Video Review — Genesis Impact

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Under usual circumstances, the secular educational system has students under its control for several hours a day, weeks a year, many years. They are typically given the airbrushed versions of secular humanism and evolution. 

Image courtesy of Genesis Apologetics

Ironically, when Christian and creationist parents want to do what is right and teach their kids the truth, atheists and evolutionists say that we are "indoctrinating" them. Not hardly! In fact, they are doing the indoctrination, then accusing us of what they are doing themselves. It's okay to question evolution so you can learn how it happened, but it is streng verboten to question if it happened in the first place.

"Go to a natural museum history", they said. "You'll learn a lot." Yes, you'll learn how cherry-picked facts based on the naturalism narrative can be presented as scientific truth. Also, you can see from models and reconstructions how artists' conceptions are both fanciful and deceitful. And we are guilty of indoctrination?

Remember when I did a write-up for the Debunking Evolution series a spell back? The good folks at Genesis Apologetics never dismounted and put their ponies in the stable. They have produced several videos and Seven Myths series, and now Dr. Dan Biddle is leading the charge with Genesis Impact. As with Debunking Evolution, we are able to download a free PDF booklet and see videos that supplement the video.

I found out from their mailing list that the video is available for purchase and streaming rental, but I was able to see it free on Amazon's Prime channel. Now I'll give you my thoughts and observations.

Suspension of Disbelief

People who want to pick nits may criticize:

• The docent (Reggie McGuire) who presented an evolution story allowed Christine (Hannah Bradley) to ask questions and present evidence for an hour.
• There was a prairie schooner-full of dialogue that I consider a composite, discussions that could take place between individuals over days or even weeks presented in that hour.
• She pulls out her phone, makes a connection, and shows video segments on the big screen. (We all know how time-consuming that can be in real life and didn't need superficial details, so it was good that they left those out.)
• Most of the students were listening respectfully.

Show some Respect

Suppose you are a student who has been learning the truth about creation and how evolutionary evidence is tendentious and highly speculative. To go into a situation guns a-blazing may make you feel mighty fine, but it's counterproductive. While we are often attacked by internet atheists and Darwin devotees, we are to serve Christ with wisdom and grace despite possible raw nerves. It's far too easy to lose an argument (the real kind, not an emotional shouting match) by being obstreperous from the get-to.

Christine shows humility and shows critical thinking skills. She asks pointed questions that are not laden with accusations, and the docet allowed her to make her points.

Know Your Material

Christine said that she had been doing some research. You can set yourself up for a fall by challenging an expert, so do your homework. Nobody can memorize or remember everything, but to simply appeal to the Bible or public figures who support creation science will not be helpful. Remember that many people "think" with their emotions, so they won't care what a person or ministry says (genetic fallacy). Not to say that they cannot be referenced, but there is a time and place — later on up the road.

Cheap Stereotypes

You won't find those here, pilgrim. Some films portray atheists in such a way that the viewer might expect them to grow horns and fangs, then shoot lasers out of their eyes. This docent (Reggie McGuire has an excellent speaking voice, but never mind about that now) was clearly an unbeliever, but he was a decent docent. Also, Christine wasn't acting all highfalutin-like, giving a false victory to Christians by trouncing the docent.

There was an atheist in the audience who criticized Christine, which shows a bit of reality. She and others wouldn't fall for the distraction, but did what unbelievers often loathe: kept to the subject. F'rinstance, I can say, "Sure, my nose is weird. I also cheat at solitaire. But can you respond to my point about how the appendix is not a vestigial organ after all?"

Another cheap trick that was avoided would be to have a group of people falling on their knees, sobbing in repentance like in some comic book tracts. The docent did say, "You've given me a lot to think about". As Christians and creationists, we plant seeds. Some may never grow, and we may never see the results in the future. Remember, we are to be faithful, but it is the Holy Spirit who does the convicting and saving of souls.

Evidence and Faith

Regular readers know that I have problems with the Intelligent Design movement. Creationists use intelligent design arguments and evidence, but the ID movement avoids young-age creation and the Bible. Genesis Impact had a great deal of evidence, but it was not divorced from the gospel message; the idea that we can "leave God out of it" is contrary to Scripture. No, Christine didn't make her arguments with, "The Bible says..." Rather, she intelligently used evidence and brought in the Bible — gently — later.

Genesis Impact is not a showcase of dazzling special effects. That's good, because those would have detracted from the video. (Well, the effect of the video viewer at the beginning was impressive, and I didn't catch on that the very beginning and end were set, say, thirty years into the future.) Having read and watched a great deal of biblical creation science material over the years, much of this material was a review for me. A very useful review. By the way, the majority of the movie is about human origins. Genesis Apologetics has excellent videos about geology and the Genesis Flood, but those areas as well as radiometric dating are not emphasized. Fine, you can watch their channel for them. Or maybe there will be a companion movie later on.

