Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Monday, December 31, 2012

Lunar Formation Theories Keep Falling to Earth

A huge problem for evolutionary cosmologists is the formation of Earth's moon. Several theories have been put forward that seem somewhat plausible at a glance, but have fallen apart with further scrutiny. Even the newest (fifth) hypothesis is already on the verge of being ejected. Of course (and as usual), the most logical conclusion is one that best fits the facts, but evolutionists do not want to consider that possibility. So, the Man in the Moon is having a good laugh at their expense...

For the past 200 years, scientists have been working hard to come up with an explanation for the Moon's formation that does not involve the direct work of a Creator. The fourth hypothesis in that the Moon was formed by the impact upon Earth of a body the size of Mars. Early this year it was proved to be wrong by new evidence. A fifth hypothesis has quickly taken its place!
You can read about the five theories, why they fail and the best conclusion at "Another Lunar Formation Theory is in Trouble".

Friday, December 28, 2012

Venus Flytrap — Still Baffling After All These Years

Many people are familiar with the carnivorous plant known as the Venus Flytrap. Kids like to poke it to watch the "jaws" snap shut, or feed it raw hamburger — both activities are bad for it, however. It's that snapping shut in 1/10th of a second that is the main puzzler.


morgueFile/xianstudio
It is not mechanical, so there are no wires, pulleys and things like that. And it is not an animal, so there are no muscles to make it close. Yet, scientists are working on biomimetics because they believe that this plant inspires them to intelligently design imitations of its actions. But they cannot figure out how (or why!) it allegedly evolved.
The Venus flytrap remains one of the most intriguing plants in the world.  What makes it snap shut in a tenth of a second?  Can we imitate its motion without muscles, wires or batteries?
A press release from the American Physical Society’s Division of Fluid Dynamics sets up the questions:
Plants lack muscles, yet in only a tenth of a second, the meat-eating Venus fly trap hydrodynamically snaps its leaves shut to trap an insect meal. This astonishingly rapid display of botanical movement has long fascinated biologists. Commercially, understanding the mechanism of the Venus fly trap’s leaf snapping may one day help improve products such as release-on-command coatings and adhesives, electronic circuits, optical lenses, and drug delivery.
You can read the rest of this short but very interesting article, "Venus Flytrap Still Mystifies, Inspires", here.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Radiometric Dating — The Thrill Is Gone?

morgueFile/xandert (modified) 
No scientist is neutral regarding data (despite the claims of Darwin's Cheerleaders). Everyone has a starting point. Creation scientists have long pointed out flaws and inconsistencies in radiometric dating. Evolution scientists obtain inconsistent results that are cherry-picked to fit their uniformitarian, fundamentally flawed presuppositions.

Scientists put forward models and ideas and see if the data support them. Creationists from the RATE Project have been frustrating uniformitarian scientists. But they are not in lockstep on their models or their findings, and are continuing their investigations and analyses.
Radiometric dating is still a faulty argument against biblical history. Naturalistic geolo­gists often “cherry-pick” dates they deem appropriate to their particular studies. Carbon-14 has been found in coal and diamond samples supposedly be billions of years old, even though the half-life of 14C is only 5730 years. The creationist RATE group's theory that there have been periods of accelerated nuclear decay in the past runs into the problem of rapid volume cooling. Woodmorappe's statistical noise theory that radiometric dating is inherently unreliable may indeed be vindicated.
The inherent inconsis­tency of secular results strengthens the argument for a young earth, as the Bible describes in a most straightforward way!
Selections from RATE Study: Questions Regarding Accelerated Nuclear Decay and Radiometric Dating, by Carl R. Frode Jr. and A. Jerry Akridge.

(These selections by Marko Malyj are of the article published in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Volume 49 Number 1, Summer 2012)
You can read the rest of "Is the Romance of Radiometric Dating Getting Old?", here.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

"Junk" DNA Myth Continues Its Downward Spiral

morgueFile/JulesInKY
So let me get this straight: A certain section of DNA was studied, some of it was understood, and then whatever else that was not analyzed or not understood was classified as "junk". Got it. Pretty arrogant, innit?

