Piltdown Superman

It is amazing how things change over time, especially when evolutionists are the ones writing popular versions of history. Charlie Darwin took his voyage on the Beagle  ship, observed nature, and brilliantly formulated evolution through natural selection. The scientific world praised his genius. Stuff and nonsense. His version of evolution was resisted at first, and scientists wanted him to back up the claims in his 1859 tome,  On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life , Title page of Origin of Species with creepy 1871 Vanity Fair  caricature added Darwin made excuses, such as claiming illness — and then published material on other topics. He was going to write a massive book of evidences supporting his hypotheses, but it never happened. Charlie made Natural Selection an entity, wrote many notes, frustrated scientists, but ultimately his promised book was never written. Well, something  was published as part o

Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Robert Darwin came up with a version of evolution at almost the same time, but Darwin is given most of the credit because he published first. Also, Wallace was an outsider in science circles  and was open to a form of Intelligent Design. Each had an idea of how butterflies evolved, but scientists did not seem interested in pursuing the matter. New research was presented after getting help from studying pictures of birdwing butterflies with machine learning, and both Wallace and Darwin were said to be right. Birdwing butterfly, Flickr / Charles Patrick Ewing ( CC BY 2.0 ) If the researchers were seeking awards or applause by the secular science industry, that probably happened. They use both natural and sexual selection (but not the true meaning of natural selection). People who care about truth and logic in science may have a different view. For one thing, the sample size was far too limited. Another problem is despite praising the puny god of evoluti

Charles Darwin took the ancient pagan beliefs of evolution,  changed the meaning of natural selection, then presented the product as his theory. It needed rescuing from the get-go, so he also bundled sexual selection  with it at no extra charge. To oversimplify, the best-looking critters are chosen to mate and spread their genes while the unattractive or drab should disappear. It works to some extent in the animal kingdom and is supposed to apply to humans as well. Although it sounds plausible on the surface, sexual selection does not work. Victorian Fashion, Columbian magazine, February 1844, from Copyright Expired A recent study shows that the concept was never valid and not handled properly in the scientific community. Something that does not fit the purely physical aspect of sexual selection is the fact that people do not select mates strictly on appearance. Women want men who can be providers, for example. (It may be surprising, but it has been suggested that abusive men attract

Huge numbers of books have been written about historical events and notable people, often attempting to go beyond recounting events. The lives and personalities of important figures are explored — and explanations for their actions are attempted. One of these is Charles Darwin. People may think that science was shaken by the wonderful discovery of evolution by natural selection, but that is not true. As discussed previously, significant events seldom happen spontaneously. Events, culture, help from others, and more helped Darwin attain popularity . Charles Darwin preaching in a church, made with AI at Bing The article linked below is by Neil Thomas, writing for the Discovery Institute. Although he is a professing agnostic (and Christians should be praying for him), he does not show contempt for Christianity. He has made a few mistakes, which is to be expected. Neil pointed out that Victorian England had reached a point where people were doubting the Bible, and this was exacerbated by i

In " Dishonest Darwinists Dodge Living Fossils ," the concept of stasis  was mentioned. To oversimplify,  living fossils are organisms that remain essentially unchanged from fossils to their living counterparts. Some fossils have millions of years assigned to them. Organisms did not evolve because they did not need to: stasis. Darwin's disciples glom onto the stasis rescuing device because living fossils are a serious impediment for evolution. Living fossils also indicate that the earth is not as ancient as evolution requires. Spotted Gar, Wikimedia Commons, USFWS / Brian Montague (public domain, usage does not imply endorsement) Know why gars live in mostly freshwater or brackish environments? Because if they lived in the oceans, they'd be sea-gars! Not funny, Cowboy Bob. Gars have been described as cigar-shaped, and some can grow rather large. Evolutionists say that their slow rate of evolution affects their low rate of speciation. Also, DNA repair mechanisms could

