Atheists are 'good' people.

Psychology Today has a hit job on religious beliefs, which is not surprising given their love for Darwin and all things atheistic.(1)

Despite a widespread perception that religious people should behave more ethically in general, researchers find little evidence that religious people either think or behave more ethically (1). One study, found that atheists were significantly less likely than religious students to cheat on an exam (2).

Psychologists find that religious belief stunts moral development, because it commits people to a dogma, or formula, rather than working out ethical solutions for themselves (the highest stage of moral development known as post-conventional morality).

Fundamentalist religions may undermine moral reasoning. People who “know” that they are saved, may be relatively unconcerned about who is hurt by their actions in this world. A Roper survey found that after being “born again,” people are more likely to drive drunk, use illegal drugs, and engage in illicit sex (3).

I’m not much on comparing people morally, because the Bible teaches that the notion of a good person is a myth. However, one must consider the agenda of the atheist writing this article on Psychology Today. Yes, I make that prediction even though the author did not state his position on God. The author engages in cherry picking–picking out only that research which supports his position. He did not even consider that governmental systems based on atheist philosophy have resulted in the most catastrophic loss of human life in history.(2)

What the author is trying to do is to say that religious folk are psychologically immature and don’t know how to engage in moral reasoning, whereas, atheists are more developed, psychologically and intellectually. I’ll just briefly include some research that is counter to the claims of Dr. Barber:

1). Religious beliefs is associated with lower levels of delinquency and drug/alcohol use in adolescents
2). Religious beliefs are associated with increased self-control. This is a comprehensive review article on decades of research. Other notable findings included are that religious beliefs result in increased lifespan (25-30%), less likely to use drugs/alcohol at all ages and engage in more health promoting behavior, have higher levels of psychological well-being, more likely to stay married and be more satisfied with the marital relationship, and is associated with higher grade point averages.

Does this sound like psychological immaturity or stunted moral development? Not in the least. Here’s to hoping that Dr. Barber will do a little more homework the next time he decides to write a hit job on religion.

(1). Are religious people more ethical in their conduct? Psychology Today, N. Barber, 4/09


The Lies and Fraud of Science-Part I

A common claim of atheists and theistic evolutionists against Creation Scientists and the ID movement is that they lie and are fraudulent in their research findings and interpretation of research. So let’s take a look for the moment at the lies and fraud perpetuated by naturalistic science.

Let’s start with the evolution of man.

in 1912, a jawbone was discovered. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum verified that the skull had human features and the jaw was ape-like. The fossils became known as Piltdown Man and were called Eoanthropus dawsoni which means ‘Dawson’s Dawn Man’. In 1915, another Dawn Man was found a couple of miles away from the site of the first find. Fossil remains of animals that lived with Piltdown Man, together with the tools that he used, were also found at the two sites. At last, here was ‘proof’ that apes had evolved into humans in England.1

So, what was discovered about this ‘proof’?

Almost forty years later, in 1953, Piltdown Man was exposed as a forgery, mainly through the work of Dr Kenneth Oakley. He showed that the skull was from a modern human and that the jawbone and teeth were from an orangutan. The teeth had been filed down to make them look human. The bones and teeth had been chemically treated (and sometimes even painted) to give them the appearance of being ancient. In addition, it was also shown that none of the finds associated with Piltdown Man had been originally buried in the gravel that had been deposited at Piltdown. The Piltdown Man fraud was a great embarrassment to the UK scientific community and questions about it were even asked in the House of Parliament.

So, that went on for 40 years. How many lost their faith because evolution had been proven? What was the effect on society and worldviews? The issue wasn’t resolved until after the end of the second World War.

I also have to say, that AiG makes a very balanced statement on this issue:

The Piltdown story is a great tool for the Christian in witnessing; not to try to denigrate evolutionists as foolish (Christians get taken in by all manner of hoaxes, too), but to use as a great illustration of what AiG has long taught, namely that facts have to be interpreted. The worldview ‘glasses’ one is wearing will to a large extent determine what one ‘sees’. Exposing the myth that evolutionary scientists are any more objective than others can help to break down the evolutionary/long-age barriers when seeking to introduce people to the God of the Bible. Through His Word, God has given us a truthful outline of the big picture of history—and thus, the right worldview through which to interpret the facts about the past.

I think the writers at AiG have a better understanding of the biases involved in science than a majority of scientists–particularly evolutionists.

