Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A while back, someone sent me a link to a short article in Forbes , " Why Do Scientists Get Excited About 'Rewriting The Textbooks?' ", which I last accessed on October 13, 2018. It was written by contributor Carmen Drahl, an evolutionist. She had some enthusiastic things to say about the idea, but they were a mix of both realistic and idealistic concepts. Credit: Freeimages /  Jean Scheijen First of all, the title tells us that scientists write textbooks. Mayhaps that's why they keep getting their atoms-to-author evolutionary research fouled up, as they spend so much time writing textbooks? Do a search and you'll find that many different kinds of people can write and publish textbooks, then committees review them. Some scientists write them, many do not. I’m one of the lucky folks who was trained to see science as a process, as a way of looking at the world. And when you see science that way, you realize that while the concepts and

In late 2001, Creation Ministries International did an article about the 2000 book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?  that showed how several of the "proofs" of evolution fail. Even in 2012, we encounter "proofs" of evolution that are outdated, discredited and even fraudulent. Some of these are the Peppered Moths, Haeckel's drawings (someone said to me, "Even though they were faked doesn't mean it's still not true"...agonizing), the Miller experiment and more. I maintain that some of Darwin's cheerleaders are victims of bad science and indoctrination, but they are also to blame for taking so much by faith and not investigating the flaws in evolution that so many of us are trying to get them to see. To be blunt, presenting bad information is indoctrination, not education. The educational system appears to be more interested in promoting a worldview and misotheistic biases rather than educating and training students to think critically

This post is courtesy of the "Through the Side Door" department. That is, I wanted to post this on Fazebook (which is linked to Twitter) "as is", but they were unable to validate the link. I already did that. No, I am not going to claim censorship or anything because that is not warranted. School Teacher by Jan Steen, 1668 Many Christian parents do not want their children attending the state-run indoctrination centers (often called "schools"), so they opt for alternatives. Those of us who reject evolution and millions of years because of both theology and science do not want to deprogram children and teach them the truth. After all, the government has control of them for several hours a day most of the year. Anti-creationists get furious when we undermine their indoctrination that is, in many cases, falsely called education. Christian schools? Possibly, if they are affordable. Unfortunately, having Christian in the name does not guarantee Bible-

Hilarious! The Republic of Korea (also called South Korea) is correcting evolution in textbooks [ 1 ] . They are removing the same kinds of things that we point out that do not belong in American textbooks. Fundamentalist evolutionists are having a hard time dealing with this development. Note the loaded terminology: "It appears that the United States is not the only country having a hard time accepting evolution" [ 2 ] . "Evolution Under Assault in South Korea’s Schools" [ 3 ] . "South Korea outlaws evolution: Publishers remove examples from school textbooks after protests from creationists" [ 4 ] . "...South Korea, where the anti-evolution sentiment seems to be winning its battle with mainstream science" [ 5 ] . Note not only the hysteria, but the loaded terminology and propping up evolution as a victim. Further, they commit the fallacy of equivocation [ 6 ] by elevating evolution (philosophical historical science, beliefs about the past) w

This news is a mite confusing on several levels. The secular science industry is outraged — outraged , I tell you — that evolution has been dropped from the education system in India. That may change momentarily, but like evolutionists feeling threatened by Neanderthal intelligence , principles here are important. One thing this child found confusing is that officials said one reason to remove evolution is that it "conflicts with creation stories." Evolution is in keeping with Hinduism, the majority religious viewpoint. (Christians are a minority, and atheists are a tiny fraction of the population.) Secularists were disingenuous in their objections. Angry shouting scientist image made at Bing AI Image Creator As expected, tinhorns said that evolution is essential for science. That is false, and there are many times when genuine science is performed without rubbing the belly of the Bearded Buddha. Molecules-to-mystic evolution is unhelpful in teaching medical science , and we

Bill "I Play A Scientist On TV" Nye, poster boy for evolutionism propaganda, probably came as close to meeting the debate challenge  from Answers In Genesis as he ever will.  Nye has been badmouthing creation science, showing his lack of understanding of it, displaying ignorance of science itself (ironic, because he did observational science on television), creating straw man arguments about creationists and generally making a fool of himself — to thunderous applause from the bigoted Evo Sith. A forum was aired on Al Jazeera America discussing the inclusions of criticism of evolution in Texas textbooks. Judging from Dr. Georgia Purdom's account, Bill Nye acted like a typical evolutionary ideologue who must protect  "science" from scrutiny. He expressed his opinions, but they were without actual substance. Much like so many others who attack creation science. Bill Nye the Science Guy and Kathy Miller from the Texas Freedom Foundation represented the

