Are Science and Religion Opposed?

We hear this claim all the time from the new atheist crowd.  So, is it true?  The idea that science and religion are opposed is absolutely ludicrous. However, the religion of atheism is definitely opposed to science. And for obvious reasons.

Something far too many people, including an embarrassing number of PhD scientists, are woefully ignorant of the fact that all science is founded upon philosophical and religious assumptions. Atheism provides no metaphysical assumptions upon which any science at all can be rightfully rooted.

FACT: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Walter Reed, Dmitri Mendeleev, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Kelvin, Faraday, Pasteur, Townes, Mendel, Marconi, world leader in sickle cell anemia research, Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Werner von Braun, Pupin, Walter Lammerts, AE Wilder Smith – with 3 earned doctorates in science! Raymond Damadian Inventer of the MRI,  … and on and on the list goes … were all men of very strong religious beliefs. Indeed, they were all theists and creationists and IDists.

FACT: Modern science and the modern scientific method were founded and established by creationists, not merely religious people but creationists.

Thus the exceedingly foolish claim of the new atheists, that science and religion are somehow opposed, and that one must choose one or the other to establish ones’ facts, is simply stunningly wrong. That claim means that the people who started modern science were the same people whose beliefs opposed science. So what do the atheist do in response to the historical facts? They pretend that somehow, these creationists, these deeply religious people who founded modern science, did so without any reference to their beliefs, that their science had nothing to do with what they believed. And of course, that is more utter nonsense.

FACT: The founders of modern science rooted that science in their theism.  As C.S. Lewis so rightly stated,

“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.” – M. D. Aeschliman C. S. Lewis on Mere Science 1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18.

And as even atheist philosopher of science, Michael Ruse wrote,

“Most people think that science and religion are, and necessarily must be, in conflict. In fact, this ‘warfare’ metaphor, so beloved of nineteenth-century rationalists, has only a tenuous application to reality. For most of the history of Christianity; it was the Church that was the home of science.” – p. 671 in Ruse, Michael Introduction to Part X (Creationism) in The philosophy of biology edited by David L. Hull and Michael Ruse. 1998

In fact, virtually all the historical experts agree on the fact that it was withing the Christianity that modern science was founded and grew. Indeed, a fact that ought to be disturbing for atheists, but obviously isn’t because their ignorance of the history of science is so profound, is that virtually NO atheists were involved in the establishing of modern science. And for good reason.  Atheism does not allow for any view of the world that includes a reason to believe that law, order and comprehensibility ought to characterize the universe.  This fact has been discussed in great detail in the philosophy of science by people like Rodney Stark in his book, “For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery”.

Or even Loren Eiseley who wrote,

‘The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.’ – Eiseley, L., Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It, Doubleday, Anchor, New York, 1961

And distinguished University Professor at Seton Hall University, in South Orange, New Jersey, Stanley Jaki, a leading contributor to the philosophy and the history of science wrote,

“The scientific quest found fertile soil only when this faith in a personal, rational Creator had truly permeated a whole culture, beginning with the centuries of the High Middle Ages. It was that faith which provided, in sufficient measure, confidence in the rationality of the universe, trust in progress, and appreciation of the quantitative method, all indispensable ingredients of the scientific quest.” — Jaki, Stanley L., Creation and Science (1974)

“The birth of science came only when the seeds of science were planted in a soil which Christian faith in God made receptive to natural theology and to the epistemology implied in it. The transition from that first viable birth to maturity was made neither in the name of Baconian empiricism nor in the name of Cartesian rationalism. The transition was made in a perspective adopted by Newton, chiefly responsible for completing that transition. The next two centuries saw the rise of philosophical movements, all hostile to natural theology. Whatever lip service to science, they all posed a threat to it. The blows they aimed at man’s knowledge of God were as many blows a knowledge, at science, and at the rationality of the universe. All those philosophical movements from Hume to Mach also meant an explicit endorsement of the idea of eternal returns, an idea which from the viewpoint of science acted as the chief road into its great historical blind alleys.” – S. Jaki, The Road of Science and the Ways to God, p. 160

Dr. Ronald Numbers, Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison stated,

“The greatest myth in the history of science and religion holds that they have been in a state of constant conflict. No one bears more responsibility for promoting this notion than two nineteenth-century American polemicists: Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918) and John William Draper (1811-1882)… Historians of science have known for years that White’s and Draper’s accounts are more propaganda than history.” (Galileo Goes to Jail. pg.1,2,6

Indeed, White is one of the principle characters responsible for the lies and false ideas that have spread opposing science and religion. Again, there were virtually no atheists involved in the founding of modern science. Atheism offers no grounds for any belief in any kind of science whatsoever. Atheism has no reason to believe the universe is ordered and understandable.

