Why Do People Laugh At Creationists

Intelligent Design is Dead…Finally!

Over at Jerry Coyne’s blog ‘Why Evolution is True’ he is writing of the death of Intelligent Design (ID).  It’s about time I say.  Creationist Muggles have kept the stupid sham going far beyond its sell by date

“There is no longer any pretense that ID is science. It’s been reduced, as have all forms of creationism, to simpleminded criticism of evolutionary theory, without any predictions or insights of its own.  Twenty years on, ID has offered us not a single insight into nature.”  -Jerry Coyne

Jesus is a Hoax

Jesus is a hoax.  How can I say that? Pretty easily it turns out.  I can say that because I follow a chain of logic from a known fact.

Evolution is a fact.  Lots of people in America want to ignore this, and many choose to try and disprove it by using junk science and holding on to beliefs that were long ago discredited.  There are those who denounce and scream that it cannot be true because it removes the need for a God and His dogma, something they just know is right and true, despite the lack of any proof whatsoever.

You don’t get to vote on evolution…which a lot of evangelical Christians think they can do and make it go away. Evolution is real science and is not really a “theory” anymore, though the title ‘Theory of Evolution’ will remain because that’s the way science works.  The fundamentalist Christians attempts to discredit evolution and teach their phony alternatives, “Creation Science” or “Intelligent Design”, in schools is a total failure and it is recognized by most intelligent people as just religious doctrine posing as science.

Science moves forward on the basis of testable, repeatable, and reviewable evidence, religion however has no evidence behind it and depends wholly on the non-questioning faith of its adherents.  Any teacher who tries to teach faith-based dogma in a science class is clearly not suited to be a teacher. Our leadership in science and technology cannot be subservient to anyone’s religious persuasions.

Evolution today presents a major conundrum to Christianity and it’s dominate dogma of original sin and the blood atonement of Jesus.  Just believe in Jesus and your ‘sins’ are washed away.  Well that Jesus may or may not be reality.  We know that evolution could not produce a single parent couple through which we all descended; this is predictable from the way we know evolution works.  Additionally there is the DNA and archaeological evidence totally backing this up.

This is what gets the ball rolling.  These simple proofs that there was NO Adam and Eve is what gives lie to the whole Bible. If there is NO Adam and Eve, as described in the Bible and this is surely fact, then there is surely NO fall and the subsequent original sin, and it is original sin that the whole Christian shtick is based on.  If there were NO original sin then there is no need for redemption; if there is NO need for redemption then there is no need for Jesus, If there is no need for Jesus…what use is the story of a crucifixion and resurrection?  Besides lacking any contemporaneous proofs at all, the whole story reeks of Bronze Age myth.  Are we still to believe in gods that demand blood sacrifice?  Haven’t we grown past this medieval, dark ages reasoning?  I know I have.

Religions problems with science are many and varied. Evolution tells us the earth, biosphere, animals, and humans evolved in a certain way and on a schedule of sorts. It makes predictions of what is to be found and how things will work.  Genesis has stories that conflict with known science.  We know in fair detail how and when the universe came into being, how and when our earth came into existence, and how and when humans came to inhabit our planet.

If you claim to be an intelligent member of modern society do you still believe in magic and demons, witches, devils, imps, goblins, incubuses, succubus’s, wraiths, unicorns, etc.?  Christians do, and of course in the dark ages the churches killed people who they thought were witches or devils and such and those who denied some of the Bibles more egregious blunders.

The primal reason Evolution is giving Christians so much grief is of course that evolution says the Christian creation story is just flat wrong…it never happened that way and the first two chapters of Genesis are totally wrong…the story is not factual in any way.  We know how dinosaurs and other land animals, plants, insects, birds, fish, humans, etc. came into being and we know it was not by ex-nihilo creation by some Bronze Age god.

Evolution could not, did not, produce a single mother and father of all future humans, so there was no Adam and no Eve. And with this now known to be fact the Christians have to really rethink their beliefs and decide where they are to go from here on. There is no voting on this…we do not get to choose what we want to be reality.  What is real and true is truth, no matter what some goat herders wrote a few thousand years ago.

John Schneider, former teacher of theology at Calvin College in Michigan says it’s time to face facts:

“There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence. Evolution makes it pretty clear that in nature, and in the moral experience of human beings, there never was any such paradise to be lost. So Christians, I think, have a challenge, have a job on their hands to reformulate some of their tradition about human beginnings.”

. . funny pictures - Schrodinger:
see more Lolcats and funny pictures, and check out our Socially Awkward Penguin lolz!

Texas Tries To Kill Science In Its Schools…Again

Once again the Texas Board of Education (TBOE) is flirting with adding patently religious material to its instructional materials to be used in science classrooms.  The battle of course is really about evolutionary theory and the Texas religious rights continuing battle to get religious dogma into their public school classrooms.   In 2009 the Texas Board of Education said that students should be taught “all sides” of current scientific theories, and that “all sides” is code for the religious side, or teaching that the earth was created 6,000 years ago by the Christian God Yahweh in 6 literal 24 hour days.

Of course they want the students to side with them and reject the actual scientific proofs and be good little Christian boys and girls so they can assure the cultural reproduction of the fundamentalist creationist ethos.

To achieve this end the TBOE has seemingly partnered with a little known company called International Databases, LLC that is based in New Mexico (said to be a one man operation).  The material that is being considered is obviously slanted towards creationism and/or Intelligent Design (same thing) and dismisses scientific truths. TBOE materials relating to this can be viewed Here

Texas Freedom Network has more data on this story here.  International Databases LLC is listed on Google as:

Stephen O. Sample, President
International Databases LLC
7205 Triana Pl. NW
Albuquerque, NM 87114

I don’t think the creationists are EVER going to give up on trying to get their bull-crap religious dogma into public schools.  These people have to be confronted and shown to the world to be 5th columnists trying to take over our schools and eventually our countries secular government.
.
funny pictures - evil genius plan for world domination even more fun to think about once the nips kicks in
see more Lolcats and funny pictures, and check out our Socially Awkward Penguin lolz!

Creation Science and Intelligent Design are Lies

“Albuquerque (New Mexico) Rep. Thomas Anderson introduced a bill that said teachers can’t be punished for sharing information with students, including different opinions on evolution, human cloning and climate change.

