Evolution Theory Is Not Scientific

Calvin Smith has a good piece at Creation Ministries International on whether evolution theory measures up to the definition of "science" as defined by evolutionists themselves.

So is evolution "scientific?"

Smith made a short list of the elements of criteria laid out by the pro-evolution National Science Education Standards (NSES):

1-Observational data

2-Accurate predictions

3-Logical

4-Open to criticism

5-Accurate information

6-No presuppositions

Sounds reasonable, right? So how does evolution theory measure up?

Smith cites vociferous evolutionist Richard Dawkins to indict evolution theory in the area of observational data:

After being chided recently by a creationist on a UK TV program about his comment; ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening’, Dawkins attempted to parry with a prepared comment:

‘The refusal to believe in anything you can’t see yourself is absurd. Think about it, I never saw Napoleon with my own eyes, but that doesn’t mean Napoleon didn’t exist.’

And Bible believers everywhere said, Amen! However, I’d reckon atheists were figuratively banging their heads against their TV sets because of Dawkins ‘letting the cat out of the bag’. The existence of Napoleon or Jesus Christ can only be known through historical records, not operational science. So the scientific method cannot be invoked.

Once again the world’s most vocal champion of evolution and the outgoing Oxford University Chair for the Public Understanding of Science has revealed that evolution hasn’t been observed! So according to the NSES, (‘ … all scientific ideas depend on experimental and observational confirmation … ’) evolution fails their first criteria as being scientific.

But apostles of the religion of evolution can make "accurate prediction" and thus fulfill criteria #2, right? Well, not really.

The fossil record has never panned out as Charles Darwin hoped it would. Smith cites a recent National Geographic article which admits:

‘Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of 1,000 frames have been lost.'

Wow. That's a lot to build a sound theory upon, isn't it? One frame out of 1,000? Uh huh.

Speculation about vestigial organs has proven to be all wet, too. Hmm. Maybe evolution can't make the predictions we thought.

But hey, at least it meets criteria #3 and is perfectly logical, right? Well....

Imagine you open your front door and see a robot walking on two legs along the street carrying a package on its shoulder. The package is marked with an address, that the robot has followed and arrived at.

Glancing at your neighbour you say ‘Who do you think made the robot?’ To which he says ‘I don’t think anyone made it, I think it made itself!’ With even a lay person’s knowledge of basic engineering, would this be a logical conclusion?

Okay, but evolution theory and evolutionists meet #4, being totally open to criticism. After all, they have all the facts on their side. They have nothing to fear. This issue was settled a long time ago, so criticisms are no problem, right? Well...

The newly released documentary Expelled blows the whistle on what many evolutionists have been doing for decades, which is brooking no opposition to anything that challenges Darwinian dogma.

The movie reveals that even Darwinists themselves, when attempting to be open-minded, are often removed from their positions for daring to allow other points of view. A recent example is evolutionary Prof. Michael Reiss, the Royal Society’s former director of education, who resigned within a couple of days after suggesting that creationism and ID should be discussed in classrooms.

Hmmm. Okay, so evolution theory has miserably failed four out of the six criteria, so far. But it can still pull in the big win with the last two, right? After all, what we know and teach about evolution relies on completely accurate information, right? At the risk of sounding repetitive, "Well...."

Those that have been around the creation/evolution debate are usually familiar with hoaxes like Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor (the Piltdown Bird!), Nebraska man and the Staged photos of peppered moths, all fraudulent ‘evidences’ used to promote the theory of evolution.

One such fraud refuses to die it seems. I was shocked days ago when flipping through my daughter’s science text book to find Haeckel’s forged embryo drawings! I knew these had still been used in textbooks up to a short while ago but couldn’t believe my eyes to see it used in 2008 science curricula. This false ‘evidence’ was created in the 1860’s

Alright, but hey: at least it isn't full of presuppositions like creation science and intelligent design theory is. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllll...

In order to be truly neutral (hold no presuppositions) regarding the theory of origins, one would have to be open to the view that life could have arisen completely naturalistically, while simultaneously accepting that it may have been intelligently designed. You would then conduct investigations to see which hypothesis is better supported. But many evolutionists are atheists or were taught by atheists. By definition an atheist is;

A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.13
So how can an atheist be unbiased or hold no presuppositions when their world view pre-supposes ‘no-God’?

