Between the Eyes

Evolution as Religion

Here’s something ironic… The “evidence” supporting evolution is so flimsy; it requires a faith-based belief in assumptions that have never been seen or proven.

Without realizing it, evolutionists have created a kind of “anti-religion.”

Instead of a compassionate God that fashioned us in His own image, evolutionists tell us to put our faith in a dead, godless world. They preach a gospel of chaos. Their world is a place where monkeys magically turn into men. Never mind this transformation has never been observed. Not even once.

But we’re asked to put our faith in a secular god. Even worse, these same evolutionists attack us for having faith of our own.

British philosopher G.K. Chesterton put it this way:

“It is absurd for the evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”1

Mr. Chesterton makes an interesting point. What is more outlandish… believing God created everything out of nothing or believing that all of life appeared out of nowhere?

In spite of evolutionists telling us that religion is for children and the uneducated, they have created their own quasi-religious cult that demands a blind belief in a dark world without love or purpose.

As Christians we can rest our faith in the Bible and the ministry of Jesus Christ. These things are real. They happened. We take refuge in them.

But the cult evolution has no such basis in the real world. Their theory has never been observed. It’s an assumption you have to take for granted. There’s nothing to hang your hat on.

Anthropologist Loren Eiseley points out the irony:

“After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”2

In other words, evolutionists have no proof in today’s world. Initiation into their cult requires the belief that all of this monkeys-into-men magic happened somewhere in the distant past. They press the assumption: There’s no proof it happened back then… but it did.

If this soul-destroying theory existed only in the intellectual world of scientists and university professors, we might rest knowing that it’s sufficiently quarantined.

But it’s not. It’s taught as truth to our children. It takes God out of His creation. As before, I ask you to speak out. Engage others with the facts.

Jeffrey Howard

http://www.disprovedarwin.com

___________

1 Quoted in P.E. Hodgson, review of Chesterton: A Seer of Science, by Stanley L. Jaki, National Review, 5 Jun 1987, 47.

2 Eiseley L. The Immense Journey. New York: Random House, 1957, 199.

Sense at Last

Academic Freedom Bill Sweeps through La. House

By

Alexander J. Sheffrin

Christian Post Reporter

Thu, Jun. 12 2008 03:16 PM ET

The Louisiana House of Representatives voted 94-3 Wednesday to pass a bill that would grant teachers and students the freedom to challenge and examine critically the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom.

The measure, which is expected to cruise easily through the upper house, is the latest measure in a series of “Academic Freedom” bills that have swept across several states, including Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan. A similar measure was also under review in Florida earlier this year before stalling in the state’s legislature.

Lawmakers say that the efforts to pass the bills are a response to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom are marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized.

Louisiana’s version of the bill, the “Science Education Act,” will help to supply teachers with supplementary textbooks that will give greater freedom in the classroom to analyze and critique existing scientific theories concerning evolution.

Supporters of the bill said that the measure would be an important step in securing safe academic environments where “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories” would be welcome.

“This bill promotes good science education by protecting the academic freedom of science teachers,” said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute, in a statement.

Detractors of the bill, however, claim that the recent measure is nothing more than a masked agenda to install religion in schools.

In a statement, Americans United said that it would not rule out legal action against the bill on the grounds of violating the separation of church and state.

“Americans United and other groups contend that [the] ‘supplemental materials’ (textbooks) are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries,” the group said.

“The measure is being pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute and other Religious Right forces,” the group added.

West, however, denies this assertion, noting that the language of the bill is clear, objective, and fair.

“Critics who claim the bill promotes religion instead of science either haven’t read the bill or are putting up a smokescreen to divert attention from the censorship that has been going on,” he said.

“The proposed Louisiana law expressly states in Section 1C that it ‘shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion,’” he continued.

“Americans United conveniently neglects to mention that section of the bill,” he said.
In total, at least six states have considered passing "Academic Freedom" legislation this year, according to the Discovery Institute.