There are creatures in the fossil record that show no appreciable difference between supposed millions of years to their modern descendants. Charles Darwin was displeased with this additional evidence against his conjectures. He called them living fossils . If a handful of them existed, they might be waved away as odd quirks. But there are many living fossils. Evolutionists change mystical hats, trading the one where evolution is an undeniable force with the other where stasis occurred. That is, they did not have to evolve. These owlhoots get downright dishonest as well. Horseshoe crab (which is not really a crab) is a living fossil, MorgueFile / xpistwv Unfortunately, people are  not taught  critical thinking, and they seldom display healthy skepticism. The Bearded Buddha taught that things evolved from a common ancestor, branching out on the Tree of Life, gradually turning into something else. Right? People know this, but when dishonest evolutionists change the definitions with the

Although much of what Charles Darwin wrote is now ignored, he is treated with reverence by many admirers. Indeed, he is the Prophet of evolutionism. When posting material about his racist views, atheists are often outraged — outraged , I tell you! It has been said that discussing his racism is an ad hominem . He was a product of his times, after all. That means it is irrelevant, but they still  tidy it up . Not hardly! It was instrumental in his philosophies and what he presented as science. Muddy river with rocks, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen It is well documented that Charlie considered white people the top prize of evolution while those with darker skin were closer to apes. He also said that eventually, civilized people would exterminate lesser races and apes. (I never understood why that would be necessary except in his worldview.) Racism was fundamental to his version of evolution. As for being a product of his times — not buying it. There were prominent white people in Victoria

People know the story that young Charles Darwin was on the Beagle  from 1831 to 1836, appointed to be the ship's naturalist. He discovered evolution by means of natural selection  and thereby revolutionized science. Nice story, but he reworked the already existing concept of natural selection, and never provided evidence for his speculations . One of the most famous stops was at the Galápagos islands off the coast of Ecuador. He studied finches (not knowing what type of bird they were at the time), and they became icons of evolution. But that is false. Galapagos ground finch, Flickr /  Judy Gallagher  ( CC BY 2.0 ) Poster effect at  PhotoFunia  and cropped Charlie thought that all of the finch variations today came from an original pair. These birds have been the subject of many studies over the years. Creationists have pointed out for a long time that they do not show evolution. Studies that get into the genetics show that what is seen is natural — and planned by the Master Engine

Charles Darwin has been long portrayed as a great scientist, and his brilliant observations led to insightful theories that changed the world. It has been rightly observed that he is adored above scientists who have actually contributed something for the betterment of humanity. Atheists and evolutionists often become angry when people make parodies or satirize Darwin, and especially when people point out how evolution increased racism. Telling the truth about a man that secularists treat like a religious icon is a serious offense to them. Charles Darwin, street hobo with guitar, AI generated at Img2Go His version of natural selection as a creative force was not accepted by the scientific community at first. Papa Darwin promised to provide support for the material he published, but that did not happen. Could the fact that he never had formal scientific training have anything to do with it? He got by with a little help from his friends and did not end up being a hobo playing guitar for

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  This here article was written with some reluctance, first because the linked article is a book excerpt. Second, it is from the Discovery Institute, the main site of the Intelligent Design people. Regular readers may have noticed that I am using material from that site a bit more, but I tend to include biblical creationist material in my write-ups. This one is worth doing because other biblical creationists and I want people to learn how  to think, while atheists and secularists tell them what  to think. Some things about Darwin's logic need to be addressed. Charles Darwin dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight via Bing AI, which made the devil resemble  Homo habilis There are disagreements about whether or not Charles Darwin was an atheist, especially since he claimed agnosticism. Part of his dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight was his determination to put down creationism, viewing it as unscientific. His way of dealing with it was through met

