Creation Moment 7/31/2026 -Laying bare the fairy tale nature of Darwinian theory

For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:20 ESV

"A best-selling book by Concordia University marketing prof Gad Saad is called Suicidal Empathy (2026).
Published by Broadside Books in 2026

The Montreal professor’s book is centered on evolutionary psychology, the idea that evolution can explain human psychology.

It’s been a bestseller; one thing that probably helped elevate its status was that the basic thesis has been panned by just the people you’d expect.

Suicidal empathy is a purported phenomenon in which excessive, misdirected and pathological forms of empathy are claimed to be destructive for the party that exhibits it. This is often claimed to happen through prioritizing compassion, understanding and empathy over logic and long-term consequences. – Wikipedia, July 19, 2026

You can hear the elite sneering, right?
As it happens, many people understand the gist of what Saad is talking about. A counselor friend once told me, “I have women in my practice who are harboring and protecting men who will probably kill them one day.” That’s pretty much a definition of the phenomenon.

My take on evolutionary psychology is that it is obviously ridiculous. The reason that Darwinism has any cachet whatsoever with the public is that most of the explanations that Darwinists offer involve issues of cladistics, speciation, and molecular biology, that the public doesn’t really know anything about. So they just take them at their word.

*But when you tell people that the reason that men have more propensity to promiscuity than women, is because male apes were able to spread their seed, but they didn’t have to or carry the babies for 9 months or take care of them after they were born, everybody knows it’s kind of nonsense.

Evolutionary psychology just lays bare 

the fairy tale nature of Darwinian theory

If Darwin’s theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species.

This inconsistency, between Darwin’s theory and the facts of human life, is what I mean by ‘Darwinism’s Dilemma’. The inconsistency is so very obvious that no Darwinian has ever been altogether unconscious of it. There have been, accordingly, very many attempts by Darwinians to wriggle out of the dilemma. But the inconsistency is just too simple and direct to be wriggled out of, and all these attempts are conspicuously unsuccessful. They are not uninstructive, though, or unamusing." 

MindMatters

Creation Moment 7/30/2026 - Geometric Morphometrics FLAWED

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. Genesis 1:24

"Living alligators expose why juvenile fossils can fool classification methods, (Phys.org, 16 July 2026). This recent article in Phys.org summarizes new research by paleontologist James Napoli, a researcher at Stony Brook University’s Renaissance School of Medicine:

"The challenge of correctly identifying a vertebrate fossil is that, as

all creatures grow, their skeletons change dramatically. Young and adult animals often look so different that it is difficult to tell whether they are the same species, an issue long recognized by paleontologists. Additionally, without being able to witness a species grow or sequence its DNA, proper identification becomes even more uncertain."

The author proposes a way to reduce those mistakes and uncertainties by focusing on anatomical features that remain relatively constant throughout development. That’s the splashy announcement. However, the real core (and lasting importance, I believe) of this research is found in the details of the journal article:

Resolving the “ontogeny problem” in vertebrate paleontology (James G. Napoli, Paleobiology, 2 July 2026). In this research, Napoli is not merely proposing a minor refinement to a niche discipline. He is demonstrating one of the highest virtues of science: the courage to calibrate its methods against the reality science is supposed to be researching.

Measuring the Measuring Stick

Historical sciences face unique challenges. Unlike repeatable laboratory experiments in the present, they try to reconstruct unobservable events in the past. Whether the subject is paleontology, archaeology, or cosmology, researchers must infer past events from

evidence in the present.
There is nothing inherently wrong with analysis aimed at reconstructive historical conjecture; every historical science depends upon it. But its practice begs a fundamental question: 

Q: how do we know our reconstructive methods are trustworthy when we cannot travel back in time to check the results?

Noting this, Napoli’s experimental design is brilliantly simple. Instead of testing paleontology’s standard inferential procedures on fragmentary fossils whose histories are unknown, he applies the field’s analytical tools to living crocodilians whose developmental and taxonomic histories are well understood in the present.
In other words, he chooses a case where reality can answer back in order to verify the methodological warrant for those in the past.

The Limits of the Digital Ruler

Paleontologists have for decades employed a technique known as Geometric Morphometrics (GM) along with a newer and more niche-method called cladistic analysis of ontogeny. These mathematical modeling tools treat ontogenetic change like evolutionary trees, promising to separate genuine species differences from the dramatic shapeshifting that naturally occurs as an animal grows from a juvenile to an adult.
But when Napoli applied these elegant computer models to living American and Chinese alligators, the methods shockingly failed to deliver on those promises.
Napoli reports:

“The failure of morphometric methods to recover obviously distinct groups in morphospace suggests that GM cannot effectively discriminate between anatomically similar species, especially when faced with ontogenetic and polymorphic variation within both… In sum, GM fails to empirically recover the known taxonomy of the trial dataset.”

Furthermore, he notes that the cladistic analysis of ontogeny failed to accurately describe the sequence of character changes in four out of five analytical trials. Of the single trial that technically “succeeded,” Napoli called it a “fluke” arising from ideal, a priori conditions, conditions physically impossible to obtain in true paleontological research.