Smith also cites this admission of bias from evolutionist Richard Lewontin:

‘It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

Author Aldous Huxley, grandson of "Darwin's bulldog" T.H. Huxley, admitted the license of Godlessness was central to his acceptance of this worldview:

‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’

Smith's article also mentions a very interesting 1983 quote from the Official Journal-American Humanist Association

‘I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly view their role as the proselytizers of a new faith … The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new; the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of Humanism …

Notice that this humanist at least had the intellectual integrity to admit that humanism is a faith, a religion?

Well, it looks like evolution theory fares no better than creation science or intelligent design in these six criteria put forth by the NSES.

So if both evolution theory and creation science can now start on a level playing field of consideration, the next step is to examine the theories and contentions of both and see how well they fit the evidence.

Interestingly, evolution does pitifully here, too. I won't take time to go into the details (which can be found easily across the internet) and make this post any longer, but the elementary implications alone are enough to doom evolution theory before it gets off the launch pad.

There are a great number of hinge-pins required to make materialism/naturalism/evolution a workable theory. They include a universe that sprang from absolutely nothing (in violation of scientific principles) with no cause (in violation of scientific principles), and required stars and other planetary bodies to form (in violation of scientific principles), and life to spring from lifeless matter (in violation of scientific principles).

And since evolutionists make an a priori insistence that there cannot be supernatural intervention or causation, they are left with events which must happen without supernatural help...yet are impossible according to the laws of nature.

Creation, on the other hand, assumes an infinite, all-powerful creator who spoke a universe into being, and had it completely ordered and fully functional--including human life--in six days.

The science of such a feat definitely inspires curiosity and wonder. Yet if one can believe Genesis 1:1, then every other truth-claim in the Bible is very easy to accept.

To put it simply, the claims of creation science are entirely possible within its own framework.

The claims of evolution, however, are impossible within its own framework.

Evolution comes up woefully short in the "scientific" department.

Creation Museum Celebrates with Christmas Display

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Aaron J. Leichman
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Dec. 15 2008 08:34 AM EST

The controversial Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., has brought out its special Christmas display, which will run until Jan. 4.

The centerpiece of the museum’s “Bethlehem’s Blessings” presentation is a live outdoor nativity scene featuring human actors in each of the Christmas story roles, as well as sheep, donkeys, and camels, which all come from the museum’s own petting zoo.

Visitors to the museum grounds will also be treated to hayrides, seasonal lights and decorations, holiday food, and special events and activities for children. Special Christmas exhibits inside the museum include the Planetarium presentation, “The Bethlehem Star.”

“We find the two – Creation and Christmas – go very well together, and we invite our guests to experience each in light of the other at our special ‘Bethlehem’s Blessings – A Christmas Celebration’ this December,” expressed Creation Museum co-founder and spokesperson Mark Looy in an announcement.

The $27-million museum itself has been the center of a number of controversies, mostly involving its literal interpretation of the Bible. Packed with high-tech exhibits that include animatronic dinosaurs and a huge wooden ark, the 60,000-square foot museum attempts to align the Bible’s literal account of creation with natural history. The museum’s founder, like many other Young Earth creationists, believes dinosaurs appeared on the same day God created other land animals.

Earlier this month, hundreds of complaints led the Cincinnati Zoo to pull out of a special business partnership with the Creation Museum.

“Some of their comments on blogs reveal great intolerance for anything having to do with Christianity,” reported the Creation Museum’s founder, Ken Ham.

Despite whatever disagreements there may be, the staff at the Creation Museum are hoping to share the story of Christmas during the holiday season.

“Christmas is about hope and faith and love, and the fulfillment of God’s plan for humanity,” said Looy. “The created world is God’s backdrop for this amazing story of redemption and relationship.”

Located near the Cincinnati Airport, the Creation Museum is a ministry of Answers in Genesis, a nonprofit Christian organization dedicated to confirming the validity of the Bible from the very first verse.

Since its opening in May 2007, the museum has seen over 600,000 visitors.

On the Web:

www.CreationMuseum.org

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Evolution Disciples Force Break in Cooperation Between Zoo, Creation Museum

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Eric Young
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Dec. 03 2008 09:24 AM EST

A high volume of complaints have forced the Cincinnati Zoo to pull out of a special business partnership with the Creation Museum in nearby Petersburg, Ky., after running for less than three days.

