Showing posts with label darwin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label darwin. Show all posts

February 12, 2020

Totalitarian Leftists Hijacking Science

The influence of Darwin's ideas has not been confined to biology, and has influenced other sciences. Unfortunately, these fundamentally flawed concepts have been applied to western society as social Darwinism, giving us eugenics, justification for abortion, and influencing tyrants. For Question Evolution Day, we will see some examples of how leftist ideologies, influenced by Darwinism, have hijacked much of the secular science industry.

Scientists are biased, and many are active promoting leftist causes. Scientific and academic institutions show their loathings for Bible believers.

Charles Darwin hated God and the Bible, and that view influenced his version of the evolution myth. Other people who wanted to rebel against God as well as theistic evolutionists (a religious fifth column working to nullify biblical theology) embraced those views. Since evolution is pervasive throughout the secular science industry, actual truth-seeking science has been hijacked by leftists who propagate evolutionism. The battle of worldviews is clearly evident.

It is interesting to this child that with postmodernism and truth being considered relative and without absolutes, people appeal to science as an arbiter of right and wrong — but only when it suits leftist causes. It is a scientific fact that men and women have different XY chromosomes, and no "gender reassignment" can change that fact. But yee haw boy howdy, if someone states that there are only two sexes, he can lose his job. It almost seems pointless to discuss facts and truth when people only use them when convenient. It's like American Democrats hypocritically appealing to religion and the US Constitution when they are trying to manipulate the public, but they show disdain for both the rest of the time.

People who have seen my work before know that I emphasize clarifying words and terms for more effective communication. Atheists and evolutionists play fast and loose with definitions, using the fallacy of conflation by changing the meanings of words and by disingenuously equating variations and change to mean evolution in the Darwinian sense. Leftists are manipulating the language of science for their own ends, and people who are supposedly doing science are making using false science for political causes. We have several important articles for your education and edification.
Leftist academia pretends to be pro-science, but the politics drives their positions.

A funny thing happened in the Inspector General’s report (see Breitbart News) on abuses by the FBI in early December, 2019. The IG found 17 abuses they committed in obtaining FISA Court authorization to spy on the presidential campaign. The funny thing was, all 17 of the mistakes and abuses helped the Democrats, but hurt the Republicans. Some commentators noted that all the “mistakes” worked to try to hinder the Trump campaign and administration once he was elected. This undercut any claims of objectivity by the FBI agents.

A similar thing is going on in “political” science (meaning: science that intersects with governmental policies). No matter the subject, it’s always anti-Trump. It’s uniformly in favor of Leftist ideals, including global governance, redistribution of wealth, and radical environmentalism. The conservative Trump administration is always cast in the worst possible light, but the same scientists and media people completely ignore or excuse similar policies or actions by the past liberal administration of Obama. This also undercuts any claims of objectivity by Big Science and Big Media who also, notably, accept Darwinian evolution uncritically. Let’s look at some recent examples. [Article written January 11, 2020]
To learn about what's happening, click on "Leftism Manipulates Science Language". I'd be much obliged if you'd come back for the other articles.

We continue with how leftists appeal to science and use it as a disguise for their political causes. Environmentalism is a good idea, but not when it's done for their agendas for power. Anthropogenic climate change supporters reject scientific information that does not fit their existing conclusions. Homosexuality evolved for social reasons (this is illogical, presupposing evolution from the get-go). There are other examples to consider.
Leftists have learned that the ‘science costume’ is their most effective means of propaganda.

Science is supposed to be apolitical. Why is so much of the science news profoundly leftist in view? Do leftists really have science on their side? We think not. Rather, it’s a consequence of political and cultural movements that began in the riots of the 1960s, when radicals crept into the universities and slowly took over. Now, many university departments lack a single conservative, especially in political ‘science,’ psychology and the biological sciences. The materialist aspect of leftist science can be traced back to Darwin and others like Comte du Buffon (16 September 2018).

Liberals are not necessarily leftists, because classical liberals believe in free speech. Leftists are totalitarians. They are pushing right now for a society of uniform acceptance of their goals: global governance, redistribution of wealth (socialism and communism) and radical materialism. Most of them are Darwinists. They advocate unlimited abortion and even infanticide and eugenics. Most of them are atheists who hate religion. Instead of appealing to evidence and logic, they use subversion to undermine traditional values and foment class warfare to increase the ranks of ‘victims’ who can be exploited for a socialist revolution. They engage in punishing those who refuse to kowtow to their redefinition of terms like sex, gender and marriage. They do this by mounting lawsuits, and coercing corporations and governments to make traditional values illegal. These haters accuse their opponents of hate.
You can read this second article by following the link to "Leftists Use Science as Camouflage". Then we have a third installment.