The Circularity of ‘Baked-In’ Assumptions

Q: Why do these sophisticated and – and widely trusted – scientific methods struggle? 

Napoli exposes a subtle assumption of circular reasoning. To make the mathematics work, evolutionary modelers frequently construct

what they call an “artificial embryo,” a hypothetical, composite ancestor assembled from selected character states rather than direct observation, which is unavailable for nearly all extinct fossil species.

Additionally, because the smallest fossil specimens are commonly assumed to represent the earliest developmental stages before the software even runs, the procedure naturally “discovers” the exact evolutionary trajectory that the initial assumptions favored.

These procedures are promoted as objective tools that can reconstruct the past without human bias, but Napoli revealed a closed loop of circular reasoning. The story was already ‘baked in’ to the dataset before the analysis began. More regrettably, when the method fails, it does not just produce harmless statistical noise; it manufactures false evolutionary trends that radiate across the discipline, like claims regarding the “tendency toward a loss of tooth positions” – he says:

"No clade shows a tendency toward a loss of tooth positions, despite published claims to the contrary."

If these procedures are not empirically testable – or tested, as Napoli does here, what level of confidence should science be placing in their results?

A Lesson Beyond Paleontology

The two living alligator species have supposedly spent 50 million years evolving along separate paths, giving them ample opportunity to lock in distinct physical traits. Yet when put to the test, paleontology’s premier software tools failed to separate them. 

Q: If a method stumbles when faced with two living species separated by tens of millions of years of history, on what grounds should we trust it to decipher the subtle nuances of an incomplete fossil record?

Napoli has reminded us of a fundamental truth: before we trust a

historical reconstruction, we must calibrate the reconstructive engines. Have we? Science progresses not by crowning the most elegant narrative, but by submitting its tools and methods to the uncompromising judgment of empirical reality. It is time for historical biology to stop celebrating its computer-generated stories, and start calibrating its storytellers." 

CEH

Creation Moment 7/26/2026 - The “obstetrical dilemma”?

Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 

Romans 1:22 NLT

"For over half a century, the public has been treated to a confident textbook narrative regarding human childbirth. It is called the

“obstetrical dilemma.” When our evolutionary ancestors adopted the upright posture, natural selection narrowed the pelvis to accommodate bipedal locomotion. Later, as brains expanded, the human birth canal became a hazardous, agonizing bottleneck, saddling human mothers with a uniquely clumsy – and dangerous – evolutionary compromise, while our non-human primate cousins allegedly enjoyed spacious, effortless deliveries.

This neat little parable has been used to explain everything from the helplessness of human infants to the evolution of social midwifery (e.g., by Lucy Hyde). There is just one problem.

The narrative was built on a circular, 

human-centric illusion.

Comparative primate analysis shows that humans are not unique in having a tight cephalopelvic fit at birth (Nature Ecology & Evolution, 29 June 2026).
According to the study by researchers at University College London (UCL), the foundational data supporting this textbook dogma was fundamentally flawed.

"Human childbirth is regarded as uniquely difficult among primates, due to a tight cephalopelvic fit thought to result from an evolutionary trade-off between adaptations to bipedal locomotion and increasing brain size. This impression, however, may be an artefact of past adoption of anthropocentric measurements that underestimate birth challenges in non-human primates."

For nearly eighty years, comparative anthropologists inherited a measurement convention that treated non-human primates as though their pelvic anatomy followed the same obstetric geometry as humans.

The Anatomy of Adolph Schultz

The myth of the carefree primate birth traces back to the 1940s, when primatologist Adolph H. Schultz published comparative investigations estimating the fit of a newborn head into the maternal birth canal. As the authors of the UCL study note:

"This interpretation, and in particular the widely reproduced figure, was highly influential on subsequent work, effectively defining anthropological conceptualization of birth across primates, and reinforcing traditional assumptions that (1) human childbirth is uniquely difficult due to a tight cephalopelvic fit and a distinct pelvic canal shape, and (2) other primates face little to no birth obstruction… Later studies, accepting these assumptions without re-examination, sought to identify the evolutionary and anatomical factors that make human parturition particularly challenging."

But the UCL research team, led by Drs. Nicole Torres-Tamayo and Lia Betti, decided to actually look at the raw data using modern 3D skeletal modeling across 29 primate species.

--What they found completely dismantles Schultz’s historical narrative.
Schultz committed a human-centric measurement error. In human anatomy, the tightest part of the birth canal is measured from the top ridge of the sacrum to the pubic bone. Schultz applied these same human landmarks to other primates. However, a monkey’s sacrum sits much higher relative to its pelvis. By using human points, Schultz drew a fictional, tilted plane that completely missed the actual skeletal bottleneck. As the authors write:

"In non-human primates, the sacrum is positioned higher relative to the pubis … By applying standard human obstetric measurements to non-human primate anatomy, pelvic inlets are treated as idealized, generic ovals… misrepresenting cephalopelvic relationships in non-human primates and providing an unreliable basis for understanding the apparent uniqueness in human childbirth."