As discussed here several times before, a movement, revolution, or other large effect on a society seldom spontaneously generates. Mayhaps you have heard how something was "ahead of its time" or the world was not ready for it. Conditions were not right for that thing. Other sweeping changes occur, leaving people wondering how they took root. Slowly. Charles Darwin is treated like a brilliant scientist for creating evolution, but that is the opposite of the truth . The conditions in Victorian England were right for his conjectures, and the prominent Huxleys helped him out . Darwin caricature, 1871, Vanity Fair , modified at remove.bg At the time of Darwin and even before, people were becoming more blatantly rebellious to God and disrespectful to the Bible. (Interestingly, the only degree that Charlie earned was in theology, which lends credence to the suggestion that he lifted the biblical creation narrative and was making a naturalistic religious text!) Many factors came toge

Many evolutionists become incensed when the racism inherent in their belief system is discussed, although some scientists are finally admitting this fact. Charles Darwin's Victorian myth of evolution had white English males as the pinnacle of evolution, but women were inferior . Creationists are sometimes accused of blaming Darwin for racism although it had already existed for millennia. True, but justifying racism with evolution has existed before Darwin ( he did not create evolution) , and it increased tremendously after his version of evolution. This is demonstrated in the horrific genocide of the Tasmanian people. Group of natives of Tasmania , Wikimedia Commons / Robert Hawker Dowling , 1859 (public domain) Perceived as an unevolved nonhuman race, European settlers murdered Tasmanians and rounded them up for relocation. Skeletons and body parts were put in collections, both private and in museums. (Tasmanian women were raped, showing the inconsistency of the invaders, who did

As seen before, big ideas and movements rarely spring up suddenly. Charles Darwin did not create evolution , it is an ancient pagan philosophy going back to the Greeks, Hindus; the first evolutionist is the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4). Indeed, Darwin was also influenced by Lamarck, his grandfather Erasmus, and others.  Charlie even hijacked and retooled Edward Blyth's work on natural selection for his own purposes, making it a creative force. (His acolytes over the years have even made it into a being with the power to make choices.) Apparently he backed off a bit by the time Origin of Species reached its final edition. Sun obscured by tree, Mt. Tremper (NY) trail, 14 Sept 2022 by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Darwinism was embraced by academia — finally a way to get that pesky Creator out of their lives! There was a time that Darwinism was at risk of falling out of favor because of its substantial problems. People aware of Gregor Mendel's work in genetics (peas be upon him) thought

A famous icon for evolution is referred to as Darwin's finches, even though he did not know what they were when he saw them on the Galápagos islands. For someone seeking an exotic bird, look elsewhere because these are rather plain. These finches demonstrate rapid speciation. According to Darwin and other purveyors of evoporn, evolution is supposed to be random and over long periods of time. Exceptions to those rules are seen frequently. Evolutionists are so determined to keep away from the Creator, they cling to irrational science. Galapagos ground finch, Flickr / Judy Gallagher ( CC BY 2.0 ) Poster effect at PhotoFunia and cropped Rapid speciation...depending on the definition of species, of course. Scientists frequently slap leather over whether or not some critters are a separate species. Interestingly, there are some parts of the genome that simply will not modify. Others do have random changes. The Master Engineer designed creatures to survive and thrive, and frontloaded ce

People seldom develop concepts on their own. They get inspirations and influences from a variety of people. If one ponders how they arrived at their religious or political beliefs, several influencers will probably come to mind. Adolf Hitler had a great deal of help with his evils . He has sparked research by historians, psychologists, and others who want to learn how he gained power, and able to commit so many atrocities for several years. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf , but many of his thoughts were under the inspiration of Karl Haushofer. Karl Haushofer, circa 1920 (colorized at Img2Go , further modified) There were evolutionary views before Darwin, and Haushofer was among those who welcomed Darwin's ideas. It is interesting that the idea of Lebensraum (struggle for living space) was asserted to be the duty and even the moral right of the superior race to take land away from the inferior races. Haushofer was all for it. — but did anyone ask, "How do you know?" What determin