“The wording of the bill isn’t that bad, but it would lead to very obscure consequences in our public schools. Why are these people so concerned about other knowledge being provided? Different theories exist. Students should know about it,” Anderson said.”  Full story
http://www.koat.com/education/26812193/detail.html

This particular story kind of caught me by surprise.  I’m used to the crazy religious fundamentalists in the Deep Southern states trying to pass legislation to enable teaching of their “Intelligent Design” or “Creation Science” lies. I never imagined that a Southwestern state such as New Mexico would fall into the cradle of lies that evangelical fundamentalists weave. I guess you can’t stop stupid, all this time I thought the line was drawn at the Texas border.

They try to introduce these lies in schools under the guise of being “fair” and “teaching the controversy” …so the students can develop critical thinking skills. They try to make it seem that to be fair we should give the students the chance to decide on their own.

One of the replies to the story states: “When I was a kid, we were taught both so we could make up our own minds. Socialists don’t like different opinions…”

There is a serious flaw with these kinds of assertion from the religious. Public schools are not in the business of teaching lies and mistruths; they should only be teaching what is known to be true. It is not up to students to “Decide” or make up their own mind about which story is true.  They go to school to learn about the real world…not some looney made up religious lies about our origins and history.

When these students go to any reputable college to learn science…there is no choice, or deciding of, which science they are to be taught.  Go to Notre Dame, go to University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, go to the University of Utah…ALL religious schools.  Sign up for science classes and guess what…they teach real science; not Intelligent Design (ID), not Creation Science, which by the way are neither intelligent or science.

I can’t find any reputable college that teaches anything but real science. I can’t find a one that teaches ID or Creationism, so just how real is this religious “science” and why should it be taught in public schools? How can people like Rep. Thomas Anderson and his ilk in the Southern States think they are doing a good thing and “Helping” our schools, students, or society?  They are not.
.
Hell has apparently frozen over

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

Copyright 2002  G.R. Morton. This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.  http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

In recent reading of Dembski and other ID proponents I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years.  This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making.  The claim is that the theory of evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall.  This claim has many forms and has been made for over 178 years.  This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is three-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution.  Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal.  In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area  for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn’t stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim.  Now for the claims in chronological order.

1825

“…Physical philosophy, for a long time past, had taken upon itself to deny the truth of the Mosaical statements, and often with much sarcasm, because it assigned a date of not more than about four thousand years ago, for the period of a Revolution which was able to cause marine substances to be imbedded in all parts of this inhabited earth; even in places the most remote from the sea, and in elevations very considerably above its present level. But, the progress of physical research during the last few years, conducted by naturalists of acute and honest minds, has at last terminated in so signal a concession to the testimony of the Mosaical record in this particular; that, added to the authority of Bacon’s and Newton’s philosophy, it renders that testimony paramount, as the rule by which all inquiries concerning revolutions general to the globe ought henceforth to be conducted. For, the mineral geology has been brought at length, by physical phenomena alone, to these conclusions; ‘That the soils of all the plains were deposited in the bosom of a tranquil water; that their actual order is only to be dated from the period of the retreat of that water; that the date of that period is not very ancient; and, that it cannot be carried back above five or six thousand years.'” Granville Penn, Mineral and Mosaic Geologies, Vol. 2, (London: James Duncan, 1825), p. 6

1840

Speaking of the diluvial theories of Granville Penn and the imminent demise of the old earth viewpoint:

“Till within a few years, these two [Neptunism and Huttonism] have been the prevailing system; but another has lately appeared which seems likely, I think, to supercede them: it is called by Mr. Granville Penn, who is its great champion, the MOSAIC GEOLOGY, because it is chiefly derived from the Mosaic History of the Creation and the Deluge.” Granville Penn, Conversations on Geology, (London: J. W. Southgate and Son, 1840), p. 38

For those who don’t know, Hutton was the predecessor of Charles Lyell and believed in an old earth without a global flood.

Of the concordance of history and the Biblical account:

“As time rolls on, new accessions of proof are unfolded; these will accumulate age by age continually, as Providence lifts the veil, until in the fulness of time, they shall merge into one mighty and irresistible blaze of truth, which will consume all the cobwebs of sophistry, and forever confound the infidel.” John Murray, Truth of Revelation, (London: William Smith, 1840), p. xv, xvi

1850

Of the disappearance of old earth geology and evolution [physical development]:

“Perhaps the author of the ‘Rambles’ could favour us with the induction process that converted himself; and, as the attainment of truth, and not victory, is my object, I promise either to acquiesce in or rationally refute it. Till then I hold by my antiquated tenets, that our world, nay, the whole material universe, was created about six or seven thousand years ago, and that  in a state of physical excellence of which we have in our present fallen world only the ‘vestiges of creation.’ I conclude by mentioning that this view I have held now for nearly thirty years, and, amidst all the vicissitudes of the philosophical world during that period, I have never seen cause to change it. Of course, with this view I was, during the interval referred to, a constant opponent of the once famous, though now exploded, nebular hypothesis of La Place; and I yet expect to see physical development and long chronology wither also on this earth, now that THEIR ROOT (the said hypothesis) has been eradicated from the sky.[!!!]–I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, “Philalethes.”  Scottish Press, cited by Hugh Miller, Footsteps of the Creator, originally published in 1850. (Edinburgh: William Nimmo, 1869), p. 257

1871

Long ago, when all astronomers as well as modern geologists, were against me in the then amalgamated nebular and geological hypotheses, I ventured to prophesy, and that on the principles of our starting postulates, that both these hypotheses, being spurious, were destined to succumb under the advancing light of science properly so called. One of these, and that by far the more plausible, has since become extinct. And now again I venture, (but indeed there is no venture in the case,) to repeat the same prophecy regarding the survivor, that the time is on the wing, whether we require to wait for it short or long, when it will follow its better-half to the lower regions. Patrick McFarlane, Esq., L.M.V.I., Antidote Against the Unscriptural and Unscientific Tendency of Modern Geology; with Remarks on Several Cognate Subjects, (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1871), p. 89

1878

“There are some signs of this whimsical theory of Evolution soon taking another phase. Carl Vogt has given hints that perhaps they have, after all, made a mistake as to the line of descent. It may be found, he conjectures, that Man is not descended from the Ape family but from the Dog!
“Other theories may soon be heard of–for the human mind is restless under the burthen of mystery.” Thomas Cooper, Evolution, The Stone Book and The Mosaic Record of Creation, (London: Hodder and Stoughton), p. 186-187

1884

“As an illustration of the change of thought, the lecturer [Thomas Kimber–grm] spoke of evolution’s failure as a strong theory and the downfall of Darwinism. When the theory came out it was seized upon with avidity, and most of the great scholars examined it and accepted it. Now they had given it up.  Prof. Virchow in the Edinburgh celebration said evolution had no scientific basis. No skull had yet been found differing to any extent from the general type. Prof. Tyndall had lately said that ‘evolution belongs to the twilight of conjecture.’  Prof. Huxley, at first one if its strongest advocates, said the link between the living the the not living had not been found. It must be found to prove the evolution theory.” “Thomas Kimber’s Lecture on Science in Relation to Divine Truths,” The New York Times, Nov 25, 1884.

