We told you yesterday of our encounter with another homeschool blog with a decidedly evolutionary point of view, and they weren’t happy that we had made a post dealing with the subject of evolution, which we believe can be shown to be false.
The title of their post was “New Homeschooling Blog. Blech.” The author indicated that our blog “annoyed” her (hence our title). Brian replied to this post, and it began a series of exchanges that we wanted to share.
We originally were not going to name this particular blog or provide a link, but the blog owner contacted us personally and requested that we include this information because of copyright issues. She also graciously indicated that she would not consider it to be an attack on our part, so we will supply these details.
Here is the next reply from Day By Day Discoveries, the evolutionary blog, with the slashes (//) denoting a quote from the comment Brian had made earlier(URL at end of quote) :
“//Evolution “cannot be subjected to a test” because it is something that supposedly occurred in the past and is not occurring today. And before you jump all over that, natural selection (changes within a
species that are occurring at present) is not evolution, and there is no recorded instance of a new form or function being observed to have developed through natural means.//
“Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.”
From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Natural Selection is the theory that decribes the process by which evolution occurs. That’s it. You can’t make up different definitions to suit your argument. Science has a specific language you need to use if you’re going to claim to engage and debate it. Otherwise it’s like trying to debate the subleties of english grammar while speaking Thai.”
http://daybydayhsing.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-homeschooling-blog-blech.html
Here is Brian’s response:
Let me offer an example. We have a population of grasshoppers, and a farmer sprays a pesticide on them. 99.8% of them are killed, and the .2% that survived did so because they had a recessive trait that allowed them to be resistant to that pesticide.
They then reproduce, and eventually the whole population of grasshoppers is resistant to the pesticide. Did this occur because they “evolved” a new gene? No, it was already present in the population as a recessive gene, but when conditions changed (the pesticide kill-off) it became the dominant trait.
This is Natural Selection. No new function that was not already seen among the insect population was created–it was already present in the gene pool of grasshoppers.
No new form was created, either. We started out with a grasshopper, and we ended up with a grasshopper. This would be considered micro-evolution, the kind of changes we see in the present.
Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is what evolutionists talk about when they claim a natural process is responsible for all the different species we see today.
Evolutionists claim this process happened in the past, supposedly resulting in entirely new forms or functions. In other words, they claim that NEW genetic information was created.
However, we do NOT see this occurring in the present. If macro-evolution were an entirely natural process, there is no valid reason why it would not be occurring at the present time.
No macro-evolution has ever been observed to have occurred, even under controlled laboratory conditions. Yet evolutionists claim it has happened billions of times in an UNCONTROLLED environment.
So understandably, I believe you’re confusing the two types of evolution, like many people do nowadays. I used to make this same mistake myself until I did some independent study on my own.
The main issue here is not what one definition or another says, because we have to dig a little deeper to find out exactly in what context the definition is used.
Evolution does indeed result in “heritable (able to be inherited) changes in a population spread over many generations”, as we saw in my example above.
However, this is not “evolution” in the sense of new genetic information being created. It was merely the re-shuffling of existing genetic information that resulted in a formerly recessive trait becoming the dominant trait in the population when conditions changed.
I totally agree that this type of “evolution” (micro-evolution) is indeed occurring today and can be scientifically validated.
So no, I’m not trying to engage in a semantical debate about definitions. We have to look at what is actually occurring when we use the words “evolution”, “natural selection” “theory”, and so on.
I agree that we do need definitions, but we have to understand exactly what the fine print is. Most definitions are too general or have sub-definitions that we have to consider before we can arrive at an application for the subject at hand”.
We’ll continue tomorrow. As always, we welcome your comments. We had a technical issue with our comment box not appearing to some users yesterday, but we believe it has been resolved.
9 users commented in " Little Known Ways To Unknowingly Annoy Other Homeschool Blogs Part 2 "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackHow do I get off your email list? This is not the stuff I signed on to read.
I homeschool and my kids attend public school. I believe in educating my kids, but they are still young kids and this isn’t helpful to me or them. I am looking for support not “here’s my opinion on that”
Thanks but no thanks.
