Scientific Atheism

I just discovered a web page called “Scientific Atheism”.
Needless to say, I was a little stunned and appalled at the idiotic implied claim of atheism being scientific or atheism having any relation to science.
Let us be perfectly clear. There is absolutely no such thing as “scientific atheism”. Science, real science, is contrary to atheism is every way.
All the founders of modern science were theists, mostly Christians. Contrary to popular but ignorance-based objections by atheists to this fact, they all based their science on their belief in a personal God with an intelligible universe. Yes, their theism had everything to do with their science.
As C.S. Lewis rightly stated, 
“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died [I would say has been subtly slaughtered by the idiocy of materialism and secular humanism]…” M. D. Aeschliman C. S. Lewis on Mere Science 1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998)
Atheism is in fact, the real anti-science. As we see more and more today.
Scientist W.R. Thompson wrote,
“The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This is already evident in the reckless statements of Haeckel and in the shifty, devious and histrionic argumentation of T. H. Huxley… This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion.”— W.R. Thompson, “Introduction,” to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin’s, Origin of Species (1956 edition).
The situation has only worsened since that was written.
Indeed. We now have an unobservable, unverifiable multiverse, for example, spoken of as though it really exists. We have major name scientists making ludicrous statements like Lawrence Krauss’ and pals, “A Universe from Nothing”.  We have the whole Darwinian theory that is a major disaster in the history of science. We have dozens of purely speculative hypotheses being passed off as though valid theories or even facts.  We have naive theories on star formation and planet formation that are full of insurmountable problems, yet passed off as facts in many science documentaries, magazines, and journals. 
The agnostic physicist David Berlinski has written a poignant critique of this kind of foolishness in his book “The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions“.
On the inside cover of the book, intro­ducing his subject, he wrote, 

“Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe and why it is here?
Not even close.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual con­tempt?
Dead on.”

Atheism accords absolutely no reason why we should expect law and order and a comprehensible universe and thus no reason for any science at all. If this trend keeps up, the end of pure, rational, observation and logic-based science is in sight. And it will not end well.
Indeed, atheism provides no reason to even believe the universe is rational. A universe without a rational maker should not itself be rational. It has no rationality behind it. Bags of meat, rocks and stars are not rational. Nature is not rational. Rationality itself, just like morality (Wilson, Ruse), in atheism is nothing but an illusion of the brain which according to atheism, evolved of non-rational processes.

As Francis Crick put it,

“The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing”. (p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons

Really? If atheism is true then yes. But then he should have added that your science and your logic are also nothing but a pack of neurons, the results of a vast assembly of nerve cells and thus have no relation to reality.
That page, and all others like it, should be assailed by knowledgeable theists, debunking the foolishness of the “scientific atheism” nonsense. There is no such thing. It is the latest atheist delusion.
atheism bleak

Epidemic Insanity

It doesn’t require much observation to see that there is an appalling and seriously frightening contagion of virtual insanity spreading throughout the West today. It’s worse than any black plague because it destroys lives in much more subtle ways and because it impoverishes and destroys societies.  Over the past decade or so, this phenomenon has spread like wildfire, infecting every level of society.  More and more psychologists are speaking up against the insane ideas being pushed on society – invariably by the liberal-minded media and it’s disciples of posthumanism. Many are saying that liberalism is a mental illness in itself while other say that liberalism creates mental illness. And of course, they are right. Insanity starts with the denial of reality. Denial of reality is everywhere today.

What is the evidence for this?

  • The wide spreading of ideas that are entirely contrary to reality

    • Take the whole transgender fad.  Biology, Mother Nature, dictates gender and always has. Gender cannot be simply decided by the human being. DNA, chromosomes, determine gender in an irreversible and undeniable manner. A man pretending to be a woman trapped in a man’s body or vice-versa is not only bucking reality – demonstrated en masse by modern scientific research – but they are engaging themselves in a serious psychological delusion and confusion that will cause them endless suffering. Their DNA tells their gender in no uncertain terms.The only way to change gender would be to re-write ones’ genetic code, one’s DNA. And even then, it is a fraud that Nature itself will resist because of all the genetic mechanisms in place in the genome that detect and correct replication and other errors. Genetic anomalies are quite another issue and they too are known to be ANOMALIES. Not natural or good.
      Human chromosomes, male vs female karyotype, illustration

      And even if that were possible, that in itself would be an act of a delusional person who fails to accept their real genetic nature, their natural identity. In this rising and spreading disease of the mind and soul, it is almost surprising that all those people who vehemently accused creationists and IDists and anyone even just skeptical of neo Darwinian evolution of being “anti-science” are now the ones resisting and denying the very science they claim to support beyond all else. The irony is stunning. As always the materialists contradict themselves everywhere.

