Piltdown Superman

Sometimes when creationists bring up Charles Darwin's racism, it puts  burrs under the saddles of his followers. They claim it is an ad homiem  and a distraction, but the fact remains despite their protestations. It has also been extensively documented. His racism is extremely relevant, as it is entrenched in his evolutionary conjectures. We saw how a couple of his biographers falsely tried to say that his theory had a noble motive , the abolition of slavery. Professor Joseph L. Graves, Jr. is up to something similar. Celebration of Abolition of Slavery...in 1866 via NYPL , colorized at Palette , then modified at PhotoFunia The professor is celebrated as the first black man to get a doctorate in evolutionary biology, and my response is, "Big deal." Evolutionary biology is self-serving and has little value to real science. Also, how many black people are attracted to studying something this area? (Asking for a friend.) Seems strange to prop up a field where your "rac

Disciples of Charles Darwin try to brush aside or ignore his view of women as inferior , and especially his blatant racism . Some build a straw man by claiming that we said evolution is racist when we talk about scientific racism and other extensions of his conjectures. There have been owlhoots who claim that saying Darwin was a racist is an ad hominem , but that conveniently ignores the fact that his beliefs were fundamental in his development of evolution — ideas have consequences . People also point out that he was opposed to slavery, and a couple of authors try to make Charlie appear to be a passionate abolitionist. Public domain image, run through removebg , colorized at Palette , flames added at LunaPic A couple of biographers wrote a book that portrayed Darwin as someone who was concerned with the abolition of slavery. His work on species was with abolition in mind. When Dr. Robert F. Shedinger gave the tome close scrutiny, he realized it was stuff and nonsense. Sure, it was

A spell back, we discussed how the Huxley family was promoting Charles Darwin's myth of origins by developing conspiracies , but they wanted to keep up appearances in Victorian England. Looking proper was important in that era, perhaps more so than it is today. One reason is that they wanted to promote evolution, but did not want their activities to besmirch Papa Darwin. What was under the surface did not remain hidden much longer. For many atheists, Darwin is a sacred character. Satire, irreverence, and the truth about him are not to be tolerated. Some folks in the secular science industry are iconoclasts, willing to pull his statue off the pedestal and be straightforward about him. In addition, the extreme immorality of the Huxleys (who were some of Darwin's biggest supporters, remember) are shown as bearing bitter fruit. It is worth considering that evolution is the necessary creation myth for those who deny God. It is not just an intellectual choice (since the evidence for

Although the phrase, "Ideas have consequences," originated in a 1948 book by Richard M. Weaver and is now almost a cliché, it still holds some validity. Misotheists get furious — furious , I tell you — when the truth about Charles Darwin's concepts are discussed by creationists. Although he did not directly  originate eugenics and social Darwinism , those developed from his teachings. Evolution had a direct influence on Hitler . Another gang of sidewinders that adored Darwin was the communists . There are others as well. Darwin's ideas also had consequences that were manifested in the Vietnam War. UH-1D helicopters in Vietnam 1966, US National Archives , US Department of Defense, public comain (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by anyone) Some jasper commented on a recent post, "As far as I know, Karl Marx never killed anyone." Maybe not personally, but his ideas hitched up to Darwinian concepts have led to the deaths of millions . American

The Bearded Buddha admitted that the gradual evolution of the eye seemed absurd. Presupposing his conjectures and refusing to consider any other explanation for the origin of the eye, he believed by blind faith that evidence supporting his ideas would be found. Disciples of Darwin have been trying to meet his challenge for years. There are sidewinders who simply avoid the challenge by saying that the human eye was poorly designed, but such a religious claim is based on opinion, not science. Cat eyes, Pixabay / Christel Sagniez It is not just the human eye, though. There have to be gradual stages of development and organisms had to benefit each step of the way.  National Geographic  attempted to support Charlie in 2016, but that effort was shot down by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell. A more recent contender arose in something called Visual Capitalist , but this deceptive Just-So Story also fails. Indeed, there is dissent in the ranks about not only the evolution of the eye, but how particles-to

