Saturday, April 23, 2016

Response and refutation of the KY comissioner of education

"Dear Mr. Singleton,
  At the request of the Education Cabinet, I am responding to your message concerning the Next Generation Science Standards.

First it is important to note that the Next Generation Science Standards and Kentucky Academic Standards for science are not Common Core State Standards.  All these standards are now Kentucky Academic Standards.

Prior to adopting the Kentucky Academic Standards for Science, the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) sought public comment on the proposed standards. KDE received one comment similar to your recent concern involving secular humanism.  The commentator stated that the standards were not religiously neutral, but that they promoted the religious viewpoint of human secularism.

Evolution has long been established as a  scientific theory and not a religious doctrine.  The wide acceptance of the idea of evolution is the result of consideration of physical and observational evidence.  The acceptance of a set of religious beliefs is largely on faith.  There is no conflict between holding faith based religious beliefs and also accepting the evidence supporting biological evolution.  This is evidenced by the fact that practitioners of many different religious faiths also are biologists who study and apply the ideas of evolution in their everyday professional practice. Furthermore, Kentucky seeks to prepare all students for post secondary education.  Post secondary institutions widely accept evolution and base instruction on this scientific theory.  Because of this no changes were made regarding religious neutrality of the standards.

 Case Law establishes that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the establishment Clause. Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968) In McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), the United States upheld that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have a secular purpose. Subsequent United States Supreme court jurisprudence (Epperson, supra, Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) invalidated laws that, respectively, prohibited the teaching of evolution and required that creation science be taught in public schools.  As noted in Edwards,  the Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law respecting an establishment of religion."Id. at 582.

Finally school curricula (i.e. textbooks and instructional resources) are selected at the local level by school councils pursuant to KRS 160.345, not the KDE.

I hope this information helps to better explain Kentucky's Academic Standard's for Science.

Sincerely Stephen L. Pruitt, PH.D.  
Commissioner of Education"

Dear Education Cabinet,

I appreciate receiving the letter from Dr. Pruitt regarding my concerns over the constitutionality of the next generation science standards.  While the commissioner demonstrates a high level of sophistication in defending the nature of these standards, my fears were justified and not relieved.  A thorough exposition of this text will reveal the troublesome material.

"First it is important to note that the Next Generation Science Standards and Kentucky Academic Standards for science are not Common Core State Standards.  All these standards are now Kentucky Academic Standards."

  Now the ownership of the Academic Standards is tentative at best.  These standards were not voted on by the public. More relevantly, they were voted down by the KY Senate.  The standards were place into activity by the sole authority by Governor Steve Beshear. Governor Beshear has stepped down from Office.  Not only is there a new Governor in office, but a governor who from the opposite party who campaigned against the common core system (presumably including the science standards) and a secretary of education who likewise campaigned against this system.

  1. 1 :  one of a set of prescribed movements
  2. 2 a :  a process of change in a certain direction :  unfolding b :  the action or an instance of forming and giving something off :  emission c (1) :  a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state :  growth (2) :  a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d :  something evolved
  3. 3 :  the process of working out or developing
  4. 4 a :  the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) :  phylogeny b :  a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also :  the process described by this theory
  5. 5 :  the extraction of a mathematical root
  6. 6 :  a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena"
Now which definition is Dr. Pruitt using?
   Dr. Pruitt is responding to my letter and one of the key concerns in my letter is the big bang cosmology theory.  This is further evidenced by the fact that he uses the term "biological evolution" indicating a change of topic.  Therefore evolution must be understood in definition 6 referring to the whole universe.

"Evolution has long been established as a  scientific theory and not a religious doctrine."
  Now this implies a misunderstanding.  Following the separation of church and state there is the assumption of a separation of science and religion.  This is an utterly false assumption.

Charles Darwin never had a biology degree but instead was trained and paid as a minister of the Anglican church.
Yet all of the Sciences in fact were founded by creationists of sorts, here are a few...
Antiseptic Surgery Joseph Lister
Bacteriology Louis Pasteur
Calculus Isaac Newton
Celestial Mechanics Johannes Kepler
Chemistry Robert Boyle
Comparative Anatomy Georges Cuvier
Dimensional Analysis Lord Rayleigh
Dynamics Isaac Newton
Electronics John Ambrose Fleming
Electrodynamics James Clerk Maxwell
Electromagnetics Michael Faraday
Energetics Lord Kelvin
Entomology of Living Insects Henri Fabre
Field Theory James Clerk Maxwell
Fluid Mechanics George Stokes
Galactic Astronomy Sir William Hershel
Gas Dynamics Robert Boyle
Genetics Gregor Mendel
Glacial Geology Louis Agassiz
Gynaecology James Simpson
Hydrography Matthew Maury
Hydrostatics Blaise Pascal
Ichthyology Louis Agassiz
Isotopic Chemistry William Ramsey
Model Analysis Lord Rayleigh
Natural History John Ray
Non-Euclidean Geometry Bernard Riemann
Oceanography Matthew Maury
Optical Mineralogy David Brewster

     Science is inherently connected to religious assumptions; the key is not to provide a bias case for one religion against another in public school education. Essentially, to teach physics without teaching metaphysics.
   Humanism is a religious worldview that assumes that there are no metaphysics which exist. Which makes itself quite  comfortable within the secular realm. However the lack of metaphysics can allow it to assert itself as superior to the other religions within a secular format.

"The wide acceptance of the idea of evolution is the result of consideration of physical and observational evidence. "
 The wide acceptance of evolution is based upon it being taught as mandatory education in western schools and communist schools and catholic schools all over the world for over 150 years.  Allow me to teach my views to billions of people and I am sure I will have more than a few million followers in less than a few years.
  As far as observational evidence, the theory of evolution rest upon an unobserved principle of deep time. Observation of the past is limited.
Human history can not observe the 3,100,000,000 years of life 4,600,000,000 years of earth or the 13,800,000,000 years of the big bang theory.
"Civilization, as historians identify itfirst emerged between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago when people began to live in organized communities with distinct political, military economic and social structures.  Religious, intellectual, and artistic activities also assumed important functions in these early societies."
"Although Historians use documents to create their pictures of the past, such written records do not exist for the prehistory of humankind.  Consequently, the story of early humanity depends on archaeological and more recently biological information, which anthropologists use t create theories about our early past. Although modern science has fostered the development of more precise methods, much of our understanding of early humans relies upon considerable conjecture."
 Comprehensive Volume WORLD HISTORY by William Duiker and Jackson J. Spielvogel 
  Trying to construct these histories is not factual but theoretical.
The geologic column does not provide the facts.
"Whatever the method or approach, the geologist must take cognizance of the following facts... There is no place on earth where a complete record of the rocks is present....  To reconstruct the history of the earth, scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be placed together.  The results will be at best only a very incomplete recordIf the complete history of the earth is compared to an encyclopedia of 30 volumes, then we can seldom hope to find even one complete volume in a given area. Sometimes only a few chapters, perhaps only a paragraph or two, will be the total geological contribution of a region; indeed, we are often reduced to studying scattering bits of information more nearly comparable to a few words of letters."  Brown Monnet and Stovel  Introduction to Geology
The fossil record has become a disappointment
"The fossil record was no friend of Charles Darwin in 1859. Now, more than 150 years later, the fossil record is no longer a friend of Richard Dawkins, either. “Why does not,” Darwin pointed out, “every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life?”
The question was unavoidable, the elephant in the room, yet troubling since Darwin recognized that the fossil record could eventually either make or break his theory:   

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exists which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

“The distinctiveness of specific forms [fossil record],” Darwin acknowledged, “and their not being blended together in innumerable transitional links is a very obvious difficulty.”

Evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Gould in the book entitled The Panda’s Thumb reflecting on Darwin’s angst notes: “fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy.”

In the face poor evidence, even contradictory evidence, Darwin excused the problem reasoning that “only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored.” His reasoning kept hopes alive that further explorations would uncover the ever elusive “in innumerable transitional links.”

Things have not changed much in 150 years. “We need more fossils” Dawkins pleaded in his 2009 book entitled The Greatest Show on Earth. In turning from the fossil record Dawkins advances the concept of “comparative evidence”

“Comparative evidence has always, as I suggested at the beginning of this chapter, told even more compelling than fossil evidence”

Regardless of what the “comparative evidence” actually is, Dawkins did not say what it is−dumping the fossil record as essential evidence for Darwin’s theory –"
The laws of logic dictate that we are not capable of certainty in a past we have not observed.
"Inductive reasoning consists of inferring from the properties of a sample to the properties of a population as a whole.
   For example, suppose we have a barrel containing of 1,000 beans. Some of the beans are black and some of the beans are white. Suppose now we take a sample of 100 beans from the barrel and that 50 of them are white and 50 of them are black. Then we could infer inductively that half the beans in the barrel (that is, 500 of them) are black and half are white.
    All inductive reasoning depends on the similarity of the sample and the population. The more similar the same is to the population as a whole, the more reliable will be the inductive inference. On the other hand, if the sample is relevantly dissimilar to the population, then the inductive inference will be unreliable.
No inductive inference is perfect. That means that any inductive inference can sometimes fail. Even though the premises are true, the conclusion might be false. Nonetheless, a good inductive inference gives us a reason to believe that the conclusion is probably true."
  Stephen's Guide to logical fallacies (Stephen Downes University of Alberta)
Many in the field of science consider math to be an important factor, but evolution (esp. abiogenesis) is not mathematically possible.
"The French expert on probability, Emile Borel, developed the “single law of chance” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 183). Any process or entity having a probability of existence lower than 1 chance in 1050 is said to never occur. This denominator is incredibly large, but for the benefit of evolutionary theory, it will be used as an example to logically falsify the possibility of any evolutionary process. David J. Rodabaugh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri, explained that “the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations ‘is so small as to constitute a scientific impossibility’—the chance that it could have happened ‘anywhere in the universe…is less than 1 [chance] in 102,999,942’” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 182). This probability is 102,999,892 smaller than the “single law of chance” and therefore, must be treated as strictly impossible. For a slight comprehension as to the magnitude of this small possibility, Ankerberg and Weldon write, “A picosecond is one-trillionth of a second. In 15 billion years, there are 1030 picoseconds” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 185). The age of the earth proposed by evolutionary theory is only 5 billion years. Surely, an evolutionary event with a probability less than 1 in 1050 is proof enough of the irrationality of evolutionary theory."
Author: disciple Posted on
Chemistry has long been a foe of Darwinism
"Pasteur was responsible for crushing the doctrine of spontaneous generation. He performed experiments that showed that without contamination, microorganisms could not develop. Under the auspices of the French Academy of Sciences, he demonstrated that in sterilized and sealed flasks nothing ever developed, and in sterilized but open flasks microorganisms could grow. This experiment won him the Alhumbert Prize of the academy.[6]"
Taxonomy has been destroyed by evolution and can not give us a factual history.
A New Scientist article cautioned its readers: “If you want to know how all living things are related, don’t bother looking in any textbook that’s more than a few years old. Chances are that the tree of life you find there will be wrong”. Spinney, L., Back to their roots, New Scientist 194(2608):48–51, 2007.

 It is important to note that theories like intelligent design "is the result of consideration of physical and observational evidence. "  In popular debates, considerable weight is placed upon acquiring articles in evolution supporting peer reviewed journals.
Here is a link to a series of peers reviewed articles in support of intelligent design.

Creation scientists have often had complaints dealing with bias from secular journals on the subject of creationism.  Typically, they will publish their non evolution related work in the journals but focus their work on the topic in their own research journals.  Though some creation articles have passed certain secular journals.

For those interested in the topic of creation science articles and journals
Creation Research Society Quarterly
journal of creation
Acts and Facts
All of which are active publications.

" The acceptance of a set of religious beliefs is largely on faith."
  Given the way the secular world treats religion, it is safe to assume that the definition implied here is the one defined by Soren Kierkegaard as the "leap of faith"  or "blind faith". This existentialist philosopher accepted the materialist presuppositions, which we find in evolution and relegated all spirituality to a subjective world of "faith".  Faith becomes a forced imagination or esoteric fantasy as opposed to a belief in truth. I defined faith as William Tyndale translated Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is a sure confidence of things which are hoped for, and a certainty of things which are not seen." These are rational ideas, even though they are not first acquired by the logic or evidence of man.
There are a series of steps of faith, by which Universal evolution takes, in which it becomes a religious worldview.
1. That time came into existence.
2. That the laws of science came from nothing and that there is a limited number of them.
3.  That the universe came from nothing.
4. That cosmic inflation happened (matter moving faster than the speed of light)
5. That stars formed.
6.That galaxies formed.
7. That the sun is a star that formed, and formed the planets.
8. That the planets formed from asteroids.
9. That there is an Oort cloud of comets.
10. That the moon was a product of an asteroid hitting the earth.
11.  That deep time exist.
12. That deep space exist.
13. That black holes exist.
14. That a cell can be formed by nature.
15.  That the first life formed without an Eco-system.
16.  That all life is descended from one cell.
17.  That man is not unique to other animals.
18. That the mind is a creation of the brain.
   All of these are assumptions that we make by faith in the field of cosmology and biology.  Religion has been called on throughout the centuries to answer these questions, and now modern science has stepped into our pulpit.

"There is no conflict between holding faith based religious beliefs and also accepting the evidence supporting biological evolution."
 There certainly is no conflict in humanist faith accepting "biological evolution".  But even here, there is a lot conjecture over the definition of evolution.  The only evolution which we have observed is called micro-evolution in which changes occur among breeds within the same basic kind of animal.
   This subset of evolution has been agreed to by not only christian evolutionists, but also scientific "young earth" creationists as well.  Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Henry Morris are some of the most famous fundamentalist anti-evolutionists out there, and yet they all teach this doctrine to their churches.
  The point of contention is whether or not one kind, like a dog, could change to another kind, like a cat. This has never been observed.  But this is called macro-evolution and it depends on the enhanced time scale.

