Search This Blog


Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Darwinists are two-faced? Only if you thought they were honest in the first place. Censorship and Lies are their weapons of choice. Darwin is Censorship and Religion, not Science!

"I heartily wish I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep & important subject of political economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of knowledge & that this in the long run is sure to add to the happiness of mankind." — Charles Darwin to Karl Marx. Darwin wrote this upon receiving a copy of Das Kapital inscribed, “Mr. Charles Darwin on the part of his sincere admirer Karl Marx.” An estimated 148 million people perished under communist regimes. - CEH

The Darwinists in America are propagandists and censors on the scale of those of Soviet Russia in the days of the Iron Curtain.   They fear Darwinism being questioned and scrutinized, because it cannot bear it.  While Darwin himself believed all aspects of origins should be studied and his own ideas put to the test, his adherents are as rigid as Stalinists and will do almost ANYTHING to keep evidence for Intelligent Design and Creation to be presented.   

As I learned in the military (intelligence services/journalist), having been based for a time at the War College and familiar with military tactics, the situation is obvious.   Darwinists realize their myth is vulnerable, so they have surrounded it with their best defensive fortifications and vigorously attack any ideas that approach their hypothesis with the weapons they fear - evidence and logic.  Why is there an NCSE at all?   It exists to censor and for no other purpose.  

Non-Darwinist academics, scientists and other professionals find themselves fired and blacklisted and denied tenure.  Their scientific papers are rarely accepted for peer review and, if they are published, the outcry from the Darwinist High Priests usually cause the paper to be withdrawn from publication and the publishing source must apologize profusely lest they also face the Darwinist ban.   The USA may be yet the land of the free and the home of the brave, but in academic and scientific circles, the Kommisars rule with an iron fist and censorship is their weapon of choice.

If Darwinists fear Intelligent Design and Creation presentations, scientific papers, books, movies and teachings, it is absolutely justified because they KNOW their myth cannot stand scrutiny and comparison to what we now know in the real world.   

The story of the Darwinists in America is the story of blatant hypocrisy, jealousy, fear and frankly pure evil.  They lie, they distort, they hide evidence and they brutally persecute every non-Darwinist they are able to attack with impunity.  Fear is the primary motivating factor.   How long can Darwinists keep the lid on the truth?  

This is why I started the Darwinist Hall of Shame...which will continue shortly.  

Evolutionists Two-Faced About Academic Freedom

Print Article
Posted on July 8, 2013 in Darwin and EvolutionEducationPhilosophy of SciencePolitics and Ethics
Compare two countries: in one, when their hegemony is threatened, evolutionists plead for academic freedom.  In another, they deny it to those who want a chance to debate evolution.

Turkey, with its somewhat secular government but largely Islamic population, has doubts about Darwin.  Leaders there are reluctant to promote evolution, which they consider controversial, as the “glue of all biological sciences,” according to Science Now.  Moreover, the government has (at times) blocked certain educational evolution websites, and thrown roadblocks in the way of evolutionary conferences, on the grounds that “Since evolution is still a debated issue, the degree to which the organizers represent the community/country is very questionable.”  This has angered certain Darwinist academics who were expecting the Turkish government to fund a recent pro-evolution conference for students.   They appealed to freedom of speech and inquiry (similar to academic freedom) in their protest:

It sets a very dangerous precedent,” Ak├žay says. “Today it might be a summer school that is fairly cheap … but tomorrow it could be a young researcher coming up for tenure. … And this on top of the very worrying and worsening trend in academia and the broader society towards curtailing freedom of speech and inquiry.

But in America, Darwinists are delighted when academic freedom is denied to critics of their theory (see commentary on Evolution News & Views).   Nature breathed a “Whew!” along with the National Center for Science Education when five states adopted science standards that will teach climate science and evolution dogmatically, prohibiting efforts to grant academic freedom to skeptics of those theories.  New science guidelines supported by evolutionists begin the one-sided indoctrination “well before high school.”  Theyrecommend teaching evolution before students reach high-school biology classes, the point at which many states tackle concepts such as natural selection and adaptation.”

