Piltdown Superman

Evolution, under the guise of "science", is not taught with the evidence and critical thinking . Only one side of the evidence for evolution is presented in textbooks , which is nothing less than indoctrination. "Humanist" organizations and "science education" groups campaign to have any semblance of creation science removed from the classrooms. Groups like the NCSE and Australian Skeptics claim to be religiously neutral , but that is the opposite of the truth. The NCSE's activities show that they are opposed to free speech  and are willing to indulge in emotional manipulation . The BCSE is also blatantly disingenuous .  Darwin's Stormtroopers, the evolutionists who pa-TROLL the Web in the name of "science", display the same kind of intellectual acumen and integrity of their masters. That is, attack the person, equivocate evolution with science, protect "science" (as if science really needs protection!), misrepresent the

Is it possible for someone to enter a secular university with biblical (young earth) creationist views and not have to compromise or have his or her belief system replaced with evolutionism? Jason Petersen of Answers for Hope interviewed Jessica Roberts. She has degrees, including her recent bachelor's  in Molecular Biology, and has a master's in health science. Quite often, we have "educators" that want to belittle, intimidate, obfuscate and more to their students so they can protect their fundamentally flawed worldview. (Of course, true science and true education require actually examining the evidence.) Jessica's experience echoes many of the things creationists encounter. For her, the stakes were higher than just dealing with someone who wants to be contentious. But things went better than might be expected.  The interview is in two parts, written and video. Here is the written portion of the interview: 1. Why are you a Young Earth Creationist?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Edited 6-21-2016 Before I went ahead with this article, I checked with some other people about the content. Three hours before auto-publish, I removed the name of the evolution stormtrooper that I dealt with, even though they thought I should use it. "Dr. Duncan, I forbid you from letting any student pass your class if they still believe in their imaginary friends by the end of the semester.  If you don’t make every student in there an atheist by the time they graduate, then you, sir, have failed as an educator!" — Dr. Robert Farris, The Deception  by Steven J. Wright , p. 68 We have seen that indoctrination is paramount in evolutionary education; students are not told how  to think (critically, honestly examining the evidence), but what  to think (presupposing that evolution is true, and then using circular reasoning to "prove" it). Although the "educator" in the example at the top is fictional, such antics are not. T

Some people claim to have a thorough knowledge of evolution. Amazingly, there are tinhorns who claim to know more than evolutionary (and non-evolutionary) scientists! Evolution is inconsistent and constantly changing, and needs a great deal of tweaking to keep the pseudoscience in line with scientific observations. Do evolutionary scientists themselves claim to have full understanding of evolution? Not hardly. Some will actually admit to having a lack of understanding. Yet, they persist in keeping the faith despite the evidence. Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biol

“In science, people argue for their ideas, in terms of the evidence that they have. There should be more opportunities to look at why some ideas are wrong, as well as what the right ideas are.” — Jonathan Osborne When discussing origins with proponents of evolution, we find that they simply repeat what they have been taught. Unfortunately, they have been taught "facts" that are conjecture, and "evidence" that is based on presuppositions and circular reasoning. Questioning evolution as a fact is effectively forbidden, and fundamentalist evolutionists strive to suppress critical thinking and examination of the evidence. Jonathan Osborne wants to do things differently. Instead of reciting facts (both real and imagined), he wants students to do something radical: Argue from the available facts instead of starting with a conclusion. Although it's a step in the right direction and interferes with evolutionary indoctrination, it's not quite enough. A pr

What do you get when you present only one side of the scientific evidence, cherry-pick data to support your belief system, misrepresent those who disagree with you, resort to stalking, harassment and libel, present outdated and fraudulent information as fact? Yep, you guessed it! Evolutionary indoctrination. Let's be blunt: It is brainwashing. How do the "educators" delude themselves as well as their  students? Today's article is so short, I am not even going to post the first part as an introduction. Instead, you can read " Training Non-Skeptics One Course at a Time", here .

There have been times when I have been astonished at remarks from evolutionists about science. They have used outdated, spurious, discredited, tendentious and even dishonest evidence as "proof" of the "fact" of evolution. (One atheist called Matt Slick of CARM and actually presented discredited Lamarckism , or Lamarckianism, as proof of evolution!) Sometimes, this clinging to an unworkable worldview is simply the result of willful ignorance. But how often is the problem based on faulty textbooks , and they never learned the truth about evolutionism? Perhaps the problem is bad science indoctrination coupled with emotional attachment to a faulty worldview, but never mind about that now. Let's looks more closely at the textbook problem. Evolutionists are now formulating scientifically archaic teaching standards they want the states to follow “in whole, without alteration.” Our evolution-drenched science education in the U.S. is pathetic, with science literacy scr

When the cause is "right", then it does not matter how one goes about achieving a goal, yes? Misleading people, outright lying, shading the truth — those are acceptable, yes? For the most part, the philosophy of "the end justifies the means" is frowned upon. But apparently, indoctrination in evolutionism is an exception. In that case, go ahead and lie to students; they must be compelled to believe in evolution (and use the equivocation fallacy to refer to this philosophy about the past as "science") at all costs. Don't forget to leave the mistakes, frauds, errors and reclassifications in the textbooks! When these sidewinders lie, they are being consistent with their fundamentally flawed worldview. There have been many examples of evolutionary falsehoods used to indoctrinate students into evolution. The list includes Forged Haeckel embryo pictures, still used in many textbooks Staged photos of peppered moths whic

How can anyone justify science "education" when it is based in the presupposition that evolution is a "fact", evidence contrary to evolution is ignored or even suppressed, evolutionary "science" is to be protected , and the textbooks contain outdated and outright wrong material? (Even the terribly outdated and misused Miller-Urey experiment is still being cited!) Bad textbooks are preferred over materials that require critical thinking. Evidence for evolution is cherry-picked . That is not science, Skippy, that is indoctrination . According to a study released today by the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, bogus embryo drawings, long-debunked claims about tonsils, and outdated information from a 1950s lab experiment highlight the glaring bloopers found in proposed science instructional materials currently being considered by the Texas State Board of Education. "Retro-science must be in, because the proposed materials are