Piltdown Superman

Baker's Yeast / stock.xchng/chrni13 When scientists make predictions based on their theories, it should be good for science. Even false predictions. When the prediction does not work, the theory can be further examined, modified or discarded. On the other hand, our knowledge can be increased if it is correct. Evolution is loaded with false theories and errors. There are too many to honestly call evolution a valid scientific theory. Instead, excuses and accommodations are made. Recently we reported on a false prediction of evolution and gave some of the details . Evolution predicts that different kinds of genes, each found within a group of species, should tell the same story about evolution. They should produce similar evolutionary trees. Evolutionists have touted this fact of nature, and how it confirms a key prediction of evolution, for years. They call it a consilience of independent evidences. But increasingly, as we look under the hood and examine the details, we

Earlier, I posted some material on the origins of the belief system of evolution . Now it is time to go into more detail, and I have three items for your perusal and edification. Evolution has roots in pagan religious beliefs which had nothing to do with science. For that matter, people treat "science" as some sort of entity. They will say things like, "Science will solve the problem" (fallacy of reification). No, maybe someday scientists will solve the problem. There are methods to obtaining and processing data in scientific disciplines. All of it is philosophy! The requirements for doing things a certain way, the presuppositions and worldviews for determining data, the conclusions reached — all based on philosophy. So, watch out when someone refers to "science" as some sort of life form, or even a deity. A friend of the ministry shared a link to this video . It is rather long, but can be downloaded for offline viewing, and definitely worth your tim

As you probably remember from your basic science courses, photosynthesis is the process where plants process sunlight and make food. This video explains a bit more in a couple of minutes: Dry Lake, San Gorgonio Wilderness/San Bernardino National Forest Carol Underhill, USDA Forest Service Recently, more details of the speed and efficiency of the process have come to light (heh!). The process is truly amazing, and, as usual, evolutionists put on their Darwin Spectacles to give praise and glory to "nature" and "evolution" as if they were intelligent deities. The transformation of sunlight to food gets all the way down to the level of quantum physics! The magic of light capture by plants is so small and fast, its secrets are only now being understood. Lightning is slow compared to photosynthesis. A press release from the Institute of Photonic Sciences (ICFO) explains how “antenna proteins” capture photons of sunlight and ferry the energy to reaction cen

Despite the attempts of the Evo Sith to "explain" evolution, when the data are examined by people who are not trying to influence people to believe the evolutionist worldview, the actual facts come to light. The "Tree of Life" is still tenaciously grasped, even though it should have been discarded years ago. DNA analysis? Well, be disingenuous and filter the data. Then, fiddle with it. When there isn't a creationist or ID proponent around to call you on it, then present it as "truth". (Of course, when the dishonesty and bad reasoning are pointed out, the whistle-blowers are told, "You're a liar!", or, "You don't understand evolution!" They keep using that word "liar"... We know more than those people want to believe, and we don't like being played for fools.) They'll persist in believing their failed evolutionary worldview, even though it is full of errors, conjecture, guesswork and fraud. One of evo

Some people claim to have a thorough knowledge of evolution. Amazingly, there are tinhorns who claim to know more than evolutionary (and non-evolutionary) scientists! Evolution is inconsistent and constantly changing, and needs a great deal of tweaking to keep the pseudoscience in line with scientific observations. Do evolutionary scientists themselves claim to have full understanding of evolution? Not hardly. Some will actually admit to having a lack of understanding. Yet, they persist in keeping the faith despite the evidence. Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biol

In our previous exciting episode , we saw that proponents of evolution work outside the realms of science in order to further their worldview. No matter what the evidence actually shows, if it conflicts with evolutionary theories, there will be an explanation conjured up so they can attempt to save face. Wikimedia Commons/jurvetson For instance, the sea snake. There are different kinds, with different sized heads. Evolution (treated as a living entity with decision-making power) has the answer. I once debated an evolution professor who explained that evolution has tremendous explanatory power. But what exactly does this mean, and is it a good thing? Everyone knows that evolution explains that the species evolved gradually, but for new forms appearing abruptly in the fossil record evolution explains that the species evolved rapidly. Likewise, evolution explains that similarities in species derive from a common ancestor, but for species that are too distant evolution expla