In the past two months, education officials in Rhode Island, Kentucky, Kansas, Maryland and Vermont have all approved the standards by overwhelming margins. At least five more states — California, Florida, Maine, Michigan and Washington — may take up the standards in the next few months.

“Whew,” says Minda Berbeco, programmes and policy director at the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California. “So far, so good.” Swift adoption of the guidelines has been surprising but welcome news for many supporters. Evolution has been a controversial topic in US education for decades, stretching back to the 1925 ‘monkey trial’ in Tennessee, where the state prosecuted high-school teacher John Scopes for violating a statute that barred the teaching of evolution. In the past decade, those who oppose evolution have sought to enact ‘academic freedom’ laws that would allow creationism to be taught alongside evolution.

The reference to creationism is a bald lie, since none of the bills prescribe teaching creationism.  Instead, they ask for honest teaching of evolutionary theory, including its strengths and weaknesses, or they forbid schools from punishing teachers who do so, such as Eric Hedin, now in hot water at Ball State (see Evolution News & Views).  In any case, evolution is the only theory allowed in the curriculum.  Not even the Discovery Institute recommends bills requiring the teaching of intelligent design.

Such hypocrites.  Evolutionists are like Marxists who cry out for freedom until they get power, then they deny it to everyone else.  They’re not even good Darwinists.  They ignore the words of their Prophet Charlie, who taught in his scriptures,A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question”  (See  Until and unless we rid science of the Darwin bigots, and require them to debate the evidence, they will continue to behave like the People of Froth, foaming at the mouth against anyone who wishes to break their filibuster and discuss the issues honestly.  What are they afraid of?  Scientific evidence?

- See more at:

You Cannot Trust Evolutionists
By Steven Rowitt, Ph.D.

If you think this is an outrageous statement, you might want to take a deep breath and continue reading. When I was a Ph.D. student, one of the myriad articles I had to read and digest was aptly titled, “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.” Although this phrase is attributed alternately to both Mark Twain and Victorian England’s most famous Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, the complete quote is, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The point of the article was to note something that is well established, that statistics can be manipulated to support anything. When deceptive tactics are applied to evolutionary dogma, and this fallacious evidence becomes part of the history of modern science, you can begin to understand the enormity of the problem. The vast majority of scholars in the scientific community are agenda driven and, therefore, incapable of avoiding researcher bias connected to their hyper-materialistic evolutionary worldview.  

When your worldview is based upon the false teaching of evolution, your conclusions become suspect. While most evolutionary scientists believe they are honest men and women that think they are being truthful; they tend to discard evidence that does not conform to their evolutionary worldview. In addition to this, there is fierce competition within scientific disciplines with no lack of animosity between competing factions. There is a history of researchers not reporting what they have found to be true, but rather what they wanted to be true. This is usually not done overtly, but their conclusions are skewed, spun to conform to Darwinian theory. When all criticism of evolutionary theory is excluded from the discussion, and only evidence supportive of evolutionary theory is allowed, the results are suspect.

One such example was the initial report and the companion report that followed five years later from renowned sex researcher Alfred Kinsey (1948) and company. Not only did they misrepresent their research, their flawed studies sowed the seeds for the sexual revolution of the 1960’s and misconceptions concerning sexuality in general that remain to this very day. You might be thinking that Kinsey’s research has little to do with evolutionary theory. That might be a legitimate concern, if Kinsey himself was not an avowed evolutionist. It is clear from Kinsey’s own writings that he was an evolutionist. Kinsey (1926) wrote a popular biology textbook entitled Introduction to Biology wherein his allegiance to Darwinian theory was clearly established.

Dr. Kinsey initially made his reputation as an entomologist. In 1938, his research interests in human sexuality led him to begin his research into that field of study. When speaking about the possibility of researcher bias, Alfred Kinsey could well be the poster boy for bias firmly connected to the researcher’s own sexual proclivities. Kinsey himself was a professed bi-sexual and Alfred and his wife practiced an open marriage. Dr. Kinsey allowed his personal sexual preferences to skew his research.     