We have seen that so-called "junk DNA" has clawed its way out of its premature grave and is humiliating evolutionary scientists who are finding out that the "junk" is useful after all. As proponents of Intelligent Design as well as biblical creationists have said all along, there is a purpose for it.
Secular biology, intelligent design, and creationist communities are abuzz with the recently reported data from 30 simultaneously published high-profile research papers in the field of human genomics, proclaiming that the human genome is irreducibly complex and intelligently designed. From an evolutionary perspective, this is a massive blow to the myth of “junk DNA.”
A large-scale international research effort, ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements), began in 2003 as an outgrowth of the Human Genome Project. Although the human genome had been largely finished in its final draft form in 2004, very little was known about the functionality of the many areas outside the protein-coding regions that comprised less than 5 percent of the total DNA sequence. A large number of biologists considered this excess DNA to have little value, referring to it as “junk DNA.” However, many early studies in functional genomics contradicted this idea and showed that non-coding DNA played a significant role in gene regulation and genome function. The ENCODE project was initiated as a massive global research effort to map and characterize the functionality of the entire human genome.
You can read the rest of this trainwreck for evolution at "Junk DNA Myth Continues Its Demise".

Monday, December 24, 2012

Increased Thought Control in the UK

Secular Humanism is a religion. 

Evolution is religious in nature. It looks like the UK is forcing adherence to a state religion, and evolutionism is a cornerstone. 

"Stop that, Cowboy Bob! Evolution is about science!" 

 An evolutionist disagrees: 
‘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—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.'
Michael Ruse

The four biggest bigot groups in the UK are at it again. They already forced the teaching of origins in government-run schools to be regulated. Now they want evolutionary dogma to be taught as unquestioned fact.

Is this not contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry and education? Protecting evolutionism against scrutiny is not education, it is brainwashing. That's right, I said it! True education would allow students to examine the facts, interpretations, conclusions and so on so they could decide for themselves if the evidence supports evolutionism or points to the Designer. If the evidence truly supported evolutionism, there should be nothing to fear from honest examination.

Instead, the anti-creationist thought police want students indoctrinated in their propaganda, and make them unable to think for themselves. (I have seen many times where this is working — Darwin's Stormtroopers attack creationists and are dumbfounded when creationists show them the folly of their presuppositions and fundamentally flawed worldview.) Instead, students become drones, unable to do critical thinking. 

I guess creationists in the UK can no longer say, "It's my country, too!" How good is that?
The UK Government, following a campaign by the British Humanist Association (BHA), the National Secular Society (NSS), the British Centre for Science Education (BCSE), and the Royal Society, is now threatening to remove funding from free schools that do not teach evolution as a “comprehensive, coherent and extensively evidenced theory.” The new rules will apply from 2013. CMI has previously commented on this secular humanist campaign, and provided a time-line of recent events here. I have also offered my response.
This further ruling is now seen as a necessary move to close a loophole because the secularists fear that free schools (that is, privately-run schools receiving state funding) may simply not teach evolution at all to get around present legislation. Sir Paul Nurse is reported as saying that,
What are the Darwinists so afraid of, that they must hide their pet theory behind a legal fig leaf? No other scientific idea gets such legislative protection from scrutiny.
“The new clause in the funding agreement should ensure that all pupils at free schools have the opportunity to learn about evolution as an extensively evidenced theory and one of the most fundamentally important tenets of modern biology.
The development of the theory of evolution is an excellent example of how science works and there is a clear consensus within the scientific community regarding both its validity and importance.”

