When Atheists say Stupid Things

On January 19, 2008 in Atheism, Feedback

I’ve been going back-and-forth in the comments of a recent post with an Atheist named Kenny. Initially Kenny seemed like a pretty smart guy. Cool, calm, and collected. But the more he wrote, and the more I responded, it seems almost as though he’s losing his ability to maintain a rational discussion, and has lately began saying some very silly things.

I wanted to take two quotes from one of his recent responses and demonstrate the illogical nature and weak convincing that they reveal.

Intelligent Design does not have the means to prove itself. It does very well when it can present flashy formulas to someone who didn’t pass high school algebra. However, when it does that to an actual mathematician, it fails.

This allegation make a very convincing case that either the person making the claim is willing to lie in order to further his or her belief-system, or the person doesn’t take their belief-system serious enough to be intellectually honest during discussions.

Just a moment of investigation would reveal that one of the major proponents of Intelligent Design, Dr. William Dembski, in fact holds multiple degrees in Mathematics, including a Ph.D., and a Masters from the University of Illinois at Chicago. Additionally, Dr. John Lennox (a name that is becoming even more popular following his debate with Popular Atheist, Richard Dawkins), an Oxford Professor of Mathematics.

The list could go on and on, but it isn’t necessary. Like I said, I cannot trust a person when they make claims like this, because it reveals that they are either lazy, stupid, or don’t even take their own beliefs serious.

It is well known that no matter what evidence is produced, Christians will not accept Evolution.

This statement resembles the last in that it reveals an extreme negligence, stupidity, or the willingness to lie in order to further ones position. It’s a well-known fact that many prominent Evolutionists claim to have been Christians in the past. I could pick one that might shock you, but Charles Darwin would apply. After all, he initially has hopes of being a Preacher. Yet the doctrines of Uniformitarianism and Evolution persuaded him that his life would be spent better pursuing other beliefs.

More recently would be the Editor of Skeptic Magazine, Dr. Michael Shermer who also claims to have been a Christian until learning the beauty of Evolution in explaining the World around him.

If it’s true that Michael Shermer, and Darwin were indeed Christians converted to Atheism via Evolution, then the author of these claims is a liar, lazy, or plain stupid. If Shermer and Darwin were liars, and never really followed the Christian world view, then they are liars, and cannot be trusted.

Making statements like these sets up the speaker for a lose/lose result.

My advice to Atheists out there is this, if you want to be taken seriously, you must first take yourself serious, and always be intellectually honest in your claims and pursuits.

Comments (5)

Flying Spaghetti Nonsense

On January 17, 2008 in In the News, Uncategorized

Humans are pretty amazing creatures. We’re capable of doing and achieving wonderfully amazing things, and at the same time we’re guilty of some of the dumbest ideas and actions ever witnessed on this ball of dirt we call Home.

I want to talk about one of our latest and greatest feats of stupidity, the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). This “Spaghedeity”, as it’s called by Atheists today, is the Creator of the Universe according to the religion of “Pastafarianism”. This “religion” was started in 2005, during the hot debates on whether or not children should be taught Godless Evolution, or allow for the interpretation that a Creator may have been involved. Atheists got upset because kids might actually believe that they were created, so they came up with the FSM to parody other Creation stories.

The thing that is so stupid about this idea is that it in no way resembles that which it attempts to parody. Some Evolutionists and Atheists actually attempt to debate intelligent Christians with this nonsense too. So let’s just clear up a few reasons why the Bible (I’ll use that as my example), and the FSM religion are not comparable:

1. The collection of writings known as The Bible was authored by multiple convergent sources, spanning more than a thousand years, from varying geographical locations. The Pastafarian belief-system was conjured up by an Oregon State student named Bobby (The Prophet) Henderson.
2. The Bible has survived the test of time, and has convinced highly intelligent people who have lived and died by the text. The FSM has converted absolutely no intelligent people who would die by the Pastafarian religion.
3. The Bible makes legitimate claims that can be systematically tested with reliable Scientific methodology. The FSM makes no such claims that can be scientifically tested, and furthermore declares that it is impossible to trust Science.
4. The writings contained in the Bible are original and not the work of plagiary. The “Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” show clear signs of plagiary and mimicry of the Bible.
5. The Bible commands people to “Study”, “speak to the Earth”, “Consider the ways of insects”, and “Seek Knowledge”. The Bible clearly commands people to use Science in order to gain a better understanding of the World around us. The Church of the FSM declares that Science cannot be trusted, as the FSM actively interferes with the data, thus fudging the results intentionally.