When the UCL team mapped the true rigid skeletal ring, non-human primate birth canals instantly shrank by an average of 11%, reaching more than an 18% reduction in some species.
Furthermore, evolutionary models assumed all primates are born like humans, crown-first. In reality, primates with pronounced snouts, like baboons and squirrel monkeys, almost always deliver face-first, with their necks fully extended. This changes the geometric orientation entirely, making the head height, rather than head length, the critical measurement.

Smaller Primates Have It Worse

When the researchers corrected these errors and applied realistic face-first dimensions, the myth of the “unique human dilemma” evaporated. While great apes like chimpanzees and gorillas do have spacious birth canals, humans are not the odd ones out in the wider primate world. In fact, under true geometric scaling (allometry), smaller primates face obstetric crises that make human childbirth look spacious:

"Our results challenge the traditional perception of a uniquely tight cephalopelvic fit at human birth by showing more extreme CPP [cephalopelvic proportions] in several non-human primate species and a tighter fit in more taxa than previously recognized… While humans remain among the most constrained species of apes, the even tighter fits in several primates, such as galagos, squirrel monkeys and patas monkeys, indicate that birth constraints are not unique to our evolutionary lineage."

In small-bodied monkeys like tamarins and squirrel monkeys, the neonatal head is actually geometrically larger than the resting pelvic opening, yielding CPP scores of 1.87 and 1.92 – almost twice the size of the available space! These animals survive only because they possess dynamic design features that put “evolutionary trade-off” theories to shame. For example, the pelvic ligaments of squirrel monkeys relax so significantly during labor that their hipbones temporarily dislocate, expanding the birth canal area by up to 100%.

The Smoking Gun: “Never Been Assessed”

The paper does not disprove that bipedalism affects the human pelvis, but what the paper does explode is the dogmatic certainty with which the “unique human evolutionary penalty” was preached for generations without any comparative data to back it up.
In a stunning admission of institutional blind spots, the authors write:

"To the best of our knowledge … the relationship between maternal body size and the two key components of CPP, pelvic inlet size and neonatal head size, has never been assessed."

Read that sentence again. For sixty-five years – ever since Sherwood Washburn officially coined the term “obstetrical dilemma” in 1960 – physical anthropology and evolutionary biology have treated this concept as an unquestioned, fundamental fact. Yet, the core mathematical engine of the entire theory was never checked across the primate order.
Researchers spent decades asking why humans possessed a unique evolutionary trade-off before first establishing whether that uniqueness actually existed. They repeatedly reproduced a simplified 1940s schematic, assumed the relationship was unique to humans, and started building their theoretical castles in the sky

Unchecked Dogma: a Pattern?

The authors of this paper are acknowledging and exposing a profound pathology in the scientific enterprise. Human institutions

possess an immense capacity for “paradigmatic amnesia.” A pioneer proposes a speculative, simplified model that satisfies the philosophical requirements of the current consensus. The model gets turned into a clean, compelling textbook diagram. Within a generation, the messy, unexamined caveats are completely forgotten, and the diagram hardens into a dogma." 

CEH

Creation Moment 7/20/2026 - Brain Size and "Evolutionary Biology"

But now thus saith the LORD that created thee.... Isaiah 43:1

"Evolutionary biology has lots of problems. But one problem that most folks think the field doesn’t have is coming up with a reason for why humans evolved bigger brains. After all, we’ve heard countless times that bigger brains evolved to allow for higher intelligence in our hominid ancestors, because higher intelligence was selected to help our ancestors to better survive and reproduce. These kinds of arguments are everywhere — here are a few typical examples: A 2007 chapter titled “The Evolution of Brain Size and Intelligence” in an MIT Press book reads: “It is reasonable to hypothesize that bigger brains evolved based on natural selection for increased intelligence.” (Rushton and Ankney, 2007)

A 2025 paper in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B states that “hominin brain expansion underpinned large increases in cognitive abilities.” (González-Forero and Gómez-Robles, 2025)
According to a 2011 paper in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, “An increase in brain size could also result in an increase in the complexity of its functions. … the evolution of encephalization essentially involves an increase in the brain’s capacity to process information.” (Cairo, 2011)
A new article at Phys.org notes: “For decades, researchers generally assumed that these changes were the result of sustained, directed natural selection; larger brains were favored because they improved cognitive abilities.”

It’s so simple it’s a no brainer (pun intended!): Bigger brains evolved to make us smarter, a trait that was gradually favored by natural selection over time. And yet, even here evolutionary theory is apparently not supported by the evidence.
According to an article in New Scientist, “Human brains may have got bigger for no particular reason.” Says science writer Michael Marshall, “there is no evidence that evolution strongly favored big brains in the past 2 million years of human evolution, according to a new analysis of fossil skulls.”

