Piltdown Superman

Science is supposed to be about searching for knowledge, but special interests have long sought to keep inconvenient information hidden from consideration ( just ask Galileo ). Although creationists publish in peer-reviewed journals, it must be on acceptable topics — the Genesis Flood and recent creation are streng verboten . There is tremendous pressure on many in the secular science industry, and some scientists have a "publish or perish" sword dangling over their heads. That and personal greed  motivate quite a few to cheat so they can have their names on display in prestigious journals. Many topics are either taboo or the narrative is preordained by secularists in power. Sure, go ahead and discuss climate change or other subjects near and dear to the cold, hard hearts of the left. Just make certain that the contents follow the limitations; no one here will save you, just replace you. Got that, chief? For that matter, adherents of Scientism often think that peer review is

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Science is supposed to be about  the search for knowledge, and scientists are inaccurately considered to be dispassionate seekers of objective truth. Actually, scientists can be just as avaricious as you and me, and the secular science industry is allowing itself to be hijacked for leftist causes . Creationists, Christians, and other people cannot be tolerated by these sidewinders. In an episode of The Briefing , Dr. Albert Mohler discussed how Brigham Young University was dropped from job postings by a couple of geology organizations because of their morality code. While I reject Mormon views, they have a right to have and practice their beliefs without being coerced to change them. Recently, I asked someone who is involved in hiring at his company if they were interested in views of applicants. That company (like most others, I reckon) are more interested in the ability of people to perform the job. The organizations affecting BYU are giving political a

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The subject of this post is very fitting for the seventh annual Question Evolution Day , but it is very important for Christians, creationists, Intelligent Design proponents, lovers of intellectual and academic freedoms, and other people. There is some startling information in the main post that will be linked, exposing the blatant hypocrisy of the evolutionary establishment. Although that 1995 article focuses on academia, many of the principles apply to the persecution of Christians, biblical creationists, and others. Since it was written, things have only grown worse, and atheo-fascism is increasing . Students who believe in creation science or Intelligent Design (which is not creation science) are advised to keep mum about their lack of belief in evolutionism lest they be denied advanced degrees. It is difficult for a creationist student to keep his or her integrity and also write an assigned paper on evolution . Indeed, some academics believe that

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Edited 6-21-2016 Before I went ahead with this article, I checked with some other people about the content. Three hours before auto-publish, I removed the name of the evolution stormtrooper that I dealt with, even though they thought I should use it. "Dr. Duncan, I forbid you from letting any student pass your class if they still believe in their imaginary friends by the end of the semester.  If you don’t make every student in there an atheist by the time they graduate, then you, sir, have failed as an educator!" — Dr. Robert Farris, The Deception  by Steven J. Wright , p. 68 We have seen that indoctrination is paramount in evolutionary education; students are not told how  to think (critically, honestly examining the evidence), but what  to think (presupposing that evolution is true, and then using circular reasoning to "prove" it). Although the "educator" in the example at the top is fictional, such antics are not. T

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

Secular Humanism is a religion.  Evolution is religious in nature. It looks like the UK is forcing adherence to a state religion, and evolutionism is a cornerstone.  "Stop that, Cowboy Bob! Evolution is about science!"   An evolutionist disagrees:  ‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.' — Michael Ruse The four biggest bigot groups in the UK are at it again. They already forced the teaching of orig

"Peer Review", the convenient cop-out for evolutionists to dodge actually examining the evidence for creation and Intelligent Design. Sure, let's submit creationist material to evolutionists for their opinions. Makes perfect sense. Yes, the biased "good old boys" club that promotes favorites and suppresses those who are not exactly on the inside track. Bad news, Buford: Non-evolutionists have peer review as well. But it does not meet your presuppositions. Hey, want an example of what happens when...? What happens when an editor of a technical biology journal decides, along with others, to publish the first peer-reviewed technical article that casts doubt on Darwin and lays out the evidence for an intelligent designer?  In the case of Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian research associate and former managing editor of the independent journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington , it meant being cast out of the prestigious

A free and independent press? Not quite. Our national media do not always operate at arms-length from state-backed science, as the California Science Center (CSC) affair has demonstrated.  As you probably know by now, in 2009 the state-run CSC cancelled a contract with the American Freedom Alliance (AFA) to screen a pro-ID documentary, Darwin's Dilemma , triggering a lawsuit over unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. That lawsuit was recently settled. By the terms of the settlement agreement, the Science Center paid $110,000 and again opened its doors to the film, an invitation that was acknowledged by AFA as an apology and then respectfully declined for pragmatic reasons.  True, the Science Center did not explicitly admit in the agreement that it engaged in viewpoint discrimination, but the large payout and invitation may be taken as an implicit admission that its defense regarding the viewpoint discrimination claim was weak, and that a public trial should

You've heard a lot in this space the past few days about the viewpoint-discrimination lawsuit settled by the California Science Center for $110,000. That's money the CSC found it advisable to pay out to the American Freedom Alliance in order to avoid having to go to court and argue the case in public, with all that would have entailed by way of exposing a trail of incriminating emails by CSC staffers and scientists around the Los Angeles area. Lead by Casey Luskin, ENV writers have already very clearly spelled out the evidence of duplicity and intolerance on the part of the California Science Center, the panicky attempt to squelch the airing of a viewpoint favorable to intelligent design and the subsequent cover-up. Now that there's a little bit of a breather following the widespread reporting of the settlement, I'd like to suggest why the whole thing matters so much. Read the rest of "Stampede! What the California Science Center Scandal Reveals about

The state-run California Science Center (CSC) has paid $110,000 to settle a lawsuit by American Freedom Alliance (AFA) against CSC for violating AFA's First Amendment free speech rights to advocate intelligent design (ID). As part of the settlement, the CSC also has invited AFA to present the ID event it previously cancelled.  CSC rented its IMAX theater to AFA to show Darwin's Dilemma , a science documentary advocating ID. However, when CSC learned the film would portray ID favorably, CSC cancelled AFA's event. AFA filed suit in California Superior Court alleging viewpoint discrimination and breach of contract. Read the rest of "California Science Center Pays $110,000 to Settle Intelligent Design Discrimination Lawsuit" here .