American young earth creationism increased in recent months - Gallup survey. Question evolution! campaign and other efforts of creationists are working!

On June 1, 2012, the Gallup organization released a survey on the percentage of young earth creationists in the United States has increased in recent months (approximately over 12 months).

The 6 point rise in the percentage of young earth creationist in the last year or so was an increase from 40% of Americans reporting to being young earth creationists to 46% of Americans reporting to being young earth creationist. This is the single biggest jump since Gallup has been polling on this issue.

The Question Evolution! Campaign and its 15 questions for evolutionists and the efforts of other creationists are working! We win again! Checkmate atheists and evolutionists!

The Gallup article can be found here: In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

Victory

Evolutionists, creationists are going to go from victory to victory! Have you seen our post about further increasing the global decline of atheism? Read the article: Accelerating the decline of atheism and evolutionism: Our plan

It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of evolutionism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.

If you have not read our posts 2012 is shaping up to be a BAD year for atheism and evolutionism! Great new charts and developments! and Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism we encourage you to do so.

Evolutionists, why aren't you a more challenging opposition? Is it a lack of credible proof and evidence? Can't you find another supposed transitional animal link fossil that is dismissed later? Given the millions of "missing link" fossils you have to do something! Hint: They are not missing because they never existed in the first place!

Christians, it is time to crush evolutionary belief in your community like a tin can!

Help spread the word about the Question Evolution! Campaign and its 15 questions for evolutionists and watch evolutionary belief shrink before your very eyes!

Related posts:

2012 is shaping up to be a BAD year for atheism and evolutionism! Great new charts and developments!

Internet atheism - The thrill is gone!

Jesus vs. Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers - Jesus wins!

Round 2: Jesus vs. Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers - Jesus triumphs again! Onward Christian soldiers!

Decline of atheism: An established trend

Global decline of atheism

Global decline of atheism video



Other resources:

Question Evolution! Campaign

15 questions for evolutionists

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1-3

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 9-15

Refuting evolution

Atheism

Other related posts at our Question Evolution! Campaign blog:

Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism

Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

Question 15:

Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ....”[13] Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”[14] If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?, creation.com/notscience (Sourced from 15 Questions for Evolutionists)

[13] Popper, K., Unended Quest, Fontana, Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976.

[14] Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

So, the famous Karl Popper admitted that “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.”  A “metaphysical” program?

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary Online tells us metaphysical means “of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses, supernatural.”

Evolutionists claim Biblical Creation cannot be taught in schools, regardless of whether or not it is true, because it does not rely on science, but upon the supernatural.  How is it a leading evolutionist of his time could admit evolution is NOT a testable scientific theory, thus making evolution NOT science, but is instead a metaphysical (reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses, supernatural) program and evolutionists still claim evolution is science, and do so with a straight face and actually expect anyone to believe them?

How is it this admitted metaphysical theory about history, a religious idea and dogmatic belief system, is taught as science in science classes?

Eminent philosopher of science, Michael Ruse spelled this out even more clearly when he said, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

If religion is not allowed to be taught in public schools, and not allowed to be taught in science classes, then why is the religion of evolution (in evolutionist Michael Ruse’s own words) being taught in our science classes?  Scientifically inquiring minds want to know.

Related Articles:

Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15

15 Questions for Evolutionists

How Religiously Neutral are the Anti-Creationist Organisations?

Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as operational science?

Question #14:

Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12  creation.com/notscience#distinction (Sourced from 15 Questions for Evolutionists)

_____________________________________

http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/transcript349_full_print.html, 3 December, 2004.

______________________________________________________________

A question for the eminent Richard Dawkins, “Sir, if evolution hasn’t been observed while it’s happening, then how can you say it has been observed at all?”

If evolution has been observed, but not while it was happening, then what was actually being observed? 

MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?

DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

MOYERS: What do you mean it's been observed?

DAWKINS: The consequences of... It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective…

MOYERS: Circumstantial evidence.

DAWKINS: Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English. Evolution is true. I mean it's as circumstantial as that, but it's as true as that.

