Posts Tagged ‘Genesis’

“From Raging Evolutionist to Creationist”

August 11, 2011

“From Raging Evolutionist to Creationist”

That title describes one of the most important aspects of my life in a nutshell, as well as that of tens of thousands of scientists and millions of people across the globe today.

As I was once a raging Darwinist and atheist myself, as well as being a former socialist, the recent article at HondurasWeekly condemning Intelligent Design theories compels an answer.

We can use this article as an exercise to show why the more prominent Darwinians among scientists today absolutely refuse to participate in a fair debate with formal and balanced rules with creation scientists, or even with Intelligent Design advocates.

The editors picked out an especially juicy paragraph to highlight this piece. It shows a repetition of the atheist strategy, applied in varying degrees by agnostics and theistic evolutionists, of using the worst hypocrites and money-grubbing “Christians” they can find in history to use Pavlov-driven associations to help make a point that is little more than invective. Effective for the de-facto monopoly stranglehold they have had on education the past century.

The author started off with a self-assured roar, using the phrase “absurd claims” and “anti-Darwinists” and “inject creationism into society”. Then he jumps right into the same attempt at pretending not to know the difference between creation science and intelligent design.

This strategy is built on their confidence in the use of the hypocrisy of money-grubbing hypocrites to make their case, instead of facts refuting the science. (Apologies to the few atheist scientists who do actually engage in real debate)

Never mind Jesus Christ himself drove those money-grubbing money-changers out of the temple at the wrong end of a bull whip, and called the religious Pharisees of his day “of your father the devil, for he is a liar”.


It is appropriate to clarify the terms for new inititates to this fascinating discussion, or those who only know the confusion coming from deniers of Creation and of common sense.

In a general sense, Creation Science is science as practiced by scientists who believe that the world was created by God, more or less as described in the Bible. “More or less” because there are others like Yaryn Hahya, a Turkish Muslim who has a web site where you can find some intriguing factoids about science, as Muslims hold a similar view about creation.

Creation science in that general sense was the science practiced by the greats of science history like Isaac Newton, Roger Bacon, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Joseph Listerine, in fact the founders of every modern branch of science.

In a narrower way, Creation Science is science based on using the relevant declarations in the Bible as a guideline. This is mostly known for where it diverges from the Darwinian Creation Myth, of course, and research based on the six-day creation of Genesis One and Noah’s Flood. But there are other declarations in the Bible about the real world that sometimes provide for research, not always known as Creation Research.

Then there is Intelligent Design theory, which is a different approach to science. It is the study of those phenomena in nature that suggest the necessity of an outside intelligent agent for their explanation.

The SETI project is precisely the same kind of idea, being that we can use the tools of science to determine whether a given set of patterns in nature or behavior of naturally occuring entities suggests the existence of an intelligent agent. However, most SETI researchers restrict themselves to extraterrestrial intelligence that fit an anti-creationist model, arbitrary delimiter an unscientific though it is.

In fact, scientists and researchers involved with Intelligent Design propositions include agnostics and skeptics. Its proponents now include the late Andrew Flew, who was the most prominent and acclaimed promoter of atheism in intellectual circles until in his eighties the facts of DNA and how it works convinced him that there had to be some kind of intelligent designer. And no “Creationist” he, he at the same time continued to insist he did not believe in the Judeao-Christian God.

That’s the difference.


We see the repetition of the tired old accusation that Intelligent Design advocates are somehow trying to “cover up” their religious affiliations. This is trying to win an argument with an attack on the motivations of the opponent rather than the argument. Crying “absurd!” and “is not!” do not count for rational discussion.

They apparently have not learned that for atheists and Darwinism, this has very heavy backfire potential, because the most prominent Darwinists who got any government power in history were the most brutal beasts of history, committing mass genocide on massive scales, and were the biggest liars of history to boot, and (they think) with a “safe” fifty years after the demise of the eugenicist race-breeding of the poster boy for tyranny, Hitler, they now think they can talk about race breeding again. Only call it something else. (Are you listening, Planned Parenthood, nee Birth Control League? Malthusians anyone?)

And Darwinism has its own history of frauds, scandals, coverups, lies, “trade secrets”, revisionist history, and a habit of publishing biology textbooks that present frauds as if they were facts, like Hoeckel’s drawings, proven to be frauds 150 years agone already.

