Locust Grove man’s book challenges schools’ curriculum
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
By Gracie Hart
Review Staff Writer
Published: August 28, 2008
A grassroots effort is being started by two Locust Grove citizens to destroy Darwinian evolution and bring God back into public schools. The citizens have formed a new organization called the Creation and Evolution Studies Ministry which aims to challenge the dominance of Darwinian evolution which is taught in public school biology courses.
“Darwinian evolution is false for many reasons,” said Lake of the Woods resident William Nowers, one of the ministry’s founders and author of the book, Creation-Evolution and a Nation in Distress. “Evolution is never defined; they use it to mean everything which it isn’t.”
The main argument of the program is that evolution needs to be further defined into microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is a minor change within a species such as hair or eye coloring while macroevolution, Darwinian evolution, is a change from one species to another requiring some from of mutation.
“Evolutionists refuse to use micro and macro,” said Nowers. “They will give an example of microevolution to encompass all evolution.”
Nowers believes that microevolution should not be brought up at all because that is fact.
“The basic key is in the definitions,” said Nowers. “Once you define the words, the evolutionists are going to lose.”
According to Nowers, in the past 10-15 years, many states have tried to bring creation teachings into classrooms in order to present both creation and evolution equally. However, these efforts are usually defeated due to the separation in church and state. The ministry’s approach may be one that cannot be defeated so easily.
“Volunteer students will carry an insert in their biology book which challenges Darwinian evolution,” said Nowers. “[The insert] will have a write up and then asks questions that can’t be answered by teachers.”
The questions are designed to show the problems with evolution. Teachers will have a copy of the insert ahead of time so that they can be prepared for the questions.
“We are not trying to sandbag teachers,” said Nowers. “Many of them would probably like to discuss [creation] but they can’t initiate it themselves.”
The ministry is prepared for any challenges that they may face once the handout is out.
“Their will probably eventually be challenges,” said Nowers. “Once organizations feel threatened they would try to challenge it.”
He cites a new Louisiana law passed unanimously that brings religion into schools. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the law urges public schools to foster critical thinking about evolution, global warming, and other topics. The ACLU and other organizations believe that the bill is a way to sneak Intelligent Design into the curriculum.
“Many states have brought in Intelligent Design but they have called it science,” said Nowers. “A design needs a designer which is god. It’s religion, not science.”
The ministry is currently creating separate handouts for each biology book and they have spoken to area pastors about members of their youth volunteering to carry the insert. More information about the ministry and their program can be found at cesministry.org.
.
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( Dr. Hurd ) on August 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm
These questions are like popcorn.
Question Three
Nowers also thinks that the presence of marine fossils on mountain tops is evidence for the Noachian Flood. His devastating question is, “If we deny a universal flood, how did marine fossils get to the tops of all the mountains?”
Well, Mr. Nowers it really is quite simple- it is called plate tectonics. (This was pointed out before). The fact that the continental masses move about has been known now for a bit over two generations. And it should also be noted that this was proposed in the early twentieth century. However, scientists are a very careful group and it was over two decades before enough supporting data was accumulated that this idea was finally accepted. Leonardo da Vinci realized centuries ago that embedded marine fossils could not provide support to the biblical flood story, and indeed contradicted it.
And of course, Mr. Nowers cannot miss the opportunity to be wrong again, because marine fossils are not found on the tops of all the mountains, only those that are made thru and thru of marine sediments. Granitic ranges and volcanic flows obviously lack any fossils. What then does Mr. Nowers make of sedimentary sequences with a succession of marine, volcanic, terrestrial and marine again deposits? I don’t think he has had enough geology to have ever learned these exist. Generally, we refer to this as the “Geological Column.” This is something most creationists deny exists, or they are merely ignorant. Organized by continent, we see that the entire geological column is a global reality in the following list of sites where petroleum exploration as demonstrated the entire geological column in proper sequence.
North Africa:
The Ghadames Basin in Libya, The Beni Mellal Basin in Morocco, The Essaouira Basin in Morocco, The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia, The Oman Interior Basin in Oman, The Western Desert Basin in Egypt.
Europe:
The Adana Basin in Turkey, The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey, The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria, The Carpathian Basin in Poland, The Baltic Basin,
Eurasia:
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin, The Farah Basin in Afghanistan, The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan, The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
Asia:
China; The Manhai-Subei Basin, The Jiuxi Basin, The Tung t’in - Yuan Shui Basin, The Tarim Basin, The Szechwan Basin
North America:
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska, The Williston Basin in North Dakota, The Tampico Embayment Mexico,
South America:
The Bogata Basin Colombia, The Parana Basin North, Paraguay and Brazil, The Argentina Precordillera Basin, The Chilean Antofagosta Basin,
Australia:
The Bonaparte Basin, The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta, The Cape Karroo Basin.
