Creationism Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Media

At Snopes: Creationism “bears all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory”

Spread the love

The author of the piece, republished at Snopes from The Conversation, also says snide things about ID figures.

The author’s handling of data is quite sloppy. For example, he writes:

In the US today, up to 40% of adults agree with the young Earth creationist claim that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve within the past 10,000 years. They also believe that living creatures are the result of “special creation” rather than evolution and shared ancestry. And that that Noah’s flood was worldwide and responsible for the sediments in the geologic column (layers of rock built up over millions of years), such as those exposed in the Grand Canyon.

Paul Braterman, “Why Creationism Bears All the Hallmarks of a Conspiracy Theory” at Snopes (February 4, 2021)

The way the paragraph quoted above is written would lead the reader to believe that the link offered (which leads to a 2019 Gallup Poll) will confirm the prevalence of beliefs about the origin of living creatures in general and about Noah’s Flood.

Now, yer news hound (O’Leary for News) has followed polling on these issues over the years. And that doesn’t sound right, as Gallup’s by now familiar question covers only human origins and does not mention Adam and Eve. I checked. Sure enough, my memory is correct. Braterman is riffing. One is not supposed to riff when reporting this kind of material.

How did he decide, in any event, that creationism is a conspiracy theory?

Haeckel’s name appears on the Answers in Genesis website 92 times. He is also the subject of a lengthy chapter in Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution; Science or Myth?. This book, which even has its own high school study guide, was what first convinced me, back in 2013, that creationism was a conspiracy theory.

It is a splendid example of creationist tactics, using long-rectified shortcomings (such as those in early studies on Darwinian evolution in peppered moths, in response to changing colours following reduced pollution) to imply that the entire science is fraudulent. Wells has a real PhD in biology, a PhD acquired with the specific goal of “destroying Darwinism” – meaning evolution science – from the inside.

Wells is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a conservative thinktank which promotes creationism under the banner of “Intelligent Design”, and is also linked to other conspiracy theories, such as claims that the consensus on climate change is bogus, and that last November’s US presidential election was stolen.

Paul Braterman, “Why Creationism Bears All the Hallmarks of a Conspiracy Theory” at Snopes (February 4, 2021)

For the record, Jay Richards does not say that the consensus on climate change is “bogus” but that, in the context of the March for Science, scientists can be as prone to herd instincts as anyone else. There is plenty of evidence for that.

While we are here, the article on the “stolen” election, republished at the Discovery Institute site from American Thinker should be read in the context of a recent Time Magazine article on the “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election” (February 4, 2021). Just what happened will take some while to straighten out but people who suspected that something was afoot were actually right.

And, as a matter of fact, Jonathan Wells found plenty of nonsense about evolution in textbooks used in schools in 2000. Enough for a book the size of Icons of Evolution, where he actually charts it for the reader.

Having worked in textbook publishing, I am well aware of how rubbish can get dropkicked from one edition to the next if no one intervenes. When Wells came back to the question in 2017 in Zombie Science, he found that much of it still persisted.

Curiously, Snopes admits, regarding the piece from The Conversation, “This content is shared here because the topic may interest Snopes readers; it does not, however, represent the work of Snopes fact-checkers or editors.”

So… they can get away with publishing this kind of thing because they did not check it out?

That is further evidence that Snopes is going downhill fast as a rumor squelching site.

But then, didn’t they get into a ridiculous flap a while back, “fact checking” — of all things — the Babylon Bee?

Snopes has fact-checked whether Democrats demanded that “Brett Kavanaugh submit to a DNA test to prove he’s not actually Hitler.” It’s fact-checked whether Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly “guessed ‘free’ on TV show ‘The Price is Right,’” and whether Ilhan Omar actually asked, “If Israel is so innocent, then why do they insist on being Jews?” Perhaps my favorite (non-political) fact check was of the Bee’s “report” that VeggieTales had introduced a new character named “Cannabis Carl.” If you peruse Snopes’s many, many Babylon Bee fact-checks, you’ll find it’s quite diligent in policing hits on progressive politicians and far less concerned about the Bee’s many satirical swipes at Trump.

David French, “Hands Off the Babylon Bee” at National Review (July 30, 2019)

You’d think there were no more actual rumors in the world for Snopes to take on.

When people suffer from a self-important sense of mission, they often become self-parodies and that seems to be happening to Snopes.

Note: Elon Musk had some fun recently trolling The Onion by proclaiming

Have you read @TheBabylonBee? It’s great!!

