Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Saturday, November 4, 2017

A Comparison of Evolution and Creation Science

Proponents of atoms-to-astronomer evolution often tell the world that there are "mountains of evidence" for their interpretations of scientific evidence. Those of us who believe in biblical creation science know that those mountains are molehills, and the evidence not only refutes evolution, but supports creation.

Government indoctrination centers (also called "schools") and other sources of information saddle people with the idea that we are the products of time, chance, random processes, mutations, and the like. Live has no meaning, there is no ultimate justice, and when you die, you're worm food. This materialistic worldview actively rejects the Creator, who gives us meaning, there is ultimate justice and Judgment. Logic and science are impossible in a materialistic worldview, and only the biblical worldview makes sense of life, and makes logic, science, love, and other intangible aspects of our daily lives possible. Taking an honest look at the facts shows us that the evolutionary view is intellectually bankrupt, and the evidence supports special creation.
One of the key issues in the creation-evolution debate is the origin of humans, Homo sapiens.
What we think about the origin of our own species has a dramatic impact on our morality and worldview because it answers the questions of who and what we are and why we exist. The secular and biblical views of our origins are diametrically opposed and must come to totally different conclusions about our place in the universe. Secular scientists tell us that the evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor with primates is “overwhelming.” But just how good is that evidence? The Bible teaches we were made in God’s image and designed to have fellowship with Him both now and forever. Recent results in the field of genetics have been remarkably in accord with the biblical model for human origins and inimical to evolutionary scenarios. Here we will compare the biblical and secular models for human origins and discuss recent science that supports the biblical view and/or discredits the evolutionary view. Specifically, we will discuss “junk DNA” as “evidence” for common ancestry, the real percent similarity of the human and chimpanzee genomes, the alleged historical fusion of two primate chromosomes that “prove” humans share common ancestry with primates, genetic evidence that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals interbred and were hence the same species, and genetic evidence that is consistent with Adam and Eve as well as Noah and his family.
To read the rest, click this link: "On the Origin of Humans".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, November 3, 2017

Evolutionists Still Mystified by Giraffe Neck

Way back when, I lived in small a Michigan town on the shore of the lake that shares that state's name. There was a park on the shore, informally known as "G Park", short for "Giraffe Park", because teenagers would go there for a long necking session. You know, making lip lock.

"Does this have anything to do with creation and evolution, Cowboy Bob?"

Not really.

So anyway, as many of y'all know, evolution wasn't created by Charles Darwin. Lamarck suggested that physical changes were inherited by offspring. Darwin rejected this, but he backtracked and included some of Lamarck's concepts in his later writings. One of the rejected ideas of Lamarck was that giraffes developed long necks by stretching to eat leaves on trees. That idea was justifiably dismissed.

Evolutionists cannot explain the giraffe's neck. It was obviously engineered by our Creator.
Credit: Freeimages / Leslie van Veenhuyzen
However, evolutionists still cannot lasso an explanation for the giraffe's neck. Some are dancing in the dark with Lamarck, and even toying with the idea that they evolved it for the purpose of regulating their temperatures (yes, they use teleology). This conveniently ignores the fact that giraffes are engineered by our Creator to have those long necks in several important ways. By the way, they also seem to forget that the okapi, a forest dweller that is related to the giraffe. It has a much shorter neck.
Evolutionary storytelling about giraffes’ long necks goes back before Darwin, but all the tales have one thing in common: they don’t work. Doesn’t matter. Evolution marches on.

Nature's Editorial [September 12, 2017] should have been a supreme embarrassment. But when only evolutionary explanations are tolerated, those in power have no fear of shame. They can toss out various ‘narratives’ and ‘scenarios’ with alacrity, never needing to submit any of them to serious testing or debate. This editorial is a case in point: “Giraffes could have evolved long necks to keep cool,” the headline reads. “Another explanation offered for one of animal kingdom’s most distinctive features.”
To reach for the rest of the article, click on "Necking in the Dark: Evolutionists Clueless about Giraffes".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Grand Canyon Gets Old Earth Misinterpretations

This post is going to be a mite different, because the linked article is a book review. Normally, I don't cotton to putting book reviews in these here posts, but this review contains some very useful information.

I reckon that it could be successfully argued that old earth Christians, theistic evolutionists, Deists, and atheists all have a low view of the Bible. Some of them are more extreme, rejecting it altogether, and others say they believe the Bible but compromise and make excuses for plain readings that they dislike.

