Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A spell back, an anti-creationist shared one of these here posts to social media, and complained that I was claiming that evolution uses teleology. The article was " The Spirit of the Origin of Life " and showed how evolutionists themselves are using teleology! The misotheist was a mite upset because evolution is supposed to be through chance, and does not have a purpose-driven life. "What's teleology, Cowboy Bob?" Great timing, I was about to get into that. The word teleology sounds like the study of telecommunications or something, doesn't it? Basically, it means design in nature . Going a bit further, it means that the Creator engineered living things, and the design refutes evolution through intricate specified complexity. Christian apologists have used the teleological argument (or fine tuning, or argument from design ) for God's existence . This child isn't too fond of that argument by itself. Credit: US Depar

Recently, I linked to a post about how materialists use theological arguments, as seen here . Essentially, they claim that since they think God would not create something in a certain way, he did not do the creating, therefore, evolution. A few days later, I came across the article featured below and learned an expensive word for that approach: dysteleological. I wrote about teleology a spell back, (short form: teleology is design in nature for specific purposes) about how some owlhoots are denying their own purposeless evolutionary beliefs and giving their false god the ability to do design work . So, you can see the first part, dys, as in dystopia, dysfunctional, dyslexic, and so on, then put it all together. Credit and link to full-sized picture: RGBStock / Adrian van Leen Proponents of atoms-to-animals evolution have used the dysteleological argument about the panda's "thumb". Yes, it has an appendage on the wrist that has a superficial resemblance to a thumb.

Knowledgeable creationists tend to understand Darwinism more than typical village atheists and evolutionists . However, sometimes unskilled anti-creationists are more consistent with evolutionary ideas than the professionals in the secular science industries. Your typical internet troll is committed to naturalism and rejects teleology while Darwin's handmaidens are making fabricating goal-oriented entities. Credit: PIXNIO There is a great deal of confusion among evolutionists about the workings of natural selection and adaptation. While writing their evoporn, secularists will often refer to natural selection, adaptation, and evolution interchangeably. They will even make one or all of them into deities , which is contrary to the nature of evolution (along with teleology). Part of this definition confusion is the result of not understanding the concepts they are proclaiming, secularists are also committed to dealing from the bottom of the deck to trick people into believing

People who are skeptical of molecules-to-man evolution, and those who reject it outright, are labeled "science deniers" and ridiculed. We are stupid because evolution is a proven fact — even though it is called a theory , not a fact , by the secular science industry. Also, evolutionary scientists are constantly slapping leather with each other over interpretations of data and our alleged apemen ancestors , some ideas are...truly bizarre. New data prompts more odd things. The latest squabble involves how our supposed ancestors changed their posture. Remember, evolution is supposed to be unguided natural processes; the Stuff Happens Law  instead of teleology (purpose). Evolutionists say it but don't mean it, invoking outside forces and causes in keeping with the pantheistic nature of the ancient philosophy of evolution (the apostle Paul debated Epicurean evolutionists, for example, in Acts 17:16-32 ). Those extremely apelike things we supposedly evolved from originally lear

A recent article in The Guardian  discusses how Alex Beard and his wife wanted to study their newborn child's ability to learn. Various cameras were installed, and this interesting (but possibly utilitarian) study indicated that children have a high capacity for learning. This is not all that surprising, since scientists have learned that children begin learning even before they are born. Credit: Pixabay / Adelind Beard said that the best robots and forms of artificial intelligence are unable to compete with human learning. His naturalistic worldview does not allow for a rational explanation for human intelligence, nor does he consider the fact that we are made in God's image. He is right that robots cannot compete. via GIPHY Credit was erroneously given to evolution, and not the Creator who designed us with the capacity for intellectual development and abstract thinking, and created us in his image. His naturalistic worldview would not allow for such things.  To re

Way back when, I lived in small a Michigan town on the shore of the lake that shares that state's name. There was a park on the shore, informally known as "G Park", short for "Giraffe Park", because teenagers would go there for a long necking session. You know, making lip lock. "Does this have anything to do with creation and evolution, Cowboy Bob?" Not really. So anyway, as many of y'all know, evolution wasn't created by Charles Darwin . Lamarck suggested that physical changes were inherited by offspring. Darwin rejected this, but he backtracked and included some of Lamarck's concepts in his later writings. One of the rejected ideas of Lamarck was that giraffes developed long necks by stretching to eat leaves on trees. That idea was justifiably dismissed. Credit: Freeimages / Leslie van Veenhuyzen However, evolutionists still cannot lasso an explanation for the giraffe's neck. Some are dancing in the dark with Lamarck, a