See “The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood” by Glenn Morton for more information. I also recommend reading “The Biblical Flood: A case study of the Church’s Response to extrabiblical evidence” by Davis A. Young (1995 Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Paternoster Press)
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Dr. Hurd ) on August 29, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I really need to get to work, but these “hard questions” are too easy to pass up.
Question Two
The second question that Nowers imagines would be a problem for biology teachers is, “How can Darwinian evolution be considered a fact when not a single example of macroevolution exists?”
I would hope that anyone allowed to teach high school biology would be ready to answer this question. The short answer that could be given at the start of the year is, “Over the course of the year this topic will be addressed in great detail. We will see that there is no boundary between “micro” or “macro” evolution. We will see that there have been many observed instances of the evolution of new species both in controlled laboratory and natural conditions in the wild.” Then, if the schools has bought half decent biology books, and hired reasonably well trained and qualified teachers, the class will all know at the end of the year that Mr. Nowers was wrong (again).
Some geneticists in the late 1800s and early 1900s proposed that there were two sorts of evolutionary change, very common small or “micro” alterations rapidly happening in response to new environments, and large “macro” changes where seemingly major changes in body plans were observed. This was well before we knew how the DNA in genes even worked, or what the age of the earth really was, or had the millions of fossils now available. Creationists have used an entirely different set of definitions for these terms which are either profoundly ignorant or simply dishonest. To begin seeing why Nowers is entirely wrong (again) we need to look at his rather weird definition of “Macroevolution” as it is given in his website. I quote:
“Macroevolution (p370), or Darwinian evolution, is a change to a higher species, due to genetic information being introduced that did not come from either parent. The Darwinian evolution belief is based on the assumption of many thousands of undirected, chance cases of macroevolution. Not one proven case of macroevolution has ever occurred. The failure to clearly identify microevolution and macroevolution is a critical error in this book. Numerous examples of microevolution are presented as merely evolution thus falsely implying evidence for macroevolution.”
His first major error is to assume there is a “higher species” or goal in evolution. This was an error discarded by science generations ago. He then does not know the difference between this and evolutionary theory, even the early form proposed by Darwin 150 years ago. Next, the offspring of sexual reproduction has no genetic information that did not come from their parents, at least at the initial joining of gametes. Nowers has falsely claimed scientists think otherwise. It is in fact very common that these genetic contributions are slightly different from the parent’s genes due to mutations altering the gametes. More changes (also called mutations) can occur during the first few cellular divisions, although these are very rarely beneficial. For example, we each have a few hundred genetic differences from either of our parents, and at most only a 50 percent contribution from either. We men have even fewer genes from our fathers than our mothers. But, clearly we are still human. Nowers is ignorant of these facts.
Today, with the new discoveries in developmental genetics, and the discovery of such transitional fossils as Tiktaalik roseae, (fish to amphibian) and Ambulocetus, (land animal to whale) we have realized that there is no meaningful difference at all between “micro” or “macro” evolution other than time scale. The nearest thing to the confused definition by Nowers would be the observation of new species by Darwinian selection. This is readily available.
For example;
Mosquin, T., 1967. “Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)”, Evolution 21:713-719
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. “An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila”, Nature 23:289-292.
Nevo, E., 1991, “Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel,” Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.
I have given above one example each for a plant, insect and mammal. There are hundreds more available.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Dr. Hurd ) on August 29, 2008 at 11:41 am
The four questions suggested by Nowers on his website that he thinks might pose a problem for science teachers are indeed rather simple. The question regarding marine fossils on mountain tops has already been answered by “jdskoog.” I will only add that Leonardo da Vinci realized centuries ago that embedded marine fossils could not provide support to the biblical flood story, and indeed contradicted it.
Nowers asks “What scientific evidence is there to show intelligent life started from dead matter?”
He makes several errors in just one sentence. First, there is no scientist in the world who thinks that intelligent life sprang into existence instantly out of the earth. That is the belief of creationists. The scientific understanding is that intelligence such as we have, is the result of millions of generations of evolution. Unintelligent life, as is far easier to find even today, appeared much earlier.
His misunderstanding of biology continues in the idea that the origin of life is an essential part of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is focused on the origin of species and not how life began. Darwin himself devoted under a whole page on the origin of life in his major book, “The Origin of Species.”