Grand Canyon, Maxfield Parrish, 1902
In this case, some professing Christians have saddled up uniformitarian, atheistic interpretations of facts pertaining to the Grand Canyon. (Why some who call themselves Christians insist on embracing deep time, we can only speculate.) The authors of a book on the Grand Canyon have used bad arguments to claim that it is much older than biblical creationists believe it to be. They used outdated science arguments that creationists have already addressed long ago. (Mayhaps Bill Nye was a consultant. He used arguments that creationists covered long before in the debate he lost to Ken Ham.) There are also some theological considerations to which the authors need to give some serious thought. They really need to learn the truth about recent creation and the Genesis Flood.
I began this well-illustrated and much-hyped book expecting to be stimulated and challenged. Instead, I must confess a certain annoyance with its extraordinary superficiality. . .
Most, if not all, of the arguments dusted off in this book have long been answered in these classics. And the rest are answered in more recent creationist works. Towards the latter part of this review, I examine some other geologic topics, but need to strongly stress the fact that it would require a full-length book to address all the fallacies of this pro-uniformitarian compromising evangelical missive.
To read the rest, click on "The Grand Canyon in the thralls of shallow, doctrinaire uniformitarianism".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Further Discussion of Engineered Adaptability and Evolution

This enlightening series by Dr. Randy J. Guliuzza continues. Previously, we saw that Charles Darwin focused on external influences and claimed that those are responsible for vertical evolution. I'll allow that he did not know what we know today, as Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him) had not fully developed his studies in genetics. 

Credit: Pixabay / Gerhard Bögner
A study of the Great Chinese Famine had some excellent work, but was incomplete, failing to identify a causal mechanism. Likewise, scientists cling to the consensus of externalism as the means of change in organisms. Instead, they need to be examining the way the Creator has engineered them to adapt to changes.
Imagine the challenges facing an engineer who’s been tasked with designing a fully automated, unmanned spacecraft that needs to travel to a planet and safely return. . . . Every capability the autonomous vessel has, including the ability to relate to external conditions, will be due to its own features…and nothing else. . . . If the design fails, then the engineer will correct the design—not the external conditions—for the next generation of spacecraft. The precise, objective reality of engineering causality can be demanding.
To read the rest (and see why the spaceship analogy is apt), click on "Engineered Adaptability: Engineering Causality Studies Unmask Evolutionary Externalism". Other articles in the series are linked at the end, just above the references.
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

The Reformation of Peer Review

An organization can begin well, but lose its moorings and drift from its purpose. It happened 500 years ago when the Roman Catholic religious system became corrupt, and Martin Luther was the focal point of the Protestant Reformation. Similarly, the secular science industry's peer review process is due for a reformation.

The peer review process is in great need of a reformation
Credit: Modified from a picture at Freeimages by Arjun Kartha
Movements of any consequence seldom have a single point of origin. The Protestant Reformation had been growing for some time, and some of the seeds were planted by John Wycliffe. Martin Luther had a disquiet and realized that the Roman Catholic power system was not true to its original purpose, having become a corrupt power and money system. (I reckon that when unbelievers use the remark that religion is to control people, they could very well be thinking of the Catholic system, and generalizing that it is typical of all sects that have the tag "Christian".) That church had not become wicked overnight, nor did the Reformation occur in a short period. Indeed, the Reformation had a strong, positive influence in science.

There has been increasing frustration in the secular science industry with the corruption in the peer review process. Real peer review is important and necessary, but favoritism (emphasizing evolutionary "discoveries"), suppressing competition (especially creation science), ostracizing contrary views, and more have rendered the process almost worthless. Bad science and bad peer review ride for the same brand.

Secularists want to reform their system, but to what extent? The need to give the science industry an overhaul is admitted. They do not have a consistent moral foundation such as Christians have in the Bible, and many think that naturalism expressed in evolution is the source of morality and ethics. Having people like that in charge of reforming secular peer review seems akin to having a Christian reformation to which the Pope agrees — as long as he stays in charge.
The ostensible gold standard of scientific reliability, peer review, looks more like fool’s gold in many cases. Reforming it will require an overhaul, not just corrections.
Evolutionists sometimes hammer creationists with peer review. They sneer, ‘Point me to some of your peer-reviewed work and I might begin to take it seriously.” This attitude overlooks a number of flawed assumptions, among them: (1) that peer review elevates a paper to a higher plane of scientific reliability, (2) that creationists do not have peer review (they do, but most often in their own journals), (3) that evolutionary journals would treat creationist submissions fairly (which they do not; they are excluded a priori), and (4) that reviewers are unbiased saints without ulterior motives or flaws. Another faulty assumption is that peer review has always been a criterion of science, when in fact, many honored works, including Newton’s Principia and (ironically) Darwin’s Origin of Species (touted by atheists as the greatest scientific work ever penned), were not peer reviewed. Peer review has had a spotty history, only in recent decades following any kind of regular protocol.
To finish reading, click on "Corrupt Peer Review Needs a Reformation". ADDENDUM: Speaking of suppressing creation science, an anti-creationist bigot (who cannot even be bothered to read the material he mocks, since it's the secularists who are clamoring for change) is approving of bigotry in the secular science industry:

Click for larger. Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, October 30, 2017

Is Altruism Controlled by Microbes?