They based these upon the facts of the dating methods.
"Most ASA members accept the consensus scientific view on the age of the earth. Already in 1949 based on radiometric dating techniques, ASA member Laurence Kulp said, "One of the most probable facts in geology, I believe, is that the earth is close to two billion years old..." Kulp's early paper supporting the old earth position and criticizing YEC is featured in the collection below. A paper written for the ASA web site, "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by physicist Roger Wiens has proved to be one of the most popular in terms of electronic downloads. Many of the resources here simply review the scientific claims for an old earth and then seek to understand that great age in light of what the Bible says."
   Sounds fair enough.  But something odd is sticking out.  You may notice it if we give an earlier quote of theirs...
"Using radiometric dating modern science has concluded that the earth is 4.54 billion years old."
The age of the earth proposed has grown by two and a half billion years!.  The subjectivity of the dating methods gets more obvious the more they are scrutinized.  Speculations are not facts because facts do not change.
    I don't think real evidence used to support evolution is the problem.
Of course I have to emphasize the term "real" because our tax dollars have been used in the past to use fraudulent "evidence" to support Darwinian evolution to indoctrinate the evolutionary theory.  Whether it be the faked Haekyl's drawings, the horses with various hooves arranged to look like an evolutionary progress in Darwin's home town,  the pig's tooth Nebraska man,  or the orangutan jaw wired to a human skull cap "Piltdown man".  The public school, Stuart, deceived me about Piltdown man at the age of 12, till I found out outside of school at 18. These tactics deceived millions and leaves doubt as to the baseless statements about evolution claimed to be fact.
    But what about real scientific evidence which contradicts evolution and supports creation??  Do you think we are going to see that published in the young peoples' text books?
 It has been over 30 years since Dr. Robert Gentry discovered polonium halos found in granite and published it in a dozen of peer reviewed journals.   But do we find this in our science textbooks?  No.
Agnostic chemist Dr. W. Scot Morrow admitted "Environmental Scientist will find Gentry's "young earth model" especially interesting in regard to the problem of nuclear waste confinement." forward: Creation's tiny mystery.
  Do you think that the text books are ever going to mention the soft tissue which Mark Armitage found in a triceratops horn?  Who cares if the genetic material found could be used for scientific research right?
   When the world has to admit that creationists predicted things in line with their creationism and against evolution, the world plays a game of stealing credit.  Whether it be geology having to make their model adapt to the Catastrophism from which they had ridiculed Dr. Henry Morris for telling them 50 years ago, or admitting that Neanderthals were completely human as Jack Cuozzo discovered when being allow to research their skulls.
  Science is forced out of progress often for this tyrannical approach. For instance, how many years more advanced would we be in genetics if we had not assumed the Darwinian doctrine of junk DNA?  How many diseases would have been cured?

"This is evidenced by the fact that practitioners of many different religious faiths also are biologists who study and apply the ideas of evolution in their everyday professional practice."
 Now here we are delving into the constitutional difference between our religious liberty and religious toleration.
    It does not matter if this be the a minority or majority issue.  Consider Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptist association. The wall of separation was a wall to stop the government and not the baptists.  Certainly religions can hold to evolution.  But that does not give the government the right to tread upon the rights of religious citizens, which are creationists.  Let's look at Jefferson's letter..
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." and lets not forget the ending of the letter..
"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem."
  This letter has been perverted by groups like the "Freedom From Religion" foundation to enforce the eradication of religion by putting government in every aspect of American life and then taking the rights of the citizens as if they were the government.
 Yet Jefferson assumes the existence of God in this very conversation, in fact he assumes that God is indeed the creator of all.  He understood that this was an individual right.  So if the catholic church wants me to believe in evolution because Pope Francis does, my Government can stand at my side and tell them "He is a fundamental New Testament Christian who believes in Creation and as long as this government stands; we will protect his freedom." That is religious liberty.
 When free people have children, they belong to their parents and God.  The government does not own them for they are free. The government does not naturally have custody over them, their parents do.  The government has no right to impose any metaphysical religious doctrine upon them, even evolution.

"Furthermore, Kentucky seeks to prepare all students for post secondary education.  Post secondary institutions widely accept evolution and base instruction on this scientific theory.  Because of this no changes were made regarding religious neutrality of the standards."
    Actually the Kentucky Standards has had several complaints in terms of science when it comes to post-secondary education.
"Examination of mathematics in the NGSS was a key element of our reviews. Unfortunately, we found inconsistency between the strong NGSS (and Appendix C) assertions and what was actually found by the mathematicians, among others, of our reviewing group. Moreover, the NGSS producers, perhaps sensing disquiet or inadequacy, issued an Appendix L that is meant to demonstrate the adequacy of NGSS math and of its alignment with CC-Math. "
  So the distinction between next generation science standards and common core is a facade.  Because modern science depends quite heavily upon mathematics.  The Common core math is devastated because of the bizarre post modern concept of "fuzzy math".  These new processes make simple problems with simple solutions become complex and deter students from a mastery of mathematics and therefore the science suffers as well.
  The other elephant in the room is the lack of education in NGSS regarding physics, electronics and the lack of good chemistry.
  The electronics education is at a minimum and offers nothing to a 1960's KY teen on technology, much less a 2015 smart phone addict.  It is such a slam on this state, one could claim that our government is racist against Kentuckians!
How can our schools encourage children to get on computers and the internet when they have no ability to even start to fix them?  This leaves them slaves to the communication monopoly.
Yes, if you take out the time teaching the youth about non-factual theories you might have time to give them skills that are universally accepted and needed, making yourselves look like heroes!

  So to reiterate, there are plenty of areas that time could be better spent if we cut out the pre-history segments of science education.  The drastic need of post-secondary education could be better spent in real categories that people can become financially successful in.  The post secondary schools can offer them evolution and  religion and dozens of non-essential topics.
The fact that a child and parents constitutional rights could be dashed away over money speaks volumes.

 Case Law establishes that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the establishment Clause. Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
  Now this is bizarre in it's wording. first of all I have argued that secular humanism is a religion.  I believe evolution is an essential component of that religion, but his point is in fact pointless because he tried a bait-n-switch fallacy.
Think about it like this.  Creationism is not a religion.  It is an aspect of religion.  If you were to come up to a muslim, catholic, evangelical or jew and said you were a creationist they may or may not agree with you.  But if you told them that the only thing which you believe in, is the doctrine of creation, they would each individually rule you out as a heretic. Because creationism does not make you a Christian or Muslim or Jew.
Now let's look at this case.
"Appellant Epperson, an Arkansas public school teacher, brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of Arkansas' "anti-evolution" statute. That statute makes it unlawful for a teacher in any state supported school or university to teach or to use a textbook that teaches "that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals." The State Chancery Court held the statute an abridgment of free speech violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The State Supreme Court, expressing no opinion as to whether the statute prohibits "explanation" of the theory or only teaching that the theory is true, reversed the Chancery Court. In a two-sentence opinion, it sustained the statute as within the State's power to specify the public school curriculum."
   The case made here is that evolution is allowable due to free speech. Not whether it is true or indoctrinated as true.  One major point to be understood here is that science is continuing.  It is not the same which is the justification for the constant flow of new textbooks. So if it is changing it should be scrutinized regularly. Don't show me the movie "inherit the wind" and claimed that evolution is a fact because a 1930's Tennessee jury was intimidated by the Piltdown man hoax! Look at the current facts and hold the theory to some accountability.  More importantly the public schools taught evolution as hypothesis, not as a certain fact, which is now the claims in the new KY Standards.

In McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), the United States upheld that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have a secular purpose.
McGowan v. Maryland
McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have secular purpose. A large discount store in Anne Arundel County, Maryland was fined for selling goods on a Sunday, in violation of a local blue law. The Court rejected an establishment clause challenge to laws saying that most large-scale commercial enterprises remain closed on Sundays. The Court's review of the history demonstrated that Sunday closing laws were originally efforts to promote church attendance. "But, despite the strongly religious origin of these laws, non religious arguments for Sunday closing began to be heard more distinctly."  
   Now this argument is bizarre and only makes a point if it is admitted that secular humanism is a religion. The point of the case was protecting religious blue laws.
Now Secular humanism has to be a religion because otherwise secular humanists would not have religious liberty.  Thus Prayer would be welcomed back into school since there was no religion opposed to prayer.

  Case Law establishes that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the establishment Clause. Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968) In McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), the United States upheld that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have a secular purpose.
 I can not read this statement in context and not assume that evolution is supposed to be protected due to this ruling. Therefore evolution must be seen as a religious doctrine.

