Creation Moment 8/25/2026 - Folly of the Fools of evolution within the Church

"The now deceased vocal atheist William Provine a professor in

biology mentioned in previous episodes once said as the creationists claim belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. 

One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. 

And in fact, the Bible quite similarly describes this result as well in Proverbs 26:5: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself." 

AIG

Creation Moment 8/21/2026 - Christianity and evolution NOT compatible

"Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly

life was supposedly made necessary. 

Destroy Adam and Eve and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. 

--If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. 

--You see, abandoning the Genesis account as true history has had truly terrible consequences both within and outside the church. 

The word of God says, "The last enemy to be destroyed is death." 1 Corinthians 15:26. God didn't create the world with an active enemy within it. And yet, for those believers who've adopted the secular timeline and attempted to add it to the Bible, they must logically conclude there was death in this world before Adam sinned.

Bad things, so to speak, would not have occurred in the creation until after Adam disobeyed God and sin entered the world at the time of the fall. 

Just as Romans 5:12 states, "Therefore, just as sin came into the
world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all have sinned."

AIG

Creation Moment 8/19/2026 -Hot Water and Cracked Rock?

"Could an asteroid impact really spark life? A recent AGU Advances paper says early asteroid impacts might have cracked Earth’s crust and made large hot-water systems where life could have begun. 

But the main problem remains: the study gives a possible opportunity for chemistry to happen, but it doesn’t show how dead chemicals made the coded systems needed for life.

The paper simply suggests large impacts could make rock more open and cracked. Water could then move through hot rock and carry minerals. The authors estimate that impacts might have made much of the upper crust open to water 4.3 billion years ago or earlier.1 Southwest Research Institute said these environments were places “where life could have evolved.”

--That claim goes beyond what the study shows. A hot-water system may have water, heat, and minerals, but life needs much more than active chemistry. Cracked rock and hot water do not explain DNA, RNA, proteins, or the genetic code—key parts of the cell that allow life to exist. These parts must work together; they are not a random chemical configuration.

Conventional origin-of-life research often starts with carefully chosen conditions. Even the famous Miller experiment, still widely cited in origin-of-life discussions, produced some amino acids under a planned laboratory setup. That result is often treated as a big step toward life. But amino acids are not life, just as bricks are not a house. Neither life nor a house come about without a plan, an order, and a builder.

Water-based environments, as discussed in the study, actually present an interesting dilemma for cells. Cells need water to keep their control system functionally intact, and a hot-water system can make reactions happen faster. But faster reactions do not create the right order, code, or function. Additionally, water makes many reactions that join small molecules into long chains difficult, causing interfering side reactions. Outside the protected setting of a cell, water can also help break those chains apart.

Parts of the cell depend on each other. DNA stores coded instructions. Proteins, such as enzymes, do specific jobs. RNA helps connect the two. ICR has noted that biological networks like these show logic, control, and rule-based design as found in engineered systems. That kind of control has not been observed to arise from lifeless chemistry.

From a creationist view, the evidence points to a purposeful design behind life. Nehemiah 9:6 says, “You alone are the LORD; You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them, and You preserve them all.” This does not deny chemistry. It places chemistry, life, and preservation under the wisdom and power of the Creator.

The asteroid paper may help explain how impacts changed early rock systems, but it does not indicate life came into existence as a result of an asteroid impact. The study merely shows that conventional scientists can model a possible setting for chemistry to happen. The origin of life still requires what hot water and cracked rock have never been seen to produce: coded information, linked systems, and purposeful engineering." 

ICR

Creation Moment 8/18/2026 - Evolution is a blind-faith belief

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

"You see, the idea of evolution doesn’t come from fossils, biology, or DNA. Rather, it comes from an interpretation of the fossils, biological systems, and DNA from a worldview founded in the belief of naturalism (atheism). Scientists start with their worldview—evolutionary naturalism—and they interpret the evidence in light of their worldview. It’s a belief system (really a religion) that relies on faith. But it’s a blind faith.
Evolutionists must believe all of these things by blind faith:Life came from nonlife . . . even though this contradicts the law of biogenesis.

--One kind of creature changed into another kind . . . even though that’s never been observed.
--Natural selection can create new genetic information . . . even though that’s never been observed. Natural selection works on already-existing genetic diversity.