FACT: 65% of all Nobels were won by Christians.

Worse still, the Christian founders of modern science managed to open the world and change world history by developing a method of inquiry into the natural world based on that which is allegedly “diametrically opposed” to everything they believed! Thus making the founding of modern science a MIRACLE.

The ignorance and stupidity of claiming science and religion are opposed, is thus revealed to be simply astonishing.



Theistic Evolution?


The truth? “Theistic evolution” is an even bigger farce than materialist Neo-Darwinian evolution. Just as all the materialist Darwinists say when the poor theistic evolutionist has his back turned and they’re being truthful and saying what they really think.

“Theistic evolution” is an insult to Jesus Christ and the gospel. It implies that Christ is the descendant of some ancient extinct ape, and going further back, the descendant of some single-celled, barely more than goo, less than bacteria, unknown entity. This borders on blasphemy.

Darwinian evolution itself is the greatest blunder and shame in the history of science.
It has been proved wrong so many times it isn’t funny. Yet the deeply deceived Darwinians persist in claiming that it’s “as proved as gravity”. By which they mean mere micro-evolution and through which they wrongly pretend that macro-evolution is an extension.

They could not possibly be more wrong, as all the recent evidence tells us loud and clear. Macro, which in the correct definition, occurs above the taxonomic Family, has exactly zero evidence of ever having occurred and less than zero observation in the real world. Macro-evolution is an imaginary tale worthy of the worst fiction.

Indeed, the evidence is utterly lacking, so what have the Darwinians done to save their precious hypothesis? They did what they always do – move the goalposts, redefine the meaning of macro so that it includes everything above the mere species level. Frauds.

Here’s what that means:


Seriously? This redefinition of what macro-evolution is, implies that more than 90% of all evolution, is macro-evolution! Which is supposed to mean MAJOR change, not trivial change or mere variation and adaptation within the Family. In other words, the Darwinists have basically redefined macro-evolution almost right out of existence, since it includes virtually everything in the taxonomic classification.

Oh, the dishonesty! And curiously, under the new definition, all creationists are in fact Darwinists. Such slight of hand should make the Darwinians red in the faced ashamed of themselves.  Eliminate the opposition by defining him as part of your own camp. The cowardice and fraud in this are stunning.

The ONLY reasons why Darwinian evolution, by which I mean the Modern Synthesis, persists are religious reasons, not scientific ones. And the only reason theistic evolution has arisen among so many misinformed, misguided Christians and others, is because they can’t handle the peer-pressure of being mocked and ridiculed for claiming special creation is true, or else because they are incompetent in research and poor logicians, failing to see the blatant contradictions.

Or, they simply have been deceived by the way Darwinists are always pulling rabbits out of their magic hat and claiming proof of something. Smoke and mirrors have always been the major evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution. Precious little real evidence exists and all real evidence only supports minor, microevolution. The Darwinians simply gratuitously extrapolate that into macro, and without any scientific warrant for it. Yet much scientific evidence warrants against it.

Theistic evolutionists are the worst in many ways. They are maligned and mocked both by creationists and materialist evolutionists. Poor befuddled souls. They are stuck between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”. Sandwiched between wanting to cling to Christianity and yet not wanting to feel stupid by rejecting what needs to be rejected just because it’s the status quo.

There is a cross to bear for upholding creation and rejecting Darwinism. They will not carry that cross. And that belies their true state of heart.

They have adopted a new religion, all while giving lip service to Christianity. Neo Darwinism is religion and that is why it still remains, in spite of the massive evidence against it and in spite of so many top-level evolutionists abandoning it.