9 Replies to “At Snopes: Creationism “bears all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory”

  1. 1
    AaronS1978 says:

    Woooooooow
    The first entry alone points out his ignorance of both religion (Christian), what people believe, and what creationists believe.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    Snopes and Politifact and similar sites are insignificant and not worth worrying about. The tech giants make their own decisions about what to censor, or more precisely WHO to censor. Content isn’t nearly as important as caste. Those decisions aren’t based on a few privately run sites.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    Paul Braterman is as dishonest and biased as they come. He could be the subject of a fact-check site.

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    News, This is strawman tactic scapegoating, namecalling and targetting for stigmatisation using conspiracy theorising as the latest scarlet brand. The truth on Mr Wells’ excellent book is, he exposed a pattern of shoddy indoctrination using poor evidence, grossly exaggerated claims and outright fraud — Haeckel, I am looking at you — for generations. Indoctrination of students who are by and large expecting to be soundly taught in schools, only to find they are being misled by an obviously broken education system. THAT is the thing Snopes should have exposed. Shooting at the unwelcome messenger is a sign, not a good one. Thanks for further confirming that Snopes and other fact checkers are themselves unreliable, this stunt is of the ilk of Wikipedia, which is duly red lined. KF

  5. 5
    polistra says:

    Denyse mentions the tendency to let things slide through in textbooks. I’ve learned that lesson forcefully this year. Before 2020, my courseware was considered as an optional accessory for the textbooks. This year, with lockdown lunacy, courseware has suddenly become a VITAL COMPONENT of teaching. Thousands of students are actually using it FOR A GRADE. Dozens of content quibbles and code failures were sitting there for 5 years without anyone noticing them. Now they MATTER, so I’ve been hearing about them and dealing with them. (On the other side, the books are selling much better now BECAUSE they include courseware, so I’ll end up with more royalty money next year.)

  6. 6
    OldArmy94 says:

    When people don’t like the facts, they cry “conspiracy” to shut down the conversation.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    as to this quote from the article:

    “These are common conspiracy theory tactics at play. Creationists go to great lengths to demonise the proponents of evolution, and to undermine the overwhelming evidence in its favour.,,,”

    Really??? I don’t know how many times I have been called names, i.e. ‘demonized’, by Darwinists, but it is certainly far more often than I have ever retaliated in kind.

    Moreover, what evidence is there for evolution that he is talking about ‘creationists’ supposedly ‘undermining’? Darwinists simply have no evidence whatsoever that Darwinian processes can create a single protein molecule, much less do they have any evidence that Darwinian processes can create a creature, (i.e. humans), composed of over a billion, trillion, interacting protein molecules. i.e. They simply have no evidence for the dreaded ‘creationist to undermine!

    The probability of Darwinian processes finding a protein fold, not even an entire functional protein mind you, is in and of itself prohibitive. Douglas Axe found that only “about 1 in 10^77 sequences produce the stably folded structure”,,,

    (Venema’s) Adam and the Genome and Doug Axe’s Research on the Evolution of New Protein Folds – March 7, 2018,
    Excerpt: Douglas Axe, a protein scientist who has published work on the rarity of new protein folds by doing research on beta-lactamase enzymes. Publishing in the Journal of Molecular Biology, Axe found that only about 1 in 10^77 sequences produce the stably folded structure needed for beta lactamase to work.,,,
    Axe’s generalization of results follows the tradition of many similar papers, which came to similar conclusions about the rarity of functional protein sequences, and applied their results broadly. For example:
    * Reidhaar-Olson and Sauer 1990 (published in the journal Proteins), mutated the ?-repressor in coli and found that only one in 10^63 sequences yield a functional repressor fold. They generalized the implications of their results for how we predict protein structure in other cases, writing: “The high level of degeneracy involved in protein folding suggests that the most fruitful approaches to structure prediction will concentrate on those residues that are informationally rich.”
    * Yockey 1977 (published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology) calculated that the likelihood of generating a functional cytochrome c sequence is one in 10^65. He generalized this result to conclude that many proteins are not evolvable, and even concluded that standard mechanisms of abiogenesis could not produce such features on a reasonable timescale. He wrote that “belief in currently accepted scenarios of spontaneous biogenesis is based on faith, contrary to conventional wisdom.”
    * Hayashi et al. 2006 (published in PLOS ONE) determined that 10^70 trials would be necessary to acquire the wild-type function of the g3p minor coat protein of the fd phage. They generalized their inferred fitness landscape results to other cases, and wrote: “The landscape structure has a number of implications for initial functional evolution of proteins and for molecular evolutionary engineering.” However, because reaching higher fitness levels required scaling much steeper fitness functions (i.e., functional sequences were very rare), thus concludeD, as a general matter: “In molecular evolutionary engineering, larger library size is generally favorable for reaching higher stationary fitness.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/adam-and-the-genome-and-doug-axes-research-on-the-evolution-of-new-protein-folds/

    1 in 10^77 dwarfs the total number of organisms (10^40) that have existed on earth and therefore renders Darwinian explanations untenable. As Stephen Meyer explains, “every replication event in the entire multi-billion year history of life on Earth would not generate or “search” but a miniscule fraction (one ten trillion, trillion trillionth, to be exact) of the total number of possible nucleotide base or amino-acid sequences corresponding to a single functional gene or protein fold. The number of trials available to the evolutionary process (corresponding to the total number of organisms — 10^40 — that have ever existed on earth), thus, turns out to be incredibly small in relation to the number of possible sequences that need to be searched.