I feel like I’m wasting time even discussing it, but there are many very stupid people out there who sincerely feel that the FSM is on-par with Christianity, or any other Faith. In reality, it’s one of the most worthless attempts to defend Atheism I have ever witnessed. It has no logical defense, no testable claims, no internal consistency, no historical value, no effect on society, and no convergent sources. These are just a few things it lacks to even begin to be considered as an alternative to any religious system.

I could go on and on, but I feel like a complete idiot even taking this serious enough to write a blog-entry on it. The sad thing is that they take it even more serious than I could drugged-up and inebriated swimming in a cloud of Nitrous oxide.

Comments (47)

TIME’s Top 10 Medical Breakthroughs - Evolution Not Included

On January 15, 2008 in In the News, Science Related

TIME Magazine released their list of the Top 10 Medical Breakthroughs of 2007, and as suspected Evolutionism had absolutely no guidance over any of them. So why would something so vital (sarcasm) as Evolutionism have absolutely no guidance what-so-ever over advancing our Medical knowledge, and helping mankind? Perhaps it’s becoming even more evident that funding the Monkey-Junkie’s Imagination and Story-telling is not the best way to spend tax-payer dollars.

Comments (24)

Feedback Response on Fanatical Anti-Christian Evolutionist Idiots

On January 12, 2008 in Feedback

Ken Sturmer responded to my article Fanatical Anti-Christian Evolutionist Idiots, so I felt it was necessary to make his voice heard, and address his claims. Below is his response, and my comments.

Evolution is a theory yes, however Creationism is even less than that. It is ignorance, based on faulty Faith.

And your evidence for believing this? Let’s first define that term, so as to not confuse you any further. Creation Science is the position that our Universe was created by the God of the Bible. Seeing how the God of the Bible is logical and orderly, we would expect to see the same in His Creation. Introducing SCIENCE! It is because we, Christians, trust that the Creation is logical and orderly that we can sample and test things, gathering information about the world around us.

The Bible encourages Christians to study, speak to the Earth, and learn. So to claim that Creationists are anti-Science is as far from the truth as you could get. In reality, we have a much greater commitment to Science than most Evolutionists, since we have direct declaration from God himself to partake in it!

Religion is religion, and science is science. That may sound silly, but Religion is about faith, which in reality has no basis. Faith is belief, and nothing else.

Science is not a self-standing entity. It requires people to interpret the data it reveals. So you cannot claim that Science is flawless and perfect in every way, thereby asserting that Evolution is true. If the people interpreting the data aren’t perfect, then the ideas drawn from the data cannot always be perfect.

And what is wrong with belief? Are you telling me that you don’t believe Evolution is true, and shaping our World today? I mean, you cannot claim something is true unless you’re lying, or you believe it. If you tell your Wife you love her, should she believe you? If you tell the IRS that you paid your taxes, should they believe you? If belief is wrong, then how can I believe you when you say Evolution is true?

Regarding Faith, what is wrong with that? I have faith in my wife. I have faith in the structure of my home, I have faith in my God, and I have faith in Science to discover more about His Creation. You have faith in the mechanics of Evolution to explain our origin. Don’t tell me there is something wrong with faith, because that simply isn’t true.

It’s only when people adhere more closely to their faith than they do logic that we have a problem. If you ask me, this is what we’re seeing in Evolutionists today. They don’t do Science, they don’t cure diseases, the don’t put men on the Moon, they don’t advance our medical knowledge with their work. Evolution has helped absolutely nothing, yet against all odds you still believe it. That is when faith becomes dangerous.

I don’t fault you for believing, however when you try and cram your beliefs down everyone elses throats. That’s when you become obnoxious idiots.

I couldn’t agree with you more. So please stop cramming Evolutionism down the throats of children. Please stop advancing your faith and beliefs onto society. Keep your religion to yourself, and don’t try to convert the world to the Religion of Evolutionism.

Fundamentalism has no basis in reality. I cannot change your mind about that.

