Piltdown Superman

One of the most reprehensible fruits of evolutionary thinking is eugenics , which literally means good genes  or well born . Francis Galton (February 16, 1822 – January 17, 1911 was a cousin of Charles Darwin. He decided that human evolution should be helped. Having a fundamentally flawed worldview, the idea worked from Darwin's idea of natural selection as a creative force. Eugenics was popular in the United States and Germany in the early twentieth century, but support diminished when the Nazis put eugenics into action: Only the best should be allowed to breed — or even exist. Color added to the International Eugenics Conference logo Who were the best, the fittest? Why, it was certain white folks! Papa Darwin was a horrendous racist  who believed that Englanders were the best and that darker-skinned "races" would be eliminated. Survival of the fittest, natural selection (his version), and that stuff. More importantly, who has the right and the power to decide about life...

His father,  William, was a Christian and a slavery abolitionist , and Samuel (1805-1873) took his faith further. He became a bishop in the Church of England. Samuel was also a contemporary of Charles Darwin and unimpressed by his work. Interestingly, scientists tended to reject Darwin's version of evolution while the clergy was embracing deep time, then eventually rode for the Darwin brand. Wilberforce is known for a misrepresentation of his confrontation of T.H. Huxley . There something else of significance that is less known. Samuel Wilberforce by George Richmond , 1868 Sam was involved in a debate with Darwinists and also published an essay in 1860. He did one thing that I deplore in any Christian apologetics effort, and that was to leave God out of the discussions. However, he did take Darwin to task on scientific grounds. "But Cowboy Bob, he had no business taking on Darwin because he wasn't a scientist!" Actually, Darwin's only degree was in theology — he ...

It is often said that someone has a false front or is putting on a façade. That is, presenting an appearance that is not necessarily true. In architecture, a façade would be the front of a building that was given extra treatment. Potemkin villages were mostly fictional, almost entirely false fronts. Yes, people want to present themselves in a good way, but it should not be for deceptive purposes. Disciples of Darwin have built false fronts for various aspects of the evolution story. News media, scientists, and atheists present these façades with the expectation that they will be believed. Ironside false front ruins, Flickr / Larry Myhre ( CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ) Putting up the fronts was an easier task in the early days of old evolutionism. After all, they did not have nearly the insight into so many things that have been brought by education and technology; the cell is not so simple. DNA was unknown and parts of it were considered "junk" until they were discovered to be important...

There are pictures usually taken at strategic moments, then captioned with things like, "Have you ever been so angry that you tackled a horse ?" Well, have you ever been so angry that you defaced classic artwork and also Darwin's tomb? A group known as Just Stop Oil believes that because global temperatures allegedly reached a certain number, we are now in the sixth great extinction. These t3rrorists are stupid on several levels, not the least of which is like other t3rrorists, they enrage people, then expect sympathy for their cause. Darwin's Tomb at Westminster Abbey, Flickr / Amanda ( CC BY 2.0 ) The denizens of Just Stop Oil are buying into evolutionary mythologies including deep time and the so-called great extinctions. Well, those extinction events are based on assumptions merged with storytelling, and they should have considered possibilities outside the evolution box. One in particular is how the Genesis Flood covers the data of one catastrophic event instead...

As many people know, particles-to-painter evolution is fundamental to atheism. One can have a reasonable dialogue for a short time with a professing atheist on a few subjects, but must not criticize evolution. (Indeed, I remember a discussion where the atheist woman thought the Christian was going to criticize evolution, and began to arch her back and extend her claws. It was  civil before.) Most of the vocal proponents of evolution are atheists, but the quality of supporters has declined over the years. Blur of sun and trees image by Cowboy Bob Sorensen One can often judge the substance of a position by its proponents. (No, a comely face and dulcet tones do not make something correct, nor do wise-sounding words. Intelligent supporters may prompt someone to listen more closely to a claim, yes?) Quality opponents can give someone serious pause. In days of yore, Darwin's disciples were plentiful and famous. They presented what appeared to be valid science according to what was known...