The insinuation that intelligent design advocates hide their religion is so easily refuted it should be a gross insult to the reader, and is an embarrassment for anyone who contines to use it, and shows an aversion to using an actual “fact” that speaks to the actual debate. Maybe the problem is the lack of facts for refutation.

Isaac Newton, both a creation scientist and intelligent design advocate, made no secret of his beliefs when doing science, and he made no secret that his motivations were to encourage the faith in God of others. It is the Darwinian education establishment that has kept hidden from us the facts of Isaac Newton’s emphatic beliefs in Creation, and the fact that he wrote more voluminously about the Bible and about his Christianity than he did science and math!

So WHO is hiding the religious affiliations of scientists here?


The question is put when ID is called an “inquiry-stifling premise”.

Let us investigate the reality of WHO is actually stifling inquiry?

Vestigial organs: The stifling of life-saving research by Darwinian dogma:

There are two fronts here to point up. One is the actual

    historical results

of Darwinian and anti-creationist science, versus the actual results of ID advocates and creationists.

At one time, there were at least 32 human organs that Darwinians had declared “vestigial organs” that no purpose and were “leftovers” from “evolution”. Creationist scientists said do the research and find their purpose! And there are no more “vestigial organs”. You can live without tonsils, or an appendix, but you can live without both your legs too!

So medical research that could have saved lives, like finding the purpose for these human organs, was stifled and unfunded because of the ancient pagan myth of Darwinism.

Vestigial DNA: Stifling research:

Then in this 21st century, early came discussion about “vestigial DNA”, which comprises an actual majority part of the total DNA in your body. They called it this because they had only matched a tiny percentage to actual protein manufacture and other active functions.

My first encounter with the term “vestigial DNA” caused a big fit of laughter, wondering how long it would take them to correct this, yet another major faux pas from Darwinian dogma.

This time a few enterprising geneticists broke through and found that not only did this DNA have a few functions they were just beginning to get a glimpse of, it also served as a shelf of mix-and-match parts with which to do automatic experimentation in genetic combinations during times of environmental stress. Among other things.



Just like other places, we see here questions that really come from blaming God for everything we see as bad in the world. This is totally irrelevant to ID, for it is not creationism. ID is merely the study of criteria that can be used to determine whether a pattern or phenomenon is the result of design rather than spontaneous natural activity, and where this might or might not apply in science.

Actually, it is the same principle upon which is based much or most of forensic science, archaeology, and other endeavours.

The questions of why there is evil in the world therefore has nothing at all to do with Intelligent Design propositions. They are even irrelevant to Creation science. They used to defend the evil impact of belief in evolution as being irrelevant to the argument, but that was then people actually were educated enough to laugh out loud when somebody suggested evolution was better morally than believing in Jesus Christ.

It reminds me of one of the founders of the American Atheists Association after he became a Christian. He said he had only become atheist because he hated God for the hurt he had suffered in his life.

There are also a number of false premises embedded in most hate-God harangues, many that require answers for another writing. One such error is the long-discredited Malthusian idea that humankind is “procreating itself to extinction”.

Hey! It’s –NOT!– procreating that leads to extinction. By definition. Okay? NOT procreating IS extinction. Procreating is the biggest way to battle extinction.

Oh, yeah, and defending yourself against socialist and fascist tyrants like Pol Pot who kill off half their own people, or Chinese tryants who don’t bat an eyelid at the slaughter of forty TIMES the entire population of Cambodia, or Stalin who starved millions of Ukrainians to punish them for thinking independently. And beware of those who say they “have always been a Maoist”, like Hugo Chavez did in Beijing.

Complaining and whining bitterly about our lot in life and on the earth collectively as human beings is no argument for anything. Blaming God with a wave of the hand and piling on bitter invective without a serious considering the idea like Andrew Flew did, and other formerly embittered God-haters like myself, proves nothing about anything except for what it says about the accuser. At least Flew defended his ideas with actual arguments.