It's one thing for the Darwinistas to argue among themselves about what happened when and what is responsible for evidence that is being examined. But they are not in agreement, despite what deep time and evolution proponents may say. It's bad enough that false science gets into the textbooks, but worse when textbooks don't get the story straight. Stromatoporoid reef in Alberta, Canada. Image credit: Georgialh / Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 Stromatoporoids were creatures that were fond of building ocean reefs, and are considered to be closely related to sponges. A secular science book got it wrong when the owlhoot author wrote that stromatoporoids were responsible for the oil reserves in Alberta, Canada, millions of years ago. Yes, they were involved, but it's implied that they turned into oil. A better secular explanation has a few things right (inadvertently paralleling the creation science model), but the comparatively recent Genesis Flood is a far better

There have been times when I have been astonished at remarks from evolutionists about science. They have used outdated, spurious, discredited, tendentious and even dishonest evidence as "proof" of the "fact" of evolution. (One atheist called Matt Slick of CARM and actually presented discredited Lamarckism , or Lamarckianism, as proof of evolution!) Sometimes, this clinging to an unworkable worldview is simply the result of willful ignorance. But how often is the problem based on faulty textbooks , and they never learned the truth about evolutionism? Perhaps the problem is bad science indoctrination coupled with emotional attachment to a faulty worldview, but never mind about that now. Let's looks more closely at the textbook problem. Evolutionists are now formulating scientifically archaic teaching standards they want the states to follow “in whole, without alteration.” Our evolution-drenched science education in the U.S. is pathetic, with science literacy scr

Not only did Papa Darwin  plagiarize other people and hijack Edward Blyth 's idea of natural selection in his presentation of evolution, but he also tinkered with the formation of atolls, which was based in incomplete science. It is malarkey, but still taught to students. Palmyra Atoll, NOAA photo by Erin Looney Secular science indoctrination centers (schools) are famous for providing false and outdated information regarding evidence for evolution and the age of the earth. Indeed, they use fraud . (This is "education".) We've covered Haeckel's drawings that are used to support both abortion and evolution already, and the Miller-Urey experiment has been thoroughly refuted. Darwin's ideas on atoll formation is known to be junk science, but that and the others are still in the textbooks. Maybe it's because it makes secularists feel good, and they need to make the books bigger? Darwin investigated other questions than evolution, such as the nature of barnacl

If you study on it, Neanderthals have evolved in evolutionary history. They were links to our apelike ancestors as portrayed in textbooks and museums. Once some of the presuppositions about apeness were dropped, improved technology was invented, and better research was conducted, they were found to be fully human. What did these guys think about? Well, what do you  think about? What is important to people can often be determined by what they own and how they act. For example, visiting the dwellings of people can indicate what is valued or at least what is interesting to them. The same may be said of Neanderthals. Neanderthal reconstruction, Flickr / Michael (a.k.a. moik) McCullough ( CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ) We should know that it is possible to generalize what groups of people think about, value, and provides them entertainment, but to generalize that each individual was the same as the others is the fallacy of division . My interests in music, science, theology, and other things are vastly

Darwin's Cheerleaders are continually on patrol to protect their material from serious scrutiny. Ironically, they use all sorts of logical fallacies to do this. These include equivocating "evolution" with "science, saying that "Intelligent Design" is religion, and using emotionally-loaded terminology such as, "We don't want textbooks contaminated by creationism", or, " Ray Comfort's video is biblical porn ". We had a troll at The Question Evolution Project use a fake name on a recently acquired account, telling us that creationists are stupid and dishonest. Uh, yeah... What would happen if people were trained to think critically and honestly examine the evidence without evolutionary assumptions and presuppositions? They might see that "proofs" of evolution still fail , Haeckel's fraudulent drawings are still used , outdated and fraudulent materials are used in evolutionary indoctrination, lying to students f

We have already shown that textbooks contain bad and even fraudulent material . Although the secret is out, it is still happening: Junk is still in textbooks ( as you can see in the articles here ). Worse, people like Eugenie Scott and others encourage "educators" to lie to their students . The end justifies the means, ja mein herr?  One of the perpetually perpetrated propaganda pieces is the use of the Haeckel drawings that have been known to be fake for years. Let's not let false similarities deceive us. And yet, the topic is still controversial; not only is the subject a huge embarrassment to evolutionists, but some are still trying to defend the fraud! (One guy Tweeted to me that it didn't matter that the drawings were fake, they were still true — *facepalm*). While creationists may make mistakes, we do not resort to defending, rehabilitating and excusing outright fraud. It would help curtail the embarrassment if they did not keep putting this nonsen

Time and again, I get hit with the plaintive bleating of fundamentalist evolutionists that, "All the facts support evolution", "Creation and Intelligent Design do not have facts", "There are no facts for creation" and similar nonsense. News flash: It is not a case of "my facts are better than your facts" because nobody owns the facts. A fact is a fact, evidence is evidence. It is the interpretation of the facts that are at issue. For that matter (brace yourselves now), goo-to-you macroevolution and creation are equally religious and equally scientific. They are both belief systems about the past, interpreted through science frameworks based on worldviews. When evolutionists insist that "scientists start with the facts and follow where the evidence leads", they are either misled or dishonest; nobody is unbiased. That flies in the face of human nature, Nellie. Phylogenetic Tree (modified) However, evolutionists are so pass