Totalitarians are already gaining power and using science with useful idiots in the secular science industry. Words and phrases are manufactured those that already exist are given new meanings that suit the ruling elite. From their perspective, you must not think for yourself, and you certainly cannot speak or write contrary views in many cases before you are silenced (or at least negated). Notice that leftist causes are anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-Bible, and they are increasing in fervor.
Totalitarians must be resisted before they gain power. The potential evils are far greater today with the growing loss of privacy, GPS tracking, and social-media databases. Big Brother is here, watching our every move. Today’s totalitarians would create genetically-modified clones if they could – beings incapable of resistance. They never want to reason their way into power, convincing citizens by logic and history that they have better ideas. No; they seek power by subversion. Our Baloney Detector defines propaganda as “Any attempt to influence people’s actions or attitudes without making them think.” It includes nudging (11 June 2017), repetition, and redefining words. Look how modern totalitarians are manipulating citizens with subterfuge, not reason:
For the entire alarming article, click on "Totalitarians on the Loose in Science". Then you can come back for the last of the articles. You'll thank me later.

Secularists did a study and told us what we already know: Christians, and especially creationists, are unwelcome in the halls of academic indoctrination. The research was conducted using a materialistic approach, of course, but still had some interesting conclusions. They apparently were not interest in the clash of worldviews, and could not possibly consider the fact that the world is under Satan's control and that he blinds unbelievers (John 8:44, 1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, Rom. 5:10). As I have said many times, origins and other matters are not about facts or intellect, but are instead spiritually based. Materialists presuppose that God is not there, so their research is fatally flawed.
I have now been researching the problem of academic intolerance against Christians for over a half a century. A paper by Barnes et al. published on January 29th in PLoS One is the first research study that appears to attempt to find out why scientists and academics are biased against Christians, specifically Creationists. Many studies have been completed, mostly to find out how many students hold to a creation worldview and, once the number was determined, the study focused on how to better indoctrinate students into the Darwinian worldview to lower what the study’s authors argue is the unacceptably high number of Darwin Doubters.  It is well documented  that scientists are generally opposed to theism, especially a creation worldview.

In short, according to a recent Gallup poll, 40 percent of Americans agree that humans were created less than 10,000 years ago, a position the Brenan calls a “strictly creationist view of human origins.” This is in contrast to the orthodox Darwinist view that  humans evolved from some ape they call the modern ape-human common ancestor, some 6-to-7-million Darwin years ago, and that God had nothing to do with either creation.

The fact that almost half of Americans reject the alleged ‘most basic foundation of science,’ evolution, is highlighted as evidence of the abysmal state of science education in America. They view it as a crisis of denying ‘the fact of evolution,’ a premise believed to be so firmly supported by evidence that many assume it is true and, therefore, act and teach as if it were true. Accepting this definition, Darwinists argue that evolution has been overwhelmingly validated by the evidence in the same way that the Earth’s revolution around the Sun is a fact. The quotation below from a leading evolutionist of the last century, Hermann J. Muller, in his article titled, “One Hundred Years Without Darwinism Are Enough,” explains the point very well.
You can read the rest of Dr. Bergman's article (note the many materialistic presuppositions) by clicking on "Anti-Christian Bias in Academia Is Real".

Question Evolution Day has several purposes, and one of those is to give support for intellectual, academic, speech, and other freedoms. We must use our freedoms while we still have them.

January 22, 2019

Celebrity Appeal and Propaganda

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The other day, Stormie Waters was frustrated with her gold prospecting efforts and ventured up past Stinking Lake (which is not as bad as the name implies) and up into Deception Pass. Somehow she avoided the Winkie Guards and drew near to the Darwin Ranch. Then she overheard Rusty Swingset telling the hands that they need to step up their propaganda game — using celebrities.

Atheists and evolutionists are using celebrity propaganda to manipulate people into accepting their views.
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
I'll allow that we gravitate toward people who think like us (and Christians are commanded to have teaching and fellowship with other believers, but it seems that we seek out celebrity endorsements a bit less than other people.) Having someone famous who is on your side has a greater impact. You can find listings of famous atheists in history and the media, and lists of creation scientists and other scientists who disagree with Darwinism can be found. People of varied interests find influential people who share their interests.

Propaganda and Persuasion

The word propaganda is not necessarily a dirty word, but it has strong negative connotations. Advertising is a kind of propaganda to persuade people to use a product or service. Propaganda has been used during wars to help improve the morale of the populace and the military, and is used to discourage the enemy. 

Unfortunately, a great deal of propaganda for leftist political purposes, global climate change, evolutionism, and other things is deceptive. Misquotes are used with impunity and pertinent information is omitted in order to deceive people. I reckon that propagandists know that people are unable or unwilling to think critically, preferring to "think" with their emotions, so they swallow the lies and succumb to manipulation — all the while believing they were reaching their own conclusions through reason.

