In this piece we once again observe a creationist attempt to try to
find something wrong with one of the theories which attempts to explain
the observed facts of evolution. Supposedly it's religiously believed
that if one can find something wrong with one of the theories, one can
pretend that evolution -- the observations which the theory attempts to
describe and explain -- some how stops happening.
Let's take a look and see where the creationist went wrong, shall we?
This one seems to contain the usual amount of resentment toward science
because science has a "privileged status" out in the real world
while creationist cults get laughed at (and quite often there's a measure
of pity) by real scientists. And we also find that the creationists have
apparently yet to discover that evolution has nothing to do with the origins
of life. It's an extremely common theme throughout creationist propaganda:
seemingly creationists are utterly incapable of understanding what evolution
is and what evolution is not.
I'll place my comments about the text in BOLD as we go along --
though doubtlessly you'll have no difficulty at all discerning where the
creationist cult goes wrong. Indeed, creationist propaganda is damn
near always self-debunking anyway.
In this piece we once again observe a creationist attempt to try to find something wrong with one of the theories which attempts to explain the observed facts of evolution. Supposedly it's religiously believed that if one can find something wrong with one of the theories, one can pretend that evolution -- the observations which the theory attempts to describe and explain -- some how stops happening.
Let's take a look and see where the creationist went wrong, shall we?
This one seems to contain the usual amount of resentment toward science because science has a "privileged status" out in the real world while creationist cults get laughed at (and quite often there's a measure of pity) by real scientists. And we also find that the creationists have apparently yet to discover that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. It's an extremely common theme throughout creationist propaganda: seemingly creationists are utterly incapable of understanding what evolution is and what evolution is not.
I'll place my comments about the text in BOLD as we go along -- though doubtlessly you'll have no difficulty at all discerning where the creationist cult goes wrong. Indeed, creationist propaganda is damn near always self-debunking anyway.
The Case of the Missing Mechanism
The growing crisis in Darwinian theory is becoming more apparent all the time. The work of creationists and other non-Darwinians is growing and finding a more receptive ear than ever before.
This appears to be a considerable amount of wishful thinking which creationist cults would like its followers to pretend is true. Not only does the cult not explain which "Darwinian theory" he or she is having difficulty understanding, the suggestion that such occultism is growing seems to be unevidenced; certainly academia would be amused to learn that creationist occultism is "finding a more receptive ear." Were that actually the case, the educated would be getting the Keeps ready again and would be getting established for the next religion-motivated Dark Age (which they're not doing, by the way.)
Creationist occultism is a minority ideology among Christian churches. Almost all Christian brand names recognize the fact that evolution had happend continues to happen. Most Christians find it rather annoying when one of their more unfortunate fellows express a literal believe in the mythologies, and downright annoying when their fellow theists try to pretend that evolution doesn't happen some how. Creationists can make all Christians look like total nuts and most Christians get annoyed.
It took the Catholic brand of Christianity many decades to finally come out and accept the fact that evolution does in fact take place. That was a vast improvement over the length of time it took Catholicism to come out and accept that the Earth orbits the Sun -- it took them about 365 years between the time they punish and sanctioned Galileo and the time they issued a public statement apologizing for their denial of the scientific fact.
And of course even if a theory had problems, the phenomena which that theory attempts to explain and describe wouldn't simply disappear. The problems would be solved and the resulting modified theory would be stronger. - flr
In this discussion I want to elaborate on what I believe are the five critical areas where Darwinism and evolutionary theory in general are failing. They are:
"...on what I believe..." Yes. Science says otherwise, of course, but what we're looking at are religious beliefs.
Well, an expression of ignorance was expected. Here we see five statements of ignorance, the most stupid of which is the supposition that the origins of life have something to do with evolution. All five statements of ignorance could be researched at any local library so there's no excuse for such willful ignorance.
