The Seven Keys have been updated.
Evolutionary science promotes the mythical ideas of evolution, adaptation, and natural selection, among others. BOSS (Biological Origins Science) teaches the truth that, instead, there is the evolution construct, adaptation construct, and natural selection construct, which are mental constructs imposed on the biological world and not actual, physical entities.
The proof that evolution, adaptation, and natural selection are imaginary entities is the fact that evolutionary science has never identified physicochemical agents or processes that define these entities. Nevertheless, the corresponding mental constructs, properly termed the “evolution construct,” “adaptation construct,” and “natural selection construct,” are useful in organizing biological history.
The purpose of science is the expansion of knowledge. The tools of science are certainty and uncertainty. If you are looking for certainty, do not look to science but, rather, look to the parent of science, the scientific method. – Dr. Michael Bisconti
The scientific method is recognition and formulation of a problem followed by collection of data through observation and experiment ending with formulation and testing of hypotheses. – Dr. Michael Bisconti
BOSS: Biological Origins Science
Except for the people-from-apes thing, evolutionary science is correct (we didn’t say “true”) and contradicts nothing in the Bible. It is unfortunate that many have alienated so many others from the riches of knowledge found in evolutionary science. Now, because of the entrenched stigma (discredit) associated with the term “evolutionary science,” we have coined the term “biological origins science” or “BOSS” for short. Remember, there is one difference between BOSS and evolutionary science, you are not a product of evolution .
In physics, objects “experience” force. For example, a paper clip “experiences” the force (pull) of a magnet and the oceans “experience” the gravitational pull of the sun. These forces manifest themselves in changes in physical objects. They exist in the physical world.
In evolutionary theory, all of the so-called forces have no existence in the physical world. There are no evolutionary entities that act on physical objects. Evolution, natural selection, and adaptation, which are the so-called forces of evolution, do not pull on paper clips or pull on the oceans. They don’t exist. What are they then? They are extrapolations (imaginations logically but not experimentally associated with reality). Thus, the whole system of evolutionary thinking rests on pure imagination .
As evolutionists have seen their position weaken they are trying to pull a big trick on everyone. They are:
Trying to change the definition of evolution to hide the fact that they include human beings.
Instead of saying:
All species from one species
They are now saying:
One species from one species
Not so fast you rotten bums (forgive my language). You have:
Over a century and a half of grief and societal disruption to pay for.
We will, for now, treat adaptation as a reality. Evolutionists assume:
Because adaptation has occurred with a few species, it has occurred with all species .
Evolution, a mere hypothesis, is not a threat. What is a threat is the teaching that evolution disproves the Bible. The linchpin (“something that holds an account together”) of the Genesis account is the fact that God created man in less than 24 hours. This directly contradicts the ape-to-human component of the evolutionary schedule.
Well, first, the idea of creation , according to the Bible, is not necessarily instantaneous but can involve the passage of time (see Genesis 2). Second, the idea of creation can be a history rather than an event (see Genesis 2). A history is a sequence of events. In addition, creation can be synoptic (a summary) rather than journalistic (a precise report) (see Genesis 1).
The key thing here is that creation can be synoptic (a summary). Genesis 1 states that God created the first female, which apparently is a single event, but Genesis 2 says that the creation of the first female involved two events (skeletal amputation followed by skeletal transformation). So, obviously, Genesis 1 was synoptic; that is, only presenting a summary .
What we have proven is that Genesis 1 contains synoptic content. This means that the whole Genesis creation account may have been synoptic. This, in turn, means that there could have been billions of years of creation. And, finally, billions of years of creation could mean that the human body evolved over time then on a certain day, the “sixth day,” God gave the human body a soul.
What does all of this prove?
It proves that evolution does not disprove the Bible.
Now, was a day a day or was it billions of years? We don’t know and it doesn’t matter, scientifically speaking. And, remember, science isn’t necessarily truth. In terms of truth, a day was a day.
Finally, we still oppose evolution because it is unprovable. It is unprovable because it is experimentally unverifiable. And, remember, adaptation, called also “microevolution,” is not evolution. Evolution must, forever, remain a hypothesis or, at best, at some distant time in the future, a theory.
10,000 evolutionists were surveyed by Drone. They were asked 3 questions.
Question 1: Is evolution a force or an event?
Q1 Results: 99.6% of evolutionists replied that evolution is a force.
Sorry, Charlie. Darwin said that evolution is an event.
Question 2: Is natural selection a force or an event?
Q2 Results: 98% of evolutionists replied that natural selection is a force.
Sorry, Charlie. Darwin said that natural selection is an event.
Question 3: Is adaptation a force or an event?
Q3 Results: 99% of evolutionists replied that adaptation is a force.
Sorry, Charlie. Darwin said that adaptation is an event.
Conclusion: Given the survey results, why do we give evolutionists so much credit for being smart people?
Once again, we must remind some ignorant people that:
Adaptation (a new species from an old species) is not evolution (all species from one species).
Do we want evolution to die? No, but we wouldn’t shed any tears if it did. What we want is for evolution to be treated realistically; that is, it is an hypothesis, not a theory, and you may use hypotheses in the laboratory but you don’t teach them in science classes.