Showing posts with label intelligent design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intelligent design. Show all posts

March 13, 2017

Secularists Protect Evolution from Thought

Evolutionists are on the prod again. A bill was proposed in South Dakota that required...what? What was in it that would cause such distress? Maybe if the bill required the teaching of Intelligent Design, or even biblical creation science, and exclude evolution. That'll be the day! Actually, the "problem" with the bill is that it promotes critical thinking instead of blind acceptance of evolution, so flaws in evolutionary speculations should be made known.


Evolution education law
Generated at Glass Giant
The secular science industry has been getting more political nowadays, with a distinct leftist bias. But Machiavellian approaches to evolutionary education have been happening for some time now — it's acceptable to deceive students for the sake of believing evolution. Critical thinking is unacceptable (as is free speech when contrary to leftist causes, atheism, and evolutionary thinking). Unfortunately, true science thrives on critical thinking and challenges, and free speech is also necessary. But atheists and other anti-creationists seek to protect their cult of death from scrutiny, so they unleash Darwin's Flying Monkeys©.
Secular reporters, for the life of them, can’t get their facts right. When it comes to the teaching of evolution, knees jerk, kicking the boilerplate machine into programmed output.

A proposed bill in South Dakota, called an “academic freedom bill” (SB 55) simply says this:
No teacher may be prohibited from helping students understand, analyze, critique, or review in an objective scientific manner the strengths and weaknesses of scientific information presented in courses being taught which are aligned with the content standards established pursuant to § 13–3-48.
Sound fair enough? Not to the secular press. One would think all hell broke loose, and we’re headed back into the dark ages. The story by AP reporters James Nord and Hannah Weikel hit the fan, splattering lies around the world as all the major media echoed it uncritically. The AP gives the impression that sneaky creationists were kicking Darwin out of science class and replacing it with the Bible, God and the dreaded c-word, creationism. Anyone see any of that in the bill’s language?
To read the rest, saddle up and ride over to "Fake News on Education Bills". 

April 7, 2013

Video: Atheist and Evolutionist Morality — Fundamentally Flawed

Atheists and evolutionists are not only confused by their irrational worldviews, but they are also cunning. One of their tricks is to first deceive themselves, and then deceive others, about the definitions of words. The disingenuous redefinition of atheism to mean "lack of belief" is laughable to any thinking person. The Evo Sith will sneak a change in definition of the word "evolution". These word games are some of the tools used to attack Christians and creationists.

These tricks and attacks are partly the result of realizing that they cannot defeat the biblical creationist worldview with reason and science. We are right, they know it, and they hate it. But hiding from the truth and redefining words will not change the end result. For anyone reading this and watching the video below, it's not too late. It might be too late in an hour, though.

February 17, 2013

Video — Eukaryotic Cells Refute Evolution

Evolution cannot withstand scrutiny. But it is foundational to liberal Christianity, other irrational religions and especially the incoherence known as atheistm. That's why evolution is protected, and contrary evidence suppressed, by the Evo Sith in their efforts to protect their fundamentally flawed worldviews.

And yet, the truth is discovered. Oh, sure, the protectors are sent scrambling to find excuses to keep their failed "theory" intact. Here is another short video with more information to show that evolution is a fundamentally flawed belief system. That is, evolutionism keeps looking more and more far-fetched because the evidence shows the Creator. How good is that?

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.

February 3, 2013

Video: DNA and Information

stock.xchng/schulergd 
We're getting closer to "Question Evolution Day", and this video raises some serious questions.

Evolutionists hate the fact that DNA is highly-coded, complex information. And rather a lot, really. Worse for them, this information is purposeful and directed. Efficiently. It is exchanged within a cell. This means there was a Designer.

January 20, 2013

Video: The Conundrum of Evolution and Design Dynamics

Another short video to turn up the heat before Question Evolution Day! This one includes the obfuscation of biased sites like Wikipedia in order to protect evolutionism.

January 13, 2013

Video: Evolution Cannot Explain...


