- A Leader like George Washington
- Embedded in America
- Seek Protection and Guidance
- The Art of The Deal
- Smarter and Better People: Aristotle, James Henley Thornwell, and the Moral-Intellectual Nexus
- Subscribe to Times Examiner Weekly Briefings
- Republican Gubernatorial Candidates Outline Competing Visions at Upstate Women’s Forum
- From Sewer Expansion to Six-Figure Sanctions
- Senate Property Tax Debate Expands as Bright Pushes Broader Relief Amendment
- Property Rights vs. Property Rights? Greenville County Weighs Short-Term Rental Rules
- It’s Not Just About Crime: What the Attorney General Debate in Pickens Revealed
- Residency Lawsuit Against Greenville Councilman Ennis Fant Expands into Criminal Review Dispute
- Stumbo Sounds Alarm on THC, Repeat Offenders, and Cartel Crime in Greenville Appearance
- Back-to-Basics Breakfast Brings a Plate Full of Legislative Bites
- When Columbia Passes Gas, the Cost Doesn’t Just Dissipate into Thin Air
Is Atheism a Religion?
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the arguments frequently used against creation science is that it is just religion. One common answer to this is that the entire Big Bang to man story is just as religious because it is fundamentally atheistic. The response to this is that atheism is not a religion; therefore, the claim is wrong.
Before going on, it is important to note that the reason for stating that the Big Bang-to-man story is fundamentally atheistic is that it is fundamentally based on philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is fundamentally atheistic, as it holds that material reality is all there is. This means that any theory that is based on philosophical naturalism is itself fundamentally atheistic.
Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosome Comparison
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
According to evolutionists, they are our closest cousins on their imaginary tree of life. While it is true that humans and chimpanzees share a lot of DNA, this is to be expected, as they use the same genetic code.
Even with separate creations by God, as long as he is using a single genetic code, there will be genetic similarities among different kinds. One of the big misconceptions that is claimed as evidence for common descent is the presupposition that an independent origin, even a divine one, would result in totally different genetic languages. However, this is not necessarily true, particularly if you are designing organisms that can eat the same foods. It turns out, however, that comparisons of the human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes reveal significant differences that tend to contradict the idea of a common ancestor.
Why Evolutionists Reject the Term “Evolutionist”
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The Complaint Often made by evolutionists about being called evolutionists is illustrated perfectly in this quote from an evolutionist complaining about my usage of the term.
“Oh, and stop calling people evolutionists - it’s a very desperate term invented by creationists to try and make evolution sound like your religion. It isn’tm, it’s science. Get over it.”
While many evolutionists simply ignore the usage of the term “evolutionist,” many will complain about it. Not only by falsely claiming that the term was invented by creationists, but also that it is used to make evolution seem like a religion. However, it turns out that neither of these claims has any basis in reality.
Top 10 Reasons Why Creation Science Is Indeed Science
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Evolutionists frequently claim that creation science is not really science. In fact, this is the entire basis on which atheists have convinced judges to throw all creation science out of public schools. This is literally a case of doing science by judicial decree and not giving the position a chance to make its own case.
Creationists respond by pointing out that we do indeed do science. Part of the problem is that evolutionists are wrongfully comparing the philosophical position of creationism, which is in opposition to philosophical naturalism, with creation science, which is an opposition to the entire Big Bang to man evolutionary story. In other words, evolutionists keep confusing philosophical positions with the scientific position. While creationism does form the philosophical starting point of creation science, they are not the same thing. The simple fact of the matter is that there are multiple reasons why creation science is indeed science.
Two Things Everybody Believes on Blind Faith!
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Evolutionists, in general, and atheists in particular, will claim that they do not believe anything, but they know stuff based on evidence. They will often go further and claim that creationists believe in Biblical creation on blind faith. They make this claim based largely on a total rejection of any evidence presented by creationists.
However, there are at least two things that none of us can really know, but we have to assume and believe on blind faith. This is simply a question of intellectual honesty, along with the fact that we only experience our own existence, along with what information we get from the outside. Because we can only experience our own consciousness and the input that it gets, we can only accept on blind faith the rest of reality. We essentially have to accept, on blind faith, the existence of an objective reality in which other people are conscious beings. At first glance, this may seem strange, but when you think about it, it is true.
Top 10 Reasons Creation Science is claimed not to be Science
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the most common attacks made by evolutionists against creationists is to claim that creation science is not actually science. In fact, this claim has been used by atheists in court to silence both creation science and intelligent design in public school classrooms. They are effectively doing science by judicial decree. This is not how scientific questions are supposed to be answered, but it is the way it is done on the topic of origins. This list is a side-by-side presentation of the top 10 reasons critics claim that Creation Science is not science, followed immediately by a creationist's response to each claim.
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is a proposed geophysical model that is most commonly associated with young-Earth creationist frameworks. It explains large-scale geological features such as mountain ranges, ocean basins, sedimentary layers, fossils, and continental distribution through rapid, large-magnitude plate motions occurring over a very short timescale. This timescale ranges from months to a few years, rather than the millions of years required by conventional plate tectonics.