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality… Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.*” -Michael Ruse (atheist evolutionist), “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post, May 13, 2000, p. B-3

“History will ultimately judge neo-darwinisim as “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuation of Anglo-Saxon biology.” In her view proponents of the standard theory “wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin – having mistaken him… Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection), is a complete funk.”
– Lynn Margulis – late professor of biology, University of Massachusetts

“Today, many evolutionists assume that a large number of small mutations can account for macroevolution. This conclusion is not based on experimental evidence, but on the assumption that the evidence for microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution. The empirical evidence, however, is clear — neither macromutations nor micromutations can provide a significant source of new genetic information.
Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or tissues” (Margulis and Sagan, 2002, 11). What it eventually leads to is sickness and death.”

Margulis, when president of Sigma Xi, added that “many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation (purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life. . . . `No!’ I say” (Lynn Margulis, late biologist and member of the National Academy of Sciences, 2006, 194).

She also stated, “New mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”

Former wife of Carl Sagan, she exposed the truth in her book Acquiring Genomes:
“Many ways to induce mutations are known but none lead to new organisms. . . . Even professional evolutionary biologists are hard put to find mutations, experimentally induced or spontaneous, that lead in a positive way to evolutionary change” (Lynn Margulis, Acquiring Genomes)

Only ignorant and gullible people or stubborn, religiously devout evolutionists still believe in the neo Darwinian fairy tale.

If Darwinian evolution had been treated correctly, treated according to the much-touted but little-practiced claim of science’s self-correction, it would have been relegated to the garbage dump of pseudo-scientific nonsense decades ago.

Theistic evolutionists are in the worst possible position, trying to have God and Darwin simultaneously. Even though Darwinism and the gospel are diametrically opposed. Nothing degrades the value of human life like Darwinism does. The poor misguided theistic evolutionists are obliged to turn a blind eye to that fact. They are obliged to adopt the Darwinian mode while pretending not to know what it means.

The real Darwinians know exactly what it means. As the late William Provine wrote:

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.”

“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

How can it get more obvious? It cannot. Yet theistic evolutionists love to lie to themselves pretending that this is not the case at all!

Ruse and Wilson wrote it more clearly (my Caps):

“The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles.’ The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will… In an important sense, ETHICS AS WE UNDERSTAND IT IS AN ILLUSION fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding… ETHICS IS ILLUSORY inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place. – Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991.

The crux of the evolutionary biology position indeed.

Even Niles Eldridge stated,

“Darwin did more to secularize the Western world than any other single thinker in history.” – Niles Eldredge

For sure. Let the dishonest theistic evolutionists wake up and smell the lies they are pushing for Darwin, all contrary to the truth of their alleged Christianity.



An Atheist Claims that Personal Testimony is Invalid

In response to a Christian posting a personal testimony as a reason for their faith an atheist wrote,

“personal testimony is also invalid. People are quite capable of being delusional”.

Really? This is yet another example of the atheists’ inability to reason correctly and to thus contradict himself in the most glaring manner.

The courts of justice everywhere on earth rely enormously on personal testimony for solving cases from theft to fraud to murder.  Remove the eyewitness personal testimony and you have demolished a humongous part of the entire legal system.  Worse, if personal testimony is invalid, then this atheists’ own personal testimony is also invalid and should not be considered worthy of credence. If personal testimony is invalid then we have little or no reason to believe anything at all, including scientific discovery, and of course including the atheist delusion.

The entire world of reality is based on personal testimony. Scientific knowledge – that which is considered fact – is based on personal testimony as well.  No personal testimony equals no belief in anything historic events and no belief in anything scientific. Since all of it is transmitted through personal testimony, in the form of words, books, …

Thus with this claim the, theist just destroyed every possibility for real knowledge. How do we know anything in the history books is factual? Personal testimonies.
How do we know anything that scientists claim is factual? Personal testimonies of many scientists.



We can never prove much without some degree of personal testimony.  If personal testimony is invalid then we can NEVER convince anyone of anything anyone claims happened in their own life, based on their own personal testimony.

“People are quite capable of being delusional,”

Indeed. But of course, the poor atheist here forgets that he may be quite delusional himself. He forgets that we may justifiably consider him to be delusional.  Why should anyone, therefore, believe anything the atheist say?!

How foolish can you get? Typically new atheist foolish that’s how. This poor befuddled atheist just ruined all possibility of debate on any issue s8ince all debate is verbal or written testimony to ones’ knowledge.  It is irrational to exclude a major means of obtaining knowledge in the world without excluding oneself in the process.