Fundamentalism is nothing more than an adherence to the Fundamentals. I would hope that these have a place in Society. Without teaching the fundamentals of Biology to students, we wouldn’t have doctors tomorrow. Without learning the fundamentals of fiscal responsibility, we would have a nation of poverty. Evolutionists fear the fundamentals, because they have it ignore them in order to advance their faith on to Society. The vast majority of Evolutionist-claims were not tested via the fundamental Scientific Method. Nor were they observed, as the fundamentals of Science require. This is why you don’t like fundamentals, but everybody else loves them. Don’t blame me if fundamental logic ruins your theory.

You have chosen to believe what you do, and that is your business.

You’re right - based upon logic, deduction and observation I have chosen what to believe. You’ve done the same, minus the logic, deduction and observation. And as you said, that is your business. But keep it to yourself, or find Evidence to support it.

However when you try and force others to believe in your false religion, than it is high time you are stopped in your tracks.

I couldn’t agree more. Hope to see you back off of your religious attacks and faith-motivated nonsensical claims about Evolutionism.

Comments (4)

Answers Research Journal

On January 10, 2008 in In the News, Science Related

If you’re like me, in that you like Science, then you should check out the Answers Research Journal over at http://answersingenesis.org/arj/. It’s an online resource for Advanced-Level Science articles giving an alternative to naturalistic origins and history. Too many Evolutionists are far too afraid to follow the evidence where it leads (for fear of losing their jobs, or other personal reasons), but that really don’t matter anymore, because we have fully-qualified men and woman of the Sciences that are more-than-willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

As I write this, you can currently read the following papers:

1. Proceedings of the Microbe Forum, June 2007
2. Microbes and the Days of Creation
3. Catastrophic Granite Formation

Comments (3)

Nothing is Now, it was only Then…

On January 08, 2008 in Science Related

Nothing you see, hear, touch, taste or smell is what you think it is - you’ve not experienced the present, only the past. Tune in, I’ll explain.

Comments (0)

Fanatical Anti-Christian Evolutionist Idiots

On January 07, 2008 in In the News, Science Related

I’m amazed at how smart people can be so friggin’ stupid sometimes. I stumbled across an article today on www.turkishpress.com called “US ‘doomed’ if creationist president elected: scientists.”

The whole story follows the victory of Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee in the opening round to pick a Republican for the White House. Huckabee, who is an open Christian, caused sirens and alerts to go off for many Evolutionists when he recently found favor.

“The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health…”, said Gilbert Omenn, a University of Michigan professor.

These types of statements are utterly stupid, to say the least. There are two types of science: Operational Science, such as investigating the effects of smoking on a diseased persons lungs, and Historical Science, such as pulling a fossil from the earth and deciding what it was, how it died, and what happened to its children.

These two forms of Science are fundamentally different. Operational science deals with direct observation and testing. Anybody can plop out a lung from a smoker and see the effects of smoke inhalation. But to claim that man evolved from pond-scum billions of years ago will require a much more different approach, and this is obvious to anybody with half an ounce of grey-matter.

Gilbert continues, “I would worry that a president who didn’t believe in the evolution arguments wouldn’t believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin.” I agree, if we had a president who didn’t accept observable, repeatable, and conclusive science, we would have a very large problem, but Evolution doesn’t count, since it isn’t repeatable, observable, or conclusive in any way.

It’s laughable when Evolutionists take an extremist position that we are all doomed if Evolution isn’t taught with every possible opportunity. What has Evolution given us? It hasn’t cured diseases, it hasn’t helped us peer deeper into the human anatomy or physiology in a way that can help cure paralysis. It hasn’t explained anything. I’m open to suggestions, really. If anybody knows of any achievement today that has made our world better on account of Evolution, please tell me.

Meanwhile, REAL Scientists are doing REAL science and curing illnesses. They are creating instruments to help repair human bodies on the nano-level. They are discovering relationships between diseases and genes by investigating the human genome. They are creating ways for the less-fortunate to be more independent.

Gilbert seems to think that a Scientist who believes the Earth was Created, cannot do REAL Science. Since that is the case, he stands against an entire history of Theists who started the major branches of Science, who started the most reputable colleges, and who gave us the basic understanding of the world around us. These accomplishments came largely by way of Christians and Theists, not by Evolutionists.

Newton’s belief in God didn’t deter him from gaining amazing insight into Gravity. Francis Bacon’s belief didn’t stop him from creating what we now know as the Scientific Method. Raymond Damadian’s faith didn’t stop him from pioneering the MRI which is now used in practically every major Hospital and saving life’s.

