Education vs Common Core

The math part is very troubling


Common Core Curriculum (CCC) like it or not is taking over as the new curriculum across the nation. One of the former members of the Common Core Validation Committee is Dr. James Milgram ( ). He is not happy because he is a specialist on the idea of what we will need in mathematics to compete with China, Japan, and Korea and so on. He was raised in Indiana and that state repealed CCC based on his testimony. They instituted new standards based upon his credentials – he is a Stanford Professor of Mathematics and the only professional mathematician and expert on content on the review committee.

He was “incredibly disappointed that the draft I was reading of Indiana’s new standards looked so much like Common Core”. So he reread the pre-calculus, calculus, trigonometry standards and realized they had not been changed. He’s concerned that American kids are not getting the kind of education that will help us to regain the lead in technology.

Here is a little of what he said “How can you have a mathematics problem that doesn’t have a single answer, or correct answer or any answer is correct? Of course, mathematically you can’t. All of this is exactly a repeat of what went on in California 20 years ago but this time it is national. This time I don’t see any uniform or systematic way of getting rid of it. The only way to get rid of it is state-by-state and parent group by parent group.”

I don’t know whether you have examined the curriculum in your children’s school but you should, because it’s going to be unrecognizable to you. Well maybe not, I’ve already discussed some of that in:

The math part is very troubling because it’s a way of teaching critical thinking. For a lengthy example of sample math problems take a look at this link:

Now, ladies and gentlemen, critical thinking is important particularly as you get into college. What is important to ‘critical thinking’ is to have a background of facts. Now you can critically think about Columbus discovering America in 1492, and think critically of all the possible ramifications to the native population if you know all the facts of the event. If you haven’t been taught to memorize the facts in your earlier grades then you won’t be able to fully define the problem. With math, you have to memorize your times tables, if you are going to do any other kinds of math later on. Critically thinking about your times tables is not going to help you learn geometry or calculus.




Evillution, The Science of it All

‘Peacock’ fruit flies


Science is Amazing  November 8, 2013

Evolution has resulted in some truly amazing creatures, but this is one beauty that we hadn’t seen before. Each of the transparent wings of the recently discovered fruitfly ‘Goniurellia tridens’ carries the likeness of an ant, right down to legs, thorax, head, and antennae. It’s thought that the fruitfly flutters its wings when threatened to give it the appearance of two ants walking back and forth, confusing the predator into abandoning the meal. All we know is that these ‘peacock flies’ are just another example of the incredible power of millions of years of natural selection. Read more here: Image credit:   -P.

Blind faith = “All we know is that these ‘peacock flies’ are just another example of the incredible power of millions of years of natural selection.” I feel for these people and the delusions they cling to, unable to see the fallacies in their own statements. The first problem comes with dealing with the term “natural selection.” Selection is a term that implies the making of a choice, a decision. Synonyms include picking out, choosing, and preferring. A mindless process cannot “select” in this sense. The term “natural selection” is an oxymoron and its widespread use contributes to the pervasive confusion so characteristic of this topic.

Purpose, meaning or function can only be a derivative of thought. Material causes and random processes, which lack a mind, simply do not have the capacity to produce an intention in the first instance. Material causes cannot know or think. They can’t know the present, have knowledge of the past or choose to alter the future.

Fruit flys exhibit sexual dimorphism which is a phenotypic difference between males and females of the same species, meaning that there are obvious differences between the male and female of the species especially in regards to the reproductive organs. Humans are a perfect example of sexual dimorphism –(the male has an ‘outie’, the female has an ‘innie’).

While we know that errors can occur in the replication of the DNA strands (which end up causing a mutatable trait) we still are unsure of what the genetic process is to cause one trait to be recessive or dominant between the two gametes. Therefore, for the sake of the evillutionists argument we will concede that any change in the genetic makeup of the wing from clear to darkened will be dominant.

Since the exact process of mitosis in the fruit fly is unknown, I will also concede the point that one batch of gene DNA that has mutated to form a dark spot on one wing will somehow be exactly duplicated on the other wing during the entire process of development.