Celebrity Influence — It Should Not Matter

Really, who cares? Thinking people should not be influenced by the opinions of people in the arts. (Ever notice that movie and rock stars as well as others in arts-related fields are usually leftists and others who reject biblical authority?) Rock star Alice Cooper (Vincent Furnier) bluntly said, "f you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

Like rockers, film stars are not exactly known for being experts in foreign policy, climatology, or economics. To use a phrase from Chris Plante, they "play dress up and make believe". Actors generally do not have time for more intellectual pursuits. A well-known advertisement for a cough syrup used an actor who played a doctor on a soap opera telling us to use that product, but he was not a real doctor. This was an implied appeal to authority. Just stop and think when you're influenced by that actor in the latest hit movie about comic book heroes brought to life.

Celebrities are not exactly known as role models for morality, and a presuppositional apologist would like to ask someone making declarations, "What makes this policy or person you're condemning bad (or good) according to your hedonistic worldview? What is your ultimate standard of morality?"' What we all could do (when we get a notion to using our think bones) is consider those questions ourselves when a celebrity is pontificating.

Making the Stars

While many celebrities get attention the usual way (film attendance, album sales, and so on), others have their status inflated. Atheists have their "rock stars" that owe their popularity to the web, and others are poor philosophers that sell books to other atheists who seek support for their existing anti-Christian bigotry. It baffles me why Clinton Richard Dawkins is an "expert" on religion when he is a materialistic scientist and has no formal training in theology. Celebrity atheists sell books, give lectures, and make big money hating God, though, experts or not.

Evolutionary and atheistic icons receive hero worship that is largely undeserved. Charles Darwin is touted as a "great scientist", but when we point out that his only formal education was in theology, not science, his disciples get a mite obstreperous. In the same way, Bill Nye is sought after for his views on atheism, evolutionism, and climate change. When shown that he is a former comedian that became a television actor, not a scientist, and a propagandist for leftist causes (like abortion, global warming, evolution, etc.), his admirers tend to go ballistic. Indeed, Nye used fake, outdated science and bad logic in his debate with Ken Ham, and Answers in Genesis provided many articles refuting his ignorance. 

If you read about propaganda used by Nazis, Mao, the Soviet Union, and so on, you will see the cult of personality approach is used to inflate the celebrity status of those in power. People were persuaded by posters, leaflets, broadcasts, and testimonies of how wonderful their leaders were. You do want to please Our Leader, don't you? Think of how badly you would feel if you let him down, boy howdy! Fear was a big part of this because people who displeased those in power were made to go away, which also helped the propaganda.

Christians tend to get a few sensational claims from celebrities to prove their points. It puts a burr under my saddle when people misquote Uncle Albert (Einstein), for instance, when as a student he puts an atheistic teacher in his place. The account is fictional, and Einstein did not hold to any semblance of Christianity. Some of us have passed around things without checking on their validity, presumably with some sort of celebrity appeal. This only gives misotheists additional excuses to ridicule us.

The basis for our thinking is the Word of God, not sensationalism or the opinions of famous people who ride for the secularist brand. God gave us minds and expects us to use them. People are not converted to Christ through celebrities, that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Thinking for Ourselves

Don't get me wrong, it's interesting and even fun when a famous person shows up in the studio or at a gathering to lend support to a cause. It's even better when they have knowledge of the subject they are supporting. But be very careful about being swayed by emotional appeal. "Fiona Famousgirl supports this, so I should too because I adore Fiona". Wrong.

I may write an article on this sometime, but I believe that we are ripe for a dictatorship. Study on it a bit and see that people do not think logically, are easily manipulated by celebrities and false authority figures, and are driven by their emotions. (The Antichrist could easily harness all that, but I'm not going to turn this into an eschatology article.) What can we do?

For one thing, take Mr. Newhart's advice and stop it. Get up on the hill for the bigger picture and reason things through. Is there any reason to care what some famous person thinks about a subject, especially if they are opposed to our values? Not hardly!

This article was inspired by another that I am going to recommend. I'd be obliged if you'd read "Can evolutionists use celebrities to brainwash the public?"

October 3, 2018

Darwinists Hating Trump over Ban on Fetal Tissue

The secular science industry has been riding for the leftist brand, and they are galloping faster toward the precipice. They have been promoting leftist causes at an increasing rate. Leftists have been having tantrums about the election of Donald Trump, and even had a failed "March for Science", (which was an early indication of just how far left the secular science establishment has been going). 

Some Conservatives have been pleasantly surprised by Trump. Not only because Hillary Clinton will never be president of the United States, ever, but because Trump has actually been keeping some promises. This includes steps toward protecting unborn children, which includes canceling a contract between the government and a fetal tissue lab.

