I am aware of the forces supporting “Answers in Genesis”, these being the same powers that are supporting similar multi-cultural anti-Christian organizations such as Alpha, Promise Keepers, The Full Gospel Businessmen’s Association, Billy Graham ministries, producers of many modern Bible versions, and a multitude of other ministries. These forces are the anti-Christian powers seeking One World Government under man, not God. The essence of my criticism is to show that “Answers in Genesis” supports the humanistic and unbiblical “Brotherhood of Man” doctrine (which also is a Hindu/Roman Catholic/Masonic/Jewish/Judeo-Christian and World-Church belief).

What’s that mean? It means he thinks AIG isn’t racist enough.

There is a major acceptance today in Judeo-Christianity of defiance to revealed Biblical law. Most of their churches teach that the Law of God was nailed to the cross of Jesus Christ–in other words–the Law of God is now totally of no use to New Covenant Christians. I use the popular phrase; “Judeo-Christian” which infers Christianity arose from Judaism. We can appreciate that if a form of Christianity did arise from that source, then it arose from those whose traditions Jesus condemned as “making the word of God of none effect through your tradition” (Mark 7:13). Thus “Judeo-Christianity”, as stemming from Judaism, must involve “another Gospel”. This is what concerns me about “Answers In Genesis”. What might be termed “Hebrew-Christianity” or “Israel-Christianity” does not defy revealed Biblical law; as does humanistic “Judeo-Christianity”; nor is it multi-cultural.

For instance, less than 60 years ago, mixed racial unions were illegal in most of the states in the United States and other White nations. But now, they are tolerated as being supposedly within God’s plan. Under the influence and promotion of the Jewish-Masonic-Papal-Communist/Socialist controlled governments and media, Western Christianity has succumbed to the approval of race mixing, and we will be looking at what is behind this. The Bible abounds with evidence of God’s clear will that the races be separate in every way. “Answers in Genesis” mould all its answers around Judeo-Christian doctrines and traditions, and claims a different basis and definition of “race” from that which the Bible gives. Furthermore, there is evidence of Jewish Talmudic sources, or of what the Apostle Paul calls “Jewish fables”.

Because some might think these are extreme statements, I will go into some detail on some of their doctrines:

In claiming that there is only one race, “the Human Race”, “Answers In Genesis” denies the basis of the doctrine of predestination, or any concept of a “chosen race” which are featured through the Bible. On page 51, in their infamous book, One Blood, they state the following: “According to the Bible, all people on earth today are descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives and before that from Adam and Eve (Gen. 1-11).” This statement “Answers In Genesis” denies any people being BEFORE Adam or being BESIDES Adam. This also exposes their false doctrine of Noah’s flood being world-wide.

Wow. When you’re too crazy for Answers in Genesis, you’re so out on the fringe that you’re touching Jupiter.

This is the concept of contingency and it is one that has long been misunderstood by intelligent design advocates, as biologist Joe Thornton pointed out in a letter to Carl Zimmer a couple years ago.

The letter concerned research he has done on the evolution of molecules, retracing the mutations that made them what they are today. ID creationist Micheal Behe, after initially downplaying the research, ultimately argued that it supported ID. It didn’t. And Thornton points out the way that IDCs confuse contingency with improbability.

Thanks for asking for my reaction to Behe’s post on our recent paper in Nature. His interpretation of our work is incorrect. He confuses “contingent” or “unlikely” with “impossible.” He ignores the key role of genetic drift in evolution. And he erroneously concludes that because the probability is low that some specific biological form will evolve, it must be impossible for ANY form to evolve….

Finally, Behe erroneously equates “evolving non-deterministically” with “impossible to evolve.” He supposes that if each of a set of specific evolutionary outcomes has a low probability, then none will evolve. This is like saying that, because the probability was vanishingly small that the 1996 Yankees would finish 92-70 with 871 runs scored and 787 allowed and then win the World Series in six games over Atlanta, the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God.

Consider the future: there are countless possible that could emerge from our present state, making the probability of the one that actually does evolve extraordinarily low. Does this mean that the future state that will ultimately emerge is impossible? Obviously not. To say that our present biology did not evolve deterministically means simply that other states could have evolved instead; it does not imply that it did not evolve.

Consider your own life history as an analogy. We can all look back at the road we have traveled and identify chance events that had profound effects on how our lives turned out. “If the movie I wanted to see that night when I was 25 hadn’t been sold out, I never would have gone to that party at my friend’s house, where I met my future spouse….” Everyone can tell a story like this. The probability of the life we actually lead is extraordinarily small. That obviously doesn’t mean that its historical unfolding was impossible.