One of the great deceptions that evolutionists have used is that they are the victims, with "religion" and "science deniers" as their persecutors. This is not the case. Not only has evolutionary philosophy contributed nothing to scientific advances, but they  are the ones doing the persecuting. They demonize those of us who know that the evidence points away  from evolution and toward  the Creator, refusing to understand the creationist point of view (how attacking a straw man or railing about a person's character flaws qualifies as "discussing science" escapes me). This is a deception that they have used for decades. And yet, Darwin's Stormtroopers go on the march, attacking people who dare to think for themselves. Julian Savulescu’s  recent comments suggesting that parents have a “moral obligation to select ethically better children” were more than just another move in the on-going eugenics revival. The Oxford professor’s misrepresentation o

In the ongoing presentation of evolutionary pseudoscience, circular reasoning and arbitrary assumptions run rampant. The first assumption comes from the core of the worldview of evolutionary scientists, simply that evolution is true. From there, they examine their evidence. Unfortunately, they examine the evidence incorrectly or incompletely. In the case of how genes allegedly evolved, scientists are finally learning that their presuppositions are getting in the way of true knowledge. T hey should have put aside their biases and examined the dat a more c ompletely. One of the most common tests evolutionists use, when studying how genes are supposed to have evolved, is to compare the non-synonymous and synonymous genetic differences. That is, if a gene that codes for a particular protein is found in several species, then evolutionists interpret differences in the gene, across those species, as the result of mutations in the evolutionary process. And while most mutations cause

 The more we learn about real science, the more evolutionary theory suffers for it. To protect their faulty worldview, evolutionary scientists and publicists need to "spin" the data. That is, the make excuses and manufacture transparent explanations that do not fool anyone except fundamentalist evolutionists and the willingly galactically gullible. Library of Congress The spin is extremely noticeable in regards to the newest discoveries in genetics (such as their humiliation about "junk" DNA ) and unique genes. The pusillanimity regarding the raw facts is distressing. You’ve heard of novel genes—genes that are found in only one species, and you’ve heard of alternative splicing—complex genes that are edited in different ways. Now put them together and on steroids, and to top it off, all in a mere unicellar algae. It’s another damage control nightmare as evolutionists again can’t figure out what went wrong. The explosion in molecular biology in the past

Biological evolution has been taken as a scientific truth in nature and misapplied to society as a whole, with all kinds of evil as a result. Tyrants have based their murderous regimes on evolutionism [ 1 , 2 ] , eugenics and abortion [ 3 ] , and more are based on evolutionary concepts like "survival of the fittest". Of course, Darwin's Cheerleaders are popularizing evolution with bad science, relentless publicity and rewriting history. Ideas have consequences. Over the past century evolutionary thought has become dominant in much more than just the historical sciences. Other branches of science as well as education, law, history, public policy and media have increasingly been influenced by the idea that the world arose spontaneously. This tremendous influence of evolutionary thought has consequences that are largely misunderstood. The misconception is that, while there have been some missteps along the way such as in the twentieth century’s eugenics moveme

To see Darwin's Cheerleaders resorting to logical fallacies to defend their errant worldview is commonplace. But to see several logical fallacies used in an attempt to influence political opinion and promote evolutionism is rather painful. And humorous. Here, we can see poisoning the well, name calling, prejudicial conjecture and more. The conviction that the world must have arisen spontaneously dates back to antiquity and is no less strong today. Its contemporary label is evolution and if you want your funding, or just respectability, you must accept it. Skepticism of the power of spontaneity is not allowed as this latest post from investor and all-around smart-guy Whitney Tilson makes clear: Even if Romney is a pragmatic centrist, I question his ability to act independently of a party that I fear has become beholden to people I view as extremists – anti-intellectuals who are hostile to women, minorities, the poor, immigrants, and gays, and who don’t believe

When having what passes for discussions online, Darwinoids often resort to "proof" or "evidence" that is jaw-droppingly dreadful in their efforts to stifle creationists. Those of us who have a grasp of scientific thinking and news are baffled that nonsense is offered. They should be thinking things through and asking questions in science classes. But what good is "should be" when we must deal with what actually happens? People like Mohamed Noor will offer bad logic and outdated science to his students. Since they trust him to deliver material that their parents are paying for, they accept the stuff and pass it along. Not good. Today’s first set of lectures in Mohamed Noor’s Introduction to Genetics and Evolution course would seem downright bizarre to anyone not familiar with evolutionary thinking. Noor is teaching this course via through the coursera on-line service and the Earl D. McLean Professor and Associate Chair of Biology at Duke Univer