This is so typical of the skeptics’ arrogance, so visible in discussion forums these days. Always so sure of their own intelligence, all while making blatant errors of reason like this poor soul did, shooting himself in the foot in the process.


Abiogenesis is impossible

Abiogenesis is basically the belief that life arose from non-life through some unknown, theoritcal, hypothetical, unobservable, untestable and unfalsifiable chemical process.  I call it a belief  because it certainly isn’t science or scientific in any way at all.

World renown scientist, synthetic organic chemist, James Tour refutes every idea that the materialists and evolutionists have come up with that attempts to turn rocks into life by magic. In this lecture video,

Dr. Tour makes it abundantly clear why abiogenesis does not and cannot ever explain the origin of life.

I have always thought that abiogenesis was nothing more than yet another lame attempt by neo Darwinain fundamentalists, and other materialist evolutionists, to throw quack science smoke and mirrors at the world to try to fool us into believing that you can life from “the backs of crystals”, as Daniel Dennett so naively and ignorantly believes (without a shadow of evidence).  Abiogenesis is simply the old defunct “spontaneous generation” minus the spontaneous part. What a crock! And yet so many people have swallowed that pseudo-scientific codswallop!

It’s truly amazing to witness the mental twists, somersaults and pseudo-intellectual acrobatics that Darwinists and atheists will contort themselves into just to preach anything at all, no matter how ridiculous and risible, as long as it isn’t God.

Thank God it doesn’t work. It never has and never will. If you can prove that 1 + 1 can equal something other than 2, then maybe someday you’ll be able to show that an unguided, chance, material origin of life is possible, … in some other imaginary universe where 1 + 1 might = 3.5 for unknown and inexplicable (and dubious) reasons. Atheists are always inventing imaginary universes where their bland and naive dreams come true and nothing creates everything.



Who Invented the Macro vs Micro Evolution Terms?

Many times when discussing evolution with avid neo Darwinists online, I encounter the claim that “there’s no such thing as micro vs macro, they’re both the same, and it was dishonest creationists who invented the false distinction”. This is so common that I feel obliged to comment on it.

The reality is this:

“Yuri Filipchenko (Russian: Юрий Филипченко; sometimes spelled Philipchenko) (1882 — 1930) was a Russian entomologist who coined the terms microevolution and macroevolution, as well as the mentor of geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky”
– wikipedia

So there you have it. Macroevolution and microevolution are two terms coined by a Darwinian evolutionist.

Filipchenko was a Darwinist. Not a creationist. So this bogus claim by fervent Darwinians is just tragically ironic, hypocritical and based on their own willful ignorance. The worst is that the last time this false claim was handed to me I was the one treated as dishonest and worse for drawing the opponents’ attention to the fact that micro does not equal macro and macro is not extended micro. The real problem is all these deeply ignorant Darwinists running around parroting each other without ever bothering to verify their claims. I see this kind of mindless recitation of the Darwinian fundaementalist balony catechism constantly. They often act like mindless robots. Every time they stumble upon some statement from some equally clueless Darwinist site, they run with ball, going to the wrong end of the field and they inevitably score against themselves when better informed people catch them in their incompetence.

It is a sign of indoctrination, of brainwashing, when people do this automatic, verbatim, and thoughtless repetition of ubiquitous catch phrases and buzzwords. Indeed, as one physics professor confessed,

“And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.”
– Singham, Mark, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

So he has no problem brainwashing his students?  Seriously? What is wrong with that person? I bet it’s hard to pronounce.

The following depicts how this really works.

Darwinists typically use a bait and switch tactic when attempting to convince people of their pet theory.  While using the word evolution as meaning changes in allele frequencies in a population over time, they will then switch to the major changes above the taxonomic Family level.  The unwary audience thus sees macro in their minds while the actual laboratory evidence that is seen is ever and always only small, trivial variation.  The two different terms exist because there is indeed a distinction, else why bother? What use would such distinctions be if there really were no distinction in reality?

Here I quote the late WllliamProvine,  Cornell University historian of science and evolutionary biologist, stated that

“[e]very assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false”:“1. natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . . .
4. Evolution of phenotypic characters such as eyes and ears, etc, was a good guide to protein evolution: or, protein evolution was expected to mimic phenotypic evolution.
5. Protein evolution was a good guide to DNA sequence evolution. Even Lewontin and Hubby thought, at first, that understanding protein evolution was the key to understanding DNA evolution.
6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution.
8. definition of “species” was clear[–]the biological species concept of dobzhansky and mayr.
9. speciation was understood in principle.
10. evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to the origin of life, or in other words, evolution produces a tree of life.

