FAQS

Q: Why is the topic of evolution so important to you?

A: Observation, testing, replication, and verification are the foundations of Science, and are the best means of producing empirical data.  The scientific community has created a standard that ensures our society to keep moving toward innovation and breakthrough, yet science is being degraded.  Teaching ideas that cannot fulfill the strict criteria of science is going to destroy our future.

Evolution is required in public school, but is based on assumption instead of empirical data.  It defies the basis of science by being dogmatic and overtly hostile to questions.  Read more at the post entitled Are Questions Part of Science?

So, if evolution is not able to fulfill the criteria of science, then what is it?  Every religion has a story of origins and evolution is such for Humanistic Naturalism, which the U.S. recognizes as a 501(c)3 registered for educational and religious purposes.  Evolution is a fabricated idea that is not based on science, but is actually based on the religious philosophy of Humanistic Naturalism.

Our world needs to know the truth.  Unfortunately, evolution is degrading truth in the scientific community and the Christian community.  If we do nothing, science and the Judeo-Christian narrative will disappear.

 

Q: Is Theistic Evolution the “Happy Medium?”

A: Nope!  Theistic evolution is heresy, but let me explain.

Humanistic Naturalism aka evolution, is a competing religion that is in direct conflict with Judeo-Christian theology.  There are only two kinds of theistic evolutionists.

  1. Those who are ignorant to the data of evolution and just accept it as the way God created because someone they trust said so.
  2. False teachers with an agenda to eradicate the Gospel.

In, fact we know that God did not use evolution for two reasons.

 

Q: How do you define evolution?

A: Evolution is a word used by many to describe various ideas.  In my work, I use the word in regard to Darwinian biological evolution.  Yet, Darwin never defined evolution in his book On the Origin of Species, by Means of Natural selection.   Most biologists have created their own unique definition, meaning that a concise and consistent definition is still needed.  In the first chapter of my book, I describe the detailed process of how to create a single and precise definition… of which a suggestion for what that definition could be is offered.  Download the first three chapters of my book for free. CLICK HERE

 

Q: What is your stance on how life became so diverse; evolution, creation, or theistic evolution?

A: I consider myself an “Empirical Agnostic,” which means that when it comes to how life became so diverse, we lack scientific gnosis which is Greek for knowledge.  To claim Empirical Agnosticism means we do not have the ability to scientifically know how we got here.  For more information on this stance, please read my blog entry entitled: Evolution, Creation, or Theistic Evolution?

 

Q: What do you say to 99.9% of biologists that accept evolution as a scientific fact?

A: No other field of “science” has consensus numbers as high as evolution.  If 99.9% of any group claims anything to be an absolute fact, it is a major red flag.  No group of humans, scientists included, has such astronomical consensus numbers on anything other than evolution.  Scientists are divided on so many topics, for example the health of certain foods.  68% of scientists say that pesticides on our food is safe for consumption while 32% say organic foods should be eaten.  When it comes to genetically modified foods (GMO), 22% of scientists say to not eat them while 88% say GMO foods are safe.

In the case of food science, for example, we know what GMO foods are, we know what Organically grown foods are, and we know what Conventionally grown foods are.  Yet, in the case of biological evolution we do not know what it is.  The Next Generation Science Standards require evolution to be taught, yet leaves it undefined.

Strangely enough, 99.9% of biologists subscribe to evolution and 99.9% of biologist have created their own unique and inconsistent description of what they believe biological evolution to be.  I have written extensively about this issue in my book WHAT IS EVOLUTION? and on my blog.  Start learning more with this post: Why Leave it Undefined?

 

Q: Do you accept the idea of a young Earth or an old Earth?

A: Evolution cannot meet the criteria for science that is clearly laid out by both the National Academy of Sciences and US Judicial precedent.  With that noted, and being an Empirical Agnostic, I do not see how any age of the Earth, young or old, can be validated by data that fulfills the same mentioned scientific criteria.

Goodbye Faith Cavities!