Mimicry is often very useful, such as when someone pretends to be like John Wayne when he is really the unimpressive town character. This is by calculated planning, however. In nature, mimicry happens for the benefit of some critters. Darwin's acolytes cannot explain this because they would need to invoke teleology (purpose). Evolution is supposed to be without plan or design. Viceroy butterfly (with incorrect identification) image credit: Flickr / libbycat89  ( CC by 2.0 ) The viceroy butterfly can puzzle evolutionists until their puzzlers are sore. Sometimes their predators find them mighty tasty, but when they hang around with monarchs, they are more likely to be left alone. They look like the nasty-flavored monarch, you see. However, when away from monarchs, they also taste dreadful. And give off an odor that puts off predators. Researchers commenced to doing the usual circular reasoning by assuming evolution to prove evolution. They had a kind of taste test, but it on

Secular scientists, especially believers in descent with modifications evolution, work from a framework of materialism. They rule out even the possibility of a Creator or of any purpose in life. Of course, having such a priori  presuppositions handcuffs them to the radiator so they cannot work more effectively. Evolution is not supposed to have any sort of teleology. Any appearance of design is just an illusion, secularists must keep telling themselves that because design means a Designer. But reference to purpose does  get put into evolutionary materials. Dental stem cells, Flickr / NIH-NIDCR (public domain) There are discussions about intelligence all the way down to the cellular level. Although there is opposition to seeing purpose and design, if those in the secular science industry should actually "follow where the evidence leads" instead of simply giving lip service to that saying. It would also be a great benefit to medical and other life sciences. Then they may be re

When asked how sexual reproduction evolved, especially since an asexual means seems far more efficient, Charles Darwin replied, "I dunno. Hey, kindly give me another cup of that most excellent Ceylon tea, stout fellow!" The Bearded Buddha had no idea, nor do his disciples all these years later. Sexual reproduction is a problem of irreducible complexity on many levels, since many aspects had to be organized by the Master Engineer and working at the same time. What complicates matter further is that different creatures have different reproduction systems. Original image of French social dancing, from the 1800s / NY Public Library Evolutionism is so...utilitarian. Everything has a function, or it doesn't evolve. Critters are going around with an inner mechanism that insists, "Must propagate species." Meanwhile, humans have sex for recreation and intimacy (as well as for money or goods, but animals don't do that stuff). Some animals have amorous congress for ple

That beloved story by Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol , is superficially a story about the conversion of Ebenezer Scrooge from selfishness to kindness and altruism. According to fundamental evolutionism, Darwin intended his theory to be selfish and purposeless in its operation. Because evolution is made of squishy pliable stuff, Darwin's disciples appeal to teleology and design (using Natural Selection and Evolution as entities) and get away with it. This Scrooge of science cannot account for altruism in birds or in animals . Not just niceness out of convenience, but taking risks as well. If you study on it, evolution cannot account for altruism in humans, either. Scrooge looking at his dressing gown, A Christmas Carol  illustration by Arthur Rackham , 1915 Secularists try to evosplain kindness and altruism as something that animals do so they can have better "fitness" and increase their survivability, so animal behavior is a virtue. (Except when it's not. They

Sorting through the "mountains of evidence" for fish-to-fool evolution will likely make you puzzle and puzzle 'til your puzzler is sore. So much of what is considered evidence for the "fact" of evolution is a prairie schooner-full of Just-So Stories, but precious little in the way of actual science. But the keepers of the Sacred Darwinian Archives™ will take something out, smile, shine it up for you, and expect you to feel blessed for being able to view it. One of the treasures is the tale of how animal teeth evolved because the grass changed. Yep, molars got bigger. Credit: Freeimages / MARIE JEANNE Iliescu "Un momento, por favour! Isn't something evolving for a purpose an example of teleology ?" I reckon so. Also, because of changing conditions that allegedly caused evolution, it smacks of being Lamarckian . To me, anyway. Grasslands changed, so teeth changed. Except that the evidence does not only refute that idea, but evolutionists u

As many people know, a cornerstone of particles-to-paleontologist evolution is mutations. Fundamentalist evolutionists insist that mutations are entirely random — admittedly, that is plausible on the surface. They also claim that there is no purpose (teleology) in evolution. While there are many random mutations, it has been shown (much to the dismay of the Bearded Buddha and his acolytes) that some mutations are the result of advance planning, not random at all . In addition, DNA repair systems are taking the wind out of Darwin's sails. Thale cress, Rawpixel / NASA (Public Domain) Over Eurasia and Africa way, there's a plant that the locals consider a weed. Scientists love it, though. Using the science of genetics pioneered by creationist Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him), a great deal of the genome of the thale cress has been studied. Then came some surprises. Although they won't admit it, not only is there DNA repair happening, but non-randomness in mutations. This seem

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Something I try to emphasize, with extra emphasis on Question Evolution Day , is that people need to have healthy skepticism regarding claims of "evolution". We need to do some critical thinking. For example, what is this about hummingbirds evolving "weaponized" beaks for fighting and romancing? Credit: Pixabay/ Free-Photos Folks who ride for the Darwin brand will "see" evolution that isn't there, and use a bit bait 'n' switch (conflation) on variation and speciation to get people thinking that baryon-to-bird evolution is true. Watch for assertions, and when you read of hear them, you can ask yourself, "Where is this alleged evolution? What changed? Is a hummingbird changing into something else or is it still a hummingbird? Is there observed evidence?"  Plug your questions into your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™, and you'll get the default response of " it evolved ", which is u