11. Inheritance of acquired characters was impossible in biological organisms.
12. Random genetic drift was a clear concept and invoked constantly whenever population sizes were small, including fossil organisms.
13. The evolutionary synthesis was actually a synthesis.”
– William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.

Notice point 7, which I emphasized with bold, capitalized text. Darwinists would do well to note every point there. No, my Darwinian friends, macro evolution is not a mere extension of microevolution.  Provine is not alone. Today dishonest Darwinists, attempting to perform one of their standard moves – moving the goalposts – have changed the definition of macroevolution so that it is in fact merely microevolution, occurring at the species level. By very definition, macroevolution cannot be mere species level evolution. Macro requires major changes, the creation of new taxonomic familes, not mere variation and adaptation. As Provine noted, the definition species isn’t even clear and speciation is not even fully understood!

“The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.” – Bert Thompson, Ph.D., microbiology.

“Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species. The decisive step in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method than that of sheer accumulation of micromutations” (GOLDSCHMIDT 1940).

Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.
Andrew M. Simons, “The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution,”Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.

A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution — whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.”

“The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution claims to be able to explain this type of evolution in terms of random mutations, Mendelian genetics, and natural selection. But even within the mechanistic framework of thought, it is by no means agreed that this type of small-scale or micro-evolution within a species can account for the origin of species themselves, or genera, families and higher taxonomic divisions. One school of thought holds that all large scale or macro-evolution can be explained in terms of long-continued processes of micro-evolution; the other school denies this, and postulates that major jumps occur suddenly in the course of evolution. But while opinions within mechanistic biology differ as to the relative importance of many small mutations or a few large ones in macroevolution, there is general agreement that these mutations are random, and that evolution can be explained by a combination of random mutation and natural selection. However, this theory can never be more than speculative.
The evidence for evolution, primarily provided by the Fossil Record, will always be open to a variety of interpretations. For example, opponents of the mechanistic theory can argue that evolutionary innovations are not entirely explicable in terms of chance events, but are due to the activity of a creative principle unrecognized by mechanistic science. Moreover, the selection pressures which arise from the behaviour and properties of living organisms themselves can be considered to depend on an inner organizing factor which is essentially non-mechanistic. Thus the problem of evolution cannot be solved conclusively.”
– Sheldrake R., “A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance,” [1981], Park Street Press: Rochester VT, 1995, reprint, p.24

Notice the dates on some of these statements. This is not new. So the question arises, “Why do so many Darwinists still persist in insisting that macro = extended micro?” And the answers to that are of a religious nature and due to gratuitous propaganda – read outright lying – spread by many in the Darwinian camp. Here is the standard taxonomy classification chart example.

Species is at the bottom! So how can these dishonest Darwinists claim that macroevolution occurs AT or above the species level? It’s ludicrous, because under that definition, micro and macro are occurring as exactly the same thing! No distinction. Even the logic is horrible.

As science philosopher, Michael Ruse wrote,

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality… Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” ~ Michael Ruse, How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000

Anyone who has had the displeasure of attempting to reason with staunch evolutionists knows all too well the religious zeal that characterizes the Darwinian fundamentalist today. Thus, giving credence to Ruse’s statement. A very honest and open comment indeed from an atheist evolutionist! The worst is that even in the face of testimony from highly regarded scientists in the evolutionism camp, they still cling tightly to their sacred creeds like the poor befuddled soul that clings to his seat on a falling aircraft, in desperation thinking it will save him.

Back when I was a flight instructor, I was flying an ultralight aicraft, with a student learning to fly.  On that day the lesson was stalls. Basic stalling of a fixed-wing aircraft is usually taught by means of cutting power and then pulling the back on the joy stick, thus raising the plane’s nose.  When the aircraft reaches about a 16 degree angle of attack, the wing is no longer able to create enough lift to keep the plane flying. Then the nose of the plane dips suddenly and radically downward.  It’s kind of like the sensation of falling in one of amusement park rides.  If the stall is done with lots of power on, the results are far more dramatic with a violent nose dive.

