Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Evolution quotes #41

"The character of the KBS Tuff controversy was in large part colored by the
combination of these two factors: Fitch and Miller's solid adherence to their
original figure, despite their inability to replicate it adequately; and
Leakey's unswerving loyalty to these two men and their contentions. Each party
had very good reasons for acting the way it did. In addition, Leakey clearly had
a vested interest in the older date, if for nothing else that because the claim
for the oldest Homo, oldest stone tools, and so on was good for

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 195

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Evolution quotes #40

"An unfortunate tendency has developed of late," Bernard Campbell observed, "for
anthropologists who are mainly engaged in university teaching, rather than in
actual field studies, to start lengthy discussions and criticism on the basis of
preliminary reports, often without even viewing the original specimens, or casts
thereof. This sort of controversy, often accompanied by dogmatic pronouncements,
must be deplored."

Epilogue in Adam and Ape, edited by L. S. B. Leakey and Kack and Stephanie Prost, published by Schenkman Publishing Co., 1971

Friday, February 24, 2012

We are working on an alliance to get the Question Evolution! Campaign into over 50 colleges plus....

Our Question evolution! campaign group is working on building an alliance with a grassroots Christian group that is in over 50 college/university campuses in the world and expanding. They definitely liked the idea of a worldwide grassroots anti-evolution campaign which features 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. We are conducting a conference call with them next week. So far things look very favorable.

Getting into high schools with the campaign

Now that the campaign received major endorsements from the creationist community such as our endorsement from Dr. Duane Gish, we want to help the campaign get major endorsements from Christian scholars and leaders. Once that is in place and getting into colleges is in place, it will give us a lot more leverage to tell ministries and organizations which focus on high school students about the Question Evolution! Campaign. Long term we want to have a heavy focus on high school students before they get indoctrinated into Darwinism.

Building more and more alliances is key

The famous Chinese military strategist and general Sun Tzu wrote: "If an enemy has alliances, the problem is grave and the enemy's position strong; if he has no alliances the problem is minor and the enemy's position weak."

Since the evolutionary position is so incredibly weak, we think the key to winning the creation vs. evolution battle is getting out the anti-evolution in a greater degree than the evolutionists. Obviously, forming more and more alliances gives us additional channels to distribute our campaign's message. Today's internet is more and more about forming relationships with other websites and forming relationships with other Christian groups with websites will be extremely helpful.

Contacting tract companies and tract distributors

The Question evolution! campaign tracts which feature the 15 questions for evolutionists are very well done and professional looking. We think tract distributors will be interested in picking them up - especially if we refer them other customers.

Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism

Although our Question evolution! campaign group had significant problems in the beginning of the year with flu related problems, we are still very committed to making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism. Within the next 14 days, we should finish up reading a classic book on internet publicity and gaining general publicity and we are eager to implement its recommendations. Plus, building alliances will build a very strong foundation.

Related resources:

Question evolution! campaign

Refuting evolution


Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

Question 13:

Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr. Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr. Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers ….”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experi-mental biology that so benefits humankind? creation.com/science#relevance  (Sourced from 15 Questions for Evolutionists)

Evolutionists claim evolution is science.  Good science leads to discoveries and inventions.  Can evolution lay claim to being responsible for any scientific breakthroughs?  Evolutionists claim evolution is at the center of biology.  It is true biology is at the center of medicine, but does evolution play any part in discoveries concerning medicine?  Does the hypothetical evolution of fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals actually have anything to do with how a human body operates and responds to medications today?  Does believing a dinosaur evolved into a bird advance the study of today’s molecular biologists understanding of operational microbiology?  How?

Evolutionist, and the 2005 chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Dr. Marc Kirschner  is quoted in the Boston Globe, “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

Tell me, how is it evolution has contributed to biology when such a learned evolutionist states as a matter of fact that almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution?  How can evolution be central to biology when Dr. Kirschner stated, “Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all”?

It is interesting that the only “biology” the esteemed Dr. Kirschner says evolution contributed to is evolutionary biology.  Basically, evolution only contributes to itself, and nothing else.  Is evolution really science?

As if this was not bad enough for evolution (and the adherents to evolution), Dr. Skell tells us not only that knowledge of evolution did not help in any advancement, but to the contrary, evolution actually hinders medical discovery.