The article cites a newly published study in Nature Communications, by anthropologist Mark Hubbe and paleoanthropologist Katerina Harvati, which notes that although brain size in Homo does get bigger over time, the changes appear to be “stochastic” — i.e., random — and “did not support gradual directional selection as a driving force.” In other words, the old idea that natural selection gradually favored bigger and bigger brains in our ancestors is not supported by the evidence." MindMatters

Creation Moment 7/19/2026 - The “obstetrical dilemma”

He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: Isaiah 42:5

"For over half a century, the public has been treated to a confident textbook narrative regarding human childbirth. It is called the “obstetrical dilemma.” When our evolutionary ancestors adopted the upright posture, natural selection narrowed the pelvis to accommodate bipedal locomotion. Later, as brains expanded, the human birth canal became a hazardous, agonizing bottleneck, saddling human mothers with a uniquely clumsy – and dangerous – evolutionary compromise, while our non-human primate cousins allegedly enjoyed spacious, effortless deliveries.

This neat little parable has been used to explain everything from the helplessness of human infants to the evolution of social midwifery (e.g., by Lucy Hyde). 

There is just one problem.

The narrative was built on a circular, human-centric illusion.

Comparative primate analysis shows that humans are not unique in having a tight cephalopelvic fit at birth (Nature Ecology & Evolution, 29 June 2026).
According to the study by researchers at University College London (UCL), the foundational data supporting this textbook dogma was fundamentally flawed.

"Human childbirth is regarded as uniquely difficult among primates, due to a tight cephalopelvic fit thought to result from an evolutionary trade-off between adaptations to bipedal locomotion and increasing brain size. This impression, however, may be an artefact of past adoption of anthropocentric measurements that underestimate birth challenges in non-human primates."

For nearly eighty years, comparative anthropologists inherited a measurement convention that treated non-human primates as though their pelvic anatomy followed the same obstetric geometry as humans.

The myth of the carefree primate birth traces back to the 1940s, when primatologist Adolph H. Schultz published comparative investigations estimating the fit of a newborn head into the maternal birth canal. As the authors of the UCL study note:

"This interpretation, and in particular the widely reproduced figure, was highly influential on subsequent work, effectively defining

anthropological conceptualization of birth across primates, and reinforcing traditional assumptions that (1) human childbirth is uniquely difficult due to a tight cephalopelvic fit and a distinct pelvic canal shape, and (2) other primates face little to no birth obstruction… Later studies, accepting these assumptions without re-examination, sought to identify the evolutionary and anatomical factors that make human parturition particularly challenging."

But the UCL research team, led by Drs. Nicole Torres-Tamayo and Lia Betti, decided to actually look at the raw data using modern 3D skeletal modeling across 29 primate species.
What they found completely dismantles Schultz’s historical narrative.
Schultz committed a human-centric measurement error. In human anatomy, the tightest part of the birth canal is measured from the top ridge of the sacrum to the pubic bone. Schultz applied these same human landmarks to other primates. However, a monkey’s sacrum sits much higher relative to its pelvis. By using human points, Schultz drew a fictional, tilted plane that completely missed the actual skeletal bottleneck. As the authors write:

"In non-human primates, the sacrum is positioned higher relative to the pubis … By applying standard human obstetric measurements to non-human primate anatomy, pelvic inlets are treated as idealized, generic ovals… misrepresenting cephalopelvic relationships in non-human primates and providing an unreliable basis for understanding the apparent uniqueness in human childbirth."

When the UCL team mapped the true rigid skeletal ring, non-human primate birth canals instantly shrank by an average of 11%, reaching more than an 18% reduction in some species.
Furthermore, evolutionary models assumed all primates are born like humans, crown-first. In reality, primates with pronounced snouts, like baboons and squirrel monkeys, almost always deliver face-first, with their necks fully extended. This changes the geometric orientation entirely, making the head height, rather than head length, the critical measurement." 

CEH

Creation Moment 7/17/2026 - Multiverse Theory & pleonastic fallacy

... but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21

"Multiverse Theory: our universe is just a blip in a vast sea of universes. It happens to appear designed but most of the others — if we ever had a chance to observe them — do not.

What they are doing is called the pleonastic fallacy —trying to explain a difference in kind by a difference in number. They account for the laws of nature in our universe by simply hypothesizing that there are 25 trillion trillion universes that all have different laws. And we just happen to be stuck in one of them. The word “universe” means everything. So the multiverse theorists are claiming that everything that exists is an infinite ensemble of everythings. 

And that is not a coherent statement.
*But they haven’t explained the main issue — why are there any laws at all?" 

Engor

Creation Moment 7/12/2026 - Dear Evolutionists: Where are Your Aliens?

...but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21

"If evolution were indeed true, we would expect it to have occurred throughout the universe from multiple angles where environments were suitable, with many different routes toward the culmination of intelligent life.

There is no reason, depending as evolution must on billions of randomly fortuitous chemical reactions, that we should find only one

style of intelligent life (human beings). The different imaginations of intelligent life, such as found in the science fiction of Star Wars, should be evident all around us. Our cantinas should be like the one dramatized through Star Wars’ Mos Eisley Space Port, featuring, amongst other space aliens, the music-playing Biths.

