Piltdown Superman

As shown many times before, the secular science industry supports leftist attitudes and causes. Gender confusion and same-sex attraction are two of these. Years ago, and even today, people claimed that homosexuality was genetic, but no so-called gay gene has ever been found. There are people who claim that homosexuality exists in nature (such as the alleged gay penguin couples) and the way dogs act. However, it seems to be anthropomorphizing  by humans instead of real same-sex romance in animals. To further blur reality, research has been committed in efforts to find same-sex attraction. Evolution was not only presumed, but was claimed that homosexuality evolved many times in different animals. (It seems like an escape to say something happened many times, so evidence is not produced — or demanded. Clever.) The owlhoot who is trying to use science to deny God's order in creation did not seem to take into account that animals act in certain ways for their own reasons, and not for ro

A spell back, we used the expensive word anthropomorphize , which basically means to assign human traits to animals and other things . It is also a very common thing to do. Charles Darwin saw evil in the insect world and wondered how a loving God can allow this. Others have wondered about similar things. Evil is actually rebellion against God and his Word, and critters are doing what they know without considering morality. In discussing biology, however, their predatory behavior is often called  natural evil . Wasp on grape, Pixnio / Bicanski We tend to think of the big wasps that sting just about anything, but smaller species escape our attention because they cannot sting us. Wasps often go after each other. After all, they want to survive and reproduce. Their methods are often brutal and even disgusting to us. The source of this behavior is not found in natural science, but theology — go back to Genesis. Who hasn’t had a picnic ruined by angry, stinging wasps coming out of nowhere, o

People have been modifying parts of their world for millennia, and that includes livestock as well as plants. Since selective breeding is slow, scientists started working on  genetically modified organisms  (GMOs). Those are safe , but people are afraid of them anyway. Move forward to people wanting to improve themselves. One way is to have an implant, prosthesis, or some other benefit from science and technology. This can be taken to extremes in transhumanism . Human gene editing (HGE) has similar ethical problems as forming improvements through technology. CRISPR genome editing, National Institutes of Health (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Secular scientists are prone to ignoring ethics, and they have demonstrated that in HGE. They have a fundamentally-flawed worldview based on materialism (no God, therefore no ultimate moral standard, belief in evolution just material exists). Sure, some can be good, moral people — relatively speaking. But only biblical values c

As noted previously, the secular science industry espouses leftist causes. Many of these go beyond political and into immorality. That is why we cannot stay with science here because they use Darwinian values to interpret information for their agenda. People are easily deceived because they lack critical thinking skills; what passes for thought is quite often driven by emotions. Also, their hearts are darkened (Eph. 4:18-19, Rom. 1:21), and this invariably impedes their thinking processes. Sexual immorality is a major factor. Creepy Charlie likes movies about gladiators (modified public domain image by Jean-Léon Gérôme ) Naturalists are inconsistent in their approaches to which perversions they promote — is is like choosing from a buffet table. A man has sex with multiple women? Evolution, because it propagates our species!) Gang rape and cannibalism occur in our "cousins" the chimpanzees, but we don't see that being encouraged. Animals tend to be selfish when it comes to

This post is about some uncomfortable subjects, and I need to bring in something exceptionally painful to myself. Many people are organ donors. For me, it is marked on my driver's license. My wife Charlene was uncomfortable with it and refused, but I do not care if I go into eternity hollowed out. Ethics and morality play a big part in this. No, it is not wrong to be a donor! The problems are when organ harvesters may ignore the policies against abuse, or even hasten the process. Indeed, a few people who have been declared brain dead have recovered . MRI brain images, Pexels / Anna Shvets For some people, this part is a repeat of previous information, so I'll keep the background narrative short. When my wife was recovering from a routine surgery, I received a phone call just before midnight. She had a "cardiac event." Actually, it was a heart attack and stroke. The MRI showed massive brain damage and there was no hope of recovery. But she was not technically brain dea

This post is about hearts. Mine is broken. Yesterday, my wife died from complications after surgery. She is now with Jesus and others who have gone on before. That takes some of the edge off my immense sorrow. Please pray for me and all I have to deal with in the next few weeks. Long before she was stricken, I wrote this post. Interestingly, I learned that she was greatly distressed over my time away for heart surgery. Now it is the opposite. She expected me to return home, now I will meet her in our eternal home... One of the most outrageous comments I ever saw from an atheist was regarding how a biblical creationist should not be allowed in the space program. The reason? A Christian's beliefs may cause him to do stupid things and jeopardize lives of astronauts or wreck space probes and such. Obviously, he did not know what creationists actually believe, so he filled up on bigotry and prejudicial conjecture — without evidence. What if we applied the same reasoning to fish-to-fool

