Piltdown Superman

Last month, we looked at " Purposeful Changes and Engineered Adaptability ". Now we're going to see some additional development of the subject. Those advocating fish-to-fool evolution interpret data based on their presuppositions. Fine, we all do that. When they commence to forcing the data to fit the narrative and ignoring or downplaying facts that are none to friendly to their worldview, they are being unscientific and doing some indoctrination. Rocket engines / Freeimages / mike gieson Darwinists get on the prod when creationists point out that their belief in many lucky accidents caused by external stimuli is not supported by evidence. Instead, organisms are engineered to adapt — the ability to change was built in, and it is very specific. There are many examples of adaptations that are baffling to evolutionary paradigms, including blind cave fish , stick spiders , beetles, certain reptiles, and so on. A creationary continuous environmental tracking (CET) fr

Charles Darwin and some of his predecessors had the notion that long, long ago, there was a single ancestor for all living things. This commenced to reproducing, evolving, and all that good stuff that leads to what we see today. Philosophers drew up "tree of life" diagrams for their imagined progressions. David Attenborough tried to reverently evosplain Darwin's version . Darwin's "Tree of Life" in flames. The tree of life concepts make for fun stories to tell when riding the trail or around the campfire, but they do not work. Even if someone decided to set it on fire, some jasper would "hear" Darwin's voice speaking from the burning bush and think he was a secular Moses, reminiscent of Exodus 3:2. Actually, the creationary orchard concept is far more accurate. There are several examples of convoluted branches that defy evolutionary storytelling. Adding to the confusion is the fact that scientists are in strong disagreement on many asp

We have been examining a number of posts on the subject of engineered adaptability, which is a concept for setting up a framework of design . Instead of accepting the erroneous but persistent view of Darwin and his followers that changes are based on external influences, engineered adaptability is about how organisms adapt from the inside. That is, the Master Engineer built the ability to adapt into organisms. Darwin need not apply. Vieja cichlid image credit: Unsplash / The Cofish Store The hands at the Darwin Ranch (take Folly Road up yonder to Deception Pass, but the Winkie Guards are likely to turn you back) are being more unscientific than usual of late. They are appealing to various forms of mysticism en lieu de observational and testable science. One of these is the secular miracle of convergent evolution , which is a rescuing device that has no actual substance. Many critters have similar traits that evolutionists cannot successfully evosplain, so they appeal to

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A word that has gained popularity in recent months is "—splaining". As you can see, it is based on explaining, but current lingo often means that someone is pretending have greater knowledge than he or she actually possesses. Also, it is done in a condescending manner. Advocates of muck-to-man evolution are fond of evosplaining  to biblical creationists and the unwashed masses. Replica painting from the Chauvet cave / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain Some owlhoots refuse to admit that Neanderthals were fully human. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they will seek out evoporn that makes them feel good about their preconceptions. One claim to keep the myth in the saddle is that Neanderthals did not make recognizable art. That story was based on evolutionary presuppositions that the art was done by more modern humans instead of Neanderthals. This idea was given a serious slap down a few years ago , and the fact of Neanderthal-made art ha

Seems like when studying Darwinism, we hear quite a bit about "Darwin's finches". He did not know what kind of birds they were, by the way, and they were identified by ornithologist John Gould somewhere around 1837. Did you know that Charles Darwin took a fancy to pigeons for a spell? This is in the first chapter of his tedious, infamous book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. I wonder if he ate any ? Photo by Hybrid on Unsplash He took to studying pigeons to get some firsthand observations for evolution through artificial selection. Some owlhoots consider this research to be strong evidence for his speculations, but what did he get? Pigeons. If he had paid attention to work of Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him), he would have learned a thing or two about genetics and variations. via GIPHY At any rate, like Lenski's research on bacteria yielded bacteria , Darwin's

Many people are familiar with the fish outline emblem that many Christians have on their autos, shirts, sites, and so forth. Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution have their versions as well, used to mock Christians. The most common of these is the fish with legs (some have "Darwin" stylistically imposed in them). This implies, "I don't believe in God the Creator, I believe in science !" They promote their views religiously. There are some problems with the "Darwin fish" idea. Most notably, it began before there was anything to present as evidence for the mythology that life began in the sea, a fish flopped onto land, developed legs, and began evolving into the many critters we have today, as well as humans. They believe in the walking fish thing despite lack of evidence.  That's not science, Skippy, that's blind faith. Here we go again. I have to take us on a side trail for a few moments, so just ride along for a spell. There

We have been seeing how Darwin and his followers have been using externalism , saying that external forces cause change in living things. They have it wrong. Taking the perspective that organisms are designed to change by the Master Engineer all the way down to genetics and epigenetics . Additional support for this view comes from analysis of the way mice digest food.  Credit: Freeimages / Kym Parry Some detailed research on the squeaky little critters' innards was conducted and led to some interesting results. "Epigenetic markers" work outside the genetic code, and show that these switches operate even with environmental changes. This adds to our knowledge that creatures were designed to adapt to continue to live in a changing world. Darwin proposed that evolution happens externally, that the environment shapes organisms. But a growing amount of evidence suggests the opposite: Most changes happen because the organisms themselves sense, and react to, the environm

