Piltdown Superman

We have explored the willingness of evolutionists to indoctrinate children, even though their critical thinking skills suffer. (After all, belief in evolution is more important than thinking, yes?) Eugenie Scott has been downright dishonest in her crusade to attack creation science and Intelligent Design, and textbooks contain outdated and fraudulent material . It should not come as a surprise that students are presented with the long-debunked drawings of Haeckel and told that they are real. In addition, their reasoning skills are hindered with question-begging exams!  A government education institution recently provided a textbook example of how evolutionary dogma blinds the eyes of educators, crushes the ability of students to think critically and hinders the progress of true science. The biology paper in the Higher School Certificate exam on 19 October 2012, a major public matriculation exam in New South Wales, Australia, contained a question featuring Haeckel’s fraudulent em

"Prove to me that creationism is scientifically valid with peer-reviewed papers!" First of all, creationists do  have peer-reviewed scientific journals, and are published in other scientific publications . But what of the secular peer-review process? It is seriously flawed and biased . We should not be surprised, really. Evolution is about the survival of the fittest, after all. If submitting a fraudulent paper will improve someone's life, then they are acting like a Darwinist should act; they do not have a consistent moral standard. Creationists, however, do have a consistent moral standard . Unfortunately, the problems are not confined to research on origins or other irrelevant, impractical matters. Rather, they involve real science that impacts people's lives. And the fraud is increasing. Ethicists are becoming alarmed at the explosive increase in scientific fraud cases – and those are just the ones that were caught. Fraud on the Rise It’s a tru

Despite the fact that the iconic status of the peppered moth has been discredited as a proof of evolution , the faithful still attempt to persuade us that it is still evidence anyway. Something that the brilliant observant scientists of the past failed to brilliantly observe is the behavior  of the peppered moths. Not only does evolution fail as an explanation of variation, it hinders explanations because even more questions are raised. A new study shows that scientific research on moth camouflage does not require evolutionary theory. Evolutionary biologists from Seoul, South Korea filmed moths resting on tree trunks.  According to PhysOrg, they were trying to understand how moths in the wild orient themselves on the bark for greatest camouflage.  That’s a very different question than the ones asked by Kettlewell, Majerus and other past researchers who were looking for natural selection of peppered moths.  In those old studies, camouflage was a happenstance, not a behavior within th

It seems that from the beginning of popular evolutionary theory, there has been a great desire to be the "next big thing". Darwin hurried to get his book published after he learned that Alfred Russell Wallace had a very similar idea. "Science" has subjected the public to Nebraska Man (built from the tooth of an extinct pig), Piltdown Man (a fake that fooled the scientific establishment for decades ) and many other spurious, suspicious, fraudulent "finds" in a relentless quest for self-promotion to be the next "discoverer" of nonexistent evolutionary proof. Since evolution is not observational science, but rather, a theory about past events using scientific methods ("historical science"); it is not testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable, verifiable and so on. But evolution is well funded, and people want that government grant money. (What happened to the alleged separation of church and state? Evolution is based on faith more

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