Edwards v. Aguillard
Louisiana's "Creationism Act" forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation science." The Act does not require the teaching of either theory unless the other is taught. It defines the theories as "the scientific evidences for [creation or evolution] and inferences from those scientific evidences." Appellees, who include Louisiana parents, teachers, and religious leaders, challenged the Act's constitutionality in Federal District Court, seeking an injunction and declaratory relief. The District Court granted summary judgment to appellees, holding that the Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed."

1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp. 482 U. S. 585-594.
(a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." It does not enhance the freedom of teachers to teach what they choose, and fails to further the goal of "teaching all of the evidence." Forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education. Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. Furthermore, the contention that the Act furthers a "basic concept of fairness" by requiring the teaching of all of the evidence on the subject is without merit. Indeed, the Act evinces a discriminatory preference for the teaching of creation science and against the teaching of evolution by requiring that curriculum guides be developed and resource services supplied for teaching creationism, but not for teaching evolution, by limiting membership on the resource services panel to "creation scientists," and by forbidding school boards to discriminate against anyone who "chooses to be a creation scientist" or to teach creation science, while failing to protect those who choose to teach other theories or who refuse to teach creation science. A law intended to maximize the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction would encourage the teaching of all scientific theories about human origins. Instead, this Act has the distinctly different purpose of discrediting evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism. Pp. 482 U. S. 586-589.
  Now this is supposedly the proof that evolution is not religious??  This is the usual attack on creationism, only with the added perversion of being wrong for challenging evolution. This is just blaming creationism for having a creator and then turning a blind eye to the religious assumptions of the humanist evolution. This case was defensive of Evolution and has not put it up to scrutiny.  Evolution is not strictly science and the reason the courts are being brought up is because they are incapable of weighing in on this decision.
  Look how the court admits this during the intelligent design trial..
" After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]"
          The court admits that intelligent design may be true.  That means that Darwinian evolution may be false.  But the court here admits that it has no ability to Judge that issue.   So they are simply pushing decisions.
The problem is that evolution has not been tested as claimed to be scientific.  Especially not at the level of scrutiny given to creationism.
Creationism has been judged as unscientific, because it explains the establishment of the scientific laws which implies a time where science did not exist.  Let's look at this condemnation in the words of Judge Overton in his memorandum
"Both the concepts and wording of Section 4(a) convey an inescapable religiosity. Section 4(a)(1) describes "sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing." Every theologian who testified, including defense witnesses, expressed the opinion that the statement referred to a supernatural creation which was performed by God."
But this is what we find in the big bang theory!!
 "If we live in a universe full of stuff, how did it get here? And many people think that very question implies the need for a creator. But what's truly been amazing, and what the book's about is the revolutionary developments in both cosmology and particle physics over the past 30 or 40 years that have not only changed completely the way we think about the universe but made it clear that there's a plausible case for understanding precisely how a universe full of stuff, like the universe we live in, could result literally from nothing by natural processes." Lawrence Krauss

  The popular Atheist and Physicist Lawrence Krause is admitting that the big bang does what Judge Overton claimed to be religious!

 Let's not forget to mention that Krauss admit's that the big bang implies a creator and that it's innovator jesuit priest George Le'maitre agreed with this implication.  And the "cosmic egg" idea was borrowed from Hindu mythology. Truly, big bang is a religious doctrine pitted against others.

Finally school curricula (i.e. textbooks and instructional resources) are selected at the local level by school councils pursuant to KRS 160.345, not the KDE.
"The federally funded Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), a Common Core assessment consortium, issued a press release Friday that confirmed the Common Core standards and their associated tests are intended to drive curriculum.

Though developers and proponents of the Common Core initiative have argued that Common Core is merely “standards” and not “curriculum,” the latter of which local school districts can decide themselves, chief executive officer of PARCC Laura Slover said in the release, “High quality assessments go hand-in-hand with high quality instruction based on high quality standards. You cannot have one without the other. The PARCC states see quality assessments as a part of instruction, not a break from instruction.”

“The PARCC assessment system is a new way of testing that reduces time spent on ‘test prep,’ because the only way to prepare for these more sophisticated assessments is through good teaching and learning all year long," Slover added. "The PARCC states are making decisions about test design, including length and testing time, based on thorough review and on the data from the field tests.”

Slover’s statement was part of an announcement indicating that the states belonging to the PARCC consortium will reduce the number of passages and items in the English Language Arts/Literary End-of-Year test. PARCC said reducing the number of items included to measure some standards “reduces the amount of time spent on testing and lowers testing costs, while maintaining the quality of the assessments and their ability to inform instruction and to provide reliable information on the performance of all students.”

In response to PARCC’s press release, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s (R) website published the following statement:

The proponents of Common Core and PARCC continue to insist that tests and standards are not about curriculum, but that’s a ruse. Teachers already know that what is tested at the end of the year is what is taught in classrooms throughout the year. PARCC may not mandate one textbook or one pacing guide, but the CEO of the federally funded PARCC has admitted one thing: PARCC controls instruction and instruction is curriculum.'"

Now secular humanism is a religion.
"Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself." preface to humanist manifestos I and II 1979 prometheus books
Darwin discussed Evolution with a religious note
 "These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species-that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers." Intro. pg1
  When we here of mystery we are to look into the realm of religion.
"This is the doctrine of Malthus applied to the whole animal and vegatable kingdoms.  As many more individuals of each species are born that can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected." pg.6 Origin of species

Humanists have been quite open about their agenda to use the public school system to proselytize their faith, which breaks the establishment clause.
  "I am convince that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call the divinity in every human being.  These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the education level- preschool day care or large state university.  The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all it's adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of humanism...
"It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant.  It must if the family of humankind is to survive."Dunphy, John J., The Humanist, Jan. 1983, p. 26
    It is at this point extremely obvious that the humanist religion has zealots who have been plotting for a minimum of 30years  to use the public school system to proselytize.
   It is very self evident that this has been working and our society has become more and more godless.  I can tell you of several years where I was a victim of public school bullying and that the evolutionary world view made me struggle with suicidal thoughts and later violent attitudes.
   I could tell you about how many youth around me concluded that they were only physical beings and that all their problems they thought could be solved by "experimenting" with drugs.
Here is a link to one of my favorite bands of that age giving their view of evolution.  "Pearl Jam: do the evolution"
 The more secular and atheistic a culture gets the more likely that a culture of death transpires. Not only with Abortion but physician assisted suicide.  A simple example would be to look at the rates of suicide in Oregon and Washington, the most secular states in the union.
  But as a minister it has been a struggle dealing with the failures of the public school system.  Listening to minors with terrible behavior problems proclaim that there is no such thing as absolute truth.
    In recent years, a boy stood up in Sunday school and proclaimed that there was no God, because of the big bang theory taught to him as fact in public school.  Yes I showed him the fallacy of his argument.  I am glad I did, because prayer helped him later that year dealing with the death of his relative when her organ transplant failed.
   Recently I was ministering to a girl.  We talked about evolution.  She said she did not believe it.  I told her I had evidence that support her belief.  But she declined to hear it because she did not want to be confused when it came time for testing and get poor grades.  In other words, she was threatened by the grading system not to listen to what she was convicted as the truth.  This is not free thinking.

