Piltdown Superman

Evolutionary scientists are presented as profoundly wise, using the proven fact of evolution to give explanations and offer predictions. Since they base these predictions on the faulty presuppositions of uniformitarianism and evolutionism, they end up with numerous errors. This list of evolution fails includes bird stripes, living fossil fish, cooperation, continent of human origins, dinosaur sizes, use of fire. Read these at "'Darwin Fail' Entries Add Up", here .

Hilarious! The Republic of Korea (also called South Korea) is correcting evolution in textbooks [ 1 ] . They are removing the same kinds of things that we point out that do not belong in American textbooks. Fundamentalist evolutionists are having a hard time dealing with this development. Note the loaded terminology: "It appears that the United States is not the only country having a hard time accepting evolution" [ 2 ] . "Evolution Under Assault in South Korea’s Schools" [ 3 ] . "South Korea outlaws evolution: Publishers remove examples from school textbooks after protests from creationists" [ 4 ] . "...South Korea, where the anti-evolution sentiment seems to be winning its battle with mainstream science" [ 5 ] . Note not only the hysteria, but the loaded terminology and propping up evolution as a victim. Further, they commit the fallacy of equivocation [ 6 ] by elevating evolution (philosophical historical science, beliefs about the past) w

 Several times, I have pointed out that evolutionists feel the need to protect science, even resorting to dishonesty . And "science" is equivocating historical science philosophies with actual, practical, experimental science. This happens even when their answers only prompt more questions, and other explanations fall to the ground like lead zeppelins. Yet, somehow, evolution is a fact , and if you dare question it (or worse, show some of the many failings and follies of evolutionism), you are the subject of ridicule. After all, they believe in science, and anyone who does not is not only stupid, but needs to be told so. In the last post , I submitted a link to an article by Dr. Cornelius Hunter (Ph.D., Biophysics, Computational Biology). He received bad reactions, of course. And shows two from alleged professors. I say "alleged", because they acted like so many of Darwin's juvenile cheerleaders that are running around the Web. Evolutionists proclaim that

In a previous post, I brought up Darwin's so-called "Tree of Life" . From what we saw about dishonest textbooks and bad science information in earlier posts , it should not be a surprise that this relic still has not been cut down. Although it is "misleading" and scientists admit to it, the tree is still used. The fundamental thesis of evolution is that the species evolved according to the evolutionary tree. Students learn about the evolutionary tree in biology class and biologists use the evolutionary tree in their research. But in fact the evolutionary tree is based on a limited, and carefully selected, set of observations. Ever since Darwin, science has continued to document exceptions and anomalies—species that don’t fit neatly into the evolutionary pattern. These biological contradictions come in various forms and are found throughout the tree. For instance, species that in many regards appear to be quite similar, which evolutionists have placed on

Evolutionism is a worldview in and of itself. Also, evolutionary philosophies are foundational in the religion of atheism . Science philosopher Dr. Michael Ruse insists that creationism is religion, not science . Then he admitted that evolution is a religion  — which may cause him a bit of cognitive dissonance discomfort. Hopefully, for his sake, this is not the beginnings of Dissociative Identity Disorder as he comes to terms with the truth of creation. Ruse is correct, evolution is religious. In fact, analysis shows that microbes-to-microbiologist evolutionism is effectively a religion. But I am going to take this a step further than my  associates in creation ministries and say that, due to the suppression of evidence, documented fraud, indoctrination in worldviews at the expense of education and critical thinking skills, logical fallacies, astonishingly dishonest attacks on creation science and Intelligent Design — evolutionism is not only a religion, but a religious cu

Casey Luskin considers evolution's top three flaws to be:  (1) Tell students that the fossil record often lacks transitional forms and that there are "explosions" of new life forms, a pattern of radiations that challenges Darwinian evolutionary theory. (2) Tell students that many scientists have challenged the ability of random mutation and natural selection to produce complex biological features. (3) Tell students that many lines of evidence for Darwinian evolution and common descent are weak The article itself is short, so I suggest that you click on the reference links and learn something. You can read "What Are the Top Three Flaws in Darwinian Evolution, as Taught Today in Public Schools?" , here.

In late 2001, Creation Ministries International did an article about the 2000 book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?  that showed how several of the "proofs" of evolution fail. Even in 2012, we encounter "proofs" of evolution that are outdated, discredited and even fraudulent. Some of these are the Peppered Moths, Haeckel's drawings (someone said to me, "Even though they were faked doesn't mean it's still not true"...agonizing), the Miller experiment and more. I maintain that some of Darwin's cheerleaders are victims of bad science and indoctrination, but they are also to blame for taking so much by faith and not investigating the flaws in evolution that so many of us are trying to get them to see. To be blunt, presenting bad information is indoctrination, not education. The educational system appears to be more interested in promoting a worldview and misotheistic biases rather than educating and training students to think critically

There have been times when I have been astonished at remarks from evolutionists about science. They have used outdated, spurious, discredited, tendentious and even dishonest evidence as "proof" of the "fact" of evolution. (One atheist called Matt Slick of CARM and actually presented discredited Lamarckism , or Lamarckianism, as proof of evolution!) Sometimes, this clinging to an unworkable worldview is simply the result of willful ignorance. But how often is the problem based on faulty textbooks , and they never learned the truth about evolutionism? Perhaps the problem is bad science indoctrination coupled with emotional attachment to a faulty worldview, but never mind about that now. Let's looks more closely at the textbook problem. Evolutionists are now formulating scientifically archaic teaching standards they want the states to follow “in whole, without alteration.” Our evolution-drenched science education in the U.S. is pathetic, with science literacy scr

I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.” — Colin Patterson   Fundamentalist evolutionists insist that the fossil record proves macroevolution is true. Creationists cite evolutionists who say that there are no transitional forms, then get accused of quote mining . Damage control! Then, the evolutionary faithful will trot out pictures of fossils, say that there are many transitional forms, and paste material from angry anti-creationist sites like talk.origins (they should check out tru

A fossil that is allegedly 34 million years old may contain some of the original hard biochemical material. That is no surprise. But the chitin is relatively fragile, and should have broken down long before the supposed millions of years.  Credit: Freeimages / John Boyer This is yet another example that the presuppositions of radiometric dating are flawed and should be overhauled to represent a much younger Earth. Cuttlefish are mollusks that look somewhat like squid. They have an internal, hard, supportive structure with soft organs around and inside it. This resilient "cuttlebone" is made of cleverly woven strands of a biochemical material called chitin and mixed with a hard biomineral called aragonite. A team of paleontologists found a supposedly 34 million-year-old fossil cuttlebone that still had both the original aragonite and chitin. This is significant, because one might expect the hard aragonite to persist in the fossil record, but not the  organic  chiti