So evolutionists, why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?  Why do evolutionists take legitimate discoveries from experimental and operational molecular biology, biochemistry and physiology and then deceitfully dress them up in evolutionary garb to deceive the public?

Where exactly are the breakthroughs brought about because of molecules-to-microbiologist evolution?  How is it that evolution is actually responsible for these breakthroughs you desire to claim?

9 As quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005.
10 Skell, P.S., The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution; Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn't further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 Feb 2009; http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html.
11 E.g. Krehbel, M., Railroad wants monkey off its back, Creation 16(4):20–22, 1994; creation.com/monkey_back

Related Articles:

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Evolutionary gut feelings, "Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling"

CMI has provided information as to why Atheism is chosen (including the issue of being a natural born Atheist). Last month Live Science published an article reporting that Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling wherein they note:

"The whole idea behind acceptance of evolution has been the assumption that if people understood it, if they really knew it, they would see the logic and accept it," study co-author David Haury, an associate professor of education at Ohio State University, said in a statement.

But, he noted, research on the matter has been inconsistent. While one study would find a strong relationship between knowledge level and acceptance, another would not. Likewise, studies have contradicted each other on the relationship between religious identity and acceptance of evolution, he said…

In a new study:

124 pre-service biology teachers at different stages in a standard teacher preparation program…[where asked a] series of questions to measure their overall acceptance of evolution…they tested the students on their knowledge of evolutionary science…For each question, the students wrote down how certain they felt about the correctness of their answers — an indicator of their gut feelings.

They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs. Even students with a greater knowledge of evolutionary facts weren't more likely to accept the theory unless they also had a strong gut feeling about the facts, the results showed.
The study has important implications for the teaching of evolution, the researchers said. Informing students about this conflict between intuition and logic may help them judge ideas on their merits.

David Haury notes:

Educationally, we think that's a place to start. It's a concrete way to show
them, “Look, you can be fooled and make a bad decision, because you just can't
deny your gut."

Indeed, and the manner whereby you can be fooled and make a bad decision goes each and every way. For example, from pre-school children’s books to college textbooks we find texts that are supposed to be about science or biology which are peppered with unscientific Darwinian worldview-philosophical narrative passed off as science. Students can go from Pre-K to earning a degree without ever questioning or otherwise discerning observational, empirical facts from worldview-philosophy based Victorian Era story telling.

Moreover, how many people have no particular interest in biology, evolution or Darwinism and thus, never revisit the topics again. How many mere end up un-skeptically holding to that which they were propagandized into believing?

The reference study was published in the January 2012 issue of Journal of Research in Science Teaching (Vol. 49, No. 1, by Minsu Ha, David L. Haury, and Ross H. Nehm) under the title Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution.
The abstract notes:

We propose a new model of the factors influencing acceptance of evolutionary theory that highlights a novel variable unexplored in previous studies: the feeling of certainty (FOC). The model is grounded in an emerging understanding of brain function that acknowledges the contributions of intuitive cognitions in making decisions, such as whether or not to accept a particular theoretical explanation of events…
All of our hypothesis tests corroborated the idea that FOC plays a moderating role in relationships among evolutionary knowledge and beliefs.

One statement has complex and alarming implications as it could offer an encouragement to double upon on the propaganda so as to ensure the erasure of doubt:

Educational research into acceptance of evolutionary theory will likely benefit from increased attention to non-conscious intuitive cognitions that give rise to
feeling of knowing or certainty.

Learn more here:

Education Questions and Answers

Evolution in American education and the demise of its public school system

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Evolution in the Percentile's regarding fossil evidence

Listening to a Debate tonight I heard an evolutionist say "we have fossils of 92% of all forms of life that has ever lived on earth"

Now how do we know we have this much?
To say this the person stating it or the article and scientist stating the original statistic would have to have supernatural knowledge of life before man's History. They'd have to know the creatures that didn't die in the condition to petrify. For all we know that 92% is really only 40% of all the life forms, species that ever lived.