--Various, extremely complex systems evolved multiple times each (e.g., powered flight supposedly evolved at least four separate times).

Millions of years ago, life exploded on the scene in great diversity with few “ancestors” in the rock layers below (this is called the Cambrian explosion).
--Humans and great apes share a common ancestor . . . even though the number of differences between us and them keeps increasing with each new study!

--Soft tissue managed to last millions of years in the fossil record.

And that’s just some of the problems with evolutionary ideas." 

AIG

Creation Moment 8/16/2026 - Not Enough Time for supposed evolution

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:21

"Evolution requires enormous spans of time to account for the major differences between many forms of life.
Consider, for example, the enormous difference in size between a small dog-like creature and a modern whale. The behavioral

differences are equally large between a dog and a whale. Yet despite these profound differences, evolutionary theory proposes that a small dog-like mammal is most likely one of the earliest whale ancestors in the whale’s evolutionary scenario/history/progression to modern whales.
Evolutionists attempt to bridge this gargantuan gap by invoking vast amounts of time. Barbara J. Stahl, Professor of Biology at Saint Anselm College, Manchester, New Hampshire, wrote that the difference between dogs and whales “is so great that the process must have begun at least as long ago as the early Paleocene and possibly even before that time at the end of the Cretaceous period.” In 1985, her explanation of why so much time is required is as follows:

"As with most tetrapods secondarily modified for aquatic living, ascertaining the terrestrial stock from which the whales came is exceedingly difficult… the extent of the change involved in the transformation of a terrestrial mammal into a completely oceanic one is so great that the process must have begun at least as long ago as the early Paleocene and possibly even before that time at the end of the Cretaceous period.” 

CEH

Creation Moment 8/13/2026 - 30 Year Anniversary of Darwin's Black Box

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

"In the first half of the 20th century, neo-Darwinism had not yet become dogma. Speculation about complexity was still considered valid. 

But then in 1970 biologist Jacques Monod declared that all life was

reducible and accidental in origin. A legion of acolytes followed to carry on an intellectual purge, including Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Ruse, E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, and others. The biochemical revolution was in full swing. Dissent was no longer allowed.

--Eugene Wigner once pointed out that Isaac Newton’s greatest achievement was not in deriving the calculus, given that a century of work leading up to it had already been done. Rather, it was that he had the insight to choose the initial conditions necessary to derive his laws of motion.
--In the same way, it seems to me that Behe’s greatest achievement was not the discovery of irreducible complexity, because that concept had already been described. What he did do, with great artistry and insight, was to articulate the concept in the most vivid terms, at a time when there was just enough doubt among at least a few scientists to listen.

Behe illuminated the elephant that was there all the time to for the rest of us to see. But it was something scientists like me were indoctrinated to ignore — until the truth became undeniable." Stephen Iocaboni

Darwin’s Black Box:
"In Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe argues that evidence of evolution’s limits has been right under our noses, but its undoing is evident at such a small scale that we have only recently been able to see it. 

For Darwinian evolution to be true, there must have been a series of mutations, each of which produced its own working machine, that led to the complexity we can now see. 

The more complex and interdependent each machine’s parts are shown to be, the harder it is to defend Darwin’s gradualistic paths. 

Behe believes in the scientific method and does not look to religious dogma for answers to these questions. But he argues persuasively that biochemical machines must have been “designed” — either by God, or by some other higher intelligence. 

For decades science has been frustrated, trying to reconcile the astonishing discoveries of modern biochemistry to a nineteenth-century theory that cannot accommodate them." DI

Creation Moment 8/8/2026 -... "if they hadn’t split them in the first place"

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation... Acts 17:26

"New technique pinpoints human DNA inherited from ‘ghost’ ancestors (UC Berkeley, 30 July 2026). Berserkeley keeps living up to its name as long as it hires Darwinian racists.

"Two mysterious human relatives left their genetic footprints in the

modern human genome alongside the DNA of Neanderthals and Denisovans, underscoring the fact that our ancestors interbred with many groups of hominins they encountered over millions of years of evolution."

They wouldn’t be having to link these ancestral lineages if they hadn’t split them in the first place. Despite all the evidence of human beings interbreeding with each other, Darwinians continue to call some humans names (Neanderthal: a long-recognized insult). Guess how many of these scientists personally witnessed millions of years." CEH

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