Let's just let the cultists explain their ignorance in their own words: - flr
Much of the reason for evolution's privileged status has been due to confusion over just what people mean when they use the word evolution. Evolution is a slippery term. If evolution simply means "change over time," this is non-controversial. Peppered moths, Hawaiian drosophila fruit flies, and even Galapagos finches are clear examples of change over time. If you say that this form of evolution is a fact, well, so be it. But many scientists extrapolate beyond this meaning. Because "change over time" is a fact, the argument goes, it is also a fact that moths, fruit flies, and finches all evolved from a remote common ancestor. But this begs the question.
No, evolution isn't "change over time" nor is the definition "slippery." Evolution is the term applied to describe the directly observed fact that speciation takes place; that over geologic time scales an offspring species becomes incapable of successfully reproducing with its ancestor species. It's not "change over time" as the cult is demanding otherwise -- to use creationist illogic -- skin coloration adaptations in a species which take place as the result of a change in environment over geological time scales would be "evolution." In fact variations in morphology and the natural selection of survival traits is a small part of what evolution is.
And I should add that it took creationists a long time indeed to come to accept the fact that the natural selection of moths was observed and documented ad was further evidence that the closely-related contemporary theories developed to describe how evolution occures was and continues to be a vindication of those theories.
Mutation is another part of evolution of which natural selection plays an important role. Freakishly, creationist cultists have slowly been forced to accept the fact that mutations occure and that mutation events can result in viable offspring which carry the mutation. Forced to accept the fact that mutations actually do in fact happen, cultists started demanding that such mutations as they're forced to accept are always some how "degrading" -- that they're not beneficial.
The reason why cultists think that mutations have to always be a detriment to a species is because they're laboring under the occult superstitious notion that there was a "fall of mankind" which resulted in a "punishment" -- and the cultists are talking about the "Lilith, Adam, and Eve" myth. Presumably because mutations occur in all species, humanity some how took them all down with them when the "Garden of Eden" mythology took place.
The belief that mutations all have to be detrimental is an absurdity since mutation isn't a directed phenomena. High energy cosmic particles and higher level radiation which occures on Earth don't pick and choose what part of a cell is slams in to causing DNA and RNA to be changed. Radiation doesn't have an agenda and doesn't always "decide" to cause detrimental effects. Radiation isn't caused by an apple-eating myth penned by ignorant savages some 3,500 years ago.
After forcing cultists to accept the fact that mutations happen, most creationists try to pretend that there's something called "micro evolution" and something called "macro evolution." This bizarre, equally unevidenced notion demands that while cultists have been forced to accept the fact that mutations occur, they only occur among "lesser" species, certainly not humans which are "greater."
And in fact there's no such thing as "micro evolution," "macro evolution," "lesser species," or "greater species" in evolution. These are human constructs which are not exhibited in simple biology. There is simply mutations -- no "micro" and no "macro" about it -- and there is simply the survival of the fittest for any given ecology -- no "lesser;" and no "greater" about it.
Cultists like to pretend that the fact of evolution is some how racist because they -- cultists -- try to pretend that the theories which describe the observe phenomena have something to do with "inferior" and "superior" species. Evolution is an undirected phenomena which doesn't have an agenda. A species either fits a given ecology else it dies. If a species enters into an ecology and survives better than the species which were previously there, the new species takes over and displaces the existing plants or animals. There's no good and evil, no moral ideology, no emotive dictate driving the phenomena.
Cultists, however, have a pressing need to attribute the will of their deity constructs on to facts of nature and, of course, doing so failes utterly resulting in freakish fools like creationists. - flr
The real question, however, is where do moths, flies, and finches
come from in the first place?
If these creationist cults wish to talk about the origins of life, they
should do so and not pretend they're some how talking about evolution.
Making the attempt is about as idiotic as pretending to pontificate on
the physics of color and then tossing in some off-the-wall crack about
how Thursdays have something to do with the color purple. - flr
Here we find one of the common stupidities of creationists. They confuse
the fact of evolution with the origins of life; and they apparently do so
deliberately since these cultists routinely get informed that they're
talking about two different sciences.