1894

“It is true that a tide of criticism hostile to the integrity of Genesis has been rising for some years; but it seems to beat vainly against a solid rock, and the ebb has now evidently set in. The battle of historical and linguistic criticism may indeed rage for a time over the history and date of the Mosaic law, but in so far as Genesis is concerned it has been practically decided by scientific exploration.” ~ J. William Dawson, The Meeting Place of History and Geology, (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1894), p. 206

1895

“In conclusion, we venture to say that we expect one good result from the publication of Professor Prestwich’s treatise, and that is that the flippant style of speaking of the Deluge, said to have  been adopted in recent times by some who might, one would suppose, have known better, will henceforth be dropped;…” F. R. Wegg-Prosser, “Art. VIII.—Scientific Evidence of the Deluge,” Dublin Review, p. 415

1903

“It must be stated that the supremacy of this philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its defenders at the outset.  A mere glance at the history of the theory during the four decades that it has been before the public shows that the beginning of the end is at hand.”
“Such utterances are now very common in the periodicals of Germany, it is said.  It seems plain the reaction has commenced and that the pendulum that has swung so strongly in the direction of Evolution, is now oscillating the other way.  It required twenty years for Evolution to reach us from abroad.  Is it necesary for us to wait twenty years more to reverse our opinions?” Prof. Zockler, The Other Side of Evolution, 1903, p. 31-32 cited in Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of  Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message  news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com

1904

“Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science.  It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past.  A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel.” Eberhard Dennert,  At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904, cited by Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of  Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message  news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com

1905

Book title:
Collapse of Evolution, by Luther Tracy Townsend — Source: Talk Origins message  news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com … Presages Scott Huse’s book by the same title in 1983

1912

Of his theory of the flood, which he thought was being accepted, Isaac Vail wrote:
” It was this independent research in a very wide field of thought that led me to enlarge the pamphlet of 1874 to a book of 400 pages in 1885; and again it was revised and enlarged in 1902; and I have been greatly encouraged by the fact that this last edition is now used in some of the colleges, and in at least two universities as an educator. ”
“When the first volume was published in 1874 it was a rare thing to meet with a scientist who would admit that the earth had a ring system; to-day it is as rare to meet with one who does not concede the great fact, and the great problem is resolving itself into this form: How did the earth’s rings fall back to the surface of the planet?” ~ Isaac Newton Vail, The Earth’s Annular System, 4th ed. (Pasadena: The Annular World Co., 1912), p. v

Book title
“The Passing of Evolution”, by George Frederick Wright.  Volume VII of the Fundamentals (1910-1915) . Source: Talk Origins message  news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com

1922

“The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time” – George McCready Price, quoted in J. E. Conant’s The Church The Schools And Evolution (1922), p.18 Taken from Troy Britain’s reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html

The American Association for the Advancement of Science felt forced to formally deny such a claim . They issued a  report which says:

Since it has been asserted that there is not a fact in the universe in support of this theory, that it is a “mere guess” which leading scientists are now abandoning, and that even the American Association for the Advancement of Science at its last meeting in Toronto, Canada, approved this revolt against evolution, and

Inasmuch as such statements have been given wide publicity through the press and are misleading public opinion on this subject, therefore,

The Council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has thought it advisable to take formal steps upon this matter, in order that there may be no ground for misunderstanding of the attitude of this Association, which is one of the largest scientific bodies in the world, with a membership of more than 11,000 persons, including the American authorities in all branches of science. The following statements represent the position of the Council with regard to the theory of evolution.

    1. The Council of the Association affirms that, so far as the scientific evidences of evolution of plants and animals and man are concerned, there is no ground whatever for the assertion that these evidences constitute a “mere guess.” No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of organic evolution.” http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=156

1924

“I am convinced that science is making substantial progress. Darwinism has been definitely outgrown. As a doctrine it is merely of historical interest. True, the current teaching of geology still occupy the center of the stage, and the real modern discoveries which completely discredit these teachings are only beginning to get a hearing. The New Catastrophism is the theory of tomorrow in the science of geology; and under the teaching of this new view of geology the whole theory of evolution will take its place with the many perishing dreams and the wrecks of forgotten deliriums. And at that time the entire teaching of science along these lines will be found to be in complete harmony with the opening chapters of the Ancient Hebrew Scriptures. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” – George McCready Price, quoted in Alexander Hardie’s Evolution: Is It Philosophical, Scientific Or Scriptural? (1924), pp.125-126   Taken from Troy Britain’s reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html

1929

“The world has had enough of evolution  In the future, evolution will be remembered only as the crowning deception which the arch-enemy of human souls foisted upon the race in his attempt to lead man away from the Savior. The Science of the future will be creationism. As the ages roll by, the mysteries of creation week will be cleared up, and as we have learned to read the secrets of creative power in the lives of animals and plants about us, we shall understand much that our dim senses cannot now fathom. If we hope to continue scientific study in the laboratories and fields of the earth restored, we must begin to get the lessons of truth now. The time is ripe for a rebellion against the dominion of evolution, and for a return to the fundamentals of true science,” Back To Creationism. – Harold W. Clark (1929) Back To Creationism, p. 139 Taken from Troy Britain’s reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html

1935

“The chain of evidence that purports to support the theory of evolution is a chain indeed, but its links are formed of sand and mist. Analyze the evidence and it melts away; turn the light of true investigation upon its demonstrations and they fade like fog before the freshening breeze. The theory stands today positively disproved, and we will venture the prophecy that in another two decades, when younger men, free from the blind prejudices of a passing generation are allowed to investigate the new evidence, examine the facts, and form their own conclusions, the theory will take its place in the limbo of disproved tidings. In that day the world of science will be forced to come back to the unshakable foundation of fact that is the basis of the true philosophy of the origin of life.” Harry Rimmer, The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1935), p. 113-114

( I would like to thank J. Barber for pointing this out to me. He had previously quoted it at:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html The above comes from my copy of the book.