Female fruit flies are capable of laying hundreds of eggs within their brief life spans. Eggs are most commonly laid on moist, fermenting food masses such as overripe fruit and vegetables. Within 24 to 30 hours, fruit fly eggs hatch into larvae known as maggots. These maggots feed on the fruits within which they were laid. Within one week, maggots burrow through the decaying matter and molt. After five to six days, larvae move to a dry surface and transform into pupae. A few days later, adult fruit flies emerge-this is the point in time where the wings develop. However, throughout the developmental process at any time, the mtRNA, RNA or DNA replication process could have caused the darkening spot on the wings.

Fruit flies become sexually active within two days of emerging as adults. At this point we do not know if the female has a genetic disposition to more likely mate with a male that has a spot on its wings as opposed to those many, many more (at this point in time) who do not. But we digress, over millions of year, this spot, this blotch continues to mutate and grows in size and somewhere along the line part of it gets darker (creating what appears to be eyes) and narrowing down then expanding out and become oblong in shape (looking like a head and a thorax now). And again, while all of this is mutating, these flies are reproducing in sufficient number to start becoming a standard. But wait a minute, if we have hundreds of them reproducing, then did the genetic malformation continue to occur in each and every fly or just in one specific group.

We have also, somewhere along the line different lengthy spindles coming out of the spot or of the blotch and mutating in just the right directions to look like legs. Again, this supposedly would have occurred over millions of years. The end result is that somehow one fruit fly of this particular species managed to mutate the a portion of the coloration of its wings to look like an ant and it learned that if it flapped its wings, it would scare away ‘predators’ and it has at the same time become the dominate male for the female of the species (or I guess the females could have the wing differentiation also).


Let’s go back to the glowing statement: “It’s thought that the fruitfly flutters its wings when threatened to give it the appearance of two ants walking back and forth, confusing the predator into abandoning the meal. All we know is that these ‘peacock flies’ are just another example of the incredible power of millions of years of natural selection.”

They think, they don’t know and they want you to believe in what they say. Well, the biggest predator of the fruit fly is a wasp- but not to the fly itself but to the maggots. It stings the maggots and lays its own eggs into them. There also other insects that eat pupae and larvae and small rodents. But the biggest predator to the fruit fly is Raid and BlackFlag and the humans who use their Flying Insect Spray and Outdoor Defogger. And I don’t think that any flapping of the wings would make me scared of the supposed ant.

Easier to believe that an Intelligent Designer, knew for some reason we have yet to figure out, that this particular species of fruit fly in the environment it would be placed into needed the ornamentation on its wings and God said it was good.

The Science of it All

Daubentonia madagascariensis

the _aye_aye

Science Is F*****g Awesome  December 10, 2012

The Aye-aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis) is a strepsirrhine native to Madagascar that combines rodent-like teeth with a long, thin middle finger to fill the same ecological niche as a woodpecker. It is the world’s largest nocturnal primate, and is characterized by its unique method of finding food; it taps on trees to find grubs, then gnaws holes in the wood and inserts its elongated middle finger to pull the grubs out. Daubentonia is the only genus in the family Daubentoniidae and infraorder Chiromyiformes. The Aye-aye is the only extant member of the genus (although it is currently an endangered species); a second species (Daubentonia robusta) was exterminated over the last few centuries. ~Tan

The Science of it All

Diseased sea stars


Evolution  July 28, 2013

Sea stars on the East Coast of the United States are under threat from an unknown pathogen. University of Rhode Island graduate student Caitlin DelSesto stumbled upon the sea star problem while collecting sea stars for a research project. Diseased sea stars are slimy, mushy, and may be missing all or some arms. More research could help identify the pathogen, but right now just finding sea stars along the coast is proving incredibly difficult. The pathogen is decimating the sea star population, so much so that researchers are asking the public to help find sea stars to help researchers study the pathogen. Researchers pointed out that this sort of outbreak, while worrisome, is not unheard of. Something similar happened in the 1990s and sea stars were able to recover after. Sources:

So it has happened before, and the sea stars recuperated. It is possible it will happen again, and it may be a normal process that happens periodically, we just haven’t been aware of it. Definitely more research is needed.