The Bearded Buddha took the concept of natural selection primarily from Edward Blyth , then twisted it into a creative force. He probably realized it was fiddle-faddle, as he backed off from it later in life. Darwin's disciples still cling natural selection as vitally important to evolution. Natural selection is an observed fact and thousands of papers have been written about it. Seeing it work with mutations to form an entirely new creature — no. Experiments and observations were in laboratory settings until one on water fleas ruined everything. Water flea illustration, Flickr / thecmn (PD) Charlie Darwin was going to write a book with evidence that supported is claims, but never followed through . Evolutionists tried to find examples of evolution, but resorted to bad science and even deceit. Research on the water flea contradicted over a hundred years of previous research, which is significant because it was done over time in the wild, not controlled settings. Once again, we see...

Some folks seem to have the notion that Charles Darwin applied science to his observations, leading to the publication of On the Origin of Species . That is not the case. He had ideas for which he wanted to find support. Interestingly, his writing was not intended as a way to kill God. People have debated whether or not Darwin was an atheist throughout his life, and his writing may imply that he was unsure himself. Reading Origin  one can see an unevenness, and maybe a vague defense of the Creator regarding pain. I gave Charlie a floral wreath at  PhotoFunia .  His writings had many unsupported claims for which he promised to provide evidence — but never produced . At times he supported atheistic materialism, but other times, he knew that what is seen in the world must have been designed in some way. A benevolent Creator would not have used so much suffering, so natural selection — nature — is the culprit. The timing and conditions back then were right for Darwin to becom...

It is amazing how things change over time, especially when evolutionists are the ones writing popular versions of history. Charlie Darwin took his voyage on the Beagle  ship, observed nature, and brilliantly formulated evolution through natural selection. The scientific world praised his genius. Stuff and nonsense. His version of evolution was resisted at first, and scientists wanted him to back up the claims in his 1859 tome,  On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life , Title page of Origin of Species with creepy 1871 Vanity Fair  caricature added Darwin made excuses, such as claiming illness — and then published material on other topics. He was going to write a massive book of evidences supporting his hypotheses, but it never happened. Charlie made Natural Selection an entity, wrote many notes, frustrated scientists, but ultimately his promised book was never written. Well, something  was ...

Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Robert Darwin came up with a version of evolution at almost the same time, but Darwin is given most of the credit because he published first. Also, Wallace was an outsider in science circles  and was open to a form of Intelligent Design. Each had an idea of how butterflies evolved, but scientists did not seem interested in pursuing the matter. New research was presented after getting help from studying pictures of birdwing butterflies with machine learning, and both Wallace and Darwin were said to be right. Birdwing butterfly, Flickr / Charles Patrick Ewing ( CC BY 2.0 ) If the researchers were seeking awards or applause by the secular science industry, that probably happened. They use both natural and sexual selection (but not the true meaning of natural selection). People who care about truth and logic in science may have a different view. For one thing, the sample size was far too limited. Another problem is despite praising the puny god of evo...

Charles Darwin took the ancient pagan beliefs of evolution,  changed the meaning of natural selection, then presented the product as his theory. It needed rescuing from the get-go, so he also bundled sexual selection  with it at no extra charge. To oversimplify, the best-looking critters are chosen to mate and spread their genes while the unattractive or drab should disappear. It works to some extent in the animal kingdom and is supposed to apply to humans as well. Although it sounds plausible on the surface, sexual selection does not work. Victorian Fashion, Columbian magazine, February 1844, from Copyright Expired A recent study shows that the concept was never valid and not handled properly in the scientific community. Something that does not fit the purely physical aspect of sexual selection is the fact that people do not select mates strictly on appearance. Women want men who can be providers, for example. (It may be surprising, but it has been suggested that abusive men...