Ultralight aircraft – Eipper, MX2

Well, I was leading the student through his first stall, explaninig what I was doing and such until the nose was nicely up and the speed lowered to where the stall occurred and the nose of the plane dropped suddenly earthward.  The student was so frightened by the sudden drop and plunge towards dear mother earth (remember that this is an early ultralight aircraft where you’re basically sitting on a lawn chair, 2000 feet up, with no doors, no floor, right out in midair, strapped to a simple airframe, two wings and a small motor) that he panicked and grabbed onto one of the structural beams of the plane, holding on for dear life, with a face as white as snow.  I couldn’t help but chuckle a bit.  It seems that sometimes flight instructors have a  slight saddistic joy in seeing students turn white as ghosts – just like we did ourselves in the beginning. It kind of “smells like victory” and feels like conquest.

Back on the ground, I explained to the student that it was not a dangerous move and that clinging to structual compenent would never save him in a real fall, since he was hanging on to a part of the falling plane. It was a useless act. One of panic and not of intelligence.

Now this example is very similar to Darwinists who, even in the face of testimony from highly regarded scientists in the evolutionism camp (not creationists), still cling tightly to their doctrine like the poor befuddled student clinging to a falling aircraft, in desperation thinking it will save him.

It won’t. Macro is not an extrapolation of micro. Get over it Darwinists.





Intelligent Religion: it’s not a contradiction

The book “Intelligent Religion: it’s not a contradiction”, is available on Amazon:

Canadian site:
USA site:

Religion is blamed for almost everything wrong in the world these days. Is that justified? Religion has a very bad name but is that deserved? Sometimes it is, but only when referring to man-made, organized religion. Otherwise, everyone is inherently religious in the sense of having a worldview, a set of beleifs about “life, the universe and everything”, a set of moral principles and ideological convictions.

Is religion, in itselfm a human folly? Did man create God in his own image?
Or are religion, faith, spirituality as natural a phenomenon as breathing?

Is it all madness based on fairy tales and myths or something intelligent based on reality and facts?
I’ve offered concrete, well researched, logic, sciecne and history based answers in this book.

It’s full of great information for theistic apologists, skeptics looking for honest answers and even atheists ready to look honestly at the facts.
The information will understand much better the logical and simple explanations that will remove the confusion. The book covers, for example,

• Why the world has been religious since the dawn of time
• The true sources of what people think about it today, often without realizing it
• A simple and universal definition of what religion is that everyone can agree on
• The unavoidable relationship between politics and religion
• Why the creation of a completely secular society is impossible
• Logical and scientific evidence of the existence of a supreme being
• Why atheism can never be a substitute for real religion
• The function of humanitarian aid which must be a main function of any valid religion
• Has God really acted in human history?
• And more !

Chapter summary:

Chapter 1
What is religion, exactly?
Let’s be logical
A religion of love
Chapter 2
Religion and atheism
Does a universal morality exist?
Is atheism a religion?
Atheism is a belief
Atheism is concerned with the existence of God
Atheism contradicts itself
Real atheism or religion, you must choose
Chapter 3
If there is a God, Religion makes sense
Typical evidence of the existence of God
The cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
The argument based on information
Information and symbols
Genetics and algorithms
Genetics and arithmetic
Origin of life and evolution
The argument from morality
The error of relativism
Origin of the moral law
Other arguments
Evidence of the non-existence of God
Chapter 4Religion and politics? God forbid!
Wars of religion?
Is a purely secular government possible?
God and the State according to the Bible
Chapter 5
God and Religion in history: Divine interventions?
Joshua and the long day
The prayer of General Patton
Bullet-proof George Washington
The face of the Lamb
Life after death: Diane Komp , Carl Jung, Howard Storm and many others
Chapter 6
Religion and Education
Secular humanism
The hidden face of school programs
Chapter 7
Religion and Social Missions

Check it out, in either digital or hard copy. It’s priced low to make this ifnormation available to even the lowest budget.



Bronze Age Goat Herders?

How many times have I heard ignorant atheists tell me that the bible was written by “bronze age goat herders”, with the obvious implication that “therefore it is unreliable, and mostly ignorant junk”? Well, I can’t count the times. You’d think that at least some of these poor folks would have the brains and honesty and at least some minor competence in researching things before opening their mouths and revealing their ignorance. Nope. I guess that would be too much to ask for.