The secular science industry is becoming involved in leftist activism. They are upset that Donald Trump has interfered with their use of aborted children.
Credit: / Stuart Miles
Ethically-impaired leftists in the secular science industry want to continue to do research on aborted babies. After all, they're already dead, so who are they hurting? Sure, those sidewinders are being consistent with their evolutionary worldview, but they are still wrong. Some people still value human life for now, until we hear the cry, "Soylent Green is people!"
Darwinism cheapens human life. Here’s a huge societal debate about the consequences.
The Trump administration has launched a “sweeping review” of fetal tissue use, reports Nature. It cancelled a contract between the government and a fetal tissue lab, and will review all forthcoming requests by scientists to engage in fetal tissue research.
Pro-life leaders are exhilarated. It’s about time, they think, three years after the Center for Medical Progress shocked the public with undercover videos of Planned Parenthood showing blatant disregard for human life and for U.S. law, treating baby body parts like junk for sale. In David Daleiden’s speech at the Values Voter Summit 2018, he shares some of the videos and describes California’s attacks on CMP, where a pro-abortion judge is still refusing to allow many more hours of video to be released for viewing by the public. The videos showed that Planned Parenthood’s top officials had even approved the manipulation of abortion procedures so that ‘scientists’ could get the choice cuts undamaged. Nature is unhappy – not with Planned Parenthood, but with the Trump administration! The article begins with straightforward journalistic reporting, but ends with its customary anti-conservative subtext.
To read the rest, click on "Darwinists Unhappy About Trump Fetal-Tissue Ban".  Also, you may be interested in Dr. Mohler's segment (to read or download the audio) in this August 2017 episode of The Briefing, "The worldview of Scientism and the commodification of aborted fetuses".

May 12, 2018

Bad Marx for Communist Adoration

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

On May the Fifth, the 200th anniversary of the birth of atheist Sith Karl Marx was celebrated. Communism, its ugly kid sister Socialism, and other leftist systems are responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Many freedoms, especially speech and religion, are devastated under such rulers. China paid for a statue of Marx to be set up in Germany, the place of his birth.

Despite the murders and failures of communism and similar regimes, some people are trying to idolize Karl Marx

Everywhere these systems have been established, they have failed. Amazingly, people like failed US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders lauded Venezuela and other South American countries. China has a pretense of communism and forces atheism, but its economic system is a strange hybrid with capitalism. Most of us know that the communist Soviet Union (a "workers' paradise") collapsed, and North Korea is another communist police state that was propped up by the USSR. Even though most of communism collapsed and the ideology fell into some disrepute, it remained popular in academia.

Karl Marx was an atheist who set up communism as a materialistic worldview as well as an economic system. He praised Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life as the working of his own philosophies according to natural sciences. A few years after Darwin's book came out, Das Kapital (Capital: Critique of Political Economy) was published.

Marx replaced the gospel with his own worldview. Darwinism and materialism were used instead of creation, sin became the oppression of the dissatisfied worker, the redemption of Jesus Christ became violent revolution to control the economy. The truth in the Bible was given substitutes, and a new religion without God was formed. See how that works?

I believe a good part of the problem is that people want something for nothing. Politicians tell people what they want to hear, and appeals to power and money are effective. They want redistribution of wealth, or even money for nothing. The workers (or even non-workers) are given the illusion of control. As for the academics, they do not learn very well, even those who have lived through such totalitarian years. They also forget that communists imprison or execute intellectuals.

This is another article that was inspired by an episode of The Briefing by Dr. Albert Mohler. I strongly recommend that you listen to/download the May 8, 2018 podcast or read the transcript. Also, you may wish to read "The Darwinian Foundation of Communism". 

Say bye bye, Bernie and Bill.

February 22, 2018

Science Does Not Correct Itself

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There is a connotation of science where scientists gather information, make a hypothesis, test it, revise as necessary, it becomes a theory, and eventually a law. Somewhere along the line the thing gets put out to pasture if the facts are recalcitrant. Such a view is not only naïve, but ignores human nature. Scientists are human, after all. 

Scoffing at new material

One expression I have encountered when discussing the origins controversy is that "science corrects itself". Aside from the reification fallacy (science is not a living thing, but scientists may correct themselves), this has been shown to be false — often in areas of technology. Great inventors were laughed at, such as Robert Fulton and the Wright brothers. It was said that if people move too fast (aside from dangerous acceleration, change of direct, and deceleration), they would have physical problems or even die. Scoffers were silenced by results. Some people attribute this ridicule to fear of technology; fear of robots and artificial intelligence may or may not be founded. I reckon it started with the industrial revolution.

