Yet Darwinists have erected walls to "protect" Darwinism from being questioned or being compared to alternative hypotheses (Creation by God and Intelligent Design). Yet the NCSE exists for no reason beyond the censorship of non-Darwinist teaching and materials. Darwinists are desperate to keep alternative explanations for origins away from the public. Why do Darwinists fear scrutiny?
If you were driving your car and were transporting a couple of pounds of "speed" aka methamphetamine on your way to cut it and sort it into baggies for sale, you would do anything possible to avoid attracting the attention and scrutiny of the police, right? If they stopped you for any reason, you would do what you could to avoid your vehicle being searched and especially deflecting attention from the place the drugs were stored. Having the police stop you would be a personal nightmare!
But if you had not been drinking and you were obeying traffic laws and you had no illegal drugs hidden in your vehicle, being stopped by the police would not terrorize you. You would be curious but unafraid, because you had nothing to hide and therefore the police would not be a terror to you. Right?
Darwinists are like the guy transporting illegal drugs. They fear scrutiny and do what they can to avoid it because they have things to hide. It really is as simple as that!
If any Darwinist tells you that Darwinists do not fear scrutiny, ask them why they do not therefore disband the NCSE? Why do they cast non-Darwinists out of scientific organizations and academic institutions? It is not a matter of incompetence, because there are numerous brilliant men and women who reject Darwinism, some of whom are winners of major scientific prizes or inventors of note. Most of the great scientists of the past believed God created and that continues to this day. But good and great scientists who admit to doubting Darwin are asking for their careers to be deep-sixed. Again, this is a sign of fear and weakness among Darwinists.
Here is the scientific Creation Ministries International Fifteen Questions.
I will publish them more fully with a blogpost soon!
Here is the supposed answer to those questions from rationalwiki.
Below we have a three part post:
1) A testimony on the Darwinist hostility to questioning the ruling paradigm, to the point of getting scientists and academics fired and censored and ridiculed on a religious basis courtesy of Piltdown Superman.
2) An overview of the lack of scientific credibility and ethical behavior amongst Darwinists from CFP.
3) An example post of how a real scientist deals with questions and challenges from Creation.com.
Dr. Bergman has a mini-bio here.
Here is a list of his earned degrees excerpted from that bio (there is much more found at the link)!
If you do not like Dr. Bergman's biblical message, just wait it out. The video is about ninety minutes, so get comfy. (The last half hour or so is a Q & A session that you could give a miss if you're pressed for time).
One section of Dr. Bergman's book, concerning the disdainful and frankly illegal and unethical treatment of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez by Iowa State University is here online for your reading pleasure. Gonzalez was considered a rising star by the University and the scientific community who was a shoe-in for tenure until he dared to propose the concept of design!
Science Cannot Solve Our Problems Without a Foundation of Humility
|- Kelly OConnell (Bio and Archives) Wednesday, January 2, 2013|
I. A Stagnant Pool—Reign of Evolutionary “Certainty”
Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eyewitnesses to the Holocaust. We know this because of a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it. No reputable disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it…Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time. I shall be using the name ‘history-deniers’ for those people who deny evolution…
Atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins was branded a ‘fundamentalist’ by one of his most eminent scientific colleagues. The militancy of Professor Dawkins’s attacks on religious belief mean he is ‘almost a fundamentalist himself’, scientist Peter Higgs said. Professor Higgs, whose theory on the sub-atomic ‘God particle’ was recently supported by experiments at the Cern research centre near Geneva, is considered one of the world’s leading and is widely tipped for a Nobel prize.
II. Response of the Evolutionary Critics
A. Non-Religious Critics—Sir Fred Hoyle
Fred Hoyle was an atheist, but also a freethinker who embraced intelligent design. Hoyle was a very famous Cambridge (UK) physicist, astronomer, and cosmologist. The truth is that Hoyle absolutely disbelieved in Darwinism. He thought that there is intelligence “out there” in the cosmos, and perhaps in past time, that is directing the progress of life on Earth. In The Intelligent Universe, Hoyle meticulously demolishes Darwinism in great detail and with scientific precision.
A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.
Would you not say to yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule?” Of course you would…A common sense interpretation of suggests a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
Hoyle calculated the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since their are only 1080 atoms in the known universe, he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance. He claimed that the notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
- Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
- Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’
B. Creationist Critics
We all remember them from biology class: the experiment that created the “building blocks of life” in a tube; the evolutionary “tree,” the peppered moths, and Darwin’s finches. And, of course, the Haeckel embryos. All of these examples, and many others purportedly standing as evidence of evolution, are incorrect. Not just slightly off. Not just slightly mistaken. On the subject of Darwinian evolution, the texts contained massive distortions and even some faked evidence. In fact, when the false “evidence” is taken away, the case for Darwinian evolution, in the textbooks at least, is so thin it’s almost invisible.
