Cutting out the surrender to evolution

Finally, one day in my sophomore year of high school, when I thought I could stand it no longer, I determined to resolve the issue. After lights were out, under my covers with flashlight in hand I took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and set to work. Beginning at Genesis 1:1, I determined to cut out every verse in the Bible which would have to be taken out to believe in evolution. Wanting this to be as fair as possible, and giving the benefit of the doubt to evolution, I determined to read all the verses on both sides of a page and cut out every other verse, being careful not to cut the margin of the page, but to poke the page in the midst of the verse and cut the verse out around that…

With the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two.

Quote source

Wise, K. (n.d.) In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Creation Ministries International. Available Last accessed 30th Jul 2017


Scientism is weak on the origin of consciousness

This loaded statement came from RationalWiki:

We do not know why or even when consciousness evolved.

But that statement assumes that scientism and naturalism should be taken literally!

Now compare that with the following:

If we make a really conscious robot, if we ‘synthesize’ consciousness and the unity of consciousness from non-conscious materials, what we have done is to assemble components that form a unified physical thing at which consciousness is manifested.  But this neutral description of what we have done leaves open two possibilities:

  1. The one is that consciousness simply comes into existence without cause at that complex configuration of physical components but is in no way caused by or emergent from that complex configuration.  In this case we have not synthesized consciousness from nonconscious materials; we have simply brought together certain material components at which consciousness appears.
  2. The other possibility is that consciousness comes into manifestation at the complex configuration of physical components ab extra, from outside the natural sphere.  A crude theological way of thinking of this would be that a purely spiritual being, God, ‘implants’ consciousness in sufficiently complex physical systems.

On both (1) and (2), consciousness arises at a certain level of material complexity, but not from matter. On (1) it just arises as a matter of brute fact. On (2), consciousness comes from consciousness.  On neither does consciousness have a natural origin. On (1) consciousness does not originate from anything. On (2) it has a non-natural origin.

Quote sources

  1. RationalWiki (2014). Consciousness. Available Last accessed 1st Aug 2015.
  2. Vallicella, B. (2013). The Relevance of Conscious Robots for the Philosophy of Mind. Maverick Philosopher. Available Last accessed 1st Aug 2015.

Evolution’s explanatory power under scrutiny

In October of 1980, the world’s leading evolutionists met in Chicago for a conference summarized popularly by Adler and Carey in Newsweek for November 3, 1980, and professionally by Lewin in Science for November 21, 1980. According to the professional summary:

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.”

That is, the processes of mutation, selection, and sexual recombination all produce variation within type (microevolution — or creationist adaptation), but can these processes be logically extended (extrapolated) to explain the presumed evolutionary change generally from simpler to more complex types (macroevolution)?

“At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”

Just plain capital N, No. No, one cannot logically extrapolate from mutation, selection, and sexual recombination to evolution. Creationists pointed out a series of logical and observational limits to that gross over-extrapolation decades ago, and we are pleased, of course, that the world’s leading evolutionists now agree with us — without giving us any credit — that the textbook and television picture of minuscule mutations being slowly selected to produce elaborate evolution is just flatly false.

At this point many evolutionists say, in effect, “Well, at least we agree that evolution is a fact, even though we are not certain about the mechanism.” Although I used to say that myself, it now sounds almost comically incongruous — both to me and to Colin Patterson (1981), leading paleontologist at the British Museum. Evolutionists used to accuse creationists of affirming the fact of diversity without offering any mechanism to explain it, says Patterson, but now, he says, that is what evolutionists are doing. A theory that simply accepts the diversity of life without offering a mechanism to explain how that diversity came into being, adds Patterson, cannot be considered a scientific theory at all.

Quote source

Parker, G. (1982). What is Creation Science? [ebook] Master Books, Green Forest. Location 1609-1620

Devastating arguments against bird evolution

For example, with the origin of birds, there are two main theories [argued between evolutionists]: that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory), and that they evolved ‘trees-down’ from small reptiles (the arboreal theory). Both sides produce devastating arguments against the other side. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right—birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!

Quote source

Sarfati, J (2002). 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry: A point by point response to Scientific American. Available Last accessed 11th Jan 2015.


2013 was a great year (in this respect)

This from someone who takes evolution literally:

Evolution did not fare well in 2013. The year ended with the anti-evolution book Darwin’s Doubt as Amazon’s top seller in the “Paleontology” category. The state of Texas spent much of the year trying to keep the country’s most respected high school biology text out of its public schools. And leading anti-evolutionist and Creation Museum curator Ken Ham made his annual announcement that the “final nail” had been pounded into the coffin of poor Darwin’s beleaguered theory of evolution.

Americans entered 2013 more opposed to evolution than they have been for years, with an amazing 46 percent embracing the notion that “God created humans pretty much in their present form at one time in the last 10,000 years or so.” This number was up a full 6 percent from the prior poll taken in 2010. 

Quote source

Giberson,  K. W. (2014). 2013 Was a Terrible Year for Evolution. The Daily Beast.  Available Last accessed 15th Nov 2014

Empowering children against evolution

But Margaret [McKay, anti-drug activist] found that teaching on creation gives a solid foundation for purpose in life…

When Margaret was teaching, many of her kindergarten children had drug-addicted parents. ‘Even at that age, they had pretty desperate futures mapped out.’

She helped the children by getting some creation resources. The children made a beeline for the books she put in the library. They loved D is for Dinosaur [a children’s book on dinosaurs written by creationists].

‘I read that book to my five-year-olds and they never got sick of it. Every day through kindergarten, I had those books on display and the kids loved them. When videos became available, I found they had more impact than the stories. The kids just soaked them up.’

When her class visited the school library, if a student picked up a book about evolution they would say, ‘Rubbish’, even in front of the librarian, who was an atheist. They would loudly state that they were created by God and didn’t come from monkeys. The librarian would put the creation books out of reach of the children, but the children would ask Margaret to get them down.

Embed from Getty Images

My two cents

That’s a nice buildup to the final paragraph. I hope there can be more kindergarten teachers who take their cues from stories like this. As for the children, it was good to see that they were conscious of evolution but consciously rejecting it at a young age—a positive base to start from and maintain as the children grow older.

It would also be interesting to do a survey of drug-addicted parents and see how many are convinced by evolution.

It was good to see there were creationist books in the school library (rather than just evolutionist ones). This anecdote is a nice counter to a forum post I read from an atheist teacher who was smuggling pro-atheist sentiments into her lesson plans (if only I could find that link again).

Quote source

Walker, T. and Batten, D. (n.d.) Fighting a Good Fight: A Talk Antidrugs Campaigner Margaret McKay. Available Last accessed 15th Jan 2014.

Conservapedia celebrates the refutation of evolutionists

Poorly conceived responses from evolutionists have been pouring in to Creation Ministries International concerning their Question evolution! campaign and of course all of them are easily refuted by their creation scientists and Christian apologetics staff.

My two cents

English: Photo of a diorama showing a mock gra...
Photo of a diorama showing a mock grave for evolution on display at the genesis expo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I like the confidence that’s in this response. I think we need more of it from everyone on their side. I find that Conservapedia’s front page is a good portal for things like this; I might not have heard of certain other websites if it wasn’t for Conservapedia’s syndication. I also find it interesting when they report on evolutionists who aren’t up to debating Conservapedians or creationists; I think they once juxtaposed that with a picture of a rabbit hiding in a rabbit warren.

Quote source

Conservapedia. (2011). Main Page – Conservapedia. Available: Last accessed 15th Sep 2011.