      Moreover, any doctors and other medical professionals encouraging any person to go for a so-called “sex-change” operation is an accomplice in increasing that person’s suffering and promoting their confused and delusional state. They know very well that switching out sex organs and such will never rewrite that persons biological sex as recorded in their DNA. Thus, for filthy lucre, these immoral physicians are actually contributing to and multiplying the insanity of such operations and their underlying false beliefs, so contradicted by Nature itself. Shame on them! They are frauds of the worst kind, deceiving already confused and mentally ill people and condemning them to live in a body with sexual organs that do NOT comply with that person’s DNA! It is criminal!

    • Everything that was written above can also be applied to the deluded souls who think they are other species trapped in human bodies.  Like the young woman who claims to be a cat in a human body or all these insane men who act like dogs, being led around on all fours, on leashes and allowing themselves to be abused like animals. The same genetic reasons apply here only on a much larger scale. We have young people getting plastic surgery to alter their appearances to look like “aliens” – though none of them have ever seen an alien and none of them have any clue what an alien may or may not look like- supposing they even exist! It is pure INSANITY. And yet all the mindless liberals push this mental illness as though it were actually healthy.
    • We are seeing more and more denial of known historical facts spreading with a stunning degree of vehemence.  Tearing down and destroying old statues, banning flags that in fact had and have nothing to do with any immoral behavior and on and on the insanity goes.For this, I could name the irrational new racism with all its ugly consequences and ridiculous claims. Nonsense like “white supremacy”, “white privilege” and such.  This is revisionist history, not real history. This is harping away at things that occurred centuries ago and that were well on their way to completely disappearing from Western and European society.

      The truth? Between 620,000 and 750,000 white people died to stop slavery in the American South. Slavery was ended in England in 1833 by white people. Yet this fact is ignored completely and a reversed racism is now in full swing – blacks becoming extreme racists against whites. For this we may blame the Obama’s for their rank and often not so subtle racist comments against whites. We may blame the lying, manipulating lamestream media for fanning every possible flame of racism, perpetually playing the racist card against every little criticism of Obama’s NWO pushing regime. We can blame bigoted hate-mongers like Oprah Winfrey who has openly said that “old white people must die”. That is a murderous spirit. A demon by any other name.  And anyone who is paying attention knows who is really behind all this. The Globalists, the self-proclaimed “elites”, who are, in fact, only “elite” in their treacherous evil scheming for their own power and wealth.

      In an era where racism was coming to be almost non-existent, these people fanned the flames of a new kind of racism – that of blacks against whites. As though any living person today was involved in any of the old conflicts or slave trade. The new racists also completely ignore the fact that Canada was a haven, a refuge for fleeing slaves during all that time. Canadians, majority white, received and helped fleeing slaves reestablish themselves in new lives.

      Racism – as though the measure of melanins in body chemistry has anything at all to do with one’s character or value. More melanin means darker color – be it eyes, hair or skin. Less means lighter color. So all this hate and violence promoted and spread by these diabolical people is all about how much of this chemical is in your body?! Not really. They are using this simply as yet another tool to force the world towards their selfish, egomaniacal NWO.

      One curious and contradictory element in this the fact the slavery, throughout history, and still today, has most especially and abundantly been practiced under Islam! All while the people screaming against racism and complaining of events resolved more a century ago, today are also screaming for more Islamic “refugees” (generally Jihadis pretending to be real refugees).  Islam is radically anti-feminism, yet the Western feminist rally in support of it! This is quite literally insane. It’s like the person who lobbies against rape, rallying in support of more rapists coming into their neighborhood.  The same applies to the whole “gay” agenda. They rally for Islam, all while Islam murders gays by burning them alive or throwing them off buildings. This is literal insanity.


      Just as bad is the fact that Darwinian evolution is inherently racist in nature. Even though, in the wake of the revelations of Nazi plans for world conquest post-WWI, that their “scientific” justification for the “supreme race” and the “artificial selection” to exterminate the “inferior” races, we still see very few souls courageous enough and knowledgeable enough to speak the truth on this issue. And all the while evolutionism is heralded by both black and white! Hitler called blacks “monstrosities” and he worked closely with Islamic leaders to eliminate the “subhuman” – less evolved – Jews. The contradictions are indeed insane. The evolutionists devised a subtle means of escaping the implications against themselves by making one fundamental adjustment – moving the goal posts – in their theory. They changed it from polyphyletic (all races descended from variously evolved lineages) to monophyletic (all races evolved from a single hominid lineage which split into various races but all equally evolved).  And that is a trick, contested by many more honest evolutionists to this day.