Sex. Evolutionary theories can't explain it. Evolutionary theories can't explain many things. We all know that many evolutionists want to slap down those of us who dare to disagree with their dogma (they would silence us if they could.) So, we just have to suspend our disbelief and trust them, even thought they do not have answers, and the answers they do offer raise more questions.


August 18, 2012

Logic Lessons: Insufficient Evidence

In my dealings with evolutionists, I have been amazed at the number of logical fallacies that I have encountered. Many of them stand alone, but many others are combined into a Chaotic Crawling Casserole of Illogic. That is, there are so many errors, conversation becomes almost impossible and you're much better off watching reruns of "Columbo".

Among the logical fallacies I have encountered (in English) are:

  • Attacking the person instead of discussing the topic
  • "You do it too!"
  • Appealing to numbers, as in, "Everybody believes this way" (or "Bandwagon") to the extreme of accepting evolution on faith, not evidence
  • Confusing cause and effect
  • Straw man (misrepresenting the beliefs of creationists, ID proponents, Christians, the other political party &c. and then ridiculing the caricature that was made up)
  • Appealing to emotion
  • Appealing to unqualified authority
  • Hasty generalizations
  • Appeal to faith in scientism ("Science will some day find or prove such and so")
  • Outright lies
Well, that's enough. You get the idea.

But I want to focus on one of the most common errors that I have encountered with evolutionists: The Fallacy of Exclusion (suppressed evidence). I cannot count the number of times that evolutionists and atheists have not bothered to do their homework, and they presume to tell me what I believe (prejudicial conjecture).


Perhaps their straw man arguments are accidental, perhaps not. But I have found that many of my opponents are dismally ignorant of the Bible, creation science — and evolution itself. Some inadvertently make a straw man out of the position that they are attempting to support!


Anyway, the Fallacy of Exclusion is quite simple:

Leaving out evidence that would lead to a different conclusion is called the fallacy of exclusion. An example is: In the presidential elections of 2000 and 2005, Florida went to Bush, so it must be a Republican state. In fact, the evidence from 1996, which I purposely excluded from the sentence above, shows that Florida went to Clinton in that election, making this, too, a fallacy of insufficient evidence. By choosing to begin with the data from 2000, I was able to exclude evidence that contradicted the conclusion I wished to draw for the sake of this exercise.
The fallacy of insufficient evidence (which includes suppressed evidence) occurs when someone will reach a conclusion through carelessness as well as neglecting or suppressing contrary evidence.
When dealing with information that affects someone's worldview, it is almost criminal to leave out contrary evidence. It is certainly unethical and immoral. Let me be blunt, since I am showing some emotion on this material anyway: Suppressing evidence against evolution is not "science", it is brainwashing. That's right, I said it! How can someone make a proper determination about the origins of life, the universe and everything if the evidence is missing?

Creationist scientists are attacked for being "not scientists", and that is an outright lie. Indeed, scientists who are creationists must have an understanding of evolutionary interpretations to be able to properly present both creationist and evolutionist viewpoints. Creationist laymen, when educated properly, also must have an understanding of evolution so they can evaluate and present their evidence.

This article can become oppressively long if I bring in my encounters with atheists, so I will not go much further.


I insist, however, that evolutionists do not have sufficient understanding of the creationists' viewpoints. Incomplete information leads to horribly wrong conclusions. The true spirit of scientific inquiry does not inspire suppression and misrepresentation of the evidence. Rather, it inspires more complete understanding of the subject.


The following humorous short video is all over the Web, and it illustrates what I am saying so well:


July 29, 2012

Video: Using Evolution's Definitions to Prove Intelligent Design

It is painfully obvious that reporting to prove evolution is biased. Information is cherry-picked so that inconvenient facts that do not fit into evolutionary presuppositions are discarded. Alternative explanations and theories about observable facts are suppressed. Equivocation on word definitions and other attempts at "moving the goalposts" are rampant, as are other logical fallacies. Worse, evolutionists are downright disingenuous when it comes to protecting their faith.