If these creationist cults wish to talk about the origins of life, they should do so and not pretend they're some how talking about evolution. Making the attempt is about as idiotic as pretending to pontificate on the physics of color and then tossing in some off-the-wall crack about how Thursdays have something to do with the color purple. - flr
Common examples of natural selection acting on present genetic variation do not tell us how we have come to have horses, wasps, and woodpeckers, and the enormous varieties of living animals. Evolutionists will tell you that this is where mutations enter the picture. But mutations do not improve the scenario either. In speaking of all the mutation work done with bacteria over several decades, the great French zoologist and evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grasse' said:
"What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."
Since directly observed speciation events have been well documented,
why didn't this cult provide references to those examples? The answer
is obvious. - flr
Another creationist absurdity. Having finally accepted the fact that
mutations do in fact happen, cultists want to be able to put organisms in
a dish, stand aside, and watch them speciate into different species. As
if natural selection didn't exist, as if environmental changes didn't
exist, as if sexual isolation wasn't a requirement, and as if one can
ignore the usual need for geological time scales to pass before one
observes a speciation event. (Speciation events have been observed
within the time spans of humans and lists of such speciation events are
availble on The Skeptic Tank through request and through other web pages
Since directly observed speciation events have been well documented, why didn't this cult provide references to those examples? The answer is obvious. - flr
When I speak of evolution or Darwinism, it is the origin of new biological forms, new adaptive structures, morphological and biochemical novelties that I am referring to. This is precisely what has not yet been explained. When people question the popular explanations of the origin of complex adaptations such as the vertebrate limb, or sexual reproduction, or the tongue of the woodpecker, or the reptilian hard-shelled egg, they are usually given a litany of reasons why these structures are beneficial to the organisms. More precisely, the selective advantage of these structures is offered as the reason they evolved. But this begs the question again. It is not sufficient for an evolutionist to explain the function of a particular structure. What is necessary is to explain the mechanistic origin of these structures!
Natural selection does explain how organisms adapt to minor changes
in their environment. Natural selection allows organisms to do what
God commanded them to do. That is to be fruitful and multiply.
Natural selection does not, however, explain the crucial question
of how complex adaptations arose in the first place.
Now watch as the cult continues to pretend that the origins of life have
something to do with the advent of species. In addition note how it took
a billion years before life arose on Earth and yet the cultists lament
the fact that humans haven't been able to duplicate the feat over the
past 30 years. How's that for insane stupidity? - flr
Have any evidence for this invisible playmate of yours, George? No? Well
that about wraps it up for your freakishly bizarre notion of what science
Now watch as the cult continues to pretend that the origins of life have something to do with the advent of species. In addition note how it took a billion years before life arose on Earth and yet the cultists lament the fact that humans haven't been able to duplicate the feat over the past 30 years. How's that for insane stupidity? - flr
The Origin of Life
We have been led to believe that it is not to difficult to conceive of a mechanism whereby organic molecules can be manufactured in a primitive earth and organize themselves into a living, replicating cell. In fact, the ease by which this can (allegedly) happen is the foundation for the popular belief that there are numerous planets in the universe which contain life. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Early experiments suggested that it was relatively simple to produce some of the building blocks of life such as amino acids, the components of proteins. However, the euphoria of the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 has given way to a paradigm crisis of 1993 in origin of life research. The wishful, yet workable atmosphere of ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor has been replaced by the more realistic, but stingy atmosphere of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen cyanide. This is the stuff that volcanoes belch out. This atmosphere poses a much more difficult challenge. Molecules relevant for life would be much rarer. Even more damaging is the possibility of the presence of molecular oxygen in the atmosphere from the break-up of water vapor. Molecular oxygen would poison any reaction leading to biologically significant molecules.