This is sectarianism.
Simple Definition of sectarian
  • : relating to religious or political sects and the differences between them

Full Definition of sectarian

  1. 1 :  of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect or sectarian
  2. 2 :  limited in character or scope :  parochial 

     School money not to be used for church, sectarian, or denominational school
      No portion of any fund or tax now existing or that may hereafter be raised or levied, shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aide of, any church, sectarian, or denominational school  

     Though this letter is addressed to the issue of next generation science standards. It is obvious from your letter.
    "First it is important to note that the Next Generation Science Standards and Kentucky Academic Standards for science are not Common Core State Standards.  All these standards are now Kentucky Academic Standards."                                                                                                Which means that when we see the eradication of national history, the presentation of the controversial global warming paradigm, the exaltation of the evolutionary secular humanistic worldview along side the exaltation of sexual immorality/liberation alongside examples of hyper psychology and socialism and it is obvious that our public schools are no longer secular public schools, they are sectarian. And so it will inevitably be revealed that CC/NGSS or Kentucky Academic Standards is indeed illegally acquiring funds.
       What secular purpose do I have in insisting upon this amendment?
     Secular America is not the place of attacking religion of any kind, it is the place freeing religions of all kinds.  That is why Thomas Jefferson encouraged my baptist brethren that the government would not make any law respecting an establishment of religion. nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  When children are threatened with bad grades unless they lie against their conscience as to the truth they are not freely excising religious liberty.  As the KY Constitution grants.
    KY Bill of Rights section 1  second:"The right of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience."

     The reason that we have liberty was clearly proposed by Thomas Jefferson in the declaration of independence.
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
    It is God who defends our liberties, not biology, not government.
    Former award winning evolutionary biology professor Gary Parker said this after his conversion.
     "What a difference!  In evolutionary thinking. time, chance struggle and death produce "new and improved" forms of life.  In biblical thinking, chance and struggle produce disease, decline and death.  Evolution begins with dead things; living things living things -including us- are temporary intruders in the universe, and when the sun burns out, death wins at last.  The bible begins with the life of God; death is a temporary intruder and eternal life wins at christ return." pg14 Gary Parker Creation Facts of Life
    Death does not provide freedom, but God does. Under God a KY school body can have 100% rejection of the existence of God and still have dignity and rights.  but humanity and life have different meanings and no guaranteed dignity without God.
     In this debate I had with Geoff Young a retired KY government employee and democratic gubernatorial primary candidate.  When pressed Geoff admits the worldview difference between creation and evolution, with him being an evolutionist effects his views towards the abortion debate.  
    Obviously, more testimony as to the sectarian nature of evolution/humanism.  But also hampering the safety of traditional American secularism and human rights.
If you take this issue seriously I am convinced you should remove the Prehistory sections of curriculum. I will not be taking any legal action myself.  But if this is ignored it will only be natural for someone to take legal action.

I leave you with these scriptures to meditate upon.
James 3:My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation."
Matthew 18:And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

I thank you for your time in this reading and pray that the Lord blesses you in laboring a sacred duty.
In Christ,
Matt Singleton

P.S. If anyone is interested in learning more of my research on the creation/evolution issue or related issues.  Here is a link to more material. 

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

     This lesson will focus upon the Account of Noah, the story of the ark and several secondary aspects surrounding the global flood and following.

For a focus on the case for the flood itself go to..
Also this paper presupposes an ice canopy.
The fountains of the great deep
genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 

  The majority of water which was supplied for the 40 days and nights of rain came from the fountains of the great deep.  Subterranean waters had contained half the earth's water miles below the earth's surface. Here is a good video presentation.
How long did they have?
Genesis 6: And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years"
Now many argue that this was a limitation upon man's lifespan.  Admittedly it is easy to assume this to be the case.  But after researching this to be the case it appears that this is more likely the timescale till judgement and a period for Noah to build the ark.
Genesis 6: 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."  Obviously this vs is connected with the nephilum incident.  So being connected to an event at a certain time the 120years seems to be the continuation after the event. Also most bible characters of this time outlived the 120 yr life span especially Noah.  Even Moses outlived it centuries later.  And every now and again an individual will be recorded out living 120 though extremely rare these days.

An ark of gopher wood
  1. :  a burrowing land tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) of the southern United States; broadly :  any of several related land tortoises —called also gopher tortoise
  2. 2 a :  any of a family (Geomyidae) of burrowing rodents of western North America, Central America, and the southern United States that are the size of a large rat and have large cheek pouches opening beside the mouth —called also pocket gopher b :  any of several small ground squirrels (genus Spermophilus) of the prairie region of North America
    So from here we see that gopher means to dig out.  Noah likely dug out the center of the wood.
   Also the LXX translates this wood as squared would.  The ancient Jewish Philosopher Philo gives some interesting commentary on this wood.
"(2) Why does he make the ark of squared pieces of wood?(genesis 6:16).
  He does this in the first place, because of the figure of a square, wherever it may be placed, is steady and firm, consisting as it does of right angles, and it is confirmed in a purer and clearer manner by the nature of the human body."
"In the third place a quadrangular piece of wood shows in it's extension nearly every sort imaginable of uneven distinction, inasmuch as its length is greater than its breadth,  and its breadth greater than it's depth." The works of Philo trans. C.D.Yonge pg. 814 "Questions and answers on Genesis II"

 .Genesis 6: 14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch."

1. any of various dark, tenacious, and viscous substances for caulking and paving, consisting of the residue of the distillation of coal tar or wood tar."

  Many Skeptics have argued that the size of the ark is beyond that of a regular wooden frame that has no metal or advanced technology to keep it together. However, the wood that we use today is not necessarily the wood that was used for the ark.  The timbers used were made from trees which may have been prepared at creation and probably grew to massive levels.
  We have found evidence of massive trees in the ancient past.

"In June, 2005, the National Museum of Natural History received one of the largest plant fossils ever collected - 3.9 m (13 ft) long and 3.7 m (12 ft) high, and weighing more than 16 tons." 
 This is only a slice of a trunk it is hard to imagine the Height of this species of tree.

“One tree trunk measured 896 feet in length and the upright trunks are so large that they appear from a distance to be great symmetrical columns of natural rock. These federal geologists tell the -story. They have visited this distant valley, which is split by a deep arroyo leading into the Rio Grande.” "According to an article in the Sunday, January 23, 1927 Port Arthur News,"
" Fossil trees that approached the heights of today’s tallest redwoods have been found in northern Thailand. The longest petrified log measures 72.2 meters (237 feet), which suggest the original tree towered to more than 100 meters (330 feet) in a wet tropical forest some 800,000 years ago."
   It is quite rational to think that Noah could have access to these giant trees and thus have wood already stable.

Stability of the ark
I would encourage the reader to click the link as this demonstrate the mathematical statistics exhaustively fine tuned.
"In the ship classification rules, a ship should satisfy two kinds of stability criteria: GM for small heel angle, and dynamic stability. We applied the ABS (American Bureau of Shipping)’s rule to all 13 hull forms. The results showed that all hull forms except hull #1 sufficiently satisfied all the requirements. It should be especially noted that the Ark was 13 times more stable than the standard for safety required by the ABS rule."

Feeding issues
"Many carnivores, including lions and tigers, can readily manage on a vegetarian diet, and this may have happened on the Ark. See Teeth and Tucker for several modern cases of ‘herbivorous carnivores’. Dogs are considered carnivores, but dogs in some countries actually survive on a primarily vegetarian diet. During many years of working in Thailand, I observed that most pet dogs were fed on table scraps, which meant cooked rice was their staple food, as this was the staple food of their owners. And in Indonesia many dogs are fed mainly on vegetables—see note 5 here. Consider another carnivore, the snake. There is a widespread misconception that snakes can only eat live food, but there are commercial breeders today whose snakes thrive on dry food pellets. So there is no problem with Noah possibly doing the same for carnivores on the Ark—a mixture of grains and legumes would provide all the nutrition needed, including the building blocks for animal protein."