This short video uses evolutionary terminology (from one of the evolutionists' biased sources) to support Intelligent Design.

July 27, 2012

Cowardly Atheists Protect Evolution

That's right, I said it! Protecting evolution from questioning, examination, contrary evidence and explanations — cowardice.

"You're crazy, Cowboy Bob! Evolution is a fact and doesn't need to be protected!"

Atheists and other evolutionists insist that their mythology of origins is a fact, but they protect evolution from contrary evidence and fight to keep people away from creation science.

Evolution is protected by fundamentalist extremists who will go to almost any lengths to keep people from actually thinking:
The way I understand it, the way that science advances is for people to start with a proper foundation, question the findings, challenge existing theories, examine evidence, follow where the evidence leads and so on. Instead, not only are so many evolutionists cowards, but they are totalitarian cowards.

Now the thought police have actually banned the teaching of creation in the UK — even in religious education classes! Yep, teach creation and your school will lose its funding. Cowards. But what do you expect from people who willingly promote the fallacy of evolution? The assault on evolutionism is growing. The storm is coming. Be afraid, evolutionists. Be very afraid.

July 22, 2012

Video: DNA Shows Failure of Evolution

The arrogance of some scientists (and the unwashed masses who adore them) is astounding.

When they could not determine the uses of some human organs, they were called "vestigial", or "leftover from our evolutionary past". (This led to unnecessary (but profitable!) surgeries to remove appendixes, adenoids and so on.) Later, the so-called leftovers were determined to have functions that were hitherto unknown, much to the embarrassment of scientists.

At one time, the "simple" cell was considered to be rather well understood. Then technology advanced, and science advanced with it. The "simple" cell is not so simple after all. In fact, it is astonishingly complex — and it is still not fully understood.

Arrogance naturally spills over when studying the human genome. Since it is not fully understood, showy scientists (with their faulty evolutionist worldview) tag things they do not understand as "junk DNA". The fact is, DNA is also astonishingly complex. It would be much safer for scientists to label something as "not yet understood" rather than to pretend they know all about it, call it "junk", and then get humiliated later on.

When I pointed out the astonishing complexity of just one strand of DNA and how there is no way it could have formed by chance, an ignorant fundie evolutionist said, "It must have been less complex back then". (Yes, I get told things by people who are woefully ignorant of science all the time, but have faith in evolutionism.) This short video shows some of the complexity of DNA and the information exchanged contained within.

April 15, 2012

Childish Question of Atheists

Buona sera. Materialistic atheists insist that there is no Creator. But everything that is made requires a maker, capice? The blade of that simple logic is sharp enough for Occam to shave with, but instead of following where the evidence leads, some people prefer the illogic of infinite regression; to wit (I've never used "to wit" before, hope you like it), the childish question, "Who made the Maker?" People like Richard "Daffy" Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Jason Rosenhouse (someone I had never heard of until very recently) seem content with this silliness.

Although I find the question absurd, some people do not. To wit (OK, I'll stop with the "to wit"):
As I have pointed out many times in this column the origin of life is one of the greatest mysteries facing science today. As renowned physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson recently wrote:
“The origin of life is the deepest mystery in the whole of science. Many books and learned papers have been written about it, but it remains a mystery. There is an enormous gap between the simplest living cell and the most complicated naturally occurring mixture of nonliving chemicals. We have no idea when and how and where this gap was crossed.” (A Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe, Freeman J. Dyson, Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2010, p. 104)
The obvious answer is that the gap was never crossed by some unguided process, but that life was created/designed by some super-intelligent being. The atheist/materialist vehemently denies, not only the truth of this conclusion, but that such an answer can even be considered! Why? As is implicitly pointed out by Dyson – a point on which there is unanimous agreement – it is certainly not because the atheistic scientist has some plausible naturalistic explanation for how the “enormous” gap from non-life to life was crossed. What then?