Saying this number is averaged out of what creatures we have examples of today. if there were many animals over a period of 1.3Billion years that we never could conceive of or haven't pieced together to get a full picture of with their bones as of yet only shows that we have an unknown roof of life-groups since the history of life on earth.

saying any %percent of animal remains is known implies we know that there's a number discovered out of 100% and are missing 8% of them. This is a HUGE problem for the true optimistic scientist and shows they really have wishful thinking about their own studies.
Sure we can say that there are methods of measuring how many fossils are in a quadrant of a mile and go according to how many miles have been explored by palaeontologists. This is still a vague measurement and unstable method of getting a valid number of fossils. We could say it's estimated but these evolutionists don't say that, they boast the number as though its fact and I'll keep wondering who it that has the missing 8% is. what's the projected time in which we'll discover the remaining 8 if it's not simply missing. BTW logic dictates that you don't know something's missing unless you know it from the whole.

Evolution Fact or best guess? Does Theory mean fact or does it mean best hypothesis to derive a result?

First off like any stubborn atheist we'll define some terms

  1. The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
  2. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form
  3. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
  4. Genetic Descent with modification


  1. A thing that is indisputably the case.
  2. Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article
  3. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
  4. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
  5. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.


a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. principle, law, doctrine.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

With these definitions we get that Evolution is a FACT only because we have nothing else to go with. But when truth comes into view as a 100% knowledge of a subject, then anything that is less is not truth. Only believed and likely to be truth. Though when we're in grades 1-12 we're taught Truth is always a statement or result of fact(s). Mind you when it comes to Scientific Theories such as evolution we throw common sense of this manner out the window and go with deduction and induction confirmations to support our projects or challenges.
When I define a Scientific theory as a group of hypothesis's confirmed by evidence solidly giving likely results rather than concrete answers I get people saying that's right. But say it as though it's an educated guess with promising results and you get people turning into monsters as though you hurt their dog. Though they don't see that when they take a theory of something and confirm their hypothesis by focusing on select data and call it fact this is misleading to those who don't have the drive to look up the data that was thrown away and just ignored.

When in a conversation with some Evolution believing/knowing atheists it is a fact because it can't or hasn't been shown to be likely dis-proven. Now I don't blame them for not having an open mind, I blame the academic world for being closed to anything but the secular explanation as it sits through mans views on nature. Although it is trying at times when they say that all science is rooted in evolution, especially Biology. Now it's true that someone studying to be a surgeon needs to know of evolution but this does not serve any purpose behind the anatomy and how to do the surgery or why the person needs surgery. This would be like an accountant learning the development of Windows and Excel in order to know how to use the program and do calculus. When you're an accountant you're not thinking "O.K. deduct from the gross sum the common denominator and remember Bill Gates and the DOS system" Neither does a Surgeon loom over the patient saying "Suction.... Clamp... Species... Genealogy.... Natural selection... survival of the luckiest and fit"

The evolutionist is being disingenuous when they say that evolution is fact because it's the
Genetic Descent with modification (over time) because this is just applied to breeds and the variations within families. They always know that when the topic is evolution it is referring to a Cow to a Whale. Rather they are just avoiding the hard questions and seem to treat the topic and the serious questions about the flaws of the theory as humerus.
The idea that Christians are unscientific because they reject the views of Evolution between species to new major groups of life. or the creation of the universe is flawed. Although some or most Christians don't see the point in discussing science this does not mean all Christians are ignorant.
Often Atheists will say "you don't understand" like a teenager yelling at their parent for not accepting their rebellious new life. This is absurd if not backed up with an intellectual response. Even so when an atheist evolutionist approaches with this attitude then there may have been a communication barrier on the side of the christian (eg. conclude common knowledge or inference) Because to keep the conversation fresh often Christians try to dumb down the discussion rather than bring College terminology into it. And if we can not be considered a Senior student or Professor ourselves as Christians disagreeing with the evolutionary view we are there for unintelligent and uneducated.
In a previous blog I mentioned submission to authority. This is the case for most evolutionists in this blog as they would say that even if they don't understand, if you're not smarter and written more books and shown new evidence that has been confirmed by peer review (which is biased to evolution ONLY) then you will never have the authority to claim any study or statement against a figurehead of the evolutionary choice.
We Christians are guilty of this in some degree but we don't always throw out the logic of any chosen evidence to support evolution against god. Only we reserve our god as the Ace in the hole, but still some of us acknowledge that the evidence THEY choose would confirm their theory. Though the majority of atheists won't consider god, as it's a supernatural explanation to the Humanist natural world.