"The total number of land-dwelling mammals birds, reptiles, and amphibian species is less than 20,000 or so. The number of "kinds," the Biblical designation, is probably much smaller. For instance, of the 9,000 bird species, approximately 400 are hummingbirds, with only minor differences in color, size, and habitat. Very likely, they all come from only one or a few kinds, thereby dropping the total number."

"Therefore, Noah probably stored the food and water near each animal. Even better, drinking water could have been piped into troughs, just as the Chinese have used bamboo pipes for this purpose for thousands of years. The use of some sort of self-feeders, as is commonly done for birds, would have been relatively easy and probably essential. Animals that required special care or diets were uncommon and should not have needed an inordinate amount of time from the handlers. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets. Of course, this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood.

 Flood accounts and the Bible's story
" Yet tales of the Flood spring from many sources. Myriad ancient cultures have their own legends of watery cataclysm and salvation. According to Vedic lore, a fish tells the mythic Indian king Manu of a flood that will wipe out humanity; Manu then builds a ship to withstand the epic rains and is later led to a mountaintop by the same fish. An Aztec story sees a devout couple hide in the hollow of a vast tree with two ears of corn as divine storms drown the wicked of the land. Creation myths from Egypt to Scandinavia involve tidal floods of all sorts of substances — including the blood of deities — purging and remaking the earth.
Flood myths are so universal that the Hungarian psychoanalyst Geza Roheim thought their origins were physiological, not historical"
  The secular world easily spins the evidence so fast that they never consider the most obvious of facts.   If all the world civilizations speak of the flood and most speak of a noah and a vessel.  Then perhaps it is because there was a worldwide flood and there was Noah and the Ark.
Noah was historical
Genesis 5: 28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: 29 and he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed. 30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters: 31 and all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died. 32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
1 Chronicles 1: Adam, Sheth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
luke 3: 36 which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech"
As we can see from these Geneologies Noah is not simply meant as a fictitious character.  He is meant as a historical person within a larger family tree. 

Problems with a local flood and Noah's Ark     The local flood scenario leaves more irrationality to the story than rationaility.
1. Why build an ark?
 The local flood interpretations get quite bizarre, notice the reasoning here why build an unneeded Ark that was only designed to float, when it could not. 

2. How could a local flood destroy mankind?
Many cultures claim to have an ancient origin.  Typical Christians who adhere to and "Old Earth" model admit to any assertion past the 6,000 year model.  Many cultures have claims of ancient histories, even though they are genealogically unsubstantiated.  Therefore it is consistent to say in a local flood there were aborigines who were not affected and yet ths somehow was judgement upon them even though there must have been no , consequences.

3.  How could Noah's ark float? "In reality, the Hebrew word ma‛al, translated "higher" really means "upward." So, in essence, the text is saying that the flood was 15 cubits (20 feet) deep, in total, not 15 cubits above the mountains. In addition, the Hebrew word har really refers most often to hills rather than mountains."
     Now how can the 65ft tall 450ft long Ark Float on 20ft waters???

4. Why would Noah need all those animals?
If there is no concern over the survival of the world, why bring carnivores? Since when is it necessary for man to provide an ecosystem?

5.  Why would Noah need to take birds?
If the earth were only 20-30ft there are trees and mountains of much greater height.

6.    How did the middle east stay flooded 150 days?

7.   How did it rain for 40days and 40 nights?

8. Why did the dove come back the 1st time?

9.  How did a local flood take Noah to Ararat?

 You really have to assume that the story is completely fabricated.

The mighty wind

genesis  8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; "
After the fountains of the great deep were opened  huge amounts of heat and friction left the earth.  These geysers would exit the earths atmosphere easily with a natural 20 mile burst propelling out of the 2mile ozone and shattering through the crystalline canopy.  Yet as one of newton's laws of motion states for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. as the heat exited the earth the the cold ionosphere gases would plummet upon the water soaked earth.  the supplying a cooling mechanism which would balance out the destruction of the earth.

The rainbow
"When sunlight encounters a raindrop, part is reflected but part enters, being refracted at the surface of the raindrop. When this light hits the back of the drop, some of it is reflected off the back. When the internally reflected light reaches the surface again, once more some is internally reflected and some is refracted as it exits the drop. (The light that reflects off the drop, exits from the back, or continues to bounce around inside the drop after the second encounter with the surface, is not relevant to the formation of the primary rainbow.) The overall effect is that part of the incoming light is reflected back over the range of 0° to 42°, with the most intense light at 42°.[18] This angle is independent of the size of the drop, but does depend on its refractive index. Seawater has a higher refractive index than rain water, so the radius of a "rainbow" in sea spray is smaller than a true rainbow. This is visible to the naked eye by a misalignment of these bows.[19]
The reason the returning light is most intense at about 42° is that this is a turning point – light hitting the outermost ring of the drop gets returned at less than 42°, as does the light hitting the drop nearer to its centre. There is a circular band of light that all gets returned right around 42°. If the sun were a laser emitting parallel, monochromatic rays, then the luminance (brightness) of the bow would tend toward infinity at this angle (ignoring interference effects). (See Caustic (optics).) But since the sun's luminance is finite and its rays are not all parallel (it covers about half a degree of the sky) the luminance does not go to infinity. Furthermore, the amount by which light is refracted depends upon its wavelength, and hence its colour. This effect is called dispersion. Blue light (shorter wavelength) is refracted at a greater angle than red light, but due to the reflection of light rays from the back of the droplet, the blue light emerges from the droplet at a smaller angle to the original incident white light ray than the red light. Due to this angle, blue is seen on the inside of the arc of the primary rainbow, and red on the outside. The result of this is not only to give different colours to different parts of the rainbow, but also to diminish the brightness. (A "rainbow" formed by droplets of a liquid with no dispersion would be white, but brighter than a normal rainbow.)
The light at the back of the raindrop does not undergo total internal reflection, and some light does emerge from the back. However, light coming out the back of the raindrop does not create a rainbow between the observer and the sun because spectra emitted from the back of the raindrop do not have a maximum of intensity, as the other visible rainbows do, and thus the colours blend together rather than forming a rainbow.[20]
A rainbow does not exist at one particular location. Many rainbows exist; however, only one can be seen depending on the particular observer's viewpoint as droplets of light illuminated by the sun. All raindrops refract and reflect the sunlight in the same way, but only the light from some raindrops reaches the observer's eye. This light is what constitutes the rainbow for that observer. The whole system composed by the sun's rays, the observer's head, and the (spherical) water drops has an axial symmetry around the axis through the observer's head and parallel to the sun's rays. The rainbow is curved because the set of all the raindrops that have the right angle between the observer, the drop, and the sun, lie on a cone pointing at the sun with the observer at the tip. The base of the cone forms a circle at an angle of 40–42° to the line between the observer's head and their shadow but 50% or more of the circle is below the horizon, unless the observer is sufficiently far above the earth's surface to see it all, for example in an aeroplane (see above).[21][22] Alternatively, an observer with the right vantage point may see the full circle in a fountain or waterfall spray.[23]"
  Was the rainbow of Noah just regular?
  Genesis 9: 11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. 12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. 14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: 15 and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."