The greatest thing America needs to fear is not Scientists who believe in God, or a Christian President. We need to be worried about complete idiots running our Science education system. People who are too stupid to understand simple issues, and cannot be intellectually honest enough to admit that Evolution serves absolutely no guidance to science today.

I’ll close with a quote from Dr. Philip S. Skell, an Evolutionist:

“I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”

Philip S. Skell
“Why do we invoke Darwin?“, The Scientist 2005, 19(16):10

Comments (12)

Vestigial Claims from LiveScience

On January 07, 2008 in In the News, Science Related

LiveScience has an interesting list of the top 10 “Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs)“. I can’t help chuckling at some of the things these people list when doing these types of lists. But for the sake of shedding some intelligence on the issue, I’ll read through yet another redundant repetition of their darwinistic-mantra.

Before we start, we’ll take a look at the identifying term, “Vestigial”. Vestigial simply means that something is no longer used in a way that it was at one time. In “higher” animals for instance, some of your toes would be considered Vestigial, because you do longer climb around on trees with them like you did when you were a monkeh’!

The first problem with this type of discussion is that to define anything as Vestigial, you have to assume that Evolution happened, and then people turn around and use “Vestigial” objects as evidence for Evolution…Livescience must be playing the science-game with prison-rules - anything goes.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Vestigial structures demonstrate a loss in functionality, which is the wrong direction to demonstrate goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo evolution. Evolutionists have such a difficult time demonstrating new functionality and fundamentally new information, so instead of doing real work, they would rather sit back, and make up b.s. about what was, from what is.

I don’t need to address each “evidence”, simply because they follow a commonality that doesn’t require a defense. Birds could lose their original use of wings, sure, but that doesn’t prove evolution in any way, since these creatures would be LOSING their abilities, and not gaining them as needed. Not to mention the wings of practically all birds alive today serve a very important survival role in the birds today - penguins use theirs for balancing and swimming, which are both very crucial given their environment and life-style.

The second evidence is the classic legs bones of a whale, riiiiiiiight. They used to claim the “hip-bones” were vestigial in whales - I guess they finally gave that up? The “hip-bones” are actually a couple bones used for anchoring muscles that aid in reproduction. Their function is different in males and females, and don’t even touch the spinal column. But facts aren’t necessary when Evolution is in question.

I recall reading a popular article many years back called “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” - online at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1 - which mentioned a similar topic. There is a small section beneath the title of “Living whales and dolphins found with hindlimbs” that is supposed to send shock and wonder into people everywhere. He begins by quoting mainstream Creation Scientist Carl Wieland discussing a series of conversations he had with an Evolutionist in the past. You can read Carl’s article online at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/whale_leg.asp.

Dr. Theobald, the author of “29+”, uses the term “Atavism” instead of “Vestigial”. The definition of “atavism” simply states that it’s a throw-back of sort to something that previously existed. It would be comparable to a human being born with fish-scales for skin, showing that humans descended from fish in the past.

One major problem with this idea is that it again assumes that evolution happened, and is in turn used as evidence for evolution. Occasionally humans are born with extra ribs, fingers, or nipples, yet no evolutionists claim that we evolved from Acanthostega, or pigs.

Theobald goes on in his article to describe a “shrunken cartilaginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal” that was apparently found connected to a 45 foot long humpback whale. The “bones” are actually all fused together, and apparently were “completely inside the body cavity and attached to the pelvic rudiments.” Uh-oh, looks like Theobald still considered the muscle-anchors as “pelvic rudiments“. Oh well. Once interesting thing to note here is the claim that this “leg” was connected to the “pelvic rudiments.” This seems to suggest that it may actually be a growth based upon some genetic mistake in the instructional code to produce the anchor-bones.

Diseases exist today that can grossly deform bones; including Paget’s, which can have subtle to horrendous effects on people today. Additionally, genetic information can undergo copying-errors, resulting in redundant data which in turns causes redundant phenotypical developments - such as the case with baby Jie-jie, the baby born with three developed arms. Read more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13046061/. Who’s to know if the anchor-bones of this humpback whale weren’t redundantly copied creating the illusion of atavistic appendages?

Unfortunately, the data-pool for this type of claim is very shallow. We don’t have a lot of information, we don’t have a lot of experiments leading to certainty, and as Theobald states in the closing words of this section, “This extraordinary finding is unlikely to be repeated, as the International Whaling Commission gave humpback whales worldwide protection status in 1966“, meaning we’re not able to go out and study a few more to test the claims of these imaginative evolutionists?