So I was going to just summarize this blog with "it's a fact because it's a FACT and it's accepted as a fact" Well only 31% of surveyed world scientists DON"T believe in a god.

You see if a creationist secretly did lab work and submitted a paper proving intelligent design and special creation through the god of the bible YHWH, it would be dismissed because it doesn't agree with the natural world theory on how life works.
Show an evolutionist a list of creation believing scientists in the related fields they'd just pass it off as "they are just ignorant to the general conclusion of their peers"

You see folks and fellow Christians, these are Fools as long as they continue with this stubborn attitude. We often feel we are charged to teach them but I tell you no matter how much you want to grind their noses into the other evidences they won't see because they're obsessed with not having god but rather a progression of life through struggle.

Remember to dust your sandals and leave town when the gospel is not welcomed.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Is evolution true?

Many if not all who accept the Macro-evolution theory who do NOT work in the field will tell you that it's true because it's written and accepted by experts in the relevant fields. Just because they were taught it as fact they must agree because they are given reasonable logic to accept the world as man see's it.

I was witness to a common and bland discussion in a Christian debate Chat-room. The common emotion for the atheist who was supportive of the theory "or in their opinion FACT" of evolution is just the similarities between breeds of animals today and those that are extinct. Rather than species of animal that are still categorized as say fish but don't see that the Macro says that a fish turned into an amphibian. They can't see that saying "millions of years" and "given our belief of old earth age agrees with the age of dirt we pull must mean the layers date the fossils" we must accept this preconceived data of dating methods and relate everything to that aging process.

Many will say "Everybody, or every creature is a transition" to show that changes are so small that we can't isolate what is changing to dominate the form and behavior of the creature for the future. While still pulling from this, they go on to say that it's spanned over millions of years of evolution. Which is similar to proving the bible with the bible. "Evolution happens because it happens and we can't see it any other way" They'd even go as far as to say the last change that drastically affected a creature's function in it's environment happened so long ago it was before Man kind banged rocks together. Mind you they like the experiment with Nylonase which has been debunked several different ways as not sufficient proof of macro change in a lifeforms.

I posed that if evolution is true then why do the great apes have 1 more pair of chromosomes than Man (we have 23 pairs)? They answer with an unobserved evidence that our missing 24th chromosome pair (which Chimps have) these pairs apparently fused together over a vast time where they (chimps) have 48 chromes in total they figure that it's not a belief but rather an observation that happened before man developed recording methods that this fusion happened. They still say this is SCIENCE even though nothing in science if it is not observable. Where they get a fusion it's a reversal if I remember correctly like a mirror (abcd-dcba)

If you agree that there's some dogma in the above evolution belief, not that I was correct in asking a question and presuming with a bias against evolution but just the validity then please subscribe to this blog and the Main Question Evolution blog-site.

Creation Ministries International offers great sources but is often overlooked because they reject naturalism and methodological naturalism and instead ask "Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?" see: http://creation.com/design_legit. While you're interested give the "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer" page a look.

Related sources:

Creation Ministries International

15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer

Answers in Genesis Hosted by Ken Ham

Main Question evolution Blog page

Question the Textbooks: Tips for Students 3

Tip # 3: As you work through the sections on evolution, remember that textbooks only give a highly-biased fraction of the story. Often evidence for evolution that seems very compelling completely collapses on closer examination.  Make use of resources such as Refuting Evolution,  The Creation Answers Book or the Creation Ministries International website.  Virtually all the questions or objections you will encounter in the classroom have already been addressed extensively. 

Case Study: Radiometric Dating
Biology textbooks often touch on radiometric dating methods (carbon dating, uranium-lead, etc.) and claim that these prove that the earth is billions of years old.  Sadly, many people accept the claims at face value because they sound so mathematical and precise.  Once, I was invited by a high-school Bible club to do presentations on creation to one of the club members’ grade 12 biology class.  Because I thought radiometric dating was such a dull topic, I did not address it until the last presentation.  I was very surprised to find that the radiometric dating presentation evoked more questions than any other.  It was as if the evolutionist students and teachers had assumed radiometric dating was irrefutable, and when I challenged it, it really startled them and shook their faith. So, don’t be afraid to challenge radiometric dating claims.  Creationist physicists and geologists have done extensive research this area, and, like the other evidences presented in textbooks, this ends up being very compatible with the creationist view.  For example,
  • Carbon-14 (the radioactive kind) decays relatively quickly, so that any material older than at most a few hundred thousand years old should have no measurable carbon-14.  However, virtually all fossils do.  Carbon-14 has even been found in diamonds, thought to be billions of years old.  The presence of radioactive carbon in these specimens is totally consistent with the Biblical timescale of thousands of years, but certainly inconsistent with the supposed billions of years of evolution.