Such a potpourri of intelligent life, at different levels, evolving through different chemistry along different paths, should be standard fare if evolution were true.

Yet so far, nothing! We seem to be the one special creation in the physical universe, just as the Bible tells us. There is one Creator God, who created life with similar building blocks." 

CM

Creation Moment 7/2/2026 - How science led an atheist Harvard physicist to Christ

Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Romans 4:7

"For most of his life, Michael Guillén believed science would explain everything.
“Science was my god," Guillén told The Christian Post.
But today, the scientist says that the same science eventually dismantled his atheism and led him to the Savior.

His new documentary, “The Invisible Everywhere: Believing Is Seeing,” chronicles a decades-long journey from skepticism to

Christian faith, highlighting how modern scientific discoveries point beyond a strictly materialistic understanding of reality.
"Modern science is not just compatible with the Christian worldview," he said. "The scientific worldview is actually synergistic with the Christian worldview."

While studying astrophysics at Cornell, Guillén became fascinated by what scientists then called the "missing mass problem." Astronomers observed that galaxies and galaxy clusters were spinning far faster than visible matter could explain. The solution, first proposed by Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky in 1933, was the existence of invisible matter exerting gravitational influence throughout the cosmos. Today, scientists refer to that unseen substance as dark matter. Combined with dark energy, it is believed to make up roughly 95% of the universe, an implication Guillén said completely dismantled what he thought he knew about science.
"I realized I couldn't live by this motto, 'seeing is believing,'" he said. "It just doesn't hold up to scrutiny."

The discovery launched what he called a scientific and spiritual quest. He studied Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Confucianism and transcendental meditation. Nothing fully satisfied him — and then a fellow Cornell student, an attractive young woman named Laurel, challenged him to read the Bible. "It was like curtains parting and birds chirping and the sun shining," he recalled.
Still, that realization did not produce an instant conversion, he said, adding: "It took me about another 20 years.”

By then, he was moving through some of the most elite scientific

institutions in the world and surrounded by brilliant scientists who scoffed at Christianity. Guillén recalled standing among fellow physicists at Harvard discussing the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Robert Millikan. During the conversation, one distinguished colleague dismissed Millikan's accomplishments with a cutting remark. "Too bad he was such a lowbrow," the physicist said. "He was a Christian."
The comment stunned Guillén.

According to Guillén, college students today aren’t hostile to Biblical truth, but curious and still willing to ask difficult questions about existence, meaning, truth and science’s compatibility with faith." msn

Creation Moment 6/23/2026 - Another Evolutionary Theory?

There is Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism (Dawkins), Punctuated Equilibrium Evolution (Gould), Panspermia (Sagan), A 3rd Way (Wagner), Evo Devo (DeBeers), sort of a back-to-the-drawing board (Mazur) and now Assembly Theory (Cronin).

"Assembly Theory:
Q: So, what is Assembly Theory? 

A: Evidently, it can be confusing to understand since Tour himself initially had a hard time understanding it, as did a number of other scientists. 

Computer scientist and logic expert, Hector Zenil, for example, argues strongly that Leroy Cronin’s Assembly Theory is nothing more than a “dictionary-based compression algorithm” that is commonly used

by computer algorithms to compress files – specifically the LZ77 compression algorithm. 

For example, say that there’s a string of AAAAA… measuring 1,000 characters in length. A compression algorithm could simply code for this with a much shorter sequence by saying “Print A 1000 times”. Such a high level of compressibility for this strong of As means that it has low “complexity”.

Basically, Assembly Theory is simply determining the “complexity” of a system in very much the same way as has historically already been done in computer science – by “Combining the power of Shannon Information/Entropy and Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity by way of Solomonoff-Levin Probability” . The problem is that none of these measures of “complexity” is a measure of meaningful or functional complexity.

Q: So, is it really true that Assembly Theory is nothing more than a compression algorithm? 

A:  Well, Onsi Fakhouri, an astrophysics researcher and tech executive, has an interesting take on this. In his discussion with James Tour, he noted that while Assembly Theory is a compression algorithm, it also adds the additional element of “selection” – the need for a “selector” to explain a given system or arrangement of building blocks (be it a living thing, an arrangement of poker cards, or Lego blocks).

The basic argument is that the selection of any random thing can end up producing noticeable “complexity” above the background noise, which is true. Everyone agrees. However, the type of complexity is important here when it comes to explaining the existence of a living thing. 

--A given selector in the environment, like a specific temperature acting on a material like water, may produce something more “complex” and even “specified”, like a particular type of snowflake. The same thing is true for a selector like gravity acting on gases comprised of randomly arranged atoms and cosmic dust to produce stars, planets, solar systems, and galaxies. 

*However, that’s not the same type of complexity as a living thing or a complex machine where multiple different types of parts are needed to interact in a very specific way to produce a very specific type of function (i.e., specified functional complexity at different levels having different minimum part requirements). 

Assembly Theory doesn’t apply here since 

Assembly Theory isn’t concerned about

 the “right type” of selector that selects the “right thing.”

