Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Re: Senate Bill 55: Neither creation nor macro-evolution is science.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Glenn Fiechtner, Sioux Falls Published 7:38 p.m. CT Feb. 20, 2017 | Updated 9 hours ago

Letters to the editor tile(Photo: Argus Leader)Buy Photo

Macro-evolution through random mutations with natural selection is just one of many examples of wrong or one-sided presentations of evidence for evolution given in classrooms, today. Teachers and students should have the freedom to show the holes in these evolution arguments.

Science is defined as, Knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. Merriam-Webster. Science is defined as, Knowledge by observation or experimentation.

Neither creation nor macro-evolution is science because neither can be observed or repeated. Both are based on belief.

Natural selection and artificial selection (selective breeding) do work, but only on the existing gene pool. Natural selection and artificial selection can be observed and repeated. This is micro-evolution and is real science. E.g., various breeds of dogs/wolves/dingoes. Also, Galpagos finches.

However, random mutations do not add new genetic information. Observed random mutations have only degraded (destroyed) information in the genes (blindness, albinism). This degradation is science because it has been observed.

The hypothesis that random mutations increase genetic information (macro evolution) has never been observed nor repeated. So, macro evolution (molecules to single-cells to fish to man) through random mutations is not science. It is a belief.

What this means is that the teaching of evolution, as taught in most classrooms and science biology textbooks, uses examples of natural selection (real science) and then mixes in a small amount of random mutations (which science shows only destroys) to explain what cannot be proved or observed macro-evolution.

Read or Share this story: http://argusne.ws/2loTZgz

0) { %>

0) { %>

Read more here:

Letter: 'Holes' exist in evolution argument - Sioux Falls Argus Leader