Extra Credit: When introducing new evidence not presented in textbooks, be as prepared as possible.  Make your point quickly and clearly.  Since the teacher will probably not be aware of creationist research that contradicts the textbook’s claims, you might also bring a copy of the article or book and offer to leave it with the teacher.   (Some teachers will have enough time and interest to read the material and some won’t, but at least you’ll demonstrate that you've done your research. And maybe another student will be interested even if the teacher isn’t.) 

See also:

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Evolution quotes #39

Regarding various descriptions of Ramapithecus' anatomy and habits:
"Here then, was a very complete picture of an animal-not just what it looked like, but also how it lived. And all based on a few fragments of upper and lower jaw and teeth…
'What we saw in the fossils was the small canines, and the rest followed, all linked together somehow. The Darwinian picture has a long tradition, and it was very powerful,'"[1]
"Pilbeam and Simmons managed to maintain their support of Ramapithecus [as a hominid], however, mainly by adjusting their lines of argument in concert with the shifting evidence,"[2]
"Pilbeam began to realize that the fossil material then available simply wasn't adequate to support the kinds of sweeping conclusions that had been made,"[3] "before the decade was out Rama's ape would be just that-an ape."[4]

[1] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 95 citing an interview with the author, Harvard University, 23 Oct. 1984
[2] Ibid., p. 98
[3] Ibid., p. 103
[4] Ibid., p. 98

Friday, February 17, 2012

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is going to be between a rock and a hard place due to a strategic blunder on their part

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a pro-evolution advocacy organization which promotes the idea that evolution be taught in schools and no competing ideas be taught such as intelligent design or the scientific evidence for biblical creation.

The NCSE is going to be between a rock and a hard place due to a strategic blunder on their part. Their strategic miscalculation was due to pride and underestimating their creationist opposition. Specifically, the NCSE has decided to enter into the man-made global warming debate as far as what is being taught in schools. Now they are in a two front war and now their resources will be split.

Why did the NCSE decide to enter into a two front war?

Why did NCSE decide to enter into a two front war? Recently, the creationist organization Answers in Genesis has seen a big slow down in raising funds for their Ark Encounter exhibit which is life size replica of Noah's ark. The weak American economy has made fund raising more difficult. In addition, due to some manpower issues related to sickness which have been resolved, the Question evolution! campaign initially got off to a slower start than expected, but things are now moving much more rapidly. In addition. perhaps the NCSE thought that if the opponents of the man-made global warming paradigm were to prevail, perhaps it would embolden the anti-evolutionary paradigm forces as well. Creation Ministries International has decided to not make any definitive statements on what side of the global warming debate they are on. Of course, this has enabled them to focus on the creation vs. evolution battlefront.

As a result of the recent competitive landscape described above, the NCSE thought it would be safe to enter into the global warming debate fray and fight a two front war.

Pride cometh before the fall

But was it safe for NCSE to enter into a two front war? No it wasn't. This is a classic case of pride, overconfidence, and underestimating the opposition. In short, pride cometh before the fall. By the end of February of 2012, our Question Evolution Campaign group will have finished studying two recent classic works on gaining internet publicity and other types of publicity. Of course, implementing the material in these books will be a big boost to our efforts in February and March. In addition, by the end of end of February or March will have made major inroads in establishing alliances with other creationist and Christian organizations. Plus, we will soon have some Question Evolution! Campaign man-on-the-street videos plus some great tools on spreading the campaign. By the end of the first quarter of 2012, we expect to have significantly more momentum. By the end of March the third quarter of 2012, the campaign should have a lot more momentum and be our way to being a creation evangelism juggernaut.

