Island muddy pond, photo credit: Christ 73

Abiogenesis, aka Spontaneous Generation

The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.
Medical Dictionary: The Free

Island muddy pond, photo credit: Chris 73

Have you gotten to study about Louis Pasteur yet? Besides his work on preventing germs from spoiling your milk (Pasteurization) and immunization, he is most famous for proving that spontaneous generation is impossible. Which is why people today switched out this debunked idea for the much cooler “abiogenesis”.

What is spontaneous generation, and what do evolution and creationism have to say about it?

Spontaneous generation is the idea that life comes from non-life. From the time of the Greeks, people thought something like this must happen to make freshwater eels because they never saw any eggs.

People in the 1600s had the idea that maggots just came to life on pieces of meat from nowhere. A scientist called Francesco Redi did experiments that showed that the maggots come from the eggs that flies lay. Without flies you have no maggots.

Scientists have never seen a plant or animal come to life without a parent

Creationists say that God is the only one who never came into being since He IS, and time itself is one of God’s designs. This means that God goes infinitely backwards and forward in time (and sideways since He’s everywhere at once). So, all genealogies of living things have God at the end of the list of great, great, grandparents. Luke says this clearly about people in Luke 3:38:

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

God is the ultimate ‘parent’ and we are all His offspring Acts 17:28:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Naturalistic Evolutionists have to say that life came from mindless non-life. They must believe in spontaneous generation. This makes evolutionists very uncomfortable, so they’ve renamed this process “abiogenic origin” [life from non-life] or abiogenesis.

Sounds so much smarter doesn’t it?

But does this idea hold water? What about this foundational understanding of the nature of the world?

All living organisms are composed of cells, and all cells arise from other cells. Biology Reference

And good luck finding any lab experiment that goes beyond a few simple bits of chemicals coming together to form a “simple” cell.
Those who desperately want to not see God our Creator find lots of little things they say could have come together to make something new. They point to experiments working with living cells and moving things around or rewriting what was already in the DNA. But there is nothing in science that comes even close to showing how some cell could come into being without anything guiding it.
A cell needs to do a lot of things, just for starters it has to:
  • process food
  • clean out poisons
  • not fall apart
  • adjust to changing conditions
  • have babies

All at the same time. All by itself.

That last one… even if by some miracle a ‘cell’ could develop all alone, do you have any idea how complicated the mechanisms are for making a copy so there is a new cell?

Because this whole idea is so impossible, evolutionists try to avoid discussions about where the first life came from altogether. Check this debate intro from Creation Today:

“[The guy on the evolution side] defended the evolution worldview and even admitted that he pretended to believe in God to avoid answering the question of abiogenesis…. It took until near the end of the debate for him to admit he really was an atheist. We believe that his invention of a god for that evening was purely to avoid the issue of where life came from as he stated several times he was just discussing common descent and that abiotic origin was not evolution.”

That’s because it didn’t happen that way!!!

God is so great, so smart that He made even the ‘simplest’ living things so complicated no one could miss that they were created.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;  Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; Acts 17:24,25

More on this topic: The Miller Urey Experiment: Proof for What?

Our “Backwards” Eyes


One of the reasons Evolutionists tell us that there ISN’T a Creator (and if there is, it’s really stupid) is what they call “imperfect design.”  They claim that if something doesn’t work as well as another design (that they come up with) would, it is proof that everything just happened by chance.  Our eyes are favorite ‘examples’ of these poorly formed parts.

SVG version of Image:Evolution_eye.png with ca...

[Wikipedia] “Vertebrates and octopuses developed the camera eye independently. In the vertebrate version the nerve fibers pass in front of the retina, and there is a blind spot where the nerves pass through the retina. In the vertebrate example, 4 represents the blind spot, which is notably absent from the octopus eye. In vertebrates, 1 represents the retina and 2 is the nerve fibers, including the optic nerve (3), whereas in the octopus eye, 1 and 2 represent the nerve fibers and retina respectively”

Here’s what Frank Zindler, interim president of the American Atheists said about our eyes, “As an organ developed via the opportunistic twists and turns of evolutionary processes, the human eye is explainable. As an organ designed and created by an infinitely wise deity, the human eye is inexcusable. For unlike the invertebrate eyes …, the human eye is constructed upon the foundation of an almost incredible error: The retina has been put together backwards!”