1940

“The Bible is the one foundation on which all true science must finally rest: because it is the one book of ultimate origins. Science established on this foundation will endure. In fact, there can be no true science without this foundation. False science must fall. Already, its decline is evident.” L. Allen Higley, Science and Truth, (London: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1940), p. 10

1961

“I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist. On the balance of the things that I have both read and discovered for myself I am a creationist, so far as mega-evolution is concerned. By mega-evolution one refers to the origin of kingdoms, phyla, classes and orders, the largest groups in any classification of living things. I concede micro-evolution, of course, which is the origin by evolutionary processes of species, genera, and even families. An increasing number of thoughtful scientists seem to be adopting this view, which I should add is decades old, and far from being original.” ~ Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1961) p. 2

1963

“In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism” ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84

“Here and there, surprisingly enough, even in the standard scientific publications media, there are beginning to appear evidences of doubts concerning evolution. Nothing much which is overtly skeptical of evolution as a whole can be published, of course, but at least signs are appearing which indicate there may exist a very substantial substratum of doubt concerning evolution today.” ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84

1970

“Indeed, of late, more and more have come to recognize not only the reality but also the importance of the spiritual. Dryden says that scientists have come to realize that atrophy of the moral and spiritual life is inconsistent with well-rounded development. ” ~ John W. Klotz, Gene, Genesis and Evolution, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970), p. 14

1975

“QUESTION–Do non-Christian scientists still argue that man has
descended from apes or monkeys?

ANSWER–In many school textbooks this is accepted almost as if it is fact, but many biologists and other scientists have long since swung away from this view. There are many and varied theories of evolution today, but scientists who reject divine creation are beset with serious problems and these are being increasingly recognized.” ~ Clifford Wilson, In the Beginning God…, (Balston Spa, New York: Word of Truth Productions, 1975), p. 32

1976

“But even at that time there were some evolutionists who were beginning to express doubts concerning this formulation of evolution theory. A decade later, these incipient cracks have widened to the point that some, formerly strongly committed to this theory, are now expressing disillusionment.” Duane T. Gish, “Cracks in the NeoDarwinian Jericho, Part 1,” Impact, 42(Dec. 1976). http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-042.htm

By Tom Bethell
“Darwin’s Mistake (Harper‘s, February 1976): “Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse. Natural selection was quietly abandoned, even by his most ardent supporters, some years ago.” http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_tautology.html

1980

“Is Darwinism on its Last Leg?” http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej1_03.jpg
1983

Scott M. Huse’s book title: , The Collapse of Evolution,

1984

“Furthermore, even if it wasn’t clear in Darwin’s day, the modern scientific creationist movement has made it abundantly clear in our day that all the real facts of science support this Biblical position. Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time.”   Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 329-330

“One of the encouraging signs of our day is to see the large number of young people who are beginning to realize they are being manipulated by the educational system. In my lectures on university campuses and elsewhere, I am encouraged by the increasing awareness of young people to this problem. More and more young scientists are interested in searching out the creationist explanation for origins and earth history. Some excellent creationist research is also being accomplished by these young people even at the graduate level. They are not receiving much encouragement from the educational establishment, but they are going ahead anyway.” ~ Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict, (Creation Compass, 1984), p. 191

1985

“There are still some die-hard uniformitarians who would question the first assumption but, as documented in the preceding chapter, more and more in the modern school of geologists are saying that everything in the geologic column is a record of catastrophe.” ~ Henry M. Morris, Creation and the Modern Christian, (El Cajon, California: Master Book Publishers, 1985), p. 241

1987

“Evolution is in absolute chaos today and has been especially for this decade of the ’80’s. The ’80’s has been extremely bad for Evolution. Every major pillar of Evolution has crumbled in the decade of the   ’80’s.” D. James Kennedy on “The John Ankerberg Show,” 1987

1988

“Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They have discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical
position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory. One of the world’s most highly respected philosophers of science, Dr. Karl Popper, has argued that one theory of origins, almost universally accepted as a scientific fact, does not even qualify as a scientific theory. A 1980 display at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History made the same admission.” ~ Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma,
(Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), p. 7,8

“Leading scientists are abandoning their faith in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Why?” Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), Back cover.

1989

“Although the history of the earth and life has long been interpreted by the uniformitarian maxim, ‘the present is the key to the past,’ more and more geologists are returning to catastrophism.” ~ Henry M. Morris, “Evolution – A House Divided,” Impact, 194, August, 1989, p. iii.

1990

“Even though the large majority of modern scientists still embrace an evolutionary view of origins, there is a significant and growing number of scientists who have abandoned evolution altogether and have accepted creation instead.” ~ Mark Looy, “I Think; Therefore, There is a Supreme Thinker,” Impact, 208, October, 1990, p. i

1991

Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies.” Duane T. Gish, “The Big Bang Theory Collapses” Impact, 216 (June 1991), p. iv.

1993

“Today, however, the ‘creative’ role of natural selection is being questioned by a growing number of scientists. Yet most of these scientists have not reconsidered the intelligent design argument which was replaced by natural selection as the supposed source of apparent design.” ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 67

Today, there is a growing recognition among scientists of the dramatic implication that the principle of uniformity holds for the origin of functional information. This is not an argument against Darwinian evolution. It is, however, an important scientific inference in favor of the intelligent origin of genetic messages.” ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 64

“There are hopeful signs, however.  Evolution theory itself has now collapsed under scientific scrutiny. Further, the foundations have not been totally abandoned by scientists.” ~ T. V. Varughese, “Christianity and Technological Advance,” Impact, 245, p. iv.

1994

“Even scientists are leaving Darwinian evolution in droves, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. They have grown weary of arguing how random mutations in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements in it.” ~ John D. Morris, The Young Earth, (Colorado Springs: Master Books, 1994), p. 121

“Well, the Big Bang has started to fizzle! Astronomer Hoyle says that a ‘sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.’ The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar, astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann bondi, physicist Robert Oldershaw and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs.” ~ Don Boys, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, (Largo, Fl: Freedom Publications, 1994), p. 44-45

1995

“The cosmologists (with a number of notable exceptions) are all committed to the ‘Big Bang’ theory of cosmic origin, the date of which is the age for which they are searching. But the ‘Big Bang’ itself is highly speculative, and there are a growing number of astronomers who are questioning it.” ~ Henry M. Morris, “Cosmology’s Holy Grail,” Back To Genesis February, 1995,No. 74, p. b.