Science is supposed to be about searching for knowledge, but special interests have long sought to keep inconvenient information hidden from consideration ( just ask Galileo ). Although creationists publish in peer-reviewed journals, it must be on acceptable topics — the Genesis Flood and recent creation are streng verboten . There is tremendous pressure on many in the secular science industry, and some scientists have a "publish or perish" sword dangling over their heads. That and personal greed  motivate quite a few to cheat so they can have their names on display in prestigious journals. Many topics are either taboo or the narrative is preordained by secularists in power. Sure, go ahead and discuss climate change or other subjects near and dear to the cold, hard hearts of the left. Just make certain that the contents follow the limitations; no one here will save you, just replace you. Got that, chief? For that matter, adherents of Scientism often think that peer review is

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen It is amusing in attacks on creationists when believers in fish-to-fool evolution claim to use peer-reviewed scientific journals for information, then proceed to throw links to Wikipedia at us. Anyone who uses it can see frequent requests for users to chime in and improve articles. And donate money. Wikipedia is not exactly reliable as a source of information*, probably because many articles can be edited by the public. One ludicrous article  admits that Wikipedia has errors but is up to the readers to check out the sources and make up our own minds. Yeah, sure. Some of their articles have huge numbers of references to weed through — and omits important evidence when it does not fit the worldviews of their writers! Despite its claim of neutrality, Wikipedia is extremely biased in some areas. Frustrated woman studying at computer, Pexels / energepic Wikipedia says it is unbiased. Well, sure. They can say  anything. But the facts do not support the claim. I freely

When dealing with professing atheists, many make the claim that they can be "good without God." Misotheists can live apparently moral lives for the most part, but they tend to make exceptions for personal benefit. And they cannot explain their foundations. Laws? Laws change. Evolution? Not hardly ! Some atheists accuse creationists of lying about evolution (a ludicrous charge*), but they cannot coherently explain why , if such a charge were true, lying would be wrong in an atheistic worldview! There have been several attempts in secular philosophy to pin down morality without God. Broken foundation, RGBStock / Adrian van Leen Various secular frameworks have been proposed for morality, but they have internal inconsistencies. Some are arbitrary, so good and evil are based on following a set of rules that are incomplete in dealing with human experiences. Some appeal to higher standards outside themselves — when an atheist says that lying about evolution is wrong, they are appeal

Believers in descent-with-modifications evolution frequently equate their flawed science with empirical science. What is presented here often deals with origins, but there are scientists working in the secular science industry who just want to do their jobs. Most science has nothing to do with evolution. They get their models all gussied up and mount them on their prize ponies, mayhaps nobody will notice the bad science and deception. (Sometimes bad guys get caught but their papers are not retracted. Just ask  Vishwa Jit Gupta .) Evolutionists pretend to be just as good at science as the others. Charles Darwin as a cowboy on a horse, made with AI at Bing There are stories that are pretentiously presented as scientific research, but skip over the important details. F'rinstance, molecular machines called nitrogenases  are not understood for the process of nitrogen fixation. Experiments yielded conclusions that would not withstand serious examination. So, how about those marsupials? T

Regular readers have seen how the secular science industry is supporting leftist causes, and how evolution is the centerpiece on the table. This child wants to keep political matters to other weblogs, but when secularists infuse themselves into policy making, things need to be discussed. Once again, it should be said that genuine  environmental concerns are well in keeping with biblical creation principles , but leftist politicians are taking environmentalism to extremes. Elitists in the secular science industry are joining in to further the agenda. Range of the Caucasus mountains , Ivan Aivazovsky, 1869 Biblical creationists point out how believers in descent-with-modifications evolution play fast 'n' loose with their definitions. They tend to broaden them so that variation, speciation, and other changes (which are compatible with creation science) are deceitfully termed evolution  so people will think that Darwin was right. It's who they are and what they do. Similar word

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Something that keeps getting slipped over the transom in my study is news about Dr. James Tour. He is a professor of several things including chemistry at Rice University, and friendly with the Discovery Institute, an Intelligent Design organization. He makes Darwin sad by refuting claims of materialists on the origin of life. No, I refuse to accept the claims of Darwin's acolytes on social(ist) media and elsewhere that the OoL has nothing to do with evolution, as that has been handily refuted many times over. Background image by Cowboy Bob Sorensen , photos from James Tour's YouTube post, then modified* Dave Farina considers himself an educator on science topic and has made good use of the popularity of YouTube. His channel is Professor Dave Explains . (People call themselves whatever they want, but in science and academia, claiming titles like doctor or professor is akin to stolen valor in the military .) Like other atheists, he presupposes a materiali