Education vs Common Core, The Science of it All

Life without the sun


The Earth Story  August 29

This entire ecosystem is living off the energy of the Earth

Life without the sun One of the most fascinating biological environments on Earth is found on the floor of the ocean. Kilometers below the surface, no light reaches these areas, so for life to exist, it must have a different energy source. This entire ecosystem is living off the energy of the Earth.

Rocks deep inside the earth contain elements in reduced form; they haven’t reacted with oxygen because there is no free oxygen inside the Earth. At places like mid-ocean ridges, the Earth itself brings these elements up to the surface and exposes them to the ocean. Life in these settings can take up some of these elements, like iron, react it with oxygen in the water, and use that energy to sustain itself. The scientist’s term for this life would be chemosynthetic – using chemistry to gain energy (contrast that term with photosynthetic, as plants are). This entire seafloor is covered with white crabs (10 cm scalebar). There’s no reason for any of the organisms here to waste energy by coloring themselves; there’s no sunlight so nothing can be seen anyway. This is an area rich with a type of life very different from anything we’re familiar with in our lives up at the surface, almost 2500 meters above. -JBB “Dense mass of anomuran crab Kiwa around deep-sea hydrothermal vent” by A. D. Rogers et al. – A. D. Rogers et al. in PLoS Biology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons –

Evillution, The Science of it All

Omega Nebula


The Universe   August 27

The star-forming region of Messer 17 is more popularly known as the Omega Nebula or Swan Nebula . . . or perhaps you might know it as the Lobster Nebula, Horseshoe Nebula, or maybe even the Checkmark Nebula. No matter how many names it has, the beauty of this star-forming region is quite singular. The cavernous shape, made visible by creating a composite image from the Subaru and Hubble telescopes, is created when the hot winds from young stars sweep the faint wisps of gas and dust outward. M17 can be found around 5,000 light-years from Earth in the constellation of Sagittarius. -RLO Image: Subaru Telescope (NAOJ), Hubble Space Telescope, Color data: Wolfgang Promper, Processing: Robert Gendler Source:

As beautiful as this is, just remember it is a composite picture, made by combining images from 2 different telescopes, with entirely different software analyzing the images and a company supplying the colorization. Is there any chance that somebody’s individual beliefs might not have creep into the process of creating this ‘composite’ picture?

And don’t forget as the author waxed poetic “the hot winds from young stars sweep the faint wisps of gas and dust” there are NO winds in space. Space in the absence of something (planet, asteroids, anything) is NOTHING.

Education vs Common Core, Evillution, The Science of it All

Evolution and Intelligent Design

Evolution basically falls into three distinct but interrelated categories: Cosmological evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution. All three are secular theories (an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture ) of origins that seek to explain the evolution of the Universe (cosmological evolution), the origin of life (chemical evolution) and the origin of the complete and total diversity of life (biological evolution) using only natural causes (involves an absence of external, precipitating agents).

I’ll show to those who are not blinded by hypocrisy that all three ideas amount to historical narratives that rest on conjecture, illogical faith and biased doctrine. Faith and doctrine is particularly necessary in the case of cosmological evolution and chemical evolution. Biological evolution assumes the truth of faith-based cosmological and chemical evolution. It then argues that random variations in replicating organisms produced via chemical evolution adequately account for the apparent design of all living organisms. However, major controversy exists with respect to the adequacy of biological evolution to account for large increases in bio diversity, such as that evidenced by bio-systems and machines that appear irreducibly complex.

Biologists uniformly recognize that living systems look like they have been designed by a mind for a purpose but they stop short of admitting it due to their intensive years of indoctrination. . Biologists typically describe bio-systems with language employed by human software designers to describe human designed information processing systems. Biological “operating systems” consist of “coded messages” that are “copied”, “edited,” “error checked” and ultimately “translated” into a variety of “tools” and “machines” that are used to construct, operate and maintain “information processing networks” that run cellular systems that comprise life.