The two institutions had come together to offer a special ticket package that gave visitors the opportunity to drop in on both at a discounted rate while promoting one another at the same time.

According to the Creation Museum’s founder, Ken Ham, however, the zoo received hundreds of complaints, many of which were opposed to the faith and ideas that the museum presents.

“It’s a pity that intolerant people have pushed for our expulsion simply because of our Christian faith,” Ham said, expressing disappointment in the zoo’s decision but also understanding of its perspective.

“Some of their comments on blogs reveal great intolerance for anything having to do with Christianity,” he added.

The Creation Museum, which cost $27 million to build, is a 60,000-square foot facility that opened last year in May and revived the creation/evolution debate among Young Earth creationists, Old Earth creationists, anti-creationism evolutionists, and theistic evolutionists.

Packed with high-tech exhibits that include animatronic dinosaurs and a huge wooden ark, the museum attempts to align the Bible’s literal account of creation with natural history. The museum’s founder, like many other Young Earth creationists, believes dinosaurs appeared on the same day God created other land animals.

Critics, however, both non-Christians and Christians who are against a literal interpretation of the Bible on life origins, have protested and spoke out against the anti-evolution display, worried that their children will be affected. The controversy garnered the new exhibit a large amount of media coverage.

“Frankly, we are used to this kind of criticism from our opponents,” Ham said regarding the latest controversy, “and so being ‘expelled’ like this is not a huge surprise.”

Despite the zoo’s decision, Ham said his museum would continue promoting the “excellent zoo” on its website and in printed material that is passed out inside of the museum.

“We are committed to promoting regional tourism,” he explained.

Furthermore, the museum will still provide $9 off of the ticket prices (the amount of the discount under the original agreement) from Dec. 2 to Dec. 11, with the exception of Saturday, Dec. 6. "Get the Museum/Zoo Discount Anyway," the museum website says.

Beginning on Dec. 12, the museum will have up its special Christmas display, which includes a live outdoor nativity scene and a special lighted “Road to Bethlehem” trail. Visitors to the museum grounds will also be met with hayrides, seasonal lights and decorations, holiday food, and events and activities for children. Inside the museum, there will be special Christmas exhibits including the Planetarium presentation “The Bethlehem Star.”

“We find the two – Creation and Christmas – go very well together,” says Creation Museum co-founder and spokesperson Mark Looy, “and we invite our guests to experience each in light of the other at our special ‘Bethlehem’s Blessings – A Christmas Celebration’ this December.”

Located near the Cincinnati Airport, the Creation Museum is a ministry of Answers in Genesis, a nonprofit Christian organization dedicated to confirming the validity of the Bible from the very first verse.

Since its opening in May 2007, the museum has seen over 600,000 visitors.

On the Web: http://www.creationmuseum.org/

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Texas Requirement to Teach Weaknesses of Evolution Being Reviewed

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Lawrence Jones
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Nov. 20 2008 09:17 AM EST

The Texas Board of Education on Wednesday heard public arguments for and against a current science standard that requires students to be taught the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution.

The State Board is looking to update its state science standards and will vote on new guidelines next spring. The hearing on Wednesday was open to public comments on the proposed revisions to the state's science curriculum.

The current science guidelines, known as Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, or TEKS, require that students be taught the "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories, including evolution.

The board is considering whether to retain the current mandate, change the language to say "strengths and limitations," or eliminate the reference altogether, as a review panel had recommended.

Despite being just three words long, the phrase has stirred up a heated debate among educators, parents, and interest groups.

Those who support retaining the decade-old reference say it provides students a balanced viewpoint on evolution and allows them a chance to come to their own conclusions.

Those who oppose keeping the current standard say the "weaknesses" language undermines evolution while opening the door for religious teachings like creationism in the classroom.

A majority of board members are in favor of retaining the "strengths and weaknesses" requirement. They dismiss concerns by critics who say the board's intent is to sneak religion into the classroom.

"There's no one on this board that is trying to inject intelligent design or creationism," Board Vice Chairman David Bradley told the Houston Chronicle. "They are trying to whip up into a frenzy over something that is not going to happen. But by trying to remove strengths and weaknesses, yes, they will get a fight."