Of course, he’s not likely to change his mind no matter how many proofs you show him of the exquisite design of our eyes.  As always, it comes back to a person’s worldview.  But if you want to read all the things we could point out to show how foolish such thinking is, you could have a look at this ICR article.  “An evaluation of this argument reveals it is not only naive, but grossly erroneous…. Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must employ what is called the “inverted” design.”  Turns out our rods and cones would die without this “backwards” design.

It’s interesting to compare our eyes to today’s best cameras. Engineers have been working for over 100 years to develop the most effective photographic capabilities possible. Not only are our eyes designed to focus on what matters most to us, they also don’t work alone. Our brain does all kinds of processing to help us understand what we are seeing.

Here’s what a photographer’s article comparing the two forms of seeing has to say:

A quick glance by our eyes might be a fairer comparison, but ultimately the uniqueness of our visual system is unavoidable because: What we really see is our mind’s reconstruction of objects based on input provided by the eyes — not the actual light received by our eyes.


A couple of weeks ago my kids were having fun finding out about their Blind Spots. First, we looked at a coloring book from the eye doctor with a special page to focus on in order to locate where the dot disappears. Then, my 5-year-old asked for a video to learn about why we have blind spots in the first place. It only took a minute on YouTube to locate a nice one!

This is just a guy with a white board, but it kept my kids’ attention (mostly):


(you’ll notice that he comments on our “backwards” eyes)

and the follow up video on:

I especially enjoyed the second video because now I know why the sky is blue!!!

I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [awesomely] and wonderfully [famously] made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. Psalm 139:14

To find out the truth about how smart our Designer God is see Velcro, Technology and the Designer

Magnifying Glass and letters, WikiPedia

Fuzzy Words

[I got the idea for this article from This Episode of the Creation Today Show]

Magnifying Glass and letters, WikiPedia

Newspapers, magazines and scientific articles are constantly writing about the latest ‘proof’ that Evolution is true. The headlines talk as if the newest discovery discussed in the article has finally put the truth of Evolution beyond all doubt. But when you read the article, will the facts support such strong claims?

First of all, no one besides God will ever be able to prove what happened before people came on the scene and began writing things down. Only those of us who believe the Bible will admit that the first people did write down what they saw and lived through! So it isn’t even possible to claim as absolute truth what the millions of years crowd wants to say.

Have a look at the words the article itself actually uses

It’s amazing how many imagination words you run into in an honest evolutionary article. Think of the kinds of words you might use if you don’t want your mom or dad to find out what really happened. You could say:

  • Perhaps
  • Might have
  • Maybe
  • Imagine if
  • Possibly
  • Could have
  • Suggest
  • Hypothetically

Get the idea? If you add these kinds of word you can say anything an make it sound attractive. The person listening isn’t going to ask questions like, “Is that even possible?” when you’re just saying, “maybe it happened like this.”

Unfortunately, books and articles written for kids don’t usually write so honestly

I once borrowed a book from the library about “feathered dinosaurs” to write about. I have studied the proper way to do non-fiction research, and the way the book handled the facts was appalling. They state flat out that these animals “lived between 230 million and 65 million years ago; started growing feathers;…” that one “was a fierce hunter; able to fight,” and so on

as if the author had been there and seen these things happen.

If someone wrote that way with so little evidence about a historical person, they would never get published.

But they don’t want kids to get the impression that we don’t really know if dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. They don’t want to admit that we can’t possibly know for sure what an extinct animal ate and how they lived just from their petrified bones. So they write as if what they are saying is a fact that no one could possibly argue with so you won’t either.

