Piltdown Superman

It is a mite distressing that some people believe the earth is flat, and some of them are professing Christians and even creationists. This is ironic because not only was the idea started to make the Bible look foolish, but it has been soundly refuted both scientifically and theologically . (The president of the Flat Earth Society is a Darwinist, by the way.) One of the strangest claims that some flat earthers make is that moonlight removes heat and cools things. Sea View by Moonlight , Ivan Aivazovsky, 1878 This idea should be subject to verification or refutation scientifically. Some owlhoots have made a pretense at proving their claim, but their efforts are woefully inadequate. Like faulty evidence for evolution ( including "junk" DNA ), people doing what passes for research argue from their presuppositions, find a bit of data they think is confirmation, and think their work is done. Experiments and research must be done as completely as possible. Neutral or ne

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen What kind of ethics can we expect in science from people who have an evolutionary worldview, where we are not made in God's image because they believe there is no Creator God in the first place? Scientists discuss ethical boundaries, but it's difficult to want to accept those from people who do not have an absolute moral foundation and believe that we are just another animal. Chimaera image credit: Wikimedia Commons / ArthurWeasley In mythology, a Chimera (or Chimaera) was a vicious critter made of parts of several other critters. Depending on the myth, some were fire-breathing dragons of sorts. Nowadays, you can hear the word in serious scientific material. This is due to CRISPR genome editing . It's one thing to be tampering with making hybrid animals, but scientists are also adding human embryos to the mix . Since they have subjective morality, they are asking for changes in legal limits so they can experiment a bit longer on creatures t

Advocates of atoms-to-antitheist evolution have a habit of demonizing Christians, especially creationists. Ridicule of individuals and organizations is a registered brand at the Darwin Ranch, and this approach goes way, way back. People like Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, and others proclaim that creation science is a hindrance to true science, and do not admit to the true hindrances to science that evolutionary thinking has caused . This is actually lying about the history of modern science. Clinton Richard Dawkins is taking demonizing a mite literally. Modern scientific methods have evolved (heh!) in a biblical environment. That's because other cultures did not foster the development of science. Creationists want to know the hows and whys of God's handiwork. We can be thankful for the godly people who developed science and scientific methods. World leading antitheist Richard Dawkins has once more blasted creationists in an interview in the Wall Stree

I t's been pointed out many times that scientists are not the impartial paragons of virtue that many people believe. When it comes to fame and fortune, some can be sneaky sidewinders — just like us reg'lar folks. Using bad science, just-so stories, and even fraud are almost expected when trying to prove goo-to-geologist evolution, since it happens so much in the cult of evolutionism . Even so, many of us reckon that they should be living up to higher standards. Seriously, what kind of ethical standards and integrity can be expected from people who hold to a materialistic worldview? When they deal from the bottom of the deck, they're following a "survival of the fittest" paradigm; having scientists police the integrity of scientists is like asking a burglar to hold your wallet while you make a phone call. The final authority for ethics and morality is the Creator, who revealed his plan in his written Word, not another materialistic method. The frequency

What is the most ironclad kind of fact known to man? To many, it's a fact based on science. "I don't reckon you should dispute that, pilgrim, it's a scientific fact!" Of course, a claim , consensus , or theory is not the same as a fact, but people put a lot of stock in something when you preface it with, "Scientists say..." Then it's promoted to "fact" status in the eyes of a passel of people. Many think that science is the ultimate source of truth, and they forget (or do not even know) that many indisputable science facts have been discarded over the years. Take a look at phlogiston , f'rinstance. For that matter, the "scientific method" itself (whichever "scientific method" you choose) evolves . Pay attention to the news from creation science ministries, and even from the secular science press. You keep getting news about something that has changed that had previously been established. Evolutionary "

Secularists have been stealing the scientific method. Although it had several contributors, it had its best development under the hands of Christians. Naturalistic interpretations of science became popular, and Christians stood by and let them redefine science in naturalistic terms. Now people have the impression that when a scientist makes an utterance, it is a scientific fact. The word "theory" is grossly misused, and speculations are being pawned off as facts, especially in reference to molecules-to-man evolution. Worse, atheistic scientism is being used as the means to interpret scientific evidence. This is ridiculous, as a naturalistic time-chance-mutations universe would make doing science impossible! Some biblical Christians are making efforts to show the extreme limitations of naturalistic science interpretations. We want the scientific method back so we can save it from further abuse and use it properly again. Are modern schools teaching the scientific method