July 13, 2010

Preconceptions and Presuppositions

"I'm sorry, I just don't see any evidence. I mean, look at the Hubble telescope. It's discovered untold wonders of a vast unexplored universe. But not one picture of a guy with a beard sitting around on a cloud."
— "Brian Griffin" saying that he's an atheist

"I looked and looked but I didn't see God."
— Attributed to Yuri Gagarin

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
— Paul the Apostle


Buona sera. I'm sure most of you are familiar with "The Family Guy". This animated show is offensive on many levels, mainly to Christians and Conservatives. (Don't believe me? Count how many times Seth MacFarlane, the liberal atheist who runs the show, takes pot-shots at liberals and non-Christians.) Even though I cannot recommend the show because it is often blasphemous and obscene, I have to admit that MacFarlane is exceptionally talented, and the show has its moments of comedic genius.

But my point in bringing this up is that the scene I quoted from is a good illustration of preconceptions. We all have them, though many people do not know it, or even try to deny this basic fact of life.

Even scientists. Throw away that image you have (your own preconception) that scientists are completely objective and unbiased. Instead of following the evidence wherever it leads, they have a preconception of what they want to prove. That can be a good thing when a scientist is saying, "I wonder if this will prove that I'm right about the effects of bicycles on rainfall", or something. It's a bad thing when they start out with an attitude of forcing the evidence to fit into a box at all costs.

You see, science is supposed to stay with things that are measurable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable, etc. When scientists venture into the realm of philosophy, they leave true science behind. What gets confusing is when people will move back and forth between science and philosophy, thereby proclaiming their philosophy as actual science.

Some areas of natural science have preconceptions that contaminate evidence and observations, including:
  • Philosophy is fine as long as it is pro-evolution and anti-God
  • Evolution is true, even though we do not know how it works
  • Evidence from any kind of "believers" should be rejected in most cases (the logical fallacy called "poisoning the well" applies here)
  • Only matter (material) and energy exist
  • God does not exist, no do spirits, angels, Satan, demons or anything that is non-material (but it is illogical to attempt to prove a universal negative)
  • Science (or evolution) has disproved the Bible (astonishingly stupid and ignorant, making an assertion and expecting it to become true)
  • Miracles do not occur, did not occur, and can never occur (very presumptuous, don't you think?)
  • Intelligent Design, as well as Creation Science, are religion
As I said before, we all have our biases. Just because you have something to prove does not automatically negate your position. 

Both unbelievers and believers have presuppositions, our starting points based on our worldviews. Theirs is usually based on materialism or naturalism, and ours is based on the revelation of God in the Bible — and they hate that. Since the Christian is supposed to please God rather than men, the foundation of our thinking in every area is the Bible.

The "Brian Griffin" quote at the top and the Yuri Gagarin attribution show a common preconception, that God is a big, grandfatherly man with a beard that can be seen better from space. If someone is going to seek God, it is best to drop the above preconceptions and biases. Then, honestly consider that he may be there after all. But he does not have to play by your rules; God has already been made known (John 1.18, Rom. 1.20).

However, knowing that God exists means that he's the Creator, and we should find out what he has to say. That involves swallowing too much pride for some people.

This applies to evolutionism as well: Perhaps it is not true after all, that evolutionism's critics and the scientists who have abandoned it may be correct in doing so after all.

June 14, 2010

A Faulty Scientific Theory

Slightly edited January 1, 2018.

Buona sera, wherever you are. Uncle Bob is really burned up about something.

No, that's wrong.
I want to say that today's topic is about bad science. First, I'm going to talk about what makes things burn. Naturally, you're going to say oxygen, or combustion process, or maybe an independent fuel source. Well, we do know about what makes things burn today.

Way back when, it was a different story. It was a mystery. Johann J. Becher put out (ha!) his theory of phlogiston in 1667. (Surprisingly, Wikipedia has a
very good article on the subject.) Basically, stuff burned because it contained this ingredient. No phlogiston, no burning. You may be tempted to laugh at it today because science has left the theory behind over a hundred years ago, but it was an attempt to work through and explain the observed phenomenon of burning.