I found an article by National Geographic

talking about “The long curious extravagant evolution of feathers“. The author started out by admitting that “a bird wing is vastly more sophisticated than anything composed of sheet metal and rivets”, but then quickly turns to how strongly he believes “a simple switch in the wiring” transformed a reptile’s scales into the intricate interlocking network of feathers.


Feather barbs under the electron microscope

It was rather interesting reading about the constantly changing history of evolutionary thinking about feather evolution. What are the odds the current, confidently stated, ideas about their evolution will eventually meet the same fate? But since they’ve already determined to never admit nature points to a Creator, there will always be some sort of fanciful tale of how they imagine things evolved without God.

Here’s a list of the “Fuzzy Words” I found in the article talking about what is currently believed:


Thorny Devil lizard scales under the electron microscope

  • the origin of feathers may have had nothing to do with the origin of flight
  • Richard Prum of Yale University and Alan Brush of the University of Connecticut developed the idea that the transition from scales to feathers might have depended on a simple switch in the wiring
  • only minor modifications would have been required
  • This raised the astonishing possibility
  • The origin of feathers could be pushed back further still if the “fuzz” found
  • There’s an even more astonishing possibility
  • the discovery of the same gene in alligators that is involved in building feathers in birds suggests that perhaps their ancestors did
  • So perhaps the question to ask, say some scientists, is not how birds got their feathers, but how alligators lost theirs.
  • If feathers did not evolve first for flight, what other advantage could they have provided the creatures that had them? Some paleontologists have argued that feathers could have started out as insulation. Theropods have been found with their forelimbs spread over nests, and they may have been using feathers to shelter their young.
  • Another hypothesis has gained strength in recent years:
  • The possibility that theropods evolved feathers for some kind of display
  • Perhaps the males of the species flashed their handsome tails when courting females. Or perhaps both sexes used their stripes the way zebras use theirs
  • Whatever the original purpose of feathers, they were probably around for millions of years before a single lineage of dinosaurs began to use them for flight.
  • they may have been too weak for flight
  • It’s possible that sexual selection drove the evolution of this extravagant plumage
  • the extravagant feathers of Anchiornis may have been a bit of a drag
  •  have found a way that Anchiornis could have overcome this problem
  • If Sullivan and his colleagues are right, this crucial flight feature evolved long before birds took wing
  • It now looks like bird flight was made possible by a whole string of such exaptations
  • Perhaps, says Dial, the path the chick takes in development retraces the one its lineage followed in evolution

Whew, that’s a bunch of guesswork and imagination! When you take all these possibilities out of the picture, what are you actually left with?

Not much

Creationists also are careful with their words when doing scientific research. If we don’t have an eye witness statement about an issue we too will point to the facts and present possibilities built on our thinking about them. But, we have a firm foundation to start from, not the shifting sand of popular, godless human reasoning!

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.  II Corinthians 11:3


Pasteur's Swan Flask

Louis Pasteur’s Swan Flask Experiments

Illustration of Pasteur's swan neck flask experimentSome time ago, I wrote about how Evolutionists still believe in spontaneous generation, just giving it a new name: Abiogenesis. That post mentioned Pasteur a bit and included a picture of one of his experiments using “swan flasks”. Ever since then, I’ve had a trickle of people searching for info about Pasteur’s flasks.

Eventually, I got so curious I did some searching of my own. Here’s what I found:

Louis Pasteur photo

Pasteur’s photo portrait by Nadar

Darwin’s Origin of Species book retelling the ancient idea of biological evolution was first printed in 1859. From the beginning, many people recognized what believing in life creating itself would do to Christianity and human equality, including Louis Pasteur.

Just a few years before, Pasteur had begun studying how microbes (tiny living creatures like bacteria and yeast) were the cause of food spoilage. He was in a perfect place to understand what Darwin was claiming and the scientific truth about life. He was soon busy showing how impossible the #1 necessary step of Evolution was: getting life to start in the first place.