It was the work of author, researcher, educator and expert witness in the field of sexual research and education, Judith Gelernter Reisman, Ph.D., that exposed the deceptive aspects of Kinsey’s famous research. With regard to Reisman’s work, Charles E. Rice, Professor at Notre Dam Law School, said, “Dr. Reisman's study supports the conclusion that Alfred Kinsey's research was contrived, ideologically driven and misleading. Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty.”

In response to the work of Dr. Reisman the German Medical Tribune and the distinguished British medical journal The Lancet (1991) called for a complete investigation of Kinsey’s research noting:
The Kinsey reports (one in 1948 on males and the companion five years later) claimed that sexual activity began much earlier in life... and displayed less horror of age differences and same-sex relationships than anyone at the time imagined. It was as if, to follow Mr. Porter again, “Anything goes.” In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two reports ... Kinsey et al. ... questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of “normal” sexual behavior. Presumably, some at least of those offenders were also the sources of information on stimulation to orgasm in young children that can only have come from pedophiles--or so it must be hoped. Kinsey... has left his former co-workers some explaining to do.
The sad truth about the research of Dr. Kinsey and his colleagues is the adverse impact their purposely-skewed research would have on our society. This is far from an isolated incident. Many such tales of researcher fraud have been documented, but none more appalling than the bogus pharmaceutical studies submitted to the FDA that were used to approve medications that were later found to be unsafe. Charles Seife and Rob Garver (2013) reported that the now defunct Cetero Research firm committed such “egregious” and pervasive research violations that years of its tests were potentially worthless. I have personal knowledge that the makers of the toxic medicine, Baycol (Cerivastatin), removed from the market in July 2001 had eliminated from their clinical trials a person who expired as a result of taking this medication. It was not until 31 more people died as a result of taking this poisonous drug that the greedy, bean counting executives finally took the drug off the market.

Where Darwin’s theory is concerned, deception began very early on. It has continued for the past 150-plus years. The short list of some of the icons of evolution that turned out to be evolutionary frauds includes, vestigial organs (Wells, 2000; Rowitt, 2011), the Miller/Urey experiments, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, the Peppered Moths (Wieland, 2007), Darwin’s Finches (Luskin, 2012; Wells, 2000), etc., and a host of other so-called evidence in support of Darwinian evolution.

Perhaps the most infamous example of researcher bias resulting in outright fraud is found in the research of evolutionary zealot Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). He was a German biologist, naturalist, philosopher and physician who popularized Charles Darwin's work in Germany and developed the controversial recapitulation theory. The famous expression “ontology recapitulates phylogeny” was coined in order to promote Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. According to evolutionists, this phrase means, “Development is a replay of Ancestry,” (Miller, 1997). Haeckel believed that certain markers in the history of evolutionary change were retained during fetal development. He believed similarities in the embryonic development of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit and a human was evidence of Darwin’s theory. Haeckel perpetrated his fraud by making these hand drawn embryos appear more similar than they actually were, thereby inferring an evolutionary relationship for these different organisms.