When Intellectuals Try to be Clever...

Editor: I just had to include this story! It justifies my argument against so-called 'research' used to bolster one's unbelief, when there are no actual evidences. Never mind, the man tried! If God is true, then to reject Him is not a sign of intelligence, is it? No, it would be a sign of stupidity and crass ignorance.

Intelligence linked to atheism

By staff writers

June 13, 2008 08:31pm

news.com.au

Decline in religion "linked to rise in intelligence"

• University academics the "most likely" not to believe
• Study portrays religion as "primitive"

PEOPLE with high IQs are less likely to believe in God, according to a new study.

A leading psychology professor at Ulster University said many more "intellectually elite" people in the UK, especially university academics, identified themselves as atheists than the national average.

Prof Richard Lynn said a decline in religious beliefs over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, the Telegraph reported.

The study, published in the academic journal Intelligence, has been called "simplistic" by critics.

Editor: Simplistic isn't the word! How's about 'a waste of time and effort'? There is no scientific way a correlation can be established. There is no mention in the 'study' of the influence of social norms, cultural deviations, lack of opportunity to express alternative arguments, upbringing, peer pressure, and so on. (See below). Nor does the study acknowledge the countless academics who ARE Christians. And what hope does Einstein now have, eh? No wonder he was so stupid.

A survey of Royal Society fellows, the independent academy of science in the UK, found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers.

Editor: Another problem is that the definitions of 'belief', 'believer' and 'God' , are not sharp enough.

A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God, the Telegraph reported.

Editor: Much of this is down to peer pressure and environmental variables, leading to statements of unbelief rather than an examination of the reasons, making any such statement superficial. I know from my own observations that academics think it will kill their careers if they admit to believing in God!

Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with linking intelligence to race and sex, said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts.

"Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God," he told Times Higher Education magazine.

Editor: It is also true that most homosexuals are upper middle class and educated. Does this therefore mean gays are created by their intelligence? In which way is it intelligent to accept and live a lifestyle that kills? Likewise, if you disbelief God because of higher intelligence, in which way is it intelligent to accept a life that includes violence, deviation, tyranny, disease, etc? These, and all evils in society, are caused by refusing to acknowledge God in the Biblical sense. As an academic I have witnessed the 'superiority' of my fellows, as they display sheer arrogance and ignorance about God and Christians. For them, disbelief is a matter of current intellectual fashion, not about truth or reality.

In my analysis and criticism of Thomas Aquinas, I acknowledge the greatness of the man's intellect (but not his Roman Catholic leaning) even though he believed in (the Catholic version of) God 100%. Others, of equal intellectual prowess, have been Christians. And, though I do not accept their religion, Arab intellectuals have been amongst the finest in the world - and they express a belief in Allah. Not the same as 'God' but close enough. Many scientists in the past were Christians, as are many today. This makes the study irrelevant and inaccurate. It is likely the man wants to cocoon himself against doubts about his own doubts about God!

He said religious belief had declined across 137 developed nations in the 20th century at the same time people became more intelligent.

Editor: Wow! This man takes my breath away. How on earth did he come up with this result from such a tiny study? It is a huge blanket statement that is impossible to validate.

Professor Gordon Lynch, director of the Centre for Religion and Contemporary Society at Birkbeck College, London, said the study failed to take account of a complex range of social, economic and historical factors.

"Linking religious belief and intelligence in this way could reflect a dangerous trend, developing a simplistic characterisation of religion as primitive, which - while we are trying to deal with very complex issues of religious and cultural pluralism - is perhaps not the most helpful response," he said.

Dr David Hardman, principal lecturer in learning development at London Metropolitan University, said: "It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief.

Editor: Exactly! It is, in fact, impossible!

"Nonetheless, there is evidence from other domains that higher levels of intelligence are associated with a greater ability - or perhaps willingness - to question and overturn strongly felt institutions."