Since the time of the ancient Greeks, people had believed everything from flies to mice to eels just popped into being every day. Slowly, scientists had shown all of them actually had parents.

But then we developed microscopes and started seeing all kind of miniature living things that Pasteur first called microbes. Where did they come from?

Others had tried to show whether microbes just came to life whenever things were right. Some reported that droplets of ocean water reenacted what they believed had been happening since the dawn of time: life springing into being all by itself. But no one really knew how these invisible things worked and they made mistakes like letting air in or not heating things enough to kill everything.

We all understand what Pasteur was the first to figure out: you don’t have to touch something dirty to get germs on you. Bacteria and viruses float around in the air ready to settle into a pleasant environment like your lungs and nose.

Pasteur proved this when he managed to catch some microbes from the air in cotton. He cultured the cotton and it grew the same kinds of microbes as usual. Now it was time to see if stopping those airborne germs stopped life from starting in a flask.

Swan Flask used by Pasteur

Here’s how Pasteur did it:

  • First he made flasks with bent, “swan”, necks. This was to trap all the organisms in the air before they could get through
  • He filled the bottom of the flask with some broth microbes liked to grow in
  • Then he boiled it to kill anything already there
  • While it was still hot, he melted the glass at the tip of the neck to keep microbes from getting in

Nothing grew in the broth

  • Even when the sealed end was broken off, the swan neck did its job (in fact, it’s still doing it’s job today almost 150 years later!)

Some people believed in a “vital ingredient” in air, so Pasteur broke off the tip of the glass neck to let air flow through. But the swan neck shape would catch anything heavier than gas. No microbes could float through.

Finally, Pasteur tipped the flask to expose the broth to the trapped microbes

  • sure enough, it started to culture just like usual

Artwork of Meteorite falling: WikiCommonsAs you know, Pasteur’s experiments were undeniable; what he discovered was true. To this day, evolutionists don’t like to talk about spontaneous generation; most books skip right over it to the “first cells”. The most recent experiment “proving” you could get life to start from non-life is over 60 years old. Some scientists have even turned to asteroids to give them enough time for the impossible to happen.

But, nature serves its Master whether people are willing to worship Him or not.

Let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That you might be justified in your sayings, and might overcome when you are judged. Romans 3:4

Want to see Pasteur’s original flasks keeping germs out? Have a look at the bottom of this page by the Pasteur Institute

You can do Louis Pasteur’s experiment for yourself with the right supplies. This article on how to do it at Biology Junction is worth the read even if you don’t have a lab.

There’s also an interesting 7 minute video about the Swan Flask Experiment at the Education Portal.

Did you notice how much these pages sound like creationists? The people who believed in spontaneous generation are rightly seen as ignorant of reality.

I found a lot of information for this post in the Answers Research Journal article by Alan L. Gillen and Frank J. Sherwin III: Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs

Want to see Pasteur’s thoughts on evolution and the origin of life for yourself? Check out this speech he gave in 1864.

Kinds, Relatives, the Ark, & You

English: Phylogeny of craniates showing the ph...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)


We’re used to Evolutionists telling us everything is related. From sponges to lizards, from apes to you is supposed to have come from one or a handful of original lifeforms. They love talking about how animals develop into separate species when something keeps one group from having babies together with another group.

We can see this happening today.

What they want us to think is that, in a couple dozen million years, one group will have turned into some brand new organism no one can yet imagine. At the same time, the fossil record shows us at least some organisms are basically the same no matter how far down you dig. What are we to think?

Part of the problem Darwin had with the popular science of his day was a belief called Fixism.

Family Portrait

(Photo credit: Soggydan)

Fixism is the fancy (and easy) name for the belief that the way animals and plants are today is the exact way they’ve been forever. (There’s another version of this for geology claiming the continents have never changed, either.)

