Piltdown Superman

In the twentieth century, John Dewey was considered a great intellectual. He is credited with developing the modern public school system. Dewey had some odd and contradictory ideas in his worldview. He was an atheist and signer of the atheistic Humanist Manifesto, which openly admitted that it was a religion. Also, he did not believe in absolute truth or knowledge. It is ironic that an educator did not believe in knowledge. Worse, his rejection of God made him blind to the fact that logic comes from God — without God, morality, knowledge, wisdom, logic, and science are impossible ! Those details did not matter to Dewey. While he did some things that helped the school system, he wanted children depending on others to do the thinking for them — reflecting the atheistic, evolutionary, and Marxist trends that were growing in the formerly United States at the time. It can be seen today that many people have no inking about how to do critical thinking. Also, notice how these sheeple tend tow

Near Los Angeles (translation: the angels) was an area known as Rancho La Brea  ( la brea  translation: the pitch, or, the tar), and a part of that became Hancock Park. Savvy readers know that it is the location of the famous La Brea Tar Pits. Much research has been done regarding this natural asphalt. The story goes that animals would get trapped by the tar and cry out in distress, attracting predators who would also get trapped. That tale is popular but the reality is quite different. Indeed, there are reasons to doubt current speculations. Mastodon display at La Brea Tar Pits, Flickr / Ingrid Richter ( CC BY 2.0 ), modified at PhotoFunia Study on it a spell. Thousands of fossils recovered from La Brea, many of large plant eaters and carnivores. If those were trapped and pulled down, wouldn't the bones be together? In fact, most skeletons are disarticulated (spread out). Biblical creationists agree with secular scientists that the area shows massive flooding, but creationists go

Everyone has a worldview, even if they have not spelled it out succinctly. It involves how they view life, what is important, morality, life and death, and all that good stuff. Descent with modifications is more than academic and scientific parlor talk, it is a worldview. Although evolution fails many tests, people presuppose that it is true and must be a part of their decision making processes. Some physicians have their spleens in a twist because they insist there should be more Darwinism taught in medical school. That should prompt cries of outrage because evolutionary thinking in medical science has actually been harmful , not helpful (see " Evolutionary Thinking Wrecks Modern Medicine "). Yanking out tonsils, adenoids, and downplaying the appendix may have been profitable, but if those doctors had bothered to think that the Creator put things in their places for a reason, patients would have been much better off. So, why isn't evolution taught very much in medical sc

For a while now, biologists have been starting to look at living things from an engineering perspective. They are a bit skittish about it, because if things are engineered, there must be an Engineer a Designer. Indeed, C. Richard Dawkins and other Darwinists tell scientists to remind themselves that things only appear designed. Another reason for the reluctance of evolutionists to admit to engineering approaches is that biblical creationists have been talking about biological engineering for some time now. A paper in the Intelligent Design community discusses systems engineering in biology. Construction, Pixabay /  Adi Rahman Systems engineering requires making a plan to build something in order to accomplish a goal, models are developed, testing happens, and all that good stuff before a final product is made. Taking inspiration from mechanical engineering, the authors describe model-based reverse system engineering. To show how their approach would work, glycolysis was used. If a basi

It is interesting that Darwin's acolytes on social(ist) media tend to show ignorance of their own belief system, or mayhaps they try to steamroll over creationist opponents with hot air. Some have claimed that there are no fossils out of order — which would be news to secular scientists. There are many fossils and artifacts in what evolutionists would consider wrong places, which has caused them no small amount of embarrassment. Still, they cling to their uniformitarian views because the alternative (special creation) is anathema. Monkey fossils are causing loyal evolutionists consternation. Spider monkeys, Wikimedia Commons / Bernard Spragg ( PD ) Both creationists and evolutionists try to work out biogeography — how did that  get over there ? The monkeys in question were found in South America. Fine, nice weather, plenty of things to climb on and play with. But there are no fossils of their ancestors. They seem to have come from Africa. How, prithee? Although secularists laughed