It was later revealed that Haeckel had fudged his drawings in order to make them more supportive of his theory. Modern neonatal research has completely debunked Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation noting that the morphology Haeckel misapplied in support of ontology recapitulating phylogeny was really part of the unique anatomy of embryonic development. Furthermore, fetal changes had no relationship to evolutionary theory whatsoever. This has not prevented modern evolutionists from doubling down on Haeckel’s forgeries. Today, instead of using Haeckel’s original forged drawings, popular biology textbook editors, Miller and Levine, use “absolutely accurate” photographs. The following passage illustrates why evolution is not science, but rather an elaborate tautological fraud.
As you read this, you may wonder why evolution should be limited to changes tacked on at the end of the process of development. So did evolutionary biologists, and Haeckel's idea was quickly discarded. In fact, evolution can affect all phases of development, removing developmental steps as well as adding them, and therefore embryology is not a strict replay of ancestry. Nonetheless, many of the stages that embryos pass through can indeed be understood as remnants of their evolutionary past. (Emphasis added)
One example is the fact that the embryos of all placental mammals (including humans) form a yolk sac during their development. Why is this important? Because the eggs of these organisms do not have large amounts of stored yolk, and therefore their yolk sacs are empty! Nonetheless, the persistence of a yolk sac stage makes perfect sense when one considers that these animals are descended from egg-laying reptiles in which the sac encloses a massive amount of yolk to support embryonic development, (Miller, 1997).
Professor Miller wants us to believe that empty yolk sacs are evidence of common ancestry. This line of reasoning lacks scientific merit. From the evolutionist’s point of view, all mammals have yolk sacs; therefore, all mammals are related to a distant common mammalian ancestor. That creature had a yolk sac, ergo; they are related to one another via common descent. Evolutionary reasoning postulates, because yolk sacs in humans remain empty (until they become filled with yolk early in neonatal development), and all mammals have yolk sacs, that this is evidence of Darwinian evolution. The problem with such musings become evident when we realize that mammalian yolk sacs are not vestiges of some distant egg-laying past; they serve a very real and essential purpose during fetal development. The yolk sac is designed to provide nutrition to the developing embryo in the earliest stages of growth. This structure first becomes visible in ultrasounds at about five weeks. As the embryo grows, much of the yolk sac is eventually absorbed into its body, and the fetus then gets nutrients through its mother’s umbilical cord.

At this juncture, I must point out that tautologies are not necessarily fallacious; however, when science uses circular reasoning as evidence, it becomes pseudoscience. It would be far more accurate to compare a tautological statement (that may or may not be correct) to an axiomatic truth, e.g. a self-evident truth that is always true. As is the case with evolutionary theory, everything in nature, all of the evidence is seen as supportive of Darwinian evolution. This is an example of the tautological nature of how the evidence is sometimes framed in evolutionary theory. Everything, no matter how contradictory it might be is seen as being supportive of Darwin’s theory.

There is no better example of the deceptive practices employed to support evolutionary theory than the way evolutionists explain the gaps in the fossil record. Initially, evolution was supposed to have taken place slowly, over tens of millions of years. When the fossil record illustrated that most, if not all, of the organisms within appeared abruptly, fully formed without undisputed precursors or intermediate lifeforms, a new and improved explanation had to be offered. It was then postulated that evolution really did not really take place slowly over time, but in rapid spurts, not instantaneous, but rapidly, perhaps tens of thousands of years rather than tens to hundreds of millions of years. This new hypothesis that replaced the old assumption of gradual uniformitarian change was called the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (or Equilibria). It was proposed by the gurus of neo-Darwinism, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge. Now the gaps become evidence for evolution, and their existence explains the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. But the few, allegedly transitional organisms such as archaeopteryx are also showcased and presented as evidence for Darwinian evolution. Gaps, no gaps, transitions, no transitions, all become evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution. It seems that evolutionists really can have their cake and eat it too.

Accomplished liars will look you squarely in the eye and lie to you with a straight face. You may be so thoroughly brainwashed by the molecules-to-men story of life on planet Earth that cannot even conceive that you might be completely wrong about evolution.  Evolutionists are always very serious when they speak about their common faith. They use bait and switch deception with regard to microevolutionary changes being promoted as evidence of molecules-to-men. Because they have a monopoly on what is taught in our public educational institutions, allowing only one explanation for the origin of life and censoring any information they deem critical to their evolutionary faith, they indoctrinate rather than educate their students.

When they have to admit in some matter or other that they were wrong, they never ever question the original premise of Darwin’s theory. This is in spite of the fact that Darwin’s finches always remained finches and natural selection has proven, in the minds of many prominent Neo-Darwinists, to be an inadequate mechanism for evolutionary changes (Mazur, 2000). When this is coupled with the fact that mutations never produce the new genetic information required for macroevolutionary changes to occur, you are left with an elaborate fairytale couched in scientific sounding terminology. Yes, science can often explain how things work, but they always fail to produce answers for the questions that plague their materialistic worldview. They can postulate survival of the fittest, but they cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.

