Caveats to Khan Academy Teachings


Some caveats regarding the "Evolutionary" skewed statements by Khan Academy

 Some of the following material from Kahn might be outdated or ideologically biased.

Some of the statements (somewhat rare but unnecessary inserted by Khan Academy during their lectures) in these classes are biased towards secularly skewed religious beliefs (such as evolutionary biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy and or other of the sciences). * (The "evolution of man" is a religious belief taught, although unproven, by modern day atheistic educators).

"Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism" (Wells, 2002).

Regarding an evolution physics professor, Morris, states: "A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:"
And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.
Another evolutionist said, "Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal".

Thus, to clarify that evolution is nothing more than a hoax, Morris concludes with the following statment: "Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!" (Emphasis ours).

(Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Additionally, given that all evolutionary teachings and some radiometric dating are heavily skewed and biased towards the religiously inclined evolutionary teaching, please beware that most, if not all statements of such nature regarding isotopes and radiometric dating of age, are contrary to evidential, observational and time proven science. (Wile, 2015)*

Additionally, most if not all teachings and lectures on DNA and Biology on Khan are of "evolutionary" nature, giving credit to "nature" and to "millions of years" of "evolution.

These teachings are not truly scientific as new and old research continues to show. 

As shown in this web page there is an large number of true scientists, geneticists, molecular biologists, chemists, astronomers, who believe that the cell and human genetics has its origin on an Intelligent Agent, and not on chance.
* The above mentioned scientist is not an all inclusive list.

For example:
Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington:
One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.
We concur, that evidence of such fear is obvious as many scientists who finally retire admit to believing in Creation, but not making it known earlier due to fear of loosing their jobs.

That is why Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31 said:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

*For a proper view of this subject, please review "Exploring Creation with Physical Science pages 332-334 by Dr, Jay L. Wile.

*Also, see footnote on  DNA instability and repair mechanism by Chemistry Nobel: Lindahl, Modrich and Sancar win for DNA repair. DNA is no a very stable molecule as it was originally thought of.

(Sal Khan with well meaning but "evolutionary based teachings", erroneously says in one of Biology lessons, the DNA is a very stable molecule. This "evolutionary" based statement is contrary to what Paul Rincon
Science editor, BBC News website, 7 October 2015 said).


 Attributions and References:

These lesson have been adapted from the following web pages:


All material here stated, except for material provided by "" is the registered property of
Computer Integrations,  HawaiiPCNetworks, and ® ® and ®

Additional references as quoted by Khan Academy:

Kotz, J. C., Treichel, P. M., Townsend, J. R., and Treichel, D. A. (2015).

Stoichiometry: Quantitative Information about Chemical Reactions. In Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity, Instructor's Edition (9th ed., pp. 139-149). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Accessed May 9th, 2017

The Mysterious Epigenome. What lies beyond DNA. Obtained on June 7th, 2017.

Exploring Creation with Physical Science. 2nd Edition. Wile, 2015. Page 334-2335

Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part I," (Impact No. 330, December 2000), pp. i-iv. 

Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part II," (Impact No. 331, January 2001), pp. i-iv.


Chemistry Nobel: Lindahl, Modrich and Sancar win for DNA repair

By Paul Rincon
Science editor, BBC News website, 7 October 2015

In the 1970s, scientists had thought that DNA was a stable molecule, but Prof Lindahl demonstrated that it decays at a surprisingly fast rate.
This led him to discover a mechanism called base excision repair, which perpetually counteracts the degradation of DNA.
Sir Martyn Poliakoff, vice president of the UK‘s Royal Society, said:
Understanding the ways in which DNA repairs itself is fundamental to our understanding of inherited genetic disorders and of diseases like cancer. The important work that Royal Society Fellow Tomas Lindahl has done has helped us gain greater insight into these essential processes.
Turkish-born biochemist Aziz Sancar, professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, US, uncovered a different DNA mending process called nucleotide excision repair. This is the mechanism cells use to repair damage to DNA from UV light—but it can also undo genetic defects caused in other ways.
People born with defects in this repair system are extremely sensitive to sunlight, and at risk of developing skin cancer.
The American Paul Modrich, professor of biochemistry at Duke University in North Carolina, demonstrated how cells correct flaws that occur as DNA is copied when cells divide. This mechanism, called mismatch repair, results in a 1,000-fold reduction in the error frequency when DNA is replicated.
Obtained from August 12th, 2017





Copyright   Computer Integrations, Inc. ©, 2017
No part of this article may be reproduced or copied without the author’s exclusive permission
Last Updated   Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Home School On Line & Tutoring Courses

Hawaii School of True Science Academy  For Home Schoolers & Hawaii On Line University   for University Students       Spe...