Tag Archives: charles darwin

We should celebrate Louis Pasteur, not Charles Darwin

Darwinism is atheistic philosophy masquerading as science.  Not so with Louis Pasteur.  Is it any wonder that the allegedly pro-science “Christian” Left celebrates Darwin Day?  Via Louis Pasteur on life vs matter | Uncommon Descent.

Few people have saved more lives than Louis Pasteur. The vaccines he developed have protected millions. His insight that germs cause disease revolutionised healthcare. He found new ways to make our food safe to eat.

Pasteur was the chemist who fundamentally changed our understanding of biology. By looking closely at the building blocks of life, he was at the forefront of a new branch of science: microbiology.

Here, from a letter to an atheist:

Science brings men nearer to God.

Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.

I encourage you to read it all!

Dear atheist commenter pretending to be a pro-evolution Christian,

I have some friendly advice for you that will save you future embarrassment.

It isn’t enough to change your screen name from TheOneTrueForce (which you used to leave some rambling atheistic comments) to Scientific Christian (which you used to deceptively pose as a pro-Darwinian evolution Christian).

And it isn’t enough to type in a different email address.

You also need to post the fake comments from a different IP address.

Otherwise I can still tell it is you.

And once I point out that I know you are lying, you shouldn’t double-down and pretend that I was mistaken.

You might also do some reflection and ask yourself why, if your worldview is correct, that you feel compelled to lie to advance it.

That is all.

“Darwin’s Heretic: Did the Co-Founder of Evolution Embrace Intelligent Design?”

Here’s a good 21 min. movie to check out: Darwin’s Heretic.  Then ask yourself why you never learned about him in school.  Seems like your teachers would have wanted you to know the whole story, right?  

One of the most renowned biologists of the nineteenth century, Alfred Russel Wallace shares credit with Charles Darwin for developing the theory of evolution by natural selection. Yet one part of Wallace’s remarkable life and career has been completely ignored: His embrace of intelligent design. Darwin’s Heretic is a 21-minute documentary that explores Wallace’s fascinating intellectual journey and how it sheds light on current debates.

The “blasphemy” of criticizing Darwinism

Alternate title: Don’t criticize Darwinsim because it will help the (other) critics of Darwinism.  Via Two views about how Darwinism stays in place, with but one difference …(emphasis added):

Some months ago an American philosopher explained to a highly sophisticated audience in Britain what, in his opinion, was wrong, indeed fatally wrong, with the standard neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution. He made it crystal clear that his criticism was not inspired by creationism, intelligent design or any remotely religious motivation. A senior gentleman in the audience erupted, in indignation: “You should not say such things, you should not write such things! The creationists will treasure them and use them against science.” The lecturer politely asked: “Even if they are true?” To which the instant and vibrant retort was: “Especially if they are true!” with emphasis on the ‘especially’.– Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, “It is now blasphemy to criticise Darwin,” Spiked Review of Books Online (26 March 2010)

Now that’s science!  At least what passes for it today.

UPDATED: Species appear to change? Evolution! Species didn’t change? More proof of evolution!

UPDATE: This is one of those posts that reminds me why I don’t write on Intelligent Design (ID)/ Darwinian evolution very often.  It isn’t that there aren’t tons of great defenses for ID and seemingly endless problems with the (ironically) constantly evolving claims of Darwinian evolution (or whatever term they prefer), it is that any post on it brings the blind faith defenders out in force.  They are zealous, all right, but tend to visit from Stereotype Land (TM) with one erroneous comment after another and are so immune to correction that I don’t think they ever listen (all the while claiming the same about ID proponents).

This post is a perfect example.  At least three Darwin defenders didn’t just misstate my views, they made things up completely and, most ironically, didn’t realize they were mocking the evolution position and not mine.  Examples:

1. This post says that evolution states how much or how little an organism will change over time. It doesn’t say that. It has never said that.

2. I’m interested, Neil, in the reference you use to ascertain that evolution posits constant change among all species.

3. You still didn’t say why “living fossils” is detrimental to evolution – which I believe was the intent of your original post.

For the record, I believe that micro-evolution exists, is well supported by evidence and does not require constant change.  I have never stated otherwise, but my elite visitors know better, eh?

I’ll elaborate on the irony of their comments: My main point was about the scientists at the aquarium who “knew” how a particular species had evolved . . . until they realized it hadn’t evolved at all.  Their original claims weren’t science, just speculation.  They were the ones assuming that macro-evolution posits constant change, not me.  I’ll type that again, slowly ;-), for effect: They were the ones assuming that macro-evolution posits constant change, not me.  I was the one mocking them for always assuming constant change until — oops! — they realize they were wrong.  Again.

