- “Farms That Grow Nothing” Served at the Republican Runoff Breakfast Table
- Pakistan, the Iran War, and Regional Security
- The Iran War, the 14-Point Memorandum, and AIPAC
- When the Liberty Bell Found Its True Voice
- Back to Basics: Understanding Your Greenville County Property Tax Bill from Start to Finish
- Update on the Iran War 6-15-2026
- The 14-Point Memorandum of Understanding
- The Republic of Türkiye and the Iran War
- American Independence and the Battle of Cowpens
- Advocates for Faith & Freedom Files Election Integrity Lawsuit Seeking Answers from California Secretary of State
- Turkish Naval Force Deploys in Eastern Mediterranean
- The Ukrainian Drone Attacks on Wildberries
- The $8 Billion that SC Lawmakers Don't Talk About
- Eagle Forum Applauds FTC Lawsuit Against WPATH
- Pro Baseball Team Forfeits after Players Reject Pride Uniforms
The Ultimate Problem with Scientific Materialism
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The philosophical mindset of institutionalized science is that of absolute atheistic naturalistic materialism. It is fundamentally naturalistic because only naturalistic causes will be considered. It has almost become a determination to force naturalistic explanations on everything.
Inherently atheistic
It is atheistic because it fundamentally excludes God, as demonstrated by the reaction to intelligent design. It is fundamentally materialistic because only materialistic causes are considered. This is done despite Quantum Mechanical evidence to the contrary.
Naturalism of the Gaps: Why Unproven Materialism is Often Mistaken for Science
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
We’ve all heard of the 'God of the Gaps,' but there is a far more pervasive silent player in modern academia. Here, we dissect how unproven materialism masquerades as objective science to bridge massive voids in empirical data. It is time to look behind the curtain at the philosophical commitments that treat gaps in our knowledge as evidence for a physicalist reality.
Think science is always based on hard evidence? What if some of our most 'scientific' theories are actually powered by blind faith? Today, we are exposing the 'Naturalism of the Gaps' logical sleight of hand that replaces missing data with materialist assumptions. Is your worldview built on facts, or just a secular mirror of the very dogmas it claims to reject?
Are All Mutations Truly Random?
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the most powerful arguments against universal common descent evolution is the randomness of mutations. The counter argument is that mutations are not truly random because in some cases natural selection keeps them from being truly random. However, this presupposes that Natural Selection is powerful enough to overcome the randomness of mutations. There is no question that there is a tendency for mutations to be random to some degree. The primary question before us is; are all mutations truly random?
Defining "Random": Statistical vs. Biological Meanings
Before diving into biology, it is crucial to establish what science means by "random." While mutations may be unpredictable regarding where and when they will occur and the exact nature of the mutation, they are not mathematically or physically uniform in distribution across the genome. There are factors that prevent them from being random in the sense of being evenly distributed, but they are still clearly random in how, where and when one will occur. They are just unevenly distributed throughout the genome.
The Common Evolutionist Attack that Creationists Are Just Saying “God Did It.”
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
A common attack by evolutionists against creationists is that they are just saying “God did it.” This is a straw man, simply because creationists are saying a lot more of than that God did it. If you bothered to read not just creationists material but the Bible itself, you would see actual processes describe and not just the broad statement that “God did it.” Now ultimately; God did indeed do the creating but claiming that Creationists are just saying “God did it” is at best an oversimplification. It would be like saying that evolutionists are just saying “natural processes did it.” Neither of these is an accurate representation of the position.
The Principle of Entropy and the Application of Energy
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Without the application of external energy, the entropy of a system will always increase. This is the heart of the second law of thermodynamics. However, contrary to how it is often stated the application of energy does not magically reduce the entropy of a system. The simple fact of the matter is that the entropy of the energy being applied to the system determines how the energy affects the entropy of the system.
What is energy?
The basic scientific definition of energy is: “the ability to do work.” Energy is what allows everything in the universe to move and do things. We take in energy from the food we eat and use it to run our bodies. Energy comes in many forms: mechanical, kinetic, Thermal, chemical, electrical, and radiant. There are ways of turning all of these forms of energy into useful work. It is also energy that is responsible for mass, and this allows us to control our motion.
Why Do Evolutionists Frequently Insult Creationists?
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
There are many examples online showing a tendency among Evolutionists to respond to creationists with insults and other types of personal attacks. They frequently accuse creationists of being anti-science, science deniers, and insulting their intelligence, just because they reject a specific theory promoted as science. Sometimes initially rejecting a theory can help give someone a better understanding of it, if they eventually accept it. When I was younger, I struggled for years with Special and General Relativity as well as Quantum Mechanics. Eventually, I found answers to the problems that I had with them, and today you will find me a strong supporter of all three. In other words, I had the freedom to question them, and it actually helped me to understand them better. The question before us is: why do evolutionists frequently insult creationists?
Dealing with the Claim that Creation is Magic
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Evolutionists will frequently dismissively call creation magic. The basis for it is the fact that creationists refer to God, and it is a supernatural perspective on the origin of the world and history. However, the reason for invoking this claim is simply as an excuse to be dismissive of anything creationists have to say. Here we go through the arguments showing why it is completely false.
Creation is not magic; it is caused by intelligence and intent.
Magic is typically defined as the use of supernatural power without mechanism or structure. Creation and other acts of God, however, are caused by intelligent intent, and on several occasions in the Bible actual processes are described. For example, in Genesis 2, it describes God as forming Adam out of the dust of the Earth and breathing into his nostrils the breath of life. This is describing actual physical processes and mechanisms.
The “God of the Gaps” Accusation
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The “God of the gaps” is the idea that God is invoked as the explanation for phenomena that science has not yet explained. It often showed up in discussions in relation to debates following the publication of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. It has been significant in discussions between evolutionists and creationists. Now, while creationists have sometimes used it, evolutionists frequently falsely accuse creationists and intelligent design proponents of using it. Here we discuss five claims made by evolutionists that creationists use the “God of the gaps,” Along with five refutations of the claim that creationists use it.
Is the Bible Pro-Slavery?
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the claims made against the Bible is that it supports slavery. One of the ironies is the fact that the Bible was actually used to argue against slavery. The critics will claim it was also used to support slavery; however, this is more a case of those who supported slavery twisting the Bible to justify themselves.
The Basis of the Claim
The real question is: Does the Bible actually support slavery? Answering this question requires looking at what the Bible actually says. Unlike most claims against the Bible, this one is not totally without merit. The problem is that most modern translations do indeed appear to back up slavery.
The Five Laws of Thermodynamics
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Officially, there are only four laws of thermodynamics, but there exists a principle of thermodynamics that deserves a place with the official four laws. The first reason for this is that it explains things that the four official laws do not fully explain. Specifically, it explains exactly how the application of energy to a system affects its entropy. It literally explains the difference between construction work and a bomb. The other reason why it deserves to be placed with the other four is that it explains how both the second and third laws work. Here we have a simple discussion of all five principles together.
The Science of Entropy and Applied Energy
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Today, we are dealing with a topic that may scare some people. That topic is thermodynamics. It's a big word, but it is really not that difficult, particularly in the areas we are going to be talking about. While a really deep scientific dive into this topic can get highly mathematical and complicated, here we are going to keep it simple enough to understand even without a physics degree.
One of the issues that has frequently been raised against both evolution and its counterpart, the naturalistic origin of life called abiogenesis, is that the laws of thermodynamics present a problem for these ideas, particularly the second law. After all, they require a reduction of entropy that goes contrary to the natural tendencies expected from the second law.
The Moon from a Creationist Perspective
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
From a creationist perspective, the Moon is understood not as the result of naturalistic processes over billions of years, but as a purposefully designed object created by God, primarily described in the Bible—especially in the Book of Genesis.
This is in contrast to the atheistic perspective, which is filled largely with naturalistic models that have been either demonstrated to be false or patched up with untestable just-so stories.
Created Intentionally by God
The Creationist Perspective on the moon starts with Genesis 1, which states that God made “the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.” Now, contrary to some claims made by scoffers, this does not imply that the moon creates its own light. It is simply indicating that one of the moon's purposes is to provide light for the Earth. The fact that light is reflected from the sun does not change this purpose.
Returning to the Moon, a Creationist Perspective
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
For the first time in over 50 years, human beings are preparing to return to the Moon. Returning to the Moon has many scientific advantages, particularly before attempting manned missions to any of the planets or even asteroids. The Moon has the advantage of being the nearest celestial body, along with having a strong enough gravitational field that you cannot float away. This makes a perfect proving ground for studying the effects of partial gravity on the human body.
Thanks to space stations, such as the International Space Station, we have plenty of experience with long-term exposure to 0G. In this area, we have had astronauts and cosmonauts spend over a year in orbit; as a result, we have learned that long-term exposure to weightlessness has negative side effects. Now we have learned how to reduce some of these side effects, but not all of them.
Does the Bible Teach a Flat Earth?
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
In recent years, you have had a lot of claims from atheists and flat-earthers alike that the Bible teaches a flat earth. We will take a look at as many of these claims as possible to check their validity. We will also look at some arguments that go against the notion that the Bible teaches a flat earth.
The Bible never says the earth is flat. Not only does the Bible never actually say the earth is flat, but you do not even find the words earth and flat in the same verses. This means that to claim that the Bible teaches a flat earth, you need to find verses that you can interpret as referring to a flat earth.
This means that, at best, the entire argument depends upon a very specific interpretation of selected Bible verses.
Is Atheism a Religion?
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the arguments frequently used against creation science is that it is just religion. One common answer to this is that the entire Big Bang to man story is just as religious because it is fundamentally atheistic. The response to this is that atheism is not a religion; therefore, the claim is wrong.
Before going on, it is important to note that the reason for stating that the Big Bang-to-man story is fundamentally atheistic is that it is fundamentally based on philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is fundamentally atheistic, as it holds that material reality is all there is. This means that any theory that is based on philosophical naturalism is itself fundamentally atheistic.
Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosome Comparison
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
According to evolutionists, they are our closest cousins on their imaginary tree of life. While it is true that humans and chimpanzees share a lot of DNA, this is to be expected, as they use the same genetic code.
Even with separate creations by God, as long as he is using a single genetic code, there will be genetic similarities among different kinds. One of the big misconceptions that is claimed as evidence for common descent is the presupposition that an independent origin, even a divine one, would result in totally different genetic languages. However, this is not necessarily true, particularly if you are designing organisms that can eat the same foods. It turns out, however, that comparisons of the human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes reveal significant differences that tend to contradict the idea of a common ancestor.
Browse by the Top Tags ...