That title got your attention. While it is provocative and possibly emotive to use the word conspiracy , it is not done casually in this case. People who are attracted to the history of science (and a bit about the culture of Victorian England) should be interested in what follows. The Huxley name was held by several noteworthy individuals, especially Thomas Henry and his son Julian. T.H. was considered Darwin's Bulldog  because of his aggressive promotion of evolution, and Julian carried on the activities in many ways. There were many factors that made Darwin's story successful, including Victorian society and how people supported each other. The Huxleys were instrumental in bringing Darwin to the fore and keeping evolution going. Something very interesting is how that sidewinder T.H. didn't really believe in Darwinism, but something more akin to Gould's punctuated equilibrium . He used Darwin and evolution as a means to distance science from God. Both Thomas and Julia

Charlie Darwin believed evolution by blind faith. His followers past and present accept it despite lack of strong evidence, hoping that their beliefs would be justified later. That is the opposite of science, old son. They have problems with living fossils that, in and of themselves, falsify evolution. Living fossils are creatures that were thought to be extinct but later found doing well, or that have gone mostly unchanged over alleged millions of years, such as sea lilies and feather stars. Darwin knew about them . Now someone is stepping up to evosplain the problem away. Sea lily (crinoid), Wikimedia Commons / Alexander Vasenin ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) People who know evolutionary concepts can see through attempts at rescuing Papa Darwin. F'rinstance, evolution is presented as almost an irrevocable force in nature; things must  evolve over millions of years. There are "evolutionary pressures" that force them to change — except when they do not  change, and that is called stas

People who study origins and evolution have heard of Darwin's Abominable Mystery. Like the irreducibly complex eye was a serious problem for Darwin  (yet he still believed in gradual evolution anyway), the fact that flowering plants appear in the fossil record too soon was another problem for him. Neither was resolved. Evolutionists are prone to lying to con people to accept evolution, and they did so a spell back about DAM . This time, however, they are honest about the inescapable conclusion (based on their systems) that flowering plants existed millions of years sooner than they previously thought. Phylica pubescens , WikiComm  Marco Schmidt ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Something that adds to their problem is that a flower found in amber is a Phylicia, which is basically identical to its living counterparts. It did not see fit to evolve after being subjected to "evolutionary pressures" through all those alleged millions of years. In addition, there should be a chain reaction in e

Lisa Myworries, the supervisor of the Winkie Guards at the Darwin Ranch, was rather subdued when I bumped into her (almost literally) at the store in town. She noticed the mood at the ranch and how they go from thrilled to somber. This time is the latter. Charlie's cheerleaders are happy to be told Just-So Stories and unleash the flying monkeys on those of us who are unwilling to be satisfied with the unscientific statement " it evolved ." It has been documented that there are secular scientists who have the audacity — the unmitigated gall  — to doubt Darwin. Pond, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen  (cropped) That number is growing. A couple of people published a paper on problems with gradual evolution. "Survival of the fittest" oversimplifies things, and still fails to explain how complicated structures came into being in the first place. Something I have noticed, and Calvin Smith discussed quite well in " Science or Philosophy? ", is that people believ

A few days back, I was talking with Trevor "Red" Schnapper about how the hands at the Darwin Ranch are flighty about birds. Red told me about some new Just-So Stories. Evolutionists are usually unable to break out of their framework so they can conduct real science. Charles Darwin had his idea about a Tree of Life with everything developing from simpler life forms and branching out. That concept is just plain wrong , and some evolutionists are rejecting it. Several examples of the useless Tree of Life come from studying birds. Hoatzin, Flickr / Carine06 ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) That punk-rock chicken called the hoatzin, down South America way, wreaks havoc with Darwin's Tree. Like the platypus, it cannot be successfully classified and has long been a problem for evolutionists . Place it on one branch of the Tree and it clumsily (they're not good flyers) moves to another one. Evolutionists also cannot determine how it reached its current living quarters. Another weird tale is