Around 90 people had signed up to testify before the board on Wednesday, The Associated Press reported.

Steven Schafersman with Texas Citizens for Science urged the board to remove the reference, saying, "Scientific theories are strong. They don't have weaknesses," according to AP.

Jonathan Saenz, a lobbyist for the Texas Free Market Foundation, wanted the reference to stay.

"This is just another attempt to stifle academic freedom and to ban any kind of free and open science inquiry on this issue," Saenz, who had planned to testify, told AP.

Critics of the reference say the "weaknesses" requirement harms science education. But Casey Luskin, a spokesman for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a think tank on intelligent design, said the requirement actually helps academics.

"It's a facade to pretend that there are no scientific weaknesses of evolution, and not teaching the scientific weaknesses to students will prevent them from learning about the facts of biology, and it will harm their critical thinking skills," Luskin told the Chronicle.

A survey released last week of science professors from public and private universities in the state found that 95 percent of respondents said they want evolution to be the only theory of the origin of life taught in public schools. A vast majority of those surveyed also said students would be harmed if the state requires the teaching of the "weaknesses" of evolution.

Proponents of keeping the "strengths and weaknesses" language, however, have downplayed the survey, saying a "culture of intimidation" prevents scientists from voicing any objections to evolution. They also point out that it was conducted for Texas Freedom Network, an organization which has actively lobbied for the teaching of evolution in public schools.

"It’s a self-selecting survey," Luskin told the Star-Telegram. "There’s a well-documented culture of intimidation that makes scientists uncomfortable expressing their doubts about Darwinism. This just serves to reinforce that climate of intimidation."

The new science standards adopted by the board next year will remain in place for the next decade.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

82 Seconds That are Damning to Evolutionists

Everyone knows life doesn't come from lifeless materials...except evolutionists who need to believe this can happen in order for their theories to work.

Ironic, isn't it: materialists and naturalists insist that if something cannot be explained according to the laws of nature, it can't be "science."

Yet the origins of life cannot be explained according to the laws of nature (life doesn't spring from lifeless materials), and somehow this preposterous claim gets a pass.

Nice how the evolutionists worked out that little deal for themselves, isn't it?

82 seconds. That's all it takes for 'high genius' Jonathan Wells to murder half a century of origins of life research. Must see video.

"Pigs don't fly, and life doesn't just happen" - final testament of long-time atheist and legendary origins of life researcher Leslie Orgel

In the Casino of Life, Evolutionists are Big Losers

An animated clip humorously showing the improbability of a single-celled organism forming by chance - well beyond the limits of what science considers possible - 1 in 10 to the 340,000,000th power - the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by a mind-blowing 340 million zeros. The only logical conclusion is that an intelligence was involved in the formation of life - the atheists realize this which is why they're in full-fledged panic mode and why the hostility towards I.D. is so incredibly intense. Footage from the blockbuster documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" - available now on DVD!

Scientists: Our Solar System is Pretty Special

The materialist/naturalist/evolutionist believes that the universe came into being through a random, spontaneous event, and that all that we see today came to be this way through billions of years filled with random, uncontrolled happenings.

Somehow, in this modern faerie tale, this highly complex universe just happened to end up in this high state of complexity.

In other words, all the matter that suddenly sprang into existence from absolutely nothing managed to, over billions of years, start to organize itself into more dense forms of matter (in defiance of the laws of the universe), until stars eventually formed (in defiance of the laws of the universe).

Planets also just happened to form (in defiance of the laws of the universe).

Conditions on earth just happened to end up in a state where the formation of life was at least possible.

Life just happened to form from a random set of elements and circumstances (in defiance of the laws of the universe).

Life also managed to (in defiance of the laws of the universe) organize itself into higher forms until eventually humans came along who were able to understand this incredible modern faerie tale, er, wonder of random events that just happened to work out favorable to humans.

Materialistic scientists have until recently examined our solar system, seen nothing remarkable (just another random set of things that happened to come out in a positive, ordered system), and surmised the rest of the galaxy and universe must just be filled with other beneficial and ordered systems that just happened to work out that way.

But now, according to Science Daily, researchers at Northwestern University have gone and messed up the comfort of that modern faerie tale...and probably all the milk and cookies that came with it.

