Piltdown Superman

We are just under six months away from the ninth annual Question Evolution Day as I write this post. QED is a grassroots movement to encourage people to share material that refutes evolution and affirms special creation. We are hoping that not only will people reevaluate fake science for evolution, but that some evolutionists themselves will also question it. Ultimately, we want people to come to know the ultimate truth found in our Creator. Yale Old Library - postcard via NY Public Library As we have seen numerous times on this site alone and even more on the sites that are linked to from articles, Darwin's proselytes frequently declare evidence (or even proof) of evolution using incomplete data and spurious reasoning. Many people succumb to the propaganda: "Well, if science says , then it must be true!" Not hardly! Materialism is the dominant religion in the West. No, not officially. But biblical creation science and even the Intelligent Design movement are a

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This is something rather different for Question Evolution Day but it is about a subject that I think is largely neglected. As we have seen many times, atheism is irrational and unable to deal cogently with the conditions of human experience. Foundational to atheism are materialism and evolution. To be consistent with evolutionary thinking, "survival of the fittest" would, according to materialistic presuppositions, entail leaving anyone less than perfect  behind — or even eliminating them. The Nazis referred to Jews and other "subhumans" as "useless eaters" who consume food and resources but did not contribute to society. The same could be said for people with handicaps, but there are still people with a Christian worldview that will not let the handicapped be subjugated or exterminated. The "science" of eugenics (which justifies abortion) was popular in the United States in the early 20th century. This had people fo

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 b

We seem to be living in a time of laziness and short attention spans, and it’s getting worse. People want flashy entertainment in movies, but how often do people read books nowadays? For that matter, writers of weblogs are being advised to keep it short. If someone writes a detailed comment about a post or article, they may get a tl;dr (Too long; didn’t read) reply. It was originally used in response to unnecessarily long, tedious comments, but now it’s thrown around with reckless abandon — even on good comments. Credit: Freeimages / Christian Carollo Short Attention Spans and Social Media I reckon one problem in today’s society is that people are tightly scheduled, even down to the minute. We don't want to take the time to read and learn. Another problem that adds to shorter attention spans is social media. (At The Question Evolution Project , we can post a link to a brilliant article, and five people click “Like”. Post a picture with a funny caption (often called a me

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Every once in a while, disciples of Darwin want to slap leather with biblical creationists but lack civility, logic, and science. (They get especially obstreperous with Question Evolution Day up yonder.) Here are a few things to consider. I like to draw from my own experiences to keep things personal and relatable, and I can be more accurate about what is going on. This post has more graphics than usual. Smoke of a .45 , 1905, Charles M. Russell It is mighty helpful to have a handle on the subjects we're challenged on and know how to deal with these types. We can expect ad hominem remarks as well as straw man, red herring, poisoning the well, and other logical fallacies . One ridiculous charge is that biblical creation science is the domain of "fundamentalists", which is not only an ad hominem, but a red herring (distraction) and a straw man (build up something inaccurate to tear it down). What kind of "fundamentalist"? There

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

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Today is both  Question Evolution Day  and Creation Sunday , a convergence that will not happen again until 2023. This causes excitement for some people, while others are annoyed. Interestingly, the postmodernism that permeates Western society is self-contradictory: people who hate such events need them. I'll 'splain later. There was a time when movies and television had, for the most part, distinct good and evil characters. (In old Western movies, the stereotype portrayed good guys in white hats, bad guys in black hats.) Later, characters were introduced that were more believable because they were flawed — the anti-hero. One Western character was played by Clint Eastwood, referred to as The Man With No Name. He was not "good" by any stretch of the imagination, but he was our focus as someone to favor. Lines between good and evil were blurred, and audiences were occasionally bemused when the bad guy had more relative goodness than the good

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen As I have stated in articles, interviews, and so on, Question Evolution Day has many layers. Ultimately, it's about proclaiming the gospel and removing a huge naturalistic stumbling block. While we're hoping to prompt honest evolutionists to question their indoctrination and see that fish-to-fish packer evolution is abundant in storytelling but sparse in evidence, QED has some other aspects on which I need to focus. QED is an effort to encourage people to take a stand for creation (and more so in 2017, because the event coincides with Creation Sunday ). Participation ranges from having events, sharing a post with a #questionevolutionday and/or #qed2017 hashtag on social media, Sunday services, or other ideas. A reason for this event is because of censorship, censure, discrimination, and bigotry against those who oppose Darwin. If you study on it a spell, you should see that there's no legitimate reason for someone to oppose our freedom of spe

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Greek mythology tells us that Achilles was a great warrior and was invulnerable except in his heel. When Paris, son of the king and queen of Troy, shot him in the heel, he was able to be killed . This gave rise to the expression Achilles' heel to indicate someone's weakest point. Common-ancestor evolution has a passel of weak points, and several of them are quite serious. Disclaimer: none. I bought Evolution's Achilles' Heels all by my lonesome, so I received no benefits for writing this here review. Just over a year ago, I gave a favorable review of the 96-minute documentary by the same name , and it's fitting that I write about the book as well. I reckon that because people are enamored with credentials and such, the good folks at Creation Ministries International didn't give scoffers the excuse of saying someone is "not a scientist" — the book has nine Ph.D. scientists, and the documentary ups the ante to fifteen.