“Of course, I take a different view. In my opinion, much of the history of the twentieth century will be seen in retrospect as a failed experiment in scientific atheism. The thinkers most responsible for making the twentieth century mindset were Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Freud has now lost most of his scientific standing, and Marx has been so spectacularly discredited that he retains his influence only in the loftiest academic ivory towers. Darwinism is still untouchable, but the most widely used college evolutionary biology textbook (by Douglas Futuyma) links his achievement to that of the other two. Phillip E. Johnson, “What (If Anything) Hath God Wrought? Academic Freedom and the Religious Professor” Academe, Sept. 1995. http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/wrought.html

GRM: Sounds a bit like Harold Clark’s 1929 statement.

1996

“We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only of God’s existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent from our own four.” ~ Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1996), p. 33

“The Behe argument is as revolutionary for our time as was Darwin’s argument was for his. If true, it presages not just a change in a scientific theory, but an overthrow of the worldview that has dominated intellectual life ever since the triumph of Darwinism, the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism or naturalism. A lot is at stake, and not just for science.” ~ Phillip E. Johnson, “The Storyteller and the Scientist”, First Things, Oct. 1996, p.47.

1997

“Even though the Big Bang is still the cosmogony of choice for the majority of astronomers, there is a rapidly growing body of very competent dissenters. “Henry Morris, Back to Genesis,101, May, 1997, p. a,b

1998

Darwin gave us a creation story, one in which God was absent and undirected natural processes did all the work. That creation story has held sway for more than a hundred years. It is now on the way out. When it goes, so will all the edifices that have been built on its foundation. William A. Dembski, Introduction to Mere Creation, in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 13-30, p. 29

“What is science going to look like once intelligent design replaces it?” William A. Dembski, “Redesigning Science,” in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 93-112, p. 93

Of Evolution:
“In appearance it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and that leak widens as more and more people understand it and draw attention to the conflict between empirical science and materialist philosophy. The more perceptive of the ship’s officers know that the ship is doomed if the leak cannot be plugged. The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship’s great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom.” Phillip Johnson, “How to Sink a Battleship,” in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 446-453, p. 453

I believe that at some time well before 2059, the bicentennial year of Darwins Origin of Species, perhaps as early as 2009 or 2019, there will be another celebration that will mark the demise of the Darwinist ideology that was so triumphant in 1959. Phillip Johnson, How to Sink a Battleship, in Mere Creation, ed. By William A. Dembski, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 446-453, p. 448

Of Big Bang:
At the present time the most favoured theory on how the Universe began is what has come to be popularly known as the Big Bang Theory. It is a theory which has received much mathematical and physical examination and is undoubtedly the theory most widely accepted by Astrophysicists. But it has its critics and is not expected to survive much longer. Leander R. Pimenta, Before the First Day, (Chichester, England: Creation Books, 1998), p. 152

1999

“Meanwhile, it is my personal hope that these positions newly adopted by scholars in the scientific community when they do reach the larger world, will lead to turn to a renewal of philosophy and humane letters, and that an enhanced confidence in the ordered structure of physical reality will afford men and women a more assured, firmer stride in the paths of narrative and poetic composition. Actually, I have no doubt that this will be the case, at least after my time, and I cherish the suspicion that future students of literary history, not so terribly far down the road, may look back to these past two centuries as a somewhat weird period, during which an extraordinary multitude of singularly disturbed authors composed an inordinate number of very bizarre and disquieting books. ‘Yes,’ their teachers will be obliged to inform them, ‘a lot of people back in those unfortunate days had gotten it into their silly heads that the whole world and everything in it had somehow evolved by accident, you see. It was all rather strange.” Patrick Henry Reardon, “The World as Text,” Touchstone, July/August, 1999, p. 89

Darwinists will no doubt object to this characterization of their theory.  For them Darwinism continues to be a fruitful theory, one whose imminent demise I am greatly exaggerating. William Dembski, Intelligent Design, (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1999), p. 113

2000

“There is growing interest in a biological theory of intelligent design around the world. While many still vigorously oppose all such ideas, there is a much greater openness than ever before. Philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, engineers, and biologists are willing to suggest, even demand, that a more rigorous study of intelligent design in relation to biological organisms be pursued. A renaissance may be around the corner.” Ray Bohlin, “The Natural Limits to Biological Change,” in Ray Bohlin, ed., Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), p. 44

2001

“Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution.” Henry Morris, “The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary, Part II”, Impact, 331(2001) http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm

“Intellectual honesty will soon force many scientists to abandon Darwin’s theory of the evolution of species in exchange for intelligent design or outright Biblical creation.” Gregory J. Brewer, “The Immanent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design,” Impact, 341(2001), p. i

2002

“Creation scientists may be in the minority so far, but their number is growing, and most of them (like this writer) were evolutionists at one time, having changed to creationism at least in part because of what they decided was the weight of scientific evidence.” Henry Morris, “What are Evolutionists Afraid of?” Back to Genesis, No. 168(Dec. 2002).

As the evidence mounts, many biologists and others are returning to a belief in a Creation-God.  Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 19

The good news is that the ever-increasing acquisition of knowledge is now pointing scientists back to God! Based on historical factors, eventually that belief will filter down to the schools and the general public. Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 21 

“Others may fear a need to change their lifestyles to please a God. Still others make their livelihood trying to prove naturalistic evolution.  There are many possible reasons, yet the scientific trend, particularly in microbiology, is a return to consideration of God. Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 35

In Aug 2002, Paul Nelson predicted that common descent (CD) would be gasping for breath.  Well it is now 2.5 years.  I don’t hear the wheezing:

Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002 4:58:47 PM)
“Here’s a prediction. Universal CD will be gasping for breath in two or three years, if not sooner.” http://www.iscid.org/workshops-2002-paulnelson.php accessed 1-26-05

2003

In fact, the common presupposition that evolution is right may soon be behind us. Ralph O. Muncaster, Dismantling Evolution, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 56

However, in 1991, Mayr boldly stated,
There is probably no biologist left today who would question that all organisms now found on the earth have descended from a single origin of life.