There is divided opinion on this topic as John Gill notes.
"I do set my bow in the cloud,.... Or "I have given", or "have set it" (p); which seems as if it was at that instant set; this is the same we call the "rainbow": and so Horace (q) calls it "arcus pluvius": it is called a "bow", because of its form, being a semicircle, and a "rainbow", because it is seen in a day of rain, and is a sign of it, or of its being quickly over, Ezekiel 1:28 and this appears in a moist dewy cloud, neither very thick nor very thin, and is occasioned by the rays of the sun opposite to it, refracted on it: and this God calls "his bow", not only because made by him, for, notwithstanding the natural causes of it, the cloud and sun, the disposition of these to produce it, such a phenomenon is of God; but also because he appointed it to be a sign and token of his covenant with his creatures; so the Heathen poets (r) call the rainbow the messenger of Juno. It is a question whether there was a rainbow before the flood, and it is not easily answered; both Jews and Christians are divided about it; Saadiah thought there was one; but Aben Ezra disapproves of his opinion, and thinks it was first now made. The greater part of Christian interpreters are of the mind of Saadiah, that it was from the beginning, the natural causes of it, the sun and cloud, being before the flood; and that it was now after it only appointed to be a sign and token of the covenant; but though the natural causes of it did exist before, it does not follow, nor is it to be proved, that there was such a disposition of them to produce such an effect; and it might be so ordered in Providence, that there should not be any, that this might be entirely a new thing, and so a wonderful one, as the word for "token" (s) signifies; and the Greeks calls the rainbow the "daughter of Thaumas" or "Wonder" (t); and be the more fit to be a sign and token of the covenant, that God would no more destroy the earth with water; for otherwise, if this had been what Noah and his sons had been used to see, it can hardly be thought sufficient to take off their fears of a future inundation, which was the end and use it was to serve, as follows:
it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth; that is, between God and the creatures of the earth; or of a promise that God would no more destroy the earth, and cut off the creatures in it by a flood; for though it is a bow, yet without arrows, and is not turned downwards towards the earth, but upwards towards heaven, and so is a token of mercy and kindness, and not of wrath and anger.
(p) "dedi", Montanus; so Ainsworth; "posui", Pisator, Drusius, Buxtorf. (q) De Arte Poetica, ver. 18. (r) Nuntia Junonis varios induta colores Concipit Iris aquas--------- Ovid. Metamorph. l. 1. Fab. 7. (s) "signum, tam nudum, quam prodigiosum", Buxtorf. (t) Plato in Theaeeteto, Plutarch. de Placit, Philosoph. 3, 4. Apollodor. Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 5."
  However, the idea of natural clouds and storms always pointing to God note inducing a flood before the flood ever hit the earth is ridiculous.  Earlier scripture points to the earth not raining before the flood.
Genesis 2: and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."
  Also the token of the rainbow is for not just humanity but all life.
genesis 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth."
  Therefore with the bow being covenant with all the earth and all the earth had been covered in rain, it is natural too assume that the rainbow was a global rainbow.
This global rainbow is the natural by-product of the destruction of a crystaline canopy.  The great deep fountain jets had hit and spread across the canopy.  The -300Celsius psace would collect water frozen into ice and it would clump and fall back into the atmosphere.  these drops would produce prism of rainbows all over the globe for all the earth to see. 

The days of Peleg
Genesis 10: 25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.
  Now some have argued that Peleg was simply a time when the nations divided,  however the time of Peleg would be well after the the curse of languages at the tower of Babel.  As etymology of the name peleg reveals a division by water.  Creation science advocates have long argued that the ice age was connected to the time of the flood, in which case, the melting of the glaciers would have divided the land by raising the water levels.  

Mt. Ararat?
Genesis 8: And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat."
   It is very important for us to note that the Ark rested on the mountains and not mountain.   The post flood geography is not the same as the current geography.   We can expect that the ice age and division of the lands by water had a great dealto do with this.  Also the current Mt. Ararat is volcanic and that would imply that it was post-flood.  While it is still quite possible that the Ark still rest on Mt. Ararat.  The Bible does not declare this to be necessary.

Where did the ark go?
 We have to understand that in this day and age, the method of archaeology has no ability to prove the certainty of the existence of Noah's Ark even if Noah's Ark were standing right in front of them!
Why is this so?
A: Because we don't know what people did with it. It is quite possible that the ark was chopped up and used for housing.  especially since the post flood world would take time to regenerate.
B. Because the Ark was built 4,000 years ago it could have decayed to nothing, especially if it were torn apart.
C. Because natural disasters such as lightning or volcanoes could have burned it up.
D. Because the mountains of Ararat may have been destroyed or reshaped in the days of Peleg and/or the post flood ice age.

anchor stones?
There are several anchor stones resting inland near Ararat that local people claim to be the anchor stones of Noah's ark. One stone with 8 crosses carved into it to mark the fact that the 8 survivors (Noah and his family) had used the stones for the Ark.

Josephus:“ the ark rested on the top of a certain mountain in Armenia ... However, the Armenians call this place, αποβατηριον 'The Place of Descent'; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day. Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berossus. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: "It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs." Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote." (I.3.5-6, trans. William Whiston)
"Using ancient Babylonian records and texts that are lost to us, Berossus published the Babyloniaca (hereafter, History of Babylonia) in three books some time around 290–278 BC, by the patronage[3] of the Macedonian/Seleucid king Antiochus I Soter (during the third year of his reign, according to Diodorus Siculus[4]). Certain astrological fragments recorded by Pliny the Elder, Censorinus, Flavius Josephus, and Marcus Vitruvius Pollio are also attributed to Berossus, but are of unknown provenance, or indeed are uncertain as to where they might fit into his History. Vitruvius credits him with the invention of the semi-circular sundial hollowed out of a cubical block.[5] A statue of him was erected in Athens, perhaps attesting to his fame and scholarship as historian and astronomer-astrologer."
   So here we have testimony from a secular historical figure that the ark is indeed on the mountain in Armenia.

One of the most reputed possible modern sightings of Noah's Ark is title the "Ararat Anomaly"

"In 1974, during a private meeting with William Colby, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency(CIA), I asked if he was aware of the claimed sightings of Noah's Ark.  He said He was not.  After summarizing several "sightings." I stated that a dangerous and expensive search for an object with profound international importance, could be done safely and cheaply with technology Colby controlled.  Perhaps the CIA already had information in it's files that could help in this search.
  Weeks later, I was contacted by a man I will call H.S.  He said that Director Colby asked him to see if any information could be provided.  In our discussions, H.S. asked many questions.  About a year later called to say his work was completed and to invite me to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. In His office, H.S. said he had examined all photography of the Mt. Ararat region.  He could not be sure if the object he was seeing was the Ark or a rock.  I asked H.S if, after studying the information on the various claimed sightings, he thought the ark on Ararat.  He said "Yes," I asked why, because no photographs clearly showed the Ark. H.S. responded, "There is too much smoke for there not to be fire."" pg. 45 Walt Brown  In the Beginning Compelling evidence for creation and the flood.  One may wonder why Dr. Brown had such access with the CIA, however it should be noted that Dr. Brown is also Col. Brown and a retire military professor.
"The anomaly is located on the northwest corner of the Western Plateau of Mount Ararat (approximately 39°42′10″N 44°16′30″ECoordinates: 39°42′10″N 44°16′30″E) at about 15,500 ft (4,724 m), some 2.2 km (1.4 mi) west of the 16,854 ft (5,137 m) summit, on the edge of what appears from the photographs to be a steep downward slope. It was first filmed during a U.S. Air Force aerial reconnaissance mission in 1949 — the Ararat massif sits on the former Turkish/Soviet border, and was thus an area of military interest — and was accordingly given a classification of "secret" as were subsequent photographs taken in 1956, 1973, 1976, 1990 and 1992, by aircraft and satellites.
Six frames from the 1949 footage were released under the Freedom of Information Act to Porcher Taylor, a professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, and a scholar at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies specializing in satellite intelligence and diplomacy, in 1995.  A joint research project was later established between Insight Magazine and Space Imaging (now GeoEye), using the IKONOS satellite. IKONOS captured the anomaly on August 5 and September 13, 2000. GeoEye has constructed a computerized video of the imagery it captured of the anomaly. The structure appears at approximately halfway through the video. A controversial "bird's eye view" satellite image, taken by IKONOS later in 2003 for the same research project, was released to the public in 2006.[3]  The Mount Ararat area also has been imaged by France's SPOT satellite in September 1989, Landsat in the 1970s and NASA's Space shuttle in 1994, as well as military satellite images captured by the CIA's KH-9 (Keyhole 9) in 1973 and KH-11 (Keyhole 11) in 1976 and 1990–1992. The Defense Intelligence Agency believes the anomaly shows "linear facades in the glacial ice underlying more recently accumulated ice and snow."
  What is intriguing about this location is the fact that it has been so heavily guarded for so long by communist groups dedicated to the eradication of religion. Could this be because of the authenticity of this find?  Could it be too late to know?