Coacervates, microspheres, the "RNA world," and other scenarios all have serious flaws obvious to everyone in the field except those who continue work with that particular scenario. Some have privately called this predicament a paradigm crisis. There is no central competing model, just numerous ego-driven scenarios. Even the experiments in which researchers try to simulate the early earth have been severely criticized. These experiments generally hedge their bets by using purified reactants, isolated energy sources, exaggerated energy levels, procedures which unrealistically drive the reaction toward the desired product and protect the products from the destructive effects of the energy sources which produced them in the first place.
The real situation was summed up rather well by Klaus Dose:
"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." [From _Interdisciplinary Science Review_ 13(1988):348-56.]
But all of these difficulties together, as staggering as they are, are not the real problem. The major difficulty in chemical evolution scenarios is how to account for the informational code of DNA without intelligence being a part of the equation. DNA carries the genetic code: the genetic blueprint for constructing and maintaining a biological organism. We often use the terms of language to describe DNA's activity: DNA is "transcribed" into RNA; RNA is "translated" into protein; geneticists speak of the "genetic code." All these words imply intelligence, and the DNA informational code requires intelligent preprogramming, yet a purely naturalistic beginning does not provide such input. Chemical experiments may be able to construct small sequences of nucleotides to form small molecules of DNA, but this doesn't make them mean anything. There is no source for the informational code in a strictly naturalistic origin of life.
The Inability to Account for Complex Adaptations
Perhaps the single greatest problem for evolutionary biologists is the unsolved problem of morphological and biochemical novelty. In other words, some aspects of evolutionary theory describe accurately how existing organisms are well adapted to their environments, but do a very poor job of explaining just how the necessary adaptive structures came about in the first place.
I guess the cultist didn't have a library close by. Just bvecause this
cultist doesn't understand a phenomena, he or she pretends that it remains
"unsolved." A visit to the local library would put an end to
that ignorance but then he or she wouldn't be able to continue to be a
creationist so that's right out. - flr
Darwinian explanations of complex structures such as the eye and the incredible tongue of the woodpecker fall far short of realistically attempting to explain how these structures arose by mutation and natural selection. The origin of the eye in particular, caused Darwin no small problem. His only suggestion was to look at the variety of eyes in nature, some more complex and versatile than others, and imagine a gradual sequence leading from simple eyes to more complex eyes. However, even the great Harvard evolutionist, Ernst Mayr, admits that the different eyes in nature are not really related to each other in some simple-to-complex sequence. Rather, he suggests that eyes probably had to evolve over forty different times in nature. Darwin's nightmare has never been solved. It has only been made 40 times more frightening for the evolutionist.
In his 1987 book, _Theories of Life_, Wallace Arthur said:
"One can argue that there is no direct evidence for a Darwinian origin of a body plan--black _Biston Betularia_ certainly do not constitute one! Thus in the end we have to admit that we do not really know how body plans originate."
In 1992, Keith Stewart Thomson wrote in the _American Zoologist_ that:
"While the origins of major morphological novelties remain unsolved, one can also view the stubborn persistence of macroevolutionary questioning...as a challenge to orthodoxy: resistance to the view that the synthetic theory tells us everything we need to know about evolutionary processes."
The ability to explain major morphological novelties is not the only failing of evolutionary theory. Some argue that molecular structures are even more difficult to explain. The molecular architecture of the cell has recently described by molecular biologist Michael Behe as being irreducibly complex systems which must have all the components present in order to be functional. The molecular workings of cilia, electron transport, protein synthesis, and cellular targeting readily come to mind. If the systems are irreducibly complex, how do they build slowly over long periods of time out of systems that are originally doing something else?