Since evolutionists have a tendency to move the goalposts by changing dates and other trickery, it is a rare thing for them to admit that they have wrong ideas. Some failed icons linger quite a while (such as Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings ), others that have been are quietly ignored. Charles Darwin's Tree of Life has been used for over 160 years, but it appears to have been rapidly losing favor over the years. There are numerous variations that are presented. In fact, some evolutionists reject them completely. Kill it with fire! The unmodified Tree of Life image is here . Those who read the previous post (" The Mostly-Complete Fossil Record ") and followed the link to the article featured therein (do people still use that word?) will have noticed a reference to the Tree of Life. It also mentioned that the creation orchard of life is a better explanation for what is observed in the real world. Of course, fundamentalist evolutionists reject the creation orchard,

Dreadful reasoning under the pretense of science is not a new phenomenon, having been a problem for many years. A glaring example that is often overlooked is how when the Bearded Buddha wrote Origin of Species , he presented his theory and admitted that fossil evidence did not support it. He did not admit that his conjectures were wrong. He blamed  the fossil record . In addition, his disciples continued to have faith that evidence would be found. That is the opposite of science, old son. The Fossil Record, made at PhotoFunia using a photo by  Alejandro Quintanar at Pexels The owlhoots who believe in the General Theory of Evolution are working from their worldview to interpret data. Fine, everyone does that. But they have a tendency to try and force the data into their paradigm and blame the fossil record for being "incomplete" when their speculations fall flat. It's not working, Wilberforce. Some evolutionists are willing to play the cards they've been dealt to so

Although he opposed slavery, Charles Darwin was a racist. His disciples become infuriated with us when we point out this fact and cry, "That is an ad hominem! " While it is indeed about the man, it is not fallacious. His racist views were instrumental to his version of evolution. Darwin considered black people and others to belong to less-evolved inferior races. Eventually, those "races" would be replaced by civilized man — white people. (This child wonders if the best white people were the Victorian English.) This exacerbated racism and formed "scientific racism." Tops Friendly Market, Flickr / Nicholas Eckhart  ( CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ) The way mainstream media refer to white supremacists, neo-Nazis, etc., make it sound like there are quite a few of them. I have never met any. Yes, I've met racists but not the hardcore types, and turned down connection requests on social(ist) media for white supremacists. The Buffalo shooter on 14 May 2022 was racially mot

When creationists point out that Charles Darwin was a racist , atheopaths are quick to circle the wagons and cry, "That is an ad hominem !" The more intellectual evolutionists simply try to distance themselves. Darwin's views on women as inferior to men should also be troubling. Neither his racism nor his misogyny are simple mud slinging. They illustrate the views that were prominent in his evolutionary conjectures, and how they affected science and society afterward. He based his opinion of women on the myth he devised. Emma Wedgewood Darwin was Chuck's wife and first cousin According to Chuck's evoporn, women are intellectually inferior to men, and have smaller brains. When the smaller brains thing is true, it should not be surprising because women usually have smaller frames than men. Also, the idea of brain size as a measure of intelligence has been refuted for many years. "But Cowboy Bob, Darwin's racism and sexism are just because he's the produ

When votaries in Evolutionism accuse biblical creationists of lying about evolution, they are unable to back up their claims. As I have said numerous times before, disagreements, errors, jokes, disliking facts and so forth — those are not lies. But lies are fine when promoting evolution. Charles Robert Darwin as a great scientist, even though he had no formal scientific training. (His only degree was in theology.) While he made many observations and took copious notes, his science skills were lacking. In his third major book, his integrity was conspicuously absent. When one makes charges of lying or fraud, extreme caution is necessary and the facts must support the accuser. Darwin presupposed evolution when writing about expressions in animals. Our "closest relatives" have far fewer muscles for facial expressions than humans, but he used animals as a basis for expressions in humans anyway. It did not go well. The expression "pictures don't lie" is definitely unt