NCSE, batten down the hatches! A perfect storm is headed towards the SS Evolution

NCSE, I hope you enjoy your two front war! The creationist front is going to be a far tougher battle front for your organization. Batten down the hatches of the SS Evolution because the Question Evolution! perfect storm is heading your way.

For additional information see:

Creation Ministries International is inoculating young people against Darwinism. Let's break the back of Darwinism!

Related resources:

Question evolution! campaign

15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer

Creation evangelism and the Question evolution! campaign


Photo credits:

1. Animal under rock picture

Title of picture: Between a rock and a hard place

Photographer: Gilles Gonthier

Location of photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gillesgonthier/412590265/

License agreement: Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0), see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

2. Momentum graphic

Description: English: GoMomentum.com Logo

Date 1 June 2011

Source: HoodStacey, see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Momentum-Solid-BLK.jpg

License: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?

Question #12:                                                                                  

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr. Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”creation.com/sexstories (Sourced from the 15 Questions for Evolutionists)

Story-telling, a main accusation many evolutionists use as a claimed reason to not believe the Bible, but dismiss it as an unreliable religious text – just a bunch of stories meant to persuade or cause people to behave in a certain manner, has become the stock-in-trade of evolutionists.  Evolutionists claim the Bible to be filled with stories on the same level of mythology as the Greek gods of Olympus, or the Egyptian gods, or even fairy tales.

Yet, when it comes to explaining exactly how any step of hypothetical evolution occurred, the evolutionist has no actual evidence that can be experimentally tested and repeated, but must rely upon stories that happened “just-so”; not because they were witnessed, are repeatable or confirmable, but because they absolutely must have happened “just-so” for their faith in the hypothetical series of occurrences to have continued from nothing-to-the uninhabited universe with chemicals-to all living things as we know them today.

Case in point, the hypothetical evolution of non-living chemicals into the first “living” cell.

For goo-to-you evolution to have occurred, non-living chemicals (against all scientific fact, experimentation and observation) had to evolve into the first self-reproducing living cell.  In other words, evolution (molecules-to-microbiologists) had to violate science in order for evolution (pond scum-to-people) occur and become a “known scientific fact”.

Evolutionists will claim that given enough time, and just the right chemical mix, and just the right conditions and just the right timing, nature can violate the law of biogenesis; you know, the scientific law that states every living thing in nature came from a prior, already existing, living thing.

At this point the evolutionist has one of two choices: 1) claim that biogenesis is not a law, or 2) claim that abiogenesis obviously happened at least once because we are here.

A police officer clocks you going 85 mph in a 55 mph zone, where 55 mph is the clearly and obviously posted speed limit.  When you go to court, will you be able to claim the law does not limit you to a legal maximum speed of 55 mph?  Sure, you could claim that all day long, however, every time you go back to the scene of your crime, you will see the sign “SPEED LIMIT 55” clearly posted, according to the traffic laws of the jurisdiction you were speeding in.  Claim the 55 mph speed limit is not a law all you like, you will still be wrong, and still be guilty of lying and of speeding.
 Just the same way, every time you see a new life, or a new living organism, come into being, it is as a result of reproduction from an already existing living organism.  The scientific law of biogenesis is a law because it has NEVER been witnessed to have been violated.  Some evolutionists try to prove this wrong in a laboratory, however they forget, their experiments are actually proving the absolute need for an Intelligent Designer to gather the necessary materials and arrange them in a specifically designed order, creating all the working pieces necessary, and making all the pieces properly work together.  In the laboratory, the intelligent designer is the scientist manipulating the experiment according to his will.

 So, now we are left with the “just-so” story of abiogenesis, an unproven, unscientific, unobserved hypothesis that must have happened “just-so” in violation of science and the laws of science or else goo-to-you evolution could never have happened.  So amazing is this “just-so” never witnessed and never repeated story that non-living chemicals were able to assemble the over 200 parts necessary for a single cell to survive and reproduce with no instructions for operation or cooperation of the parts that were being “evolved”, and no instructions for their assembly, and no instructions for the parts that were actually needed or that parts were indeed needed in the first place.  The tiny little non-living chemicals just kept on trying over, and over, and over for millions, possibly billions of years until they got it right and had a huge honking party to celebrate their success!

