1999 Web Sites of the Month

Web Site of the Month - January 1999

by Lothar Janetzko

This web page asks the question, "Did you know that you are supposed to have useless organs in your body, which you inherited from your non-human ancestors?" The page then goes on to describe how this belief was common among Darwinists in the late 1880’s. The useless organs were called "vestigial organs", and at one time numbered around 200.

This web page points out that all our internal organs have uses, but they weren’t known in the 19^th century. Since we have no useless organs, we therefore have no vestigial organs.

If we inherited these vestigial organs from our non-human "ancestors", then these supposed ancestors should have them--but they don’t.

Even if we did have vestigial organs, it would not prove evolution. It would only prove that mutations had caused once-useful organs to become completely non-functional. That’s not evolution; that’s degeneration.

So, If an evolutionist tells you that people have 200 useless organs that are left-over relics of evolution, ask him to let you remove some of his useless organs. Then you will see if he really believes they are useless.

Web Site of the Month - February 1999

by Lothar Janetzko

This web page describes the legal decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton in the case of McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. On March 19, 1981, the Governor of Arkansas signed into law Act 590 of 1981, entitled “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act.'' Its essential mandate is stated in its first sentence: “Public schools within this State shall give balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolution-science.'' On May 27, 1981, this suit was filed challenging the constitutional validity of Act 590.

The two main areas that the legal decision discusses are the religious movement known as Fundamentalism and what is science. The court believed that “creation-science” as defined in Act 590 is simply not science. Several witnesses suggested definitions of science. A descriptive definition was said to be that science is what is “accepted by the scientific community” and is “what scientists do.”

Using this definition of science shows how difficult it would be to convince a court that creation-science truly is science. Read the full court decision for yourself for some interesting insights into our legal system.

Web Site of the Month - March 1999

by Lothar Janetzko

“Creationism is the theory that man, the earth, and the rest of the universe were originally created rather than randomly exploding from nothingness into chance existence”.

This web article is one of six articles that can be found at the www.creationism.org home page. In this article the author, Paul Abramson, makes his defense of creationism. He organizes his defense into 27 subsections. In these subsections he discusses many topics such as: origins; coal and oil; swift sedimentary deposition; our solar system; the biblical flood; the Grand Canyon; and many others.

This web site asks the following questions: “What are we? Why are we here? Do we exist merely to optimize pleasure and minimize pain, or to develop in character (through trials and troubles) and thus bear fruit?” It then asks us to “peruse their links as you desire, use your common sense and just look at the wealth of scientific evidence which logically defies the blind faith of the evolutionists”.

The article is quite interesting and I hope you enjoy reading it.

Web Site of the Month - April 1999

by Lothar Janetzko

In this article the author, Darel Rex Finley, discusses why he disbelieves Evolution. In his introduction he states “I feel obligated to present a rational explanation of my disbelief, both to deflect the impression that I am irrational, and to encourage other disbelievers to be unafraid to express their opinion on the subject.”

He begins his article by discussing the philosophical biases most people have regarding the purpose of life. He then lists a few possibilities of how life may have evolved or was created by supernatural intervention.

The main part of his article deals with the empirical problems of evolution. He makes two observations: 1) All theories work on paper and 2) Negative evidence is more important than positive evidence.

After the conclusion of the article, he makes some interesting predictions. The one that I find very insightful is that “new technologies such as the Internet are making it increasingly possible for individuals of modest means, not working in the field of mass media, to broadcast information to the general public, and to communicate easily with people of similar persuasions. Over time, this may weaken the ability of evolutionists to indoctrinate new generations without running into a lot of informed questions and serious skepticism.”

Web Site of the Month - May 1999

by Lothar Janetzko

This web site presents information about both creation and evolution and asks the question, "As we approach the year 2000, we are still embroiled in a debate that has raged throughout this century. Is the diversity of life we see on this planet, including human life, the result of evolution, or was it created by a superior being? With all the scientific knowledge and tools we have available to us, why is this still an issue? " The site then presents several reasons for why this debate is still going on.

Also the site presents the results of a Gallup Poll that was taken in 1991 to see how many Americans hold to the STRICT CREATIONIST VIEW, CENTRIST VIEW, or the NATURALIST VIEW. The results are quite interesting.

This web site has numerous links to information about both creation and evolution and makes a good starting point for anyone interested in studying further about this ongoing debate.

Web Site of the Month - June 1999

by Lothar Janetzko

In the introduction of this booklet the statement is made that “science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science.” It uses this premise to try to refute the positions held by advocates of "creation science".

It is quite interesting that the National Academy of Sciences has created this booklet to try to defend the teaching of evolution in our public schools and to try to describe some of the positions taken by advocates of creation science and present an analysis of these claims.

This booklet considers the science that supports the theory of evolution, focusing on three categories of scientific evidence:

1) Evidence for the origins of the universe, Earth, and life, 2) Evidence for biological evolution, including findings from paleontology, comparative anatomy, biogeography, embryology, and molecular biology 3) Evidence for human evolution.

The booklet also describes some terms such as Fact, Hypothesis, Law and Theory. One must carefully read and understand these terms to determine if creation science is given a fair hearing.

Web Site of the Month - July 1999

by Lothar Janetzko

This web page provides information about a new science book on the creation-evolution controversy. The book focuses mainly on the biological issues and contains no theology or religious discussions.

The book is intended as a freshman-level college text, but can also be used by high school students and is suitable for public schools.

