Do Darwinists Suppress Contrary Views?


It appears so: Casey Luskin reports in his blog just such a suppression. See also this story about such suppression at Baylor University.

In fact, if you would like to keep yourself informed of how the Darwinists of this world are continuing to perpetuate the lie of evolution, then visit Casey’sblog. (Rob Crowther also contributes to the blog.) There is a lot of stuff here that is valuable reading. It is very easy to get discouraged with so much propaganda in the news and from ‘big science.’

Christians need to be aware of the ongoing attacks on faith. This is not just about ‘figuring out where we came from’ or ‘getting answers.’ For man Darwinists, this is about the eradication of Christian faith.

I hope you find this blog as valuable as I have. I’ll be visiting more and I’ll keep you posted on any important news items.



14 thoughts on “Do Darwinists Suppress Contrary Views?

  1. “The lie of evolution”, huh?

    In 2006, the national academies of over 60 nations, regardless of religion of their home countries, issued a statement that said, in part:

    Even if there are still many open
    questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

    1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion
    years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
    2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the
    effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
    3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of
    photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation
    of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the
    release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
    4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are
    describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the
    structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate
    their common primordial origin

    So I guess my question to you is: Why do you feel that all those scientists are lying to you?

    It seems to me that the only reasonable way to decide how to teach any subject is to teach it the way most of the actual experts in the field say it should be taught. And most of the experts in biology say evolution should be taught, not creationism/ID.

    If your religious beliefs cause you to question the fundamental tenets of science, then it’s quite likely there’s something wrong with your belief system.

  2. Ron,

    The question is not whether or not evolution should be taught. I agree that it should and have never said anything to the contrary. The point of my post is that there is a large segment of ‘science’ out there that suppresses those who disagree. I didn’t even say that creation should be taught in schools or ID. I said, that the evidence against Darwinism ought also to be taught.

    Darwinism is not a fundamental tenant of ‘science.’ It is a fundamental tenant of unbelief.

    No, I don’t think they’re lying to me. I think they really believe what they say. I’m telling you they are wrong. They are the ones who believe the lie, not me.

    thanks for stopping by,

  3. I’m not sure who I’m talkling to, dangoldfinch or jeff.

    Either way, thanks for letting me put in my 2C.

    You call evolution a lie. But just what about evolution is a lie? Do you refuse to get a flu shot each year because you don’t believe flu can evolve?

  4. Ron,

    Thanks for your two cents. Truth be told, I don’t get flu shots. Never have. I prefer to let the body’s natural defenses do their job. Besides, when the flu ‘evolves’ it is still the ‘flu.’ It doesn’t evolve into a new species and it did not evolve from a common ancestor. It simply adapts itself only to the end that it might defeat the antibiotics that scientists create. In other words, it simply produces a defense against the antibiotic much like my body might develop an immunity to certain diseases. That hardly means I am a new creature or a different one.


  5. You never did answer my question about what precisely about evolution is a lie. You’re not just saying evolution is wrong, you’re saying it’s a deliberate lie. What is your evidence that (1) it’s wrong, and (2) it’s actually a lie?

  6. Ron,

    I’m not going to repeat it. Look around my blog at my previous posts and you’ll see exactly what I believe. In short, belief in evolution, as it is currently constructed, is more of a leap of faith than believing there is a God who created ex nihilo. It’s a lie because it contradicts the Word of God.


  7. I’m not going to repeat it. Look around my blog at my previous posts and you’ll see exactly what I believe.

    I’m sorry, Jerry. I thought you wanted to actually discuss this. I guess you just want to sling a lot of grandiose claims–like the one about how you understand science better than real scientists do–without having them exposed to scrutiny.

    It’s a lie because it contradicts the Word of God.

    I see. The book of Joshua says that the sun actually moves across the sky. Do you believe the theory that the earth orbits the sun is a lie too?

  8. Ron,

    Actually, that is how it would have appeared to the Israelites. But actually, probably happened, is that the earth’s rotation was stopped for that period of time. Duh!