Huge numbers of books have been written about historical events and notable people, often attempting to go beyond recounting events. The lives and personalities of important figures are explored — and explanations for their actions are attempted. One of these is Charles Darwin. People may think that science was shaken by the wonderful discovery of evolution by natural selection, but that is not true. As discussed previously, significant events seldom happen spontaneously. Events, culture, help from others, and more helped Darwin attain popularity . Charles Darwin preaching in a church, made with AI at Bing The article linked below is by Neil Thomas, writing for the Discovery Institute. Although he is a professing agnostic (and Christians should be praying for him), he does not show contempt for Christianity. He has made a few mistakes, which is to be expected. Neil pointed out that Victorian England had reached a point where people were doubting the Bible, and this was exacerbated by i...

In " Dishonest Darwinists Dodge Living Fossils ," the concept of stasis  was mentioned. To oversimplify,  living fossils are organisms that remain essentially unchanged from fossils to their living counterparts. Some fossils have millions of years assigned to them. Organisms did not evolve because they did not need to: stasis. Darwin's disciples glom onto the stasis rescuing device because living fossils are a serious impediment for evolution. Living fossils also indicate that the earth is not as ancient as evolution requires. Spotted Gar, Wikimedia Commons, USFWS / Brian Montague (public domain, usage does not imply endorsement) Know why gars live in mostly freshwater or brackish environments? Because if they lived in the oceans, they'd be sea-gars! Not funny, Cowboy Bob. Gars have been described as cigar-shaped, and some can grow rather large. Evolutionists say that their slow rate of evolution affects their low rate of speciation. Also, DNA repair mechanisms could ...

There are creatures in the fossil record that show no appreciable difference between supposed millions of years to their modern descendants. Charles Darwin was displeased with this additional evidence against his conjectures. He called them living fossils . If a handful of them existed, they might be waved away as odd quirks. But there are many living fossils. Evolutionists change mystical hats, trading the one where evolution is an undeniable force with the other where stasis occurred. That is, they did not have to evolve. These owlhoots get downright dishonest as well. Horseshoe crab (which is not really a crab) is a living fossil, MorgueFile / xpistwv Unfortunately, people are  not taught  critical thinking, and they seldom display healthy skepticism. The Bearded Buddha taught that things evolved from a common ancestor, branching out on the Tree of Life, gradually turning into something else. Right? People know this, but when dishonest evolutionists change the definitions ...

Although much of what Charles Darwin wrote is now ignored, he is treated with reverence by many admirers. Indeed, he is the Prophet of evolutionism. When posting material about his racist views, atheists are often outraged — outraged , I tell you! It has been said that discussing his racism is an ad hominem . He was a product of his times, after all. That means it is irrelevant, but they still  tidy it up . Not hardly! It was instrumental in his philosophies and what he presented as science. Muddy river with rocks, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen It is well documented that Charlie considered white people the top prize of evolution while those with darker skin were closer to apes. He also said that eventually, civilized people would exterminate lesser races and apes. (I never understood why that would be necessary except in his worldview.) Racism was fundamental to his version of evolution. As for being a product of his times — not buying it. There were prominent white people in Vict...

People know the story that young Charles Darwin was on the Beagle  from 1831 to 1836, appointed to be the ship's naturalist. He discovered evolution by means of natural selection  and thereby revolutionized science. Nice story, but he reworked the already existing concept of natural selection, and never provided evidence for his speculations . One of the most famous stops was at the Galápagos islands off the coast of Ecuador. He studied finches (not knowing what type of bird they were at the time), and they became icons of evolution. But that is false. Galapagos ground finch, Flickr /  Judy Gallagher  ( CC BY 2.0 ) Poster effect at  PhotoFunia  and cropped Charlie thought that all of the finch variations today came from an original pair. These birds have been the subject of many studies over the years. Creationists have pointed out for a long time that they do not show evolution. Studies that get into the genetics show that what is seen is natural — an...