The “operating system” embedded in the genome of the oldest form of life has been compared to the less efficient and robust Linux operating system. As explained by one evolutionary biologist, “the challenge for evolutionary biologists is to explain how seemingly well designed features of organism, where the fit of function to biological structure and organization often seems superb, is achieved without a sentient Designer.” Although life looks created by a designer, the basic claim of evolutionary biology is that the apparent design of life is like the “rising sun,” just an illusion, explained by undirected chemical necessity and chance.

At its core, “intelligent design” is a respectful dissent to the secularist’s claim of illusion.

Although chemical necessity can explain the illusion of design exhibited by an exquisite snowflake, it does not explain the multi-faceted ‘coded’ sequences of the four genetic letters that define the all memory, operating systems and application ‘programs’ that generate, operate and maintain life on this earth. The order of the genetic “letters” in the gene sequences, just like the order of the letters in this sentence or in a computer program, is not determined chemically or physically random. Like multiple text messages or conversations sent over the radio waves, the four genetic “letters” or symbols used to carry the messages of life can occupy any position on the sugar-phosphate backbone to which they are attached.

Since the order of the sequence that defines life cannot be explained by chemistry, all of the heavy lifting of natural cause explanations is left by default to “chance” – random variations like random mutations. The problem with the plausibility of chance that is inherent but ignored by so many is that even with billions of years of evolutionary history, the probability decreases exponentially as the complexity or number of “letters” needed to specify the message increases only incrementally. Common mathematics it is, and yet secularists want to avoid this part of the equation as often as they can. Because of the exponential decrease in probability, the time needed to run through enough trial events to expect a specified event to occur by chance, no matter how small of a change, increases at an exponential rate. Very quickly evolution runs out of time, even for a single gene.

The best example is a simple combination lock. If it has a dial with only four set points and it has to be turned twice to the correct number to open the lock. That gives us 4 x 2 or only 8 trials are needed to expect the lock to be opened by chance: Probability = 8 trials/4×2 possible outcomes = 1.

However, if the dial has 100 set points and it must be turned correctly five times in a row, then 100x100x100x100x100 or ten billion trials are needed (P=1005 trials/1005 possible outcomes = 1). Ten billion five-step trials to open the lock by chance. It will take quite a bit more time than the simpler four point lock set.

Natural cause advocates waive their hands and say “evolution has billions of years and therefore chance is a reasonable explanation.” ID advocates say “Stop waiving your hands. Do the math. It doesn’t work.”


An old universe is not necessarily helpful because integrated events (development of matching reproductive systems for one) must often occur within narrow time frames to produce function. But even assuming one had all of the time and opportunity provided by a universe a billion times 20 billion years old, one would still not have enough opportunity to plausibly account for the sequence of genetic letters in a simple 900 “letter” gene by chance.

Like the combination lock, there are four alternatives at each position in the message carried by the gene – A, C, T and G. This means that to unlock the combination or make a specific 900 letter gene needed for a specific function, a dial consisting of 4 set points must be turned 900 times correctly in sequence, thereby requiring 4900 or 10540 900 step-trials. How many trials are possible in our billion times 20 billion year old universe? Hold on to your seats. Only 10150!

When 10150 is divided by 10540 the probability of the correct gene sequence happening once by chance in the entire universe since the big bang is 1/10390, a number which quickly rounds to zero. This is just for one gene. The human genome is 3 billion genetic letters long, not 900. Billions of years do not seem enough for mindless matter to get the job done by chance. Indeed, the math suggests that any novel gene sequence greater than 250 bases cannot be expected to arise by chance within the known universe, even given billions of years of evolution. Similarly, one would never expect a winner of a lottery where the winning number is 250 digits long. Lotteries must use short sequences to reasonably expect a winner over a short period of time or people would stop playing them even if the payout was $30 billion if you had to pick 250 digits correctly.


The secularist argues, again waving their hands for attention, that natural selection reduces the odds, thereby making the claim of illusion plausible. One problem is the lack of any serious statistical calculations that might confirm the assertion, otherwise based on hand waiving. The second is that natural selection only operates positively in very limited circumstances. Natural selection does not operate until replicating life has commenced. This is an event that apparently requires, as a minimum, two or three hundred genes and a supporting system that captures, converts and directs energy to cause the genes to be expressed in the right order, at the right time and in the right place.

