Piltdown Superman

When the cause is "right", then it does not matter how one goes about achieving a goal, yes? Misleading people, outright lying, shading the truth — those are acceptable, yes? For the most part, the philosophy of "the end justifies the means" is frowned upon. But apparently, indoctrination in evolutionism is an exception. In that case, go ahead and lie to students; they must be compelled to believe in evolution (and use the equivocation fallacy to refer to this philosophy about the past as "science") at all costs. Don't forget to leave the mistakes, frauds, errors and reclassifications in the textbooks! When these sidewinders lie, they are being consistent with their fundamentally flawed worldview. There have been many examples of evolutionary falsehoods used to indoctrinate students into evolution. The list includes Forged Haeckel embryo pictures, still used in many textbooks Staged photos of peppered moths whic

Despite the efforts of atheist and evolutionists to get religious celebrations in honor of Papa Darwin and to have their philosophies into the churches, "Darwin Day" (February 12), it seemed to go largely unnoticed. There were individuals who used the day as an excuse to assert their opinions as fact and to present bad science as conclusive proof of evolution, and there were those of us who stated that we have the right to disbelieve in the alleged "science" of evolution. People did not really care. Charles Darwin was born February 12, 1809, but not many people celebrated "Darwin Day" on February 12 this year. One Texas columnist lamented this lack of festivity, as well as polls showing that 40 percent of Americans believe in creationism and about a third of Texans believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. In an opinion piece for the San Marcos Mercury, Lamar Hankins wrote:  I look to the consensus among experts to decide what is true…

Another evolutionary myth to devastate is "chemical evolution". People still cling to the infamously bad "Miller-Urey Experiment" (which Chandra Wickramasinghe referred to as " cheating ") as "proof" of abiogenesis, and make other desperate attempts to cling to the fantasy that life originated by time, chance and random processes without a Creator — or a mechanism. The ancient Greeks believed in the spontaneous generation of life. More recently, Louis Pasteur showed that life did not arise from non-living material. Yet those who deny the Creator's existence must believe it happened once upon a time. Evolutionists estimate the earth to be 4.6 billion years old and the earliest fossils about 3.8 billion years old. An initially hot Earth might take, say, 0.3 billion years to become "user friendly," so the first life took only about half a billion years to arrive from abiotic (non-living) starting materials. If it is as ea

In the last post , we examined how evolution is the modern-day mythology of creation. Now, we'll see that the old Dobzhansky saying, " Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" is false. Sure, it's quoted ad nauseum by Darwin's cheerleaders like Nye, Tyson, Dawkins, and others, of course. But their constant assertions do not create reality. The following article effectively destroys that nonsense. Darwinists commonly claim that evolution is the foundation of all of the sciences, especially the life sciences and that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” To evaluate this claim I reviewed both the textbooks used for life science classes at the college where I teach and those that I used in my past university course work. I concluded from my survey that Darwinism was rarely mentioned. I also reviewed my course work and that of another researcher and came to the same conclusions. From this survey I c

What do you call a story that has historical underpinnings, believers, defenders, promoters, fanatical devotion — without any empirical evidence? I would be tempted to say that it sounds like a myth. In 1999 Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial , said on CNN: "I think we should teach a lot about evolution. In fact, I think we should teach more than the evolutionary science teachers want the students to know. The problem is what we're getting is a philosophy that's claimed to be scientific fact, a lot of distortion in the textbooks, and all the difficult problems left out, because they don't want people to ask tough questions." But in the ensuing dozen years, how much has really changed in science classrooms? What follows is a partial list of questions that could be used to critically examine and evaluate evolution. They would make good classroom discussions, initiated by either teacher or student, or research assignments. You can read the rest o

This site is a year old. I missed the anniversary because I was so wrapped up in the " Question Evolution Day " campaign (which is not affiliated with Creation Ministries International, even though I use their materials). My focus for this site is still evolving (heh!) and sharpening. I have not made any secret over the fact that I am a Biblical creationist. The purpose of this site was to keep Biblical materials to a minimum so that scientific evidence against evolution and for creation can be prominent. Since I am not ashamed of the gospel, I am not going to weed out articles that say, for instance, "Here is a Biblical model and the evidence supports it". Those with intellectual honesty will realize that we are presenting our models and interpretations, just as evolutionists are presenting their own. After all, that is what true scientific inquiry is about, yes? In the intervening year, I have encountered some particularly antagonistic atheists who are int

In the media and especially on the Internet, we see some startling displays of "thinking" that makes me wonder if some people are employable. As I pointed out in my recent podcast experience , the self-appointed defenders of evolution use appeal to emotion, ad hominem, genetic fallacies, poisoning the well, false dilemma, appeal to ridicule, appeal to the majority and so much more. They should be embarrassed by their straw man arguments against creationists and ID proponents, since they clearly have no understanding of what is actually  taught and believed. What goes on in the real world for the day-to-day evolutionary scientist? Since evolutionism rests upon premises and inductive and deductive arguments, it may be useful to test them against the principles of logic. In relation to the principle of non-contradiction, one finds numerous contradictory affirmations (continuity and discontinuity, gradualism and saltationism, and, above all, extrapolation from obs

‘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 For people who think for themselves, every day is " Question Evolution Day "! Wow! The " Question Evolution Day " project has been a great deal of work. It would have been a bit less work if I had started sooner, but hey, I'm new to this kind of thing. Lots of time spent writing, contacting people, working on visuals, making a Facebook Page (a

February 12 is Question Evolution Day! Paleontologists interpret data through their evolutionary presuppositions and worldview. Doesn't everyone? But when discarded evidence piles up and difficulties with dating methods worsen (such as realizing that there are too many assumptions and bad reasoning), that should cause some red flags for researches and prompt them to reevaluate their tendentious interpretations. But that would mean going in a direction that is unthinkable to them. Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable. However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are a

Also posted at "Stormbringer's Thunder". This is a different kind of article for me, because it was a new experience. I pestered Chris Date to let me be on his " Theopologetics " podcast to talk about creation science. He was interested, and said he had someone else in mind so that all three of us could do the podcast. This would be great in the lead-up to "Question Evolution Day". It was scheduled several weeks away. We got the outline of questions he was going to ask, and shared it online to create our responses. Finally, the evening of February 7, 2012 arrived. This was my first conference call on Skype, and only about the fifth time I've used it at all, so I was a bit awkward with it. Chris is experienced not only with technological things, but able to develop the interview questions to bring out the strengths of his guests. He is also serious about theology itself, and takes the Bible very seriously (I recall asking him if he tends