In the ten years since Mayr made this statement, however, support for it has been shattered. Ralph O. Muncaster, Dismantling Evolution, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 72

What should one make of these evolutionary controversies among atheists? The individuals engaging in the controversies would tell us that these are simply family fights about details. Just be patient, they explain, and all the controversies will be resolved in favor of a universe in which God is irrelevant. My view is that several of the disputes appear to be about basics, not details. And I think there is some probability that the entire paradigm may come crashing down at some time in the future. Henry F. Schaefer, Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?” (Watkinsville, GA: The Apollo Trust, 2003), p.  96

As a result of the tremendous advances in the study of genetics, molecular biology, and the acknowledgement that the fossil record does not provide any support for the theory of evolution, a growing number of scientists have either publicly rejected evolution or have expressed very serious reservations about Darwins theory. Grant R. Jeffrey, Creation, (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 2003), p.168

In fact, the scientific problems and inconsistencies of the theory of evolution are so overwhelmingly obvious that it now faces collapse on all fronts. The only thing holding the tattered theory of evolution together is the powerful desire of millions of people to hold on to the notion of evolution regardless of its scientific weakness, because the alternative is unthinkable to its practitioners. Grant R. Jeffrey, Creation, (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 2003), p. 174

2004

History seems to be repeating itself. Just as the first Darwinists gave up on the earliest versions of abiogenesis, so scientists today are abandoning long-cherished pillars of the naturalistic origin-of-life paradigm. Many now speculate that life may have originated somewhere other than on Earth. Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004), p. 27

At the time, Darwin offered a powerful vision for understanding biology and therewith the world. That vision is now faltering, and a new vision is offering to replace it. William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, Downer’s Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 28

Yes, we are interested in and write about the theological and cultural implications of Darwinisms imminent demise and replacement by intelligent design. William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 50

[GRM: One is tempted to ask Dembski if it wouldn’t be more likely for ID to replace evolution if lots of non-religious scientists were accepting ID?]

“Touchstone: Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years?  What new issues will it be exploring, and what new challenges will it be offering Darwinism?”

“Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism — the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the sub-cellular level — will be dead.  When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules.   I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years.” Anonymous (Touchstone Magazine), (2004).  “The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design.”  Touchstone, 17(6), pp. 60-65.p. 64.

World Magazine published a series of articles on what the world would look like in 2025. This classic statement came from an article by Phillip Johnson.

“The collapse of the Soviet Union put an end to the Soviet myth, just as the scientific collapse of Darwinism, preceded as it was by the discrediting of Marxism and Freudianism, prepared the way for the culture to turn aside from the mythology of naturalism to rediscover the buried treasure that the mythology had been concealing.” Phillip Johnson, “The Demise of Naturalism,” World, April 3, 2004, http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_2.asp

From that same issue we find Jonathan Wells saying the same silly things.

“Now, a mere quarter of a century later, Darwinian evolution is little more than a historical footnote in biology textbooks. Just as students learn that scientists used to believe that the Sun moves around the Earth and maggots are spontaneously generated in rotting meat, so students also learn that scientists used to believe that human beings evolved through random mutations and natural selection. How could a belief that was so influential in 2000 become so obsolete by 2025? Whatever happened to evolutionary theory?” Jonathan Wells, “What ever happened to Evolution?” World, April 3, 2004, http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_3.asp

Then of course there is this:
“The house of evolution is falling. Its various theorists are increasingly at war with each other over the basic question of how evolution is supposed to work, and its materialistic and naturalistic foundation is becoming increasingly clear. The evolutionists tenaciously hold to their theory on the basis of faith and as an axiom of their worldview. The publication of these two articles in influential magazines indicates that proponents of evolution see the Intelligent Design movement as a real threat. They are right.” R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky http://www.christianpost.com/dbase/editorial/203/8|14|21|28/4.htm

2006

Posted on Sun, Apr. 02, 2006
Evolution theory on last legs, says seminary teacher

By Dylan T. Lovan
ASSOCIATED PRESS

LOUISVILLE – To William Dembski, all the debate in this country over evolution won’t matter in a decade.
By then, he says, the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be dead.
The mathematician turned Darwin critic says there is much to be learned about how life evolved on this planet. And he thinks the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won’t be able to supply the answers. “I see this all disintegrating very quickly,” he said.”
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/14244463.htm?source=rss&channel=kentucky_state
accessed 4-2-06

Denyse O’Leary:
“Its almost not worth deciding what to do about Darwinism, because it is on the way out anyway.” Denise O’Leary, “What I would tell the Catholic Church: re intelligent design and evolution,” August 29, 2006,  http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/private.php?do=showpm&pmid=230270

Way to go Denyse. You have now joined a long line of failed prophets!

“Philosopher Jay Richards of Acton Institute concluded from his findings that the universe was designed for discovery. And with each discovery, the Darwinian theory of evolution is expected to go down as ‘a huge mistake in history,’ Richards said.”  http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061118/23538.htm

2007

Jerry Fodor Oct 18, 2007 London Review of Books
“In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted. This is, so far, mostly straws in the wind; but it’s not out of the question that a scientific revolution  no less than a major revision of evolutionary theory is in the offing.” http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html

Jonathan Wells,
“10. But the good news is that Darwinism will lose. First, Darwinists will lose because the scientific evidence is against them. Second, they will lose because they treat with contempt the very people on whom they depend the most: American taxpayers. Finally, Darwinists will lose because they are relying on a tactic always guaranteed to fail in America: censorship.” http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK27XO8HQYK20IX

2008

“It is not too early to chart the intellectual course to the 22nd century. The 21st century may well mark a gradual disaffection with Darwinism, comparable to the 20th century’s loss of support for Marxism.”  Steve Fuller, Science vs. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007, page 126

Barry Arrington, the new webmaster at William Dembski’s blog, Uncommon Descent
“We live in exciting times.  The Darwinist/materialist hegemony over our culture has definitely peaked, and we are privileged to watch the initial tremors that are shaking the Darwinist house of cards.  These are only the beginning of woes for St. Charles disciples, and I look forward to one day watching the entire rotten edifice come crashing down.  I am persuaded that just as when the Soviet Union went seemingly overnight from menacing colossus astride the globe to non-existent, the final crash of the House of Darwin will happen with astonishing suddenness.  You can be sure that we at UD will be there not only reporting on events, but also lending our intellectual pry bars to the effort.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/whats-new-at-ud/

Religionists and creationists and more recently Intelligent Designers (ID) have been claiming (still) for over 185 years now (time updated) that either evolution or the major supporting concepts behind it is being abandoned by scientists.  This is just one more lie that the fundamentalists religions are trying to spread in support of their Failing Religious Dogma. The amount of lies they spread throughout the world is truly amazing…one would think the Bible had no injunctions against lying.

Seeing all this, one can reasonably ask the question: When exactly will the demise of evolution be apparent to the rest of us?
.
submit to reddit

funny pictures of cats with captions
see more Lolcats and funny pictures

The Futility of Creationism

Today’s Christianity is a highly modified version of a violent oppressive ideology. After Constantine legalized the religion in the 4th century CE, humanity was treated to torture, oppression, burning at the stake for witches and heretics, the enslavement of women to repeated childbirth, un-divorceable husbands, and a second hand existence, the use of fear of being condemned to Hell as a means of control. The Mother Church greedily sucked up the wealth of the people and countries they operated in, and was to become the richest single institution in the world.  Some of the Popes and other church leaders and priests of the time were so evil and greedy you would think they were in league with a devil, not serving a God.