This idea goes back a long time and was studied by early modern scientists who got a lot of their ideas from Greek writings. Grownups might enjoy learning more by reading this really long link.

The important thing to know is, those of us who believe God created all creatures are still said to believe in Fixism. But do we?

We obviously don’t believe people have “ape-like ancestors”. We believe all human beings have one set of original parents, Adam and Eve. But we aren’t shocked to see people who look very different from each other.

Today scientists can study the range of differences in our DNA giving our bodies directions to make all the variety we see in each other. At the same time we can see it only takes a tiny change to make these things happen. We are genetically super close to all people, even those from the other side of the world. Just like we were expecting.


What about animals? It doesn’t take too much study to find all our dogs and housecats developed from an original version. Today the “breeds” look so different it’s hard to imagine how they could change so much. But we know they did!

You would need to ignore a lot of evidence in the world around to believe God created Persian Blue cats and Holstein cows on Day Six. Let’s take a minute to see what God tells us He really did during Creation Week:

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:25

See that word “kind”? In Hebrew the word is “meen“. God used it 10 times in Genesis Chapter One. Noah used the word 7 times talking about the animals he took onto the ark.

Today, creation scientists have decided it’s about time we figured out just what God was talking about. They call this study “baraminology“. The “bara” means “created”, with the word for kind right after. So the word means the study of “created kinds”.

Just after Jacob Howard’s article on the American Badger, the Creation Magazine has a short article on the members of the “badger kind”. Hearing the list of animals they believe came from a single set of parents on the Ark was mind-blowing.

Turns out there is plenty of evidence for many animals to be related to one another back to what we usually call the “family” group. I’ve run out of room to talk about them today, but plan to write more soon!

In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him:
and the LORD shut him in. Genesis 7:13-16

For more, check out this post by Jacob Howard: A “Kind” Puppy

Marsh Blooms

Math Time! The Scientific Lottery or Powers of Ten

Dice I

Dice I (Photo credit: aranarth)

Yesterday I was reading a great post on Dr. Jay Wile’s blog talking about a most interesting “proof” for Evolution. His ideas are great for high schoolers and up (your brain gets a great cardio workout on his blog!), but one idea was so important I decided to jumpstart my post with it:

Well, according to the evolutionist, the probability is absurdly low: about 1 in 1×1039. But wait a minute. The chance that one of the simplest proteins of life, ribonuclease, formed by random chemical reactions is 1 in 10152. The formation of chemicals like ribonuclease must have been incredibly common at some point in earth’s history in order for life to appear as a result of chance.

Do you know what those little numbers next to the 10s are? They show powers of ten. Here’s how it works:

When someone needs to talk about a really big number, it gets hard to write after reaching 12 zeros (1 trillion). For example, what if we wanted to write the number of human cells in the world right now. There are 7+ billion people with roughly 40 billion cells each. Add those two numbers together and you get an answer like this:


What would you even call this number?! There is a name for something with this many zeros, but everyday people don’t usually know it. Scientists have to work with numbers this size all the time. So, what do they do?

They use powers of ten.

Turns out, those tiny numbers to the right tell you how many zeros to put in if the whole number was written out. So, our human cell count would look like this:


(twenty-eight times ten to the eighteenth)

Is that easier to read? Here’s where things get really mixed up. It’s hard for most brains to remember just how big a number like this really is. Let’s look at the size of Dr. Wile’s quoted number, 1×1039. Here’s what it would look like in plain digits:


Whew, it was a lot of work just making sure I put in the right number of zeros!

Dice five

Dice five (Photo credit: @Doug88888)

The next thing to know about powers of ten is how to multiply them. Say you’re an American boy and want to know what the odds are for you to be struck by lightning the same day you find out you’ve been drafted to be quarterback by a major league football team.

The odds of you being struck by lightning in a year are roughly 1 in 280,000, so the odds on the day of the draft are 365 times smaller = 1 in 1.022×108. The odds of being drafted to the NFL in your lifetime is 1 in 100,000, so, let’s say the odds of it happening on our “special” day are 1 in 8.03×109 (assuming you could be drafted from ages 18 and 40). So, what’s the odds of both things happening on the same day?