But despite multiple reminders that they were putting words in my mouth, they continued to use the “type comments first / (maybe) read the post later” approach.  That’s pretty irritating.

I also find the commenters’ “just so” explanations amusing.  Again, I never claimed that evolution involved constant change among all species.  But watch how quick they are to confirm that their theory supports zero evolution as readily as it does the evolution from lifeless chemicals to birds, caterpillar / butterflies, elephants, humans, etc.  They have a catch-all excuse: Uh, if it didn’t evolve, then the environment didn’t change.  But they don’t know that, they assume it, and they can’t explain why the same environment caused massive changes for other species but not for those that allegedly didn’t evolve.  And they ignore that they are just one fossil find for having to give up another series of drawings showing the alleged stages of evolution.

So if the Darwin defenders want to get all uppity about assumptions of constant change, their objection is not with me, but the scientists who draw cute little pictures of how things “must” have evolved.  Sadly, my guess is that they’ll still miss the irony of the aquarium scientists and their own prejudices that led them to vilify me here and elsewhere.  That’s OK, I’m used to it.

I always like to remind them that even if their nothingness-to-molecules-to-life-to-Angelina Jolie worldview was true, it would select for survivability, not truth.  They would have no reason to have such confidence that they are capable of discerning what is really true.  That bit of logic never seems to occur to them.

Also, they seem most certain that my claims were not only wrong but that it was a bad thing for me to make them, and that it was a very bad thing for me not to approve all their comments.  But they can never ground their morality.  And apparently, for most evolutionists I’ve come across, things like killing innocent but unwanted human beings in the womb is morally benign or even good, and does not conflict with Darwinian evolution (yes, they actually make tortured defenses of how it helps save the species).  But they know that comment moderation is a universal evil and that if you practice it you are really, really bad!  I could quintuple my traffic here if I didn’t moderate ID / Evo posts, but it isn’t worth it.  I mainly post these to share with open minded people who know they’ll never see these things in the mainstream media or academia.

A couple thoughts on a recent comment.

If I may be frank (and I’m doing my best not to be rude), I’ve read quite a bit on this subject, and when you become familiar with a subject there are certain fallacies that stick out like sore thumbs.

I assume that there are certain things that people say about the Bible that make you want to scream. Things that demonstrate that the person making the statement is either repeating something they heard, or didn’t read the passage in context.

Yes, I spend a lot of  time ensuring that I’ve read the Bible (and everything else) in context and like to teach others to do the same.  Sadly, this commenter didn’t read my post or my comments carefully and, as noted above, reached the opposite conclusion of what I said.  He should be angry at the evolutionists, not me.

Please tell why my pointing out this absolute fact is bothering you so.

Because it is a predictable and massive waste of time.  I’m thinking of closing comments on future ID / Evo posts.  It just gets tiring correcting all the fallacious, overzealous Darwin defenders.

Finally, even if I am wrong, all my errors are 100.00% due to their Darwinian evolution.  My conversion from atheism, my faith in the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and more were solely due to their beloved evolution.  [Thanks, btw, because I wouldn’t trade a life in Christ for anything.]  So why are they so angry at the outcome of their process?  Seems kinda irrational.

Note: Comments will be moderated, so I wouldn’t invest too many keystrokes in them, especially if they are going to repeat the tired and fallacious points made thus far.  —–

P.S. BTW, if people wonder why I give a shorter leash to evos / atheists, it is because I’m very experienced with their tactics and arguments. I can spot time wasters a mile away. A “raiding party” came from Richard Dawkins’ website once and it was quite amusing. They had decided to pick 5 religious blogs to attack and I was one of the lucky ones. Oh noes!!!

One of the best parts was pointing out to them that in their efforts to root out the evils of religion from the world that they had only picked Christian blogs. While some hemmed and hawed the standard lines about “Jihad envy” (whatever that really means) and how they just knew Christianity better, I appreciated that their leader ‘fessed up about their bias.  Here is some fun reading if you are interested.

Raiding parties

Comments on comments

Dawkins’ acolytes


The tautology of Darwinian evolution never seems to embarrass its proponents.

Following up his comments on the stunning half billion years of changelessness (stasis) demonstrated by the pterobranch, David Tyler now addresses the unchanging cricket, one of whose fossils was found from 100 million years ago: He comments on howthe fact that many life forms seem motionless in time is handled in the science literature . . .

via Life forms that never change are telling us something about evolution. Why avoid it?, David Tyler asks | Uncommon Descent.