Wells’ book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: hence, textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction. To compound the absurdity, Wells concludes that a cabal of evil scientists, “the Darwinian establishment”, uses fraud and distortion to buttress the crumbling edifice of evolution. Wells’ final chapter urges his readers to lobby the US government to eliminate research funding for evolutionary biology.
III. Call for Systemic Biological Reform
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false…Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.
I focus on the virtue of “intellectual humility” and ask what relevance it has for the pursuit of scientific knowledge. I argue that intellectually humble scientists have a stronger likelihood of winning knowledge and other intellectual goods than those lacking this virtue.
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell
Kelly can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org
No informed person disputes the reality of the last Ice Age; there is just too much evidence for its existence, not only on land but also on the sea floor.
A number of Aboriginal campsites have been discovered around former inland seas in Australia, such as Lake Mungo, which indicates that humans were on Earth during the last Ice Age which came to an end about ten to twelve thousand years ago.
But sometime prior to all this, the [Mediterranean] Sea had taken one thousand five hundred years to evaporate into salt lakes; become a basin fertile enough to attract elephants and refill again with sea-water. The amount of time required for these events, reveals to us that the Εarth and its biodiversity is much older than is suggested by a superficial interpretation of biblical genealogies.
Many Christians believe that the layers of the geological column were laid down in the space of a little over one year at the time of Noah’s Flood. A major problem with this theory is that within these layers are found glacial deposits, lake beds, coral reefs, river deltas and beaches – none of which could have formed during the Flood. There can be no question that the geological column covers a vast period of time. The onus is on those who dispute this, to explain how lakes, coral reefs and glaciers etc. could have formed and left their footprints beneath the waters of Noah’s Flood.
The science of dating rocks, called geochronology, is quite precise. There are labs all over the world dedicated to measuring the ages of rocks that contain naturally occurring radioactive elements. These unstable elements decay into more stable elements, and the rate of decay can be measured quite accurately. Uranium, for instance, decays to lead, and it is known precisely how long this process takes.
Geochronologists have at least eleven different methods of radiometric dating at their disposal. Three of these methods have been used to date minerals from an ancient volcanic ash-bed in southern Saskatchewan, Canada. The potassium/argon method revealed their age to be 72.5 million years, plus or minus a small percentage. The uranium/lead method dated the ash at 72.4 million years, plus or minus a bit. And the rubidium/strontium method said the ash was 72.54 million years old, plus or minus a little. The date determined by one method is thus corroborated or contradicted by other methods.
Green River Formation
If the great Flood deposited the layers of the Grand Canyon, and the Green River Formation was laid down after the Flood, the Flood could not have occurred later than four million years ago. Even if a highly improbable average of ten varves a year were laid in the lake, that would still mean that the Grand Canyon sedimentary layers were deposited no later than 400,000 years ago.
These chalk beds were laid down over a period of thirty to thirty-five million years during the Late Cretaceous period. It has been estimated that it took one thousand years to lay down fifteen millimetres of chalk. The computation for this rate is based on the thickness of the chalk and the time it took to deposit it, as calculated by isotopic dates of chalk from the top and bottom of the layer. Consider, on the basis of this estimate, how long it would have taken to lay down 400 metres.
The purity of the chalk beds testifies that they were laid down in calm water. Had they been laid down during the Flood–which creationists claim was so turbulent it created the sedimentary layers of the geologic column–the chalk would have either not formed, or would have been contaminated with a great deal of sediment.
Salt and the age of the Earth
Salt is dissolved from the rocks and is carried by streams and rivers to the sea. Henry Morris, Steven A. Austin, D. Russell Humphries [sic], and others argue that if the world were millions of years old, the oceans would contain much more salt than they do today. The amount of salt in the oceans, they say, supports the theory that life has been on Earth for only ten thousand years or less. These scientists, however, failed to take into account the fact that when God created the Earth he built into it mechanisms for self-correction, one of which is the removal of excess salt from the ocean and lakes by evaporation, which is then buried by subduction or folding of the earth. Some of this salt was deposited at the bottom of the Mediterranean when that sea dried up, but most of it has been buried deep underground in the earth.