In short, in order to explain the origin of life, or any other complex machine requiring multiple different interacting parts working in collective harmony to produce a given function, the selector itself must be even more functionally complex than what it is producing or creating. Take a complex automobile, for example. It could be produced entirely by robots in a factory. However, the robots themselves have to have access to be even more functionally complex than the automobiles that they are assembling, to including having access to all of the structurally complex information necessary to correctly assemble the automobiles so that they will actually function, in addition to their own structure and functional complexity.

The argument that life exists, therefore life evolved by random chance, is a non sequitur – a very obvious circular argument. 

The best that Assembly Theory can do is detect that high-level selection has happened, but the very existence of life does not explain the mechanism of how life came to be – the actual nature of the “selector”. The bottom line is that Cronin is just assuming what he wants to prove. He hasn’t actually demonstrated anything regarding how any natural mindless mechanism could reasonably explain the origin of life.

Fakhouri asks the key question. “What is the driving force behind selection?”

“If only we knew of a mechanism, something that routinely steps through combinatorial space to assemble functional objects. You know, functional objects like talks, and papers, and equations, and ideas like Assembly Theory. You know, a mechanism like, but nah – we all know that we’re not allowed to go there.”

Of course, we are “not allowed to go there” because the only known “selector” that is actually capable of producing complex machines, to include the type of machines necessary to produce a living thing, is an intelligent creator at the level of a God or God-like intelligence." 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 

Genesis 1:1

EducateTruth

Creation Moment 6/17/2026 - Silly Eye Theories Are Really -- well, SILLY

"Like all biological structures, explaining the vertebrate eye—or any eye for that matter—is a challenge to neo-Darwinism (modern synthesis). 

When conventional scientists attempt to describe eye evolution, they begin with a simple or “primitive” visual system and extrapolate, vaguely gesturing to mystical evolution by natural selection, to explain the highly sophisticated vertebrate eye.

Major parts of the evolutionary progression seen in animals, from nondirectional photoreception to high-resolution vision, is mirrored within the single cells of phytoplankton. 

In both animals and phytoplankton, selection on the photoreceptive systems acts primarily on the fitness of the behavior, and this in turn causes selection on the performance of the sensory systems.

*But selection and fitness do not explain the origin of such irreducible visual systems. These complex photosensor systems could only have been specifically designed for organisms according to their needs. 

Eyespots of astonishingly advanced organization appear even in some unicellular forms. That of the dinoflagellate, Nematodinium, bears a lens, a light-gathering chamber, and a photoreceptive pigment cup—all developed within a single-celled organism.

Despite the difficulties evolutionists face to explain the origin of eyes, four scientists recently decided to try again, publishing an article about the alleged evolution of the vertebrate retina. They began by stating that the “retina is a uniquely complex and evolutionarily conserved structure.” There’s no question as to the retina’s intricacy, and calling it “conserved” means that it has remained relatively unchanged over supposedly millions of years. In other words, the retina is unevolved.

However, the authors proposed that “a composite ancestral median eye” from an unknown one-eyed sea creature was repurposed, eventually becoming the vertebrate retina over time. Furthermore, the remnants of this cryptic median eye somehow became the pineal endocrine gland (epiphysis cerebri) in our brains.
So, the paired eyes of people (and other vertebrates) serendipitously originate from a 600-million-year-old microscopic, single-celled, cyclopean ancestor with a visual organelle that also remains operative in today’s phytoplanktonic descendants.
Additionally, according to the researchers’ explanation, this ancestor once again began to lead an active aquatic life, resulting in a need for paired eyes. Therefore, a second eye began to evolve, replicating the original small median eye. This is all purely theoretical, if not speculative.

Dan-Eric Nilsson, professor emeritus in sensory biology at Lund University in Sweden, shared one of his takeaways:

"Now we finally understand why the paired eyes of vertebrates differ so radically from the eyes of all other animal groups, such as insects and squid. The film of our eyes—the retina—developed from the brain, whereas the eyes of insects and squid originate in the skin on the sides of the head."

Vertebrates have always been obviously different from insects and squid. It is not surprising therefore, that their eyes form differently.

But this most recent story does not provide sufficient scientific evidence to indicate they evolved. What we observe better fits the record of eye origins in Genesis: the invertebrate and vertebrate eyes were purposefully created and uniquely formed. They have always had distinct functionality.

To conclude, the evolution of visual systems is merely subjective and speculative. Nilsson and his colleague Colley are among many who resort to reconstructing “a plausible set of evolutionary events and causes leading to the unique condition in vertebrates.” No one has observed these events and causes. It must be taken by faith.

Conversely, faith in the Creator is not only justified and supported by what is seen in creation, but it can also bring salvation and eternal life: For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Ephesians 2:8."

Creation Moment 6/5/2026 - "Awe" Results

"Researchers looking at the effect of a nature video which produced a sense of awe in non-theist students discovered that it had a noticeable effect on their perception of how evolution supposedly works. After watching the video they were asked if they preferred an

unpredictable, unstructured and random version of evolution or a structured and non-random version of evolution. 