Tina,
We have removed your name from our list. We deal with all kinds of issues on the homeschooling front, one of which is the evolution vs. creation debate.
We had only planned on spending one day on this issue, but felt that we had to respond when we were singled out by another blog with an opposing viewpoint. Our response required more than just one day as there were several exchanges of comments that took place.
We believe that it’s important to teach your children how to debate any issue intelligently, no matter what the issue or which side you happen to be on. Our hope was that by providing this discussion, it would give some insights into not only the question of origins, but also could be used as a teaching tool.
We don’t claim to be expert debaters, but perhaps our readers can discover a nugget or two on how to conduct a debate by reading our exchange with this blog on a controversial issue. We welcome any suggestions as to how we may have given a better response.
I believe macroevolution is defined as the development of a new species not a whole new order or genus(all grasshoppers). Historical examples of speciation can be found here. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
You did not address the ways in which the theory of evolution claims that new genetic material is created, these ways seem to be summarised in this link: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/new_info.html
I’m afraid I really did just post the first links that came to hand, but they seem to make the point.
Brian and Lisa,
I totally agree with what you said. There is a difference between evolution and creation! Evolution says it happened by an oops and an oopps and another oops, but God’s creation process clearly was NOT an oops. It says that animals WILL be able to adapt but this is not evolution….
Genesis 2:24 & 25 “Let the land product living creatures accordng to THEIR OWN KIND…” (etc.)
According to their own kind means that he created a group of something, cats for instance, and He allowed all difffernt sizes and shapes but guess what, IT IS STILL A CAT! Same with dogs, fish, whales even apes! When DNA testing is done, they still remain what they are, they did not leap to a different species!
Please continue on your way and stand bold for Jesus! He is a jealous God and does not wish to share with the likes of Darwin! Rev 3:15 “So because you are lukewarm- neither hot nor cold- I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” So stay HOT, matter of fact boil if you want : )
Clearly, christians have misunderstood the difference, I did too, but with prayer and study God will reveal his truth to the other group. I will personally pray for them and you too so that you will not become discouraged in your walk.
God Bless,
Candy
Penny:
The source from which you get your information has an obvious bias in favor of the evolutionary viewpoint, but nonetheless I’ll use their definition to respond.
They state, “macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning “the origin of a branch”, see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution…” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
Evolutionists claim that all life originated from a simple, single cell organism. Obviously, to get to an organism even as complex as an insect, let alone a human, there would have had to have been HUGE changes not only to new species, but also to new families, phyla, and genera. We certainly don’t see that occurring today.
Their definition of microevolution is “Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic”.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
This would include the types of changes we presented in the example above about the grasshopper population acquiring a pesticide resistance that was present in a very small percent of the population, but then became the dominant trait when conditions changed.
Beneficial mutations can create new genetic information, but the vast majority of mutations are harmful or neutral. All the examples that are given in the link you provide do not show any change to a higher life form.
Those examples used all start with a bacteria, and end with a bacteria. There is no advancement from a bacterial to an amoeba, for example. They are all simply changes within the bacteria itself.
Even if it were possible for mutations to advance a life form up to a higher level through mutations, it would take a staggering number of these just to move even a small increment.
In other words, billions upon billions of these accidentally beneficial mutations would have to be produced and preserved. The odds against this occurring would be so astronomical that it would be considered mathematically impossible.
Let me give you a real-world example. Scientists have been studying the fruit fly (Drosophila) for 80 years because they breed so very rapidly, require little food, have scores of easily observed characteristics and only a few chromosomes per cell.
They began to be used for mutational research to see whether evolution could successfully result from mutations. Xrays were used on some to increase the mutation rate by 15,000 percent.
Even in their natural state, fruit flies are known to have a high mutation rate, but different techniques such as extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. were also tested to increase the rate even further. Other generations were allowed to mutate naturally.
According to some evolutionists, man has lived on the earth for a little over a million years. Yet experiments on fruit flies have already exceeded the equivalent of a million years of people living on earth (fruit flies produce a new generation every eleven days).
