February 08, 2012

Question Evolution Day is February 12th

The following brief videoclip outlines the growing movement of solidarity between people interested in discussing the actual facts of evolutionary theory as a means of addressing the censorship, lies and propaganda that so often characterize the secular humanist approach to the subject in academia today:

Instead of debating the issues in academia, hegemony and censorship are used to deny an open debate on the subject of evolution. When actually pressed on the issues, top atheist personalities will fold under and just start making untrue claims:

"False Statements by Dawkins in his Interview with Wendy Wright:

1. “The Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud but that was never used as evidence for evolution.”
Contrary to Dawkins' assertion, both Professor Cole and Professor Newman mentioned the fraudulent Piltdown Man in their affidavits in the famous Scopes Trial, which had far reaching effects on education.[1]
2. Haeckel's "mistakes" are "no longer" published in science textbooks.

The easiest way to demonstrate that Haeckel's fraudulent drawings are in Raven & Johnson's 2002 edition of Biology is simply to show drawings straight out of the textbook. In Figure 1 below, Haeckel's original drawings are shown on the left, while Raven & Johnson's actual drawings are on the right..." 

Continue reading about Dawkins' hit and run debate fiasco: 
There are many Christians who believe the theory of evolution, but there are also many Christians who believe homosexual priests and marriages are in keeping with scriptural faith. Many Christians have been led to believe that evolution is a proven fact, when this is far from true. The the top atheist apologist, Richard Dawkins, is also a specialist in evolutionary biology. He refuses to debate theist WL Craig in any format. Dawkins also refuses to debate Michael Behe and Stephen Myer. The top atheist blogger by volume, PZ Meyers, refuses to debate WL Craig in any format. Other atheist personalities, such as Alex Botten, refuse to debate in text form.regarding God's existence. What seems to underlie the firm convictions of many atheists is an irrational hatred for Christians and the God of the Bible, as noted in the following article:

An Open Reply to Alex Botten and Jim Gardner 


Question Evolution Day is on Facebook, with many good links:


  1. My God... The sheer stupidity... Why God?

    Rick, you should also question gravity as well while you are at it. Or at least read a good book and educate yourself a little bit on the topic before making such idiotic claims.

  2. Thanks for mentioning this, Rick!

    Wish I had time to dismantle the logical fallacy of "Nonny", there. Suffice to say that equating gravity with evolutionism is ludicrous.

    If you're interested in the link (when available, not yet), I joined a huge session for the "Theopologetics" podcast. It will be a three-parter, with discussions on both science and theology.

    Think I posed here before as Stormbringer, but this browser was already signed into this account.

    1. Suffice to say that equating gravity with evolutionism is ludicrous.

      No, actually, not suffice to say.

      For example, we have a clear physical path permitting evolution -- the mechanisms of DNA replication/mutation/selection etc. are clearly understood.

      Gravity? Well, there are still some gaps in that theory -- now, they're very small ones (of the order of the Planck length, say), but they do exist.

      We can observe gravity working. We can also observe the workings of evolution -- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091018141716.htm, for example -- as well as the massive amounts of evidence for it.

      But in terms of theoretical underpinnings? You're right; it's a ludicrous comparison. We understand evolution much better. ;)

    2. >"If you're interested in the link (when available, not yet), I joined a huge session for the "Theopologetics" podcast. It will be a three-parter, with discussions on both science and theology."

      - Yes, I am interested. And it would be helpful to have a link posted at this site. You are doing a good job of helping to promote free discourse on an important subject.

