The prevailing dogma is what you were taught in school
September 29, 2013 | James Kohl
Excerpt: “The group maintained that questions like “Where do we come from?” can only be answered honestly by religious dogma.”
My comment: I see this as backlash from the deliberately staged publicity stunt called the “Scopes monkey trial”. A few years later, Haldane and others established what became the basis for teaching mutation-driven evolution (note: Haldane presumably descended from an aristocratic intellectual Scottish family, not from apes). No experimental evidence of biologically based cause and effect was ever provided to support mutations theory, but mutation-driven evolution has been taught (e.g., ever since) as if it was an accurate representation of Darwin’s works. The prevailing dogma is akin to stating that every form of life on the planet is a mutated form of some other form of life.
For contrast, Darwin’s ‘conditions of life‘ exemplify the obvious biological basis of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction, which is much more consistent with the molecular mechanisms represented in Biblical Creation than it is with mutation-driven evolution. And, did I mention that there is still no experimental support for mutation-driven evolution?
Instead, what we have is across-species evidence that the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes is responsible for the nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions that clearly enable adaptive evolution via the fixation of new alleles in the DNA of organized genomes in species from microbes to man. Perhaps the Christian groups are protesting because the ‘science’ being taught never included any scientific facts to support ridiculous representations of mutation-associated new alleles that somehow become fixed in the genome, when no scientific experiment shows that any mutation is fixed.
Clearly, we will next see Islamic creationists begin to focus on the same misrepresentations of the nutrient-dependent physiology that is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology. At least one Turkish Islamic creationist with a large following has already done this. Apparently, he recognized that all organisms need to eat, while evolutionary theorists thought that other organisms simply needed to mutate into existence.
The biggest problem for schools that continue their attempts to adopt scientific standards is that some scientists have known, since 2007, that “At certain evolutionary junctures, two or more mutations participating in the build-up of a new complex function may be required to become available simultaneously in the same individuals.” This means that two mutations must also be simultaneously fixed in the genome, when no experimental evidence suggests that even one mutation has been fixed population-wide in the course of what some people still believe is mutations-driven evolution, because that’s what they were taught to believe in. What’s hard to believe is that people believed what they were taught about mutations and evolution when no biologically-based experiments were done to support the theory. That’s unscientific!
Creationists of any faith can now use the scientifically-based physiology of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution to combat the nonsense of mutation-driven evolution at a time when no one has ever found experimental evidence to support mutations theory. Sometime before the centennial of the “Scopes monkey trial,” I think the focus may change to Darwin’s ‘conditions of life’ instead of Haldane’s mutations theory. If so, Kansas schools still might have the chance to adopt science standards and begin teaching biological facts instead of mutations theory.