Science is does not correct itself, and scientists tend to protect the consensus
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann


Resistance to change has appeared in other scientific areas. People cling to the consensus; they may not want to "rock the boat". For example, scientists believed that phlogiston was the invisible ingredient that caused things to burn, and some were adhereing to it long after it was disproved.

Death in the hospital

A much more tragic insistence on consensus was with Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis. Women were dying from infections in hospitals after giving birth, and he used excellent critical thinking skills to isolate the problem and present a solution. Although he did not know why having doctors and students wash in a chlorine solution helped, deaths declined markedly. His peers laughed at him, and refused to consider the results, partly because he could not show the cause. His poorly-written treatise also hurt his purpose. He died a broken man, and he was only trying to save lives. Semmelweis was later vindicated by Pasteur and Lister. See "Ignaz Semmelweis: Medical pioneer persecuted for telling the truth" for more.

Blaming the staff

As an aside, the company where I work was having problems with completing data production. The Clock Nazi was blaming the staff for not working hard enough, and for "cheating". When I tried to offer my data processing skills and asked questions, he was blaming the day shift, while the night shift was "working harder". I pointed out that all the indications were of a software problem, since there was a major change about the time the problems began (the IT people at The Company frequently foul up the system). I wanted him to consider several factors, including timing, results, what changes were made, and other things. He insisted on blaming the staff. After he was made to go away, his views continued with his successors, since they prefer to listen to people on the inside instead of listening to the people who actually do the work. We will never know if I was on the right track or not. Admittedly, this is not about science per se, put it is about logic, human nature, and especially pride.


In 1968, expert on insects Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which put people into a panic. He had projections about the bleak future of mankind due to overpopulation, which were discredited. It has been said that the entire population of the world can fit into New Zealand, New York City, Texas, Alaska...depends on who you read. I'll allow that it would be a mite uncomfortable, though. (I still have a vague memory of Overpopulation, a poster from the 1970s by John Pitre. The land was full of people packed together like sardines, with no land in sight. Probably inspired by Ehrlich. It was hysterics, not reality.) I suspicion that this population excitement was based on leftist political agendas. Even though the concepts were refuted, some people still have a kind of extreme overpopulation concept today. For more about Ehrlich and his book, I recommend the first part of this podcast of The Briefing, free to listen, download, or read the transcript.

Climate changes

For a time, it was thought that the world was going to have another ice age, and that idea persisted until fairly recently. Then it became global warming. Today, we hear most often about global climate change. There are scientists who reject man-made global warming, and the climate alarmists have been show to use faulty data and outright fraud. This fearmongering is based on old Earth and evolutionary concepts, which are based on circular reasoning and preconceptions. These fears are also based on an assumption that God does not exist or is not in control of his creation. 

Climate change is a darling of secularists, leftists, and globalists, who reject rational interpretations of true data. Instead, they prefer the hype and bad information, as climate change activists play on fears and the ignorance of science. Just look at the alarm over carbon dioxide, for example. Don't these clowns know basic science, and how plants need the stuff and give us oxygen in return? 

Evolutionary consensus

I'll end with Darwin's speculations about evolution. Although scientists disagree on so many areas, and although it has been falsified many times, Darwin's true believers crank out rescuing devices left and right. Speculations are passed off as actual scientific research, and there is an overabundance of terrible science and worse logic. Even though the logical conclusion is special creation, the implication that the Creator has told us about himself in his written Word is anathema to secularists. They are proudly rebelling against God, and upholding the erroneous consensus.

In the linked article about Semmelweis, you can see this quote: "The Semmelweis reflex is the informal name coined for the tendency of people to deny new evidence or knowledge that contradicts established beliefs or their worldview. As Semmelweis experienced, long-held ideas can remain entrenched despite potent evidence to the contrary, and people can and do persecute those who challenge the consensus, even when the consensus is wrong." Some folks go haywire and cry, "Katie, bar the door! We don't like the facts!" Evolution is an effort to remove God from the equation and essentially say that we created ourselves. God asked Job if he was going to blame God for his troubles so he could justify himself (Job 40:8), and I see many atheists and evolutionists attempting to do just that.


I'd like to add another aspect.

I believe that people want to think they're special, smart, right, and so forth. People professing atheism demonize God, the Bible, Christians, creationists, and so forth in what appears to be a pitiful effort to justify their rebellion against God. Scientists refuse to relinquish the consensus in light of new information, and the public follows what "scientists say" when it is convenient. Sure, people detest admitting they're wrong, even at their eternal peril. It all comes down to pride. That was Satan's downfall, and he's been using it to appeal to humanity ever since. God hates undue pride, and we have to rely on him to keep ours in check.