While publishing hundreds of articles pertaining to molecular homology and phylogeny of various proteins and nucleic acids over the last ten years, the _Journal of Molecular Evolution_ did not publish one article attempting to explain the origin of a single biomolecular system. Those who make molecular evolution their life's work are too busy studying the relationship of the cytochrome c molecule in man to the cytochrome c molecule in bacteria, rather than the more fundamental question of where cytochrome c came from in the first place!
Clearly then, whether we are talking about major morphological novelties such as the wings of bats and birds, the swimming adaptations of fish and whales, the human eye or the molecular sub-microscopic workings of mitochondria, ribosomes, or cilia, evolutionary theory has failed to explain how these structures could arise by natural processes alone.
The Bankruptcy of the Blind Watchmaker Hypothesis
In his 1986 book, _The Blind Watchmaker_, Richard Dawkins states, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." He explains that
This is informative because it's not as if the cultist wasn't aware of
the facts since here he or she is seeming to indicate that he or she has
read the facts of the matter. Thus there is no excuse for claiming
ignorance. Willful ignorance, however, has no excuse. - flr
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purposes in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning."
Darwinism critic, Philip Johnson, has quipped that the watchmaker is not only blind but unconscious!
Dawkins later suggests just how this process may have brought about the development of wings in mammals. He says:
"How did wings get their start? Many animals leap from bough to bough, and sometimes fall to the ground. Especially in a small animal, the whole body surface catches the air and assists the leap, or breaks the fall, by acting as a crude aerofoil. Any tendency to increase the ratio of surface area to weight would help, for example flaps of skin growing out in the angles of joints...(It) doesn't matter how small and unwinglike the first wingflaps were. There must be some height, call it h, such that an animal would just break its neck if it fell from that height. In this critical zone, any improvement in the body surface's ability to catch the air and break the fall, however slight the improvement, can make the difference between life and death. Natural selection will then favor slight, prototype wingflaps. When these flaps have become the norm, the critical height h will become slightly greater. Now a slight further increase in the wingflaps will make the difference between life and death. And so on, until we have proper wings."
This can sound rather seductively convincing at first. However there are three faulty assumptions being used.
The first doubtful assumption is that nature can provide a whole chain of favorable mutations of the precise kind needed to change forelimbs into wings in a continuous line of development. What is the larger miracle, an instantaneous change or a whole series of thousands of tiny changes in the proper sequence?
The other assumption is "all things being equal." These mutations must not have secondary harmful effects. How is the creature's grasping ability compromised while these wingflaps grow? These little shrew-like animals may slowly be caught between losing their adaptiveness in the trees before they can fully utilize their "developing" wings. Or there might be some seemingly unrelated and unforeseen effect that compromises survivability.
A third faulty assumption is the often used analogy to artificial selection. "If artificial selection can do so much in only a few years," so the refrain goes, "just think what natural selection can do in millions of years." But artificial selection works because it incorporates foresight and conscious purpose, the absence of which are the defining qualities of the blind watchmaker. In addition, artificial selection actually demonstrates the limits to change since an endpoint in the selection process is usually reached very quickly.
The blind watchmaker hypothesis, when analyzed carefully, falls into the category of fanciful stories that are entertaining--but which hold no resemblance to reality.
The Prevalence of Stasis over Mutability
Rather than observing organisms gradually evolving into other forms, the fossil record speaks of "sudden appearance" and "stasis." New types appear suddenly and change very little after their appearance. The rarity of gradual change examples in the fossil record were revealed as the trade secret of paleontology by Steven J. Gould of Harvard. Gould also refers to stasis as "data" in the paleontological sense. These are significant observations.
Darwin predicted that there should be innumerable transitional forms between species. But the reality of paleontology (the study of fossils) is that new forms appear suddenly with no hint of the "gradual" change predicted by evolution. Not only that, but once these new forms have appeared, they remain relatively unchanged until the present day or until they become extinct.