People who have watched or read science fiction are probably familiar with the phrase, "Sensors indicate..." We are all mighty happy that y'all have sensors, but what are they sensing? We have a great deal of information bombarding us constantly, but need to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff; I am using "selective hearing" to ignore the television in the other room at this moment. Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann Charles Darwin focused on externalism , where outside forces supposedly caused organisms to change and evolve into better things. His disciples followed suit, and are constantly trying to wedge facts into their failed conjectures. Doesn't work. via GIPHY The whole heap of speculations would have been more accurate if they had considered internalism , which we have discussed before. Living things are equipped with sensors that were put in place by the Master Engineer, and which defy evolution. Many of them have additional function

Many of Darwin's disciples are fond of ridiculing creation with prejudicial conjecture along the lines of, "That could not have been created, therefore, evolution". Ironically, they invoke evolution as an entity with the ability to make design choices. It is also contradictory, because they believe their mad gibbering false god does wonderful things, but eyes are poorly designed, so... That is not science, old son, that is blind faith in pantheism. It is also desperation. Speaking of blind , fundamentalist evolutionists and atheists cannot see the Master Engineer's amazing design of eyes. Claims that the human eye are poorly designed have been thoroughly refuted , other critters such as trilobites had exceptional eye construction , and more. Here's an idea: instead of continuing to debunk the foolish assertions of Darwin's Flying Monkeys©, have them give plausible evolutionary mechanisms for the origin of eyes. Keep going. Press them to explain why diff

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Although disciples of Darwin pretend that there is no basis for reports that creationists and other Darwin deniers are fired from science and academia, facts show otherwise. Secularists may throw us an occasional "maybe" that there was substance to the dismissal claims of creationists and ID supporters, but they generally say that the wise and noble secular judges were right in dismissing claims. Click for full size (original graphic source unknown) Persecution of Christians, Intelligent Design supporters, and biblical creationists is on the increase. One of the more famous cases is that of Dr. David Coppedge . Another high-profile case is that of Mark Armitage , who was fired after presenting facts in a peer-reviewed paper regarding dinosaur soft tissue. Armitage prevailed in his lawsuit , which is surprising. Dr. Jerry Bergman was removed from Bowling Green State University for his creationary views. It happened again! He was asked to resi

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. 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, a

The series continues on how Darwin's externalism has interfered with scientific investigation on living organisms, and evolutionists give credit to nature for changes real and imagined. Engineered complexity is the opposite and arguably more scientific approach. Now we need to look at some additional factors. Credit: Pixabay / Adi Rahman Materialistic scientists are frequently surprised at what is found in nature. Organisms adapt, and do it quickly, but Darwinism requires huge amounts of time and assumes that conditions are the primary factors. While conditions are important, the best approach is to see that organisms adapt because they were designed by the Master Engineer to do so. Anti-creationists often lie about biblical creationists that our argument is "GodDidIt", so there is no need to investigate further. Yet evolutionists essentially say "NatureDidIt", and even personify nature in a kind of pantheistic view. No, both camps want to know how som

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen We've seen several times before that evolution was not the brainchild of Charles Darwin, and had been around since way back when. It is actually an ancient pagan religion , and had received some "scientific" adjustments before Darwin became its chief popularizer . Darwin's disciples revere him as a "great scientist", as well as the other 19th century propagandists for evolutionism. Except that most were not scientists at all! Many creationists point out that Darwin had no formal scientific training, and was actually a backslidden theology student. (I'll allow that he did make some good observations while learning in the field, however.) We also point out that old earth advocate Charles Lyell was a lawyer. Several others that influenced Darwin and the revival of evolutionism had no scientific training. "That's not quite fair, Cowboy Bob. Geosciences are comparatively new, so they weren't giving away those

There are two primary views in evolutionary thinking: internal , where internal properties of organisms allow them to adapt to their environments, and external , the prevailing view where the environmental environment is the agency of change. Darwin was postulating the latter. This externalism fits with the trend of pagan anthropomorphizing of nature and evolution as intelligent agencies , capable of making decisions to guide evolution. Credit: Pixabay / mafnoor Externalism has stifled science, and even evolutionary ideas, by ignoring how organisms are designed by their Creator to adapt. Even when presented with obvious evidence, such as epigenetic switches, externalists refuse to consider the evidence, and give praise to evolution and nature. Engineered adaptability shows that organisms are designed to self-adapt to many changing conditions. Does Darwin deserve all the homage he gets? After all, the idea of evolution didn’t originate with him. Others before him recognized t

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen If you ever find yourself riding near Deception Pass, try to visit the Darwin Ranch for the worship service. Not much of a spectacle, but it's an educational experience. They bring out their idol of Dagon, have devotional readings from Clinton Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Charles Darwin, and others. They don't do hymns, though [ 1 ]. Bas relief of Dagon as a half-man, half-fish god Satire aside, we have seen that Darwin did not create evolution all by his lonesome [ 2 ] and evolution is, in reality, an ancient pagan religion [ 3 ]. I agree with the remark that essentially says Darwin took an old belief system and gussied it up in a lab coat. Indeed, evolutionism is pantheistic, and even includes elements of animism [ 4 ]. When Paul was debating the Greek philosophers in Acts 17:16-32, they were pagan evolutionists. Pagan evolutionism did not originate with the Greeks, however. Their worldview can be seen in ancient Hindu beliefs [ 3 ]. Hang on,