While some scientists make some corrections, a consensus can be firmly entrenched, and some will not change their views because it results in boat rocking as — well as pride problems. In addition, some scientists may have political or atheistic motives to protect the consensus. Science is definitely not self-correcting. Those who know the truth have to lead the cavalry charge up the hill and present the truth.

January 23, 2016

Establishing Evolutionary Religion in America

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Many parts of the world are becoming increasingly secularized (which may have contributed to the recent terrorist attacks), and the United States has also been riding that same trail. The rights of Christians are coming under increasing attack by atheistic owlhoots, and secular humanism is steadily becoming established as the state religion. Know what God says about people who deny him? See Psalm 14:1.

Secular humanism is a religion by their own admission, philosophically, and by court rulings. While many atheists such as Clinton Richard Dawkins are calling this a "major victory", some dishonest atheists are still trying to change reality and deny that humanism is a religion. They accept the religion of evolutionism as foundational (but deny that evolutionism is a religious): "Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing."

The world is becoming increasingly secularized, as is the United States. To further establish secular humanism as the state religion, there is an effort to declare "Darwin Day".

Atheists like Michael Zimmerman have been trying to get churches to compromise on creation. Now some federal tinhorns are attempting to establish "Darwin Day". Problem is, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly forbids the government establishing a state religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". Of course, they have been establishing humanistic religion for a mighty long time now. This "all hail Darwin, blessed be!" stuff takes the rag off the bush. And this will continue as they seek to deny our Creator and enthrone man.

There is resistance. We already have Question Evolution Day happening annually on February 12, which is by and for the people. There is also Creation Sunday, which I encourage churches to be a part of. But let's turn up the heat a bit more, shall we? Americans should speak out and let legislators know that Darwin Day is unacceptable, and violating the Constitution.
Two Connecticut Congressmen have introduced Darwin Day resolutions this year. House Resolution 548 is sponsored by Rep. Jim Hines (CT-4); Senate Resolution 337 is sponsored by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D- Connecticut). It comes as no surprise that the resolutions are backed by the Secular Coalition of America and the American Humanist Association.
To read the rest, click on "Stop Darwin Day!" Also, you can become involved at the new Stop Darwin Day Facebook Page.

May 5, 2014

Atheism's Faulty Moral Compass and Consequences

— by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The religion of atheism seems to attract a high percentage of deviants because they have no consistent foundation for morality. One way this can be seen is that, when pressed, atheists cannot actually account for morality itself. If you examine the Web, Facebook, Weblogs and so on, you'll find many examples of obscenity and hatred toward God and his people.

The religion of atheism seems to attract a high percentage of deviants because they have no consistent foundation for morality. One way this can be seen is that, when pressed, atheists cannot actually account for morality itself.
US Geological Survey
Although they claim that they can be "good without God", the words and actions of so many Internet atheists belie that claim. This is the opposite of the truth.Their moral compass is situational and based on whatever is expedient at the time. Living in societies that are founded on Christian morality, they are actually borrowing from the Christian worldview when they say that something is right or wrong. There comes a point when God essentially says, "Your will be done", and gives them over to their depraved minds. Atheism is irrational and incoherent, lacking the necessary preconditions of human experience and intelligibility. Many seem to realize this, hiding behind ideology and attacking people when the facts are against them. It's easy to call a creation scientist a liar when you are incapable of reason, isn't it?

Edit, added this screenshot:
The straw man attack is obvious, but the writer insists that he is right, then changes the subject and attacks, compounding the fallacies.

Persecution of Christians is increasing worldwide, and Christians in the West should be ready for it as well. We can see this from the aforementioned Internet attacks on Christians, as well as the constant whining and legislative efforts and protests from hypocritical atheist groups who claim to believe in "freedom" — which is for anti-Christian activities, homosexuality, polygamy and other deviant acts that atheism attracts.

Some of us wonder when blind hatred of some of these atheists, agnostics and evolutionists will result in violence. Oh, wait. It has:
"Come on, Cowboy Bob! That doesn't mean all atheists, agnostics and evolutionists will get violent!"

Nobody is saying that they will all become killers or do depraved activities. Many are moral according to society's standards. There are two important points to keep in mind. First, their moral standard is arbitrary and inconsistent. Second, they are simply being consistent with their worldview. People are given only the cherry-picked data supporting evolution, not told about the deceptions and bad science, not taught how to think critically but instead are brainwashed, "survival of the fittest", no creator, no judgment, no ultimate moral standards — just acting like the animals that they are told they came from. Ideas have consequences, and if you take the Bible away, these things should not be a surprise.