Fish Tales

Scientists have been chasing after evidence to prove evolution for over 150 years. Every time they get a new lead they proudly announce their latest smoking gun, missing link or unimpeachable evidence that will finally put the doubts to rest.

In the evolution world, this has become a sport. And like most professions, scientists thrive on status and recognition. Anyone looking for advancement, tenure, fame or fortune needs recognition from their peers and the status that comes from new discoveries.

Anyone who questions evolution within the scientific ranks is immediately shot down and blackballed. Ben Stein's movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a great example of this hostile and intolerant environment.

All things considered, this attitude should be expected. After all, evolution is the science world's declaration of victory over God and religion. It's in their best interest to persecute anyone who points out their big blunder. By covering up the flaws they keep their game alive.

But sooner or later, their missing links start to unravel and they end up back at square one. This happened in the 1930s, when one of their so-called links between fish and amphibians was exposed as fantasy.

Darwin believed fish evolved into mammals. But to get there, fish had to become amphibians first. Amphibians are animals that can function both on land and in water. Frogs, toads and salamanders are examples.

For decades, scientists believed the coelacanth - a bony fish - was the link between fish and amphibians. Claiming it had been extinct for 70 million years, they said the fins on this fish were actually limbs in the making.

By projecting their imagination onto fossils of this ancient fish they were able to say, "Hey, look. this fish was growing limbs to prepare itself for life on land."

The scientists believed this wholeheartedly for years. Then in 1938 a fisherman caught a real, live coelacanth off the coast of Africa.

In one afternoon, their "proof" vanished. The coelacanth was alive and well, not extinct like they claimed. And after closer inspection, its fins turned out to be just fins, not little stumps becoming legs. The link to amphibians was nowhere to be found.

This has happened many times. But the media helps evolution by staying quiet about  their failures and trumpeting their so-called victories.

It's up to us to sort them out and get to the real truth. And in the case of the coelacanth, it's clear that fish don't grow arms and legs. They never have and they never will.

Jeffrey Howard, 5th June newsletter, disprovedarwin.com

Fiddling with Climate!

The Problem with Climate Computer Models

This short paper must be prefaced with a simple fact: models are not the real thing. They are only humanly-devised representations of what is real. They can be anything from accurate to wildly-wrong.

The Accurate Model

All components and their elements have characteristics. Components A, B and C have fixed, constant characteristics. Under set tests, the characteristics of each component remain the same, or will change in exactly the same way every time. When A, B and C interact, they all react in exactly the same way. In this example, everything is constant. A computer model based on these constants will reflect what is actual. Any predictions will be constant and we may rely on them because they only reflect what is actual and do not project what is thought to be possible. In many ways, this kind of model is merely a ‘number-crunching’ exercise. This is an accurate model, ceteris paribus.

The Almost-Accurate Model

Components A, B and C have core characteristics that are constant. They also have elements that are not constant, with limited or known parameters. Under test, A, B and C’s core characteristics can be predicted. But, the variable elements lead to variable results. In interaction, each component’s core characteristics will react predictably, but the variables will not, though they have a limited range of variability. Any predictions based on a combination of core constants with peripheral variableness, may be partially correct, or even wrong. This is an Almost-Accurate Model.

The Silly Model

This is the climate change model. A, B, and C do not have core characteristics, only characteristics that are reasonably assessed. When under test – though there can be no accurate tests because variables cannot be controlled – characteristics may respond partially to known parameters, but are just as likely not to respond as expected. When A, B and C interact, whilst some responses may align with what is expected, many do not.

In the matter of climate, all components (wind, sun, rain, pressure, etc) are highly variable and ultimately unpredictable. Changes or variableness occur annually, monthly, weekly, daily, hourly. But, because of their unlimited variability in interaction, computer models are not accurate, though they can be close at times – but only in the very near future. Computer models issuing far-future predictions based on short-time changes cannot be accurate. They are conjectures without actual proofs. This makes any far-future climate change model a Silly Model. When that far-future is defined in decades or centuries, the model is not just silly. It is preposterous.