Really?  Evolutionists claim this is science.  Even the existence of a Tooth Fairy is more plausible.  But you know, evolutionists will tell you it is an absolutely undisputable fact of science, evolution happened...“just-so”.

8 Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005.

Evolution quotes #38

"Some people even admitted that they were giving their fossil a new genus and species name so as to call attention to how important they thought it was. Everyone who had a fossil come into their hands for description wanted it to be something new-perhaps consciously, perhaps unconsciously-for the purposes of self-aggrandizement."

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 91 citing an interview with the author, Duke University, 25 Sep. 1985

related resources:
The rise and fall of Skull 1470
Homo erectus 'to' modern man
15 questions responses 2

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Evolution quotes #37

Ales Hrdlicka is the founder of the American Society of Physical Anthropology and for many years was the editor of the society's journal, "from which positioned wielded substantial power over what was acceptable to the establishment and what was not…Hrdlicka, he [G. Edward Lewis] says, 'thought he was the anointed and elect prophet who had been foreordained and chosen to make such discoveries and demolish the work of anyone else.'"[1] Lewis had interpreted Ramapithecus as a hominid but Hrdlicka believed it to be just an ape and so he "tore into Lewis's work,"[2] although "Hrdlicka's paper was somewhat self-contradictory, and, says Simmons, 'scattered with blunders and na├»vete that a really good professional simply would not have made.'"[3]

"Even a causal examination of this paper is sufficient to show that it bears all the evidence of being a controversial and non-objective contribution,"[4] "amateurish,"[5] "It looked to me like someone coming into something he didn't know much about, with preconceived ideas."[6] Lewis wrote a rebuttal to Hrdlicka's criticism's of his work but the editors of the American Journal of Science refused to publish it, "because they said Hrdlicka was an important man, and I was a young man."[7]

Hrdlicka had attempted to discredit Lewis' position based on the evolutionary concepts of the time whereby "To have the first hominids appearing in the eastern part of the Old World was therefore simply unacceptable. 'So he did a hatchet job on Lewis' work,'[8] says Spencer." Lewis had discovered Ramapithecus but not long after this clash with the authority of the time he "left Yale and never really made another important contribution to paleoanthropology."[9]

[1] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 88 citing a letter, Lewis to author, 31 Oct. 1985

[2] Ibid., p. 88

[3] Ibid., p. 88 citing an interview with the author, Duke University, 25 Sep. 1985

[4] "The Phyletic Position of Ramapithecus," Postilla, Yale Peabody Museum, p. 374 (1961)

[5] "A Source for Dental Comparison of Ramapithecus with Australopithecus and Homo," in South African Journal of Science, Feb. 1968, p. 97

[6] Ibid., p. 88 citing an interview with the author, Duke University, 25 Sep. 1985

[7] Ibid., p. 88 citing a letter, Lewis to author, 31 Oct. 1985

[8] Ibid., p. 88 citing an interview with the author, New York, 13 Dec. 1985

[9] Ibid., p. 89

related resources:

Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?
Finding the real 'missing link'

The Piltdown Man Fraud

Monday, February 13, 2012

Creation Ministries International is inoculating young people against Darwinism. Let's break the back of Darwinism!

 In order to break the back of Darwinism, it is vital to inoculate young people against Darwinism, before they are indoctrinated by Darwinists through the schools and through the media.

Creationists, we have some exciting news and data to share with you!

The website of Creation Ministries International, which is Creation.com, percentage wise is reaching more young people than any other major creationist website as a percentage of its visitors. And based on tracking the web traffic data free web traffic data services, we also have reason to believe that the Question evolution! campaign and its various outreaches is increasing the percentage of young people visiting Creation.com. In addition, the web traffic for Creation.com is trending upward and our upcoming Question Evolution Campaign surge will even make things better.

Furthermore, we have a strategy to specifically reach more young people with the Question Evolution! Campaign which feature the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.

In this post, we will discuss some of this exciting data via graphs and give a brief outline of our plans. 

Creation.com web traffic broken down by age group

Demographic breakdown of Creation Ministries International's website Creation.com broken down by age using directly measured data from Quantcast:

Recent comparison of the website reach of Creation.com vs. the website of Answers in Genesis using the website traffic tracking company Alexa

Long term Alexa traffic data for the website of Creation Ministries International which is Creation.com

Do you notice the upward trend? Creationists, would you like to see the traffic keep going up and up? Creationists you are going to be excited by our upcoming Question Evolution Campaign outreach surge!