It reminds me of an aquarium we visited (in Boston, I think).  The original sign for one species noted how it had evolved over the years.  It was all speculative, of course.  Then they found an ancient fossil of the species and — oops! — realized it hadn’t evolved at all.

Did they question their presuppositions?


They concluded that it was proof of evolution.  Because, after all, in their worldview Darwinian evolution is  true or Darwinian evolution is true.  Now that’s science!

Addressing the “Christians are anti-science” falsehood

I enjoy reminding pro-legalized abortionists that I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.  When I mention that I often get comments like this one:

You’re “too pro science to be pro choice.” Well, sure. Science agrees with you on that topic. Funny how science goes out the window on others, though.

But I am consistent with both. I dispute one sub-branch of one of the dozens of branches of science, and I do so because of the lack of evidence in favor of it, the great evidence against it, and the institutionalized bad philosophy and suppression of academic freedom propping up the pathetically bad worldview.

I follow the facts and logic where they lead. And there are many facts besides those “proved” by science.  As useful as science is you can’t prove with science that we should only accept scientific truths (even if you ignore how often those “truths” change and are politically motivated).

And unless you create all your own test equipment from scratch and replicate every single experiment you rely on then you have to use history, trust eyewitness testimony and summaries made by others even when making scientific claims.

Again, there are dozens of branches of science.  I simply disagree with one part of one branch, and they generally concede that they deliberately ignore non-material alternatives.  I’ve come across many quotes like this one from Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. 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 counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

Question-begging “science only” views like that speak volumes.  Also consider those whose philosophy-masquerading-as-science leads them to conclude that something can come from nothing.  And they call that science and have the nerve to attack us for our views?  Pathetic.

They have to make an astounding assumptions on the key question outside their field, which is, “How did the materials get here?”  And even when staying within their field, they can’t answer this important question: “How did life arise from non-life?”  They have struggled mightily to find a way but all they do in both cases is to fall back on is their blind faith, aka the “science of the gaps.”

They act like that Darwinian evolution is foundational to all biology, as if we can’t understand photosynthesis or that life begins at conception without their nothingness-to-molecules-to-life-to-Angelina-Jolie worldview.

Darwinists are also at odds with the branch of geology, and in a much more extensive way than we are with biology, so that more than evens the score right there.

And then there’s the systematic and cowardly Expelled!-type restrictions on academic freedom perpetrated by the alleged pro-science crowd.

They pretend the Bible is a science textbook and then attack that straw man, quibbling about things like references to “sunrise” and “sunset.”  Do they call up the Weather Channel each day to tell them how anti-science they are?

And why don’t they ever seem to bring up the mystery of how the Bible boldly proclaims in the first verse that the universe came into being at a point in time?  Just a lucky coin flip, eh?  Or how Genesis describes how vast the number of stars are, even akin to the number of grains of sand in the sea, at a time where most thought there were only 1,100 stars or so.  Or the uncanny way the author of Job knew about very unique properties of Pleides and Orion?  (See Job 38:31).  More luck, I suppose.

Back to biology, they mainly ignore an irrefutable fact of biology when addressing the most important moral issue of our time: Abortion.  They prattle on about how important science is to improve the human condition (which, if used properly, can do a great deal) but they exhibit a heaping dose of FAIL when applying a most basic, well attested, high degree of consensus scientific fact: A new human being is created at conception.  If they can’t apply that scientific fact to improve the human condition (i.e., don’t crush and dismember innocent human beings), then why blindly trust them to apply whatever they learn to other moral issues?  (I’m ignoring for the moment that their worldview can’t ground universal morality anyway.)

Finally, there is the fraud one would expect in any field that involves money, power, reputations and careers.  As a biblical worldview would predict, people will sometimes do unethical things to hold onto all those things.  You need to have an inherent skepticism when analyzing their truth claims and evidence.

So, once again, I am too pro-science to be pro-choice.  And the naysayers are the ones who are wildly inconsistent with their alleged pro-science position.  They abandon it on the most crucial moral issue of our time.

A very strong sign of a false teacher: Any “reverend” who celebrates Darwin Day

See Tennessee’s Rev John Shuck’s Upcoming Evolution Sunday & What It Means: Portrait of a Pro-Evolution Clergy Letter Signer.  Once again we have an incredibly dishonest person masquerading as a Christian reverend.

Bad science, bad logic, bad theology — a trifecta for Shuck.