Climate changes radically and very often. Just two decades ago, the scientists who now predict global warming and radical climate change, openly predicted global freezing and a new ice-age with increasing turbulence. These predictions were wrong because no-one can predict weather accurately. It can only be done in relative ‘real time’, and not in far-future-time. Yet, governments are basing whole taxation strategies and social controls on these unpredictable variables and silly computer models.

Real Science

Creation Museum plans expansion

Associated Press - 5/31/2008 5:50:00

The group behind a museum that focuses on the biblical account of creation plans to expand the facility in Northern Kentucky over the next year, focusing on programs for children. Answers in Genesis founder Ken Ham said that among additions to the Creation Museum will be kiosks aimed at kids and an outdoor playground.

The museum, which presents a literal interpretation of the Bible, has hosted more than 400,000 visitors since it opened last May. Officials hope to have 300,000 museum visitors in the next year.

Ham said the popularity of the museum in Petersburg -- just south and west of Cincinnati -- has brought requests from other religious groups that museums be built in their cities. He said there are no plans to do so. "Once you've done one, it's easier to do another one," museum co-founder and spokesman Mark Looy said. "But we just opened this a year ago, and we're just learning how to operate it. Opening a second one is a dream way off in the distance."

In the meantime, Ham said the museum is consulting with churches throughout the country to build one-room displays that will serve as mini-Creation Museums.

Since crowds have been larger than expected, the museum has already added some extras, such as more walking trails and a petting zoo. It also introduced new programming, a children's reading program, and theatrical performances. In the next year, there also are plans for an additional parking lot and an auditorium to host speakers and educational events, Looy said. There will be more rotating exhibits and butterfly and woodland areas near the outdoor gardens, he said.

Ham said his group wants to see people converted to Christianity, but wants to influence people directly, rather than challenge school boards to add creationism to curricula. "We want to challenge everyone's thinking. You never know what seeds you're sowing," he said.

'Darwinism Easy to Disprove' says Author

Darwin himself said that future scientists would find fossils of “transitional forms.” Here’s what he meant: If fish really evolved into animals, you would find fossils of creatures that were half-fish, half-animal. This would show that one species was making a transition into another.

SSo far, no transitional forms have ever been discovered! And of course, no transitional creature exists today. Let’s be honest: Have you ever gone to the zoo and seen a cross between a fish and an animal? Or a half-man, half-monkey?

Fossil: This is a shrimp fossil found in Lebanon. These pictures tell scientists what fish and animals looked like long ago.

All the creatures living on this planet are perfectly formed. There is no record of any animal, fish, beast or creature EVER turning into a different species.

In fact, the real fossil record shows almost no change. That means many of the creatures on this Earth have not changed since the beginning of time.

Here’s something else you won’t read in the newspaper: Hundreds of scientists and university professors are coming out against evolution. This should be front-page news. But you’ll never hear about it in the media.

Check out what some of them are saying about these missing fossils:

• Professor Steven J. Gould, Harvard University: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”

Translation: Dr. Gould is a little too kind. The number of transitional forms is ZERO.

• Dr. Colin Patterson, British Museum of Natural History: “I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

Translation: There’s simply no hard evidence for evolution.

• Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, American Museum of Natural History: “It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species… can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another.”

Translation: Darwin’s theory doesn’t have a leg to stand on…

At some point in our history, thousands of new creatures suddenly appeared. And the scientists actually agree on this. This one fact is enough to put the “theory” of evolution to rest forever.

Think about it… Evolution says that new forms of life never appear suddenly. They tell us new species evolve slowly over “millions of years.” They claim that small mutations occur to a single species and that over time, a new creature is born.

The Trilobite: This complex creature suddenly appeared with no ancestors to evolve from…

If that’s true, then how can thousands of new creatures come to life all at once – like they did during this one period of history?

