Piltdown Superman

Since universal common ancestor evolution is taken for granted and asserted in all kinds of media, a Christian may be strongly tempted to think it must be true. Why not simply say that God used evolution and avoid the ridicule? That brings a prairie-schooner full of problems. Professing Christians are often afraid to take a stand for creation because they think science has proven evolution and an old earth. It is better to " just preach the gospel " and leave that other stuff for the scientists. Not hardly! Things get worse from there. Public domain images, with background and glow effect from Pixlr Atheists and other evolutionists reject evidence refuting evolution and affirming recent creation. When Christians compromise, they are showing disdain for the authority of Scripture and their lack of science knowledge. They are abandoning the biblical worldview and bedding down with the naturalistic worldview! It has many flaws, but compromisers are unaware or ignore them. Chris

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  The title may prompt the reader to expect an article about the importance of creation science from both science and biblical standpoints, but that is not the case. For Question Evolution Day , it seemed like a good idea to go back to one of the basics. I did not practice what I preach on getting a definition nailed down. This error illustrates how we can make assumptions about word meanings, then have confusion if people do not have a meeting of the minds on terminology. Sunrise , Mikalojus Konstantinas Ciurlionis, 1904 Regular readers have known this child to emphasize how we must be careful in discussions to make sure all parties understand what is being discussed. Otherwise, there can be arguments, then shootouts in the saloon which startle the horses outside. Okay, I mean that confusion can also lead to anger. The word evolution  has several meanings, and Darwinists often conflate change, variation, speciation , and other things with particles-to-painter evo

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Day in and day out, people are bushwhacked by assumptions of minerals-to-manicurist evolution. It is presupposed by the secular science industry, so all their observations are made wearing Darwin spectacles . From there, the obedient lapdog science press, movies, television, science documentaries, friends and neighbors all talk evolution. Many people are not even aware that creation science exists. Instead of forcing the atheistic naturalism narrative on the observed evidence , biblical creationists seek to honor God and uphold the authority of Scripture. Background image: Unsplash / Angelo Carniato Creation ministries large and small, as well as individuals, try to make their views known. There's a prairie schooner-full of linked articles available, as well as numerous books, videos, and other materials available. Much of this is free. Of course, we must contend with angry atheists (because evolution is foundational to atheism) and fundamentalist evolutionis

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  A spell back, someone on Twitter was peddling a book about how he, a scientist, went from atheism to faith. I was intrigued and looked up some background on the author. It turns out that he is affiliated with the Untied (misspelling intentional) Methodist Church. I replied, "It is indeed unfortunate that you are telling your story of coming to faith, but are a leader in a church that doesn't believe the Bible." The UMC is notoriously liberal in theology. Modified from Pixabay /  Willgard Krause Seymour Garte got a mite riled over my blunt remark, and his reply consisted of several false statements.  He believes in the "grandeur" of Darwin's evolution and wrote a chapter on it (his book is praised by other TEs as well). Why do theistic evolutionist compromisers insist on millions of years of death and suffering, where their god is a cruel monster that uses such methods? Also, why did their god lie about creation in Genesis and all thro

Just the other day I was having a discussion with Grandpa, Aunt Lily, and especially Uncle Hermeneutics about understanding Ancient Near East (ANE) documents. Hermie says that knowledge of the culture is interesting and possibly helpful, but not to degrade Genesis as just another historical narrative. John Walton has an elitist  Gnostic version of hermeneutics . This evolutionary owlhoot is not content to use a proper approach to the subject , but interprets Genesis according to ANE documents. He is degrading the written Word of God. Illustration by  Sidney Paget  used in "The Adventure of Black Peter", 1904 We are to study the Bible in the proper context, which includes all of Scripture. Interpreting through the lens of ANE texts is convenient for Darwinists and theistic evolution compromisers; it helps them deny the Bible's authority and inerrancy. There are several important reasons we must reject views of Walton and others of his ilk. How did the universe come into ex