      As far as belief in gravity is concerned, I would not expect very much from some atheist apologists. As far as the Fundamentally Flawed team is concerned, objective truth does not exist, as documented in my previous article:

      In the previously referenced debate at 'Creation Today' Sye had asked Jim if he believed objective truth exists, as Jim's eBook states "Truth is Objective"[20]. However, in a complete flip-flop, Jim stated the opposite in the debate with Sye, "If it's true for you and it works for you, then it's true."[21]

      Gravity is 'your truth' Jim, didn't you know that? :-)

    3. Hi Rick,

      Here's the link to the podcast. It's a big one, and there are two more parts on their way (we had a long evening recording this). First there's a write-up, and then the actual link: http://t.co/YX68JGv0

      By the way, some of the recalcitrant atheists who think that we are being hypocritical by disallowing them from turning the Facebook page into an atheist playground are deliberately missing the point of the page itself. That, too, is addressed in the podcast, maybe part 3.

    4. That silly remark about gravity... creationists don't question gravity because we observe it. Duh! Unlike Richard "Daffy" Dawkins, who desperately bleated, "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."

      The Yogi Berra of Britain?

  3. Just a minor note: Dawkins and Myers are scientists. WL Craig is a professional debater. Do bear this in mind. Perhaps we should have a biathlon -- one formal debate and two years of labwork?

    1. Dawkins and Myers should clam up and not try to do philosophy, then, by your standards. That's a good idea, since they stink at philosophy. Michael Ruse said that Dawkins makes him embarrassed to be an atheist.

    2. I think that Myers would happily leave philosophy to philosophers if people stopped trying to pretend that unfalsifiable ideas were science.

      And I assure you, Craig's worse at science than Myers at philosophy; Myers at least understands the goals and methods of the field, while Craig and anyone who begins with Scripture as the unarguable truth has demonstrated that whatever they are doing, it's not scientific in the slightest.

  4. rick, smooth talking 'atheist personality' Alex Botten here. Are you going to update your article to cover Bob 'piltdown superman' Sorensen's approach to allowing dissenting voices, deleting comments that don't chime with his opinions, and banning anyone who points out he's wrong?

    Yup, all about the 'intellectual freedoms' and honesty our Bob!

  5. Oh, and you need to add that I'm more than happy to debate you via a recorded skype conversation, but that you're too scared to meet my challenge.

  6. About Heackel's embryos, there's more to it than what you mentioned: Some info there, and some more info.

    From that second link:
    ...in particular, Richards observes that the drawings everyone talks about are from Haeckel's 1874 book, a popular work based on stenographic notes of a lecture series he'd presented, and illustrations used in that talk. He continued to revise the work through several subsequent editions, and the evidence is clear that he continued to update his drawings as newer and better embryological illustrations became available. As Richards explains:

    Etc. Read on.

    There is also this.

    For those who actually want to be fair-minded about it, it’s pretty clear that what happened was that in the mid-1990s, as happens every few decades, a scientist (here, Michael Richardson) discovered the real, but moderate, problems with Haeckel’s embryo drawings. This led to some some guns going off half-cocked in the media and in popular works (e.g. by Gould), and this is the stuff which Luskin cites. In the meantime, the originator of the latest wave, Richardson, learned some more about the complex history of the drawings and the even more complex history of claims and counterclaims about “scandal” by creationists – from Haeckel’s day to today – and published an updated version of his assessment. We quote the updated version, and Luskin quotes the more heated early reactions, pretending (despite knowing better) that the later assessments don’t exist. Oh well.

    Now, when it comes to falsehoods, there are several Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, and when it comes to "open-minded debate and censorship", there is, as Alex pointed out Bob Sorensen's site.

    Then there's the statement of faith that every creationist institution requires all of their members to abide by before they're even allowed to begin "research".

    Just look at the CMI, AIG, or ICR sites.

    And you people claim that it's "evolutionists" who use censorhip?

    And when it comes to true fear, read the transcripts of the Dover trial to learn why creationists/IDist fear allowing people the chance to check up on, and then cross-examine them!

    1. You want to join a club, you play by the rules. Now you're crying that evolutionists can't join Bible-believing creationist organizations? Wow, the hatred of atheists stupidifies them.