    About a Bike Lock: Responding to Richard Dawkins – Stephen C. Meyer – March 25, 2016
    Excerpt: Moreover, given the empirically based estimates of the rarity (of protein folds) (conservatively estimated by Axe3 at 1 in 10^77 and within a similar range by others4) the analysis that I presented in Toronto does pose a formidable challenge to those who claim the mutation-natural selection mechanism provides an adequate means for the generation of novel genetic information — at least, again, in amounts sufficient to generate novel protein folds.5
    Why a formidable challenge? Because random mutations alone must produce (or “search for”) exceedingly rare functional sequences among a vast combinatorial sea of possible sequences before natural selection can play any significant role. Moreover, as I discussed in Toronto, and show in more detail in Darwin’s Doubt,6 every replication event in the entire multi-billion year history of life on Earth would not generate or “search” but a miniscule fraction (one ten trillion, trillion trillionth, to be exact) of the total number of possible nucleotide base or amino-acid sequences corresponding to a single functional gene or protein fold. The number of trials available to the evolutionary process (corresponding to the total number of organisms — 10^40 — that have ever existed on earth), thus, turns out to be incredibly small in relation to the number of possible sequences that need to be searched. The threshold of selectable function exceeds what is reasonable to expect a random search to be able to accomplish given the number of trials available to the search even assuming evolutionary deep time.
    ——-
    (3) Axe, Douglas. “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds.” Journal of Molecular Biology 341 (2004): 1295-1315.
    (4) Reidhaar-Olson, John, and Robert Sauer. “Functionally Acceptable Solutions in Two Alpha-Helical Regions of Lambda Repressor.” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 7 (1990): 306-16; Yockey, Hubert P. “A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 67 (1977c): 377-98; Yockey, Hubert. “On the Information Content of Cytochrome C,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 67 (1977b) 345-376.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02722.html

    Evolutionists themselves admit that only 10^43 trials are available during the entire history of life on earth for Darwinian processes to find a functional protein. As Cornelius Hunter explains, “Even evolutionists have had to admit that evolution could only have a maximum of 10^43 such experiments. It is important to understand how tiny this number is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not more than half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70. Furthermore, the estimate of 10^43 is, itself, entirely unrealistic. For instance, it assumes the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had. Even more importantly, it assumes the pre existence of bacteria and, yes, proteins.”

    Here Are Those Two Protein Evolution Falsifications That Have Evolutionists Rewriting Their Script – Cornelius Hunter – March 2012
    Excerpt: Several different studies indicate that, at a minimum, about 10^70 (a one followed by 70 zeros) evolutionary experiments would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein design before evolutionary mechanisms could take over and establish the protein in a population. For instance, one study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. This requirement for 10^70 evolutionary experiments is far greater than what evolution could accomplish. Even evolutionists have had to admit that evolution could only have a maximum of 10^43 such experiments. It is important to understand how tiny this number is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not more than half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70. Furthermore, the estimate of 10^43 is, itself, entirely unrealistic. For instance, it assumes the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had. Even more importantly, it assumes the pre existence of bacteria and, yes, proteins.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ution.html

    Recent work in quantum criticality has further confirmed the rarity of proteins. In the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” it was found that “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

    Quantum criticality is simply inexplicable for Darwinists. As this follow-up paper stated, “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”

    Quantum Critical Proteins – Stuart Lindsay – Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Arizona State University – 2018
    Excerpt: The difficulty with this proposal lies in its improbability. Only an infinitesimal density of random states exists near the critical point.,,
    Gábor Vattay et al. recently examined a number of proteins and conducting and insulating polymers.14 The distribution for the insulators and conductors were as expected, but the functional proteins all fell on the quantum-critical distribution. Such a result cannot be a consequence of chance.,,,
    WHAT OF quantum criticality? Vattay et al. carried out electronic structure calculations for the very large protein used in our work. They found that the distribution of energy-level spacings fell on exactly the quantum-critical distribution, implying that this protein is also quantum critical. There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,
    http://inference-review.com/ar.....l-proteins
    Gábor Vattay et al., “Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 626 (2015);
    Gábor Vattay, Stuart Kauffman, and Samuli Niiranen, “Quantum Biology on the Edge of Quantum Chaos,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014)

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, even if we granted Darwinists the existence of proteins, it is still of no help to Darwinists. Darwinists believe that genes/proteins have basically unlimited plasticity in their ability to search for new functional sequences in sequence space. Yet, genes/proteins are instead found to be highly constrained in their ability to search ‘sequence space’ in order to try to find new functional sequences.