Responding to this latest challenge

You can read the response to the challenge, and see the missing links (snicker), when you read "Further restrictive legislation to keep Creation out of UK state-funded schools", here.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Penguins, Speed and Air Jackets

morgueFile/chamomile
This rather short article on the ability of penguins to zip through the water is quite interesting. There are several intricate features that show how they are designed for what they do — and do it quickly.
Penguins are fast swimmers, but they shouldn't be. As they rocket themselves through the water and onto overlying ice shelves, the drag of water friction is supposed to be too great. Researchers familiar with recent attempts to use air as a lubricant for ships noticed air bubbles jacketing penguins during their boisterous ascents, and that led them to question if penguins use air to accelerate underwater.
National Geographic recently reported on how Bangor University biologist Roger Hughes, inspired by a 2001 BBC documentary that featured emperor penguins leaping out of the water, partnered with an engineer in Denmark and two other researchers to investigate how the penguins could do this. Their results appeared in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series in 2011, where they showed penguins' unique and remarkable design for fast swimming.
You can read the rest of "Scientists Discover Secret to Fast Swimming Penguins", here.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Evolution, Genetics, Real Science and Spin

The more we learn about real science, the more evolutionary theory suffers for it. To protect their faulty worldview, evolutionary scientists and publicists need to "spin" the data. That is, the make excuses and manufacture transparent explanations that do not fool anyone except fundamentalist evolutionists and the willingly galactically gullible.

Library of Congress
The spin is extremely noticeable in regards to the newest discoveries in genetics (such as their humiliation about "junk" DNA) and unique genes. The pusillanimity regarding the raw facts is distressing.
You’ve heard of novel genes—genes that are found in only one species, and you’ve heard of alternative splicing—complex genes that are edited in different ways. Now put them together and on steroids, and to top it off, all in a mere unicellar algae. It’s another damage control nightmare as evolutionists again can’t figure out what went wrong.
The explosion in molecular biology in the past fifty years brought a plethora of new DNA sequence data and with it many new contradictions for evolutionists. One interesting finding was that in the higher species, genes are often interrupted multiple times. Instead of one DNA segment, those complex genes consisted of several smaller segments separated by intervening sequences.
You can read the rest of "Bigelowiella natans: Evolution Damage Control is Frantic", here

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

The Creationist Spokesman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Here is a "sorta" sequel to this post. It stems from remarks and questions like the one below, which creationists encounter rather often. It has been modified somewhat:
You assert that evolutionists take our facts from Wikipedia and other biased sources but don't read what creationists really believe. So what do you guys really believe? I've looked at your FB page but I can't find anything. Are you young earth creationists? I assume you're Christian from the tenor of this Page
Unfortunately for people who ask questions like this, I have not been appointed as the spokesman for creationists.


morgueFile/RoganJosh
There are times when atheists will fuss and say, "You don't know anything about atheists! And don't lump us all into one group, there are several kinds!" Sometimes, I think that some of those atheists do not know what atheists think, because they seem to have created (heh!) definitions specific to their own views. There are also various kinds of evolutionists, for that matter.

And there are different kinds of creationists. Some people consider proponents of Intelligent Design to be creationists (which is incorrect). So it is unfair for me to speak on behalf of all "creationists", whatever one considers them to be.

There is a common misunderstanding that creationists are Christian Fundamentalists. This is not the case. While Fundamentalist churches often embrace young Earth creationism, there are creationists in various Christian denominations. Personally, I am not a Fundamentalist (I discussed that here).

It gets worse.

It is safe to say that most young Earth creationists (YECs) believe the Bible. There are people who compromise with the Bible (such as Hugh Ross), and are old Earth creationists (OECs). Although people like Hugh Ross and other OECs will agree with YECs that the scientific evidence does not support evolution, some will make accommodation for it.

It gets worse, again.

There are Mohammedan creationists, Jewish creationists, agnostics that support Intelligent Design — "What do creationists believe?" is not such a simple question after all.
I ask because in the past every time I've argued with creationists they've ducked and weaved when asked what they believe.
Interesting, most creationists that I know are quite willing to say what they believe, and will defend their positions. Also, we point people to sites that have extensive information supporting their positions. 