It seems a detective such as Richard Dawkins would likely arrest, prosecute and jail the wrong person for the crime, and be rather proud of himself for doing so.  A massive clue?  How many massive clues does it take for Mr. Dawkins to state a lie to be true?

Clues:

1)  Abiogenesis has never been observed to happen in nature anywhere at any time.

2)  Life has always been observed to come from previously existing life absolutely 100% of the time.

3)  Natural selection “chooses” only the “most fit” traits to pass on, eliminating “weaker” traits and preserving “stronger more fit traits”.  Neither of these adds the new traits necessary for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal.  Natural selection is known to strengthen a given kind of animal, not cause it to become a new kind of animal as required by evolution. (i.e., the breeding of more fit dogs will still only produce a dog)

4)  Mutations corrupt and destroy the information in DNA, causing the organism to “devolve” not “evolve”.  Mutations cause the loss of information giving birth to a lesser animal that will be weeded out by natural selection; not the increase in information which would be necessary for the evolution of one kind of animal to evolve into a more complex, more fit, greater kind of animal.

5)  There are no examples of transitional forms ever existing in nature.  The only transitional forms believed to exist are in the imaginations of scientists and artists.  The massive lack of transitional forms is a clue testifying that evolution did not happen.

6)  By Mr. Dawkins’ own admission, evolution has never been observed while it is happening.  If you cannot observe something while it is happening, how do you know it ever happened?  You need irrefutable evidence before the event, observation and irrefutable evidence during the event, and irrefutable evidence after the event.

Mr. Dawkins, these clues are testable and confirmable, as required by science.  The evidence is against you and your belief in something, which according to your own statement, has never been witnessed to happen.

Evolution is indeed a theory about history.  Evolutionists claim evolution is science, even though evolution directly opposes actual, real, operational science.

Evolutionists:

1)  Where in nature can we observe any animal of any kind reproducing another kind of animal that is more than the original kind and not just a variation of the same kind of animal?  To observe this happening today would make it plausible that it happened in the past.

2)  Where in nature can we observe non-living chemicals evolving into living organisms?  To observe this happening today would make it a plausible explanation for believing it happened in the past.

3)  Science involves conducting experiments and observations to figure out how things operate.   If you cannot conduct experiments on or observe evolution while it is happening, how can it be science?

The belief in evolution is a belief about the history of the universe, from nothing to the “Big Bang” to gas clouds to stars and planets to elements to chemicals (still non-living) to the first living organism(s) to all life we see in existence today.  Evolutionists continually attempt to minimize and change their definition of evolution when part of the overall idea of evolution is shown to be false.  Continuous bait-and-switch changes of definitions continue to show the weakness and bankruptcy of the belief in evolution and its lack of scientific foundation.

Related Articles:

15 Questions for Evolutionists

Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15

‘It’s not science’

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:

15 Questions for Evolutionists - Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity

Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15

Does science need evolution?

Is evolution pseudoscience?

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.”8  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.

How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

Question #11.         

How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? creation.com/chesterton       (Sourced from: 15 Questions for Evolutionists)

The hypothesis of evolution (goo-to-you evolution) is based upon the beliefs of naturalism and materialism, the beliefs that only things that can be discovered by our five senses (consisting of matter) exists.  So, how did blind chemistry (unguided random chemical interactions) produce the working mind and intelligence?

We know we have a mind because we think with it, and evolutionists do not dispute the existence of the mind or intelligence, but neither the mind nor intelligence can be tasted, touched, heard, smelled or seen.  Some may argue that the mind works by electrical impulses causing chemical reactions in our brains.  So, what translates an electro-chemical interaction into meaningful and understandable information?  I can send electrical impulses through a wire into chemicals all day long, but that will not produce a sentient mind or the intelligence of a mind.

So, where did the mind come from and how did it originate?  Since the mind cannot be studied by naturalistic or materialistic methods, but can only be studied by observing the effects of the mind (answering questions, conversation, problem solving, etc.),  should evolutionists deny that the mind and intelligence actually exist?  They deny the existence of God as Creator for this very reason.

Evolutionists, I really want to know, where did the mind and intelligence actually come from?