We should be bold in our assertion that Darwinian evolution is pseudoscience. It is an atheistic and utterly materialistic worldview masquerading as truth. It is an elaborate deception that, left unchallenged, destroys people. It lies to them about who they are, where they came from and what happens to them whey they die. It leaves all who embrace this lie in darkness. We should proclaim the truth, always in the power of the Holy Spirit, allowing the light of God’s love to shine through us in the midst of a sick and dying world. 


We now know that finches actually have a mechanism to "shortcut" the switch in beak sizes built in to the organism (Kirschner and Gerhart - The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwins Dilemma), by the way.   Ironically, Kirschner and Gerhart actually provided a great deal of evidence FOR creation/ID with their research rather than helping Darwinism along.  They provided insight into the internal mechanisms of the cell during reproduction and, of course, discovered more information and complexity and design as they went along.  Then they just pasted a Darwin label on it and published.

Rapid speciation is helped along by certain features being capable of switching on or off and also the ability of some genetic material to be transferred from one organism to another, which is seen in bacteria.  However, the entire process is systematic, guided by the cell and using information from the DNA strand.  Mutations are deleterious and, when passed down, tend to cause harm to the overall fitness of the organism.  We NEVER observe new features or functions come from mutations, only broken systems.  If a wingless beetle has an advantage on a windy island because of a mutation, it will thrive on that island but would be quickly driven to extinction in any other environment.  If an e.coli bacteria will ingest citrate in all circumstances, it will be more likely driven to extinction in any environment that has other food sources as citrate is not optimal and normally only ingested in anaerobic conditions.   After all, the e.coli could always ingest citrates, but this mutation seems to be a broken system:

"...So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.
Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate,3which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations. A loss of specificity equals a loss of information, but evolution is supposed to account for the creation of new information; information that specifies the enzymes and cofactors in new biochemical pathways, how to make feathers and bone, nerves, or the components and assembly of complex motors such as ATP synthase, for example..."

We also know that life cannot possibly come from non-life nor can information be produced by the natural world and, in fact, information itself is not a material substance.  In fact it appears that life is not a material substance, either.  We can count containers of information but not the information itself.  We can determine whether an organism is alive or dead but we cannot isolate a milligram of "life" nor can we separate information from it's containers and display it.  

Again, Darwinism is simply a restated myth.   The entire idea is recycled Pantheism and the idea of life coming from some primordial mud puddle is just a regurgitation of the Golem myth.

Information is understood by minds and generated by minds.  That is what we observe in real science.  A mind can build an answering machine to operate without a person being present to answer a phone call.   The answering machine does not have a mind.  But without someone to listen to the messages, it is of no use.  Bees and many other organisms have algorithms built in to them that allow them to navigate as if they were carrying a Cray supercomputer on their took a brilliant mind to devise these algorithms.  No lightning striking mud created life and no horse ever evolved from a bacteria.   That is the stuff of science fiction novels/movies...and Darwinists!


 There is no mud monster and there is no such thing as macroevolution or chemical evolution.


Todd B said...

Fabulous article! You summed up the evolutionary worldview beautifuly. I'll never forget my Biology prof, in 1986, pointing to an overhead image of Haeckel's embryonic drawings and saying, and I quote directly, "Here's the best proof of evolution right here!"
I left class doubting my Christian faith. It was only after I did my own research, eg, critical thinking that I found Darwinian Evolution incredibly lacking.

Searlas said...

I remember a book during the cold war, something like, 'You can trust the Russians - to be Russians'. Same goes for Darwinists.

AmericanVet said...

It is national geek day?

Geeks should like the article in the last post. Kirschner and Gerhart basically destroy Darwinism while attempting to explain how it works.