Half of the book dismantles “evolutionary illusions” such as:

1. The carnival shell game maneuvering behind natural selection and the anthropic principle
2. The inability of evolutionary geneticists to make their models consistent with their claims and the data
3. The flexibility and untestability of evolutionary theory
4. The philosophical double standards held by evolutionists, one standard for creation, and a lesser one for evolution
5. The misuse of terminology and classification methods to create evolutionary illusions

The other half of the book proposes a scientifically testable creation theory that takes the place of the theory of evolution.

The web site provides more detailed information about this new book and how you can order a copy of the book for yourself.

Web Site of the Month - August 1999

by Lothar Janetzko

The web site provides a typical FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) format web page to provide answers to the following questions:

• The Model
• Problems with Evolution
• Human Evolution
• But is Creation Science Really Science?
• Myths

The questions asked and answered are very interesting and quite extensive. As an example in the section covering Myths, the following questions are addressed:

• Myth: The question of origins is not important.
• Myth: There are very few hominid fossils.
• Myth: Evolutionists are always fair and scientific.
• Myth: Only Protestant fundamentalists are concerned with creation.
• Myth: No "real" scientists are creationists.
• Myth: Creationists do not publish in the standard scientific journals or do any original research.
• Myth: Creationists constantly quote evolutionists out of context.
• Myth: The hominid fossil evidence virtually proves human evolution.
• Myth: Darwin withdrew or renounced his theories in old age.

Web Site of the Month - September 1999

by Lothar Janetzko

This month I am departing from a regular Web Site review to look at some of the reaction to the recent vote of the Kansas State Board of Education vote to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution in Kansas schools.

The reaction to this vote was found by doing a search on the word Evolution on the YAHOO News Science web page (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/sc/). The search found 102 news articles for Evolution on 21 Aug 1999.

“Board of Ed Chided on Evolution Vote (Associated Press) Gov. Bill Graves and some legislators are talking about abolishing the State Board of Education or stripping it of authority because of its vote to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution.” - Aug 13 5:46 PM EDT

“Evolution Vote May Have Small Effect (Associated Press) Some local Kansas officials are not planning to change what their schools teach about evolution, even though the State Board of Education's new testing standards de-emphasize its importance, especially the theory that men descended from apes.” - Aug 12 5:55 PM EDT

“ACLU May Sue Over Evolution Decision (Associated Press) The American Civil Liberties Union says school districts could face lawsuits if they attempt to teach creationism in wake of the state school board's recent decision to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution.” - Aug 14 4:29 AM EDT

The public reaction to the vote makes for very interesting reading. Perform the search yourself and read more details about how this vote is viewed by various people.

Web Site of the Month - October 1999

by Lothar Janetzko

This web site discusses the new and emerging theory known as intelligent design. This theory is presented as being independent of religion. The author of the web site believes that religion requires faith and science requires hard evidence and consequently he keeps these two disciplines separate.

In the author’s own words “the goal of this site is to show that evolution does not explain the origin of life or its complexity. The failure of science to find a naturalistic explanation is strong evidence for design. This site is here because the author feels that this issue is not getting the attention it deserves. High school and college students are not introduced to this topic. Biology textbooks only discuss the evidence that evolution can explain. Problems and unresolved issues are never mentioned.”

The author of this web site plans to put the material from this site into a book in the near future. (This was done in 2005.)

The site is quite informative and makes for interesting reading.

Web Site of the Month - November 1999

by Lothar Janetzko

This month’s web site review describes a web site I discovered recently that I think provides a thoroughly organized presentation on the Creation vs. Evolution controversy. The author has a pleasant writing style and shows a lot of humor. He covers many of the questions that have been raised by evolutionists. The information on the site is well organized with an extensive table of contents, resource list, references and listing of periodicals, that the reader can use to study further into the creation vs. evolution controversy.

In the author’s own words, “If I hope to accomplish anything, it will be to simply encourage critical thinking. One must get past the arguments ad populum (that its popularity counts for something), ad hominem (that if you attack the person making the argument, this counts for something), and especially ad baculum (that there are people who have the clout to decree it as true), to ask the key questions and challenge the unsubstantiated assumptions and thinking of those who would hold to the evolution position. … I should point out that I do not consider myself an authority on the leading edge of modern creationism, although it may seem so to the uninitiated. Those wishing to be on the forefront of knowledge must look beyond this paper. I am not a scientist, but an engineer by education and profession. Even so, it is my conviction that no substantial scientific training or experience is required to confront evolutionism and defend recent creation.”

If you are interested in studying about the Creation vs. Evolution controversy then this is a good place to begin.

Web Site of the Month - December 1999

by Lothar Janetzko

This web site provides information about a book entitled Evolution Through The Dimensions Of Time & Space. The book tries to build an argument for believing that both creation and evolution might be actually be right.

In the author’s own words “over the last two to three thousand years, there has been an ongoing and often very violent controversy among followers of religion and followers of science. Which ONE is right? Is nature ruled by the god(s) of religion, or by the laws of science? Is the religious belief in creation right, or is the scientific knowledge of evolution right? People for some reason seem to tend to believe that there can be only ONE right answer and only ONE right way to understand and relate to the world, and that any other answer and any other way must therefore be wrong.

Is this a reasonable way to believe? Although it is natural for people to believe that their truth is THE truth, must it follow that other people's truth must therefore be false? Even though other people believe equally fervently in their truth, must they be somehow less true? Or, is it possible that each person's truth is not THE truth, but is A truth, one of as many equally and individually valid approaches to the truth of nature as there are people in the world.”

The information about this book makes for interesting reading and will challenge your beliefs about creation and evolution.

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution Home Page	Back issues of Disclosure (our newsletter)
Web Site of the Month	Topical Index