1 in 820,666,000,000,000,000

Or, 8.2066×1017

Think you need to worry? You can also see the power of ten number didn’t get way bigger like multiplying usually does. In fact, it works exactly like adding. So if you have 1×106 times 1×1022 your answer is 1×1028, which doesn’t look that much bigger.

Now you have an idea why Evolutionists are pretty sure something that has odds of happening 1 in 1039 times isn’t likely to happen.

What they don’t want you to know is the odds of what they believe did happen are.

The chances of a cell just showing up out of nonliving material without a creator is:

worse than 1×1057800

Do you need to know more?

Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return to you, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. Genesis 18:14 

PS, we figure there are only about 7.5 x 1018 grains of sand on earth.

Can YOU Spot Them?

Can You Spot the Common Ancestors? Part 1

A phylogenetic tree showing the three-domain s...

“Evolutionary tree showing the divergence of modern species from their common ancestor in the center. The three domains are colored, with bacteria blue, archaea green, and eukaryotes red.” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Do you know the basic definition of biological evolution (The idea that life developed from non-living things)? This is actually something people who believe in Evolution don’t like to talk about and we’re going to find out why.

Here’s part of Websters’ Online Dictionary’s definition of the Evolution of living things:

(3) The development of each species from different, usually simpler ancestral forms. The more similar are two species, the closer in time are they likely to be to a common ancestor. (Arbib) . . .

For example, these DNA sequence comparisons have revealed the close genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees and shed light on when the common ancestor of these species existed. (I made the important bits bold)

Whether the evolutionists like it or not, they have to believe everything alive today developed from organisms who had some children that turned into one thing while other children turned into a completely different kind. Let’s see if we can find some examples of such a many-talented animal.

For example: some Evolutionary scientists want to make Sharovipteryx the great grandpa of the pterasaurs, but others recognize how crazy that idea is. The more you look at Evolutionary stories for grownups, the more you find out how crazy all their ideas are.

Let’s see what the Tree of Life Web Project thinks about common ancestors. You can pick any creature you like (there’s a search box on the left, it’ll give you the Latin name to click on).

Here’s an example of what you’ll find:


Birds (Photo credit: Kenny Teo (zoompict))

I started with “gulls” which led me to the Larus group.  Under the great pictures (it’s fun to hunt around on that site because of the photos), you’ll find a long list of different seagulls with gray lines connecting groups (any species names on those lines?). On the far left you find an arrow that turns into a link when you scroll over it. It should lead us to their “common ancestor”, right?

No, it just links to the larger class of birds which include the gulls, called Laridae. It has more gray lines bunching birds into groups with another arrow on the left. Click on that and… surely they’ll have an ancestor now!…. you come to and even wider grouping of birds.

BTW, do we have any problem with grouping animals as Creationists? Hardly! The guy who invented the modern classification system was a Creationist.

English: Extinct Birds is a book by Walter Rot...Next stop brings us to a grouping called Neoaves (which means “new flyers”) and those are part of the Neornithes (“new birds”) class. The following arrow leads us to Aves which has a bunch of names with a cross next to them (parents, don’t you love it; even on the evolutionary page, they still can’t escape Jesus!). I’ve written about archaeopteryx, plus there are 5 other birds which used to live and aren’t around any more. 🙁

OK, now we’re getting to the ancestors of birds, or are we? The “Aves” page doesn’t even have any arrows! But, there is a link to a “containing group” Coelurosauria.

For some reason they don’t even pretend to know how each group here is “related” to the others. But you will see they’re pushing the idea of dinosaurs evolving into birds with their page, though. You can see they really mean this when the next “containing group” is called Theropoda or “Bipedal predatory dinosaurs”.

Would a Creationist have put birds into this group, or skipped right to the “four-limbed” category?