Over at Evolution News and Science Today , an Intelligent Design site operated by the Discovery Institute, Alfred Russel Wallace is receiving a great deal of attention in his bicentennial year. Professor Michael A. Flannery has written a book and several articles about Wallace. A spell back, I wrote about whether or not we would have evolutionary theory if Charles Darwin had never been born . Since evolution is ancient, it would have been assembled and popularized in a "scientific" format. Alfie almost did that, but Charlie got to the publisher first. Alfred Russel Wallace, ca. 1865 A.F. Wallace did quite a bit of science, but he was eclipsed by Darwin . A problem for him both then and now is that he dabbled in many areas, some of which seemed frivolous. Wallace seemed like an interesting individual. But the Bearded Buddha focused on his own specific areas, which was apparently applauded instead of the multi-faceted aspects of Alfred. Also, Wallace was a kind of forerunner of

Although darker-skinned people do it as well, blushing is very noticeable in people of European descent. Some blush easily and others may not ever. It is considered attractive, and women's makeup includes a blush tint. Fish, animals, and flowers may have reddish tinges that are called blush. Charles Darwin did not appreciate the notion of his time: Blushing was designed by God to display human shame. (Mayhaps that is true, but this child is not convinced.) What is interesting is that apes and other animals do not do it. Blushing bromeliad, Flickr / Tanaka Juuyoh ( CC BY 2.0 ), an article on the flower is here Darwin's disciples try to evosplain blushing, but they cannot get around the fact that it does not contribute an "evolutionary advantage." And why is it confined to the face and neck? Interestingly, blushing seems to be caused by an adrenaline release because of an emotional trigger. (It just occurred to me that it would be interesting to see if there's a si

A word that is commonly used in discussions of genetics is alleles . Simply put , they are pairs of genes, one from each parent, that match. Alleles are on the chromosomes. They often have slight differences, and those as well as similarities affect organisms. People have tried to figure out where new traits that were not in a lineage came from. The Bearded Buddha had some ideas that he put into his version of natural selection. Gregor Mendel pioneered genetics (peas be upon him), and his research showed that Darwin was on the wrong trail. Wallkill Rail Trail at Kingston, NY, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen (modified at PhotoFunia ) For a long time, it was believed that random mutations married up with natural selection to drive evolution. It was learned that DNA is heavily influenced by epigenetics . Evidence also shows that the Master Engineer designed living things to adapt, change how genes are expressed, and environment does not cause the changes. Sorry, Charlie. No, not really so

Something that many of totalitarian dictators and even mass murderers of the last 150 years or so is holding to belief in Darwinism. Evolution is not just a theory for academics to discuss and for ordinary people to accept because they said so. Instead, it is a worldview used to interpret science and morality. Unfortunately, white supremacy will never go away. Those sidewinders are known for despising people with darker skin, but they have particular venom for Jews. Leftists label many people as "far right" including white nationalists, but leftists as well as alleged Conservatives were joining in with hatred for Jews. People worshiping statue of Darwin, made by AI at Bing Although the Intelligent Design people wrongly want to keep God out of the discussions, an article makes a point — which is often made by presuppositional apologists. That is, if Darwinism is right, nobody  can condemn Hamas for attacking the Jews. When atheists say that something is morally wrong, they are

Everyone has presuppositions and worldviews, and these things drive science. Secular science assumes that the universe is billions of years old and that cosmic, chemical, biological, and other evolutions happened. Biblical creation science affirms recent creation, and modifications are not evolution. Evolution extends beyond academic and scientific discussions and influences the lives of people. While people disliked other ethnic groups different from their own, Darwinian evolution (and modifications) gave rise to "scientific racism" and greatly increased the problem. Smithsonian Building, Wikimedia Commons / Noclip (modified at Fotosketcher ).jpg Evolutionists often become incensed when it is pointed out that Charles Darwin was a blatant racist. Some try to improve history , but the facts cannot be changed. In the Victorian era and later, scientists attempted to justify racism and eugenics. They insisted that darker people were physically and mentally inferior to white folk