So that’s #1, here’s another:

Most people have heard of or been taught the idea that the human embryo goes through (or recapitulates) various evolutionary stages, such as having gills like a fish, a tail like a monkey, etc., during the first few months that it develops in the womb.

The idea has not only been presented to generations of biology/medical students as fact, but has also been used for many years to persuasively justify abortion. Abortionists claimed that the unborn child being killed was still in the fish stage or the monkey stage, and had not yet become a human being.2

The formerly favorite phrase of Darwinists on this point is, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” In other words, the development of the individual repeats the development of the species. Another way of putting it is that the embryonic development of the individual passes through all of the prior stages of evolution for the species.

This theory, in the highly elaborate and deterministic form advanced by Haeckel, has, since the early twentieth century, been refuted on many fronts.


For example, Haeckel believed that the human embryo with gill slits (pharyngeal arches) in the neck not only signified a fishlike ancestor, but represented an adult “fishlike” developmental stage. Embryonic pharyngeal arches are not gills and do not carry out the same function. They are the invaginations between the gill pouches or pharyngeal pouches, and they open the pharynx to the outside. Gill pouches appear in all tetrapod animal embryos. In mammals, the first gill bar (in the first gill pouch) develops into the lower jaw (Meckel’s cartilage), the malleus and the stapes. In a later stage, all gill slits close, with only the ear opening remaining open.3

AiG also goes on to say:

Most informed evolutionists in the past 70 years have realised that the recapitulation theory is false.

Nevertheless, the recapitulation idea is still advanced as evidence for the theory of evolution in many books and particularly encyclopedias and by evolutionary popularizers like the late Carl Sagan.

See the picture below comparing Haekel’s drawings to actual photos.

Haekels Drawings vs. Actual Photographs

Haekel's Drawings vs. Actual Photographs

To be continued with Peppered Moths, Archeoraptor, Scopes Monkey Trial, Australopithecines, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neandertal man, and other frauds of modern science.

Evolutionists would do well to interpret “facts,” knowing that their worldview is an active component of the interpretive process. “Fraud” and “lies” are a common part of science. A skeptical eye must be turned against all science, whether “Creationist,” “IDist,” or “Naturalist.” The naturalistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists have accepted their interpretations of “facts” as “absolute truths,” but history is not on their side.


Young Earth Creationism (The Importance of Theological Consistency)

I was formerly a proponent of Old Earth Creationism (OEC). At one point, I was agnostic, verging on atheism. At that point, a low point for me, I sincerely prayed to God that he would answer my serious questions about the problems that I had with Him. In the course of 2 weeks, all of these questions were answered. I’m not saying it will happen that rapidly for everyone. And, my questions had been building for years.

Along the way, I considered, that Old Earth Creationism might answer some of my questions. Such as the starlight and time problem1, and the problem of dating methods2. The gap theory3 worked out reasonably well for me, until I discovered Answers in Genesis4 a few years ago. Now, I am somewhat undecided. I have a great deal of respect for the position of AIG, but I also realize that could possibly be wrong in their theological interpretation. Thus far, I haven’t found many problems with their theological interpretations.

So, what I am hoping, is that some atheists and agnostics out there, will open their minds and hearts to the possibilities of God. Go to Him in prayer–just talk to Him. Tell Him the problems that you have with Him and the questions that you have (whether they be personal or intellectual). Ask for answers. Open your mind to the answers…


A Naturalistic Fairy Tale-Part XI

We do now indeed worship death, because through death comes life and progress. Those silly creationists think that death is the result of “original sin and the fall of creation,” but we know the truth…death is good. Without death, no life forms higher than the Ur-Cell would exist. And if you really think about death, it is but a mere alteration of physical processes. The Ur-Cell did become eventually what we would certainly recognize today as a living single-celled creature. It did take a lot of death and natural selection to make that happen (praise Science), but given enough time, natural selection can accomplish anything, can it not? We know some silly undercover creationists who largely agree with our positions do disagree, (1) but their stupid superstitions are expected from Darwin Fishevolution (praise Science). (2) Although the IDiot author of these fairy tales is one of the least sentimental people you might meet (ask his wife), we do know that sentimentality is part of the irrational problem that the creationist IDiots suffer from in their delusional, although evolutionarily determined, simple-minded thought processes. Thankfully, we do have the random mutation that allows us to know the truth, and to have disdain for stupidity (praise Science). And honestly, we superficially feel sorry for these poor dupes, and we will continue to convert as many as possible to the real and absolute truth of naturalism. (3) (Continued in Part XII)

(1). The Edge of Evolution