Over the last hundred years or so Christianity has totally reinvented itself as it realized its bad behavior in the past has alienated the churches from its paying customers.  Nowadays the Church is all about upbeat music, smiles and generally a good atmosphere and attitude.  In only a few quarters is the old fire and brimstone, hell-bound damnation still preached. Today’s rising tide of knowledge and scientific achievement is eating away at the foundational myths and old stories of the Bible and thus the religion itself.  Over the last 20 years or so a right-wing group of fundamentalists has tried to stop the erosion of what it considers a inerrant Bible by denying and lying and making up “science” to try to disprove the real science that disproves their Bible.

The creationists and Intelligent Design lackeys of today are recruiting Master’s and Doctoral candidates in the sciences and bribing those that they can to testify on behalf of religion…making up theories and boldly lying about science in their field.  They never publish in the real science journals, they have no peer reviewed papers to support their “work”, and they only have half-assed theories that are easily dismissed by real scientists in their field.  There is currently no “science” or “scientific theories” by any creationist or ID’ist that has made any real contribution to human knowledge…Its all bogus or junk science.

Hopefully this is the dying gasp of an institution that has outlasted its usefulness—that is if it ever was useful.

Ah..look at all  my minions
see more Political Pictures

The Book of Genesis is a Fraud

The Book of Genesis is a Fraud

You know, the further I investigate the Christian religion and survey the timelines and civilizations that were flourishing around the Levant and Mesopotamian areas, in the supposed time of Adam and Eve, the more I realize that the creationist people at Answers in Genesis (AiG) are right in their most loudly proclaimed message.  The whole truth or lie of the Bible and the Christian religion is depended on that single chapter of Genesis. The information given in this seminal work of Christianity absolutely has to be true or the whole house of cards falls apart.

AiG and their brethren, the hundreds of evangelical fundamentalist sects out there, have to have this key grounding to their beliefs or the whole theological mess makes no sense.

The earth and the universe have to be only 6,000 to 10,000 years old; otherwise their Noah’s Flood and ‘Flood Geology’ story falls apart because it is dependent on the figuring of generations since Adam.  The Tower of Babel explanation is connected to the timing of the spread of language and the 6 procreating passengers of the Ark. The story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden play the most important part of all.

All of these stories intertwine and depend on each other to shore up the modern day exegesis of the Christian faith as expressed by evangelical fundamentalism.  The drama that is to follow Genesis has to have the elements of this first chapter in it to make sense, for Jesus mentions both Adam and Eve and Noah in the New Testament scriptures.

Matthew 24:37-39: (Jesus speaking) “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

Matthew 10:4: (Jesus Speaking) “And he said unto them, ‘Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female?”

It needs to be mentioned that of course Jesus had the Hebrew ‘Bible’ (Tanakh) to read in his time on earth, as all the old stories, including Genesis, had been recorded and saved by Hebrew scribes around 500 to 600 BC, probably during or just after the exile. So if Jesus were not the Son of God or God Himself (that Trinity myth gets me so confused) and have firsthand knowledge of these happenings, at least He would know the story and know it was part of His heritage

After the flood subsided and the sons and daughters-in-law of Noah (Noah had no other children according to the Bible) spread over the earth they of course were to multiply and subdue the earth again, and they all spoke one language, as they came from the same land and family.  This ties the Tower of Babel story inextricably to the Noachian Flood.  If a normal person were to hear or read the stories of Genesis (and who hasn’t?) and our beginnings without applying any basic reasoning skills or knowledge of what’s going on in the world now, I think the normal response is to believe they are reporting actual historical happenings.

These stories in Genesis and the other Biblical writings of the Hebrews of the Old Testament and the later scribbling of Paul and other writers of the New Testament have been pushed upon the Western world as an absolutely-totally-accurate description of how our world and humanity began.  Well they have to do this because we’re talking about ‘The God of Everything’ and it’s not possible that He could be wrong, if He is found to be wrong then He has no real authority or potency…in fact He would not be a God.

For two thousand years they have pretty much got away with it.  In the Dark Ages after the downfall of Rome and in the Middle Ages up till around the 1800’s there was little-to-no resistance to the Christian world-view and in fact you could get into serious trouble by actually speaking out about and denying the truth of God, Jehovah, Yahweh and Jesus. Actually, in some places you could get into serious trouble up into the 1900’s for sins against God.

The church and its leaders were quick to protect their turf and muzzle any dissent or opposition to their perceived “Truth.” It is factual recorded history that many many thousands, maybe millions of human were killed in the establishing and early continuation of Christianity.  Many Popes and early leaders of the ‘Mother Church’ were totally depraved and preyed on their flocks, much wealth was stolen and put into church vaults and Cathedrals and buildings and to supporting extravagant lifestyles of the elite.  All in all, the rise of the Christian faith has been a bloody non-Godly event in our human history.

Now, the Christian faith and its sourcebook, the Bible, is facing increasing pressure to prove itself to be a religion of truth or actual relevance as more and more evidence of our earth’s history and the history of mans beginnings is coming into focus. When this Bible was written I doubt there was much thought given to us humans eventually being able to figure out what actually-really happened in our past.  The Hebrews were writing in a time of mythical constructs and beliefs, they had already been through a number of gods before and none of them proved to be strong enough or able to bring the people together. A synthesis was needed.  The Egyptians and Sumerians were next door so to speak and they had pretty well developed theories of godship…Hmmm.

There are many methods to date old artifact, and dating only as far back as 4,000 or 5,000 BC is totally easy and totally doable by a plethora of dating methods that can be easily cross referenced, and for a lot of the times, there are written records.  Egypt and the Mesopotamian area of this planet are arguably the most studied, measured, and scrutinized places on earth. Archaeology has been going on in the Holy Land and surrounds forever, it seems. Scholarly men and women have been digging up and analyzing every sign of ancient habitation for over 200 years there.  We have a tremendous store of factual data on the real history and goings on in this area of the earth.