People can use the main video, the supplemental shorter videos, and the booklet to lead a series of discussions. These can be a part of homeschooling, a family event, perhaps at a church function, or more. Use your imagination. I have to interrupt myself here and say that while the target audience is students, anyone who wants to learn about biblical creation science can benefit.

Once again, here is the main page for Genesis Impact, and clicking around the site can be useful to you. I normally dislike embedding videos that are more than about half an hour, but it's been a while since I've done that, and this is important. By the way, if you buy a copy, it's there when you need it even if your internet crashes or something.

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

Examining the Scopes Trial Textbook

Way back in 1925, John Scopes of Dayton, Tennessee, was arrested and put on trial for allegedly teaching evolution. The whole thing was a set-up by the falsely-named American Civil Liberties Union to put creation on trial. Dr. Robert Carter investigated what was actually in the textbook, A Civic Biology, Presented in Problems by George W. Hunter.

Modified from an illustration in the textbook (public domain)

As mentioned, the case happened in 1925, but A Civic Biology was written in 1914. It was not only outdated, but loaded with evolutionary and secularist views. Some of the evolutionary material was deceitful (equivocating change with evolution, plus a passel of outright false statements). Scientific racism and eugenics are also included in the textbook.

Public domain photo via Wikimedia Commons

There are a couple of things for which I would have liked to have seen references or further explanation. One is that the word Caucasian is outdated and no longer in use. Actually, it still has limited use for some classifications, but the correct word is simply white. I didn't know that, especially since I still am presented with check boxes on forms that include Caucasian as an option. (One fellow quipped that he is white but has no ancestry from the Caucasus Mountains.) The other part I would have liked documentation is about why the harmful “Jukes” and the “Kallikaks” stories.

This article is useful on a number of levels, including perspectives of science over a hundred years ago. We can trace the harmful effects of evolutionary thinking on societies, and must realize the truth of special creation and that man is created in God's image.

Hunter’s A Civic Biology was the textbook at the centre of the famous Scopes Monkey trial in 1925. The author, George William Hunter, was a college professor, prominent member of the ACLU, and a former high school teacher in New York City. The book was published in 1914 and had been adopted as the high school biology textbook by the state of Tennessee in 1919. By the time of the trial, it was more than a little outdated. The neighbouring state of Kentucky had adopted Hunter’s New Essentials in Biology in 1923. But Tennessee held back, letting its citizens re-use the older book and not have to buy new ones. The book included material on human evolution, which was not supposed to be taught in Tennessee schools due to the recently passed Butler Act. Even though teacher, John Scopes, had not taught anything about evolution, his use of the textbook became the catalyst for this landmark trial. Thus, the struggling little town of Dayton, which had shrunk from 4,000 to 1,500 people over recent years, became the epicenter of world events.

To read the rest, visit "A long-overdue review of Hunter’s A Civic Biology".

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

Good Scientists were Poor Students?

There are some people who may have impressive academic credentials, but they lack the sense that God gave a goose. Is it untrue that institutions of higher learning are supposed to equip students to face the challenges of the future and to contribute to their fields?

Credit: Pexels / Polina Tankilevitch

Today's schools are indoctrination centers for profit. If the university gets the money (the most important part) and the student can correctly answer test questions and write a dissertation, they win the prize. Yes, this child is cynical. Today's institutions have "safe spaces" and try to protect hurt feelings instead of spurring students to meet and deal with confrontations and challenges. If any become scientists, I reckon they'll be mediocre at best but excel in promoting evolutionism.

More than once I have encountered people who have claimed to be scientists who  did not exhibit much skill in the use of logic. One on social media who was pronounced in Atheist Spectrum Disorder claimed to have a doctorate but I did not believe him. Others were convinced that he was being truthful in that instance. I maintained that he was one of many who paid the money and did the work to get his ownself gradjitated.


Originally, institutions of higher learning were made to promote the Christian faith and equip people to become pastors. Nowadays, they are centers of atheistic evolutionism. Many Christians who have been ill-equipped to refute such things have lost what little faith they brought with them.

There have been pioneers in medical and other sciences who were actually poor students in their times. (Although it is a myth that Albert Einstein was a bad student, he excelled in some areas and was a bit quirky.) A recent study showed that many of the great medical innovators of the past would not make it in modern schools. These people were mavericks and did not easily kowtow to the status quo. We can look ahead. How about hiring based on what they have in terms of skill, character, and so on instead of simply looking at their papers and pedigrees? It's inconceivable, but consider godly wisdom and the courageous mavericks doing biblical creation science!

Are we recruiting scientists the wrong way? It takes a lot more talent than the ability to memorize and pass exams.

. . .

