Sorry i haven't been blogging much anywhere for many months. I was kidnapped by an excess of To-do lists that exceed possibility. Anyway, here is an entry.

For Science teachers, professors and scientists

1. I can prove in a lab experiment that my dog will have puppies and my cat will have kittens. What experiment is there proving a dog ever gave birth to a brand new thriving species?
2. I can prove in a lab experiment that if there are things in a room and a grenade goes off there things become less organized and damaged. What experiment is there showing how random accidents create wonderful designs?
3. Scientists study nature and are students of nature. Why do scientists with all their brains say it took no brains to make what they wish they could make?
4. If DNA is responsible for designing things that science cannot, is DNA a superior intelligence to man?
5. If we are confident in evolution, why are there so many endangered species?
6. Why would a fish living safely in the water aspire to move to an uninhabitable environment that he has never heard of or experienced [land]?
7. If single-celled organisms that can eat, digest, reproduce, and survive on its own why can’t scientists make what they call “simple life forms”?
8. If in a murder trial prosecutors can’t find evidence for 5-10 years and it is considered a weaker case the longer they can’t prove their case, why do evolutionists call their theory a “well-established theory” after not finding conclusive evidence after 150 years?
9. How does censoring Intelligent Design from science classrooms reinforce the evolutionary theory?
10. If scientists claim any evidence that points to an intelligence greater than man unscientific, doesn’t that make their research biased?
11. Should science reject evidence presented by someone they consider biased if the evidence is provable?
12. If mankind has only learned the laws of aerodynamics in the last 150 years, who or what do we credit for the insects and birds whose design reveals an advanced knowledge of these recently discovered laws?
13. If plants are dependent on the rain systems and the sun’s rays and many others dependent on specific insects or birds or animals to spread their pollen for survival, wouldn’t they have to exist simultaneously from the start to survive? If not, explain how they would survive?
14. If male/female species are dependent on two sexes for reproduction, wouldn’t they have to exist simultaneously from the very first generation in order to survive? If not, how else would they survive because there are many, many species that are male and female?
15. Everything physical thing known to man is deteriorating with time. We can easily show this in many experiments proving this trend. Evolution claims the opposite that with enough time things will organize themselves more and more. Can you show me an experiment that proves this?
16. If there are 100 provable situations that disprove a theory and only 1 situation that seems to suggest a different conclusion, should we call the 100 exceptions and the one a rule or should science lean toward the greatest volume of evidence?
17. If man cannot create/design DNA from the ground zero with it in front of him to duplicate, who/what do we credit for the design of DNA?
18. If man cannot create/design skin that heals, is not nature’s design superior to man’s? If the intelligence of the design is superior to man’s why is it unscientific to say there is superior intelligence? Isn’t that a contradiction?
19. If evolution is the unequivocal power that gives all creatures the uncanny intelligence to survive through ingenious design, inventive fight/flight tactics and tools, wonderful healing abilities and systems that save species from all sorts of toxins, why hasn’t the power of evolution overcome death? Isn’t death the ultimate threat to survival?
20. What is more credible, volumes and volumes of un-provable information or a little bit of provable information?
21. What happens when we build generations of science on the basis of unproven theory? Is that still science?
22. To properly design a functioning ear, isn’t it true we would first need a thorough understanding of the properties of sound and for the ear to be of use to the species, be thoroughly familiar with how to design a brain to hook up to an ear and know how to interpret sounds it hears? Wouldn’t these abilities have to be simultaneously functional from the start for hearing to be useful at all?
23. How does DNA or the “power of evolution” invent something brand new based on necessary understanding of external and internal properties for things to work [seeing, hearing, tasting, reproducing, interdependence, etc.]?
24. If we were to move to an uninhabitable planet permanently, wouldn’t we have to literally know everything about that planet in order to know everything we would need to bring in order to survive? How did dumb cells or rodents or fish or bugs know how to advance their species on a level of sophistication superior to man billions of years ago?
25. Is there any evidence today that any species has the ability to invent a brand new species with greater intelligence and capabilities never seen before?
26. Is there any creature on the planet as smart as a human 6 year old? What 6 year old could design a planet and all of nature and the universe? We know there is no creature as smart as a 6 year old so how did creatures before mankind provide the universe?
27. If the ACLU fought for academic freedom during the Scopes trial and declared students should not be denied hearing other sides besides the religious viewpoint of creation, why are they now saying no child should be exposed to creationism, intelligent design or any theory except evolution?
28. If science is about information and the scientific method, why don’t they present proof of evolution rather than shut down Intelligent Design on the basis of religious accusations?
29. If evolution is overwhelmingly backed by evidence and Intelligent Design is not, why aren’t evolutionists content to present this evidence in science textbooks, philosophy textbooks and whatever venues that would allow presenting two sides and allowing students to decide?
30. If evidence points to a conclusion that happens to agree with any religion, how does that make the evidence religious?
31. If we say worry is bad for you and the Bible says worry is bad for you, should it be illegal to tell students stress and worry is bad for you because it was in the Bible first?
32. Should we not allow teachers to take Sabbaticals since the Bible talks about Sabbaths?
33. If 100,000 people agree that the world is flat, does that make the world flat? If 100,000 scientists say evolution is true without proof, does that mean evolution is true?
34. Have the majority of scientists ever been wrong in the past?
35. If scientists want us to believe something because they believe it even though they can’t prove it, isn’t that a little like forcing us to believe a certain religion?
36. If we count backwards and make our population 50% less every 50 years, why do we get to zero in far, far less than even 15,000 years? Hasn’t man been here longer than that?
37. If we are looking for a missing link covering millions of years of a species halfway between man and ape, shouldn’t we be looking for hundreds or thousands of examples since we can find complete dinosaur skeletons that supposedly predate mankind?
38. What is it in living things that makes them discontent so as to change/improve their species rather than preserve it?
39. Why would a fish strive to live in a hostile environment [no water] rather than a safe environment?
40. Once a species or a specific creature within a species, determines it needs a characteristic it lacks to survive better, how does it communicate with its DNA to invent, design and implement that new characteristic?
41. Once a specific creature within a species has successfully had its DNA invent, design and implement a new characteristic into its offspring, how does the DNA implement this as a permanent characteristic rather than a mutation?