For many years, it has been taught that our traits are the result of our genes. Did Ellen touch the cleft in your chin after you were putting up the Christmas lights, Sparky? That crease was caused by a gene, they say. Credit: RGBStock / Helmut Gevert Eye and hair color, straight or curled, sizes of various body parts, other things — a gene for each. While this idea is useful to advance the particles-to-paralegal storyline, it is not true. Unfortunately, bad science ideas (especially those that support evolution) tend to remain in textbooks. The truth is much more complicated; Dr. Robert Carter said, "If life were really simple, evolution might be possible"; evolution is increasingly less possible relative to the complexity of life. Several genes are involved in traits and trait expressions, and other factors come into play. Indeed, our Creator likes variety, and he gave us many factors to express our individual characteristics. I taught college level human genetics and was c

The geologic column exists in many textbooks, but is not found in nature. It is presented in a nice, tidy order where simple life forms are at the bottom, with more complex evolving up to the top. However, the geologic column and index fossils are constructs of the imagination . Some owlhoots have trolled, "The geologic column proves evolution, and there are no fossils out of order". They don't know what they're talking about, there are fossils "out of order" according to evolutionary timelines. So, it exists, but not in the way microbes-to-mechanic evolution want us to think . Modified from an image from the US Geological Survey Do biblical creation models do a better job of explaining what we find in the fossil record? That's a mite difficult. There is a general order to be had in the fossil record, and the Genesis Flood models explain a great deal. Yes, there are disagreements among Flood geologists as to the details — which is not much of a

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen In yesterday's post, points were made that atheists and evolutionists blatantly misrepresent the biblical creationist position  in their efforts to control education. They present evolution as indisputable scientific truth. One of the main problems with this is that people will simply accept such statements as accurate, and then expect creationists to defend positions that we do not hold. Educators present only the good side of evolution, often including (sometimes from ignorance) outdated and inaccurate information from textbooks . Indeed, some textbooks also contain fraudulent material . Creation science and Intelligent Design materials are actively suppressed, and evolution is sometimes required to be presented with no contrary information . Add this indoctrination to the additional problems that people tend to "think" with their emotions, and that students are not taught to think critically. Then we have Darwinoid Drones arguing wit

CreationWiki (modified) You know that "tree of life" thing that is in all the school textbooks? You know, it shows everything branching out, tracing back to the alleged "common ancestor"? Darwin's tree of life was wrong . Well, some of us knew it all along, but evolutionists are finally admitting it. Oh, but getting the word to the textbook publishers? We'll see. It will probably be misleading information in textbooks for decades yet . Charles Darwin drew his first "evolutionary tree" in his "B" notebook in 1837, with the words "I think" scrawled above it, to illustrate his idea that all of today's species arose from a single common ancestor. This concept lies at the heart of evolutionary thinking, and the tree-like images that often accompany its instruction have been effective indoctrination tools.  However, if today's creatures evolved from some other creature millions or billions of years ago, then the

How can anyone justify science "education" when it is based in the presupposition that evolution is a "fact", evidence contrary to evolution is ignored or even suppressed, evolutionary "science" is to be protected , and the textbooks contain outdated and outright wrong material? (Even the terribly outdated and misused Miller-Urey experiment is still being cited!) Bad textbooks are preferred over materials that require critical thinking. Evidence for evolution is cherry-picked . That is not science, Skippy, that is indoctrination . According to a study released today by the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, bogus embryo drawings, long-debunked claims about tonsils, and outdated information from a 1950s lab experiment highlight the glaring bloopers found in proposed science instructional materials currently being considered by the Texas State Board of Education. "Retro-science must be in, because the proposed materials are

The hands at the Darwin Ranch were dispirited, and the baker Stevia Dolce told me she was feeling the mood. She even tried baking some pastries favored by the hands, hoping those might pep them up some, but with little effect. What could cause this? A misidentified fossil. It was supposedly from 550 million years ago, from the Precambrian rock strata. The original discovery caused something that seems to be happening quite frequently: Rewriting the geology textbooks. This time, regarding the Indian subcontinent. Not happening after all. Indoor beehive, Flickr / Lynne ( CC BY 2.0 ) The fossil was later identified as something made by bees, not the fossil of some ancient animal. It is modern, and it is a beehive impression. Stung by the news, secularists are still trying to present the cave in which it was found as very old. Such scientists seldom question their beliefs in deep time because they are working in accordance with their worldview. Constant evidence that should cause thinking