On Question Evolution Day , I had some greenish soup that I called "Darwin's warm little pond." Darwin speculated to a hooker — "That was Joseph Hooker, Cowboy Bob. Pay attention!" Oh, right. He thought maybe life came from a warm little pond. Some evolutionists think it is the likely scenario for the OoL, other have far different ideas. One of the big lies from Darwin's disciples is that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, but that is repeatedly shown to be false. Made at Redkid What is probably the main reason OoL is disassociated from evolution is that it cannot happen by itself , and defies many facts of science. What is probably the main reason naturalists distance themselves from the abiogenesis problem is that the logical conclusion is our Creator made it happen. (Ironically, one term for the OoL is chemical evolution .) Instead, many evolutionists want everyone to spot them that insurmountable problem so they can commence to dealing from th

Although evolutionists try to distance themselves from their racist past, it has been a serious problem since the Bearded Buddha published his tomes. Not all of the public has been fooled by denials of evolution supports. Elements of racism in evolutionary studies are found even today. An area that could be severely damaged is forensic anthropology. (The television show Bones was loosely based on a real forensic anthropologist, portrayed by Emily Deschanel.) Forensic anthropology can be used to determine a victim's race. Skeletons in the' Boat Houses', Herculaneum, Flickr / Big Albert (Public Domain) If enough material is present, forensic anthropologists can determine with a high degree of accuracy the size, sex, and other details regarding the victim. This is where we clarify something: God created only one race. There are no "races", but the term is used as a convenience despite its flawed evolutionary background. More realistically (and biblically), there ar

Although misotheists and evolutionists try to deny it, the writings of Charles Darwin had a profound influence promoting racism . He also had a hand in the machinations of dictators and Communist mass murderers , who obviously felt that evolutionism gave them intellectual fulfillment. This is prominent in the rabble of socialists and communists. We know that Karl Marx was enthusiastic about how the thought Darwin's work showed his ideas in nature, but the influence of Friedrich Engels seems to have been downplayed or even forgotten. In those days, Christians were surrendering science to the secularists and their philosophies based on atheistic naturalism. (For that matter, the so-called Age of Enlightenment that began in the 17th centuray was rooted in rebellion against God and embracing a multitude of atheistic philosophies.) Atheistic materialism and secularism were (and are) of primary importance. On a side note, the family unit was instituted by God . Marxists and neo-Marxists

Science is supposed to be about searching for knowledge, which includes forming ideas and testing them to see if they work. The process should thrive on examination and challenges. Unfortunately, the narrative of atheistic naturalism is more important than knowledge. Many of Darwin's disciples consider evolution a "fact" and "settled science". I am once again asking evolutionists why they need dishonesty, fraud, omission of pertinent data, and outright suppression of contrary views supporting this alleged fact. That is not the true spirit of science. Modified from an image furnished by Why?Outreach Charles Darwin knew that his theory had numerous flaws, but didn't want a bunch of sycophants propping up the thing. He wanted challenges and impartial discussion. Of course, he expected to prevail and make our Creator irrelevant despite the lack of evidence supporting his conjectures. One attempt at putting forward a rational view was shut down as "fake scie

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Recently, I was surprised by a weblog article, " Now creationists are white supremacists. Wait, what? " That really takes the rag off the bush ! I commenced to gathering thoughts so I could use it as a springboard, but then asked my contacts at Creation Ministries International , who replied that they were going to respond. Here we go. There are several instances where " Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy " by Allison Hopper agitated so many people — in addition to its glaring stupidity.  Scientific American  is known for anti-creationist hit pieces, and they let this opinion thing fly without checking the facts. Background image credit: Pixabay /  Beate Bachmann This amazing new offal is reminiscent of the  Paul Braterman attack on Ken Ham and creation science in general  — which also was allowed to post despite glaring falsehoods. This is much worse, and since Scientific American  and Hopper are not dry gulching an individual