Excerpts, Table of Contents, photos, book cover, and many downloadable articles on the intelligent design controversy and more at www.BestChapter.com

Before we proceed I must point out the importance of one set of rules.

If the evidence is going to gain or lose merit based on what it may imply then Intelligent Design implies a supernatural being; or at least one far more intelligent than any man or group of men.

However, evolution seems to imply that there is no God.

If we teach evolution through the public school system we are forcing the majority of the Americans who believe in God, or at least their children, to be taught a religious viewpoint contrary to their own and on that basis we should stop teaching religion in class.

On the other hand, if this debate is not about religion but about the merit of evidence irregardless of the implications of that evidence, so be it but we cannot dismiss one side if it implies there is no God or if it implies there is a God. It just must apply to both sides.

Also, since we have a clash of expert opinions we cannot assume the majority number is correct.  We are only interested in what either side presents as evidence. Assuming this courtroom is not rendering a decision based on a raising of hands or votes, we must ignore numbers and go with only that which is provable evidence.

Since is not merely an innocent or guilty verdict but more of what appears to be a competition of conflicting ideas, I would suggest some type of point system. With so much emotion, philosophy and uncertainty about what is true, what is scientific, what is religious, and what is downright untrue we need some concrete basis for rendering points or decisions in this case. That should be clearly known by all up front.

If we are not going to censor evolution on the basis of its religious implications and equally not censor Intelligent Design on the basis of its implication than here is my suggestion for a case for science.

The scientific method has long endured the challenges of myth-makers by demanding proof; is this not similar to the criteria of any fair courtroom? Hearsay and opinion are considered but certainly not considered evidence. No matter what either side says they believe, the court will grant more “points” to that which is provable evidence.

And if you will bear with me, just one more important consideration; there is a difference between a weak theory and a theory that is in contradiction to that which is proven. Therefore, I urge the court to conclusively reduce in importance that which is contrary to scientific fact and give more importance to those theories consistent with observable evidence and of course, grant the most importance to that which has been clearly proven as true. These three categories may well assist in determining the outcome here and fair judgment.

In conclusion, there is not one trial here but two: one is evolution versus the scientific method and the other is Intelligent Design versus the scientific method. This is the only way in which to grant equal treatment to both and render a concrete conclusion rather than a political or religious conclusion and the most respectful to science itself. The votes must go only with the evidence and equal rules must apply equally.

Excerpts, Table of Contents, photos, book cover, and many downloadable articles on the intelligent design controversy and more at www.BestChapter.com

Ah, this is the emperor’s clothes. It sounds humble. It sounds almost enlightened but the result is masses of perfectly intelligent people rejecting their own powers of reason and observation in deference to “the experts”.

I may not be a plumber, but I know a leak when I see one.

I may not be a scientist, but I know the difference between proof and “just trust me”.

I don’t like it when salesmen tell me to trust them instead of answering me and I don’t like it when politicians do it and I don’t like it when scientists do it.

There are many things I do not understand but this is not a reason to accept things contrary to what we see. If a car salesman tells me the used car is in perfect shape and to ignore the oil puddle underneath and on the engine block I tend to doubt the word of the salesman.

Every single living thing we all know of has offspring and that offspring is the same species. All of my dogs had puppies. All of my cats had kittens. All of my fish had baby fish. Same with hamsters. Same with everything. Then the experts say “Ha. Don’t believe it. Every species that exists has come from completely different species and not one different species but many different species.”

I am supposed to bow in humility to this questions because electrons are complex?