. . .  scientists could shift their focus away from measuring ability based on how many hours a student has sat in a classroom chair, or how good they are at passing multiple-choice exams. Some people just have better natural ability and savvy than others. It’s called abductive reasoning, and many great scientists possessed it. They’re like the proverbial mechanic who just has a “knack” for observing a problem and knowing how to fix it. By contrast, a student can have spent years earning college credits yet not have the drive, character, or abductive sense to make a good scientist.

To read the rest of this very interesting article, click on "Bad Students Can Be Good Scientists". Below is a song in video format. It's by ApologetiX, "Come for Some" (wisdom), parody of "Cumbersome".

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

Propaganda for Children is a Tree Ring Circus

In a previous post we saw how naturalists are indoctrinating children. After all, secularists control public thought control systems commonly referred to as schools, so they have their minds captive for many hours in a year. That is not the only method.

Credit: Unsplash / Aleksandar Radovanovic

Another effective means of propaganda is though storybooks. I was talking with Trevor "Red" Schnapper the other day, and he told me about a book for children that he encountered. It was about counting tree rings. This is, to use the expensive word, dendrochronology. (In case you're curious, you can see the word components. -ology is "the study of", dendron is for "tree", cronos is time — but I see you checking the chronograph on your wrist and know it's time to get back to the subject.) Like many other kids, I was taught that one ring means one year of growth.

That seems good on the surface, but there are factors involved that sometimes the sidewinders at the indoctrination centers don't bother to tell people. Counting tree rings is unreliable. Boy, those deceptive deep-time proponents sure are fond of layers, aren't they? This stuff is being pushed on children despite the bad science involved. Remember when Joe Biden said, "We choose truth over facts"? For naturalists, the narrative is more important than actual evidence and logic. The truth they ignore is that the earth was recently created.

A new book on tree rings—Valerie Trouet’s Tree Story — blends some serious tree science with some uniformitarian mythology. The book is being heavily promoted by Johns Hopkins University. Aimed at young readers, it will indoctrinate children into the same old mythology about trees, implying that tree ages can be determined by counting growth rings.

Wooden you know, you can read the rest by clicking on "Children’s Tree Book Rings of Evolutionary Agenda".

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

Evolutionists Indoctrinating Your Children

In "Evolutionists Joyfully Celebrating Indoctrination", we saw how Darwin's disciples are thrilled that they are making converts to atheistic naturalism and evolutionary thinking. Not through science and logic, of course, but through more devious means. They also have systems of indoctrinating your children.

I almost felt bad modifying this picture from FreeDigialPhotos.net / imagerymajestic

Let's face it, the state controls children and education is mandatory. Even homeschooling (or home education) is usually highly regulated. Something I frequently point out is that atheists and evolutionists have conniption fits and accuse Christian parent of "indoctrination" and hypocritically refer to secular institutions of have the kids an average of 1,170 hours each school year. No, that is indoctrination, old son. For that matter, secular values are instilled in them and their Christian, Jewish, or other beliefs are gradually pushed out.

As we see in daily life and especially political activism, people are more inclined to follow emotional manipulation than to use reason. Indeed, logic is not taught nearly as much as it should be and most people do not seem to respect people who think. However, evolutionists who are indoctrinating children are insidious sidewinders, using manipulation, cherry-picked (and even outdated) information, and using subtle methods.

Give me four years to teach the children and in four years the seed I have sown will never bee uprooted.
— Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.
— Adolf Hitler

Image courtesy of Why?Outreach

Let's be blunt. Secularists are very concerned that people accept the pseudoscience of evolution because it is foundational for atheistic naturalism. When given sufficient, unvarnished information, young people are able to see the foolishness of evolution for what it is, and are more willing to resist it. Biblical creation science ministries are here to equip Christians to present the truth in this pagan-dominated culture, to help individuals understand what and why they believe, and to help teach children so they are not so easily swayed by manipulation.

Over the past few decades, dozens of science education papers have been published detailing how evolutionists are trying to convince Christian college students into accepting evolution. College educators have already gotten this down to a science. Polling information shows that they have also been quite successful in achieving this.

In general, a little less than half of Americans disbelieve evolution. And among those who do, a large portion believe that some god guided the process. On the other hand, these statistics are not the same for young people under the age of 30.
. . .

These trends should be very worrisome to Christian parents and church leaders alike. We should also ask, how are the secularists achieving their goal? What does it mean for us? What should we do?

To read all of this very important article, click on "The priests of Darwin want your children".

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

Evolutionists Joyfully Celebrating Indoctrination

Like any skilled totalitarian knows, it is vitally important to control broadcast, social media, the press, the courts, and so on. Free speech is a pretense, where it is supported — but only when approved sentiments are uttered. From there, the Ministry of Truth indoctrinates people through propaganda. Evolutionary propaganda is becoming increasingly successful.