There was almost another atheist evolutionist killing spree.
A young man who idolized the Columbine killers was preparing to kill dozens or hundreds of people at a 
[Waseca] Minnesota high school. Multiple news sources (The Examiner, Daily News, The Blaze, and more) are mentioning that 17-year-old John LaDue, who was preparing a deadly mass attack on his family and school, was a passionate admirer of Harris and Klebold – the killers who launched the modern era of senseless mass killings in 1999 on the school grounds at Columbine High School in Colorado. Photos from that attack showed Harris with a T-shirt during the rampage labeled, “Natural Selection” in large letters. His writings showed that he believed the planned mass shooting would “boost natural selection by a few notches.”
Read the rest of the report and commentary at "Stopped in Time: Another Atheist Killing Spree".

Addendum: Screen shot of an utterly amazing comment:

I'm not the one killing and planning to kill people because I have no consistent moral standard. And I know how to, ya know, make sentences. Like, duh, fer sher, ya know? 

April 1, 2014

Global Atheist Holiday

Edited from a previous post.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity:
there is none that doeth good.
 (Psalm 53:1, KJV)

Here is a story that circulates on the Internet. Although it is not true (despite what your e-mail correspondent said), it is still funny.
An atheist created a case against Easter and Passover holy days.

He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.

The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed!"

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays!"

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."

The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day.
"Court is adjourned."
I really like the Atheist International Holiday. (Have they recovered already from railing against Christmas?) I like it bunches. You betcha. Atheists gather at the Madalyn Murray O'Hair Memorial Hospital to sing some hymns, read their evolution mythology devotions from Charles Darwin, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins, followed by a video sermon by the departed (but now a believer) Christopher Hitchens (whose brother is a former atheist that became a Christian, by the way). Then, they find a Christian symbol on public land that has not been bothering anyone for decades and start picketing. Their conversation includes the alleged stupidity of Christians, deliberately misunderstanding remarks so they can accuse people of lies, distorting reality and having a grand old time that they make up as they go along.

April 1, the day atheists celebrate! How do they do it? Actually, since they have no hope, no wonder they hate Christians, who DO have hope.

Jester Stańczyk by Jan Matejko, 1862

After that, they venture to the places where Christians are ministering to destitute people and remind them that atheists are so much smarter than they are. Then, they look for other opportunities to practice their religious bigotry. Finally, they adjourn to their festively decorated homes for rum punch and to exchange gifts of brightly wrapped empty boxes while complaining about Christians and the Resurrection observances. The conclusion is to go outside, look at the night sky and chant, "It all happened by chance! We are rational!"

Actually, no wonder they hate us. There is no true joy (Rom 15.13) in their lives, nothing to celebrate (Rev. 19.9, 21.3-4). And there is no hope (Titus 2.13), only condemnation (John 3.36 ESV) in their silly pride (Job 35.12, Prov. 29.23). Too bad, really. It's their choice, but it doesn't have to be this way (John 1.12, 2 Cor. 5.17).

January 11, 2014

Genius In Action

A clever lad just wanted to argue. An Admin at "The Question Evolution Project" on Facebook dismantled a ridiculous quote by Thomas Jefferson, and here is a response we had to deal with from a joker who had to say something — anything — to argue with the st00pid dumb Xtian. I guess this evolutionist is a "freethinker", huh?

atheist, The Question Evolution Project, evolution, Thomas Jefferson, Charles Darwin

February 12, 2013

Video: Are There Scientists Who Reject Evolution?

Now, I know that there are people who will go with redefinitions and a "No True Scientist" fallacy here, that true scientists accept evolutionism; anyone who rejects evolution must be an unedjamakated fundie. But that is obviously fallacious. It is also an attempt at poisoning the well and an appeal to ridicule. This short video will inform you of the truth.

September 4, 2012

Darwin's Rejection of God

Although touted as a "great scientist", many people do not know that Darwin's formal schooling was not in science, but in theology, where he soared to the heights of mediocrity. His rejection of God, who is revealed in the Bible, is severely lacking in logic. It is fundamentally flawed by naturalistic presuppositions and by emotional excuses. His journey of rejection is similar to other agnostics and to many atheists who are not actually using reason for their rejection of God. Besides, people like that are lying to themselves and to the rest of us, because they really do know that God exists (Romans 1.20-22).
Charles Darwin grew up embracing the ‘intelligent design’ thinking of his day—William Paley’s renowned argument that the design of a watch implies there must have been an intelligent watchmaker, and so design in the universe implies there must have been an intelligent Creator. Concerning this, Darwin wrote, ‘I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s “Natural Theology”. I could almost formerly have said it by heart.’

Nevertheless, Darwin spent most of the rest of his life attempting to explain design in nature without the need for any purpose or a guiding intelligence. He labelled himself an agnostic, and gave us his ‘Religious Belief’ in his Autobiography, written in 1876 when he was 67.
Through time, chance and random processes, you can read the rest of the article, including Darwin's excuses and rejections. Or you can use the intelligent choice and click here to read, "Darwin's Arguments Against God".