What do I believe? That should not be difficult to discern based on the material promoted on this site. Also, in the right-hand column I have a link to my YouTube page, which has a few of my videos and several creation science playlists.

What do biblical creationists believe? Most of the sites linked here have YEC materials. You can go to those sites, click around, do searches and so forth. Again, the videos on my playlists are YEC. There are videos available for online viewing here as well.

Also, there are books available (many of which are in e-book formats) such as The Greatest Hoax on Earth, Refuting Evolution 1 and 2, Evolution Impossible, What Is Truth?, The New Answers Book (three volumes, available individually or in a set) and many more. There are highly technical materials available, but the ones I listed are mostly on an introductory level. And no, I do not make one red grotzit for mentioning them; they do not even know that I am doing this.

I wish you all the best on your search for answers.


Monday, December 17, 2012

Lucy Gets "Splained" to Presumptuous Evolutionist

Have you noticed that paleontologists and anthropologists will find a fragment of something, believe it's conclusive proof of evolution, and then find out later that they were wrong? They try to quietly drop their embarrassment. The process of making something out of nothing reminds me of this:



Anyway.

The scientists at major creationist organizations seldom have time for small-time bloggers who think that they are the smartest people on the short bus. In this case, they made an exception.
"Lucy" at the Creation Museum 
Adam Benton took exception to the "Lucy" exhibit at the Creation Museum, and decided to show how stupid and evil creationists really are. Except that he had several things working against his "analysis":
  • He did not actually see the exhibit
  • Ignorance of facts that he tries to present
  • Ignorance of facts that he tries to refute
  • Exceptional bias in his worldview
  • Unwillingness to examine the evidence more completely
 Here, scientists show Benton's folly.
The internet offers a wealth of information as well as misinformation. An internet blog highly critical of the Creation Museum’s new “Lucy” exhibit recently caught our attention. Our exhibit features a holographic representation of Lucy’s fossilized bones in the context of the knuckle-walking ape that evidence suggests she was. The blogger calls the Creation Museum’s Lucy “an abomination” and a “travesty.” He builds a detailed case intended to discredit the exhibit and demonstrate that Lucy was a transitional form between humans and ape-like ancestors. We felt this particular blog, as it contains much misinformation, would be worthwhile examining and refuting in detail, seeing this as an opportunity to address secular allegations that our Lucy reconstruction shows reckless and unscientific reasoning.
You can read the rest of "Lucy, the Knuckle-Walking 'Abomination'?", here.

Friday, December 14, 2012

Considering the Ant

morgueFile/jak
It seems that most people consider ants to be nothing more than an inconvenient bug that finds things you've spilled in your kitchen and brings its friends to celebrate. Then you have to get ant traps. Or perhaps you've just watched them scurrying to and fro, often carrying something awkward.

Have you ever seriously considered what they are doing, and how they do it? The spill on your kitchen floor that you thought you had cleaned up, or planned on getting to later — they found it, and told their friends. How? And when they're carrying some dead thing in their caravan, what's up with that?
Ants have taken over the world, it seems, but they didn’t do it alone! One reason they’re so successful is their ability to communicate with each other—where to go, what to watch out for, how to help.
The lone ant follows the path marked earlier by her companions. In her ceaseless search for food, she decides to veer off the trail and blaze a new path. Along the way, she releases a complex cocktail of chemicals to assure that, if her hunt is successful, other ants can locate her trail and lend a leg (or jaw).
Finding no sustenance, she hightails back to the trail junction and leaves another sign for her nest mates: “dead end.”
She tries another route, and this time she stumbles onto a live giant caterpillar that would feed many in her family. But it is too big to handle alone. Firing a dazzling array of chemicals into the air, like sounding a trumpet in the heat of battle, she summons reinforcements who soon arrive. Not only do they know how to find her but they also bring the necessary tools and personnel to kill the caterpillar and bring the body back to their nest.
You can follow the trail and continue reading "Ants — Millimeter Messengers", here.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Does the Higgs Boson Particle Prove Anything At All?

