About This Blog

“Life is not a naturalistic phenomenon with unlimited evolutionary potential as Darwin proposed. It is intelligently designed, ruled by immutable laws, and survives only because it has a built-in facilitated variation mechanism for continually adapting to internal and external challenges and changes.” –Alex Williams

“We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor . . .”

Michael Hammer
University of Arizona
US News & WR , 12/4/95.

The purpose of this blog is to promote good science by revealing some of the latest discoveries, along with discussing historical events and encourage curiosity by students and adults alike while revealing God’s signature in nature as the Creator and exposing evolutionary philosophy with it’s assumptions and predictions in all areas.

In Genesis 1:28, fully endorses investigating on what goes on in the universe including earth because the Bible does not reveal everything about God’s design so the only way to learn more about it is through experimentation.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” -Stephen Hawking, leading cosmologist and recently retired Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.”

The likes of Dawkins who admit, nature has the appearance of design but it’s just an illusion which is using something that Lyell did with his argument in favor of the uniformitarian viewpoint. This philosophy of evolution has skewed empirical science in a massive way  due to greed and beliefs and at times, abandons empirical science totally in order to fit its own philosophy into the data by using a metaphysical premise with applications of ‘theory-rescuing’ devices which removes itself from the scientific method. This abandonment of empirical data comes from a model that Charles Lyell laid out and Stephen J. Gould who is considered to be one of the greatest defenders of evolution in the modern era describes it in his book called, Natural History, and on page 16 he writes…

“Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession and his book is one of the most brilliant briefs published by an advocate…Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. In fact, the catastrophes were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard nose empiricists of their day, not blinded theological apologists.” 

Can one consider less empirical data while invoking their own imagination as superior science over hard nose empiricists with more empirical data? No, one cannot but as one reads Gould’s own historical account, it displays a religious cult practice used to deny God, this is not something you will find in true science.  Flood geology which every true creationist embraces has observations confirm such an event, which also confirms the Bible and was widely accepted at one time. Darwin became convinced by Lyell’s approach so he added slow and gradual to his hypothesis of evolution. If geology could create complex structures like mountains over a vast period of time, why couldn’t complex biological processes? And so goes Darwin’s circular argument.

But this circular argument required tools. Potassium-argon dating allows evolutionists to assume long spans of time which is required within their framework. But potassium-argon lacks hard evidence for age, take for example, lava flows which created submerged volcanic rocks near Hualalai, Hawaii in the years 1800-1801. The potassium-argon dating had those volcanic rocks as old as 160 million to 2.96 billion years! The Journal of Geophysical Research responded by suggesting the “clock” was a little off! Potassium-argon dating is useful for evolution, but hardly useful for reality.

“What science reveals is remarkable changes can come about in only a few years time as populations respond to environmental shifts and challenges. The reason such change can arise quickly because it is not by chance. It is not brought about by random mutations undergoing natural selection. Instead, it is directed by complex adaptation mechanisms, built-in to the species,” -Cornelius Hunter

So all these evolutionary theories often times do without empirical data substantiating them instead evolutionists rely on their imaginations to help solve glaring problems and weaknesses with their models which are not explainable by natural laws and purposely avoid any mentioning of a necessary force attributed to each action.

Then they often times allude to their knowledge as being superior than the rest. While it’s true that they have an excellence for information, however, how they conceptualize reality within the framework of evolution is another story as we have seen previously with Lyell.  Now Jerry Coyne who is an American professor of biology and he is known for his public opposition of creationism and the modern intelligent design movement had written an article called, “The Improbability Pump” where he says…

“In principle, natural selection is simple. It is neither a “law” nor a “mechanism.” It is, instead, a “process”–a process that is inevitable if two common conditions are met.”

Jerry says it’s simple, but is it? He then writes in his book, “Why Evolution Is True” on page three…

“In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.”

So which is it? Is natural selection a mechanism or not or are they both? His writings on the subject uses complexity that confuses logic which is not surprising considering evolution is full of confusing stories that evolve over time due to falsifications revealed by better science and this happens because they abandon empirical data for a story. Then one wonders about the complexity in evolution has it gotten to the point where it is so confusing to those who are trying to tell the public it’s factual.