What about Ron Wyatt's Location?
  The majority of the creationist community has rejected Ron Wyatt's location for the Ark for several basic reasons.
1. Similar dimples in the geography of the region are found all over.
2.The rock around the edges is not wood.
3. The location is not on a mountain
4. the borders are too long
     Sure it may be possible for the ark to have landed there.  But only in the sense that you never know history without a witness.

Could the mountains really have had been covered in water? picture of Mt. Everest was posted in an explicitly uniformitarian evolutionary publication.

"Crinoid fossils and other marine fossils have been found on top of almost every mountain range on earth. In fact, crinoid fossils have even been found at the summit of Mount Everest, the highest point on earth. This 1967 article from Geological Magazine entitled "The Highest Fossils in the World" explains that some of the first successful expeditions (by the Swiss in 1956 and Americans in 1963; the first confirmed successful attempt to reach the summit was of course that of Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay in 1953) to the summit of Everest brought back geological samples which contained fossilized crinoids."
   So even at the highest altitudes we find evidence of sea life. So the great flood is quite plausible.

What is hiding in the mountain? 
"At the end of the flood, Noah left the Ark and descended from Mt Ararat to an area now called Nakhichevan.
In this area today the land remains abundant in alkaline soil due to the salty flood waters that once covered the earth. The area is a sacred ground, because the father of mankind settled and later died there.

To commemorate the Great Flood, each year on the same day Noah would order his sons, who were also residents of Nakhichevan, to splash water on each other. On the same day, in memory of the dove that had brought Noah an olive leaf (to signify that land was clear of water); they released doves into the sky at the same time they splashed each other.

It is indicated in the Old Armenian Calendar that this was done in the month of Navasard (August). In this month the residents of Nakhichevan also showed respect and celebrated the goddess of love, beauty and water—‘Astghik’, who beautified herself with roses.
Therefore on that special day in August, the residents unified the three rituals—they would splash each other with water; release doves and also throw rose petals at each other, in respect to Astghik.

This special day of celebration is what Armenians call Vardavar (Rose Festival), which still happens to this day in Armenia. Many visitors to Armenia are taken by surprise when on a particular day in August the locals happily splash buckets of water at each other, usually in the most unexpected places. They follow this by releasing doves and spreading rose petals. Along with this fun festival there comes a peaceful time when mutual grievances are forgotten.

It is said that the people who end the day having been splashed with water, are cleansed of dirt and corruption. That, along with doves flying and rose petals strewn, the people’s faces are transformed."
 "Although now a Christian tradition, Vardavar's history dates back to pagan times. The ancient festival is traditionally associated with the goddess Astghik, who was the goddess of water, beauty, love and fertility. The festivities associated with this religious observance of Astghik were named “Vartavar” because Armenians offered her roses as a celebration (vart means "rose" in Armenian and var mean "rise"), this is why it was celebrated in the harvest time."
    An interesting point to be made is how easily the pagan and christian meaning to the rituals integrated.  point to the possibility that the ritual may indeed have pointed back to an actual event.
" Vahagn, the god of fire, was a perfect being, except for his explosive temper. Even his birth was brought about a cosmic shake of the universe. The gods rejoiced the day he was born—they gave him many gifts. Astghik, the goddess of love, beauty and water, kissed Vahagn’s forehead and tied the Cross of War, woven from stars to his hand, that way the power of the fire god would last forever. Mihr, god of light, harmony and advice, gave Vahagn a heavy mace, made from a thousand and one suns. The new god especially liked that gift—he loved flying across the sky like a fiery whirlwind, brandishing his mace.
One day Vahagn propelled his mace and then, as usual, he went to look for it. He searched planet after planet for his mace and eventually found it on Earth, stuck above a valley. As he got closer to the mace he saw how the sun was gleaming on the spikes, which were surrounded lush greenery—he was transfixed the beauty of what was before him.

“It’s so beautiful here! This is the right mountain and valley!” said Astghik, approaching from behind.

We were wondering how to find a good place for the earthly god to be born!” said Tir, the god of literature, science and art.

The gods had been traveling across the world to find a place where the cradle of the first earthly god could rest. They decided that this would be his place of birth and that his name would be Hayk. Vahagn was assigned the task of keeping light and warmth over the cradle and he did so with the sun. They called the place Ararat, and it was so beautiful that even the gods went down and walked among the beautiful landscape."
  Could the ark be likened to an alien space craft? Certainly not in our modern minds.  But what would ancient people think of a giant vessel on top of a mountain? Notice how they gave messianic qualities to the god of the mountain. Could the Ark be the cradle? Yet also we see that this myth is after the volcanic eruption.  So the Armenian people may be in the dark as to the area before the flood.

In Williamstown KY "The ARK Encounter"  will be the first model correctly to scale of Noah's Ark.

Hebrews 11: By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
1Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 

In conclusion, the account of Noah's Ark is a historical narrative. it provides us scientific details to a scientifically feasible scenario.  Ancient history has dozens of witnesses to this story as a real event. It even has the possibility of having survived the passage of time.
So what is standing in the way of believing this story to be factual?
  Many would say faith, but this is not quite accurate. There is something far more intense than faith. If Noah's story is true then there has to be a God.  How else could Noah known of the flood?  Who could else could have caused this calamity?
If' Noah's Story is true then God has to be sovereign to Judge mankind. No longer is God to be a senile Old man hovering in the heavens with no care of what goes on here on the earth.
If Noah's story is true then God has to have wrath stored up to reap vengeance upon mankind.   Therefore we should fear God and seek to follow His word.
At this point So many unbeliever's have turned away.  Hoping that denial would turn away the horrors of Judgement.  Yet they have ignored the final implication.
If Noah's account is true then God saved mankind.  Noah is our ancestor and God loves us.
There is only one way of escape today as there was then.
There was a door at the rib of the ship it was the only way in.
genesis 6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it."
genesis 7: 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in."
  From the rib of adam we have Eve whom is the mother of all living.  From the rib of the Ark we found the survival of the human race.  From the rib of christ we find the blood which is the salvation of the human race.
john 19: 34 but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
The escape was through this door.  Now salvation is through this door.
John 10: I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
   This way demand faith.  But knowing this as truth demands Humility. Let us do so before it is too late.
Matthew 24:
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.