So what were the results? “After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none of these changes the fruit fly to a different species”. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm
“Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations.”—*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.
And this quote: “In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature.”—*Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94.
And finally, “It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.”—*Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 48.
Dear Brian and Lisa:
Please keep me on your subscriber list. I like what you’re doing to help your community of interest.
The recent discussions (creation,evolution) help me understand your beliefs and I’m pleased that you are tolerant of other beliefs. You are patient, respectful, and willing to spend the time to explain to others. I’m sure you are great parents with your growing children!
Now, I would like you and your audience to know a little more of the history of the home education movement in North America. I’ve been more or less semi-retired from active participation in the education scene, but with grandchildren, I cannot abdicate my care or involvement. Also, the recent California scare made me jump in to the debates. I would like to share with you the post which I had published in various blogs and recently to the Washington Post. Here it is:
As a grandmother of the early home education movement in North America, naturally I was concerned about the recent court ruling in California which basically criminalized about 200,000 home schooling parents lacking teaching credentials. Hopefully, if it is not overturned by the Supreme Court, Governor Schwarzenegger has promised legislative remedy: “Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children’s education.”
I am very impressed by the extent and depth of feeling and outrage expressed by supporters of home education. But, I am disappointed and worried at the hostility and shallowness of those who are opposed, either out of self-interest (teacher unions) or basic intolerance.
It is because this case even came up in 2008, and because the hostility and threat can be reasserted at any time, that I would like you to read my 1987 publication which was useful in two ways: 1) to encourage home educators, and 2) to put the education establishment on notice about the legality and imperatives driving this movement. In the article I quote John Holt as saying:
“Today freedom has different enemies. It must be fought for in different ways. It will take very different qualities of mind and heart to save it.”
Published in a prestigious educator magazine – Canadian School Executive – this article carries weight to this day, often quoted.
My history in home education goes back to 1972 when, after being credentialed from a Teachers College, I traveled with my children to Mexico to study under Ivan Illich of deschooling fame.
There I met with John Holt. He knew I had two young children with me, ages 3 and 5, and asked if I would be enrolling them in school soon. I said I might educate them at home.
He thought this was illegal, but I said I found from my readings at Teachers College that the “otherwise” clause in most Education Acts allowed it.
He then commented that at least I would be qualified to do it, having obtained a teaching certificate. Again, I enlightened him with the fact that this was not a requirement.
He then posed the thoughtful but predictable question about socialization, and we chatted about the various community opportunities available and the negative aspects of socialization that parents wanted to avoid.
His parting comment was: “Smart City!”
Using his mailing list which he had used to encourage school reform, he soon embraced home education and in 1977 started a new publication, “Growing Without Schooling”.
Meanwhile, Dr. Raymond Moore was spreading the word amongst his mainly Christian (The Learning Home) audience and paid frequent visits to Vancouver, Canada, especially when we held Home Learning Fairs.
Please Read: Home Education: the Third Option where concerns described 20 yrs ago keep reappearing today!
Attachments
Home Ed 3rd Option - page 1.pdf
Home Ed 3rd Option - page 2.pdf
Home Ed 3rd Option - page 3.pdf
Home Ed 3rd Option - page 4.pdf
Home Ed 3rd Option - page 5.pdf
Tunya Audain
So sorry, the attachments in my previous posts won’t work. To get the 5 pg article, Home Education - The Third Option, that helped validate the movement in the 80’s please try:
http://www.theschoolsweneed.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Main/257/Number/563#Post563
My goodness! What fun!
No, this wasn’t what I signed up for either, but it’s certainly providing some fabulous discussion fodder with my teenager!
Please, do go on. It’s rare to find such as well presented, non-jargonistic, considered article on the subject with so little research on my part.
I’ll be staying tuned.
BTW …
I’ve now been and looked at all the other links. I’m reminded of my parents and grandparents who used to nod wisely at me and say, “A man constrained against his will is of the same opinion still.”
Makes me chuckle. I could argue that the sky is green - probably fairly convincingly. I’d still be wrong.
Leave A Reply