It seems this ordinary, mundane, seen-one-you've-seen-'em-all solar system in which humans live isn't so ordinary.

You see, unlike ages past, we can now gather data about other solar systems across the cosmos...and that data is telling us our home solar system is pretty special.

Scientists found that if conditions weren't just right, planets could end up plunging into their local sun, or spinning off into the cold of outer space.

The researchers ran more than a hundred simulations, and the results show that the average planetary system's origin was full of violence and drama but that the formation of something like our solar system required conditions to be "just right."

"But we now know that these other planetary systems don't look like the solar system at all," said Frederic A. Rasio, a theoretical astrophysicist and professor of physics and astronomy in Northwestern's Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences. He is senior author of the Science paper.

Since matter doesn't normally organize itself into higher forms, even the formation of a star and accompanying planets is a stretch. But assuming that is spontaneously possible, scientists have found that actually getting a stable--and thus habitable--solar system is a long shot indeed.

Of course, an intelligent designer (say, like the one in the Bible) could explain this unusual and perhaps unique state of order in our solar system.

But then, believing in an intelligent designer would be a stretch, wouldn't it?

Creation: The Evidence of Physics

From the fantastic DVD 'The Case for a Creator'


Part 1:


Part 2:

The Cambrian Explosion - Darwins Worst Nightmare

A clip detailing the baffling 'Cambrian Explosion' - the sudden appearance of nearly every known major group of animals. No gradualism. No transitions.

A few Darwinists have tried to explain it, but they always deliver the epic fail with a dollop of weak sauce. Most Darwinists avoid it like the plague.

From the documentary 'Icons of Evolution.

The End of the Monkey Trial

American Minute from William J. Federer

The Scopes Monkey Trial ended JULY 21, 1925.

John Scopes, a Tennessee High school biology teacher was found guilty and fined for teaching a controversial theory of origins called "evolution." William Jennings Bryan, a three time Democrat Presidential candidate, was the prosecuting attorney arguing against evolution.

Bryan objected to a tooth being presented as proof of humans evolving from apes. Later the tooth was found to be that of an extinct pig.

William Jennings Bryan was a Colonel in the Spanish-American War, a U.S. Representative and Secretary of State under President Wilson. He edited the Omaha World Herald and founded The Commoner newspaper.

Dying five days after the trial, William Jennings Bryan's statue is in the U.S. Capitol's Statuary Hall.

He gave over 600 public speeches during his Presidential campaigns - one of his favorites being "The Prince of Peace."

William Jennings Bryan stated: "I am interested in the science of government but I am more interested in religion...I enjoy making a political speech...but I would rather speak on religion than on politics. I commenced speaking on the stump when I was only twenty, but I commenced speaking in the church six years earlier-and I shall be in the church even after I am out of politics."

William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.

'Science Education Act Signed into Law in Louisiana

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Alexander J. Sheffrin
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Jun. 30 2008 03:58 PM EDT

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal signed into law last week a measure that would grant teachers and students the freedom to challenge and examine critically the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom.

The so called “Science Education Act,” the latest in a series of academic freedom bills that have swept across as many as six states, cruised through the state legislature with unanimous levels of approval.

Lawmakers said that the new law will help bring an end to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom are marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized.

The law will also help to supply teachers with supplementary textbooks that will give greater freedom in the classroom to analyze and critique existing scientific theories concerning evolution.

While supporters of the measure say the recent measure is an important step in securing safe academic environments where “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories” are cherished, detractors say that the new law represents nothing more than a masked agenda to install religion in schools.

Americans United, which was just one among the many groups that tried to urge Gov. Jindal to veto the bill on the basis that it was a violation of the separation between church and state, blasted the new law in a series of statements.

"Louisiana has a long and unfortunate history of trying to substitute dogma for science in ... classrooms," AU executive director Rev. Barry Lynn said, according to Reuters.

“Americans United and other groups contend that ‘supplemental materials’ are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries,” the group said.

Supporters of the law, however, say that the language used in the measure is clear regarding the separation between church and state.

“The proposed Louisiana law expressly states in Section 1C that it ‘shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion,’” said Dr. John West, vice president for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute, in a statement.

West, who represents the largest intelligent design think-tank in the nation, emphasized that neither his nor any other organization’s views would be favored under the new law. The measure is about promoting fairness, he said.