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics does an excellent job of modeling the global flood described in the book of Genesis in the Bible. It not only fits the description in the Bible but also explains how such a global flood is possible.
Top 10 Misunderstandings About Creation Science
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Here are 10 of the most common misunderstandings about creation science, along with a brief explanation of each one. Each of these is frequently cited by evolutionists as a counterargument to creation science. There are many more, but this is a concise list of ten easy-to-understand misunderstandings. If you spend any amount of time on social media, you will likely see these ten misunderstandings being touted by evolutionists as fact, and many more.
1. Creation science is just religion disguised as science
The misunderstanding is that creation science is purely theological and has no scientific component. However, creation science attempts to interpret empirical data (biology, geology, astronomy) within a creationist framework, often employing scientific methods but starting from different presuppositions than those of methodological naturalism. This is the key to understanding creation science, and that is that it involves accepting and looking at the data, but from a different perspective other than those that lead to the Big Bang to man story.
Genetic Entropy
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Genetic Entropy is a hypothesis in population genetics that proposes genomes inevitably accumulate harmful mutations over time, leading to a gradual, unavoidable decline in biological fitness—even in the presence of natural selection. The concept is most strongly associated with Dr. John C. Sanford, a former Cornell University geneticist, and is often discussed in creationist and intelligent design literature.
1. Core Idea of Genetic Entropy
Genetic entropy argues that most mutations are slightly deleterious, but too small for natural selection to detect, and therefore accumulate over generations, degrading the genome. This accumulation supposedly leads to reduced fitness, increased genetic load, and eventual population collapse or extinction
Do ERVs Prove Common Descent?
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
ERVs are probably the best argument that evolutionists have for universal common descent. After all, at least on the surface, it makes sense that the only way that different organisms could share the same viruses in the same location would be by common descent. However, a close look at this claim shows that it does not really work for several reasons. One of which is that it would make more sense if these genetic elements were non-functional, but not only are these segments of DNA functional, but they often perform important functions, including cellular immunity from viruses.
Jesus, our God, our Creator, and our Redeemer
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
John 1:1-5 (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
What Was the Star of Bethlehem?
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
We see it in every Manger scene along with the wise men, and because of that, it is commonly associated with Christmas. The irony, however, is that the wise men may not have arrived until months, to even almost two years, after Jesus was actually born. The question before us is, what was the star of Bethlehem? There have been numerous suggestions, most of which do not even come close to really matching what is described. So, let's dive in and look at the possibilities to see if we can get an idea of what the star really was.
The Genetics of the Virgin Birth
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The virgin birth is often ridiculed by scoffers for being impossible. Now, of course, the natural response from a Christian perspective is that the fact that the virgin birth is impossible from a natural perspective is the entire point. In other words, if the virgin birth occurred, it had to be a direct act of God. Consequently, they are completely missing the point. However, as long as God is involved in the process, it turns out that it is genetically possible. In fact, there are several ways that God could have accomplished it.
The first thing that we need to note is that such births, called parthenogenesis, sometimes occur in animals. In fact, it is only in mammals that it never happens naturally, and artificial triggering is never successful in producing a live birth. On the flip side, all types of this process are quite common in insects.
Hydroplate, Plate Tectonics
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Combining Hydroplate Theory and Catastrophic Plate Tectonics
There are two major flood models, both of which have made some successful predictions, and both of which explain things that we observe both on Earth and in space. It turns out that there is a possible way of combining them into one workable model. Furthermore, it should be able to explain not only what each of the original models does but possibly even more.
The elements from Hydroplate Theory consist of a massive underground reservoir of water, which serves as the water source for both the rain and the flood itself. This reservoir would have been underneath the continental crust, sandwiched between it and a layer of basalt, similar to that of the oceanic crust. At the beginning of the flood, this underground reservoir would have cracked open, shooting out large amounts of water, some of which would have been ejected into space, some of which would have fallen as rain, and the rest would have gone over the continents as they spread apart.
Top Problems with Abiogenesis
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Before moving forward, we need to define our terms. The term abiogenesis specifically refers to the concept that life came naturally from nonliving chemicals. Some people will try to make the case for abiogenesis by defining it to include the creation of life by God. However, here we are going to specifically use the term abiogenesis to refer to a totally naturalistic idea for the origin of life. That is, it excludes, by definition, the involvement of any intelligent agency, whether it is God or aliens. Our use of the term is going to refer exclusively to a totally naturalistic origin of life.
Creationist Cosmology - Conclusion
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
It is interesting to notice just how many rescuing devices evolutionists have to come up with to save their theories from reality. Dark energy is definitely one of the biggest. Here is a clear case of a situation where starting with biblical assumptions leads to a cosmology that naturally explains the data without any need for their rescuing device.
Browse by the Top Tags ...