Take Haiti and Chile, two recent examples of victims of natural disasters. The earthquakes suffered by each country different enormously in terms of the fatalities, injuries, and to the economy. Haiti was helpless and without any kind of governing authority in the days following, while Chile was almost offiicially insulted by offers of help. This shows not that Haitians are to blame (although Haitian friends of mine do blame the spiritual condition of Haiti for its condition), but that natural disasters differ in their effect depending on the physical, economic, moral, spiritual condition of the affected parties.

And love goes a long way to healing the wounds and lifting up the physically broken and the broken-hearted.

My question about mental acuteness is how anyone could consider the coordinated network of digital computer systems that each one of us has in every one of the trillions of cells in our bodies, and claim —without any reasonable explanation whatsoever– that it just spontaneously arose from some kind of primeval ooze! And that’s just the DNA!

There’s much more for a later. Stay tuned.

But snce the moral argument has been engaged, it will be enthusiastically answered.

Despite the best efforts of imposters, charlatans, hypocrites and identity thieves throughout history, the effect of Jesus Christ on history, especially after the terrestrial arrival of the Lord Jesus Christ, has been overwhelmingly positive. The basics of decent culture that are still left in our modern society owe themselves to Christ and the ones who followed his teachings.

Some people –if they were genuinely sincere and not just venting– ask how to tell the difference. Just compare the practice to the preaching. If it doesn’t match, it’s an imposter. Just make sure you don’t learn what the teaching is from people who don’t know it.

LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, and The Golden Rule…

Here’s two rules of thumb. One is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Simple. “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12 Another is: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:20

If only the tyrants and dictators who yell and go into fits trying to get Zelaya back into Honduras would be well served with the Golden Rule. They do not want people lying to them. The “human rights” hypocrites who claim they seek “reconciliation” by bringing the cause of division back into the country know full well that it would cause great trouble for Honduras. They know full well that the “Resistencia” does NOT want anything other than their socialist dicatorship, unfettered by bothersome human rights issues, and that Hondurans do not want this.

They know full well there was a constitutional succession. The idea is simply to force a small country to subjugate itself to the new world empire.

The “dangerous” Christians died by the tens of thousands under the had of Roman Emperors, in following these dictates.



LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: How the world is better off after Christ came in the flesh:

It is when they became comfortable and prosperous under less brutal regimes that the doctrines began deteriorating under such intellectuals as St. Augustin, who had too much fondness for Greek intellectual hubris, and in the embrace of political power under the cultivation of emperors like Constantine.

Too bad many of today's Christians have rushed to receive the embrace of government money, as in the States where they have to promise, cross their heart and hope to get arrested if they ever talk about Jesus while using that "faith-based" money.

If Christ had never been born, or if nobody had ever followed him, we would have missed a lot of what we were never taught in government schools in the States.

Gladiator bouts begone:

The intervention of one Christian bishop in a gladiator bout that cost him his life, brought to dead silence the cheers of that crowd that had yelled for his blood, and brought embarrassment to the emperor that had thumbed him down, and provided the ending bell for this "sport" of devils.

Infanticide, begone!

The Greeks and Romans routinely killed any babies they did not want or deem fit. Spartans left them on the rocks on the hillside, Athenians wrapped them up against the cold and left them in holes. Roman law said fathers could kill their sons for any reason or no reason whatsoever at any time. But infants were saved from infanticide when mothers learned they could leave an infant on the doorstep of a Christian couple, who were glad to rescue a child and raise him to maturity.
A Christian missionary came back from China and spoke at a forum in an ecumenical council in Chicago around 1900. He begged them not to pass a resolution giving moral equivalency to all religions, pointing to the "baby pond" in the Chinese village where he resided, where some villagers went to throw "unwanted' infants. The mass genocides by atheist regimes were still yet future.

Cannibalism, begone:

Even the father of Darwinism himself, Charles Darwin, defended Christian missionaries in a letter to the editor, in answer to a tirade against them. He said if you were a world traveller like me, and had to make port in a faraway unknown island, you would behold the steeple with a cross atop with the greatest relief that you were not going to end up in a pot of stew.


The practice of receiving "unwanted" babies that would have been sacrificed evolved later into orphanages.


Orders of Christians who took in the sick and infirm became known for being such centers and evolved into today's hospitals.


The former slave to an Irish noble, St.Patrick, brought his message of love to the Irish. That message ended the brutal practices of Druid priests in Ireland, ended the human sacrifice, ended slavery in Ireland.

