Newsletter Stories for Enjoyment Back Articles for Thinking
This document was last modified 7:09 PM 3/19/06
original 6:55 PM 3/6/99

A constructive comment sheet when presented evolution as a fact.

Thank you for allowing us to tour/visit/see ___________________________ on our field trip/vacation.

We noted that science was presented using only evolutionary teaching. The viewpoint presented was Macro evolution (out of nothing, everything) is fact and NOT as a model or as a falsifiable theory. Science is repeatable, measurable, and observable. Evidence of "Macro" evolution that is repeatable, measurable, and observable was NOT noted. All viewpoints of science agree on Micro evolution, changes within kinds, e.g. dogs beget dogs. Technically speaking a kind can be thought of as: genetically based (not conjecture or artists' illustration), non-reversible (improvement by adding information has not been demonstrated to occur and small changes are demonstrated as within the limits of variability and return to the "mean" of the population), and does result in reproductive isolation of populations (species are subsets of kinds). Yet NO Micro evolution has been shown to produce Macro evolution. Good science describes without unstated bias. Evolution is a historical viewpoint and is not the only theory concerning "beginnings." Nor is it the most reasonable according to many scientists. The "beginning" is NOT repeatable, measurable, or observable. Please help to bring about good scientific methods in presentations and reporting as suggested by Richard Feynman below. Thank you.

One of the best definitions of the qualities that make an expert trustworthy comes from Richard Feynman, late great physicist and an unquestioned hero of modern science. In a 1974 commencement speech at the California Institute of Technology he said:

Cultivate a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.... In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist.... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is [more than] not lying, but bending over backward to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For additional information and commercial materials on alternative viewpoints using good science and integrity in presentation as described here contact, The ARK Foundation of Dayton, Inc., P.O. Box 33071, Dayton, OH 45433-0071 or view their web page at www.arky.org. Several other links are referenced on this web site.

We also note the following positive comments consistent with what we know to be good valid scientific statements used at this facility:


Thank you for listening and doing your best for the public service.

Signed: __________________________________

The ARK Foundation of Dayton, Inc. is a non profit organization (6/95). We support true science and Biblical religion. Email ARKY to send comments about this site.