"Intelligent design is currently not in the Louisiana state science standards and so could not be taught. But this allows scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory to be taught," he concluded, according to Reuters.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Spain Takes Next Evolutionary Step: Rights for Apes

If, as evolutionists claim, humans are simply highly evolved animals, then there's really no significant distinction between animals and humans, other than the intelligence.

All that immortal soul, created in the image of God stuff really doesn't matter.

So if we consider human rights an important thing (strictly from a humanist perspective, mind you), then why should not the animals enjoy the same protections?

From LifeSiteNews:

A Spanish parliamentary committee yesterday gave its support to a resolution that would grant so-called "great apes" the rights to life, liberty and freedom from torture.

Spain is also banning apes in circuses, using them in TV commercials or other films.

I can see the "torture" part; even animals shouldn't be subjected to pain just so someone can get their sadistic jollies.

But the rest...this utter nonsense is where you logically end up when you abandon a Judeo-Christain value system.

And I'm not the only one who thinks so. Apparently Peter Singer, noted ultra-radical "bio ethicist" realizes this kind of lunacy doesn't fit within the Christian worldview.

From NewsMax:

Australian-born Singer, dubbed the “godfather” of animal rights, has stirred up controversy by asserting, among other things, that Christianity is a “problem” for the animal rights movement.

It IS a problem, because the Bible says God created the entire universe and everything in it, pretty much as we see it today.

The Bible says God created all life on earth within six days, and created that life to reproduce after it's own kind, not morph into other organisms.

And the Bible says that God created human beings different than any other life on earth. He created humans in his own image, with a conscience, an eternal soul, and the ability to choose right from wrong.

The Bible also put all of creation, including the animals, under the dominion of humans. We are not to indiscriminately, cruelly or wastefully destroy animal life, but it is under human dominion; animal life isn't sacred and isn't on the same level as human life.

So yes, Singer is right: the Christian worldview is a "problem" for the animal rights movement. With good reason.

Teacher Allegedly "Brands" Student With a Cross

Popular science teacher John Freshwater has the support of many of his students and their parents but has been canned by the Mount Vernon, Ohio school board for “branding” students on the forearms with a cross. At least that is the story as reported by the on-line news service Breitbart.Com (Report: Ohio teacher burned cross on kids' arms).

In fact, the image on at least one student’s arm was produced by a science demonstration of a high-frequency generator similar to devices used in medical offices for a number of non-invasive therapies. During application it produces a slight tingling and warm sensation and causes the blood vessels in the skin to dilate producing a reddening of the surface that may last a day or so. The claim of one student is that the image lasted “3 or 4 weeks.” In fact, it was the complaint of that one student that brought the school board and its Superintendent, Stephen Short , down on Mr. Freshwater. But this occurred after years of efforts by the school district to get the popular and well-credentialed teacher to heel to demands that he cease any mention of God or Creation in his classroom. A particularly troubling problem for the Superintendent was Mr. Freshwater’s insubordinate habit of placing his personal Bible on his desk during class. What might students think? What evil might such overt displays provoke in the minds of the innocent and impressionable children?

According to several accounts Mr. Freshwater has been at loggerheads with the administration for some time over issues pertaining to the First Amendment and has prevailed because he knows his rights and asserts them appropriately. Furthermore, “Freshwater has drawn consistent praise for his strong rapport with students, broad knowledge of his subject matter and engaging teaching style.”

It seems that the complaint about the demonstration with the high-frequency generator was made to order for the administration that has sought Freshwater’s dismissal for some time. One student complained about “branding with a cross” out of how many? Slight reddening of the skin hardly amounts to “branding.” I’d be interested to know how many tattoos and/or piercings this poor child has endured. It lasted “3 or 4 weeks” you say? Well, if my child had been “branded” as they have alleged, I assure you I would be able to state, without any ambiguity, the precise duration of the injury down to hours and minutes.

I trust the Alliance Defense Fund will be called to Mr. Freshwater’s defense and I’ll be sending them another generous donation. No word, as yet, about the ACLU taking this opportunity to defend our Bill of Rights.