    2. creationists don't question gravity because we observe it

      Well, you know what? We've learned a lot about gravity because people *did* question it, and studied it, and learned more about it. And we still don't know exactly how it works.

      We've seen the mechanisms that produce new species in operation. We've seen results that exactly fit what you'd predict from such mechanisms in action. That's what I meant when I said what I did; we understand evolution better than we understand gravity.

    3. Take a look at Survival of the FAKEST http://piltdownsuperman.posterous.com/booklet-survival-of-the-fakest

      We've seen the mechanisms that produce new species in operation? Wow. Or have people just seen things that can be extrapolated to mean that maybe just perhaps new species will arise? Because we still have not seen something evolving into something else. Just like Daffy Dawkins said in my quote.

    4. To use your own standards of argument, I went and looked at your PDF. You managed to completely misrepresent the modern state of science on the Miller-Urey experiment. (Fair disclosure; my parents took classes from Urey ;))

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081016141411.htm, for example. Or http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/5513.aspx.

      Now, since you've made an error, will you correct your pamphlet? Since your entire argument rests on "Scientists made errors!" (which is an expected result in science -- that's how the field advances), in order to preserve your own high ground, I recommend being free of these errors.

      Miller and Urey did an experiment; people argued and debated it, and did further research on the subject, resulting in more data.

      And we've seen the mechanisms in action. We've seen mutations driving differentiation in species. We've seen natural selection operate. Whether or not we've seen new species evolve depend on how strictly you define them.

      And, of course, I trust you mean "something evolving into something new" -- because the odds of it evolving into some pre-existing species are minute.

  7. Huh? Where did I say that any "evolutionist" wanted to join one of your cultic groups?

    All I was doing was pointing out that those people, unlike real scientists, have already made up their minds about what they want their answers to be, before they even go out and do research.

    That is NOT how one learns anything!

    You're not getting it, are you Bob? You can't whine about the other side lacking open-mindedness when your own side is demonstrably worse. Then, when it's pointed out to you, you say: "you want to join a club, you play by the rules".

    What's to stop me from just saying to the creationists that if they want to join "evolutionist" clubs (whatever those would be) that: "They can't join unless they agree to play by the club's rules"?

    Well then, why all the constant whining about how "evolutionists" are close-minded?

    This shows you up as a hypocrite.

    You see Bob, "evolutionists" or any other real scientific institution or group, unlike creationists, do not have any such "statement of faith" that they have to adhere to before they go out and do research.

    How could ideas be tested and checked if they were accurate then, if they had already made up their minds beforehand what the "correct" answer is?

    Instead of moaning about how our so-called "hatred has stupidified" us, maybe you should actually try thinking a wee little bit before you start pounding on your keyboard.

    Somebody's hatred has stupidified them all right, but it isn't us.

    While you're at it, a little something for you to read The Creationists by Ronald Numbers. In it, he shows that Henry Morris was the first one to come up with the idea of that "statement of faith". Why? Because the people that the creationists were sending to normal schools all were learning just how the young-earth views were bogus, and were dropping it.

    Real scientists don't have to do that; the idea of a statement of faith is repellent to them.

  8. Well Bob, since you seem so interested in having all sides have a fair say, I'm sure you won't mind my pointing out that your link to the article about Joseph Kuhn has been thoroughly shot down?

    1. Don't put words in my mouth. Nonsense from people like you gets abundant press time (especially through juvenile trolling antics). Since creationists and ID proponents don't get a fair shake from your ilk, we are making our stand despite your efforts. Evolutionists should quit complaining that they want equal time, WE ARE equal time. Deal with it, Skippy.

    2. So you are just interested in preaching and pushing your beliefs, no matter how flawed they are? If your theory is true and you have gathered all the necessary knowledge, why fear a debate? I understand that the methodology criteria from science is a little too strict for your nonsense, but I thought that debates were still acceptable for theists.