After life starts, a replicating population does not “save” a new gene configuration until it functionally aids survival of the organism. To generate a new function that will aid survival, many new novel genes and messages may be required, each requiring many additional set points on the dial and turns of the knob to achieve a viable function for any particular organism. Until this viable function is achieved, natural selection, which by definition abhors energy wasting activities, acts to eliminate the mutation, or genetic abnormality before it can fully develop its changes within the 3 billion character sequence.

There are other reasons for ID dissent to the claim of illusion. The inherent conceptual problem with the secularist narrative is that living systems are all forward looking. Not only do they look “designed,” they actually use directed energy to do things at specified times in the future. Thus, the inanimate components of life actually “conceive of” or point to future events that natural causes, which are lacking a mind, cannot “comprehend” or “foresee.” Only a mind or some kind of intelligence has foresight. Lacking foresight it is difficult to conceive how matter, energy and the many forces that naturally move from a state of order to disorder can simply “result” in a system such as a biological clock that functions for a future event that only a mind can contemplate.

So, one may ask, if the claim of illusion is not supported, why hasn’t it been abandoned by science? The answer lies in an exclusive definition of religion which has led science to embrace a doctrine called “methodological naturalism.” It concerns itself not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. The genesis of nature (for example, by an act of God or the time or circumstances of something’s coming into being) is not dealt with. Naturalism seeks only to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge.

MN as applied to the origin and nature of life essentially functions as a non-theistic religious doctrine used by modern institutions of science that requires one to assume the claim of illusion to be true, regardless of the evidence. Per MN only natural causes can explain the cause of life, hence the claim of illusion must be true. So, at its core the claim of illusion is supported by doctrine, not evidence. With MN, the weight of the evidence of design is irrelevant, as it is not allowed.

MN as a presumption has clear utility in many areas of operational science. When seeking the cause of an apple falling from a tree, it is reasonable to assume a natural cause given our ability to agree on a common set of meanings for our knowledge of gravity and wind. However, the assumption is not reasonable if we ask a different question – where does the apple and its ancestors come from? Much of the data necessary to answer that historical question has been lost to time and is not readily accessible. If natural cause is the only permitted answer, then science has closed its mind to other and unknown possibilities and embraced an atheistic orthodoxy.

Many have tried to demarcate science and religion based on subject matter. Science studies the natural world, while religion seeks to provide answers to the ultimate metaphysical questions of life such as the origin,nature and purpose of life. However, modern science has strayed into all of these areas formerly reserved to religion.

Given the overlapping subject matter, the defining characteristic of science that distinguishes it from religion, is objectivity. Science is necessarily objective while religion is necessarily orthodox. Given this profound distinction, the inclusive definition of religion is actually necessary to keep science objective and inherently different from religion.

Atheists have been compelled in a number of cases to acknowledge their beliefs to be religious. To have standing to sue for an injunction against a nativity scene, the Ten Commandments or the reference to God in the Pledge, Atheists have had to argue that the displays offend their “religious beliefs.” The courts, including the Supreme Court, have agreed.

The issue was put squarely before the Supreme Court in 1992 in Lee v. Weisman. Proponents of a high school graduation prayer argued it was constitutional as it did not refer to any particular God and was therefor “nonpreferential” and “neutral” as to all religious beliefs. This argument assumed that religion was confined to only beliefs in God. In holding for complaining Atheists, the Supreme Court found the prayer was preferential as it preferred theistic religions over “nontheistic religions.” Justice O’Connor, Souter and Stevens explained in a concurring opinion that “[A] nonpreferentialist who would condemn subjecting public school graduates to, say, the Anglican liturgy would still need to explain why the government’s preference for theistic over nontheistic religion is constitutional.” The “settled law” is that the “Clause applies ‘to each of us, be he Jew or Agnostic, Christian or Atheist, Buddhist or Freethinker’” “Freethinkers” are essentially “Secular” Humanists.