Background image furnished by Why?Outreach

Darwin's disciples in the secular science industry and academia are smarter than we are, even though they think we evolved from the same primordial slime. Just ask them. So, they get to decide what people think. (Not that they want to teach people how to think, just what to think.) They are gleeful about their victories — but they are not winning because of convincing evidence and devastating logic, but through activist judges and legislation that favors the worldview of atheistic naturalism.

It is interesting that many scientists and academicians simply assume evolution because that's all they've been taught, and they do their jobs with little or no homage to Darwin. Others reject evolution, but because of pressures of naturalists, lose their jobs or clam up about their creation beliefs.

There are still many people outside of the elitist circles who have the audacity, the unmitigated gall, to reject evolution not only on theological grounds, but on scientific grounds as well. Unfortunately, many professing creationists don't bother to actually learn the material. When an atheist or evolutionist who has learned the talking points, the creationist gets trounced. Guess clicking "Like" on captioned pictures didn't do so much for you, huh? 

Showdowns between creation scientists and evolutionary scientists are very few, because the evidence is on our side. In fact, atheopaths are ornery cusses when dealing with informed creationists who call them out on bad logic and fake evolutionary news. Creation science information ministries like the one you're looking at right now exist to equip Christians and creationists with not only evidence, but logical thinking and valid theology. This site also links to several other biblical creation science sites to help equip you.

Anti-creationists correctly state that few average creationists or intelligent design supporters can defend their belief. Pair one with a well-informed evolutionist and he or she will often lose the debate. In my experience, though, the average evolutionist likewise cannot defend his or her worldview. They just “know” evolution is true, but unless they undertake a long-term detailed study of the problems of evolution, or unless their career specialization concerns evolution, most scientists have little in-depth knowledge of the problems with evolution.

This assessment appears to apply to the author of the paper reviewed here published in Nature. Nonetheless, evolution prevails in government schools. The author of a new article in Nature, Ann Reid, boasts:

To read the rest of this informative article, click on "Journal Brags that Darwin Indoctrination Works". Be sure to see the related post, "Evolutionists Indoctrinating Your Children".

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

Muddling Through Another Rewrite of Human Evolution - Part 1

Believers in universal common ancestor evolution have contrived a number of stories to convince the world (and themselves) that we evolved through trial and error, vast amounts of time, survival of the fittest. Our putative ancestors were critters that looked a great deal like monkeys and apes. However, their stories have many problems, so they are constantly changing.

Background image: The Passion of Creation, Leonid Pasternak, 1880s

Public indoctrination centers (commonly known as schools, but more accurately as branches of the Ministry of Truth) do a good job in presenting varnished tales of tails and origins, but they do not seem to teach students how to think critically. Instead, they lasso the evoporn and believe it, even when facts disputed or rejected by evolutionists. Somehow this gives them license to ridicule, as if such actions prove that they are right; note that logic doesn't seem to be stressed by the evolutionary Ministry of Truth, either, and Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ gibber at biblical creationists with bad information while thinking that we are the uninformed ones.

Mocking a "meme" and ignoring the accompanying content
Image used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
EDIT: After I linked to this post in a comment on that Page, the owner hid it from public view.

One of the main concepts is Out of Africa. This is evosplained as hominids evolved down Africa way, then humans emerged and took off to settle down in assorted places on the earth. Problems with this idea were found, but the narrative was more important than the facts — a common problem with the evolutionists. Emphasizing naturalism and utilizing a passel of logical fallacies, fake science continues. Evolutionary history is rewritten again and again. They wouldn't have these problems if they were intellectually honest enough to admit that their epistemology is fundamentally flawed.

You may be thinking that we have two articles today. Actually, it's three, and two more tomorrow. Let's saddle up!

“New fossils, tools and analyses of genomes have thrown everything in disarray,” announced author Graham Lawton in the cover story in the latest issue of the British science magazine New Scientist. Once again, the latest rewrite of human evolution announces that we should forget all we once knew, because a “huge array of fossils and genome studies has completely rewritten the story of how we came into being,” yet again. It’s about the fourth time this has happened in the past year or so, I might add. Why does this keep happening? The story of human evolution is, as Mark Twain said a century ago, based on a few bone fragments and several buckets of plaster.

Having just completed the most detailed book-length review ever done by objective PhD outsiders of the peer-reviewed evidence for human evolution with my colleagues, I can say with confidence that Mark Twain’s sentiment over a century ago was correct. I could add the theory of human evolution is now based on more than a few bone fragments, but it is also based on even more just-so stories, as well as requiring a lot more faith than Mark Twain had.

To read the rest of this first article, click on "The Latest Rewriting of Human Evolution". The next article, below, reinforces this first one.

Evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists get their hands on a few bones and use them to spin a yarn. (Sometimes the hands at the Darwin Ranch have someone squat down behind a big cardboard box and use bones to tell a weird puppet show.) They use circular reasoning and even contradict themselves in their efforts do deny the truth that we were created, not evolved.