Of course, orderliness contradicts evolution, with the study rightly acknowledging that, “Evolutionary theory emphasizes the importance of randomness in the process of natural selection, and as a result can be perceived as existentially threatening.”

As part of the study students were played two videos, one neutral, and one to elicit a sense of awe—a five-minute montage of nature clips from the BBC’s Planet Earth. They found that when the non-theist students were played the neutral video just over 10% answered that they preferred a structured and ordered version of evolution which was “not the result of randomness”. But when shown the BBC’s Planet Earth montage, that shot up to just under 40% of the non-theist students. They concluded that, “Awe increased preference for the orderly version of evolution for non-theists, but had no effect on theory preference for theists.”

Those who believe in the God of the Bible regularly point out His eternal power and divine nature (For his invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:20) as observed in the creation. It is understandable that many, beholding the wonder of creation, would find it hard to accept that it all happened from the randomness and meaninglessness that evolutionary theory espouses." CMI

Creation Moment 6/2/2026 - In Seattle, Socialism Is the Flip Side of a Faulty Evolutionary Theory

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,... 

Romans 1:22

"Almost as soon as socialist mayor Katie Wilson took office in January, the graffiti in our city seemed to bloom further, as if responding to an organic call to greater chaos and disorder. The horrid graffiti is just one index of a seeming madness that has overtaken us. The amount of human waste in the streets is another.

Asked at a community forum what she thinks about the flight of the wealthy, faced with the state’s newly passed so-called “millionaires’ tax,” Mayor Wilson waved and giggled and said, “Like, bye!” The audience, presumably not all millionaires, applauded, apparently not realizing that when the millionaires have fled, they will be the ones expected to make up the tax revenue deficit.

Darwinian evolution sees individual organisms, in competition with each other, as the focus of natural selection. In this view, individuals with favorable genetic variations outcompete other individuals, and so their genetic contribution to the population is “selected” over others.

In Darwinism, which excludes intelligent design, this is supposed to promote the gradual buildup of biological sophistication and complexity, as organisms scale the evolutionary tree. Unguided evolution alone is almost certainly not capable of such feats, but that’s not the point here.

Under group selection, as advocated by David Sloan Wilson, it’s not competing individuals but community altruism that is the focus of selection. Group survival is the winning ticket. Altruistic populations, with individuals looking out for each other, are at the crucial advantage. Dr. Weinstein noted something that’s obvious once it’s been pointed out: 

the altruistic model is essentially socialism.

It’s also a very unrealistic way of understanding behavior. In the real world, as in the Communist experiment of the Soviet Union, tender feelings for your fellow citizens are unreliable. The cheaters, the abusers of the system, are usually the only ones to get ahead, while the hard-working, honest, and industrious are penalized. Such a system is unsustainable, leading to failed societies.

Socialism is the flip side of a faulty evolutionary theory. “It is interesting,” says Weinstein, “to watch the academic version of this misunderstanding flow down a lineage to the now mayor of Seattle.” Yes, you can chase out the businesses and the wealthy, and let the drug zombies rule the street. The result will not be a socialist utopia, but a nightmare." Science&Culture

Creation Moment 5/29/2026 - What you can't mention: The OBVIOUS

All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3

"A press release from Texas A&M University mentions “design” 15 times while discussing its lab that teaches students about biomimicry. “Engineering the future using nature’s design” is the title. 

Notice how that title presupposes intelligent design.
“This class is focused on teaching students how to not necessarily start with a blank sheet of paper, but to look at nature and see how it has optimized or influenced some aspect of medical design,” he said. “We can make an exact copy of nature, or emulate it, or just be inspired by it.”
You are free to mention design alone, or nature’s intelligent solutions alone, but never may the two words “intelligent” and “design” be juxtaposed in the literature." 

Science&Culture

Creation Moment 5/28/2026 - The "ignore-ance" on full display

All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3

"Andrew Knoll’s latest book, Earth and Life, reviewed by Rasoul Sorkhabi in Science. “All Earth systems are in constant interaction; one cannot exist without the others,” the review he titles “The delicate dance of earth and life,” begins. “Earth and life thus constitute an integrated complex system on a planetary scale,” he continues, launching into the many coincidences that make our planet habitable.

The last two chapters of the book extend the geobiological conversation to Mars, Venus, and the icy moons of Europa (Jupiter) and Enceladus and Titan (Saturn). Here, Knoll notes that there is currently no evidence of microbial life on any of these Solar System family members. “Only on Earth,” writes Knoll, “has the conversation between life and its physical home transformed both through time.”

Sound familiar? Michael Denton has written extensively on this very

topic. From the review, Knoll only mentions fellow evolutionists and their beliefs. This ignore-ance diminishes the factual content of Knoll’s thesis and leaves his readers impoverished of key facts about the exceptional planet we live on.