    As Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski explain, “Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold.”

    Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne – September 29, 2019
    by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski
    Excerpt: Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space.
    Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream.
    https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/

    Doug Axe and Ann Gauger have done experimental work exploring just how constrained genes-proteins are in their ability to search sequence space. Their work found that, “Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.”

    When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
    http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....nt-collide

    “Enzyme Families — Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?” – Ann Gauger – December 4, 2014
    Excerpt: If enzymes can’t be recruited to genuinely new functions by unguided means, no matter how similar they are, the evolutionary story is false.,,,
    Taken together, since we found no enzyme that was within one mutation of cooption, the total number of mutations needed is at least four: one for duplication, one for over-production, and two or more single base changes. The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations.
    We have now addressed two objections raised by our critics: that we didn’t test the right mutation(s), and that we didn’t use the right starting point. We tested all possible single base changes in nine different enzymes, Those nine enzymes are the most structurally similar of BioF’s entire family We also tested 70 percent of double mutations in the two closest enzymes of those nine.
    Finally, some have said we should have used the ancestral enzyme as our starting point, because they believe modern enzymes are somehow different from ancient ones. Why do they think that? It’s because modern enzymes can’t be coopted to anything except trivial changes in function. In other words, they don’t evolve!
    That is precisely the point we are making.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91701.html

    Likewise, Michael Behe has found the probability of proteins finding new protein-protein binding sites, in order to accomplish new molecular functions, is prohibitive. As Behe states in his book ‘The Edge of Evolution”,, “the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”

    “The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”
    – Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146

    Michael Behe – Observed (1 in 10^20) Edge of Evolution – video – Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines
    25:56 minute quote – “This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA

    Since Darwinian processes have to explain the origin of far more than a single protein-protein binding site, then the probabilities against Darwinian evolution quickly escalate into astronomical proportions. As Bruce Alberts explained, “we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules.”

    “But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”
    – Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell, 92 (February 6, 1998): 291-294)
    https://brucealberts.ucsf.edu/publications/BAPub157.pdf
    Editor-in-Chief of Science (2009-2013). Dr Alberts served two six-year terms as the president of the National Academy of Sciences

    Thus, since “developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40”, then getting protein-protein binding sites for 10 protein molecules in order to accomplish a major process in a cell would be, conservatively, on the order of 1 in 10^200. For comparison, there are held to be only 10^80 subatomic particles in the entire universe.

    To say Darwinian processes are inadequate to explain the complexity we find in life is a severe understatement. As Jay Homnick wrote, “Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.””,,,

    “It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/it_really_isnt/

    Thus in conclusion, it is not as if Darwinists have any evidence for the dreaded creationists to undermine. Darwinists simply have no evidence whatsoever that Darwinian processes are capable of creating a single protein, much less creating the entire biosphere.

    And that is certainly not a ‘conspiracy theory. It is merely an rigorous and honest assessment of the empirical evidence that we now have in hand.

    Unfortunately, rigorous honesty towards the empirical evidence seems to be in very limited supply among die-hard Darwinists who simply refuse to ever honestly consider the fact that their beloved theory may not be true.

    Ephesians 4:25
    Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body.

    Music:

    Sidewalk Prophets – Smile (Official Lyric Video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15V2sXSJ8Co

  9. 9
    martin_r says:

    how is creationism a conspiracy ?

    we creationists believe, that sophisticated, fully autonomous, self-navigating, flying systems DO NOT self-design. Engineers/Designers/Creators/ are needed. ALWAYS. No Darwinist ever demonstrated that it is otherwise. All what Darwinists have are their very absurd, conspiracy-like just-so-stories.

    In 21st century, Darwin’s evolution theory and its clone ‘modern synthesis’ looks to me like a conspiracy theory (a hoax). Perhaps 150 years ago, Darwin’s theory made sense to early science… but today ? What is wrong with all these smart ( Darwinian) scientists ? It is look like a huge conspiracy …

    PS: Darwinists are so ridiculous… creationism is a conspiracy, but Darwinists developed a theory that can’t explain the origin of most abundant biological entity on Earth – viruses. Darwinists are the biggest conspirators…

Leave a Reply