Related links:
Students support teacher by taking Bibles to school
Student Backs Teacher In Fight To Keep Bible On Desk
Ohio board votes to ax teacher accused of branding

Texas Board of Ed. Considers Removing Criticism of Evolution

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Lawrence Jones
Christian Post Reporter
Fri, Jun. 06 2008 10:07 AM ET

Darwinists in Texas are seeking to remove a science standard that requires schools to teach both the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution.

Under current standards for the state's science curriculum, students are expected to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."

But when the Texas Board of Education look to update state science standards this summer, some committee members will ask the board to remove the "strengths and weaknesses" phrase, according to The New York Times.

Among those requesting the board to drop the phrase is Kevin Fisher, a committee member who told the NY Times that questions left unanswered by evolution shouldn't be regarded as its weaknesses.

Other critics include Texas Freedom Network, a group that has opposed state proposals for Bible classes and Bible textbooks in the past.

Several board members appear to favor the current standard, saying it maintains a balanced debate on evolution.

"Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven," Board Vice Chairman David Bradley told The Houston Chronicle. "Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions."

Bradley also dismissed concerns by critics over the board's intention to sneak religion into the classroom.

"The only thing that this board is going to do is ask for accuracy."

Barbara Cargill, the vice chair of the board's Committee on Instruction, said giving students the freedom to discuss both sides of evolution will ensure them a "well-rounded education."

"It prompts them to be critical thinkers, and it also helps them to respect the opinions of other students even if they disagree," she told The Houston Chronicle.

Meanwhile, Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank, has rejected allegations that the group is using the "strength and weaknesses" rhetoric as a new strategy in pushing intelligent design in schools following the 2005 Dover case – when intelligent design was barred from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms.

On the organization's blog site, staff member Robert Crowther points out that the "strengths and weaknesses" language was adopted by the Texas Board of Education over a decade ago, long before the Dover case, and that debate over it has been going on across the nation since then. In 2003, the Texas Board of Education was asked to enforce its previously adopted "strengths and weaknesses" language in biology textbooks but has yet to fully comply, according to Crowther.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Yoko Ono Sentenced to Listen to 'Imagine' 1000 Times

Well, not really, but it might help.

Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is back in the headlines.

Remember a few weeks ago, not long after the movie hit theaters, Yoko Ono, wife of the late hippie Marxist John Lennon, got upset and decided to sue because Expelled used a brief clip of Lennon's Imagine in the film?

The clip was used under the "fair use doctrine" not to imply that Lennon endorsed the movie (I don't think anyone could be that ignorant), but simply to point out that this popular song represents the kind of world evolutionists want: no heaven, no hell, no religion, just sweet (Marxist) freedom.

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

So, like a good Marxist who believes in "no possessions" and "sharing all the world," Yoko Ono tried to sue because the clip was used without her permission.

If there are no possessions and everyone shares everything, who needs permission, man?

According to Fox News, apparently even our liberal court system saw through this hypocrisy.

In a decision Monday, federal Judge Sidney Stein says the filmmakers are protected under the "fair use" doctrine. That permits small parts of a copyrighted work to be used without an author's permission under certain circumstances.

Good to see that our court system is still capable of sane decisions every now and then.

This whole incident serves as a fresh example of the hypocrisy of Marxism, and how because of the fallen, sinful nature of man, it will never work. Remember George Orwell's "Animal Farm," where "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"?

That's Marxism. For the elites, it's always, "Good for thee, not for me."

Open Mind Closed

Something to think about...

Expelled II: No Cooling Allowed?

By now you've probably heard of Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and the intellectual lockdown perpetrated by apostles of evolution theory.

Well, origins may not be the only area where adherents to one scientific theory are orchestrating an Orwellian effort to silence the opposing view. Climate research seems to be the latest front where opposition to the dominant theory is declared verboten and quashed by the establishment.

From Fox News comes the story of Dr. William Gray, a hurricane forecaster, says Colorado State University will no longer be promoting his forecasts because he's not a "believer" in Al Gore's man-made global warming fantasy.

The university says it is cutting back because of resource constraints, but Gray and others insist the move is ideologically driven:

"Bill Gray has come under a lot of fire for his views," former director of the National Hurricane Center Neil Frank, currently chief meteorologist at Houston's KHOU-TV, told the Chronicle. "If, indeed, this is happening, it would be really sad that Colorado State is trying to rein in Bill Gray."