How did blind chemical interactions cause meaning?  Meaning cannot be measured or tested, yet we know it exists.  What gives purpose to life and the things we do every day?  What gives our lives meaning?

The eminent apologist for evolutionism Richard Dawkins would argue that the only meaning our bodies have is the reproduction of the selfish genes they carry.

I pose these questions to you then:

Who assigned the meaning of reproducing the genes our bodies carry as the meaning for life?

If the meaning of life is to simply reproduce our genes, then why is it mankind is driven to invent, create, think, discover, build or to have meaningful relationships?  Since the only meaning our lives have is to reproduce, why is it we do so much more?  Why does anyone even care about the future or how they will be remembered if our only meaning is to reproduce our selfish genes?  I think Mr. Dawkins is incorrect.

Again, evolutionists, I ask you, how did blind chemicals produce meaning (purpose)?  Since meaning (purpose) cannot be scientifically measured in a materialistic fashion, does meaning and purpose even exist?  If not, then why would Mr. Dawkins argue that meaning does exist (even though it cannot be scientifically quantified)?  So evolutionists, how did blind chemical interactions create meaning?

How did blind chemistry produce altruism?  Altruism cannot be measured by materialistic means, yet we can all witness the results of altruism.  You can mix any chemicals you want in a laboratory, but altruism will not climb out of the beakers.  How did blind chemical interactions produce people doing good for others without expecting anything in return?

As for Mr. Dawkins, how does blind chemistry make someone spend their life, or at least a significant portion (or any portion, for that matter) doing good for others with no gain for themselves, when the only purpose for their body is to be selfish, and only serve the purpose of the selfish genes their bodies are slave to for the only purpose of reproducing them?

Evolutionists, do you have the answer to how blind chemistry created altruism?

What about morality?  How did blind chemistry create morality?  A chemical reaction is a chemical reaction, it is neither good nor bad, nor can it be unless someone assigns meaning or purpose to the chemical reaction; and this cannot happen unless blind chemistry has already created meaning and purpose.

So how is it the chemical reactions in someone’s brain causing them to rape someone can be considered any less moral than giving a poor person money, food, clothing or shelter?  According to Mr. Richard Dawkins, the person committing the rape is at least fulfilling his purpose of reproducing his selfish genes, and it seems that at least that action would be moral, since it is the person’s only true purpose in evolution; that is, according to Mr. Dawkins.  (Evolutionists, do not be foolish enough to attempt to claim I am promoting rape or even considering it is any less than absolutely morally reprehensible, WRONG, and SIN.)

What chemical interactions occur to determine that other chemical reactions are moral, and still other chemical reactions are amoral or immoral?  Are the chemical reactions that make such a determination moral?

Evolutionists, you really have your work cut out for you.  If the blind chemical interactions caused these things, then you do realize the same blind chemical interactions are forcing you to read this article.  Maybe they want you to realize that the chemical interactions in my brain are the ones you should really believe and honor; you know, the ones that know evolution is a bankrupt hypothesis not worth of any claims to scientific integrity.

We all know that minds, intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality exist, and none of them are chemicals; nor can any of them be materialistically quantified.

So how exactly is it that the process of evolution used chemistry to produce non-materialistic things?  Inquiring minds want to know (how your chemicals produced them).

Related Articles:

G.K. Chesterton: Darwinism is ‘An attack upon thought itself’

15 Questions for Evolutionists

Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15

‘It’s not science’

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

Question #9

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imag-ination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6  Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem. creation.com/pattquote  (sourced from the 15 Questions for Evolutionists Tract)

With millions of different species of animals there should be billions, if not trillions, of transitional fossils, yet there is not one indisputable transitional fossil.  Where did all these fossils go?  Artistic renderings of what scientists believe or imagine happened are not scientific evidence.

Many evolutionists and evolutionist scientists overlook this important lack of evidence as inconsequential because they “know” evolution is a ”scientific fact”, even though the scientific evidence they need to prove it is entirely missing.

So, evolutionists, “Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?”

Surely you didn’t accidentally misplace them.

 __________________________

6 Gould, Stephen Jay, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977.

 __________________________

Related Articles:

Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15

15 Questions for Evolutionists Tract

The links are missing