|The statistic equating higher institutional education with belief in evolution is not an indication of critical thinking as naively believed. It is an indication of how captive audience propaganda works.||
1.) “Life arose from nonlife.”
Stated as fact as though proven. However, no replications have ever been achieved despite easy access to zillions of tons of chemicals, every force known, and every conceivable environment.
“We think that the processes leading to life began nearly 4 billion years ago.”
Note the phrase, “We think.” So, is #1 above a fact or not? Here is how normal science would respond: If it is not a fact then don’t state it as one.-Life: The Science of Biology, 5th Ed. Vol. I: The Cell and Heredity; Purves et al 1998:2 (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Life: The Science of Biology (2001-2010). Every edition loaded with false statements of fact.
2.) “The appearance of eukaryotic cells ... marks a milestone in evolution. But where did these cells come from?”
Logical fallacy. If you don’t know where cells came from then how can you say they evolved? Paraphrase exposes the fallacy: “We know that eukaryotic cells evolved even though we have no evidence.”-Historical Geology, 5th Ed, Wicander et al., 2007: 178 (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Historical Geology (2008-2012), a required textbook, makes unapologetic use of rhetorical tricks and so many false statements in every edition that it could be used as a teaching guide for propaganda technique. The book is beautifully-presented with many truthful facts; but that is part of how propaganda works.
3.) The origin of the eukaryotic cell was one of the pivotal events in evolutionary history… How did it originate? ... We think we can make some reasonable guesses…the steps we suggest are just that: guesses.”
Say what? This is evolution buffoonery at its best: First, present an imagined story as though it were fact. Then, admit that there is no consensus for the tenet even though it is regarded as “pivotal.” Note also the improper use of the term, “history.” In normal thinking, speculations are “fiction.” Fiction parading as scientific history should raise everyone’s eyebrows.-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 587 (Fig. 3, next page).
4.) “Body plans are basic structural designs” [heading]. “Most animals have either radial or bilateral symmetry. … “The evolution of bilaterally symmetrical animals” [heading]. “The common ancestors of bilateral animals were probably simple, bilaterally symmetrical animals composed of flattened masses of cells.”
The first heading is a cunning trick of understatement diminishing the accomplishment by inserting “basic.” Without the diversion it reads: “Body plans are structural designs.” The next heading, presented as fact then followed by “probably,” is standard evolutionary doublespeak.-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 562-3.
5.) “Which of the features of protostomes [animals with bilateral symmetry] do you think are major evolutionary novelties?”
In propaganda technique, this is known as a “leading question,” one that no matter how it is answered, will incriminate the one who answers—in legal terms known as “Leading the witness.” Captive students should not be forced to profess a challenged theory as though its status as fact is secure.-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 576.
6.) “Collectively, arthropods (which include the terrestrial insects and the marine crustaceans) are the dominant animals on Earth, both in number of species (some 1.5 million) and number of individuals (estimated at some 1018 individuals, or a billion billion).”
With this many species and individuals for easy study one would expect scientists to be pretty confident on how insects originated. Here’s their conclusion:
“Insects may have originated from a centipede-like ancestor as far back as the Devonian period.”
As always, not too impressive, employing the typical trick of appealing to some unknown creature. For all the unknown creatures needed, everyone should see that evolution depends more on faith than science. Up to this point in the timeline, we have no confidence whatsoever in any stage of evolution; if not for insects, how can they later explain “more complex” developments?
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 564 & 571.
“Speciation, the phenomenon of a new species arising from an ancestral species, is well documented.”|
-Historical Geology, 7th Ed, Wicander et al., 2012: 135.
This is a trick statement made possible by a wild card use of the term “species.” The term “phenomenon,” is also improperly used as it deceptively implies established fact. The only correct term would be “idea.” Those making the statement would easily lose in a court of law. The wild card lets scientists claim “different species” for animals which can actually interbreed.
The fields lack rigor:
1.) Biology, 6th Ed. 2002. Raven et al. Absolutely loaded with fictions stated as fact. 2.) Evolutionary Analysis (1998-2013). The authors (in the mode of Dawkins) are so narrowly-focused you can hear them shouting, “Evolution is a fact,” as they espouse one fiction after another.
