Piltdown Superman

For many years, it has been taught that our traits are the result of our genes. Did Ellen touch the cleft in your chin after you were putting up the Christmas lights, Sparky? That crease was caused by a gene, they say. Credit: RGBStock / Helmut Gevert Eye and hair color, straight or curled, sizes of various body parts, other things — a gene for each. While this idea is useful to advance the particles-to-paralegal storyline, it is not true. Unfortunately, bad science ideas (especially those that support evolution) tend to remain in textbooks. The truth is much more complicated; Dr. Robert Carter said, "If life were really simple, evolution might be possible"; evolution is increasingly less possible relative to the complexity of life. Several genes are involved in traits and trait expressions, and other factors come into play. Indeed, our Creator likes variety, and he gave us many factors to express our individual characteristics. I taught college level human genetics and was c

Not only did Papa Darwin  plagiarize other people and hijack Edward Blyth 's idea of natural selection in his presentation of evolution, but he also tinkered with the formation of atolls, which was based in incomplete science. It is malarkey, but still taught to students. Palmyra Atoll, NOAA photo by Erin Looney Secular science indoctrination centers (schools) are famous for providing false and outdated information regarding evidence for evolution and the age of the earth. Indeed, they use fraud . (This is "education".) We've covered Haeckel's drawings that are used to support both abortion and evolution already, and the Miller-Urey experiment has been thoroughly refuted. Darwin's ideas on atoll formation is known to be junk science, but that and the others are still in the textbooks. Maybe it's because it makes secularists feel good, and they need to make the books bigger? Darwin investigated other questions than evolution, such as the nature of barnacl

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 It was not only outdated, but loaded with evolutionary and secularist views.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. A

This post is courtesy of the "Through the Side Door" department. That is, I wanted to post this on Fazebook (which is linked to Twitter) "as is", but they were unable to validate the link. I already did that. No, I am not going to claim censorship or anything because that is not warranted. School Teacher by Jan Steen, 1668 Many Christian parents do not want their children attending the state-run indoctrination centers (often called "schools"), so they opt for alternatives. Those of us who reject evolution and millions of years because of both theology and science do not want to deprogram children and teach them the truth. After all, the government has control of them for several hours a day most of the year. Anti-creationists get furious when we undermine their indoctrination that is, in many cases, falsely called education. Christian schools? Possibly, if they are affordable. Unfortunately, having Christian in the name does not guarantee Bible-

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A while back, someone sent me a link to a short article in Forbes , " Why Do Scientists Get Excited About 'Rewriting The Textbooks?' ", which I last accessed on October 13, 2018. It was written by contributor Carmen Drahl, an evolutionist. She had some enthusiastic things to say about the idea, but they were a mix of both realistic and idealistic concepts. Credit: Freeimages /  Jean Scheijen First of all, the title tells us that scientists write textbooks. Mayhaps that's why they keep getting their atoms-to-author evolutionary research fouled up, as they spend so much time writing textbooks? Do a search and you'll find that many different kinds of people can write and publish textbooks, then committees review them. Some scientists write them, many do not. I’m one of the lucky folks who was trained to see science as a process, as a way of looking at the world. And when you see science that way, you realize that while the concepts and

Yes, it's true. A famous astronomer built on the work of a previous astronomer and saw canals on Mars. What, you didn't know? It was in the newspapers, even the New York Times .  Except that the big news was in 1907. Seems that fake news is not a new phenomenon, only the moniker is new. Making use of the Breaking News Generator again This is where someone might object that scientists makes mistakes, but things got fixed because science is self-correcting . No, not really. Secularists often use the reification fallacy and act like science is a sentient being that makes choices (especially regarding muck-to-mechanic evolution), which is a form of pagan nature worship . Giovanni Schiaparelli thought he saw channels on Mars, and the Italian word was translated as canals  (which strikes me as an easy mistake), and Percival Lowell "saw" canals on Mars. He even wrote a book or three on the subject. Those mistakes were corrected with additional research and improve

The geologic column exists in many textbooks, but is not found in nature. It is presented in a nice, tidy order where simple life forms are at the bottom, with more complex evolving up to the top. However, the geologic column and index fossils are constructs of the imagination . Some owlhoots have trolled, "The geologic column proves evolution, and there are no fossils out of order". They don't know what they're talking about, there are fossils "out of order" according to evolutionary timelines. So, it exists, but not in the way microbes-to-mechanic evolution want us to think . Modified from an image from the US Geological Survey Do biblical creation models do a better job of explaining what we find in the fossil record? That's a mite difficult. There is a general order to be had in the fossil record, and the Genesis Flood models explain a great deal. Yes, there are disagreements among Flood geologists as to the details — which is not much of a