Ironically, both author and reviewer appreciate that we live on a Privileged Planet! Discussing the book’s significance, Sorkhabi ends the review,

"…the book highlights Earth’s precious and privileged place as a living planet and debunks the notion that we can easily colonize Mars — a planet devoid not only of life-supporting plate tectonics, water, and other geochemical cycles but also a protective magnetic field and a strong gravitational field. By focusing on the geological evolution of biogeochemical cycles, Earth and Life presents a geoscience that is both vivid and vital for today’s conversations about humanity’s relationship with Earth."

Would the editors of Science have allowed Sorkhabi or Knoll to mention Denton, Gonzalez, or Richards as sources? Unlikely. Insiders, if they want to stay insiders, must not draw attention to intelligent design. But what’s the harm? If non-materialists have worthwhile knowledge that might contribute to Knoll’s theme, they should not be considered taboo." 

Science&Culture

Creation Moment 5/27/2026 - FOVO of Darwinists

In the beginning God created... Genesis 1:1

"A new acronym I just coined is FOVO: the Fear of Validating Outsiders. When one’s opposition concerns origins, FOVO is
considered almost a qualification for many scientists these days. There must be no hint of agreement with any ideas emanating from the intelligent design heretics! This is highly unfortunate, because it cuts off bountiful streams of information that could raise the scholarship in their scientific writings and journal book reviews. Ignore-ance of these sources increases ignorance: that is, deficient knowledge of the scope of the subject matter being discussed.
“A Masterpiece of Design”?

FOVO causes academics to repeat debunked notions. A case in point is Lucy Hyde’s article at The Conversation titled, “The human body isn’t a masterpiece of design — it’s a patchwork of evolutionary compromise.”

"The human body is often described as a marvel of “perfect design”: elegant, efficient and finely tuned for its purpose. Yet, when we look closer, a rather different picture emerges.

Far from being a flawless machine, the body reads more like a patchwork of compromises shaped by millions of years of evolutionary tinkering. Evolution does not design structures from scratch. Rather, it modifies what already exists.

As a result, many aspects of human anatomy are just “good enough” solutions — functional, but far from perfect. Some of the most familiar medical problems and ailments arise directly from these inherited constraints."

This lecturer on anatomy at the University of Bristol knows that there are claims of good design out there. She could have done a simple literature search on the subject to find the best arguments for it. She ignored the work of Dr. Stuart Burgess — an award-winning biomimetics engineer at the very same university! — whose recent book Ultimate Engineering trounces every one of Hyde’s alleged examples of poor design as well as the evolutionary logic behind it…." CEH

Creation Moment 5/19/2026 - What students are Taught / not Taught about Fossil Record

....because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 

1 John 4:1

"Students are taught that the fossil record shows a clear progression of life, supported by “transitional fossils” such as Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx.

What’s not emphasized though is how much is missing. For example, complex multicellular animals appear abruptly in the Cambrian Explosion—already equipped with advanced systems like nervous, digestive, and sensory structures, functioning at high levels. That’s not a small gap—it’s a massive one.

Other major groups—birds, whales, bats, and flowering plants—also appear in the fossil record with limited or contested transitional forms. “Living fossils,” showing little change over long periods, are rarely discussed. Even Charles Darwin acknowledged this challenge, calling it one of the most serious objections to his theory.

Rather than focusing on these gaps, students are often left with the impression that they have been—or will soon be—filled." 

CEH

Creation Moment 5/13/2026 - Just Fragments

Claiming to be wise, they became fools,... Romans 1:22 AMP

"Bergman reminds us that, “Most claimed fossil ape-men finds consist of a few teeth plus pieces of broken skull and other bone fragments” (p. 26). 

For instance, ‘Turkana boy’ (usually assigned to Homo erectus) is exceptional in that its skeleton is 40% complete. 

The much-hyped australopithecine Lucy is fragmentary, and only 20% complete by skeletal weight (Bergman and Biddle, p. 104). 

The habiline KNM-ER 1470 is notorious for its fragmentary character, leading to ever-changing reconstructions and ensuing interpretations (Peter Line, p. 187). 

Homo erectus is difficult to evaluate because of the rarity of postcranial elements, especially those that can unambiguously be linked to the crania (Line, p. 246).

Some of the taxons are each a ‘wastebasket’. 

The understanding of extinct primates, and their presumed role in the evolution of humans, is complicated by the fact that some of the names used are, or may be, an amalgamation of skeletal remains of different animals, and even of nonhumans and humans. 

This is true, for example, of so-called Australopithecus sediba (Editors, p. 3, Peter Line, p. 134) and Homo habilis (Peter Line, p. 198). 

The latter is an admixture of australopithecines, Homo erectus, and the skeletal remains of oddball extinct primates of unclear affinities. In addition, the presence of nearby tools influences the naming of specimens (e.g. habilis), even though the identity of the toolmakers cannot be proved.

The conventional evolutionary scenario is as follows: 

The australopithecines were succeeded by Homo habilis, which in turn was succeeded by Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens. Paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood rejects this simple unilineal model of human evolution, basing his conclusion on both fossil morphology and evolutionary dating methods (Peter Line, p. 201)." CMI