“The evolution of the ability to fly allowed the insects to escape from
potential predators and to traverse boundaries that might otherwise
have been insurmountable.”|
Something as complex as flight—both in the engineering requirements and the physics—must have taken immeasurably long to “evolve.” However, the fossil Rhyniognatha hirsti (early Devonian, 400 million years old) currently holds the distinction of being not only the earliest insect but also the earliest known animal to fly. Insect flight is now described as developing with the “suddenness” of the Cambrian Explosion—already a serious problem for scientists. So, R hirsti is another setback for an ideology with advocates like Richard Dawkins calling those who question it, “stupid,” “pig-ignorant,” or “insane.” With this fossil alone, we have two pivotal so-called “evolutionary” developments—insects invading the land to become the most prominent animals plus the first animal with a likely ability to fly—both absolutely profound and occurring in a heartbeat. Science can only describe the organism; the organism itself says absolutely nothing about evolution.
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 574.
Fig. 3. Life: The Science of Biology (Vol. II). Every edition loaded with false statements of fact.
8.) “The Devonian predecessors of amphibians were probably able to crawl from one pond or stream to another.”
The sentence is a double-fallacy: a.) Assume that amphibians had less able predecessors, b.) State that the predecessors were “probably able to crawl.” The first half creates fictional characters and the second half proceeds to describe their abilities. Everyone can recognize simple fiction. This imaginative fiction is followed by an outright false statement of fact, namely:
“They gradually evolved to be able to live on swampy land and, eventually, on dry land.”
The whole paragraph is evolutionary fiction presented as fact.
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 587.
9.) “Amphibians arose from ancestors they shared with the lungfishes. …the stubby, jointed fins of their ancestors evolved into walking legs.”
Standard unknown ancestors evolutionary fiction presented as fact.
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 587.
10.) “The design of those legs remained largely unchanged throughout the evolution of terrestrial vertebrates.”
An example of fact blended seamlessly into fiction. It shows how evolutionists weasel around every innovation factually preserved in the fossil record. They do similarly on the design of all externally profound features such as legs or wings. The fact is that these “designs,” as they call them, employ several types of levers in very complex configurations from insects and other arthropods to birds and mammals (some beetles have such a profound array of levers and related structures in legs, wings, and wing covers as to be unmatched for efficiency or economy by any human construction whatsoever). In many cases, the very same levers are built by completely different means and with different construction materials. All of these lever designs have remained unchanged—a fact which does not support any evolutionary theory. There’s a folk saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And contrary to what the evolution community would have naive people believe, the actual fossil record consists of nothing but designs that “ain’t broke.” Here is an admission of this point from the very same textbook:
“Sometimes humans refer to species as ‘primitive’ or ‘advanced.’ These and similar terms, such as ‘lower’ and ‘higher,’ are best avoided because they imply that some organisms function better than others.”
This is admitting that there are no inefficient species. Scientists have 3.5 billion years and miles of vertical strata with literally zillions upon zillions of fossils in situ to work with. Yet after 150 years of Darwinism they are still not able to convince the critical thinker—especially one familiar with the fossil record. This is why fanatics insist on attempting to control legislation to assure unchallengeable captive audience classroom indoctrination denying students critical thinking experience early on and blocking them from any discussion of conflicting evidence. The goal? Make it so students literally can’t think for themselves but can only follow a template.
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 587 & page 7.
11.) “Considerable uncertainty surrounds the next lineage split … turtles.”
Standard propaganda trick making it sound as though the claims for other splits are not equally characterized by uncertainty. The truth is, “all” evolutionary claims are uncertain, yet the community habitually states them as facts. If fields cannot abide by the rigors of science they should not be called sciences.
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 589.
12.) “In his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin amassed evidence that all species derive from a single common ancestor by transformation and speciation.”
Complete buffoonery stated as fact. The textbook goes on to say that evolutionary biologists can’t even define the term “species.” In other words, after 150 years they don’t have a definition for the central
|“The simple truth is that evolutionists arbitrarily banter about the term ‘species’ as though it is a wild card. They freely change its meaning whenever they are in a bind or need a different definition.”|
Fig. 4. Concepts of Genetics—packed with the same evolutionary buffoonery as in non-genetic textbooks.
Learning the skills of clear thinking can help everyone recognize propaganda and thus not fall prey to it.
Despite a glazed-over science community, Darwin did not provide any
evidence that all species derive from a single common ancestor. The
evidence Darwin did provide is far less profound than the differences
in dog breeds which would never be called different species. The simple
truth is that evolutionists arbitrarily banter about the term ‘species’
as though it is a wild card.