    3. Bob, I have not put any words into your mouth. I intend to stay as far away from that orifice of yours as possible!

      "Abundant press time"? Huh? You mean the internet pages where you whine about atheists? How's about listing some mainstream articles about people posting "nonsense" like mine?

      Now to the topic of your complaining: Creationists and IDists do get a "fair shake" from scientists. In another post I mentioned the book The Creationists by Ronald Numbers. In that book, it's revealed that the people who originally came up with the long age of the earth, etc. were all originally young-earthers.

      It was the physical evidence they encountered that changed their minds. That kept happening so much that Henry Morris first came up with the idea of having new members of his group sign a statement of faith, to try to keep people in line.

      Problem is: All the YEC and ID claims fall apart under scrutiny and under pressure from the real world*. Maybe instead of whining about it and spreading your bigotry against atheists** you should take a good hard look at your side.

      Former young-earther Glenn Morton has a story about how he got treated by his fellow "scientists" once they found out he was no longer a young-earther. In contrast, Kurt Wise studied under Stephen J. Gould who did not treat him like that, despite knowing of his yec beliefs.

      *Eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology had turned out to be true. I took a poll of all 8 of the graduates from ICR's school who had gone into the oil industry and were working for various companies. I asked them one question.

      "From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"

      That is a very simple question. One man, who worked for a major oil company, grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. No one else could either.

      **that page you linked to with your constant name-calling is a classic example: "unproductive members of society"? Atheists have every kind of job in society. Doctors, cops, firemen, soldiers, and scientists.

      So you say that all those people are "unproductive members of society"?

      Doesn't stop you from ad-hom though does it? I hope everyone here reads that link of yours. Your hatred of atheists is kind of amusing to read.

    4. I noticed that Bob didn't even try to refute the points brought up by the sites I had linked to earlier.

      Oh well.

      By the way, from that link I posted about Glenn Morton's deconversion from YECism:

      It appeared that the more I questions I raised, the more they questioned my theological purity. When telling one friend of my difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors. When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he consider that I might really believe the data. Since then this type of treatment has become expected from young-earthers. I have been called nearly everything under the sun but they don't deal with the data I present to them. Here is a list of what young-earthers have called me in response to my data: 'an apostate,'(Humphreys) 'a heretic'(Jim Bell although he later apologised like the gentleman he is) 'a compromiser'(Henry Morris) "absurd", "naive", "compromising", "abysmally ignorant", "sloppy", "reckless disregard", "extremely inaccurate", "misleading", "tomfoolery" and "intentionally deceitful"(John Woodmorappe) 'like your father, Satan' (Carl R. Froede--I am proud to have this one because Jesus was once said to have been of satan also.) 'your loyality and commitment to Jesus Christ is shaky or just not truly genuine' (John Baumgardner 12-24-99 [Merry Christmas]) "[I] have secretly entertained suspicions of a Trojan horse roaming behind the lines..." Royal Truman 12-28-99

      Yeah. Real open to discussion, those guys. Yep. "Academic freedom" for sure!

  9. Rick: Some theists believe in the theory of evolution, but not many.
    This statement seems obviously false.
    Almost all academics, especially those who are actually experts, like evolutionary biologists, accept the theory of biological evolution. And many of these academics are also theist.
    Amongst the general public, the theory of evolution is generally accepted (in some form) by around half the population (if I recall correctly).

    Rick: The the top atheist apologist, Richard Dawkins, refuses to debate theist WL Craig in any format.
    Dawkins would probably be happy to debate WLC on evolutionary theory. And I'm fairly confident that WLC would refuse to debate Dawkins on that topic (WLC denies speciation, and holds the fallacious distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution).
    WLC has refused to debate certain issues with certain people, and uses dishonesty, rhetoric and sophistry in his debates. And that isn't even mentioning his repellent moral claims :-)

    Rick: Dawkins also refuses to debate Michael Behe and Stephen Myer.
    Meyers is a hack, and Behe's arguments have been soundly refuted in academia. Why should Dawkins debate either one of them live, when their arguments don't stand up to rational scrutiny?
    This also goes for William Lane Craig, whose arguments for God and Christianity seem to be controversial at best.