Some animals and plants have remained unchanged for literally hundreds of millions of years. These "living fossils" can be more embarrassing for the evolutionist than they often care to admit. One creature in particular, the coelacanth, is very instructive. The first live coelacanth was found off the coast of Madagascar in 1938. Coelacanths were thought to be extinct for 100 million years. But most evolutionists saw this discovery as a great opportunity to glimpse the workings of a tetrapod ancestor. Coelacanths resemble the proposed ancestors of amphibians. It was hoped that some clues could be derived from the modern coelacanth of just how a fish became preadapted for life on land, because not only was there a complete skeleton, but a full set of internal organs to boot. The results of the study were very disappointing. The modern coelacanth showed no evidence of internal organs preadapted for use in a terrestrial environment. The coelacanth is a fish--nothing more, nothing less. Its bony fins are used as exceptionally well-designed paddles for changing direction in deep-sea environment, not the proto-limbs of future amphibians.
Nowhere is the problem of sudden appearance better demonstrated than in the Burgess Shale found in the Canadian Rockies. The Burgess Shale illustrates that in the Cambrian period (which evolutionists estimate as being over 500 million years ago) nearly all of the basic body plans (phyla) of animals existing on earth came into existence in a geological instant (defined as only 20-30 million years), and nothing that new has appeared since that time. The Cambrian explosion as it is called is nothing less than astounding. Sponges, jellyfish, worms, arthropods, mollusks, echinoderms, and many other stranger-than-fiction creatures are all found to suddenly appear in the Cambrian without a hint of what they descended from nor even how they could all be related to each other. This is the opposite expectation of Darwinism which would have predicted each new body plan emerging from pre-existing phyla over long periods of time. The Cambrian explosion is a direct contradiction of Darwinian evolution.
If Darwin were alive today, I believe he would be terribly disappointed. There is less evidence for his theory now than in his own day. The possibility of the human eye evolving may have caused him to shudder, but the organization of the simplest cell is infinitely more complex. Perhaps a nervous breakdown would be more appropriate!
Copyright 1993 Raymond G. Bohlin
1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100
Richardson, TX 75081
Yes, it can't any dumber than that, huh? Or maybe it can, actually, since I'm routinely amazed at just how bad science education is among the populace -- inside and outside of creationist cults. All of the expressed scientific ignorance is inexcusable; creationists have no excuse since they have the ability to go to their local libraries and conduct research to divest themselves of their ignorance just like everyone else does.
Creationists don't avail themselves of science because they don't want to. They freakishly want to pretend that science some how destroys their religious occultism when in fact science and religious occultism are two totally seporate venues.
Ignorance is acceptable. Willful ignorance is not. - flr
A note from Kerby Anderson, CEO of Probe Ministries:
Dear friend of CIN,
Thank you for your interest in Probe Ministries. Because Probe may be somewhat new to you, I thought you might like to know more about us.
PROBE IS COMMITTED TO RECLAIMING THE PRIMACY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT IN EVERY AREA OF OUR LIVES. Whether it's a college student seeking help to defend his faith in a philosophy course, a homemaker struggling to witness to a "New Age" friend, or a serious Christian thinker seeking resources for continuing personal growth, you're likely to find Probe involved.
It's also telling that the cult uses the word "reclaiming."
SAcientific ignorance and occult superstition is what creationists wish
to "reclaim" scientific discoveries which they mistakenly
think adversely impacts their deity beliefs have to be discarded to
"reclaim" a willful ignorance.
This would be acceptable -- cultists may stay locked in the 11'th
Century if they wish -- were it not for the fact that these creationist
cults attempt to get their occultism taught as fact in the public
schools and also actively try to degrade science to the point where they
can try to pretend that there's no difference between science and their
own occultism. - flr
The audacity of these cultists professing to speak for Christians
everywhere -- "serious Christian thinker" is an oxymoron when
applied to creationism but the audacity to think creationist cults are
some how thinking while honest Christians -- which are in the vast
majority -- do not is insulting to Christians everywhere.