Sounds crazy, doesn’t it?

Their own scientific discoveries do a nice job of disproving evolution. Yet these very same scientists go on TV and tell us that evolution is “tested and proven.”

It only goes to show: Scientists will believe ANYTHING if the alternative is admitting that God created the world!

When you take God out of His own Creation, crazy things start to happen… You get “respected” scientists saying that fish can sprout legs and monkeys can turn into men.

But when you look under the hood, there’s NO PROOF whatsoever.The average person on the street accepts evolution without understanding it.

They can tell you that it’s “proven”… and that’s about it. If they’ve done their homework, maybe they can tell you that so-and-so did an experiment… or so-and-so wrote a book…

But if you know the missing pieces, you can shoot down every one of their arguments – every time. And because they don’t really understand what they’re defending, they suddenly fall silent when they can’t fire off a come back.

Jeffrey Howard

Disprovedarwin.com

Swiss Cheese for Brains?

“The New Age movement and radical feminist groups have embraced the concept of an earth Mother in their religious thinking. Earth becomes sacred (as in many pagan religions), and therefore environmental degradation becomes a blasphemous act. The most radical form of environmental ‘religion’ is ‘Deep Ecology’ … rejects any form of human control of the natural world.”

(Richard T Wright, ‘Tearing Down the Green’, The American Science Affiliation, 1995).

“At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the ‘dignity’ of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called ‘plant rights’ is being seriously debated.

A few years ago, the Swiss added to their national constitution a provision requiring ‘account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms.’ No-one knew exactly what it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, ‘The Dignity of Living Beings with regard to Plants’, is enough to short circuit your brain.”

(4^th May, 2008, ‘Get Yourself Ready for… the Vegetable Rights Movement’, Michellemalkin.com and in ‘The Silent Scream of the Asparagus’, Wesley J Smith, 12^th May, 2008, weeklystandard.com)

In any other era this report would be treated with the contempt it deserves. It is nothing but pure insanity. Yet, because of the paganism within environmentalism, it is being treated seriously by others whose sanity should be questioned!

The report says we may not use plants as we wish, because they are living organisms. Can you see the upshot of this kind of governmentalism? Protection of all plants, official approval needed to buy and use plants; starvation. The Committee members, who must all have been let out on a day pass, gave an illustration of a farmer mowing his field. He walks along a path with his scythe in hand and accidentally lops off the head of a wild flower. That, says the Committee, is ‘immoral’:

“At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer towards other organisms, or because something bad is being done to the flowers themselves.” (‘The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants.’ See ekah.admin.ch for the full report).

The writer of the above piece says:

“What is clear, however, is that Switzerland’s enshrining of ‘plant dignity’ is a symptom of a cultural disease that has infected Western civilization, causing us to lose the ability to think critically and distinguish serious from frivolous ethical concerns. It also reflects the triumph of a radical anthropomorphism that views elements of the natural world as morally equivalent to people (Ed. Deep Ecology).” (Weekly Standard)

Do we laugh or cry? The Swiss government should be held up as a laughing stock for creating this useless nonsense.  Those who support it ought to be laughed at. Why? Because it might stop them from being so stupid and wasting our time. But, more importantly, it must be nipped in the bud (sorry for the immoral abuse of a plant) because it contains the seeds of destruction. The implications for all of humanity if this kind of thinking becomes official is catastrophic. Let paganism say what it wishes and let the rest of us laugh. But, on no account let it take root.

I propose that the Swiss government is abusing the rights of plants, whose silence cannot be taken as approval of their actions. Plants wish only to serve mankind and to look nice. If they are vegetables they only wish to taste nice. If they are fruit, they would love to be in my ice-cream. And if they are grains in my breakfast they only wish to snap, crackle and pop so my children can giggle with delight.

Unless the government can prove otherwise, their ethical stance is untenable and abusive to plants. Is my claim a joke? No more than the claim of the Swiss government to be serious.