Patrick also taught the Irish to read and write. They took to the practice feverishly. The monasteries of his followers, which were families living together in harmony and in which sometimes women were the leaders, took such a delight in books that they rescued the great bulk of Greek and Roman classics that survive to us today, copying with copious dedication everything possible, while the Huns and Visigoths and assorted barbarians burned every library they could find.

Charlemagne learned of the fame of the learned monks from Ireland and Britain and brought them to his palaces to establish centers at which they could teach the priesthood throughout his reach.


With the Reformation, and the liberation it brought to thinkers and tinkerers everywhere, science flourished. Christianity cultivated modern science as we know it today, and so say as a historical fact historians who are much less than enamored with Christianity.

Just for example, it took the Internet free of the constraints of top-down controlled education to make it general knowledge that Isaac Newton, acclaimed to this day as the greatest scientist, wrote more about the Bible and his Christian beliefs than he did about science and math.

The Bible itself actually invites the reader to challenge the science. Paul did not say "Can you feel it", "If it feels right do it", he said we do not follow fables but we follow facts, and he points to more than five hundred people who were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus Christ.

The "heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork". David spoke of the way God "wrote" our members into our body in the womb, a verse that one atheist said I twisted to make it sound like DNA!


Were there people before Adam and Eve?

May 4, 2009

It has come to my attention that there are some who have misread the following passage in Jeremiah and say that it refers to people living before Adam and Eve:

One must keep this following verse in mind, a warning against misusing the Word:
How to “rightly divide”? This issue is also addressed in the Word:
A couple of verses down, the principle is repeated, and the warning is expanded:
Your knowledge can build as you go along, but if you start thinking ahead of the Lord, then you can miss the mark.
If you read the whole chapter, in context, you will see this in a new way.

If you read the first three chapters, and then the rest of this entire book, you’ll find it’s talking about the destruction that was coming for Israel for having forsaken God. The book starts with God calling Jeremiah directly when he was twelve years old, telling him he was going to be the messenger to warn the children of Israel.
So in context, after telling them they cannot hope for salvation from the hills, he tells them that even their earth would suffer total devastation.
Look at verse 29:The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city [shall be] forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.
It is in the same spirit as the previous text, and says these same people will go into the rocks and thickets and forsake all their cities.

Note, then, the multiple differences between the context of verse 23 of chapter 4 of Jeremiah, and Genesis 1:2, and while considering them, also consider that the verse and chapter divisions were not there in the original manuscripts, and we can say that these verse and chapter divisions are not themselves “inspired”. In other words, they are continuous narratives, not an isolated piece inserted out of place.
If Jeremiah 4:23-28 refers to a pre-Adamic world, it is definitely out of place and out of context.
The rest of the chapter in Jeremiah, and continuing into Jeremiah, talks to the desolation coming to God’s people for their sins.
The first chapters of Genesis speak to the six days of Creation. Note that it is after verse 2 of Genesis One that God says, “Let there be light”, and that’s when there was light.
To take those first two or three chapters as meaning there was light and earth and life and destruction before that Creation week, and then to “allegorize” the rest of it, is to force-fit a square peg into a round hole.
And make no mistake. The chapter says that there was grass and herb and its seed yielding fruit on the third day, and no sun until the fourth day. If you say the “days” were “millions of years”, you have to explain how plants survived all that time without sunlight.
The “gap theory” fitting anything between verses one and two before Creation week also has to explain how there were plants and animals before God created light, stars, moons, plants, animals, and, of course, people.
There is a commentary from Francis Dake, probably originating with Charles Darby and Cyrus Scofield, making the claim that there were worlds that existed before the Garden of Eden, that also uses the passage in II Peter 3, torturing the passage to claim that the worlds before were destroyed by water. Read it again, and this time, keep the flood of Noah in mind, same as Christians up until the two aforementioned spoiled the waters (as in the water of the Word).
It is such an obvious reference to the flood of Noah, that a simple read of it will suffice, except to say that if it fits Noah’s flood (which you can see for yourself in a straightforward read), then that’s what it is, and to invoke man’s wisdom to say otherwise is foolishness.

……….(links to be added….)