I disremember what movie it was, but one scene had an inept deputy sheriff pointing a pistol at the main character. He was annoyed and said, "Give me that!", taking away the gun. The deputy immediately put his hands up and said, "Don't shoot!" Original image:  The Angry One  by Ferdinand Hodler There are some religious owlhoots who ride for the Darwin brand that say that biblical creation science is really just pseudoscience. Ironically, evolution has many qualifications of being a pseudoscience itself. With logic and scrutiny, it can be turned around on them. Watch for the double standards of criticizing biblical creationists of believing in the Creator, yet they presuppose naturalism, then present speculations and unfounded opinions as science. Someone hold up a mirror for these jaspers. The organization BioLogos, which advocates that Christians accept secular evolutionary claims, recently published an online essay entitled “How to Spot Fake Science.”1 The not

Biblical creationists are accustomed to being called upon to defend their views when challenged by supporters of universal common descent. Unfortunately, some of these are theistic evolutionists. When these and misotheists saddle up to ride for the Darwin brand, they occasionally try to use Bible against us. Something I have learned and then stated many times is that when choosing to slap leather with an opponent, it is important to learn the other side's views (see " Debate Challenges " for more about this). If one misrepresents the other or does not do proper research, that person is beclowning himself. Atheists and evolutionists do this to biblical (young earth) creationists frequently, but humiliate themselves when facing knowledgeable opponents. One owlhoot in particular, Michael Jones, got his ownself a YouTube channel, and people wanted his challenges to creationists answered. Like other deniers of the truthfulness and authority of the Bible, he misrepresents it.

Naturalists execrate what biblical creationists believe and teach. We get that. They misrepresent and even lie about us, often appealing to "legitimate scientific sources" (meaning atheistic naturalism) and inefficient peer review. It is worse when professing Christians ride for the Darwin brand. Least weasel image by FreeDigitalImages.net / Phil_Bird As we have seen in other posts, peer review has numerous problems, including the reproducibility crisis, bad papers being passed, citing of citing of poor documentation, and more. Peer review is by no means a guarantee of truth and accuracy. Add misrepresentation to the mix and things get worse. Some theistic evolutionists decided to slap leather with Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson, author of Replacing Darwin , and not only put words in his mouth (and other creationists), but blatantly misrepresented what he teaches. Despite inaccuracies and glaring omissions, it passed peer review. Dr. Jeanson indicates that these evolutionis

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen As biblical creationists, the rocks thrown at us are doubled. Not only do we deal with angry atheopaths, but from professing Christians who are trying to do God a favor by ridiculing and "refuting" creationist views. Apparently, God does not mean what he says, even when God wrote in stone that everything was created in six days. Credit: US Geological Survey/ Erin Todd It is amazing how theistic evolutionists (TEs) and other old earth creationists (OECs) reject the Bible, preferring instead to use atheistic interpretations of evidence and phenomena against Bible-believing Christians, even dreaming up hybrid creation accounts so they can have both their naturalism and a pretense at believing the Bible. I have written about theistic evolutionists who are adored by atheists (see " Rocky Reefs, Autumn Leaves Without Fruit "), since atheism and evolutionism ride for the same brand (see " Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism ")

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Biblical creation science is a branch of apologetics that presents not only evidence refuting evolution, defeating atheism, and upholding special creation (often referred to as young earth creationism), but includes defense of the Bible itself. There are many apologetics ministries that debunk atheism and give excellent reasons for believing the Bible. However, many of those are soft on recent creation, or worse, reject it altogether. Quite a few of those call themselves old earth creationists, and some OECs are theistic evolutionists. Not all OECs are TEs, but it appears that all TEs are also OECs. You savvy? Credit: Morguefile / pedrojperez These owlhoots are sending a conflicting message: we believe the Bible, but not the first eleven chapters of Genesis, which must be interpreted according to current atheistic views of science. Echoes of Satan's challenge in Genesis 3:1 NIV. Yet these people admit that they take Exodus as historical, how do they