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen You have probably heard the expression, "If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door", which is wrongly attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson (even though sites like Brainy Quote spread the error ). Another saying is, "If you build a better mousetrap, nature will build a better mouse". Really? Credits: Original from RGBStock / Krzysztof (Kriss) Szkurlatowski , modified with cat, frame, etc. at PhotoFunia Purveyors of molecules-to-mouse evolution have been known to personify evolution, natural selection, and nature (or "mother nature') as intelligent beings ( which is reification ). Sometimes those beings make choices on evolution. Because they are invoking teleology , this is a direct contradiction of the random purposeless evolution that Darwin proposed. An article on irreducible complexity by Dr. Jason Lisle has images of a mousetrap at the beginning. Mousetraps have been used as illustrations for this pr

A while back, a furious atheopath wanted to slap leather with me because of a post he did not read.  The linked article was pointing out that proponents of universal common descent evolution have been resorting to teleology . He correctly claimed that evolution is supposed to be purposeless. Indeed, Darwinoids in lab coats have been appealing to mysticism and intangible evolutionary forces. In a way, such panentheism makes a mite more sense than strict materialism in dealing with observable facts. Credit: Unsplash / Fabian Burghardt Interesting that the assertion of randomness is simply an assertion. If evolutionists claimed that their belief system had a purpose, that would simply be an assertion as well; neither can be scientifically demonstrated. The creationary concept of engineered adaptability  and the continuous environmental tracking (CET) framework use science and logic, not intangible evolutionary forces . However, evolutionists are threatened by anything even rese

Not too long ago, we saw that little things matter. Specifically, a large number of tiny crustaceans like brine shrimp and krill are thought to stir up and help refresh the oceans . Diatoms are very small aquatic algae that can only be seen under a microscope, but our lives depend on them. It was recently discovered that the homes they build for themselves help protect their DNA. Credit: CSIRO  ( CC BY 3.0 ) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Even though the paper had eight biologists, all we received was evosplaining. This included assertions, teleology ("evolutionary cause"), and other non-science. These owlhoots lack candor as well as an understanding of their own worldview. An actual, demonstrable model or rational explanation of how it evolved? Not hardly! Credit to the Master Engineer for his design skills? That'll be the day! What these owlhoots did was actually add further damage to the credibility of the secular science industry . So

Although they keep it under wraps, the hands at the Darwin Ranch have worship services. Sebastian the latrine digger was talking about new prayer candles on order and select writings from Charles Darwin would be printed up in smaller volumes as gospels. Study on it a spell. Everyone has a worldview. Evolution is religious in nature, with not only the origins mythology, but also salvation and the coming glorious future. They presuppose atheistic naturalism in a way similar to Christians presupposing the truth of the Bible. Evangelism photo Library of Congress , 1939, colorized at Palette , monkey photobomb added  As stated in previous posts and articles, people have their worldviews that use presuppositions. We all interpret things through those lenses. Professing atheists often lean toward Postmodernism , saying there is no absolute truth or moral standard. When atheists assert things are right or wrong, or want to use evolutionary thinking for good in the world, they are inadvertently

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen It has been known for a long time that when a mother breastfeeds her child, something special happens. Bonding is an important part of the process, as is the obvious benefit of providing that unique nutrition. There is something else that is given to the baby that we may not expect. Bottles of pumped breast milk image credit: Wikimedia Commons /  ParentingPatch ( CC by-SA 3.0 ) Young mothers who cannot be stay-at-home moms will often express their milk into special containers so it can be used later. This part of the article will make germaphobes (who actually hinder their immune systems with obsessive cleanliness) cringe: There is also a transfer of bacteria to the child. We need microbes for our digestive processes  and many other functions . The offspring is getting a dose of them from the milk and the nursing process from the get-go. I can imagine someone saying, "This isn't really science yet, it needs something". " It evol

We have been seeing how Darwin's followers have been appealing to ad hoc stories, unscientific and illogical hypotheses, incompetent evosplaining , and even animism to keep their pantheistic worldview intact. They even resort to evolutionary teleology , which is contradictory to their belief system. I reckon that they know their beliefs are not supported by science, and are simply the product of desperate, blind faith. They are also determined to find excuses to deny their Creator at almost any means available. Credit: Pixabay / Christian Reil (slightly modified) In the Engineered Adaptability series, we have seen that Darwin believed in external influences to cause evolution. This idea is not tenable, though evolutionists persist in continuing to ride that owlhoot trail. Instead, evidence shows that organisms have been engineered to adapt to conditions, instead of having conditions force them to evolve.  Naturalistic scientists are further increasing their mystical v