The Galileo canard, again
Remember that it wasn’t too long ago Christians believed the Earth was the centre of the universe, and that the sun and stars revolved around our planet. The overwhelming clear evidence of science, however, compelled them to change their unscientific and unbiblical beliefs. Today we Christians face a different challenge; science is revealing that the world is much older than we used to believe.
Death and the Fall
The Bible says, ‘Death came through a man’ (1 Cor. 15:21). An examination of this passage reveals that it is not talking about death in general, but the death of human beings. Verse 22 says, ‘In Adam all die, but in Christ all will be made alive’. It is clear that these two verses are not referring to animals because no animal was ever ‘in Adam’, nor could it ever be ‘in Christ’.
You can read the Bible from beginning to end but nowhere does it establish any connection between the fall of man and death in the animal world.
How did carnivory arise?
Consider this; if God created animals to live without dying, what did tigers and hyenas eat before the Fall? What did sharks and seals eat? What did eagles and swallows eat? Did God create them just as they are today, or have they evolved since the Fall of Adam? Did an elephant never tread upon an ant or worm before the Fall, and did a rhinoceros never eat a caterpillar on a leaf before Adam sinned?
Genealogies were sometimes shortened, either to save space, or to make them easier to remember. Christ’s genealogy in Matthew, for example, was trimmed, so that each of its three sections would have exactly fourteen generations (Matt. 1:17). If you compare the genealogy in Matthew 1:8–9 with the one in 1 Chronicles 3:10–12 you will see where Matthew shortened his genealogy. (Please note that Uzziah was also known as Ahaziah.)
David’s name in Hebrew had a numerical value of fourteen, so some generations were excluded from this genealogy so that a person committing David’s line to memory just had to count the number in each category to ensure he had all fourteen generations.
The pre-Flood and post-Flood genealogies, as given in Genesis 5 and 11 respectively, have exactly ten generations each, and the last generation in each genealogy has three named sons.
Külling highlights an important point that most scholars seem to have overlooked; namely, that the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies are not really symmetrical. The genealogy of Adam contains ten names (Adam to Noah), with the tenth having three sons (Shem, Ham and Japheth). The genealogy of Shem records only nine names (Shem to Terah), with the ninth fathering three sons (Abraham, Nahor and Haran).
To say that Abraham (Abram) counts as the tenth generation in Genesis 11 is no help to symmetry, because consistency would then demand that Shem be counted in Genesis 5 (compare 11:26 with 5:32). The supposed symmetry does not really exist.
My experience with Darwinist commenters is that they will ignore evidence I have posted and ask me to prove a point in a comments thread that I have made perhaps 3-10 posts worth of assertions about.
They will claim I have not answered questions that I have already answered and, especially, when I make a post that is impossible for them to counter they just fail to comment at all or comment about another post instead.
They like to change the subject and try to lead me down rabbit trails. Just recently a commenter tried to bring up the example of "Nylon-eating bacteria" as an example of evolution, when we knew ten years ago that the bacteria had a system in place to adjust to dine on varied substances as the available substances changed. As we looked into that particular bacteria, we found that they had a remarkable system already in place rather than having a new ability resulting from mutations. The whole subject actually was damaging to Darwinism.
Darwinists trolls have complained about my posts on carbon-14 dating. I've made it abundantly clear that carbon-14 is no friend of Darwinism, as we find carbon-14 in fossils of organisms and wood and even in diamonds that, by Darwinist time, should be multiple millions of years old. Well, C-14 will not be in a sample that is older than 100,000 years old (and probably not even 50.000 years) so it certainly is NOT a dating method they should even bring up! They then make the hilarious claim that other radiometric dating methods are accurate. I'm going to rip that one to shreds (again) later on this month. Anyway, after patiently explaining how we calibrate C-14, the commenters either pretend I did not explain it or are unable to reason well enough to comprehend it. So they just go on and on about a subject that is actually damaging to them! Pretty funny, huh?
What Darwinists do when they cannot answer a question or deal with evidence, they come up with pet phrases like "Bunny Blunder" or "Gish Gallop" rather than deal with the question, or they will claim a reasoned argument is in fact a logical fallacy. When I made a post on DNA's mutation-removal system and the tendency of Darwinist to make ridiculous claims, including video evidence and I get a comment dismissing all the evidence (much of it gleaned from secular sources) as "assuming the conclusion?" So I rarely get an intelligent response to posts that I make. But when I get a good one, I often make an entire post to answer the comment. On rare occasion I make a post based on a comment that is remarkably ignorant because it is just too bad to pass up. Thanks in advance to the next such comment!!