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen In yesterday's post, points were made that atheists and evolutionists blatantly misrepresent the biblical creationist position  in their efforts to control education. They present evolution as indisputable scientific truth. One of the main problems with this is that people will simply accept such statements as accurate, and then expect creationists to defend positions that we do not hold. Educators present only the good side of evolution, often including (sometimes from ignorance) outdated and inaccurate information from textbooks . Indeed, some textbooks also contain fraudulent material . Creation science and Intelligent Design materials are actively suppressed, and evolution is sometimes required to be presented with no contrary information . Add this indoctrination to the additional problems that people tend to "think" with their emotions, and that students are not taught to think critically. Then we have Darwinoid Drones arguing wit

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

People say that "science corrects itself". (But "science" is not an entity, so right away, they are guilty of the fallacy of reification .) This is not completely true. When it comes to evolutionism, proponents will resort to various tricks to keep their worldview going despite the evidence. There are anti-creationists who insist that creationists (especially biblical creationists) are "liars" and "fact deniers". Their basis for such accusations? It is primarily because we do not believe in the atheistic, old-earth, evolutionary interpretations of the evidence. Further, we promote evidence that refutes evolution and affirms a young earth. This is contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry. Interestingly, those who call us "liars" are guilty of blatant hypocrisy, promoting not only bad science, carelessness (by people who should know better), deception and even outright fraud. Worse than this, shoddy research and dishonest pron

The good folks over at Creation Ministries International (easy to remember the site, creation.com ) have thousands of articles to help people see that microbes-to-microbiologist evolution is not supported by actual science. Actually, the science supports biblical creation. Regular readers know that it is one of my regular "go to" sites for information on these subjects. It is vital that organizations like this exist, because the Evo Sith are doing their best to obfuscate the facts, "spin" their interpretations of observable evidence, and even resort to deceit. (This is natural for their worldview, since it is rooted in materialism, time, random chance and mutations; they have no consistent moral standard and fight evidence for the Creator.) Textbooks are inaccurate, and evolutionist organizations actually tell people what and how to teach, and to tell the students what to think and believe. Sorry, Skippy, that is not education, it is indoctrination. The book

Darwin's Cheerleaders are continually on patrol to protect their material from serious scrutiny. Ironically, they use all sorts of logical fallacies to do this. These include equivocating "evolution" with "science, saying that "Intelligent Design" is religion, and using emotionally-loaded terminology such as, "We don't want textbooks contaminated by creationism", or, " Ray Comfort's video is biblical porn ". We had a troll at The Question Evolution Project use a fake name on a recently acquired account, telling us that creationists are stupid and dishonest. Uh, yeah... What would happen if people were trained to think critically and honestly examine the evidence without evolutionary assumptions and presuppositions? They might see that "proofs" of evolution still fail , Haeckel's fraudulent drawings are still used , outdated and fraudulent materials are used in evolutionary indoctrination, lying to students f

We have already shown that textbooks contain bad and even fraudulent material . Although the secret is out, it is still happening: Junk is still in textbooks ( as you can see in the articles here ). Worse, people like Eugenie Scott and others encourage "educators" to lie to their students . The end justifies the means, ja mein herr?  One of the perpetually perpetrated propaganda pieces is the use of the Haeckel drawings that have been known to be fake for years. Let's not let false similarities deceive us. And yet, the topic is still controversial; not only is the subject a huge embarrassment to evolutionists, but some are still trying to defend the fraud! (One guy Tweeted to me that it didn't matter that the drawings were fake, they were still true — *facepalm*). While creationists may make mistakes, we do not resort to defending, rehabilitating and excusing outright fraud. It would help curtail the embarrassment if they did not keep putting this nonsen

We have explored the willingness of evolutionists to indoctrinate children, even though their critical thinking skills suffer. (After all, belief in evolution is more important than thinking, yes?) Eugenie Scott has been downright dishonest in her crusade to attack creation science and Intelligent Design, and textbooks contain outdated and fraudulent material . It should not come as a surprise that students are presented with the long-debunked drawings of Haeckel and told that they are real. In addition, their reasoning skills are hindered with question-begging exams!  A government education institution recently provided a textbook example of how evolutionary dogma blinds the eyes of educators, crushes the ability of students to think critically and hinders the progress of true science. The biology paper in the Higher School Certificate exam on 19 October 2012, a major public matriculation exam in New South Wales, Australia, contained a question featuring Haeckel’s fraudulent em