When you try to force fossils and artifacts into an evolutionary timeline, the anomalies outnumber the confirmations.

In recent news about early humans, statements often express surprise and falsification of earlier notions. Humans at all stages of Homo traveled farther and showed intelligence greater than expected for upwardly-mobile apes.

You can finish reading this article by clicking on "Early Man Science Is a Confused Muddle". The last article for today expands on the Out of Africa model.

Using tendentious deep-time dating methods, evolutionists are unable to come up with a coherent timeline to make the OoAM work. Instead, they rustle up some rescuing devices that are ineffective because they are still contradicted by observed evidence and their own established dates. Their stories are simply comfortable speculations and not based on actual evidence.

Most visitors to the American Museum of Natural History look in awe at the allegedly pre-human ‘apemen’ (a.k.a. ‘hominins’ or ‘hominids’), including those in the ‘Our Family Tree’ display (fig. 1). Using skull casts, it illustrates the claimed evolutionary relationship between them—clearly meant as a kind of knockout punch to anyone still daring to doubt that man is no more than a highly-evolved ape.
. . .
Interpretations and ‘dates’ of fossil skulls are in turmoil, too; notions once proclaimed as near-certain are often later discarded. Others keep accumulating difficulties and are repeatedly ‘patched up’, seemingly awaiting the time when alternative ideas will permit their abandonment. This includes the leading ‘African’ model of human evolution.

To read the full article (which includes some serious problems for arch-compromiser Hugh Ross) and conclude today's series, click on "‘Out of Africa’ on the ropes — The favoured story of evolution is now struggling". Don't forget to see "Muddling Through Another Rewrite of Human Evolution - Part 2".



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

Assuming the Rocks Look Old

"How much more riding do we have, Luke?"

"About two more days. Nice scenery, though."

"Lotsa rocks in nice layers. They sure do look old."

"How do you know that they're old? You need something to compare them with, you know, and there are no tags giving their ages. Now let's get these horses some water."

Credits: Grand Canyon from PIXNIO, run through PhotoFunia

We are told that rocks, layers, and so on look old because people assume that they are old based on deep time presuppositions, but there needs to be a reference point. Rocks are rocks. Radiometric dating? More assumptions, and different methods yield wildly differing ages.

There are people in my experience that look old because I also know people who are young. Here in the Kingston, New York area we have buildings from the Revolutionary War that look old near buildings that were constructed much more recently. (In Europe, you can see structures that are much older and then look at newer ones for a greater contrast.) Do we have any young rocks?

Actually, yes. But when you look at them, they look like the "old" rocks. When looking at geological formations, the appearance of age is not based on objective facts.

Some might argue that Earth’s rocks are obviously ancient even apart from radioisotope dating results. In response to creationist claims, they might ask, “If the earth was created just 6,000 years ago, then why does it look so old?” But does Earth really look old?

To read the rest of this short and not very old article, click on "Do Earth's Rocks Look Old?"



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

The Problems of Evolving onto Land

We have been taught that science is a search for knowledge and that it flourishes with challenges, but that seems to have a caveat of, "Except evolution". It is also unfortunate that instead of being taught critical thinking skills, people accept stories that Darwinists evosplain to them. That is not in keeping with true science.

Images found at Clker clipart were modified

We saw recently that there are numerous problems with the idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds (as articles linked here discuss), but I don't rightly recollect that we hear so much about how seafaring life got the bright idea to become landlubbers. The icon of the walking Darwin fish is a mockery of the Christian fish image, rejecting the Creator and replacing him with secular miracles.

That's right, I said it! Atheists and evolutionists have their own secular miracles, including the sea-to-land business. There is no evidence at all that fish learned to walk on land. Then we have the bigger picture of other living things moving onto land and all the modifications involved that have no evidence. Darwin's acolytes often use the time-tested principle of Making Things Up™ and believing by faith — and expecting gullible people to do the same. They spend a great deal of time, energy, and money in their efforts to deny the truth that we are created by God, and that he told us our responsibilities in the Bible.

Don't get me wrong, evolutionists are not our enemies. Yes, some are devious and intent on convincing people that our Creator is unnecessary or does not even exist. However, many are deceived and trapped in a system that will not allow contrary views and evidence that refutes deep time and fish-to-philosopher evolution. Some scientists are unaware that creation science has the answers they seek. It is more than presenting evidence, it is a spiritual matter. We can do our part to support and educate those who doubt Darwin and question evolution. The truth is available.