Gray isn't the first to be censured for blasphemy against anthropogenic global warming. Last year, University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was fired from his position as associate state climatologist after he exposed false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains.

As in the debate over origins, the Left seems incapable of (or unwilling to) distinguishing the difference between objective facts and the interpretation of those facts. These so-called scientists develop a theory, find a way to make the facts fit their theory, and call it "science."

If there is any area of scientific inquiry more devoid of objective proof and filled with ideology than origins, it may well be climate research.

Contrary to a mountain of evidence that the climate change has been happening for thousands of years or longer, and is happening on other planets where there are no SUVs, and is based on unreliable data, claim that any warming of the earth cannot be laid at the feet of the sun or natural cycles, but at the feet of SUVs, power plants and Western civilization.

If things continue, Stein may need to do a sequel to Expelled.

Running Interference for Darwin

Evolution News features a piece by David Klinghoffer today on Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."

I think everyone knew the indignation and spin from the pro-evolution camp would be fierce when this film was released. However:

Much more surprising is the sheer flat-out lying done by critics bent on denouncing the movie’s controversial linking of Darwinism and Hitlerism.

Now, I happen to think that the Darwin-Hitler link is pretty darn well established, as I’ve argued on National Review Online, Jewcy, and in this space. The major Hitler biographers agree with me that Hitler in Mein Kampf and elsewhere used transparently Darwinian arguments to motivate fellow Jew-haters to actuate the Final Solution.

I don’t care if somebody insists on disagreeing with my interpretation of the relevant texts – though frankly that would be hard to do if your powers of reading comprehension rise above sixth-grade level. Just please don’t lie in your representation of what I’ve written.

I frequently find myself, when dealing with liberals of almost any bent, going back and forth in wondering whether some are simply ignorant, or simply liars and con artists. Sometimes it can be difficult to tell, given the sorry state of academics and media in America today.

Even a little bit of information and intellectual honesty should quickly prove that Klinghoffer's correlation is pretty obvious. Yet facts such as these, (from Klinghoffer's piece at National Review Online) remain below the radar of some:

The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”

The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.

When we replace the Christian worldview of objective truth with the relativism of evolution theory, the logical moral conclusions mirror the biological contentions: survival of the strongest, with right-and-wrong becoming a plaything to be molded by the hands of the strongest.

Klinghoffer's NRO piece points out this "natural" conclusion from Darwin's Descent of Man:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.

Hitler's "solution" didn't come about overnight. Those ideas and plans had been brewing for 70 years or more. And they were quite logical extensions of the implications of Darwinian evolution.

We don't have to like those conclusions. But the harmony between the aforementioned ideas and actions is impossible to mistake...for the intellectually honest, that is.

Nazi Eugenics Propaganda Film

"We humans have transgressed the law of natural selection in the last decades."



'Victims of the Past' was a eugenics film made in 1937, produced by the NS-Rasse und Politisches Amt.

HT to Evolution News.

Marxism: Good for Thee, Not for Me

This is classic!

If you've been following developments regarding Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," you may be aware that Yoko Ono, wife of the late hippie Marxist John Lennon, is suing Stein for his use of a clip of Lennon's Marxist fantasy song "Imagine" in Expelled.

While use of the short clip falls within the fair use doctrine, Ono seems pretty possessive of the song...despite the values the song lauds:

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

Ono doesn't even want Stein to be able to use a short clip from the song? What happened to "no possessions" and "no need for greed" and "sharing all the world"?

Evolution News points to a release from the producers of Expelled which points to this glaring inconsistency.

Premise did not pursue a license for the song and had no obligation to do so. Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the Imagine clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech. The brief clip - consisting of a mere 10 words - was used to contrast the messages in the documentary and was not used as an endorsement of EXPELLED.

But the irony of this lawsuit was not lost on the film's star Ben Stein, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free?

Sadly, this kind of double-standard from elitists, especially the Marxist variety, is nothing new. It's the same old kind of "good for thee, not for me" we saw in George Orwell's "Animal Farm," where some animals were "more equal" than others.

It would be the same way if they ever go back to the eugenics and ethnic cleansing we saw across the globe--and even here in the United States--in the 20th Century. While some people will undoubtedly be deemed unfit to breed (and maybe even unfit to consume resources), you can bet for the elites it'll be "good for thee, not for me."