The more scientists learn about genetics and DNA, the more evolutionists must spin metaphysical, non-scientific tales to explain their findings. But God forbid that the majority of them admit that their discoveries point to a Creator instead of supporting time, chance, mutations and other fantasies. Ever since Mendelian genetics was incorporated into Darwinism, evolutionists have believed that the gene is king. Genes, they thought, determine an organism’s design or, in technical jargon, the genotype specifies the phenotype. This fit their view that the species originated from the natural selection of biological change which did not arise initially as a consequence of need but rather as a consequence of random, spontaneous events. Those random, spontaneous, events were, for example, mutations in the genes. And later when the genetic code, which translates the information in those genes into proteins, was found to be essentially universal throughout biology, the story seeme

Although some evolutionists are supposedly amazed when they are told that there is equivocation, the fact is that such equivocation is actually prevalent. (Of course, this is rooted in their "evolution is a fact" presuppositions.) How do you defend equivocation? With more equivocation, of course. If anyone doubted that evolutionists equivocate, or that such equivocation is prevalent, they need doubt no more. I recently pointed out several examples of evolutionists equivocating on evolution. When they proclaim that evolution is an obvious fact, they are referring to the origin of species by random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection and a host of other explanatory mechanisms evolutionists employ when needed. This claim goes against the scientific evidence. Evolution may or may not have occurred. That is an ontological claim that can be argued. But there is absolutely no question the origin of species by evolution is not a fact. That is an epistemological claim which i

Foot soldiers in the war against those of us who dare to question the "fact" of evolution portray scientists in glowing terms. They are eminently logical, follow where the evidence leads, never have biases, are exceptionally honest and so on. (Of course, such praise makes them seem like automatons rather than people — if you believe such praises in the first place.) People who actually believe this lofty view of evolutionists are shocked — shocked, I tell you — at the suggestion that some scientists may have biases and engage in sneaky behavior. A very common shell game is conflation (or equivocation) on word meanings. The term "evolution" can mean many things. When the faithful chant that "evolution is a fact", they may actually be right when using some definitions of evolution. However, they are not right when they take one meaning of evolution and switch it with microbes-to-microbiologist evolution. When I explained that evolutionists equivocate by

Evolutionists and atheists use logic that is unarguable. That is because it is so appallingly bad, the flaws are indescribable. The fact that they misrepresent their opponents is almost expected. But when an evolutionist goes further and misrepresents science itself, the result is rather startling. An obvious problem with evolution is its claim that complex designs arose spontaneously. Imagine some spark plugs, valves and other assorted mechanical parts coming together to form an engine. It’s unlikely no matter how many years you have. What evolutionists would need to show is that there is a long, long sequence of simpler, intermediate designs which gradually lead from a lifeless warm little pond to the incredible species in today’s world. Of course they have shown no such thing—not even close. So instead evolutionists use sophistry—explanations that are so flawed and illogical they cannot even be said to be wrong. For example, professor and National Academy of Sciences member

 Several times, I have pointed out that evolutionists feel the need to protect science, even resorting to dishonesty . And "science" is equivocating historical science philosophies with actual, practical, experimental science. This happens even when their answers only prompt more questions, and other explanations fall to the ground like lead zeppelins. Yet, somehow, evolution is a fact , and if you dare question it (or worse, show some of the many failings and follies of evolutionism), you are the subject of ridicule. After all, they believe in science, and anyone who does not is not only stupid, but needs to be told so. In the last post , I submitted a link to an article by Dr. Cornelius Hunter (Ph.D., Biophysics, Computational Biology). He received bad reactions, of course. And shows two from alleged professors. I say "alleged", because they acted like so many of Darwin's juvenile cheerleaders that are running around the Web. Evolutionists proclaim that

In a previous post, I brought up Darwin's so-called "Tree of Life" . From what we saw about dishonest textbooks and bad science information in earlier posts , it should not be a surprise that this relic still has not been cut down. Although it is "misleading" and scientists admit to it, the tree is still used. The fundamental thesis of evolution is that the species evolved according to the evolutionary tree. Students learn about the evolutionary tree in biology class and biologists use the evolutionary tree in their research. But in fact the evolutionary tree is based on a limited, and carefully selected, set of observations. Ever since Darwin, science has continued to document exceptions and anomalies—species that don’t fit neatly into the evolutionary pattern. These biological contradictions come in various forms and are found throughout the tree. For instance, species that in many regards appear to be quite similar, which evolutionists have placed on