That we inhabit an improbably reality requires a divine explanation only if we, like Behe, take the teleological view that this is the only reality that could exist. But if we recognize that the present is one of many possibilities, then there is no difficulty reconciling the nature of evolutionary processes with the complexity of biological forms. As history unfolds, potential pathways to different futures are constantly opening and closing. Darwinian processes are entirely adequate to move living forms along these pathways to a remarkable realization – but just one realization out of many others that could have, but didn’t, take place.

And this is precisely the problem with creationist probability arguments much of the time.

This year, we honor Dr. Victor Hutchinson, George Lynn Cross Research Professor emeritus for the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Hutchinson’s list of accomplishments is long and varied. A retired Colonel in the Army Reserve, a fellow in the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, a member of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, holder of leadership positions in the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, author or co-author for nearly 150 peer reviewed scientific papers, supervisor for 28 PhD’s … The list goes on and on and Dr. Hutchinson has had a very full and active career as a research scientist and University professor.

But our story goes back to the dark days of 1999 when members of the state textbook committee attempted to introduce creationist textbook disclaimers into any textbook used in Oklahoma that discussed Evolution. I attended those hearings and so did Vic Hutchinson and through his efforts and those of others the disclaimers did not make it into law. But from that experience was born Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education, founded by Vic with a small group of educators, scientists, theologians, laypersons, and persons interested in maintaining the constitutional separation of church and state. There have been political efforts every year since 1999 to inject religion into public schools and diminish or prohibit the teaching of evolution in Oklahoma science classrooms. And every attempt has been met by Dr. Hutchinson and his colleagues in OESE. He is a tireless advocate for quality science education in our public schools, a regular representative on our behalf in the halls of the legislature, and is a frequent speaker to school and civic groups as well as a commentator on radio and television. He maintains the Oklahoma Evolution listserv, and the OESE website has become a treasure-trove of resources about evolution, evolution education, and science and religion. OESE also sponsors a number of education efforts and by leveraging grants and donations, has made a Teachers Evolution Workshop available to Oklahoma teachers for each of the last six years. His efforts in this realm have been recognized by the Oklahoma Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, with their Constitutional Heritage Award, by the Tulsa Interfaith Alliance with their Award for Science Education and Anti-creationism Efforts, the National Center for Science Education, Friend of Darwin Award and now by the Oklahoma Science Teachers Association with the Jack Renner Distinguished Service to Oklahoma Science Education Award

Congratulations, Vic!

It turns out the troll commenter is the producer of Enyart’s radio show. And he had some really funny things to say. Like this:

Personally I think that Walt Brown is the greatest scientist of our day, but after Walt Brown, Bob is one of the most brilliant scientific minds I’ve ever listened to.

He might as well have pronounced Paris Hilton to be one of the most brilliant scientific minds in the world. And then there’s this, from one of Enyart’s challenges:

the mutations do not even occur in these structures themselves [the muscles and connective tissue] but in thousands of rungs of the DNA ladder.

Nothing gets past this genius. Nothing.

One last chance to study the REAL Truth. Click my name above, IF you dare !!!!!

For those of you who many not know who Ron Wyatt was, let me fill you in: He was a con man. A fraud. He was either completely crazy or the most shameless liar you’ll ever hear of. On the creationist scale, this guy made Kent Hovind look credible — and that’s not exactly an easy task.

His alleged discovery of Noah’s Ark is about equal parts funny and pathetic. It’s so bad that even his fellow creationists laughed at him. And that wasn’t even his dumbest claim. I did a long post about him about 5 years ago that you should look at. Wyatt claimed to have found everything — the ark of the covenant, Noah’s ark, the real Mt. Sinai, the spot of the crossing of the Red Sea, and the funniest of them all, the real blood of Jesus!

He actually claims to have found the Ark of the Covenant and it had the dried blood of Jesus on it. And when he had that blood tested, it only had 24 chromosomes — proving that God actually impregnated Mary. Of course, he never actually produced the ark of the covenant, or the dried blood, or the tests on the blood. With Wyatt, there was always some conspiratorial reason why he couldn’t actually show you all the things he had allegedly found.

You have to be a special kind of stupid to fall for Ron Wyatt’s nonsense.