Here is how the evolutionary ‘theory’ has changed science…

1. Exceptions always outnumber rules.
2. There are always exceptions to established exceptions.
3. By the time one masters the exceptions, no one recalls the rules to which they apply.

4. Redefine what the peer review literature is.

5. Eliminate opposition: “If you think that Saiers is in the greehouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find a documentary evidence of this, we should go through official AG channels to get him ousted.” -Climategate email. 

As Granville Sewell rightly phrases these 30 year old questions posed to evolutionists which is even more relevant for today…

“Why is it science to attribute the major steps of evolution to creativeness in the genes themselves, but not science to attribute them to creativeness originating outside the genes? We all agree that the human brain is capable of creativeness, so I would then respond: why is it science to attribute creativeness to one part of an organism and not to another?”

Skeptics often dismiss watchmaker argument claiming it just an analogy to all living things and living things are very much different than machines. However, as science advanced over the years, this is not the case. Bacteria for example, is the simplest form of life known to man with it’s own specialized complexities that include a ticking clock inside of it.

“An endogenous circadian system in cyanobacteria exerts pervasive control over cellular processes, including global gene expression.  Indeed, the entire chromosome undergoes daily cycles of topological changes and compaction.

The biochemical machinery underlying a circadian oscillator can be reconstituted in vitro with just three cyanobacterial proteins, KaiA, KaiB, and KaiC.  These proteins interact to promote conformational changes and phosphorylation events that determine the phase of the in vitro oscillation. The high-resolution structures of these proteins suggest a ratcheting mechanism by which the KaiABC oscillator ticks unidirectionally. ”

The so-called just a mere analogy dismissal turns out to be a observational reality. Strong evidence for God being the Creator of such complex machinery from an organism that has no functions like eyes or ears to keep track of time but an unthinking process known famously for being “evolution” could not build specialized machinery randomly in living things, only a thinking process can.

Here is the position when it comes to the modern intelligent design movement…

1) The intelligent design movement doesn’t question evolution per say rather if it happened by “chance” or not.

2) The intelligent design movement accepts evolutionary conclusions on the age of the Universe.

3) It promotes “agents” not God as the source of information

4) It holds no value in explaining on what or who those “agents” are because they say it goes beyond the realm of science.

While there are major differences with creationism, intelligent design proponents have produced some great materials and arguments that are beneficial to Christians and non-Christians alike. There are empirical science discoveries which are neutral, however, in the movement of intelligent design, they claim to be scientifically neutral for events that transpired from the past which is not possible. The unobservable past does contain hypothetical or subjective conclusions in science.

Despite differences, this blog does support the ID movement’s efforts to question Darwinism which is known as academic freedom but do not encourage Christians to embrace all aspects of it. In creationism, it’s  the Word of God which is the authority and science is just a designed tool for the purpose of obtaining more knowledge while rejoicing in God’s handy work.

Here is a video which shows nature defying evolutionary expectations with the behavior of animals…

Originally the idea of this blog started from a webpage, that I wrote some years ago, but have updated it with new information.“The Hypothesis of Evolution and Creation Science”.

Comments are certainly welcomed in this blog but sadly the comments have to be moderated (which is like babysitting). The reason being, people like to do strange things behind a computer, something they wouldn’t normally do in person.  Ad hominem attacks are encouraged in some blogs for those who they disagree with and these same attacks are used quite frequently with those who comment. But these type of attacks are not welcomed here and will be banned.

What is known as the straw-man attack is another tactic used. For example, “Creationists do not believe that animals change. But clearly, animals do change. So, creationists are mistaken.” This is not true, variants within the species has been well accepted in creationism as a scientific fact which agrees with the Bible. However, there are some straw-man arguments that are just bad misconceptions of the issue, these will not be banned while the rest will be.

Keep in mind, the filter has limitations as it doesn’t always work right. Currently,  once your approved it should automatically post your future comments unless your post contains too many links. If the filter doesn’t work correctly, I tried to approve them as soon as possible. If the links are relevant to the discussion, it will also be approved.

“Now in the public domain because of the Internet and that evolutionary science no longer belongs exclusively to the scientific establishment.”


Thanks for visiting the blog!