The Bible says that the earth was created in 6 days and that Adam and Eve were created on the last day…or maybe the first day…depends on your interpretation.  The religious right says this was 6,000 years ago, plus or minus a few years

It is an easily checked fact that Egypt in the Nile valley and Sumeria in Mesopotamia were functioning city states/civilizations at this time.  A little harder to find, but the facts are out there, is that the Indus Valley Civilization in parts of what is modern day Pakistan and India and the Chinese civilization in Asia were flourishing at the Biblical time in which God was supposedly creating the earth, our solar system, the whole universe, and Adam and Eve. You have to wonder what these people were thinking… 🙂

The Sumerian civilization lasted from the first settlement in Eridu in the Ubaid period in the late 6th. millennium BC through the Uruk period in the 4th. millennium BC and the Dynastic period of the 3rd. millennium BC until the rise of Babylon in the early 2nd. millennium BC.  These dates are not disputed by archaeologists who work in the field, and are fully supported by many different methods of dating…in short, these are facts.  The Sumerians already had a pantheon of gods as evidenced by their artifacts and ruins, but that did not include Jehovah or Yahweh.  The plains of Shinar and the Tigris and Euphrates fall into this real estate, and some say the Garden of Eden was in this area.  So why didn’t the Sumerians know of our God?

In Egypt, by about 5500 BC, small tribes that were living in the Nile valley developed into a series of unique cultures that demonstrated a firm understanding and control of agriculture and animal husbandry. They can be identified by their unique pottery and personal items they produced, such as combs, bracelets, and beads. The largest of these early cultures in Upper Egypt, the Badari, was known for its high quality ceramics, stone tools, and its use of copper.

In southern Egypt, the Naqada culture, similar to the Badari, began to expand along the Nile by about 4000 BC. Over a period of about 1000 years, the Naqada culture developed from a few small farming communities into a powerful civilization whose leaders were in complete control of the people and resources of the Nile valley.  By 3100 BC Upper and Lower Egypt were unified under Narmer and he became the first king or pharaoh of the First Dynasty.  For nearly 3,000 +- years after this event Egypt was the center of civilization

Again, as in Mesopotamian ages, the Egyptian ages are easily found and cross checkable by different methods and held to be true by working archaeologists and other scientists all over the world.  These ages are known facts as opposed to the myths written by a tribe of wandering Hebrew sheep/goat herders.

So what do you think the reaction of the average ancient Egyptians would be to God/Yahweh/Jehovah moving to and fro across the earth while they were trying to farm it and build monuments and such? Those Egyptians were around then, of that there is no doubt at all.  What were the Sumerians thinking as this God/Jehovah/Yahweh was flying around setting up the Garden and making the “first” humans in the middle of their farm fields and interfering with their building of the first true cities.

Something seems to be incompatible and out of place here.  The actual-real-physical evidence says there was no “Garden of Eden” here and that humans had been around for many thousands of years before.

So there was no actual-real-physical creation of Adam and Eve anywhere near 4,000 BC in or around the Middle Eastern area. If in fact there is a God who created the first Humans he did not make them there, and he did not make them in or about 4,000 BC…and we can prove it.  Christians have a book written by a tribe of sheep/goat herders that has many-many errors of dating and impossible goings on.  This book has no more reality attached to it than the works of Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, or any other religion. It has no more claim to be true than any other.  Actually less if you factor in how much scholarship has been expended on it and come up with no factual proofs of its beginnings

What happens if the story of Adam and Eve is proven wrong? Do we just say ho-hum and go about our business, but still believe in Christianity, still believe in the divinity of Jesus? Do we still believe in Angels and magic?

The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that the creation of Adam and Eve is not a real historical event and that the Bible timeline in relation to the beginnings of humanity and the earth is just wrong in all ways…it is all made up by our human ancestors…there is no truth there.

Truth Saves

Texas Schools will Teach Religion in Science Classes

Well the Texas State School Board finally got to the final vote on whether they will allow Creationism to be taught in their school system…Sanity and truth lost out. The board voted 13-2 in favor of the new curriculum

The website “Institute for Creation Research” A religious organization that promotes inserting religion into state and federal funded schools science classes, and was part of the evil cabal behind the decision, has the story here.

“After months of hearing debates over Texas science education standards, the 15-member State Board of Education voted to remove the requirement for teachers to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories, such as evolution, and instead adopted a requisite for students to critically analyze and evaluate “all sides of scientific evidence.””

Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the pro-evolution lobbyist group National Center for Science Education said: “This is a setback for science education in Texas, not a draw, not a victory.”

“Having students ‘analyze and evaluate all sides of scientific evidence’ is code that gives creationists a green light to attack biology textbooks,” said NCSE project director Josh Rosenau.  My emphasis

I guess the next thing we will see is new textbooks designed just for the state standards that feature pictures of Jesus saddled up on a T-Rex, rounding up the goats and sheep.  There will of course be “scientific” expositions and study guides on how all the earth’s history and geological data is condensed into 6,000 years, and how “The Flood” mixed up all the evidence, and explanations on how all the other US States science books are teaching Heresy…which will soon become a crime in Texas.

One underhanded example of things to be pushed in their future fights is that in a democracy, legislators vote on policy to reflect the will of the people who elected them. And according to polls on religion a significant number of Americans did not think evolution was the best explanation for the origins of human life. So it seems that teaching truth is sidetracked in order to teach what the churches want.

They’ll soon have no more controversy on matters of religion…the schools will teach about the Christian God and the Christian Bible, and independent thought will not be allowed. Religious people in Texas are scary, I’ve meet a few, you don’t want to mess with Texas religion their veneer of being a civilized people and tolerant is pretty thin.

It’s going to be fun debating the next generation of graduates from their schools. Also going to be a hell of a job re-educating them so they can go on to colleges and universities outside the state. I think if I were a responsible teacher in the K-12 Texas state school system I would be giving notice and looking for honest employment elsewhere.

funny pictures of cats with captions
see more Lolcats and funny pictures

Truth Saves

The Exodus Never Happened

Israeli archaeologist Ze’ev Herzog(1) provides a controversial  consensus view on the historicity of the Exodus and some other parts of the Hebrew myth.

In 1999, Herzog’s Haaretz weekly magazine cover page article “Deconstructing the walls of Jericho” attracted considerable public attention and debates. In this article Herzog claims that “the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort (Asherah) and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period (c920-900 BC ) of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai”  Wikipedia

If the whole Exodus story itself is unhistorical we can safely dismiss the other parts of the story [the parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:21), the manna from heaven (Exodus 16:15-35) and the supply of water from the Rock in Horeb (Exodus 17:7)] as mythical addition to an already fictitious account.

(1)Ze’ev Herzog (born 1941) is an Israeli archeologist, professor of archaeology at The Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University. Ze’ev Herzog is the director of The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology since 2005.

funny pictures of cats with captions
more animals