July 29, 2012

Evolution is Fiction — Here's Proof

Found image circulating on Facebook

This picture has been circulating for a little while, and I had to show it anyway. Here you go, proof that evolution is fiction: Barnes and Noble said so!

There are many reasons to dismiss the "proof" claim, including employee error, staged picture, prank, someone just shoved it there or whatever. And yet, when it comes to finding excuses to disbelieve in creation science and in the existence of God, people use "proof" that is even less reliable than this picture!

Anyway, it's misclassified. Darwin's writings belong in the religion section.

February 12, 2012

What Hath Darwin Wrought?

"Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history."
— Karl Marx

Evolutionary propaganda is a masterpiece. The Nazis and Soviet Union would approve. First, the populace worships "science". Next, leftist governments push God out of schools and public places. Follow that with equating operational science (which can be observed, tested, measured, falsified, repeated and so forth) with historical, speculative science and pretend evolution is "science". Join that stuff with anti-God propaganda and liberal theology (not to mention human laziness), and "scientific" Darwinian concepts run rampant.

Taking Darwin's popularization of evolution (it was not original with him, you know) as "science", people wanted to apply it as a social principle as well. With horrible results.
Evil, in the socialist worldview, is the oppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie. Having been enlightened by Marx regarding the ‘true history of life’, men and women could now take control of that history. They could accelerate ‘nature’ as it sped towards its goal of a world revolution that would banish such ‘evil’ and produce a socialist utopia.
Hitler, I discovered, shared a similar worldview, as outlined in his book Mein Kampf (literally ‘my struggle’). He believed that people, like animals and plants, were engaged in a constant struggle for survival. The climax of history would be the survival of the fittest race—which he believed to be the ‘Aryan race’, as embodied in the German people.
Hitler and Stalin both applied their ‘scientific’ logic with a ruthless, overwhelming determination. So did Mao Zedong in China, where countless millions also perished in the name of a utopian Marxist dream. And they not only convinced themselves, but millions of others—people just like you and me—that they were right to do so.
Read the entirety of "Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution" here.

A Creed for Charles Darwin's Birthday

We believe in Darwin, the father all-sovereign, explainer of all things visible and invisible, and in one Thomas Henry Huxley, the bulldog of Darwin, begotten from the substance of Darwin.

We believe in his son, Julian Huxley, of one substance with his Father.

We believe in Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Dawkins who proceed from the spirit of Darwin and Huxley and through whom all things were understood, things on heaven and things on earth:

Who, for our enlightenment, were made flesh and became men, who suffered grievously at the hands of petty academics, were denied tenure and publication at State schools, but rose to preeminence at superior universities and ascended into endowed chairs and chancellorships without end.

By their convictions and firmly held beliefs may we and all our works be judged.

For we are the chimps of his lab and the apes of his zoo. Amen.

February 2, 2012

Are Faith and Science At Odds?

This nonsense came at me out of the blue, but helps illustrate the topic.

Buon giorno. When discussing science, evolution and faith, people have some very strange ideas about definitions. I have encountered some interesting re-defintions (including the astonishing claim that if someone is not an evolutionary biologist, he or she is not a scientist!), misunderstandings of definitions (deliberate, I suspect, for purposes of personal attacks), equivocation (evolution is science, from people who promote the thing but do not really understand it themselves) and so on. For that matter, the word "evolution" itself has several meanings. Many misunderstandings can be avoided by a couple of things: First, know the correct definition of the word, and second, clarify terms in the first place, such as "What do you mean by...?"

Then there are the types who say that if you disagree with the tentative, tampered, tendentious "evidence" for evolution, you are a "liar". That smacks of the desperation of a fundamentalist evolutionist who cannot abide by the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Similar to one of the most glaring fits of idiocy, "Liar for Jesus". I'll let you, my clever readers, figure out how ridiculous that one is all by yourselves.

When both parties understand the terminology, they can communicate better, capice?

Greg Koukl of "Stand to Reason" had a good discussion about clarifying terms on his January 29, 2012 broadcast. The question was raised whether or not faith and science are at odds with each other. Below is his monologue, followed by my brief call about Question Evolution Day. The full, almost three-hour podcast is here. I suggest that you get that, because the third hour is his interview with Professor Michael Flannery about the video, "Darwin's Heretic" (James Russell Wallace).

December 17, 2011

An Atheist Christmas Carol

"An Atheist Christmas Carol"
Featuring Richard "Daffy" Dawkins, Lalla Ward, P.Z. Myer, Charles Darwin and (wait for it...)
everyone's hero, Piltdown Superman!
(And the crowd goes wild!)

Stormbringer sent you a JibJab eCard

Subscribe in a reader