Piltdown Superman

A common falsehood spread by those with atheism spectrum disorder and other anti-creationists is that biblical creationists do not publish in secular peer-reviewed journals. Sidewinders like that prefer to use prejudicial conjecture instead of doing their homework. The facts are quite complicated. Original image by Pixabay / skeeze , modified with Pablo The guard dogs protecting secular journals are vicious. While biblical creationists do indeed get published (as we have said before) , the equivalent of throwing the guard dogs raw meat is to say that their material does not threaten Darwin (blessed be!) or support creation science. Naturalists become frenzied when the truth of the Creator receives even a hit, such as when someone let a paper go through that said "creator" , even though it means something different in the author's native language. My conclusion is that they are cowards and willfully ignorant (Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes) Athe

Naturalists execrate what biblical creationists believe and teach. We get that. They misrepresent and even lie about us, often appealing to "legitimate scientific sources" (meaning atheistic naturalism) and inefficient peer review. It is worse when professing Christians ride for the Darwin brand. Least weasel image by FreeDigitalImages.net / Phil_Bird As we have seen in other posts, peer review has numerous problems, including the reproducibility crisis, bad papers being passed, citing of citing of poor documentation, and more. Peer review is by no means a guarantee of truth and accuracy. Add misrepresentation to the mix and things get worse. Some theistic evolutionists decided to slap leather with Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson, author of Replacing Darwin , and not only put words in his mouth (and other creationists), but blatantly misrepresented what he teaches. Despite inaccuracies and glaring omissions, it passed peer review. Dr. Jeanson indicates that these evolutionis

We have seen numerous examples of research that claims to support universal common ancestor evolution that did nothing of the kind. Add to this the fact that the vaunted secular peer review process is fundamentally flawed , and this scorpion evolution story is a tragicomedy. Striped bark scorpion image credit: National Park Service (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) There are 1,750 or so known species of scorpions, but only a few have venom that is deadly to humans. Even so, this child will not be guessing, leaving the handling to the experts. These predators often blend in well with their surroundings, but they are known to make their way into places they don't belong. Be sure to shake out your shoes and boots in the morning if you sleep in those areas. A fossil was found that had the same kind of inner workings from hundreds of million Darwin years ago, but was essentially the same as those today. The researchers promptly utilized the complex scientific

It has been established for many years that Darwin was wrong, natural selection is not evolution. Sure, his followers believe that natural selection and mutations work in conjunction with evolution, but natural selection itself does what it is supposed to do. So why do so many evolutionists, including those in a study of guppies, disingenuously claim that evolution occurred? Credit: Flickr / Mark Turner  ( CC by 2.0 ) Guppies are generally good-natured and frequently included in a community tropical aquarium. Very attractive. They breed a lot, too, even in captivity. Guppies are found down Trinidad way for the most part, and scientists did some studies on them. What they found were some great examples of natural selection (a concept that creationists affirm), but they said that the guppies exhibited evolution. That'll be the day! In addition, they demonstrated why peer review is failing because of what this child considers circular appeals to authority. No guppies were adapti

A spell back, I wrote about how politics can imprison science  because in many cases, secularists hijack science for their own ends, such as gender confusion . Now we see an example of the secular science industry refusing to correct a paper because it did not fit the agenda. Mostly made at Add Letters , plus clip art and additional text The science establishment adores Papa Darwin and strives to protect him from scrutiny, even if bad science needs to be lassoed and brought into the corral. There is a reproducibility crisis   where paper are submitted relying on other papers, but the original findings are not replicated and can be spurious. Peer review? That has a passel of problems, even though many people adore it . Anti-creationist tinhorns often demand to be shown a peer-reviewed paper (as if they could understand it in the first place). When they are shown such papers from creationist organizations, they utilize the genetic fallacy and light a shuck out of there. Na

A new expression that I have picked up on is fake news. In many cases, it is an accurate description of how some media outlets will omit important details or even lie outright in order to persuade people. Unfortunately, it also is growing in the secular science industry. Now we have to contend with fake news and artificial intelligence. Pixabay / Garik Barseghyan AI can be used to generate fake news as well as to determine which news is false. This can be both good and bad, depending on who is doing the programming. The results have been a bit unnerving because they are difficult to discern from actual news reports, complete with references.  Any kind of computer or AI depends on the programming it receives, which reflects the biases and worldviews of the programmers (see " Artificial Intelligence and Evolving Morality " and " Artificial Psychotic Intelligence "). Imagine if some sidewinders promote new pharmaceutical products that are not actually cleared

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen An occasional plot device in books, movies, and television is when a character uses untoward means to make a point. Perhaps he or she was ignored by the government or an employer about serious problems in software or something that were ignored, so the problem is dramatically demonstrated. In a similar manner, hoax papers have been submitted to peer-reviewed journals — and accepted. Credit: Unsplash / Christin Hume One notable incident was when Alan Sokal submitted an article to a postmodern journal in 1996, causing academic embarrassment. Postmodernism is where truth is relative and absolute truth is rejected. It is also self-refuting, inconsistent, and unlivable. Like atheism, when someone following either philosophy says that something is evil or wrong, that person is appealing to an absolute standard. Ultimately, they are appealing to the truth of God! Secular science has a definite leftist bias . Current sexual preference and science-denying &quo

There have been occasions where we have examined the use of science, between their  science and our science, and how the interpretations of facts are the important factor. Now we need to ride up yonder hill and look back for an even bigger picture. That is, who owns science itself? Credit: CSIRO /  Frank Filippi  ( CC BY 3.0 ) This raises many questions and "on the other hand" thoughts. People who do the research and produce valid papers (there is now considerable doubt that papers are useful ) deserve to be paid. Does the public have the right to access the papers, especially if our taxes paid for the research? The secular science industry makes this very expensive in many cases, although hackers can still get in. Other people can look at summaries and abstracts, which make promises that may not be fulfilled in the content.  Some creationist organizations have peer-reviewed journals that are only accessible to members, with some articles available on the web. Anoth