In the world of animals, a great chasm exists between aquatic and terrestrial creatures. Consequently, to imagine the changes required to go from a body designed for breathing and navigating in water to one enabling an animal to breathe air and move on land is regarded by Darwinists as one of the most profound evolutionary transitions that ever occurred. Not only is the origin of the limbs a major issue, but the transition from fins to limbs “is one of the critical events in the history of vertebrates.” Specifically, evolutionary theory requires evidence of the transition from lobe-finned fish to tetrapod life forms. Evolutionists assume this transition occurred about 400 million Darwin years ago in the Devonian Period. No evidence exists to fill in this major gap, but a new study titled “Early tetrapods had an eye on the land” hints at some progress. How promising are these new findings?

To read the rest, click on "Did Evolving Fish Cry 'Land Ho!' and Walk onto Land?"




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

The Culture of Death and the Climate Change Cult

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is a follow-up to some aspects if my article on education and indoctrination, "Evolutionists Stoking the Fires of Censorship Again". People are unskilled in using the most basic logical principles and "think" with their emotions. They are used by manipulators who seek to further their own agendas. This is very prominent in atheism, fish-to-fool evolution, leftist political views, and global climate change.

Credit: FreeDigialPhotos.net / ponsulak

The world is going to end! Katie, bar the door! Oh, you never opened up from the last big scare? Never mind. Alarmists have been predicting catastrophes and even the end of the world for decades, but have a perfect record of failure. In the 1970s,  alarmists were saying that a coming ice age was inevitable (for example, see the video "In Search Of... The Coming Ice Age"). That switched to global warming, spearheaded by Algore and his  discredited predictions. Now they've hedged their bets with the ambiguous "climate change", which can be blamed for many things from civil wars to my car not starting. The car not starting thing is not much of an exaggeration because climate change has been blamed for many odd things.

While scientists are having their disagreements (but agree that there is no cause for panic), more heat than light is being furnished by leftist politicians, uneducated alarmists, and globalists. Just try to put forward information or have a discussion, and you are likely to be called a "liar" and slammed with leftist propaganda. We cannot have the conversation. Their view and their interpretation of the evidence is the only one to be considered. Real science is about examining the facts, not just the material that is tortured to support a leftist ideology. Now children are being manipulated by activists in the subterfuge.

Global warming leftists have a materialistic worldview that is fueled by evolutionary thinking. Just study on it a moment. Principles of Geology by lawyer Charles Lyell was written in part to “free the science from Moses” (that is, deny God and recent creation), and also to postulate huge amounts of time. Lawyer Lyell influence Charles Darwin, who hated Christianity and popularized an ancient pagan view (evolution was not invented by Darwin) that fooled many people.

Many people have a fundamentally flawed worldview and are not taught how to think (secularists tell people what to think), unaware of suppressed evidence refuting Darwinism and the popular versions of global warming. It's not surprising they have a bleak outlooks. These people (including children now) are filled with despair, fear, anger, hatred, atheism, and lies that they think are the truth. Yes, we have hope, but it is not in the machinations of sidewinders who want power and money. We do have a Creator, he is in control, and science supports the biblical worldview.

This global climate thing is widely known and there are many sources of information. In addition to the links above, I have two more. First, I recommend a video by Dr. Alan White, "Is It Time to Panic About Climate Change?" Dr. White provides some very important information, although some tinhorns will call him a liar without even thinking about what he says. Invoking white privilege, here is an excerpt of Dr. James R. White on The Dividing Line. It's just over thirteen minutes long, and he discusses the cultic nature of global warming:




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

Evolutionists Stoking the Fires of Censorship Again

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

We have seen reports where free speech is on the decline in Britain, such as when preachers get locked up for a "hate crime" (here is just one example), but atheists and evolutionists are galloping toward full educational censorship against anything even resembling creation or design. I reckon they not only oppose freedom of speech, but freedom of thought as well. 

"Humanists" increased thought control and bushwhacked science education already, but it appears that they want to close any loopholes. Evolution must reign supreme in Welsh education, and there can be no reasonable doubt that the rest of Britain will follow suit. Hail Darwin, blessed be! Evolutionists are not content to misrepresent and even lie about what creationists actually uphold, but they disingenuously redefine "science" in materialistic terms. Also, they will claim that Christian parents, teachers, and ministries are "indoctrinating" when in fact they are doing that themselves. Such blame shifting is a common tactic among atheists, evolutionists, and leftists.

Anti-creationists are delighted at such censorship, of course. I posted something about this Welsh censorship effort on our Fazebook Page, which garnered irrational attacks by one of Satan's handmaids not only for me, but other creationists as well. It is interesting that when some sidewinders complain that they cannot post abusive, irrelevant reactions to creationists, we are "censoring" them, but they heavily promote real censorship and indoctrination. It's who they are and what they do. You may also like to see a short post on such manipulative tactics at "How Manipulators Subvert the Truth".

By the way, a spammer, criminal cyberstalker and pretender to the throne of Almighty God has condemned me to Hell.

Critical thinking is not being taught, and I believe that secularists do not want people to learn how to examine the evidence and ask questions. Such indoctrination tactics are becoming more common in the UK and USA, and we can see the fruits of this in not only origin science, but in climate change as well. 