It was also used to explain rusting, but there is no need to make this discussion more complicated. Besides, the fire stuff is more fun.


Phlogiston had no weight, smell, taste and so on, but it was required to make things go up in flames. The theory became refined and popularized, and lasted about two hundred years. Eventually, scientists became skeptical because their experiments gave results that did not fit the theory. What happened?

Further explanations and refinements that read more like excuses than anything else ("negative weight", "lighter than air" and so on). It took Lavoisier's experiments to show that
oxygen was what was making things happen, and that started to bring the phlogiston house down. Not right away, however. Eventually, scientists started saying that it was a principle rather than an actual substance.

This is where I step in and say that they were getting desperate. They had their pet theory, and just hated to part with it despite the evidence.

Credit: Dan Lietha / Answers in Genesis

"I think I know where this is going, Cowboy Bob."

Yup. Some of you can guess where I'm going with this, and I'm not going to keep you in suspense any longer:
Just like the so-called theory of evolution. (By the way, did you notice that Papa Darwin conveniently skipped the "hypothesis" step of scientific analysis and went straight on to propose his "theory"?)

People reject evolution because of their religious viewpoints. Like me, they also reject it because of its lack of scientific merits. That is, it has so many holes that you can drive a wagon train through it. Darwin's "theory" has fewer merits than the phlogiston concept. What actions do Darwinists take when confronted with contrary evidence? Make excuses, dodge the truth, reject said contrary evidence, and so on. Simply put, they are believing because they want to, not because of ironclad evidence. Cowboy up and face it: evolution is a faith system.

We are bombarded with evolution as "true science". It's everywhere. Television, movies, music, cartoons for the kids, alleged science publications, conversation between friends — all presenting evolution as unquestioned "fact", even though the evolutionists themselves are at odds with "how it happened".

Let's be blunt. To present only one side of the issue is not only propaganda, it's brainwashing.

Since evolutionism has taken on a religious life of its own (in addition to being foundational for atheism, Nazism, Communi
sm, eugenics and other evils of society), its adherents deal harshly with dissenters. When scientists reject evolutionary "theory" and see that the evidence actually leads to Intelligent Design, they have to either clam up or get ostracized by the orthodox evolutionist community. They are written off as religious kooks, but the truth is that they followed where the science led them.

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion— a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint... the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion." - Michael Ruse

Evolution is today's phlogiston. Scientists are locked into their beliefs even worse than the phlogiston proponents seemed to be, however. Perhaps someday, they will follow where the science leads. In the mean time, we have to deal with fundamentalist evolutionary propaganda, excuses, modifications, theory upon theory upon theory and doing anything else to avoid the truth of creation.

Doesn't that just burn you up?

May 20, 2010

You Know...


...it makes more sense to believe that a tornado went through a junkyard and assembled a 747, than to believe that life, the universe and everything happened by chance.

April 21, 2010

Not a Chance


I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true.
— Carl Sagan


Buona sera.
I was going to go for something lighter, but Lee Strobel fueled more thoughts in me about evolution and random chance.

I have always been amazed when scientists and anti-theists will say ridiculous things like the Carl Sagan (rhymes with "pagan") quote at the top. They will claim that belief in God is not only irrational, but that it takes away the wonder of the universe. Let me ask you something: Which is sillier, to investigate the way God has performed his wonders, or to investigate the dead ends of a philosophy that is based entirely on random chance?


When a biochemist examines the intricacies of, say, a single cell, he or she is faced with astonishing complexity and evidence of design. And yet, there are people who believe that something as amazing as a single cell (let alone, an organism such as a human) can happen by chance, but the computer that they are using is a product of intelligent design. Listen up, Cupcake! If the odds are far enough against something happening, it will
never happen, no matter how much time you give it. A single cell will not form by chance, nor will a human. The odds against it have too many zeroes!