    • And what shall we say of morality? This is truly amazing. We have seen a complete reversal of moral values in less than 40 years. That which was known to morally wrong for centuries is now morally good and that which was known to be morally sound for centuries is now called evil. It is stunning to behold. All well-informed people know the cause – materialism with its religion of Secular Humanism – the new creation myth called evolutionism and the many branches that have been spawned and spread based upon these godless and in fact, irrational beliefs based entirely on rebellion against Nature itself and against God.
  • The troubling phenomenon of people who cannot think for themselves and seem to have poor logical coherence in their ideas as well as the blatant spread of what I call “educated illiteracy”.It is all too obvious, just by scanning through social media sites like Facebook, Twitter et al, that far too many people (including the educated) do not know how to spell well, do not grasp plain English well, cannot seem to reason beyond 1st-degree inferences and embark in ludicrous beliefs like the Flat Earth.  A nonsense belief that is itself spreading across the West as though it had any credibility. That in itself is another proof of epidemic insanity – the underlying causes of which are materialism, a deliberately twisted education system specifically designed for  “dumbing us down” and persistent public education as indoctrination into secular humanist religion with evolutionism as its prime, centerpiece axiom. The schools are now the temples of secular humanism, not functioning to produce independent thinkers but brainwashed, sheep, slaves of the governing, oligarch elite, easy to manipulate by mass media propaganda.

    John Dewey stated clearly enough,
    You can’t make Socialists out of individualists — children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.” (tip of the iceberg)

    “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?”
    – Charles F. Potter, “Humanism: A New Religion,” 1930

  • The inversion of normal judicial practice. 
    • How many more cases of judiciary insanity do we need to see before recognizing this contagion, this epidemic?  We see violent rapists and killers being set free by idiot, criminally negligent judges because “In his culture sex with children is approved and rape is normal” or “he was not aware that our laws forbid such behavior and his culture approves it”, or “beating women is not morally wrong in his religion”. Of course all this applies only to Islam! We see the same insane behavior when an investigative reporter is the one been hauled over the proverbial coals of injustice for having exposed the insanely wicked and inhumane practice of Planned Parenthood’s murdering of babies to sell their body parts on the black market. The hero is now the villain and the sick psycho villains are now protected. Again a reversal of sanity. ALL based on the relativism and stupidity of materialism, the evil agenda of the billion dollar abortion industry – follow the money.
    • Then, lastly, for now, I should mention the fact that so many wonderful new technologies are literally being stifled and deliberately kept out of the market all for the sake of big industries that make billions of bucks per year and keeping the old technologies going. The oil industry that too often halts new technologies that would have liberated the world from oil dependence decades ago. The pharmaceutical industry that deliberately stifles and suppresses cures and preventions of wide-spread disease – like cancer – all so it can continue to make billions per year and harmful “cures” that kill more patients than they cure – the radio-chemical treatments that actually destroy the human immune system causing more deaths than the disease itself.  All conveniently kept out of the mainstream spotlight. This too is insanity.

One could go on and on about the epidemic insanity taking hold of the world. It is not difficult to see. One does not need to search high and low to observe it or realize it just with a bit of effort of mind.

God help us.


The lovely looking but poisoned apple of humanism


What Kind of World would Convince us that Atheism is True?

“What kind of world would convince you that there is no God?”

This is a question posed a while back by atheist Jerry Coyne and one that pops up once in a while in debates on theism vs atheism.

And the answer is very simple.

No world at all.
Indeed, no worlds at all, no universe at all – nothing.

That’s the only rational answer. If literally nothing existed then there would be no one to posit either theism or atheism or anything at all and atheism would be true by default since absolute nothing would also mean no God. However, as soon as you have something, atheism becomes untenable. It can never explain the existence of anything and thus it is too weak a proposition to have any use or credibility.

“Nothingness” is atheism in a nutshell. Atheism is the intellectual black hole of the universe.

Nothing made everything in atheism. Some of them try to pretend that atheism does not really make such a preposterous claim. And yet, they will point to Lawrence Krauss who wrote the book, A Universe from Nothing!  And then they will claim that nothing doesn’t really mean nothing. Um, what?! Say again?