CERN-AC-0510028 01
First, a silly side note. This article was scheduled to post on the last repetitive date that we will live to see, at 12.12 PM Eastern Time on 12-12-2012.

The hysteria and publicity about the Higgs boson particle seems to have faded. Perhaps now we can give it a calmer examination.

Some people rave that it is the particle (field) that was sought, and it is somehow proof of the Big Bang. (There are even people who go as far as to say that it proves there is no God, which is an asinine and unscientific statement.) What does it prove, if anything?
Scientists from Europe’s CERN research center presented evidence on July 4, 2012, for a particle that is likely the Higgs boson, the last remaining elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics. Does this discovery have relevance for the creation-evolution controversy?
Particles can generally be classified into two categories, according to the quantum mechanical rules that they obey: fermions and bosons. The Higgs particle is called a boson because it falls into the second category.
Evidence for the Higgs boson was obtained from data collected at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, as well as at Fermilab’s Tevatron collider in the United States. Although the Higgs boson has been nicknamed the “God particle,” it is widely agreed that the name is more for publicity than accuracy, and many physicists do not like it. “I detest the name ‘God particle’. I am not particularly religious, but I find the term an ‘in your face’ affront to those who [are],” wrote physicist Vivek Sharma, a leader of the Higgs search. “I do experimental physics not GOD.”
You can read the rest of "The Higgs Boson and the Big Bang", here.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

No Transitional Forms?

There is considerable dispute between creationists and evolutionists about transitional forms and missing links. Creationists say that there are no indisputable transitional forms, and proponents of evolutionism claim that there are many. (Some of Darwin's Juvenile Cheerleaders introduce emotions with cries of "Liar!" in a manipulative attempt to "win" the argument.) Sure, there are plenty of fossils. Some may appear to be "in between". 

Sometimes, the problem may be in the wording, and what is understood by "transitional". Also, it does not help matters for evolutionists that certain things that have been trotted out as transitional forms were presented too hastily, and they were quietly dropped from the show. Unfortunately for proponents, some are presenting outdated "proof" because they did not get the memo.
First, the fact that the links (transitional forms) which the concept of evolution would prima facie cause its adherents to expect are definitely still missing is highlighted in Chapter 3 of Dr Sarfati’s classic book Refuting Evolution

Like so many of these proposed or alleged ‘transitional forms’, the fossil reconstruction [of Pakicetus] … involved a great deal of evolutionary speculation, to put it mildly.
What makes the question complex is that in place of the countless thousands of transitional forms expected (as Darwin logically indicated should be found, and anticipated would be found in future), there exists at any point in time a handful of candidates, i.e. fossils put forward as transitional forms by evolutionary proponents. [Note: By ‘transitional forms’ is meant here fossils showing intermediate stages between major evolutionary transitions, i.e. from one kind of creature to a wholly different kind. For example, stages in the supposed transition of a walking reptile to a flying bird, nothing which creationists could regard as variation/speciation within a kind. Some evolutionists argue that we have countless thousands of transitional fossils, but they empty the term ‘transitional fossil’ of any content really meaningful for the creation-evolution debate. They define a fossil as ‘transitional’ in the same sense that a car is ‘transitional’ between a unicycle and a truck. That is not in view here.] Creationists by definition would argue that there are none, so to evolutionists this is seen as ‘proof’. From a creation perspective, though, consider the following:
You can consider what follows, in context, by reading, "The evolutionary parade of ‘missing links’", here.

Monday, December 10, 2012

Blue Stars Indicate a Young Universe

Alnitak, Alnilam, Mintaka 
Credit: Digitized Sky Survey, ESA/ESO/NASA FITS Liberator 
Color Composite: Davide De Martin (Skyfactory)

 Blue stars cause a problem for cosmologists: They should not exist. Since they are bigger and hotter than other stars, and their fuel supply should be exhausted comparatively quickly. Blue stars exist on our own Milky Way galaxy.


