In these new standards, middle schoolers, for example, are supposed to “Construct explanations for the anatomical similarities and differences between fossils of once living organisms and organisms living today.” And how is a twelve year old supposed to expound upon such a profound topic? The fine print explains: “Students should use the record of evolutionary descent between ancient and modern-day organisms.”
This is pure indoctrination. There is no other way to put it. Presenting young students with a problem way over their head, and feeding them a religiously-motivated, anti scientific answer, is pure indoctrination. That is to say nothing about the fact that this is terrible pedagogy. No wonder our students can’t stand science.
Unfortunately that example is typical. Middle schoolers are also to learn that:
Anatomical similarities and differences between various organisms living today, and between them and organisms in the fossil record, enable the reconstruction of evolutionary history and the inference of lines of evolutionary descent.
Again, the young student is confronted with a false dogma that is imposed on the science. Of course the real science enables no such thing. The so-called “lines of evolutionary descent” are contradicted, not supported, by the empirical evidence. Even evolutionists are quietly finally admitting to themselves that the evolution tree doesn’t work. But of course they won’t tell the students.
At the high school level this evolutionary lie is elaborated:
Genetic information, like the fossil record, also provides evidence of evolution. DNA sequences vary among species, but there are many overlaps; in fact, the ongoing branching that produces multiple lines of descent can be inferred by comparing the DNA sequences of different organisms. Such information is also derivable from the similarities and differences in amino acid sequences and from anatomical and embryological evidence.
The embryological evidence reveals profound non homologous development pathways even in sister species which contradicts the expected evolutionary pattern. Such contradictions are literally ubiquitous in the anatomical and genetic data. Just a few examples we have recently looked at are here, here and here.
High schoolers are also to “explain the process by which natural selection leads to adaptations.” This evolutionary myth that adaptations arise by the slow process natural selection acting on random change appears several times in the standards, in spite of the fact that science shows that adaptations arise rapidly and non randomly in direct response to environmental shifts. Again, even some brave evolutionists are admitting these findings to each other.
All of this mythology is brought to us by evolutionists. At one point they write:
The section begins with a discussion of the converging evidence for common ancestry that has emerged from a variety of sources (e.g., comparative anatomy and embryology, molecular biology and genetics).
But the comparative anatomy, embryonic and molecular data do not converge on common ancestry, they contradict the common ancestry pattern. This is an uncontroversial, scientific fact. The dogma could not be more obvious.
Similarly, the evolutionists write:
Finally, the core ideas in the life sciences culminate with the principle that evolution can explain how the diversity that is observed within species has led to the diversity of life across species through a process of descent with adaptive modification. Evolution also accounts for the remarkable similarity of the fundamental characteristics of all species.
Again, this is evolutionary mythology. And again, even brave evolutionists are admitting that they cannot explain how the massive changes evolution requires came about. And those “fundamental characteristics” are not so fundamental. It is pathetic to see evolutionists continue to proclaim evidence that has long since been contradicted by the science.
These standards are yet another example of how evolution is not only corrupting science but doing so at the expense of the taxpayer. If this is the “Next-Generation Science Standards” then we are all in trouble.
[Ed: Edited as per RC's comment]