Erector Pili and Body Hair is the next “vestigial” item on LiveScience’s list. They claim that “…that hair…is essentially useless.” This section includes more of the arbitrary story-telling to explain what we have today. They say that when hairs stand up it may “give an animal a larger appearance that might scare off potential enemies, and a coat that is thicker and warmer. Humans, though, don’t have thick furs like their ancestors did, and our strategy for several thousand years has been to take the fur off of other warm looking animals to stay warm.” So, I’m wondering, why the heck did we lose the hair in the first place if it served as an environmental advantage? Certainly the offspring with natural thick coats would do better than those who have to go out and hunt down a coat in order to survive - I guess evolution took a break, and now we’re all slightly-hairy, and not covered in luscious flowing locks of hair today.

So they claim that the Erector Pili, the small muscle fibers connected to our body hairs, are vestigial because we don’t use them the same way animals today do. One major difference between our hair configurations and that of animals is their connection. In humans, Erectores pilorum are smooth muscle, meaning we have no voluntary control over them. Animals on the other hand enjoy skeletal muscle connections, giving them the ability to raise their hair at will. Humans on the other hand need an outside stimuli, like a cold breeze.

Goose bumps are the visible effect from the activation of our Erectores Pilorum switching “on”. Goose bumps typically happen when our body temperature drops, causing a shaking to begin. This shaking creates friction, which in turn heats the body in an attempt to “fix the problem.” Useless? No, not at all, necessary for survival? No, not at all. The human body has many “nice-but-not-necessary” additions, much like a Mercedes that has wipers on the head-lights. Among these are our eyebrows, which keep sweat from slipping into our eyes, arm-pit hair which protected our torso and arms from excessive rubbing, and hair on our head with serves in temperature regulation.

Next up, the Coccyx (Human Tail bone). Here it comes, ready for it? “These fused vertebrae are only vestiges that are left of the tail that other mammals still use for balance, communication, and in some primates, as a prehensile limb.” LiveScience goes on to claim that “As our ancestors were learning to walk upright, their tail became useless, and it slowly disappeared.” How do they know that? Well, because we don’t have tails today. If things had been different, and we did have tails, the story would have been “The tail has served a vital purpose throughout the development of modern man from his ancestors. It was probably preserved for its intimidation purposes, and added extra weight for balancing in difficult areas that were necessary for escaping predators.”

It’s comedic that some evolutionists still use this as evidence for their silly theory. Educated evolutionists have long dropped it. Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education said the following in a 1999 debate.

“Actually, that’s [humans tails] not an evolutionary issue at all. It’s a matter of developmental biology. It’s a matter of what happens when the sperm fertilized that egg, and that egg grew into a baby, and that baby was born. I couldn’t give you the exact precise biochemical explanation, but probably at some point where the genes instructing how many vertebrae to lay down in that vertebral column duplicated itself a couple extra times by mistake.”

Dr. Eugenie Scott, 10-11-1999
The Mike Rosen Show, KOA Radio
http://www.reasons.org/resources/multimedia/interview/19991011.ram

Regarding the function of the tail bone, Its functions are well-known and documented. I strongly suggest the book “‘Vestigial Organs’ are Fully Functional“, by Dr. Jerry Bergman and Dr. George Howe. Additionally, you can read a little more about the Human Coccyx online at http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/VestigialOrgans.html.

Blind fish is the next evidence offered. Some fish which live in caves, where there is no light, have become blind…big deal. People who do not use their legs will notice that they lose the ability to use their legs due to atrophy. This has happened to these fish over generations. Use it or lose it, buddy!

Wisdom Teeth. This is a common argument, yet completely wrong. I guess LiveScience didn’t feel that it is necessary to acknowledge that many people have absolutely no problem whatsoever with their wisdom teeth, they grow in just fine. African Americans usually have very little problem with theirs. I know people personally who have no problem. I unfortunately do have a problem, but what is to blame? Certainly my jaw size, but what is to blame for that? Evolution? Or a soft-diet? Humans have moved away from a hard-diet of nuts and seeds to softer diets of pizza and cheeseburgers. For this, our jaws are not exercised as much while eating, and are much smaller than their potential allows. Many people today, such as the Australian Aborigines use their jaws as tools, which make their jaws larger and stronger, eliminating any threat of wisdom-tooth pain.

The problem is largely our diets and habits, not our ancestry.