To escape the stupidity of his claims Krauss tries to redefine nothing to mean something. In fact, militant atheists like that are always seeking escape tactics like this to hide the insanity of what they’re saying.  But even in their curious definitions of “nothing” their foolish arguments fail miserably. Since they have defined nothing as something, they still must explain how that something that they call nothing (I’m not making this up) came to exist.  Of course. They cannot do any such thing.

Thankfully the hard sciences and math tell us that the energetic potential of nothing is always nothing. This is the most obvious thing in the ‘world’. Indeed, and using atheist “logic”, we could think that 10^1000 x 0 does not equal 0 but some humongous positive number.

Why is there something rather than nothing is something that blind atheism can never explain. Atheism has its own god. The great god Nothing. It is their posited creator and to their creator they think they are going when they die.

You’ve probably heard the ancient proverb that “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom”.  Well, in the inverse, atheism is the beginning of insanity.  Why? Because it is nothing but denial of reality and wishful thinking. And all the laughable and ill-reasoned, junk philosophy of a Coyne or a Dawkins will never change that.

As Voltaire stated, “The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability…..” – Philosophical Dictionary



Atheism is True?

I came across a Facebook page called “Atheism is true”, today. I couldn’t believe it. Even knowing how clueless most modern atheists are I could barely believe that anyone could possibly be that stupid.

The phrase, “atheism is true” is, in fact, a claim to knowledge of a universal negative.
All knowledge claims carry an intrinsic burden of proof. And,

“in truth-directed enquiries, the burden of proof is on all of us alike”
– Putting the Burden of Proof in its Place: When are Differential Allocations Legitimate ? Tim Dare and Justine Kingsbury,

So, pray tell, where oh where is the proof that Atheism is true? Saying “atheism is true” is semantically identical to saying “it is true that there is no God”.
Proof, please? Oops.
Proof of atheism is always AWOL.  And that since the beginning of time.

Ergo – “atheism is true” has to be one of the dumbest claims ever – even by today’s woefully low standards for dumb. It is literally blind faith, the proverbial leap into the dark, the deep dark abyss of human stupidity, the belief without evidence that ignorant atheists wrongly think real faith is. (Real faith is based on good evidence)

And the profile pic is just as clueless.
It’s a photo of the cosmonaut who famously said, “I see no god up here“?
Did anyone expect him to? Nope. Certainly no Xian. (X = the Greel letter chi, not the English x, and the chi was used by early Christians as a symbol of Christ, because the first letter in his Greek title is the chi – X)

The man who did more than any other to put man on the moon, Werner von Braun stated,

“…as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all… My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?”

“When astronaut Frank Borman returned from his unforgettable Christmas, 1968, flight around the moon with Apollo 8, he was told that a Soviet Cosmonaut recently returned from a space flight had commented that he had seen neither God nor angels on his flight. Had Borman seen God? the reporter inquired. Frank Borman replied, “No, I did not see Him either, but I saw His evidence.”
– Dr. Wernher von Braun

It’s tragic that so many atheists are too blind and too narcissistic to grasp anything greater than themselves and often too lazy to think beyond first-degree inferences. Tragically, atheists are usually their own little gods. And also, all too often, either terrible logicians or just dishonest people – even lying to their own selves. This is one reason why we say that “it’s just 99% of all atheists that give such a bad reputation to the rest”.

newton-bible and atheism

Consensus Science?

I often have Darwinians tell me something like that “98% of all scientists believe in evolution” (the neo Darwinian or the modern synthesis). They think that this is somehow convincing and ought to settle the issue. It doesn’t. Not even remotely close. Indeed, these same people tell me whenever I quote from some scientist, including those in their own camp, that I’m using a fallacy known as “argument from authority” and then they dismiss the quoted statement as though it is meaningless.

What to do? Well, I am forever obliged to remind them that their own claim that “98% of all scientists accept the theory of evolution” is itself an appeal to authority. The blindness (or hypocrisy) is almost comical.  I ask them what authority they themselves are specifically appealing to in claiming that evolution, i.e. neo-Darwinism, has been “as proved as gravity”, as they love to parrot robotically. Invariably they have no good answer.

Occasionally I get a link to say, the Berkley U. page on evolution for laymen or the equivalent. That’s it. Nothing more substantial, specific or genuinely useful. Just the usual empty assertions, just-so stories, terrible logic and baseless leaps of faith Darwinists are so famous for. The reason for this is because almost none of them even know what to point to! Oh, but they are still adamantly sure that proof exists somewhere in science land!