I don’t think so.

Now to avoid a philosophical argument, a truly scientific argument would present evidence – not how many scientists agree on something or how old a theory is. That is the old sales talk. Who cares what Einstein said. Who cares what college some scientist went to or how many degrees he has.  It is irrelevant to the plain question on the table about species – just answer the question. No deep discussions about other things or why I am too ignorant to pursue the matter. Just answer the question.

The pattern I keep seeing is when something plain and simple undermines the credibility of evolutionary ideas, the challenge is never answered. Instead the person is accused of being religious or they are told they are not qualified – but many simple science question remains unaddressed. This is what I did in my book but in the background of celebrating the ingenuity in nature.

My book is ten years worth of enjoyable observations in nature that seem to point to genius engineering and invention. That is just honesty. It is not a scientific challenge or an argument, but like a child’s honest question – it remains honest.

Man is the student of nature because nature remains far superior in wisdom. Man can make a glass eye. Man can make astro-turf. All of science is primitive in comparison to the sublime genius of nature.

My observations are not ignorant. The evidence of genius in nature is not scarce. I will not submit to some elitist mentality that scoffs at honest questions. And frankly, I think real scientists love questions … they don’t mock them. I think real scientists love proof far more than censoring challenges. I think real scientists are always ready to jump ship from one theory to stronger theory if there is more evidence. It is intellectual suicide to defend a theory that continues failing to find evidence or answers to plain questions and must resort to tactical answers rather than plain answers.

I do appreciate your comments and you taking the time.

I am thankful for you comments so I can display how very intelligent people can embrace ideas that are irrational. You have concluded that the idea of Intelligent Design has no proof, no evidence, no work, no tests as though intelligent design is some foolish blind notion. Since you have a Phd, this is an example of why scientists must be taken to task.

Without researching the work of scientists with multiple degrees [some whom have endorsed my book], you conclude publicly there is zero evidence for Intelligent Design. This without research.

You have not read my book, you have not considered my own 10 years worth of PLAIN observation and work and evidence. Yes, evidence and logic.

Wow, an incredibly bold conclusion without research that can be easily proven wrong. I am afraid you are victim of believing the experts. I, and many like me, on the other hand, have considered evolution and considered creationism and considered Intelligent Design and absolutely willing to believe whichever one has the most evidence –

By consideration and research, I have reached a conclusion different than yours, which I believe is based mainly on believing others.  

I am not going to stop asking my simple questions until I get honest answers. In these past 10 [actually 12 years] years; the lack of direct answers has led me to the rational conclusion that the answers may not exist to scientifically support the major pillars of assumption for evolution.

Science is not a majority vote election for what is true. Real science is presenting evidence.

If I was 30 years younger I would invite you to show me evidence but I’ve already been doing that for more than 30 years and Daryl, the evidence is missing. The main assumptions of evolution are not only lacking evidence, most are genuinely contrary to the evidence.

So in conclusion – yes I do believe scientists should provide proof to the public for what they declare is scientifically true and yes I do believe my common sense has great value.

I don’t disagree with everything you said. There will be many complexities in science that are difficult to grasp. But I can learn plumbing and I can learn science and so can anybody.

HARD TO FIGHT A VISION
In the same way a new wife cannot compete with the idealized version of a deceased wife, like the politician who was once criticized for every decision but is now idealized because of his pre-mature death, like a place visited on a vacation is described in perfect terms of beauty and people and weather. . . Once idealized, imperfection is nearly impossible. Flaws become endearing quirks.

Twice I have been criticized for building an evolutionary theory “straw man” to knock down. It was suggested that I created a less perfect version of the theory so that I can make it “appear” more fallible. Hardly.

THE REAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION

In reality, the evolutionary theory’s main pillars of assumption are more than flawed. They are downright unscientific. I have merely touched the surface. If there is a misperception regarding evolution, I assure you, it is a more flattering picture than it deserves. The public perception that it has been proven or nearly proven is false.

THEY COUNT ON PUBLIC'S MISPERCEPTION

Informed scientists know this. The public on the other hand, are the ones who describe evolution in concrete form as a solid, verified, proven scientifically valid basis for all other research. It is because of this overwhelmingly wrong perception that is rarely corrected by scientists that really know better, that challenging theories are duped “ignorant” or “religious”.

The public assumes challenges to the evolutionary theory are much like challenging gravity or the idea that water is wet. The evolutionary scientists that know the flaws of evolution still fan the flames of misperception that evolution is overwhelmingly credible. They know that it is a weak theory that has grown in popularity but in fact continually losing ground scientifically with research through the years. 

If they can stay out of all scientific arenas of debate and allow the public’s perception win the battle, rather than the facts, they know they can keep winning. This is their only hope and this is their strategy. Let the misguided public and the misguided professors and teachers fight the battle. They certainly will not be corrected for assuming there is more evidence than actually exists.