Students are becoming Children of the Corn, useful idiots for leftists, in reacting emotionally to climate change. In this podcast by Derek Hunter, a student is regurgitating leftist global warming propaganda (based on old-earth beliefs and denying the Creator), and she has clearly been only told the "facts" that she is supposed to know. Obviously, she was not informed that the Maldives are supposed to be under water by now  or that climate doomsday predictions are amazingly inaccurate. To hear Derek's recording and commentary, head for the 41 minute 24 second mark.

Some related material comes from Chris Stigall who was filling in for Chris Plante. There are four areas, but the links are supposed to send you directly to the segments I'm hoping you'll play. First, some of the same kind of thing about the angry student that Hunter covered, but Stigall mentioned that global warming activists are more passionate about their cause than many professing Christians about the gospel. Hear this at 44 minutes 8 seconds. A bit of fun hearing "Mike the Lib" who is typical of global warming fanatics, but a certain criminal cyberstalker makes Mike seem like a rational orator. This can be heard at 56m 38s. Chris did a bit of a repeat on the student's testimony and added some interesting comments, this is at 2h 7m 18s. Finally, at 2h 43m 32s, a caller has some insightful comments on the global warming fiasco. This global warming indoctrination is clearly linked to the lack of instruction in critical thinking skills and logic, which may have saved many people quite a bit of grief.

Aaaaand, a follow-up the next day from Hunter about hypocrisy, the "climate strike", and how indoctrinated kids are angry, without hope (and I must add, without any sign of the Creator in their lives). This one is near the 52 minute mark. Finally, something I don't like to do because I haven't heard it yet, but here's a link to Stigall's follow-up as well.

I write these up several days in advance, and they occasionally get updated. This one should finally be done.

B. Hussein Obama was the climate change-friendly president. If he really believed this stuff, why did he spend millions of dollars on a mansion that would be destroyed? Asking for a friend.

Let's face it, consensus "science" is conducive to indoctrination but terrible for actual research. It's far more convenient to shield students from evidence and keep them from learning to think. It's happening in the USA as well, but it is less blatant right now.

British secularists are yet again up in arms about teaching creationism in schools—this time in Welsh schools. But Welsh schools are not actually teaching creationism, and it’s not as though creationists have been pushing for it either. The fact of the matter is, since humanists erupted in 2011 over the inclusion of the creationist perspective in a religious education class,1 teaching creationism in science classes has already been effectively banned in British schools, even including religious education classes! So why have 46 leading science organisations and scientists, including British atheist big-guns Richard Dawkins, David Attenborough, Steve Jones and Alice Roberts, joined forces in a campaign to ban teaching creationism in Welsh schools?

To read the rest, click on "Senseless cynical censorship — Humanists target creationism in Welsh schools".

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

British Evolution Indoctrination as Education

There was a time when educational institutions were places of learning, and for preparing young people to deal with the challenges of the world. Students were taught critical thinking and logic, and even how to present a strong debate. Not any longer.

If a cowboy was to look at only the horses in one corral and claim that he has found the best horse in the whole wide world, that would be silly. Suppose he checked out the occupants of three corrals and made the same claim. Also silly. He might have a valid claim if he said, "I have examined the horses in three corrals, and the best one is that one over there." That's quite a bit more reasonable because he limited his claim and increased the amount of information that he had to work with.

Biblical creationists (and a few others) lament how modern education does not do well in teaching critical thinking; creationists still try to teach people how to think, while secularists tell people what to think. We have seen before that censorship of creation science in UK schools has been increasing. Now they are making claims of teaching critical thinking in regards to evolution.

However, students are being taught circular reasoning and to draw only from specific evolutionary information sources. That's not education, old son, that's indoctrination. (I get to wondering which evolutionary views they are using, since not all evolutionists are in agreement.) There are people who do not realize that Darwin's acolytes often scrap like junkyard dogs over scraps of raw meat. They are also unaware that creation science not only exists, but creation scientists have far more plausible models for speciation, the age of the earth, genetics, logic, morality, and so on. This is another reason that Question Evolution Day is so important. 

Students cannot be trained in logic or science the way it is pushed in the formerly Great Britain. It is like living with the telescreens in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.

With new methods and materials, UK teachers will be promoting Darwinism on Grade 5-6 students.

Good news: The UK has developed curricular materials for teaching evolution that include argumentation.

Bad news: The only arguments allowed will be Darwinian arguments, aimed at correcting students’ misunderstandings of evolution.

This is a bit like a teacher directing students to believe that fish sticks are better than fish spheres or fish cubes in the cafeteria—fish being the only food on the menu. Only the shape of the fish will matter; students will never be exposed to the existence of beef or chicken. The DODO curriculum will be all evolution, all the time. And it will be all Darwinian evolution at that.