The last point I’m going to mention is their use of the “Human Appendix is Vestigial” argument. I was walking through Walmart in late December of 2007 when I came across Discover magazine, showing the January 2008 issue articles. I was interested in one of them, “Function of Appendix Explained.” The main list was called “Top 100 Science Stories of 2007″, and is available on the Discover Magazine website at http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/year-in-science-2007. The Appendix is number 96. Mark Schauss made a brief mention of it in his blog at www.markschauss.com/?p=328 where he posted the following:

“96 - Function of Appendix Explained - Turns out the appendix is where the body stores beneficial bacteria. If you had yours removed, I would suggest taking probiotics every day (probably a good idea if you didn’t either).”

The function of the appendix has been known for a long time now, but I guess the Evolutionists got stuck in that rut of “Evolution did it” which kept them from doing any real science and discovering the functions of “vestigial” organs much sooner.

So in the end, LiveScience disappointed me again. The list of “vestigial” organs has greatly diminished in the last century. It has gone from over 100, down to just a handful, and even those are looking awfully shaky.

Perhaps it is time for the evolutionists to give up, and start doing some real science?

Comments (0)

Is Evolution True? Let’s Vote?

On January 03, 2008 in In the News, Science Related

Sorry, but that’s now how we determine what is and is not true, and certainly what is and is not Science. A recent article from www.livescience.com suggests that 61% of people feel that Evolution is true. Is this how we determine what is true and what is not? I don’t think so, or else truth would be nothing more than a relative term reflecting the mere emotions and opinions of the greater majority. 51% of people disagree with 49% that water-boarding is torture, therefore it’s truth that water-boarding is not torture? I certainly hope we don’t start enforcing this as a device to decide other things.

Unfortunately, like practically every other article on the subject, we’re not given the definition of “Evolution”. 9 out of 10 times we’re talking about a scientific process, but unfortunately, there variants of the term that do not qualify as “scientific”, since they cannot be tested, reproduced, or verified by alternative sources. These are the form of Evolution that are not scientific, regardless what your voters think.

If I tell you that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, how do you know if I’m telling the truth? Well, you could expose a culture of bacteria to some antibiotics and check up on them later. The culture will be smaller, and then begin to repopulate with the new strain that is now resistant. That is Science. Now, if I tell you that some 4 billion years ago lightning struck a mucky soup on the earth and life sprung forth, how would you test that? You can’t. It’s not observable, it’s not repeatable, and it certainly isn’t mathematically plausible, so why do we call it Science? And why do we teach it with Evolution?

Proponents of Evolutionary theory often times release their cry that the Scientific Method is of sacred nature, and should always be used in science. Shoot, even Livescience mentioned this.

“The introduction of ‘non-science,’ such as creationism and intelligent design, into science education will undermine the fundamentals of science education. Some of these fundamentals include using the scientific method, understanding how to reach scientific consensus, and distinguishing between scientific and nonscientific explanations of natural phenomena.”

Survey: 61% Agree with Evolution
http://www.livescience.com/history/080102-evolution-teaching.html

Oddly enough they refuse to use the Scientific Method when it comes to Evolutionary theory. Many bogus claims are made, such as life from non-life, deer-like creatures becoming whales, dinosaurs becoming birds, and fish scales becoming teeth. None of these claims are valid when investigated within the Scientific Method - it cannot even touch them, because they’re not observable!

Wikipedia states that the Scientific Method “consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”

So how do we observe the metamorphosis of scales becoming teeth? Or deer becoming whales? The whole theoretical tree comes crashing down when the Scientific Method is involved. None of it is observable, it’s all guess-work based upon a tooth here, an ear-bone here, etc. So why do they have this double-standard?

They claim that Intelligent Design and Creation-Science are both bad for business. They feel that it will “undermine the fundamentals of science education.” But is that really true? Or is it the opposite? I cannot speak for Intelligent Design, but I can speak for Creationists (since I am one). When Christians view the world, we view it as a very complex created object. With innumerable lilliputian devices showing the magnificient work of our Creator.

When we view the World, we feel the overwhelming desire to know why our Creator did something a specific way, and how our Creator did it. We want to know when it happened. If we learn more about the creation, we in turn understand more about the Creator. It is the passion for the Creator that drives a Christian to study the creation.

