NMPED critics’ so-called ‘science’ can’t be proven

DO THE Journal editors’ complaints about the proposed science standards have any merit?

The editors object to the omission of a reference to a “rise in global temperatures” and the use instead of the word “fluctuations” to describe temperature changes. The proposed standards refer to changes in weather conditions, to “fluctuations in global temperatures,” to “changes in climate,” and to climate fluctuations and their “associated future impacts to Earth systems.” Believers in global warming constantly talk about changes in climate, and ...this is part of the proposed standards.

The editors object to the omission of the word “evolution” and its replacement with “biological diversity.” The proposed standards refer to “evolutionary relationships.” One of the standard’s subheadings is “Natural Selection and Evolution,” and under this subheading students are asked to assess how “common ancestry and biological evolution are supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence.” In another place students are asked to “Construct an argument based on evidence about the evolution of Earth’s systems and life on Earth.” The proposed standards include the word evolution, and any believer in evolution (can) talk about its effects on biological diversity.

The other specific editorial objection is the proposed standards do not refer to Earth’s “4.6-billion-year history.” The standards refer to the “geologic time scale.” They also refer to “ancient Earth materials” and Earth’s “early history.” These are code words for an old Earth, one an alleged 4.6 billion years old.

Perhaps somewhat more to the point, all of the dating methods that propose an old Earth are based upon assumptions that can not be proven. Geochronologists are well aware of these unprovable assumptions and openly acknowledge them in their professional writings. Briefly put, the old Earth belief is based on faith — faith in assumptions that can’t be proven. STEVEN DAPRA Albuquerque