Gimme a break man - I really do have a life !

A friend recently wrote to me (mistakenly) believing that the late Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research had "hijacked" Louis Pasteur by representing Pasteur as a creationist. You can read my blog entry a couple of weeks ago in response to the "Hijacker Henry" accusation. But he suggested also that my reading and information sources are too narrow. Sure, I would love to read everything around. But I am not a mountaintop-dwelling ascetic (Webster: ascetic = an extremely abstemious person). I really do have a life, which puts a few limitations on how well I can measure up to my friend's suggestion that I read most everything around.

So I sent him the following response:

To _______.

You have suggested that I expand my reading beyond "hardcore" creation literature.

(A) I must be efficient with my time so I subscribe to and read weekly "Science News." Sorry, that is the best I can usually do unless an especially interesting item comes along such as the "fresh" T-Rex tissue. Then I try to invest a bit of extra time.

(B) More importantly, God gave me a life and I prefer not to waste it. I prefer to read and depend more on sources which have fundamental integrity, which I have found the "hardcore" creationist sources to usually (but not always) have. I long ago tired of too much chasing every rabbit trail suggested by a bunch of dogmatic evolutionists whose materialistic worldview (religion) renders them absolutely incapable of considering any alternative point of view. The history of the evolution religion is littered with fraud, deception, and dishonesty. So please do not judge me too harshly if I tend to discount stuff that comes from the side of the argument that is frequently lacking in honesty and character. Just a few examples:
(1)Richard Dawkins' fundamental and obstinately enduring intellectual fraud in his famous and uncritically hailed book "The Blind Watchmaker." Any reasonably intelligent 6th grader, if honest, could see the fundamental fallacy of using a "target" or goal in showing his scenario of evolving the phrase "Methinks it is a weasel." The non-theistic evolutionists do not presuppose a known goal or target for the mindless and random processes of Neo-Darwinism. How could Dawkins keep a straight face? And how could his fellow carpet-baggers not blush at their own silence?
(2) National Geographic's Chinese feathered dinosaur fraud about 5 years ago;
(3) The Piltdown Man fraud. I suppose this is thoroughly covered in every school textbook so young malleable minds can be taught lessons about the need for caution and objectivity. Right? Right??
(4) Beijing Man: monkey skulls smashed at the back to scoop out the brains, so who was the eater?
(5) Nebraska Man (man and woman drawn in c. 1922 London DailyNews from evidence of one tooth, later found to be that of an extinct pig (pecarry);
(6) Eugene Dubois (Java Man discoverer) hiding modern looking skulls, unpublished, under the floor of his home for 30 years while continuing to receive funding in his search for Java Man and more. See
http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=18;
(7) "Ontogeny recapitultes phylogeny," disproved in last journal article 1922, yet perpetrated to this day explicitly or by inference in educational texts all over the world;
(8) The disproven horse-evolution sequence now known as flawed, yet still used in many texts and/or museum displays;
(9) Steven Jay Gould saying "Evolution is a fact like apples falling out of trees," as if his pompous assertion makes it a fact. He is dead now, so he now knows the real truth about origins - much too late for his eternal soul to rest in eternal peace;
(9) Ernst Haeckl's purposefully fraudulent drawings of embryos in order to promote his "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" foolishness. He cheated with women too - a very consistent kind of guy.
(10) Absolute refusal of dogmatic evolutionists to address the findings of some of the world's most eminent scholars convened to address the role of known scientific processes and probability in producing the alleged results of evolution. This was at the Wistar Institute (I think Philadelphia, I think about 1966), with the clear conclusion that known physics and chemistry and probability theory can not explain the origin of life. That is still true to my observation;
(11) The almost universal refusal of evolutionists to acknowledge the difference between empirical/operational science and historical/forensic science and to understand WHICH of these has application for many questions of origins; creationists are (usually) honest about this,evolutionists (usually) are not.
(12) - (99,999) I tire.

Respectfully submitted,
D.U.