When having what passes for discussions online, Darwinoids often resort to "proof" or "evidence" that is jaw-droppingly dreadful in their efforts to stifle creationists. Those of us who have a grasp of scientific thinking and news are baffled that nonsense is offered. They should be thinking things through and asking questions in science classes. But what good is "should be" when we must deal with what actually happens? People like Mohamed Noor will offer bad logic and outdated science to his students. Since they trust him to deliver material that their parents are paying for, they accept the stuff and pass it along. Not good. Today’s first set of lectures in Mohamed Noor’s Introduction to Genetics and Evolution course would seem downright bizarre to anyone not familiar with evolutionary thinking. Noor is teaching this course via through the coursera on-line service and the Earl D. McLean Professor and Associate Chair of Biology at Duke Univer

Hilarious! The Republic of Korea (also called South Korea) is correcting evolution in textbooks [ 1 ] . They are removing the same kinds of things that we point out that do not belong in American textbooks. Fundamentalist evolutionists are having a hard time dealing with this development. Note the loaded terminology: "It appears that the United States is not the only country having a hard time accepting evolution" [ 2 ] . "Evolution Under Assault in South Korea’s Schools" [ 3 ] . "South Korea outlaws evolution: Publishers remove examples from school textbooks after protests from creationists" [ 4 ] . "...South Korea, where the anti-evolution sentiment seems to be winning its battle with mainstream science" [ 5 ] . Note not only the hysteria, but the loaded terminology and propping up evolution as a victim. Further, they commit the fallacy of equivocation [ 6 ] by elevating evolution (philosophical historical science, beliefs about the past) w

 Several times, I have pointed out that evolutionists feel the need to protect science, even resorting to dishonesty . And "science" is equivocating historical science philosophies with actual, practical, experimental science. This happens even when their answers only prompt more questions, and other explanations fall to the ground like lead zeppelins. Yet, somehow, evolution is a fact , and if you dare question it (or worse, show some of the many failings and follies of evolutionism), you are the subject of ridicule. After all, they believe in science, and anyone who does not is not only stupid, but needs to be told so. In the last post , I submitted a link to an article by Dr. Cornelius Hunter (Ph.D., Biophysics, Computational Biology). He received bad reactions, of course. And shows two from alleged professors. I say "alleged", because they acted like so many of Darwin's juvenile cheerleaders that are running around the Web. Evolutionists proclaim that

In a previous post, I brought up Darwin's so-called "Tree of Life" . From what we saw about dishonest textbooks and bad science information in earlier posts , it should not be a surprise that this relic still has not been cut down. Although it is "misleading" and scientists admit to it, the tree is still used. The fundamental thesis of evolution is that the species evolved according to the evolutionary tree. Students learn about the evolutionary tree in biology class and biologists use the evolutionary tree in their research. But in fact the evolutionary tree is based on a limited, and carefully selected, set of observations. Ever since Darwin, science has continued to document exceptions and anomalies—species that don’t fit neatly into the evolutionary pattern. These biological contradictions come in various forms and are found throughout the tree. For instance, species that in many regards appear to be quite similar, which evolutionists have placed on

Casey Luskin considers evolution's top three flaws to be:  (1) Tell students that the fossil record often lacks transitional forms and that there are "explosions" of new life forms, a pattern of radiations that challenges Darwinian evolutionary theory. (2) Tell students that many scientists have challenged the ability of random mutation and natural selection to produce complex biological features. (3) Tell students that many lines of evidence for Darwinian evolution and common descent are weak The article itself is short, so I suggest that you click on the reference links and learn something. You can read "What Are the Top Three Flaws in Darwinian Evolution, as Taught Today in Public Schools?" , here.

In late 2001, Creation Ministries International did an article about the 2000 book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?  that showed how several of the "proofs" of evolution fail. Even in 2012, we encounter "proofs" of evolution that are outdated, discredited and even fraudulent. Some of these are the Peppered Moths, Haeckel's drawings (someone said to me, "Even though they were faked doesn't mean it's still not true"...agonizing), the Miller experiment and more. I maintain that some of Darwin's cheerleaders are victims of bad science and indoctrination, but they are also to blame for taking so much by faith and not investigating the flaws in evolution that so many of us are trying to get them to see. To be blunt, presenting bad information is indoctrination, not education. The educational system appears to be more interested in promoting a worldview and misotheistic biases rather than educating and training students to think critically