But the biggest error Nowers makes regarding scientific knowledge about the origin of life is his idea that there isn’t any. There is in fact a great deal. For those readers who prefer books I recommend reading;
Iris Fry,
2000 “The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview” Rutgers University Press
Hazen, RM
2005 “Gen-e-sis” Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press
If you would like to see how much we have learned over the decades, compare those books with these two;
Oparin, A. I.
1953 “Origin of Life” New York: Dover Publications (Re-issue of the 1938 edition)
Orgel, Leslie
1973 “The Origins of life: Molecules and Natural Selection” New York: John Wiley and Sons.
For up to date information, any good college library should have general science journals such as “Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,” “Science,” and “Nature” which are also available online. A major university should also have advanced journals such as “Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta” and even those specifically focused on the origin of life such as “Origin of Life and the Evolution of the Biosphere,” or “Astrobiology.”
There are only a handful of interesting questions remaining, for example were RNAs preceded by peptide nucleic acids as proposed by Egholm M, Buchardt O, Nielsen PE, Berg RH, 1992 “Peptide nucleic acids (PNA). Oligonucleotide analogs with an achiral peptide backbone.” (J Am Chem Soc 114:1895-1897)? If so, how did RNA replace PNA? Were the first living organisms genetically discrete, or did they easily exchange genes as proposed by Carl Woese, (see his 2002 “On the evolution of Cells” PNAS Vol. 99 13:8742-8747, June 25).
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jdskoog ) on August 29, 2008 at 8:20 am
Nowers may not like the outcome of his strategy if informed teachers choose to respond to his list of questions. For example, the question about fossils being found on mountain topics is answered easily by someone with a basic knowledge of plate tectonics, which results in the continual shifting of the Earth’s crust that results in earth quakes, mountain building, etc.
There are simple reasons why the Biblically-based tenets advocated by Nowers are not included in science classrooms. First, they are not supported by credible evidence. Secondly, they create tensions and division among students if dealt with using evidence gathered through investigations and informed by a basic understanding of the content of the Bible. For example, does Nowers want science teachers to express their uncertainty about whether Genesis 1, where humans are created last, or Genesis 2, where Adam is created in the initial part of the creation, describes the “true” account of human creation? Does Nowers want science teachers to distinguish between the 2 different versions of Noah and the ark in attempting to explain his view of why fossils are located on the mountain tops as a result of the Flood. If his questions are approached in a serious and informed manner in a public school classroom, a great deal of alienation and anguish will result. Public schools exist to bring people together and not to separate. Nower’s strategy will only cause separation. Leave it alone.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Dr. Hurd ) on August 28, 2008 at 3:48 pm
The “CREATION & EVOLUTION STUDIES MINISTRY” is apparently the invention of William Nowers, who has self-published a book he claims is “A clear and convincing denial of Darwinian evolution.” In this, Mr. Nowers stands at the end of a long line of people who have announced their refutation of evolution. It is even a longer line of failures than the line of people who think they have disproven Einstein.
His ministry also claims, “Our goal is to further the Christian influence in our society and especially in the public schools and in our scientific establishments. (cesministry.org)”
Since America is one of the most Christian dominated nations in the world, he will have to work hard to find some gap to exploit. If Nowers were serious about being a Christian influence on the scientific academies, he would start by not making foolish mistakes. Imagine taking your car in to be serviced and insisting that it needs more incense, or that the gas tank needed fresh power crystals? Your mechanic would merely laugh at you behind your back. Nowers, if attended to at all, will only incline scientists to dismiss his Christian faith as simple ignorance. Thomas Aquinas warned about this over 700 years ago when he wrote that, ”… since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing. Summa Theological (1273)” Similar warning is found in the writing of Christian father Augustine of Hippo well over 1600 years ago.
Christians confused about the compatibility of faith and science will be better off reading books by people who are both committed Christians as well as scientists. Two good examples are “Finding Darwin’s God” by Ken Miller, and “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” Francis S. Collins.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( bobxxxx ) on August 28, 2008 at 10:17 am
The development of new species has been proven by evidence from molecular biology and genetics. Using this evidence biologists can determine evolutionary relationships with 100% certainty. For example it has been proven countless times, and proven beyond any doubt, that people and chimps share an ancestor.
The uneducated Christian hicks who want to destroy America’s science education are traitors and they should be put in prison for treason. They should keep their total ignorance of science in their churches and let science teachers do their jobs.
Report Inappropriate Comment