Reality has taken away from some of my joy in science fiction. When The Doctor finds a robotic life form that has "evolved intelligence", it depresses me because it is based on evolutionism and random chance. But it
cannot happen! Robots are far, far less intricate than humans, and do not have any capacity for solo development. Even evolutionists should find that concept to be silly.

Scientists just hate to admit that they do not know something. They have a great deal of faith that evolutionism will be vindicated, that "a mechanism for this to happen will be found one day" and so forth. Have you ever noticed how hot and bothered evolutionists and atheists get when someone offers an alternative explanation like, say, Intelligent Design? Lee Strobel quoted a scientist in The Case for a Creator that scientists propose hypotheses all the time, big deal. But this stuff, no, it's jealously guarded. I believe atheists defend evolution with the zeal of Al-Qaida destroying "infidels". Well, I'm a scientific infidel, because I cannot believe in their random chance faith.

I am not a Creationist or proponent of Intelligent Design because the philosophies of science have failed to explain the origin and complexities of life, the universe and everything. No, accepting Intelligent Design works for many of us because
it is the best explanation. The facts and theories fit. It is more difficult to believe that there is no God than to believe in him. After all, the evidence is for his existence, and against the blind, gibbering god of random chance and evolution.

"Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God."
Psalm 90.2 (NIV)



August 18, 2009

Two Links on Atheism

Buona sera. I've been going on about "humanists" and atheists lately, and off and on for several months. Those people irritate me with their smug "I'm smarter than you" attitudes, and their efforts to tear down the beliefs of others.

Here are links to a two-part article by Frederick Meekins. This is more scholarly and less caustic than my articles (here are a few if you want to have some fun), but contain a great deal of truth. I won't invite atheists to read them, because the number of atheists who have the intellectual honesty to examine the evidence against them, well, I can count them on one hand. (For instance, mention Intelligent Design and just sit back and watch them rant. Extra points if they turn red in the face.)

Take it away, Mr. Meekins!

http://www.newsbull.com/forum/more.asp?TOPIC_ID=74565

http://www.newsbull.com/forum/more.asp?TOPIC_ID=74637

August 13, 2009

This Ain't Human

Buon giorno. While poking around some online forums and communities, I happened across a nest of "Humanists". Humanists are essentially atheists; they believe there is no God, and have antipathy for organized religions, especially Christianity. They'll use derogatory terms like "Xtians" and refer to "Jeebus", and are more than happy to tell you how much smarter they are than the millions of us who believe in a higher power.

They believe in "reason" and science, and constantly slam anything religious as being ignorance and superstition. As I constantly maintain, they do not bother to seriously examine the scientific basis for belief in God and the Bible. Some of the greatest scientific minds in history have been Christians, or "believers" to some degree (that is, being an atheist does not make you a better scientist).

What do Humanists stand for? Oh, they say that they believe in people, or humanity or whatever similar word you want. It's a bit difficult to determine their tenents, because they have nothing to direct them other then their own consciences and opinions. And everyone has their own opinions, so it looks like it would lead to anarchy.

But these people get so smug, I want to slap them. They worship reason, but their logic is faulty because it's based on preconceptions and emotion. The main one is, essentially, "If you're a believer, then you're an idiot". (Just like with Intelligent Design or Creation Science, they will put it down as being unscientific, but will not be able to discuss it because they have not had the intellectual honesty and integrity to investigate it.) And these smug cafones in one particular forum were gathering insults to use on believers. One was, "You remind me of myself, when I was young and stupid." Yep, that really shows their intellectual and moral superiority, doesn't it?

Let me ask you two questions, Captain Humanist: If you're so much smarter, or just plain better, than I am, why am I a threat to you? Why can't you just have a quiet self-assurance in your "rightness" and clam up? I think those are fair questions.

Addendum: Since words like "atheist" have negative connotations (ya think?), Richard "Daffy" Dawkins is suggesting that the term "bright" be used in its place. Yep, still have to slam everyone else because they're so much smarter than we are.

Subscribe in a reader