not accurate in polar regions. So from that point on I realized Carbon 14 probably was not a constant over time the way most people think it is.

I need to read more C14 tests to see if they calibrate their tests by evaluating a living plant to see if they can get 0 years as an age. I look forward to the WWA meeting in June to visit with him and find out more about his experience with the creation/evolution controversy.

HOW DO I FEEL ABOUT CREATION?

My wife, Nancy, gave me this assignment this morning to express my feelings about creation in a two page double-spaced paper. She, like most women, are more attuned to emotional feelings than I am or think I am. I had never thought much about creation until I was about 33 years old when I read a short book by Dr. Henry M. Morris entitled The Bible and Modern Science. It challenged evolution and I responded that everyone knew evolution was true and started my looking into the subject. I told myself that I was educated in the physical sciences, but evolution was in the biological and anthropology areas that I had no knowledge of. So I went to the Fort Worth Public Library and looked at some of the anthropology journals. This was in 1957 or 8 and the Piltdown Man had just been discovered to be a hoax. The articles in the journal fascinated me by the caustic remarks and attacks on the beliefs of other scientists. I had read a lots of technical papers by engineers and we never used that kind of language when we disagreed.

About that time I got a case of flu or something that put me sick in bed for about a week. I had realized that I had never read the Bible so I took the opportunity to read it from cover to cover. As I read thinking about the creation-evolution controversy I told myself that if God didn't create the world then the Bible stories didn't make sense because all the way through they referred to creation.

I then discovered apologetics literature and read more about the history of the criticism of the Bible starting with the Germans around WWI when they used "scientific" methods to examine the writings to argue that parts attributed to one writer were obviously written in a different style and must be questioned as to the authorship. They also argued that historical facts were not known and that the Bible stories about peoples were questionable. Thus they questioned the authenticity and validity of the writings. By the time I read the apologetics literature, a great deal of archaeological findings between WWI and WWII had discovered artifacts that supported the Biblical stories and verified Biblical history as being accurate. This was what I wanted to believe which is an emotional response.

At this time I was completing four semesters of graduate work in nuclear engineering and as I looked at the arguments about whether the world was 4 billion or 6000 years old, my response was that radioactive dating would prove accurately the age of the earth. I then went back to the library to look for work on radiocarbon dating and immediately found a problem. The dating technique was based on assumptions of no change in the atmosphere composition and no change in the rate of high energy solar radiation that caused the conversion of N to C14. By this time I had read THE GENESIS FLOOD and the theory about a different atmosphere with a water canopy prior to the Flood and realized that all theories of the earth had a problem of not knowing what the original composition and history of the earth surface or atmosphere consisted of. I said that if my ideas were correct then the C14 dating would have a discontinuity in the dates as earlier artifacts were dated and I found that the dates were fairly accurate back a couple of thousand years but then began to give high dates that would agree with my assumptions of changes in the atmosphere. Recent findings have confirmed that supposedly millions of years old carbon such as oil, gas, diamonds and coal have some C14 but if they were that old would have none.

As I read and studied more my emotions came to believe that my interpretations of the scientific facts supported creation and questioned how scientists could have ever come up with such ridiculous ideas of billions of years and natural forces creating life and making it more complex through millions of years when my observations were that as things aged they deteriorated and became less complex. When I read about how DNA and RNA are so complex with information encoded into life forms to control the reproduction processes I can only believe in an intelligent designer, not any kind of random natural process.  What confounds me is how the evolutionists become so emotional and attack any question about their beliefs. They frame the argument as science against religion without questioning the validity of their science and not permitting any questioning. Emotional is the only game that they play. I grow more and more emotional about my feelings also.

LAW TO ENCOURAGE THINKING

I am constantly amazed at the visceral reaction against any attempt to encourage thinking by students when the subject becomes evolution.

Newspapers all over the country immediately jumped on this story with the type of headline that is shown in my copying of the law. It was immediately tied to the Scopes trial (that convicted Scopes of teaching evolution) and was attacked by national science organizations. Why do they not want questioning of all ideas in the school room? What are they afraid of? I would think that it is the ridiculous idea that we evolved and were not created. Basic concepts that should be challenged. They challenge creation science as religion, but don't question the myth that life spontaneously came about by natural forces forming the complex DNA that is required by any life form. Even I lapse into controversial language in my arguments. Too bad we can't hold reasonable discussions on this subject.

 

Tennessee: Back to Anti-Evolution Teaching?

The Tennessee bill, HB 368, is wildly controversial and tamely written. Most likely to become law (unless the Governor quickly vetoes it), the "ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools," provides:

a) The general assembly finds that:
(1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens;
(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and
(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.

b) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.

c) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

d) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

SECTION 2. By no later than the start of the 2011-2012 school term, the department of education shall notify all directors of schools of the provisions of this act. Each director shall notify all employees within the director's school system of the provisions of this act.