“Speak to the Earth, and It shall teach thee.”
Job 8:12

The Bible encourages Science. This is why when Evolutionists came across the Human Eye they brushed it aside as a blunder of evolution, since the blood vessels are in front, and not behind as they are with an octopus, or some other creature. They stop studying it, they threw it aside because that’s just how Evolution did it. Turns out, they were wrong. Read “Is our ‘inverted’ retina really ‘bad design’?” at AnswersInGenesis.org.

Why is the teaching of Naturalistic Origins so sacred to Evolutionists? How many medical miracles have come by the understanding of Evolution? Zero, nada, zip - that’s even the view of Evolutionist Phillip S. SKell who had the following to say:

“I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”

Philip S. Skell
“Why do we invoke Darwin?“, The Scientist 2005, 19(16):10

This is from an Evolutionist who feels “Darwin’s theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life.”

So while Evolutionists are busy playing in the dirt trying to find ancient broccoli, Scientists like Raymond Damadian are pioneering scientific advances such as the MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) that will save innumerable lives. Dr. Damadian is also a Creationist - be sure to thank him the next time you need the life-saving services of an MRI.

So what is Evolution good for? It doesn’t help us in any way at all, by the admission of Evolutionists themselves. It doesn’t explain anything with any degree of certainty. As Dr. Skell put it, it’s nothing more than a narrative gloss brought in after the fact.

LiveScience finished their article off with the following:

“The bottom line is that the world is round, humans evolved from an extinct species and Elvis is dead,” Weissmann said. “This survey is a wake-up call for anyone who supports teaching information based on evidence rather than speculation or hope; people want to hear the truth, and they want to hear it from scientists.”

All I can say is this, Screw the Scientists, listen to the Science. The Scientists are going to tell you whatever they need to bring in that check, even if it’s B.S. Meanwhile, Scientists out there like Raymond Damadian are saving lives, advancing our medical understanding, and doing REAL Science - so if you’re going to pick a scientist to listen to, pick one who offers testable science, and not some fairy-tale.

Comments (17)

I Live in the Past - So do You!

On January 02, 2008 in Science Related

As I was driving home from New Years break in Florida, I started wondering in my thoughts. That car that just passed me, I didn’t know that it was passing me until after it had already passed me. And I didn’t really know that it was now in front of me until after it was already in front of me. Sound weird? That’s because it likely is, but let me explain.

Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, unlike my ‘96 Chevy Cavalier which travels at about half the speed of smell. The sun is 93,000,000 miles from the earth, meaning it takes the light about 8 minutes to arrive here from there. So when you look up at the Sun, you are actually seeing it as it was 8 minutes ago, not as it currently is. So if the Sun were to theoretically explode, you wouldn’t see the explosion until 8 minutes after the fact.

The Moon is about 250,000 miles from the Earth, much closer than the Sun. The moons light travels 186,000 miles closer to the earth in a second, meaning we see the Moon as it was just over a second ago, but again, not as it presently is.

It’s a little hard to think of, but let’s try to bring it a little closer to home. Ever seen a man on his house down the street hammering a nail into a board? You see him drop the hammer, only to hear the crack of the nail a second later. It’s almost like a bad movie where the audio and video aren’t really sync’d up. The speed of sound is variable, but on a dry day the speed of sound may be recorded at just over 1,000 feet per second. That is much much slower than the speed of light, which is to thank for the image of the man working. So the image of the man working arrives much sooner than the sound of the man working.

Even the sounds we hear are mere recordings of the past. The very near past, but the past none the less. When I was sitting in the car with my wife, I merely heard her words as they were recorded in the compressed and rarefied air between us just moments after the vibrations of her voice shuffled the air molecules towards me. I didn’t actually hear her as she spoke, but merely after the fact, again.

You see, I live in the past. The very near past, but the past none-the-less. I don’t even see the letters on this computer screen as I type them. For they show up after I’ve already typed them. And I’m not authoring this article as each proceeding sentence comes to mind, since I must first think of the words to write, send commands to my fingers to type, which in turn send electrical impulses to the computer to insert a specific character in a certain location, only to change the image on my screen which then needs to reflect it light back to my eyes, which translate the light into an image that my brain can understand.

Everything I enjoy is already gone by the time I enjoy it. Or is it? Is there anything that I enjoy that is in the present, the technical present that I’ve never been able to see, hear, taste or touch? Are my thoughts present? What is the speed of thought? How do we begin to measure such a thing or quantify the rate at which we understand ourselves.

I’m such a geek, I know.

Comments (2)