    Rick: Other atheist personalities, such as Alex Botten, refuse to debate in text form.regarding God's existence.
    Alex seems more than happy to debate you "live" Rick, and you seem incapable of carrying out a "text debate" on your own website.
    It seems this is another example of your hypocrisy Rick.

    Rick: What seems to underlie the firm convictions of many atheists is an irrational hatred for Christians and the God of the Bible
    Just keep lying to yourself Rick. People couldn't possibly have legitimate reasons not to be Christians, could they?

  10. Rick, please correct your statement about 'truth', i have said many times that truth is that which confirms with reality.

    1. Rick please notice that atheists make the rules and not the managers of the blogs.

  11. Havok,

    >This statement seems obviously false.(Some theists believe in the theory of evolution, but not many.)

    - Come to think of it, I believe you are correct here. Sometimes I forget about the masses of 'Christians' who also believe that homosexual priests and marriages are approved by God. I should probably make a slight adjustment.


    1. Some more adjustments for you to make Rick.

      There are also christians who believe that the earth orbits the sun instead of the other way around, as the bible teaches.

      From that site:
      The second volume contains sections on Scriptural support for geocentrism, the view of the fathers and theologians, and a very large section on the ecclesial case for geocentrism, amongst other things.

      Also read here for more scriptural arguments for geocentrism, complete with a statement of faith!

    2. Rick: Sometimes I forget about the masses of 'Christians' who also believe that homosexual priests and marriages are approved by God. I should probably make a slight adjustment.
      Rick, you should probably make a note that people think God approves of what they approve of, and so people like yourself, who don't approve of homosexuality, project that feeling on to God just as much as those who have no problem with homosexuality.

  12. Rick: ...the famous Scopes Trial, which had far reaching effects on education.
    This is true, but not in the way you seem to think Rick.
    At the Scopes trial, "Evolution" lost, and it seems that it was not until 1968 that evolution could again be taught (in Epperson v Arkansas, if my research is correct).
    Scopes was a blow to education and "truth" in the US.

  13. Rick: There are many Christians who believe the theory of evolution, but there are also many Christians who believe homosexual priests and marriages are in keeping with scriptural faith.
    There are also many Christians who think opposing slavery and equality is in keeping with Scriptural faith. And as Reynold points out, there are Christians who think that heliocentrism is in keeping with scriptural faith. There are also Christians who think that accepting the Earth is an oblate spheroid is in keeping with Scriptural faith.

  14. One point I forgot to make: At the time of the "Scopes Trial" and for centuries before, it was creation that was the ruling paradigm.

    There were no pleas for "academic freedom" from the religious then, was there?

    It was there way or the highway. (or jail, or whatever)

    In that context, Bob's whining about how creationists/IDist not getting a fair shake nowadays, looks even more hypocritical.

  15. By the way, the theory of evolution has been questioned. That's how this list of confirmed predictions of the theory came about!

    If evolution is to be questioned, as any scientific theory should, it should be done honestly and not by people lying about the theory. An example is the ID claim that scientists had not found an evolutionary explanation for the blood-clotting cascade or the development of the immune system.

    Turns out, scientists had dealt with those problems. As the Dover transcripts and the judges decision show.* As well as this youtube video.

    *The immune system is the third system to which Professor Behe has applied the definition of irreducible complexity. Although in Darwin's Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller)). However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe's claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. (2:31 (Miller)). In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe)).

  16. Anon2

    Late to chime in but stinkbug there rants about evolutionary predictions. Not true

  17. Question Evolution Day is happening again this year if you're interested.

    1. Do post a link or two if you have some updates.


You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!