The secret strategy of battle against Intelligent Design and creationism and any theory that would criticize the scientific credibility of evolution is to fight on every front except the scientific front.

Idealized evolution is a much bigger enemy than the real evolutionary theory. One is “perfect and proven” while the real theory is so flawed that it opposes science and the scientific method itself.

LET THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD BE THE REFEREE

Am I just talking here? Then let’s use the rules of science in an arena of unprejudiced science referees and wage the debate there. For starters let’s pit the scientific method against the theory of evolution. Let’s see how many claims have been proven in a laboratory or observed with pattern-like consistency.

NATURE IS MORE FUN
There are more articles on this blog, but nature is much more inspiring. It isn't my fault that nature itself points to a genius designer whose wisdom is far above man.
See excerpts from "Nature Never Stops Talking: the Wonderful Ingenuity of Nature" at www.BestChapter.com

If I don't blog soon enough, I wish all a very Merry Christmas, no matter what the ACLU wants me to wish you.

While being interviewed lately on a large radio program in Pennsylvania by a great guy struggling with my unwillingness to admit that God has guided evolution; a number of things occurred to me. A compromise making peace between the two ideas; creationism and evolution, is merely choosing a middle ground between opinions. Politics and diplomacy work that way but not science.

In my book, "Nature Never Stops Talking-The Wonderful Ingenuity of Nature", the whole point of presenting nature’s evidence is to present scientific points. True objectivity in science must avoid ALL non-scientific arguments.  Stop religious arguments. Stop philosophical arguments. Stop legal arguments. Let’s have a scientific argument and play by the rules.

Let me make this point with football. If we are having a Christian or Parochial High School play football against a public high school, religion and beliefs are totally unimportant. The rules do count scoring touchdowns though. In order to win the football game, only points made within the bounds of the rules count. It is not an insult to the Bible nor atheists. It is not forcing religion onto the football field if we simply allow Bible believers to play by the agreed rules of football. Certainly, the rules apply to both teams equally. And that is the simple pleasure of football. We all know the rules.

This is identical in science. The rules of science must apply to both sides, not just one side. The main way to “score points” in science is with provable evidence. This format is called the scientific method. When people make claims without evidence and go around the scientific method, that is “out of bounds”. The referee should be blowing the whistle when someone tries scoring points “illegally”.

THEORIES ARE LIKE FOOTBALL PLAYS - They Don't All Work

Evidence is the bottom line of science, not theory. Theories are great roads to discovery but evidence is way to score “points”. Let’s say one team makes some great plays but don’t score a touchdown. Great plays are like theories; it is the way to score points but there are no points for effort, only success.

Great theories may or may not lead to evidence. Evidence alone is how to score points in science.

Here are the rules of the game of science: “Show me proof”.

When one team says “We all think our theory is right” it is like bragging to the public they know they will win. But bragging or confidence is not evidence. No points.

“Don’t listen to them, they have a religious agenda.” The secular team wants the referee to penalize the guest team for motives.

Dear reader, motives or accusations of motives have no place in scientific debates.

In the science game, if the guest team says “The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth” I am afraid this too is not scoring points in the science game.

The whistle should be blown because religion or any other accusations have no bearing on the science game points. Just present the evidence. Stop this silly chatter.

As a matter of fact, I think we should recognize that every time either team tries a non-scientific tactic they may fear they don’t have the goods to score points in the science game. They want to win some other way, outside the rules of the game. Penalty.

EVIDENCE IS HOW TO SCORE POINTS IN THE SCIENCE GAME

Present evidence. Show proof. No character assassinations. In the science game, no one loses for being religious or atheist or rich or new or controversial. You lose in the science game by not proving your case. By not scoring points according to the rules. That is if the game is played by the rules.

If nature is at the center of the controversy, I am more interested in the evidence from nature than I am in the evolution of theories coming out of academia. And like a good judge or jury, I am maintaining a purist view of science and carefully pushing all the noise, that is not provable fact, to one side so I can clearly see just what evidence is really in front of me.

I am too lazy to defend any theory or religion and try manipulating facts to support my argument. Instead, I prefer reviewing facts not giving a hoot about where those facts lead. I have nothing to protect. I have nothing to defend. I am not rooting for a team or philosophy or conclusion. I am especially rooting for the science game to remain honest and fair. I will only be content when comfortable that neither I nor the public is being deceived intentionally or by accident.

Now I absolutely have opinions but I remain open to having my mind changed by information. It has to be provable though. I have to be satisfied. When a scientist tells me about some far event that cannot be shown to me, I consider it hearsay. If a scientist tells me to believe something that is contrary to everything else I see and can understand for myself, I consider it salesmanship. If you can show me a pattern of animals giving birth to babies that are completely new species that somehow invented themselves enough times, I will believe it is possible. However, if everything I see and know contradicts that idea and all you can give me is stories and theories about why I should reject all I see and know – well, it ain’t gonna happen. I need proof.