  9. Of course, the only problem with that is that it’s not what the Bible actually says. What the Bible is doing in this chapter is describing a historical incident in which Joshua tells the sun to quit moving and it did. He didn’t look down and tell the world to stop spinning. He addressed the sun and told it to stand still, and it responded by obeying him, or so scripture says.

    Here’s how it reads in the KJV:

    Joshua 10:12-13 (King James Version)

    12Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

    13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

    Now this poses a problem because all this suggests you may be guilty of blasphemy. You say the earth’s rotation stopped. Scripture says Joshua paused the sun and moon.
    If the Bible is as inerrant and sacred as you say it is, I ought to report you for heresy. (You can still do that, right? Is there a reward?)

  10. Ron,

    Ron, Ron, Ron. This most recent reply shows just exactly how little you really understand. Just because the Bible reports the phenomenon as the people understood it does not mean that the Bible reported the incident errantly. They didn’t have telescopes and things like that to understand perfectly the phenomenon that even we don’t understand perfectly. And besides, even in today’s world we speak of the sun rising and setting and ‘moving across the sky.’ Have you considered that perhaps it was something like that?

    You mispeak because you don’t understand Scripture of the power of God. And besides, the way I understand it, the sun and the earth and the milky way galaxy are moving through space. So, perhaps the sun did stop. Or, perhaps God did things differently back then. Either way, your point means absolutely nothing with respect to the inerrancy of Scripture. You should really do some studying before you open your mouth.

    From the perspective of Joshua and the Israelites, the Sun did, in fact, ‘stand still’ in the sky. You need to use a little common sense here buddy.

    PS–to whom would you like to report me? I’ll happily supply you with any numbers you wish. Or you can pray.


  11. I think I understand now.

    If the Bible says the sun stood still and it actually stood still, then the Bible’s inerrant. If the Bible says the sun stood still and actually the earth stood still, then the Bible’s still inerrant. Got it.

    Let’s try another one. Genesis 2: 16-17 (KJV) says:

    16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

    17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

    Now, my question is: Did Adam actually die the same day he ate the forbidden fruit, yes or no?

    PS–to whom would you like to report me? I’ll happily supply you with any numbers you wish. Or you can pray.

    Gimmie the number to the heresy department.

  12. aloha, i’m really confused about your attempts to prove creationism vs [darwinian] evolution. gradualism, which contains evolution, is easily disproved and yet you haven’t made any inroads in this. why? what is wrong with you people? gradualism is not science but psuedo-science; let me give you one quick example. the mountain building process as formulated by these ‘so-called’ scientists. they state that two plates – lithospheres – meet traveling 2-4 cm/year. one plate is subducted while the other is thrusted up. they add, (and they need to say more actually to show real validity), that there is some deformation, hence the present features of the mountains are now explained. then they mention erosion. erosion, a scientific fact, is their downfall (which is why they only admit it at the end of the process). firstly, these ‘so-called’ scientists won’t tell you the amount of erosion which occured during this process; and for a very good reason. IT DOESN’T EXIST. yes, that’s correct. there is no erosional material in the whole wide world. and we’re talking of 1,000’s of trillions of tons of material. no core sample has ever contained any of the erosional material from these mountains. this is just one of many areas in which you can show the invalidity of gradualism which would pretty much destroy any credibility of evolution (tho, the early ending of the genome project actually did just that. there is no scientific validation for evolution which is why these ‘so-called’ scientists needed to have the genome project finish as their computations showed.). common, get your head out of your butts. if you are really serious this should be fairly easy. the evidence which gradualism relies upon just isn’t there. so, get to it. ps: by the way, there is no possible way paleolithic man nor neolithic man could ever have killed one mastodon or wooly mammoth. again, here is fodder for your arguments. one of the problems is that these ‘so-called’ scientists failed to ask anyone in the know about elephants and elephant behavior (not to mention that the spears could not have penetrated the hides of these huge animals). question: why don’t you ask knowledgable people about elephants and their behavior. remember, the king the the jungle, the lion will not attack an elephant. why? for the same reason early man did not. good luck, you certainly need it. sincerely, peter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s