Piltdown Superman

Creationists are accused of being biased when interpreting data. Surprise! So are secular scientists. Since I learned that no scientist is completely neutral and objective (being human and all that), I see this basic fact reinforced over and over. Here is an example: Dr Kathleen Benison, geologist at Central Michigan University, USA, writes in response to Michael Oard’s article Beware of paleoenvironmental deductions (1999). Dr Benison was the principal author of the study that Michael Oard was commenting on, and this exchange presents a penetrating look at the influence of worldview on how geology is interpreted. Dr Benison writes: No, to see what Dr. Benison writes, and Dr. Oard's response, read the rest of "Paleoenvironments and the Bible, The role of assumptions and worldview in geological interpretation" he re.

"Peer Review", the convenient cop-out for evolutionists to dodge actually examining the evidence for creation and Intelligent Design. Sure, let's submit creationist material to evolutionists for their opinions. Makes perfect sense. Yes, the biased "good old boys" club that promotes favorites and suppresses those who are not exactly on the inside track. Bad news, Buford: Non-evolutionists have peer review as well. But it does not meet your presuppositions. Hey, want an example of what happens when...? What happens when an editor of a technical biology journal decides, along with others, to publish the first peer-reviewed technical article that casts doubt on Darwin and lays out the evidence for an intelligent designer?  In the case of Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian research associate and former managing editor of the independent journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington , it meant being cast out of the prestigious

For about two years now (or thereabouts), I have been listening to many podcasts for Christian apologetics. One of those is a radio show and podcast in southern New Jersey called "Evidence for Faith". Keith Kendrix and Kirk Hastings have discussions on various topics and conduct the occasional interview as well. I have "participated" by writing the occasional letter, and they have read portions of the letters on the air. (Keep your ego in check there, Cowboy...) Since then, we have had some good communication, and I have even reviewed and recommended a book by Kirk Hastings called What Is Truth?  (On a side note, one of my more vituperative atheist "haters" sent them a letter, telling them what a bad man  I am. This was revealed to me in a telephone conversation with Keith, who thought it was without merit.) By the way, they gave a shout out for " Question Evolution Day / Academic Freedom Day — February 12 ". Thanks, guys! So anyway. Th

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

This video, and additional information, can be found here . 

A term given to evolutionary wishful thinking is "missing links". These things are supposed to be linking modern humans to our alleged simian ancestry. Since there are no actual links, they are presumed "missing" because of the faith-based claims that they do exist after all. (Sort of like my "Evolution Breakfast", where I have pancakes and bacon, but the sausage links  are missing. ) So, gleeful evolutionists find the occasional  bone fragments and construct these simian ancestors. The process goes something like this: The term "suspension of disbelief" is applied to literary and cinematic offerings that stretch credulity. However, to appreciate the story, people are expected to ignore common sense and rational thought for the sake of appreciating the story. This also happens when listening to "explanations" offered by evolutionists. Apemen have long been the stuff of science fiction. For example, in 1912, Arthur