PLAY BY THE RULES OR CONCEDE VICTORY TO THE COMPETITION

If you are going to accuse me of being religious for not accepting evolution without proof; well that’s not strengthening your case much either.

If you are going to boycott the discussion and say there is enough proof between scientists and you aren’t going to prove anything to me because you don’t have to – in football, the game is over. You are too afraid to step onto the field of competition. You lose. You can say you are the better team but you sure haven’t proven it.

It isn’t about the creation team or the evolution team or the intelligent design team. It is about the rules of science. Not censorship, not name-calling, not anything but the rules. As long as everyone plays by the rules we can all progress and enjoy the game.

Here's more articles on the subject and my book  www.NatureNeverStopsTalking.com

The National Center for Science Education is candid about their purpose to show people how to fight ideas against evolution. They provide their network of contacts a strategy and what to say. Sounds more like politics than science, huh?

Only 4 months ago I was excited to see the Intelligent Design debate rise in Kansas. The boycotting by the Darwinian evolutionist scientists from the debate while feeding daily doses of criticism to the press showed their fear. And then I saw the pattern. More and more they made it a church and state issue. With that church and state issue they also discredited the Intelligent Design proponents as dishonest, religious folks. No one likes religious hypocrites. How distasteful that church people would fake a science theory just to sneak in religion against the law and against people’s will. Yeah, that strategy worked so they kept feeding the public.

Naturally, proving motives is not easy. In a science debate, motives are irrelevant. 1 in a thousand journalists notice the absence of scientific discussion. Evidence is what rational scientific debates are about but there is no way the evolutionists are going to let that happen. Keep the evidence far away from the public and just keep pounding these negative images into their heads. Sneaky religious folks who disrespect the law. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

Eventually they even proclaimed “Intelligent Design is a religious concept”. Why should they tell the media they know creationism is the religious viewpoint and Intelligent Design is an effort to deal strictly with provable information? “Evolution is a proven fact” has been stated lately in the press by non-scientists all over. No words of correction from the scientists for evolution. Silence. After all, this is what they wanted, even if it is incorrect.

In the advertising industry they have learned if people feel good about a commercial emotionally they will buy the product, even if the commercial has nothing to do with the product. Likewise, if people don’t like the commercial, they won’t like the product, even if the product is good and only the commercial is bad.

This works in the media and in politics too. People are so bombarded with negative impressions of Intelligent Design it doesn’t even matter if claims are totally false, people are disliking Intelligent Design. Letters to editors, press release statements from scientists, radio broadcasts, and TV interviews; over and over misinformation that makes the public emotionally negative about Intelligent Design.

The public is not getting the information. They would see that the major pillars of Darwinian evolution [explosions creating order, life from non-living material, life forms being successfully designed by accident, one species giving birth to an entirely new and successful species, DNA inventing new characteristics in response to creature discontent and desire, etc.] were not only unscientific, but anti-scientific.

There is a big difference between a lack of evidence and evidence contrary to the facts. Let's say in a burglary case the accuser says some boys came trespassing on his property and stole his tomatoes and corn but no one saw them. That is a lack of evidence. But if we go to the property to discover deer tracks everywhere and that all he grows is flowers and no food, we learn his testimony is CONTRARY to evidence.
        Evolution is not just missing some links, it is CONTRARY to evidence.

Intelligent Design is scientific because is simply states the obvious based on the evidence. Design comes from intentional effort. We can prove that easily in an experiment. Explosions ruin things. We can prove that. Cats have kittens. Dogs have puppies. We can prove that. DNA militantly protects against major mutations. We can prove that. Intelligent Design is all science. Evolution not only lacks evidence; it is contrary to evidence.

The public is hearing everything backwards. They are hearing Intelligent Design is religion. The number one distinguishing characteristic about intelligent design is that it excludes religion to focus on facts. The public is being told evolution has hard evidence so often that the public is literally becoming impatient with the Intelligent Design movement.

How are we ever going to get the truth out? Well, we know what happens when good men do nothing. For starters, we need to individually understand the truth. Then we need to make sure our families not only understand, but that they also see the way deception works so that even our children can untangle a twisted statement.

Stick to the basics. What is true? 

In this arena, the question is “What is the scientific method?” Then “How do these various theories hold up when applying the scientific method?” The question is not "Who's talking?" but “What is provable?”

The most amazing scientific observation for me today is where over just a few months, if you tell people something enough times they will feel it and then believe it. Advertising works better than truth and these scientists are proving it with the masses. I only hope and pray that truth can prevail in courtrooms and school boards and churches too, because our nation is the environment where we and our children must live. I want a nation friendly to the truth.

Let’s Apply Two Theories to the Scientific Method

The massive volumes of information and research is a most wonderful distraction from the primary wrong assumptions of Darwinian evolution. It is similar to a murder trial with 20 witnesses including 2 policeman and a video tape all agreeing to the murder but the trial taking a left turn to discuss whether the gun used was purchased or stolen and if so where. It is not important in light of the evidence or the main verdict being sought.