I have noticed over the years that most Darwinian scientists believe that somewhere, some other scientist has proof of the theory. They never have any of their own so they imagine that it must exist in some other scientists’ lab somewhere. Here’s another clue for you all, it doesn’t.

Even the PhDs send me to some peer-reviewed article inevitably demonstrating some trivial, microevolutionary experiment. I have to constantly remind these folks that pointing me to a molehill does not lead me to deduce Mount EverestAnts building ant hills does not justify extrapolation to ants being the constructors of Everest and certainly not the architects of Mount Rushmore, no matter how many gazillions of years you like to add.

micro to macro evolution

There is no leap of sane logic that can take one from say, antibiotic resistance, to “all ~8 million life forms on earth arose from some hypothetical, unobservable LUCA over billions of unobservable years”. If you didn’t recognize that, it is the Darwinian Evolution of the Gaps. Still the most common argument (fallacy) given us by Darwinists everywhere. We must take the leap of blind faith into the deep dark abyss of their fervid imaginations, jumping from the anthill to Everest, to accept the theory.

In decades of discussion and debate they have never given me anything better than trivial examples of microevolution – which all too often isn’t evolution at all but built-in, pre-programmed adaptation mechanisms coded in the species’ DNA – in their futile attempts to prove macroevolution. Macroevolution means major change crossing taxonomic Family boundaries. And don’t be fooled by their recent “moving the goal posts” redefinition of macro as meaning everything above the species level.  If that were true then more than 90% of all evolution is macroevolution and the distinction between macro and micro is virtually useless. Creationists do not even dispute microevolution!

And of course, they did this redefinition because there is not a grain of evidence for any such macroevolution ever occurring. Hence – redefine macro so that it squeezes in – make the data fit the theory rather than accept that the theory does not fit the data.

Note: I received an objection from a Darwinist on this post. Of course, he did not read it correctly since his objection was basically, “lol macroevolution is the same thing as micro over time”. My reaction was, as usual, being disgusted at how these people don’t even read fully and then push the same old baloney with the ubiquitous LOL included, to pretend to themselves that they “gotcha”.

Well, this is just so wrong. The ignorance these people display is stunning. Worse, he added a lame article by poor thinking, disgruntled atheist fanatic Jerry Coyne which is supposed to prove that micro and macro are the same thing, macro being extended micro. These guys have no clue. Coyne’s article is full of really bad logic. It’s like they cannot keep up with the science and perpetually revert to defunct, early Darwinian beliefs that have long since been disproved. One such belief is the myth that macroevolution is just an extrapolation of micro. I addressed this issue here.  So I’ll repeat some of it.

In short, even in 1940 Goldschmidt wrote, “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”.

Much more recently, the late evolutionary biology prof, William Provine, an avowed atheist and evolutionist 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 . . .
7. Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution.
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..”

– William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.

Notice point # 7 . Provine was correct. We cannot pretend that macro is simply an extension of micro without a scientific warrant – and there is none. Indeed, the evidence tells us it cannot work that way. The genome contains so many restraining factors, error detection & correction mechanisms and poly-constrained data that it always was and still is utter folly to pretend you can just make such gratuitous extrapolations. You can’t.

“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.

“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)

Do you know why evolutionists persist in claiming that micro extends into macro? Because they take it as an article of faith, since no evidence exists for it.

Pointing us to any given article, allegedly proving evolution, is itself an argument from authority. They appeal to their own chosen authority, they appeal to consensus – when it fits their prejudice – all while never even noticing that they are being wonderfully fallacious in their logic and doing what they accuse others of doing.

Worse, arguing from authority is NOT always a fallacy at all! Else the judicial courts would have abandoned doing it centuries ago. Lawyers are constantly making appeals to authority in virtually ever criminal case! The authority of the medical examiner, the forensics labs, the specialized scientist or professional. Appeal to authority is only fallacious when all you have is the word of some “expert” no matter the lack of empirical evidence.

It’s too bad PhDs in biology are not obligatorily required to follow some basic logical analysis and critical thinking courses. It could save us all a lot of wasted time, forever having to explain it to them.

“Historically, *the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled*. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.”
“Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
– Michael Crichton, PhD Harvard, postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies

I wish evolutionists would finally wake up to their own spurious and irrational arguments. Science has NOTHING to do with consensus. “Consensus science” is an oxymoron.



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.