To finish reading, click on "UK Pushing Darwinism on Elementary Students".

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

Evolution, Discrimination, and Freedom from Thought

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The subject of this post is very fitting for the seventh annual Question Evolution Day, but it is very important for Christians, creationists, Intelligent Design proponents, lovers of intellectual and academic freedoms, and other people. There is some startling information in the main post that will be linked, exposing the blatant hypocrisy of the evolutionary establishment. Although that 1995 article focuses on academia, many of the principles apply to the persecution of Christians, biblical creationists, and others. Since it was written, things have only grown worse, and atheo-fascism is increasing.

Students who believe in creation science or Intelligent Design (which is not creation science) are advised to keep mum about their lack of belief in evolutionism lest they be denied advanced degrees. It is difficult for a creationist student to keep his or her integrity and also write an assigned paper on evolution. Indeed, some academics believe that it is perfectly acceptable to persecute creationists, deny tenure to professors, and even retroactively remove awarded degrees! Someone who does quality work, meets the standards, earns a degree only to have it rescinded on theological grounds (rejecting the religion of evolutionism) should at the very least receive a refund for tuition and fees. Strange to say that Christians and creationists are the persecuted minority class; bigotry is allowed and has no reprisals. Some creationists have received threats of physical violence and even death.

Someone may ask, "Why don't the students or professors file charges? Religious discrimination is illegal". Yes it is. However, laws are useless if they are not enforced, and it is culturally and politically justified to persecute creationists. People with materialistic presuppositions assume that a creationist has an erroneous view of reality via the fallacy of ipse dixit. Atheism and materialism are irrational and incoherent, and reason is left tied to a chair in the saloon while circular reasoning is in control: since someone rejects our atheistic worldview where we define reality according to our paradigm, that person is dishonest or even insane. So much for "tolerance"!

Free speech is mighty fine, as long as it fits the views of those in power who use arbitrary definitions and assertions. After all, evolution must be protected from scrutiny; it would not do to have people actually questioning evolution and seeing its flaws. Worse, some people are seeing that science and Scripture support recent creation and the Genesis Flood. Perhaps fear of thought is a reason that some universities actively ban presentations of creation science by students as well as by instructors. After all, it puts a damper on their indoctrination of students.) Sounds a bit like the Soviet Union, where anyone teaching in a university was required to sign an affirmation of atheism.

When secularists paint us with a broad brush, saying that we are "fundamentalists" (a once valid word that has become a pejorative) and indicating that we all think and act alike. Labeling with illogical, emotive words is used in lieu of actual thought and rational discourse. Perhaps one reason we are a threat to secularists is because we promote critical thinking, and people who are able to discern logical fallacies are more likely to notice emotional manipulation when it is employed.

Those people who label Christians, creationists, and ID proponents (essentially anyone who denies Darwin) often imagine what we may do (sometimes citing the actions of oddball professing Christians in a sweeping generalization), therefore we become dangerous in their minds. In a way, we are dangerous — but not physically. Instead, we are "dangerous" according to the thought police of leftists and atheists, because we take a stand for what we believe, and have science supporting our contention that evolution is wrong. The Creator exists, and he has made himself known. This means we are accountable to him, and there is a final Judgement.

Journals operated by atheists, leftists, and secularists in general tend to downplay or even ignore overt discrimination against Christians. This is in stark contrast to the abundance of reports of this very thing reported in Conservative and Christian journals. The secularists do damage by selectively reporting and ignoring material that interferes with their narratives.




via GIPHY

The "alternative media", which includes weblogs, social media, and other things, is important. We can get present information that is suppressed by the secular science industry, atheists, evolutionists, and the like. It also means that people like you and I have voices. (I work for a living, and do not make money doing this.) You can share this post, others like it, to support Question Evolution Day as well as intellectual, academic, speech and thought freedoms.

Maybe if I let you read this fascinating report (heavily researched, with 83 supporting references), that will help motivate you. Also, there's an excellent video below.

The writer interviewed over 100 persons who were active in what is known as the creation-intelligent design movement. Most felt that the standard evolutionary paradigm of origins was inadequate and should be ‘balanced’ with alternative positions. The creationists interviewed differed considerably relative to their views of origins, and about half would be identified with the seven day literal 24-hour day non-gap universal Noachian deluge creationist position. Almost all felt that they had faced serious religious discrimination in their academic careers at least once or more often. The discrimination ranged from derogatory comments to denial of tenure or an earned degree. The writer also reviewed the literature and interviewed about a dozen academic deans and department chairs in the field of science. All, without exception, felt that openly holding a ‘scientific creation’ worldview would seriously impede or terminate an academic career. Many openly stated that they would not hire or support the candidacy of an out-of-the-closet scientific creationist for a tenured position in academia.

To read the rest, click on "Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview".





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