In a manner reminiscent of the Oort Cloud excuse for replenishing short-term comets, cosmologists say that certain areas are "stellar nurseries" where new stars are being formed. Except that there is no observational evidence of such a thing, it only exists in theory. Biblical creationists do not need to conjure up excuses like the Oort Cloud or stellar nurseries.
Orion is one of the most well-known and easily recognized constellations of the winter sky. The three bright blue stars in Orion’s belt seem to draw our attention instantly. Such stars are a strong confirmation of the biblical timescale.
Most stars generate energy by the process of nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in the stellar core. This is a very efficient power source. Theoretically, a star like the sun has enough hydrogen in its core to keep it burning for ten billion years. But that’s not the case with blue stars.
Blue stars are always more massive than the sun. This means they have more hydrogen available as fuel. Yet, blue stars are much brighter than the sun; some are over 200,000 times brighter! They are “burning” their fuel much more quickly than the sun, and therefore cannot last billions of years. Based on their observed luminosity, the most massive blue stars cannot last even one million years before running out of fuel.
You can read the rest of "Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation", here.      

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Parasites in your DNA?

Some scientists, in their rush to show that they know all things and can make ex cathedra proclamations, have said that DNA is flawed because of parasites. Looks like they spoke too soon — again.

Friday, December 7, 2012

Amazing Spider Web Strength

MorgueFile / MaryKBaird 
It is easy to think of a spider web as a group of sticky threads in a pattern. It is more than that, however. There are different strands for different purposes, and they even have unique functions. Break a strand? Not a problem for the arachnid in charge.

Imagine a cloth that gets stronger after it is damaged. That is what scientists recently discovered when probing the strength of garden spider webs.
A research team tested the resistance of a spider web's supporting radial threads and compared that with the thinner spiral threads. They found that placing a certain amount of pressure on just one thread caused it to suddenly stiffen and distribute the stress to the rest of the web.
Of course, too much damage eventually weakened the web, but the initial damage had the opposite effect. After investigators applied even more pressure, the additional stress was not transferred to the whole web, but to tiny protein crystals acting as stress points on the targeted strand. Whether the scientists pushed on a spiral or radial thread, only that strand broke, leaving the whole web intact.
You can spin your way over and finish reading "Scientists Decode Key to Spider Web Strength".

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Everything In Place

morgueFile/ronnieb (modified)

The previous article was about what the author called "Genetic Relativity". It turns out that he has a follow-up article. For chance and mutations to have an effect, they cannot be occasional or random. Many parts must be in place at the same time, or nothing makes sense — or functions. A door hinge unhinges Darwin.
There is a huge emphasis in the naturalism (including evolution) vs. creationism debate, over whether "new information" could arise via undirected processes...

But it is my thought that an exponentially greater problem for Darwinian evolution exists; one that involves what kind of new information mindless processes would have to create, if molecules to man evolution were true.

I'll start out with an example to illustrate the point:

In order for the human jaw to work, such that we're able to chew, talk, and so forth, multiple biological parts must function in harmony together - starting with the maxilla, and mandible, which are the upper and lower jaw bones, respectively.
You can finish chewing on "Genetic Relativity - Part ll: The Door Hinge That Disproves Darwin", here.



Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Genetics and Collaboration



Despite the facts that mutations do not add information to genes, there is no plausible mechanism for such a thing to happen, and that such a thing has not been observed and that almost all mutations are harmful some evolutionists insist that blind, random mutations can be beneficial to organisms and are proof of evolution. Some go as far as to say that some bacteria can eat nylon is proof of microbes-to-microbiologist evolution.

Even if such things did happen, these people overlook the simple fact that things have to be ordered and in place for anything consequential to occur.
"Genetic relativity" is a term that I coined to probe the improbability (and indeed, impossibility) of proteins arising from undirected processes which not only function independently, but also work together in varying degrees of collaboration with other proteins within a cellular system...