It's also telling that the cult uses the word "reclaiming." SAcientific ignorance and occult superstition is what creationists wish to "reclaim" scientific discoveries which they mistakenly think adversely impacts their deity beliefs have to be discarded to "reclaim" a willful ignorance.
This would be acceptable -- cultists may stay locked in the 11'th Century if they wish -- were it not for the fact that these creationist cults attempt to get their occultism taught as fact in the public schools and also actively try to degrade science to the point where they can try to pretend that there's no difference between science and their own occultism. - flr
WE AT PROBE BELIEVE THAT THOSE OPPOSED TO THE CHRISTIAN FAITH HAVE DOMINATED THE CENTERS OF LEARNING, COMMUNICATION AND POWER IN OUR CULTURE FOR TOO LONG. Through myths and unproven theories, increasingly aggressive humanists have sought to douse the light of God's Word.
And yet another massive audacity. If you don't believe in this cult's level
of scientific stupidity, you're not opposed to the cult's willful ignorance.
No, you're opposed to "the Christian faith." The audacity of a
minority cult proclaiming to pretend that the vast majority of Christians
out there who accept science are some how opposed to their own religion is,
well, aporoaching the absurd. - flr
How is Probe responding? For 20 years we've been exploding these myths and boldly proclaiming the truth of Jesus Christ. Our team of scholars, speakers, and writers is strengthening Christians and winning non-Christians through our radio programs, in secular university classroom, in churches, and through award-winning literature.
And while they're pretending to do that they wind up making the vast majority of honest Christians out there look like bumbeling idiots who have not a clue. It's very common for people who run into creationists to mistakenly believe that creationist occultism some how constitutes the majority of Christian ideology. Sadly these creationist cults taint their intellectually superior fellow Christians with the brush of ridicule -- more so because cults like this demand they're some how in the mainstream. - flr
MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, PROBE MINISTRIES IS A RESOURCE. We are pleased to make our radio transcripts available to you here on CIN. Other literature is available from our office. I have written a 24- page booklet entitled "Confronting Key Issues" that deals with such topics as pornography, drug abuse, the New Age, and rock music.
"Rock music." I don't think I've ever encountered anything written by creationist cults that wasn't profoundly self debunking. - flr
We also have a newsletter called the "Probe Vanguard." We want you to be on the vanguard of information and insight. Probe's quarterly newsletter takes you to the cutting edge of issues we address on our daily radio programs by providing excerpts from our best radio programs. It also includes additional material about books, pamphlets, and tape packages. Many of the book review, concise synopses, and book offers can only be found in this newsletter.
The Probe Vanguard is regularly sent to Probe donors. Because you have already demonstrated an interest in Probe Ministries, I wanted you to know that this newsletter is a resource available to you.
Your first gift to Probe Ministries will ensure that you will receive the newsletter for the next year. Just drop us a note with your name and address, and let us know if you would like to receive the "Confronting Key Issues" booklet and/or the Vanguard newsletter. Also, please tell us that you received this transcript on CIN.
Thanks again for your interest in Probe. Please don't hesitate to contact us if we can ever be of further help.
Yours in Christ,
Which happens to be quite a different Christ that what most Christians believe in. I would encourage Christians everywhere to subscribe to this cult's newsletters if it doesn't cost you money since it might be useful to keep track of how some of your fellow Christians are making the rest of you look like fools. - flr
Probe Radio Ministry
1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100
Richardson, Texas 75081
Any text written by the creationist cult which may be quoted within this criticial examination of the creationist cult is provided according to U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
"You can lie about ICR all you want." -- Jason Daniel Henderson
"Thank you for your permission however there's never any need
Creationist propaganda is already self-debunking." -- Fredric L. Rice
This web site is not affiliated or associated with any creationist cult in any way and neither the web site host, the web site owner, or any of the authors which assisted in debunking creationist nonsense are in any way connected with any creationist cult.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank