- “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
- The 14-Point Memorandum of Understanding
- The Republic of Türkiye and the Iran War
- Advocates for Faith & Freedom Files Election Integrity Lawsuit Seeking Answers from California Secretary of State
- American Independence and the Battle of Cowpens
- 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
- Update on the Trump Administration’s Robust and Rapid Delivery of Life-Saving U.S. Assistance to Venezuela
The Ultimate Problem with 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. 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.
The Truth of Geocentrism
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The conflict between geocentrism and heliocentrism with regards to the solar system goes back to Nicholas Copernicus around 1514 A.D. This was not out of any religious conflict but out of conflict with intellectuals of his day that insisted on Aristotle’s geocentric system. To some degree this conflict still continues today as there are some who still strongly hold to an absolute geocentric model.
The irony is that there is no need for any kind of conflict because under General Relativity both models are actually just a choice of a frame of reference. In other words there is no actual conflict between the two, each one is just a result of a choice of coordinate systems.
Naturalism of the Gaps Argument
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Evolutionists often accused creationists of using a God of the gaps argument that is filling in gaps in our knowledge with God. However, that's exactly what they do with naturalism because no matter what the evidence says they will always jump to the conclusion that there has to be a natural explanation for it regardless of what probability or known laws of nature indicate.
The point is that evolutionists always will fill in something they do not have an answer for by insisting that there is a naturalistic explanation. They may rely on the vague idea that there has to be a naturalistic explanation. They will sometimes put a label on that so-called explanation without actually providing an explanation. This is most common when they are trying to deal with it in an official scientific context such as a paper.
God of the Gaps Argument
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Creationists are frequently accused of using a God of the gaps argument. Such an argument boils down to we don't know therefore it must be God. While this kind of thinking has been used in the past and there are some Christians who do use it. It is not used in creation science.
The accusation of making a God of the gaps argument is frequently made by evolutionists anytime a creationist claims that the evidence actually points to God. Now sometimes the accusation is deserved but there are many times when it is not.
Modifying a Theory Beyond the Point of Falsifiability
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
In science when a theory is close to the data it is often possible to modify it so that it better fits the data. However, there is a danger in doing this and that is modifying the theory to the point where it is no longer falsifiable. When this happens, the theory ceases to actually be science and can easily become dogma, being pushed as science.
As long as the modifications are small adjustments that maintain the theory’s testability it is not a problem. However, the danger comes when the new elements make no real predictions but simply exist to patch the current theory. When this is done a theory or group of theories can easily become dogma rather than science because they lose all falsifiability.
Invoking Miracles from God in Creation Science
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the criticisms commonly throwing that creationists is that creationism cannot be considered scientific because we can always invoke miracles to solve any problems. While this is true in principle you need to remember that creationism itself is not an alternative to evolution but an alternative to naturalism. Consequently, like naturalism, creationism is a philosophical starting point for producing scientific theories not a scientific theory itself.
The Heat Problem
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Without question the biggest problem that young earth creationists face is called the heat problem. It results from speeding up a geological process during periods such as the creation week and the Genesis Flood will naturally produce large amounts of heat. Not only would this heat be enough to melt rock but at its extreme, it could even vaporize the entire planet. Unfortunately, no firm solution has been produced yet, however, several possibilities keep it from preventing the Biblical account from being true.
The Mud Problem
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The mud problem is based on a paper recently published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly entitled “The Clay Consolidation Problem and Its Implications for Flood Geology Models” by Scott L. Dunn. The paper claims that it would take too long for the mud laid down during the Genesis Flood to turn to the rock we observe.
The key to his calculations is the coefficient of hydraulic conductivity which shows how fast water can be removed from solid material. The tenancy however for it to increase with particle size. This is one way in which he's assuming normal erosion conditions. However, the conditions of the Flood would have tended to erode out larger particles possibly increasing this factor.
Challenges for a Young Earth Solved
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The previous article dealt with several common challenges to a young earth. In this article solutions are provided for the first four that are simple and for the most part well established. These will be short explanations but references will be given to help you understand them better.
- Impact craters.
Biblical creation does offer a very convenient way of handling meteors asteroids and their impact craters. One aspect is that not all of them are impact craters. This is particularly true of so-called fossil craters here on Earth. This reduces the number of actual craters considerably. There are other explanations such as volcanic activity and under the conditions of the flood even air bubbles.
Challenges for a Young Earth
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Here we have a list of common challenges to a young Earth. That is an earth that was created within Biblical time scales. In this article, we only discussed the challenges. The solutions that have been proposed will be brought up in other articles.
- Impact craters.
Every solid body in the solar system except Earth, Venus, Titan, and Io are covered with large numbers of impact craters. Earth, Venus, and Titan have significant atmospheres. Meanwhile, Earth, Venus, and Io are known to be volcanic enough to erase impact craters from the past. From a young Earth creation perspective, there is also the question as to where asteroids and meteors would actually originate, after all, God could have created a much cleaner solar system. Furthermore, there is the question as to when these impacts occurred. The time of the Genesis Flood is a natural time but so many impacts in such a short period of time would have turned most objects into balls of magma.
Science Versus Science Popularizers
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
A science popularizer is someone who seeks to explain scientific concepts in a manner that can be understood by anyone, particularly non-scientists. While, in principle, this can include many people online, those who are generally included in such lists usually have advanced degrees in science. Within popular culture, the most well-known include the late Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
There are several things that all three of them have in common. They are all not only evolutionists but atheists as well. (Carl Sagan knows better now, being deceased) This means that when dealing with topics such as origins or the fundamental nature of reality, they are going to be presenting an entirely naturalistic, materialistic, and atheistic perspective on everything they say.
Your Theory Does Not Work Under My Theory, So Your Theory Is Wrong
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
While this is not listed among the formal logical fallacies, it definitely qualifies as a logical fallacy. I have seen this fallacy used repeatedly by some who insist that a perspective that they disagree with is wrong because it does not work under their way of looking at the data.
The essence of this fallacy is let's say you have two different views on a given set of data. Model 1 interprets the data as A, while model 2 interprets the data as B. A person holding model 1 then insists that the data means A therefore model 2 must be wrong.
What Constitutes Science?
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Sometimes, you will hear somebody supporting a claim that they are making with the phrase science says such and such. You have probably heard terms such as the science is settled. You are also told to believe the science and called a science denier or anti-science if You do not accept what is being claimed under the auspices of science as unquestionable fact. Sometimes, even questioning certain official scientific claims is treated as a complete rejection of science.
The Propaganda of Calling Birds Dinosaurs
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the long-term claims of universal common descent evolution is that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Now there are problems with this claim but that is not what we are addressing here. In recent days they have not just been claiming the birds evolved from dinosaurs but that they actually are dinosaurs. Yes, you heard me right, they are literally claiming the birds are living dinosaurs. The propaganda value for this is so obvious, particularly when dealing with young children is enormous.
The Propaganda of Calling Human Being Apes
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Another major example of the use of propaganda by evolutionists is in the area of so-called human evolution. The claim used to be that we evolved from apes. It has long been claimed that we had a common ancestor with chimpanzees, that was a type of thing. Recent changes in these claims don't reflect actual research in biology and genetics but clear propaganda.
The Use of Evolutionary Propaganda
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Despite being claimed as science, there is a lot of propaganda used in pushing the Big Band to man evolutionary view of origins. This can include making evidence look better than it really is, making evidence look more favorable to evolutionary models than it really is, applying labels that are more favorable to evolutionary models, is the tendency to not include evidence contrary to evolutionary models.
A good example of making evidence look better than it really is Piltdown man and Nebraska man, the fact that they were both eventually proven false shows neither one was sufficient to justify the claims made about them. Piltdown man was a skullcap and partial jawbone that could not even be demonstrated to belong to the same individual let alone the way they were depicted. It was even worse for Nebraska, which was based solely on a tooth that turned out to belong to an extinct pig. The problem is that they still do this kind of stuff today such that with most so-called transitional forms with so-called transitional parts often among what is missing. Tiktaalik is another good example because likewise, large portions of it are missing. This is quite common among so-called transitional forms. They tend to be fragmented, but evolutionary propaganda tends to ignore this.
Browse by the Top Tags ...