No, I am not just going to spout off a statement to rally agreement. We see this so often in the news and letters to editors. Instead, I will show you what I mean so you can agree with EVIDENCE rather than agree with an ARGUMENT.

This will not get deep or scientific because there is no need to do this. I mean it. It is abundantly common sense unless plain honesty is an issue.

OK, let’s look at 9 simple major pillars we have all heard about Darwinian evolution.

1.      A Big Bang may have created the universe. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

2.      Non-living chemicals and/or matter invented the first life forms accidentally. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

3.      Early simple life forms evolved into more complex life forms. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

4.      The first complex life forms were sea creatures. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

5.      Sea creatures eventually gave birth to a new thriving species of amphibious creatures growing legs and lungs. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

6.      Amphibious creatures gave birth to a new thriving species of full time reptiles not amphibious. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

7.      Reptiles became the ancestors of more reptiles, mammals and birds and insects while fish evolved into more complex type fish and mammals [dolphins and whales] through DNA radical changes that were ingenious improvements. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

8.      Simultaneously another leg of evolution became plant life from germs, viruses, single-celled life forms, fungus, mold and then more complex plant life and fungus and also ascending from underwater to land plants and trees. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

9.      Apes and chimpanzees are the parents of the early prehistoric ancestors of man – a higher intelligence monkey or ape that continued to change in physical appearance and intelligent capacity until eventually over millions or billions of years, becoming modern man. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

Wow, not much scientific method there. Now, let’s look at some major pillars of the Intelligent Design theory:

1. If technology exists so does design. We can recreate this in an experiment.
2. Explosions create havoc not order. We can recreate this in an experiment.
3. If a roomful of scientists with a significant amount of grant money figure out how to do something it proves that it takes intelligence, not zero intelligence. We can recreate this in an experiment.
4. A squirrel has baby squirrels. A chimpanzee has baby chimpanzees. A whale has baby whales. A human has a baby human. All this is due to the information dictated by DNA. We can recreate this in an experiment.
5. We can recreate the extinction of a species not evolving.
6. We can recreate in an experiment and observable events the idea that the smarter the engineering is, the more intelligence is required.
7. We can recreate in an experiment and observable events the idea that when designing technology, intent is required.
8. We can recreate in an experiment and observable events the idea that accidents are more destructive than constructive.
9. We can recreate in an experiment and observable events the idea that a lot more gets done with intelligence, intent and work than waiting for something to just happen all by itself.

There is a big difference between evidence and argument. With the scientific method, we can recreate evidence in an experiment. Everything else is conjecture. Do I need to go on? Doesn’t this say it all?

Why does anyone say “Darwinian evolution is science” or “intelligent design is absolutely a non-scientific idea”? Both are naïve statements. A ton of scientific research does not make something scientific, anymore than no research on a fact makes something unscientific. Good science-true science makes its boast in discovering truth, not inventing it.

Good science is simply the scientific method.

“See how this works in the experiment? If you don’t believe me, try it yourself?”

Bad science says,

“We can’t do this in an experiment. If you don’t believe me you are wrong and certainly not qualified to challenge me.”

Big difference, huh?

Share this quick memo on wisdom with as many people as possible. The public is being bombarded with anti-Intelligent Design rhetoric that makes little sense but making folks feel unfriendly toward Intelligent Design anyway. While you’re sharing this, do me a favor and share my website too.

Thanks.

Samuel J Alibrando 

Author-"Nature Never Stops Talking-The Wonderful Ingenuity of Nature"

www.NatureNeverStopsTalking.com

What does nature have to say about all of this swirling controversy around evolution, intelligent design and creationism. These are a war of words and ideologies immersed in accusations about motives and agendas. It feels more like a political campaign vying for votes than a scientific debate. This is the object of my concern, why don’t we listen to nature? After all, isn’t the subject the origins of nature? If nature is the subject shouldn’t we consult nature for evidence instead of quoting people and laws? Everyone should look at the trees, the flowers, outer space, DNA, our immune system, the instincts of animals, the interdependence of systems within species and they with their environment. This is what I talk most about in "Nature Never Stops Talking-The Wonderful Ingenuity of Nature". This is where I believe all discussions should center – the object of the discussion – nature.

To discuss how many scientists believe it and how long it has been taught is drifting. We Also unrelated are flying accusations that if you adhere to one theory it is not science but religion and argue about church and state issues.

Those agreeing with Intelligent Design are accused of having certain motives. Oh my goodness, motives? We aren’t just reading people’s minds, we are seeing the reason for their thoughts? Now evolutionists are getting mystical. Censorship, religion, name-calling, accusations, reading minds and motives . . . What are we talking about again? Oh yeah, nature.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD FILTER

Here is my point: We still haven’t really examined whether evolution or Intelligent Design have been adequately scrutinized through the scientific method filter. I can barely see the primary subject anymore.