They freely change its meaning whenever they are in a bind or need a
different definition. Does anyone really believe that there are
thousands of African cichlid species? Does anyone really believe that
Darwin’s finches are different species? One can easily fall prey to
these ideas until one realizes that the “species” can interbreed. At
this point, scientists quickly switch to a different definition of
species, e.g., groups of animals that can interbreed but are isolated,
occupy different niches, or which have different behavioral
characteristics. The trick can get them out of any corner they find
-Concepts of Genetics, 8th Ed, Klug, Cummings, and Spencer 2006: 641 & 647 (Fig. 4).
13.) “A dinosaur lineage gave rise to the birds. ...Existing data are insufficient to identify the ancestors of birds with certainty.”
Contradictions like this are standard to every evolutionary textbook. Doublespeak is an easy-to-spot evolutionist trick where they are either deliberately attempting to weasel or are innocently getting all mixed up in their own rhetoric. The trick is so common it can be generalized: It begins with a false statement of fact and concludes with an admission that there isn’t really any evidence. To show that evolution textbooks alone get away with this, imagine a mathematics textbook that said, “2+2=5. Well, we don’t really have any proof that 2+2=5.” Or imagine a chemistry textbook that said, “One hydroxide ion (OH) plus an additional hydrogen atom (H) gives you a carbon atom (C). Well, we haven’t really confirmed exactly what constitutes carbon, but many experts believe it involves the hydroxide ion.” As you can see, no real sciences could ever get away with such things. So, how is it that evolution textbooks are not held to any standard of rigor?
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 591.
14.) “We know mammals evolved from mammal-like reptiles called cynodonts during the Late Triassic.”
We know? By now you should realize that no such claims are facts.
-Historical Geology, 5th Ed, Wicander et al., 2007: 381.
15.) “Insectivores have probably not changed much since they appeared during the Late Cretaceous.”
Standard evolutionary doublespeak. “Probably” is a disingenuous diversionary tactic used because pointing out directly that any creatures have “not changed much” does not support evolutionary theory. It’s like saying, “The horseshoe crab, coelacanth, and platypus have ‘probably’ not changed much,” when we already know that they are living fossils. (Note: Confidently ignore current evolutionary tricks to again play with the concept of “species” in regards to the coelacanth.) The sentence is followed by more trickery trying to make a fanciful story sound like evidence-based science (#16):
16.) “In fact, an insectoviore-like creature very likely lies at the base of the great diversification of placental mammals.”
This is the standard play-it-safe trick of not offering a specific fossil as a transitional form but appealing to some unknown common ancestor.
-Historical Geology, 7th Ed, Wicander et al., 2012: 374.
17.) “Apart from having forelimbs modified into wings, bats differ little from their immediate ancestors among the insectivores. Indeed, with the exception of wings they closely resemble living shrews.”
Indeed, with the exception of wings an airplane closely resembles an automobile yet only those committed to evolutionism would try to understate such a profound difference. “Immediate ancestors” is a misnomer as there are no immediate ancestors of bats. If evolutionists misusing understatement were tempered with basic engineering, physics, or problem-solving, they would know not to think of profundities as if they were trivialities.
Historical Geology, 7th Ed, Wicander et al., 2012: 374.
It is a serious problem for students’ education when textbooks purportedly teaching science habitually use well-known propaganda techniques. Blatant spreading of propaganda is ubiquitous in textbooks of the following fields: anthropology, biology, paleontology.
These fields are diminished as sciences because students are being coerced into a belief system and blocked from facts conflicting with that system. As noted before, if an ideology is debunked entire fields have the potential of collapsing. Normal sciences do not have this potential. Ideologically-committed fields have no choice but to produce corrupted textbooks while simultaneously blocking students from conflicting evidence. In normal sciences readers would never tolerate textbook propaganda or the withholding of evidence. So, the question has to be asked, why are evolutionary fields getting away with it? When it comes to something as important as origins everyone has a right to hear the evidence presented objectively.
To be continued…
John Feliks has specialized in the study of early human cognition for nearly twenty years. His evidence falsifying the idea of cognitive evolution has been censored by the evolution community. Prior, Feliks’ focus was on the invertebrate fossil record. He claims that purported transitional invertebrate fossils, as well as interpretations of the genetics of “pre-human” hominids are equally easy to debunk because in a flawed paradigm every part is questionable. Feliks encourages students to stand up for critical thinking in the science classroom.