Does that insult the poor atheist that parrots this kind of tripe while thinking himself “smart”?
Well, you deserve it. Get a proper education. Get informed. Learn some honesty and do some unbiased research. Stop being such an intellectually lazy bum.
Do the world a favor. Do yourself a favor. Stop embarrassing yourself in front of every informed person reading your misguided attempts at sounding smart.

Historical FACTS on some of the bible authors:

Moses wrote the 1st five books of the bible.  Moses was a prince, brought up in the Egyptian Pharaoh’s courts and educated in all the knowledge of science, history, religion, philosophy, language, architecture and military strategy that the people who built the Pyramids possessed. Moses was also the commander of the Egyptian armies.
Does that sound like a bronze age goat herder to you?
If so then you exemplify how foolish atheists are who make this kind of diatribe up.

Enoch was a high king over many other kings and called “the scribe” for his recording of historical events.

Abraham was a prince of Chaldea, the so-called cradle of civilization, having learned the knowledge of the Chaldeans and Babylonians who built Babylon. Isaac and Jacob were educated in his house. He moved to Canaan and, like every other well educated prince of his time, he large herds of cattle.  Sure they had cattle. Almost EVERYBODY did back then! Ninety-five % of the population in ancient societies were agricultural. So does that mean they were uneducated? Totally wrong. And talk about ludicrous “logic”. How in heaven’s name do these ill-reasoning people equate being a cattle rancher and/or an agriculturalist with uneducated or ignorant or stupid? Not by any known logical means, that’s for certain. Ergo, they are just tragically ignorant website nonsense and ignorance herders, less knowledgeable than most of the biblical authors they so naively mock.

Moreover, virtually every Jewish child had to learn and often memorize the Torah and often learn the commentaries of the principle doctors of the Torah on it.  Guess what atheists? That is almost the ancient equivalent to a law school degree.

Lawrence Krauss is one of the disingenuous jokers that proffers and parrots – like a mindless robot – such ignorance-based statements.  Believe it or not Mr. Krauss, there were no supermarkets, grocery stores, general stores, shopping malls back then. People raised their own cattle and grew their own food.  Ever tried it?

And look at this – these same ancient people also invented language, writing, science, history recording, architecture, medicine, developed mathematics, …

David was a highly educated king of Israel, a brilliant military strategist and leader.
Solomon is still viewed as among the wisest and richest men that ever lived. Anyone with a decent brain can read his Proverbs and recognize deep psychological understanding of human nature and good practical wisdom.

Here’s why atheists so often have such problems with this. If “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”, then the rejection of the Lord is the beginning of insanity. Indeed. Atheism is little better than denial of reality.

I continue.  Nehemiah was king Artaxerxes’ cup-bearer.

“This, with the Persians, was reckoned a very honourable office (g). A son of Prexaspes, a very honourable man, was made cupbearer to Cambyses; and so it was with the Greeks and Romans (h); and the poets not only make Ganymedes to be Jupiter’s cupbearer (i,but even Vulcan himself is put into this office (k).
(g) Herodot. Thalia, sive, l. 3. c. 34. Xenophon. Cyropaedia, l. 5. c. 36. (h) Vid. Athenaei Deipnosophist. l. 10. (i) Homer. Iliad. 21. ver. 234. (k) Homer. Iliad. 1. prope finem.” – John Gill

Most of the Hebrew prophets were well educated priests. All priests were required a thorough education in the law.

Daniel was the first counselor and advisor to the greatest kings on earth, the Persians, the Babylonians and the Medes, far surpassing all the other advisors in knowledge and wisdom – wisdom, something the new atheists and their merry band of sheep-like disciples and dupes have none of.

Luke, author of the gospel of that name and the book of Acts, was a physician and acclaimed historian.

Paul was a respected doctor of Law and leader among the Jewish people of his time.

These ignorant atheists like Krauss, Coyne, Dawkins, Harris et al., are in dire need of getting informed and getting rid of their childishly naive and fatuous claims.  Indeed, as even atheist philosopher Michael Ruse pointed out,

“Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing”

Ruse at least has honesty, integrity and proper reasoning skills plus extensive knowledge of the issues. Sadly, the gullible and those too lazy to do their homework among the public, and who swallow the intellectual codswallop that those imposters preach like the most fervent TV evangelists out for your money, are suckers for these old baloney-brain “goat herder” lies.