Well I know for a fact that science is not the teacher of nature but the student. The best and brightest of all our scientists have the technology of nature in their grasp but the complex genius of 99.99% of it escapes them anyway. We all agree on this. If nature is so infinitely smarter than man why would anyone, especially scientists, say there is no intelligence greater than man? We are surrounded and engulfed with evidence to the contrary every second of every day.

Want some examples? My book is filled with them but your world has waaaay more.

Just a little hinting with one example; DNA dictates the design but who dictates DNA? Who decided bones weren’t good enough and they should have marrow and blood with red blood cells and white blood cells and a heart with an electrical impulse utilizing lungs to provide oxygen that plants provide in abundance when they do the 70-stage process of photosynthesis using the sun and water provided by rain clouds blown by wind moving ocean-evaporated and de-salted water?

IGNORING EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO ARGUE

Yeah, everybody stop talking and arguing. Let’s look at nature. Let’s listen to nature. Let nature give evidence on it own behalf. We have eyes [thanks to nature] we have brains [thanks to nature] we can choose [how do communicate to DNA to begin giving freedom of choice to a species?] let’s get to the heart of the subject - nature.

UNQUALIFIED TO ASK QUESTIONS

I resent the idea of being told that I am not qualified to evaluate evidence and make a decision. Can you imagine a scientist on trial for spreading false rumors and yelling at jurors that they are not qualified? That was done to a state school board in Kansas.

I may not be a professional football player but I know a fumble when I see one. I may not be a good cook but I still spit out food that tastes bad. I think I know bad science when I see it too.

If I ask “Why is there not a single species giving birth to a brand new species that never existed before and becomes a new and thriving species?” I will be accused of religious motives and obviously too dumb to see the truth of evolution. If I am a scientist with the same question I will be mocked and tagged for not agreeing with my peers.

Aren’t journalists noticing the redundancy of quotes from the evolutionists? “There is no controversy”

“It doesn’t belong in science class”

“Evolution has stood the test of time”. 

When evolutionists say “Science must be provable or falsifiable. We cannot do that with Intelligent Design so it doesn’t belong in science”. OK, I may sound like a 2^nd grader but while they are pointing they have 3 fingers pointing back.

Here are some questions I would like to see journalists and the public ask  the Darwinian evolutionists:

• What experiments have you done proving how explosions create order?
• What experiments have you done proving how a life is made from non-living material?
• What experiments have you done proving how a species spontaneously gives birth to an entirely new successful species?
• What experiments have you done proving how matter organizes itself over time instead of deteriorating over time?
• What experiments have you done proving how all extinct animals did not cease to exist but evolved into other species?
• What experiments have you done proving how major mutations do not produce sterility and deformities?
• What experiments have you done proving why we should ignore the abundant evidence proving evolution is contrary to provable science?
• If mankind’s greatest minds are attempting to duplicate working systems in nature, how is this grounds that nature has no intelligence?
• What solid evidence can you give us proving things un-provable ought to be called scientific?
• Why should the American people believe scientific opinion instead of scientific evidence?

Something else that really gets me is how scientists agree that together man knows less than 1% of all knowledge or the secrets of nature. OK so how can they simultaneously claim with certainty about the unknown 99+% having absolutely no intelligence? Seems like somebody is afraid of possibilities.

I will soon do a simple entry about how obvious it is that Intelligent Design can be proven scientifically, contrary to the swirling of words to the contrary.
             I will also try to make entries more often. I do appreciate each of you who has made a comment. Thank you.

Here is a letter to the editor I sent on behalf of my father in Arizona.

Unrelated to the now Intelligent Design controversy, I have been writing a column in California called "Nature Never Stops Talking" for 10 years. My father who lives in Prescott faxed write in comments from your paper from a Thomas Atkins and asked for a response.

Here it is. I want your readers to know there are atheists who support Intelligent Design. They distinguish themselves from the creationists to maintain a scientific objectivity. Even Bible believing advocates of Intelligent Design are careful to omit any reference to the Bible or religion to keep the discussion based on scientific merit. Mr. Atkins went on for paragraphs unintentionally misleading folks about Intelligent Design advocating God as Creator and the age of the earth. That’s creationism, not Intelligent Design. He was pretty sarcastic and started making jokes about teaching flat earth and blood letting as though Intelligent Design was in the same category.

I’m going to agree with one of his sentences “A theory in science must be verifiable/falsifiable”. On that basis, evolution is in trouble. The reason we have endangered species is because there is no confidence in them evolving. We have no verifiable proof or experimentation for any animal having a baby that goes on thriving as a completely new species. And whenever we see something well designed by man we never assume it is from a car crash, a tornado, or somebody falling. We see design, we rightly deduce intelligence. That’s verifiable.