Dawkins, in ablog entry, attacked Perry:

There is nothing unusual about Gov. Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican [P]arty (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) … Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

A couple things that may seem minor but reflect Washington’s total lack of concern about accuracy. Dawkins didn’t say that in a blog post and the link he provides doesn’t even mention Dawkins, much less contain that quote. It’s actually from an interview Dawkins did with the Washington Post. Of course, Washington has a history of mishandling quotes. I’ve caught him twice inventing fake quotes from Obama. His excuse was to say that it was okay because he knows that’s what Obama was really thinking anyway. No, I’m not kidding.

More importantly, Dawkins was absolutely right about Perry and the modern Republican party. The current primary demonstrates this perfectly as candidates literally try to compete to show the base that they’re more ignorant and dishonest than the others. But here’s the real punchline:

Psychoanalysts and psychologists call Dawkins’ tendencies to slander the religious ideas of Jews and Christians and disparage the politics of Republicans and conservatives with ad hominem attacks, ascribing scurrilous motives and anti-scientific intentions as psychological projection.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have irony squared — the man is actually projecting about projection. That’s rarely pulledoff outside of mental institutions. And as usual, he doesn’t have a clue what an ad hominem attack is (here’s hint: it doesn’t mean anything that someone might feel insulted by).

Now, Dawkins is releasing, of all things, a children’s book on evolution that teaches children why all religion, especially Judaism and Christianity, are a myth. It was the brutal Russian dictator Vladimir Lenin who, regarding the best way to brainwash the masses, boasted, Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
A century and a half of evolutionary propaganda has made us all Darwinists now. The unholy trinity, Darwin-Lenin-Dawkins, and their intellectual children have carried the day in modern times because they control virtually every aspect of science, education, law, philosophy, politics, economics, culture and society. That progressive legal thought was thus inspired by a mixture of Darwinism, relativism and materialism, which produced an existential and suffocating education atheism that hovers over society like a grotesque, foreboding nuclear cloud and cannot be denied.

I don’t care who you are, that’s stupid right there. And the rest is more of the same.

Turns out, Rick Perry was right after all.

What you see at right is a slide I received last night from a fellow Dallas Independent School District parent. It was, until this morning, available on the district’s Curriculum Central website, accessible only to teachers and administration and a resource for instructors needing further materials to flesh out what’s being taught in class.

The slide says that the existence of cells is “one of the strongest cases for intelligent design by our Creator God!” The school took it down immediately:

The PowerPoint, created by one Jim Sullivan of Cells Alive! and initially posted to something called The World of Teaching, was sent home for further review by a teacher. So the parent and child reviewed it. At which point the parent saw “intelligent design” in a science presentation and flipped out. So too did a lot of other parents at this particular junior high. Which is why it landed in my lap — and why I asked district spokesman Jon Dahlander if he wouldn’t mind looking into it.

This morning, he called back and confirmed: The presentation was indeed on the Curriculum Central website, from which it was promptly deleted. Says Dahlander, 3700 Ross is trying to find out who made the docs available. And in the meantime, he says, a directive was sent out this afternoon in which “curriculum directors have been reminded to review their quality control system, as well as to review all links on the Curriculum Central. We were very disappointed to see it there, and it was removed immediately.”

Sounds like they’re taking it as seriously as they should.

He begins with this rather amusing statement:

The majority of discoveries of the modern scientific era were made by people who believed the book of Genesis to be true. Does this not matter to education?

Uh, yeah, If you define the “modern scientific era” to have ended before the 20th century. And no, it doesn’t matter at all to education, or to science. There are scientists all over the world with every imaginable view on religion — Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, etc. — and they are all held to exactly the same standard. Their work is either valid and supported by the evidence or it is not — and their religious views have no bearing on that question at all.

Taylor then goes on to claim, bizarrely, that if creationism was banned in British schools “we would cease to produce scientists from English schools.” Huh?

He said that while TFN shares my concerns about local school boards trying to put creationist materials into classrooms, there’s something I missed in my report. The new law also includes a requirement that schools report any such purchases to the Texas Education Agency, which will make it easier for groups like TFN to monitor them and respond if they do purchase creationist textbooks.

He also noted one other thing I missed, which is that textbook decisions at the local level are rarely made by school boards. They’re usually made by teachers and administrators, who tend to be more concerned about how the textbooks will help students score well on standardized tests than anything else because those tests have a real influence on their ability to keep their jobs.

These are both important facts that I left out of my analysis. It’s still a concern, of course, and local school boards can cause all kinds of trouble here and must be watched. But on balance, given those facts, TFN is probably correct to regard this as better than the current system. Thanks to Dan for helping me understand the situation better.