Some owlhoots who profess to be Christians in the BioLogos gang (implied motto: "Jesus lied") have been riding with the hands at the Darwin Ranch in their continuing mission to slap leather with biblical creationists. For some reason, old Earth proponents (especially theistic evolutionists) elevate atheistic interpretations of science to the magisterial position over the Bible, which they claim to believe. Then atheists trumpet, "See? Even these religious people believe in evolution!", and then continue their perfervid denunciations of Christians, including their TE useful idiots. François de La Rouchefoucauld (Frankie the Rock) had several maxims, this is one of my favorites. If you study on it a spell, most people will consider someone insightful when they are in agreement. Some will respect intelligent opponents who disagree with them, but those are in the minority. Here, BioLogos uses secular sources in their attempts to refute biblical creationists, but t

Adherents of molecules-to-man evolution are passionate about their beliefs, and many are intolerant of those who reject this position, whether for scientific or theological grounds, or both. They are not content to allow the study of origins to be an academic discussion, preferring to vilify their opponents. They engage in stalking, misrepresentation, libel, censure, dreadful logic, outright persecution , and more. This kind of behavior is typical of atheists, but it is distressing that professing Christians corinthianize with said atheists in maligning people that should  be their brethren in Christ. Naturally, atheists approve of this behavior, since it advances their naturalistic worldview and Christophobic agenda. Basil of Caesarea icon from  Wikimedia Commons The most egregious attacks seem to come from theistic evolutionists (who disingenuously call themselves "evolutionary creationists"). They have a man-centered low view of Scripture, preferring to allego

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Christians who take the Bible seriously have been alarmed at the increase in "seeker driven" churches, false religions, compromise, and outright apostasy in the church. A good part of this is because too many Christians are unaware that Genesis is the foundation for all major Christian doctrines , and have disdain for the authority of the Word of God. Christianity held to a recent creation and global Flood throughout most of church history, including the Reformers . It wasn't until naturalistic philosophies of science seemed plausible, and Christians were buffaloed into compromising. Who wants to be considered stupid in the light of "science"? The compromisers were foolish, as evolution is based on many frauds and bad reasoning, and we need to show it for what it is (Eph. 5:11-13).  Compromises included various ways to force millions or billions of Darwin years into the Bible, and the worst of the lot is theistic evolution.  (For

One of the foundations of atheism is fungus-to-philosopher evolution, and when logical, scientific, and theological arguments are presented against it, they circle the wagons to fend off the truth. Although atheists claim to use reason and logic, they frequently fail at both; an evolutionary worldview is incoherent, and cannot account for science, morality, and other necessary preconditions of intelligibility. If we're just bundles of matter responding to our inner chemistry, there is nothing wrong when one bundle eliminates another bundle if it helps the first bundle's ability to thrive. That would be a logical conclusion to Darwinism. Indeed, they have no consistent moral compass when they say that something is  wrong,  they are borrowing from the Christian worldview, which  can  make sense of morality. The same with science. Without God the Creator as described in the Bible, consistency in laws of nature is impossible. Posted under Fair Use for educational purpo

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This article for Question Evolution Day is addressed to professing Christians. Part of the purpose of this site and The Question Evolution Project is to equip believers to give a strong apologetic for our faith (1 Peter 3:15-16), and to avoid being deceived by false teachers. Christians have to contend with people who are hostile to biblical truth because it goes against their natural condition, and are offended by the gospel message (1 Corinthians 2:14, John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 1 John 5:19). Add to this that biblical creationists not only show that minerals-to-microbiologist evolution is unscientific, but also show how science supports Scripture, then anti-creationists really get on the prod. Sadly, the problem is compounded by professing but compromising Christians who have a low view of the Bible, and those who are actually apostate (1 John 2:19). We are given many serious warnings about these people who claim to be with us but are actually again