If any laboratory successfully creates life from non-living matter with absolutely no living tissue it will prove that it took many years of hard, intelligent work to do so. This proves that life can not be created by accident. That’s Intelligent Design. So far man’s intelligence is not great enough to accomplish the feat.

Why would Atkins poke such merciless fun at people who challenge a 150 year old theory that continues surviving even though it cannot prove any of its main assumptions with experiments? Why would any rational person mock the idea that brilliant engineering requires intelligence? Why are people so sloppy with the facts calling Intelligent Design a religious effort when the folks behind Intelligent Design have been so clear and careful separating itself from religion?

A copy of my brand new book "Nature Never Stops Talking-The Wonderful Ingenuity of Nature" has been donated to the library in Prescott by my father. It should be available in your local bookstores as well. Being a nature enthusiast and writing a column about the beauty and ingenuity that is so obvious in all of nature, I never mention God or Genesis but wink at the readers about such engineering that couldn’t be the result of chaos and mistakes. There is wisdom in nature and I think I can easily prove the scientific method shows design requires intelligence and there is no scientific credibility to evolution’s claims. I’ll do a public debate if you want.

Majority rule is not how true science works. To say most scientists BELIEVE something is not scientific evidence.

Ironically, nearly every un-scientific, religious accusation I have heard about Intelligent Design, fittingly applies to evolution. What is missing in nearly all of the criticisms about Intelligent Design from the evolutionary scientists is science. If Intelligent Design is not scientific and evolutionary theory is, then let’s make this simple and just have the evolutionists present the superior evidence. It will NEVER happen because although arguments and theories abound, the evidence does not exist.

Signed,

Samuel J Alibrando, Jr.

www.NatureNeverStopsTalking.com

The first two statements seem outrageous and yet the third we hear every day. The evolutionists shamelessly discredit the Intelligent Design movement with such statements. It is prejudice and discrimination of the most primitive order. Scientific statements are to be ignored when spoken by a Bible believer unless they support evolution.

And what is the basis of this ignorant behavior? The “scientists” know people’s motives. Not scientifically of course, they just KNOW. They “know” that these people are up to something. They “know” that these people are trying to sneak religion back in. They “know” that people of faith cannot possibly make any accurate scientific statements.

Since when in America are certain religious, ethnic or age groups silenced because of their association category?

I pay taxes. I vote. I read. I think. I have opinions. Yet my well researched scientific ideas are to be ignored because of my religious persuasion? 

Recently I heard the comment that President Bush has no place suggesting what students should be taught and that he should leave this to the School Boards.

I also read that in Kansas, when the evolutionists boycotted their invitation to present their side of scientific evidence that the sole representative, Pedro Irigonegaray, a Topeka lawyer, represented pro-evolution scientists. He chastised the School Board. There he was accusing them as being unqualified to determine what is scientific because that was the job of scientists, not a state school board.

At the same hearings in Kansas, there were scientists who testified on behalf of Intelligent Design and their scientific problems with evolution. The pro-evolution scientists who boycotted the meeting but daily watched and made their criticisms to the press every day said about those pro-Intelligent Design scientists “They are not real scientists”.

Apparently, no one is qualified to oppose evolution, not politicians, not school boards and not scientists. Because if you are a scientist who opposes evolution you are not a real scientist. Because as we hear all the pro-evolutionists that all seem to have the same 3X5 card on what to say, “There is no controversy”.  Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Meanwhile, they fund the National Center for Science Education $700,000 a year not for research but for public relations and protecting the theory of evolution. According to the NCSE, the theory of evolution is being challenged in 21 states and they are monitoring those places. They brag about their network of supporters: teachers, scientists, ministers, priests and lay people. Ummm, I thought these types all had unqualified opinions?? Oh, I see. Everyone who agrees with evolution should be heard and all those opposing evolution no matter what the position is, is not qualified to have a respectable opinion.

Discrimination is indiscriminate in regards to race or religion or financial status. This discrimination is simply based on your opinion. If you want to present evidence contradicting the theory of evolution, you are a “blasphemer” and will be censored and ignored and your motives are wrong.

If you agree with the evolutionary theory for any reason at all, religious, scientific, political or no reason; you are intelligent and you opinion is important.

It is like the Inquisition but in the 21^st century. These evolutionist scientists are “bishops” silencing those having different doctrine while telling the public they are “protecting” them from heresy.

Me, on the other, prefer a debate of facts and evidence, not one about who is allowed to speak and what the majority thinks. But that would just be scientific.

            Maybe I should intersperse my nature articles in-between observations of the media tactics I see to discredit the Intelligent Design ideas before they are even understood by the public.

The side of me that contemplates the beauty of nature and its ingenuity can be viewed at www.NatureNeverStopsTalking.com

Excerpts from the book, table of contents, this and other downloadable articles and reviews of the book are available online: www.NatureNeverStopsTalking.com