Let’s stop here for now, but we aren’t even close to the end! I’ll post Part 2 next time.

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Romans 1:23 

For an idea of what it would take to turn a dino into a bird, check out the Institute for Creation Research article: What Would Need to Change for a Dinosaur to Evolve into a Bird

Marsh Blooms

Should You Teach Lies to Protect Your Beliefs?

I have not written unto you because you don’t know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. I John 2:21 

English: Montevideo, Uruguay

Some time ago I wrote about a kindergarten teacher’s guide to introducing Evolution to little kids. She had no problem using resources she knew didn’t match the truth because it still gave the general idea she wanted the kids to know. In the past few days I’ve run into some more articles which show just how big a problem fudging the truth is.

First, a shout out to my facebook champion, Cowboy Bob, the founder of The Question Evolution Project. I didn’t find out about his work until last Spring, but someone else shared one of his posts from earlier which was a share from a Creation Ministries International article from 2008! Here’s the direct link to their article:

Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution

Here are some highlights:

English: A group shot of Excel kids in a class...

Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE [one of the top evolutionary journals] said, ‘You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.’

That first bit in English means, if you insult Jesus outright, kids are smart enough to figure out what’s going on. “NOMA” stands for the idea that science talks about completely different things than “religion” does. The whole point of early introductions to evolution is to get kids to believe you even when you tell them they are the sons of stupid animals.

Here’s the conclusion:

English: gavel no background

Many Christians expect evolutionists to be honest and fair. Indeed many are. But we should not be too surprised whenever someone who denies an absolute moral Lawgiver chooses to transgress moral/ethical bounds deliberately, and what’s more, proclaims it as a worthy act.

We do rely on evolutionists to be honest in their journals. Creation scientists don’t have nearly enough research money to find out all the things we need to know. Thank God, a number of areas we’re interested in are considered worthwhile by the Evolutionary community as well. At least in jargon filled papers adults have a hard time following they will put enough facts in for us to work with.

But such information isn’t allowed to get out to kids. Check it out for yourself by asking them if they’ve heard of all the soft tissue we’ve found in dinosaur fossils. Be sure you have plenty of facts for them to learn about!

The other example of this kind of deceitful thinking was on an article about how to fit organisms into Darwin’s Evolutionary tree of life.

Creation Evolution Headlines: Darwin’s Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush

All they do is quote a press release from Vanderbilt University summarizing a paper in Nature from May, 2013. It’s chock full of of science speak, but here are some of the best bits:

In broad terms, Rokas and Salichos found that genetic data is less reliable during periods of rapid radiation, when new species were formed rapidly.

The researchers found the genetic information we are collecting isn’t trustworthy when trying to describe a time when bunches of creatures changed from one to another quickly.

Do they tell kids this?

A case in point is the Cambrian explosion, the sudden appearance about 540 million years ago of a remarkable diversity of animal species, without apparent predecessors.

Complex fossils make a “sudden appearance” at a certain point in the sedimentary layers with no sign of a simpler organism to have evolved from.

Do they tell kids this?

Here’s the part kids and parents need to really get:

CEH editors say, “The authors not only advised throwing out some standard practices of tree-building, but (amazingly) proposed evolutionists throw out the “uninformative” conflicting data and only use data that seems to support the Darwinian tree: “the subset of genes with strong phylogenetic signal is more informative than the full set of genes, suggesting that phylogenomic analyses using conditional combination approaches, rather than approaches based on total evidence, may be more powerful.”” (emphasis added)

They’ve already had to throw out “conflicting data” to get people to look genetically close to chimps. Why stop there? To keep Evolution from looking as impossible as it is, they will have to do this more and more.

We expect no less from people whose worldview requires them to be blind to any evidence of the Creator God. But, all of us, and especially young people, need to know what is really going on before intrusting our eternal souls into people’s hands.

But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Romans 1:18-20 NLT

Marsh Blooms