Why is reaching young people first important?

King Solomon declared: "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6 NASB). What do the social sciences say about this matter? Research indicates that people often side with the argument they hear first concerning a particular ideology. In addition, if they make an errant decision to accept a false ideology (such as Darwinism), they often try to shoehorn evidence to fit their faulty worldview. Many times this is due to human pride causing an individual to avoid admitting error.

So it vital that people hear the biblical creation message and its supporting evidence first.

Science Daily writes:
Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.

Taste tests have been conducted showing that competing brands taste better than Coke. Yet, Coke remains on top. Why? One of the big reasons is that they were first. Who climbed Mount Everest first? Did you come up with the answer? Now who was the second person to successfully climb Mount Everest? I am betting you don't know. Don't feel bad. I don't know either!

Let's be the first people to tell young people about origins and present to them the evidence for biblical creation and the Question Evolution Campaign.

Also, this cannot be stressed enough: Young people often bring tremendous enthusiasm and energy to a grassroots campaign like the Question Evolution! Campaign. But so can old people! We don't want to leave anyone out of this campaign!

7 ways to break the back of Darwinism via reaching young people

Here is our blue print for reaching young people:

1. This week our Question Evolution Campaign group is contacting Christian educators and prepares of anti-Darwinism materials geared towards young people in order to gain their assistance in developing Question Evolution Campaign materials specifically geared towards young people of different age groups. There is no reason why Question Evolution Campaign booklets/books, workbooks, books and other educational materials should not be developed.

2. We will encourage people to tell their children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren and young people about the Question Evolution Campaign. Christians, tell young people about this campaign!

3.Our group will do outreach to Christian websites and ministries which work with young people.

4. Tell young people they can start creation groups in schools though messages like this and similar methods. For example, in the United States there are equal access laws which allow student lead and initiated religious groups to form in schools. See our previous post: Starting creation groups in schools

5. We will contact various Christian homeschooling groups

6. We can contact companies which market services and products to young people.

7. There are likely list brokers who can provide assistance to the campaign reaching young people or their parents.

8. We want to do fundraising to help some of the above happen as quickly as possible. Please donate to Creation Ministries International today.

Related resources:

Question Evolution! Campaign

15 questions for evolutionists

Parent's Corner

Biblical worldview project for parents and grandparents

Raising godly children

Prescription for raising children

Evolution quotes #36

Regarding the Taung fossil:
"Lacking large segments of the anatomical jigsaw puzzle, Smith Woodward had to make some guesses as to how the pieces he had might relate to each other. Apparently misidentifying some minor anatomical landmarks on the interior of the cranium, he assembled a skull that not only was erroneously small (just over 1,000 cubic centimeters) but also appeared to have certain primitive anatomical features. This reconstruction deeply impressed Elliot Smith. Sir Arthur Keith, however, challenged the accuracy of the reconstruction and did one of his own, eschewing the errors Smith Woodward had committed. Keith's version not only was much bigger (about 1,500 cubic centimeters), but also lacked the primitive features erroneously present in Smith Woodward's…

'Why did not [Keith's] correction immediately raise suspicions of the authenticity of the Piltdown fossils?' asked Le Gros Clark. 'Because of its personal nature the controversy [between Keith and Smith] certainly clouded the issues and befogged the atmosphere of scientific discussion…
In his day Elliot Smith's authority carried great weight (and rightly so, for he was a very eminent anatomist), so that not only did he persuade himself that his original interpretation of the skull and endocranial cast had been fundamentally right, he also seems to have persuaded biologists in general that this was so.'[1] But in spite of their differences of opinion, both Keith and Elliot Smith continued to accept Piltdown Man as a vindication of their own ideas, each for his own different reasons. Keith, who viewed the skull as essentially modern in form, saw it as a confirmation of the antiquity of modern types of man. At the same time, Elliot Smith claimed the cranium to be distinctly primitive in form."[2]
[1] "The Exposure of the Piltdown Fraud," lecture at the Royal Institution, London, 20 May 1955
[2] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), pp. 74-75

related resources:
The Piltdown Man Fraud

The Taung Skull: 'missing link'?

That quote!