For the most part, the concept of vertical (molecules-to-microbiologist) evolution is naturalistic. This means there is no room for the Creator, purpose, or anything else. It also means that atheistic empiricism and materialism cannot explain the necessary preconditions of human experience. They cannot explain even the existence of love, compassion, anger, laws of logic, and other intangible things that people experience every day.

Evolutionists attempt to explain altruism through intestinal bacteria
Anaerobic bacteria image credit: Argonne National Laboratory
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Even though it's illogical, materialists attempt to explain the intangible through natural means, including evolution. You've probably remarks about someone being irritable because of digestive difficulties, which may indicate unpleasant microbe activities. It is also known that ants can be zombified in a way, taken over by a parasitic fungus. So, maybe our activities are affected to some extent by those tiny bugs inside us.

Altruism, like morality itself, is a big concept, and quite a bit different than being cranky due to stomach bacteria. Some evolutionists try to explain altruism as a desire to help the group. Of course, this is complicating the question, assuming evolution is true, and also assuming that there is an evolutionary desire to help the group — neither of which can be proven scientifically. However, they still have to try and deny that our Creator gave us things like altruism; they want it to be driven by the microbes inside us.

Altruism—selfless sacrificial behavior to help others—is a mystery to evolutionists. In a truly evolutionary worldview, there must be a naturalistic explanation for all that exists. So how did altruism evolve?
The evolutionist asserts that survival of the fittest—by selecting from an almost infinite array of randomly generated natural options—is responsible for all that exists, ever did, or ever will. And that includes not just the physical bodies of all living things but all of their abilities, instincts, intellects, and behaviors. Morality, in that worldview, is nothing more than the evolved preference of people for certain advantageous behaviors over others. Is morality a mere product of biology, perhaps even of the microbes that live inside us? A group of scientists at Tel Aviv University thinks so. They propose that bacteria in our intestines may be responsible for human altruism.
To read the rest, click on "Why We Help: Do Our Microbes Make Us Do It?"
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Science and Bible Interpretation

As Christians who believe the Bible and also use science, creationists are often challenged by mockers to explain biblical passages that appear to deny established scientific facts. Scripture does not contain anything that actually defies scientific facts, and it certainly does not call on us to deny observable science. Dishonest atheists often use the logical fallacy of conflation, saying that since we deny evolution, we deny science. Evolution is historical in nature, and has numerous flaws; it is not a scientific fact. Still, the question remains: how do we deal with apparent conflicts between science and the Bible? 

Geocentric view not found in Bible
Planetary Orbits, Andreas Cellanius, 1660
The same owlhoots that call creationists "science deniers" for rejecting evolution also go to the stables and saddle up the old swayback of a falsehood that Christians persecuted Galileo because he taught true science (the heliocentric view, Earth moves around the sun), which supposedly conflicted with what the Bible teaches (the geocentric view that Earth is stationary). This claim about Galileo is false, his main conflicts were with the prevailing science of the day, as well as personal. 

It is possible to get a geocentric view from Scripture, but it requires reading into the text, ignoring the contexts of culture, time, linguistics, immediate context, genre, and so on. In reality, there is no biblical substance for a geocentric view.
Modern science was founded by Christians who believed that a reasonable and consistent Creator designed a world that was itself intelligible and reasonable. Apparent conflicts between operational science and scripture are rare. In those rare cases where there is a dispute, both our understanding of scripture and the scientific results must be reviewed. Since God is the author of scripture and nature, a harmonious understanding that aligns with both operational science and scripture without compromising the integrity of either must exist and can usually be found.
On the other hand there is historical or forensic science. Here we are usually dealing with unrepeatable past events like the creation of the universe, the origin of life, or Noah’s Flood. We are not able to experiment directly with the event in question. Hence this type of science gathers all the relevant information in the present and then makes an inference to the best explanation. This type of science is not as reliable as operational science in discerning truth. This is especially true when the scientist involved disallows the best data available, the historical record of the Bible.
To read the entire article, click on "Creation Hermeneutics: The Role of Science".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!