Based on the decisions of the Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit held Atheism to be an Establishment Clause religion in the 2005 case of Kaufmann v. McCaughtry. In 2008 the EEOC embraced the inclusive definition of religion in a compliance manual for use in Title VII cases involving religious discrimination in the work place. In addition to Atheism, the courts have found a variety of other traditional and non-traditional belief systems to qualify as religions, to include Buddhism, Taoism, Wicca and Scientology.

If religion is limited to theistic positions on the cause, nature and purpose of life, then an exclusion of religion from science entails an exclusion of the idea that mind rather than matter may be its cause. Once this exclusion is effected, then science must close its mind to a possible intelligent cause and thereby embrace the core tenet of Atheism – that life derives from matter rather than mind. This then renders science orthodox rather than objective as to the ultimate religious questions – the cause and nature of life. Since the orthodoxy provides an answer to the ultimate religious question, it functions as a religious orthodoxy that causes science to become religious rather than objective.

The opposite occurs when science excludes religion defined inclusively. That exclusion effectively requires science to be objective rather than orthodox when it addresses religious subject matter such as the cause, nature and purpose of life. Not only does it open the mind of science to competing possibilities, it also enables science to acknowledge that it actually does not “know” the answer to those ultimate questions.

The many reasons MN is actually counter productive in origins science is because its stated purpose – to exclude the supernatural – is religious, not secular. The dogma frustrates, rather than advances scientific testing of explanations, it is contrary to the scientific method which seeks to open, rather than close minds, it is used irrefutably only in science that addresses the ultimate religious questions – Where do we come from?–, and as a doctrine that must be employed, it is far more problematic than philosophical naturalism, which is merely a belief that one may choose to reject.

MN is promoted with the kind of organized religious zeal typical of all religions. MN is promoted with a false dichotomy that there are only two responses possible to the question of origins – natural or supernatural cause. Since science cannot entertain the supernatural, it has no choice but to embrace the natural. This is a false dichotomy because there is a third response – cause unknown. Cause unknown is the explanation given by the coroner when the data is insufficient to declare a natural or intelligent cause for a death. In origins science we do not know the cause of the big bang, the cause of life, the cause of the genetic codes that are at the root of the operating systems that run life, or the cause of major increases in the diversity of life. MN precludes the “I don’t know” response and thereby demands that science side with the Atheist in answering the ultimate question of life – Where do we come from?

Since you can’t or won’t answer the ultimate question, then Atheist, Secularists, ‘world viewists’ please, waive your hand goodbye! My belief system answers all the questions, with answers that you folks tend to ignore or find ways to dismiss instead of rebutting intelligently.


The Beauty of it All

Amazing animal eyes


Natural Selection  August 24

Amazing animal eyes… Can you guess what eye belongs to which animal?

Top row: Left – Caiman ; Middle – Husky ; Right – Gecko Middle row: Left – Crocodile ; Middle – Frog ; Right – Python Bottom row: Left – Squid ; Middle – Toucan ; Right – Goat Image sources: John Brody Photography


Though this is from Natural Selection FaceBook page and their slant toward evolution, the following are interesting articles that will provide information that the eyes we see around the world could only be from an Intelligent Designer- our Lord and Savior.

The evolution of the eye has always been a dilemma for evolutionists from Darwin’s time to the present. Although Darwin, Richard Dawkins and other evolutionists have tried to explain how an eye could evolve, their solutions are clearly unsatisfactory. Many kinds of eyes exist, but no progression of eye designs from simple to complex can be produced in the natural or fossil world.

Richard Dawkins has made comments concerning the human eye. Besides disparaging the organisation of the retina, he also claims that the eye could have developed gradually by small increments. The anatomy and physiology of the cornea, the eyelids and the tears illustrate how his reasoning is fallacious because of the principles of irreducible complexity and of genetic information gain.

The ‘inverted’ arrangement of the vertebrate retina, in which light has to pass through several inner layers of its neural apparatus before reaching the photoreceptors, has long been the butt of derision by evolutionists who claim that it is inefficient, and therefore evidence against design. This article reviews the reasons for our having the inverted retina and why the opposite arrangement (the verted retina), in which the photoreceptors are innermost and the first layer to receive incident light, would be liable to fail in creatures who have inverted retinas.