Charles Darwin has been long portrayed as a great scientist, and his brilliant observations led to insightful theories that changed the world. It has been rightly observed that he is adored above scientists who have actually contributed something for the betterment of humanity. Atheists and evolutionists often become angry when people make parodies or satirize Darwin, and especially when people point out how evolution increased racism. Telling the truth about a man that secularists treat like a religious icon is a serious offense to them. Charles Darwin, street hobo with guitar, AI generated at Img2Go His version of natural selection as a creative force was not accepted by the scientific community at first. Papa Darwin promised to provide support for the material he published, but that did not happen. Could the fact that he never had formal scientific training have anything to do with it? He got by with a little help from his friends and did not end up being a hobo playing guitar for ...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  This here article was written with some reluctance, first because the linked article is a book excerpt. Second, it is from the Discovery Institute, the main site of the Intelligent Design people. Regular readers may have noticed that I am using material from that site a bit more, but I tend to include biblical creationist material in my write-ups. This one is worth doing because other biblical creationists and I want people to learn how  to think, while atheists and secularists tell them what  to think. Some things about Darwin's logic need to be addressed. Charles Darwin dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight via Bing AI, which made the devil resemble  Homo habilis There are disagreements about whether or not Charles Darwin was an atheist, especially since he claimed agnosticism. Part of his dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight was his determination to put down creationism, viewing it as unscientific. His way of dealing with it ...

As discussed here several times before, a movement, revolution, or other large effect on a society seldom spontaneously generates. Mayhaps you have heard how something was "ahead of its time" or the world was not ready for it. Conditions were not right for that thing. Other sweeping changes occur, leaving people wondering how they took root. Slowly. Charles Darwin is treated like a brilliant scientist for creating evolution, but that is the opposite of the truth . The conditions in Victorian England were right for his conjectures, and the prominent Huxleys helped him out . Darwin caricature, 1871, Vanity Fair , modified at remove.bg At the time of Darwin and even before, people were becoming more blatantly rebellious to God and disrespectful to the Bible. (Interestingly, the only degree that Charlie earned was in theology, which lends credence to the suggestion that he lifted the biblical creation narrative and was making a naturalistic religious text!) Many factors came toge...

Many evolutionists become incensed when the racism inherent in their belief system is discussed, although some scientists are finally admitting this fact. Charles Darwin's Victorian myth of evolution had white English males as the pinnacle of evolution, but women were inferior . Creationists are sometimes accused of blaming Darwin for racism although it had already existed for millennia. True, but justifying racism with evolution has existed before Darwin ( he did not create evolution) , and it increased tremendously after his version of evolution. This is demonstrated in the horrific genocide of the Tasmanian people. Group of natives of Tasmania , Wikimedia Commons / Robert Hawker Dowling , 1859 (public domain) Perceived as an unevolved nonhuman race, European settlers murdered Tasmanians and rounded them up for relocation. Skeletons and body parts were put in collections, both private and in museums. (Tasmanian women were raped, showing the inconsistency of the invaders, who did ...

As seen before, big ideas and movements rarely spring up suddenly. Charles Darwin did not create evolution , it is an ancient pagan philosophy going back to the Greeks, Hindus; the first evolutionist is the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4). Indeed, Darwin was also influenced by Lamarck, his grandfather Erasmus, and others.  Charlie even hijacked and retooled Edward Blyth's work on natural selection for his own purposes, making it a creative force. (His acolytes over the years have even made it into a being with the power to make choices.) Apparently he backed off a bit by the time Origin of Species reached its final edition. Sun obscured by tree, Mt. Tremper (NY) trail, 14 Sept 2022 by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Darwinism was embraced by academia — finally a way to get that pesky Creator out of their lives! There was a time that Darwinism was at risk of falling out of favor because of its substantial problems. People aware of Gregor Mendel's work in genetics (peas be upon him) thought...