It is one thing to claim that "a protein function" (in the general sense) could arise from mindless, undirected processes, despite the mathematical odds against such an event...

But it is another matter entirely, to claim that a specific protein function could arise by chance, where the functionality is compatible with (and complimentary to) a pre-existing biological environment.

And it is yet another issue still, to claim that multiple proteins could arise by chance as separate events in a supposed evolutionary timeline, which collaborate and work together in mutually beneficial and interdependent relationships to accomplish a "higher functionality" within the cell.
To find out more about how collaboration with proteins is not just a word game, read the rest of "Genetic Relativity - The Demise Of Evolution Part 1", here.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Evolution, Creation Science and the Basics


So often, critics of Intelligent Design and creation science have notions that are fundamentally flawed. Some of the problem is that schools do not teach critical thinking skills, but prefer to condition students to accept evolutionism as "science" and ignore the bad (and fraudulent) "evidence" that is offered to support evolution.

In addition, people will gather ideas about creationism from people and sites that are just as ignorant and biased as the inquirers; they do not bother do do their homework. When they start spouting opinions and prejudicial conjecture, they humiliate themselves in front of creationists who do know how to reason.

A third problem is that many of them have a basic misunderstanding of science, and then spread it as truth (such as Bill Nye).

How about getting some basics settled?
Recently, I ran across a few comments about this image on a site called atheistthinktank.net. I really don’t expect fans on these sites, but I was surprised to see that their basic objections reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the debate.
For example, take this comment by someone who sadly identifies themself as nogodsforme:
"What the eff? I guess that guy doesn’t get that evolution is a result of the same scientific method that brought him his cell phone, car, clean water, flu shot, fridge and effing computer. Without science, he would live like people in the 1300′s.
Evolution is only one part of science–a big part, but still only one part. And people who reject evolution still accept all the goodies that the scientific method gives them.  We have to listen to religious stuff all the time, from nearly everyone we know (care to comment on last Thursday, anyone?) and we are the people with the facts on our side.
As I have said quite frequently, if religious explanations worked, we wouldn't need science."
Please note: Nearly every objection he makes is addressed within the first twenty slides [sometimes the first ten] of any decent creation presentation. Nor is this the meat of said presentation; I’m talking about the part where we lay the basic groundwork.
You can basically read the rest of "Objections to Young Earth Creationism Often Reveal A Basic Misunderstanding of Science", here.

Monday, December 3, 2012

On the Imitation of Nature

MorgueFile/AcrylicArtist

A common challenge from atheists is to say, "Prove to me that God exists. It must be something scientific". (Usually, that kind of remark comes from someone who has already suppressed the truth of God's existence, and there is no "evidence" that will convince him or her.) They are often assuming that this is an intellectual approach, but consider: The Creator is a spirit, and outside of time and space. To demand proof of God's existence in this manner is irrational, and a category mistake. So far, nobody has chosen what kind of litmus paper they would use to test for him, anyway.

However, his presence is known, and inferred.

Many inventions and innovations have come about from studying nature. Humans imitate what is observed in nature, and have had some success. (Ironically, they are looking at something that is designed, and not appealing to the failed concepts of time, chance, random mutations and so forth of evolution during the course of making their inventions.) The accomplishments are clumsy in comparison to what has been designed from the beginning.
Humans are not the originators of the physical world, but often imperfectly copy it. In the fields of “engineering, chemistry, ballistics, aerodynamics—in fact in almost every area of human endeavor—nature has been there first” and the natural world God made is “infinitely more economical of resources and generally superior in performance” (Paturi 1976, p. 1). A few examples of this will eloquently illustrate the validity of this observation. The fact that “nature” invented many innovations first has long been recognized by scientists (Martin 1933, p. 14). This paper reviews only a few of the great numbers of examples to illustrate this fact.
You can read the rest of "Affirmations of God’s Existence from Design in Nature" in context, here.

Labels