It is bad enough that believers in molecules-to-Mario evolution present incomplete and often erroneous science, but they also encourage long-refuted evolutionary dogma. On several occasions we have encountered blatant falsehoods used to prop up this atheistic myth of origins. Everyone makes mistakes (including faulty reasoning), but to repeatedly use false information is downright deceptive. Seven years ago, a disingenuous video titled "Proof of evolution that you can find on your body" was posted, and at this writing has over 37 million views and 407 thousand "likes." Hammond C3 organ, WikiComm / Emilio Muñoz (Public Domain), modified The video focuses on so-called vestigial organs (or structures) that have supposedly lost their functions during the process of evolution. Claims of vestigial things have been debunked, as we have seen regarding "junk" DNA , the  Palmar Grasp Reflex in infants, how the famous appendix is actually important , and more. One

Regular readers have caught on that science thrives when challenged, and when views are protected, it stagnates. Atheism is where science goes to die in darkness. Despite the claim to follow where the evidence leads, scientists tend to protect their beliefs. Just ask  Ignaz Semmelweis . Creation science is rejected by the secular science industry because of their precommitment to naturalism, so evidence against evolution and in favor of special creation is suppressed. Draconian measures keep bad information in the public minds. Thanks to Why?Outreach for the background image Because the secular science industry has attitudes that are actually anti-science, they promote evolution — which is harmful to medical science . Vestigial organs/structures have been redefined because those alleged leftovers from our evolutionary past have been found to be useful. There are numerous examples where evolutionary thinking harmful to medicine. Many of Darwin's acolytes are passionate about their

Disciples of Charles Darwin try to brush aside or ignore his view of women as inferior , and especially his blatant racism . Some build a straw man by claiming that we said evolution is racist when we talk about scientific racism and other extensions of his conjectures. There have been owlhoots who claim that saying Darwin was a racist is an ad hominem , but that conveniently ignores the fact that his beliefs were fundamental in his development of evolution — ideas have consequences . People also point out that he was opposed to slavery, and a couple of authors try to make Charlie appear to be a passionate abolitionist. Public domain image, run through removebg , colorized at Palette , flames added at LunaPic A couple of biographers wrote a book that portrayed Darwin as someone who was concerned with the abolition of slavery. His work on species was with abolition in mind. When Dr. Robert F. Shedinger gave the tome close scrutiny, he realized it was stuff and nonsense. Sure, it was

A spell back, we discussed how the Huxley family was promoting Charles Darwin's myth of origins by developing conspiracies , but they wanted to keep up appearances in Victorian England. Looking proper was important in that era, perhaps more so than it is today. One reason is that they wanted to promote evolution, but did not want their activities to besmirch Papa Darwin. What was under the surface did not remain hidden much longer. For many atheists, Darwin is a sacred character. Satire, irreverence, and the truth about him are not to be tolerated. Some folks in the secular science industry are iconoclasts, willing to pull his statue off the pedestal and be straightforward about him. In addition, the extreme immorality of the Huxleys (who were some of Darwin's biggest supporters, remember) are shown as bearing bitter fruit. It is worth considering that evolution is the necessary creation myth for those who deny God. It is not just an intellectual choice (since the evidence for

There is a personal and coincidental reason for my interest in the article featured below. Today is 8 March, and I am recovering from knee surgery. The article came out on the first, and my surgical testing was on the second. When someone has a reputation for repeatedly fouling things up, do you want to entrust that person with something extremely important? Of course not. The same can be said for an ideology. It has been shown repeatedly that evolutionary thinking has been harmful to medical science, yet Darwin's acolytes want it entrenched. Original operating room photo at Pexels / Anna Shvets , then modified* Apparently, secularists are repeatedly given a pass: Racism in medical research Vestigial organs/structures such as the appendix are not vestigial Declaring not-understood DNA to be "junk,"  which has been refuted The false claim that antibiotic resistance proves evolution Fake science to support evolution in COVID-19 research We have also seen that secularists o

A few years ago, I noticed that atheists tend to be political leftists and approve of many behaviors that are against the commands of God. Particles-to-politician evolution is a tenet of atheism, so they fight red in tooth and claw to defend and promote it. To be blunt, evolutionism is a death cult, because advancement up the tree of life happens because of death. Things die and new ones evolve. You savvy that? Like people in various religious cults, people involved seldom consider in depth what their organizations believe. Bassinet, Freestocks / Joanna Malinowska While society is deteriorating, the murder of unborn children is gaining ground. It has been said that abortion is a sacrament to Democrats and other leftists. Many people know full well that they are ending lives (they admit it), and they do not care. Some are proud of the number of abortions they've had! That's depravity. Those people need to humble themselves and repent to Jesus Christ. Two things I've said bef