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Every once in a while, an anti-creationist will reluctantly admit that a biblical creationist has some scientific knowledge, but will say something along the lines of, "I presume he is still a YEC for strong religious reasons". Not hardly! Atheists, evolutionists, and other anti-creationists have often exhibited incredulity that some folks reject evolution because of scientific reasons. If you head on over to Intelligent Design sites, you'll learn that there are Darwin doubters from various religions and from no religion at all. No, people reject evolution for both scientific and biblical reasons. Evolutionary owlhoots get even more unfriendly-like when they are informed that scientific evidence is a triple threat: it refutes evolutionism, supports biblical creation science (including the Genesis Flood and recent creation) — and affirms what the Bible says. This is happening because origins is not an evidence issue, it is a spiritual proble

An organization can begin well, but lose its moorings and drift from its purpose. It happened 500 years ago when the Roman Catholic religious system became corrupt, and Martin Luther was the focal point of the Protestant Reformation. Similarly, the secular science industry's peer review process is due for a reformation. Modified from a picture at Freeimages by  Arjun Kartha , Martin Luther image added Movements of any consequence seldom have a single point of origin. The Protestant Reformation had been growing for some time, and some of the seeds were planted by John Wycliffe. Martin Luther had a disquiet and realized that the Roman Catholic power system was not true to its original purpose, having become a corrupt power and money system. (I reckon that when unbelievers use the remark that religion is to control people, they could very well be thinking of the Catholic system, and generalizing that it is typical of all sects that have the tag "Christian".) That chur

When I'm discussing a repair with my favorite mechanic, I gleefully display my ignorance by asking questions that must seem ridiculous to him. Fortunately, we both know that I'm uninformed, and he likes to teach. I may ask if it's possible to make a repair in a certain way, and he'll tell me why it won't work. The science industry itself is in serious need of repair. Papers get published that are plagiarized, computer generated , the results cannot be reproduced, data is omitted, unethical activity, a blatantly leftist bias  that belies claims of objectivity, faulty peer review, and more. They want the spotlight for sensational results, but failures are useful information as well;  scientists need to know what will not work as well as what succeeds, see? Image cropped from Pixabay / Skitterphoto In addition, incomplete information is presented (a frequent occurrence among evolutionary scientists and their sensationalistic press pals), but there is a lack of f

Creationists frequently encounter atheopaths and other Darwinistas who make inane demands resembling, "Show me just one peer-reviewed creationist paper!" You can tell up front that they don't want answers, otherwise, they'd be doing their own research and finding out that yes, creationists are indeed published in noted journals. (I recently gave one tinhorn a link to " Creationist Scientists and Journal Publication ", but he preferred to make childish attacks and refused to click on it. I reckon some people don't want answers.) Many folks expect that peer review is a guarantee of accuracy, and that something is established science if it undergoes peer review. Not hardly! Modified from an image at Clker clipart Creationary scientists have their own peer review systems and seek to honor God as well as strive for excellence in the process. Although all scientists are human after all, secularists seem more prone to plagiarism, misconduct, fraud, bias,

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Evolutionist owlhoots are showing their blatant bigotry when a paper in PLoS One  used a bad word four times!  No, it wasn't ****, ****, or even ************, but it was far worse: the "C word". That's right, someone dared to say "Creator" — and they did it more than once. Researchers said that the human hand was the product of the Creator's design. Katie, bar the door, our propaganda mills are threatened by truth! Image credit: morgueFile / GaborfromHungary The use of the word "Creator" was not done to prove the existence of God or creation. That was not the reason for the paper, which was written from a naturalistic perspective. The Evo Sith were outraged, throwing down on PLoS One , demanding a retraction.  So they got one. Here is the retraction , which is mighty strange, since  the article is still there . This is a blatant illustration of what creationists have been saying for a long time, that secula

Much of the Western world holds scientists in high esteem beyond that which is fitting. They are not monoliths of objectivity, and are subject to the same fallacies as the rest of us; having a degree or scientific prestige is not a guarantee of morality nor objectivity — they have their biases and avarice, and those are clearly seen. Unfortunately, science suffers for this. Made at Redkid.net Scientists are sinners like us reg'lar folk, and it often transfers into their work. Evolutionary scientists reject God and seek to utilize naturalistic presuppositions in the interpretations of the evidence. Ironically, they claim to have their own  ethical and moral standards  (perhaps they could have Dinsdale come around to bad scientists and nail their heads to the floor because they transgressed the unwritten law — cruel but fair). In addition, the vaunted secular peer review process has a passel of problems . Even their own scientists are dismayed by the ineffectiveness of th

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Things were surprisingly quiet at The Question Evolution Project over Christmas. But New Year's Day and afterward, some owlhoots from the Darwin Ranch rode over, full of beans and ready to slap leather. (From the quality of their comments, they had too much firewater during their celebrations and weren't ready to deal with polite society yet.) Fortunately, their comments were helpful resources for writing this article, and I saved a heap of screenshots. One of these troublemakers had a wagon load of assertions based on his presuppositions, but was jawing about nothing rooted in fact. I'll omit his insistence on using the irrational, disingenuous redefinition of atheism  as "lack of belief" and stick with the evolutionism comments: Evolution is directly predicated on the scientific method. To state otherwise is illogical. It requires peer review and falsifiable evidence, like all scientific disciplines. It's directly predicat