Professor’s atheistic pulpit—his classroom


Professor David Barash

Biology Professor David P. Barash from the University of Washington now thinks that his biology class is the proper forum for explicitly attacking his students’ religious convictions, as he shamelessly announced in his recent New York Times op-ed.1

Barash says, in a class on animal behaviour, Evolution proves that (a) living things were not designed, (b) humans are not exceptional, and (c) God cannot be both all-powerful and all-good.

This religion-bashing seminar is a severe abuse of power. As a public university professor, Barash’s role should not be to proselytize, but to educate—fairly informing students about all sides of legitimate academic disputes. Sadly, however, Barash’s approach to education is nothing more than a prejudicial, intellectually dishonest attempt to indoctrinate students into his own anti-Christian worldview.

If Barash’s New York Times summary is truly representative of his teaching, he hardly even acknowledges, much less addresses, arguments that challenge evolution or support biblical creation. Instead of dealing with the best creationist arguments, he presents caricatures that informed creationists are careful to avoid (e.g., denigrating evolution because it is called a ‘theory’).

Instead of allowing students to hear from all sides of the controversy, Barash tells them evolution is beyond question. He insists, “Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching chemistry without molecules.”1 His statement would clearly have been news to leading chemist and member of the National Academy of Sciences, Philip Skell (1918–2010), the ‘father of carbene [CH2] chemistry’, who pointed out: ‘Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor for that matter did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin’.

Furthermore, are Barash’s students prompted to consider how men like Linnaeus, Pasteur, and Mendel founded sub-disciplines of biology without any help from Darwin? Are they told that Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, has admitted, “Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all”? Have they heard how evolutionary assumptions have often hindered scientific investigations, encouraging scientists to write off so-called ‘vestigial organs’, and ‘junk DNA’, for example, as non-functional by-products of the evolutionary process? Perhaps Barash himself would do well to learn about how creationists accept rapid adaptation and even speciation, and yet recognize why these types of changes are precisely the wrong sort of change needed to turn microbes into men.

In the centres of intellectual power today, creationists and other Darwin dissenters have a hard time maintaining their positions even when keeping their heads down, and they often get expelled anyway. But an evolutionary professor can openly proclaim that his lectures will argue against basic truths of Christianity, and there is hardly a public outcry.

If creation is disqualified from public education because it is too ‘religious’, then why isn’t Barash called on the carpet, for getting too ‘religious’ as well?

  1. Barash, D.P., God, Darwin, and My Biology Class,New York Times, 27 September 2014;

Abbreviated article, “Darwinist Professor David Barash gets ‘theological’ in the classroom” by Keaton Halley and Jonathan Sarfati on

Awesome Creator says Dr Yusdi Santoso


Dr Yusdi Santoso an Oxford PhD scientist whose research on DNA polymerase led to the discovery that, prior to proof reading, there is an additional process that screens the DNA letters before they are incorporated into the copy. Since defective screening leads to copying errors Dr Yusdi’s work may contribute to curing genetic diseases arising from inefficiencies in this process.

Only those people who have already decided to reject God, reject it is a miracle of design by an awesome designer outside the Matter/Space/Time Universe He created says, Dr Yusdi Santoso.

It is interesting that Francis Crick evolutionist, one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA and author of Life Itself: Its Origin & Nature admitted, “an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going”.

Can I recommend you take a look at the complete article “Oxford trained scientist acknowledges the Creator” in Creation magazine Vol. 36, No. 3 2014. Dominic Statham interviews biophysicist Dr Yusdi Santoso. It concludes with – Dr Santoso is adamant that the reality of God can be seen in creation: “The Bible tells us we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 134:19) and I saw this clearly in much of my scientific work. My research into DNA polymerase, particularly, showed me just how complex life is. All this speaks of an awesome Creator.

Human Genome Decay supports Biblical History



Recent reports on the human genome provide powerful support for the Biblical history of Creation and The Fall.

In his landmark book Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, geneticist Dr John Sanford clearly demonstrates that human genomes are decaying at an unstoppable rate.

Dr Sanford became famous back in the seventies when he jointly invented the “Gene Gun” which enabled scientists to genetically modify fruit and vegetables.

An even more important development occurred with Sanford and colleagues release of a powerful computer simulation programme Mendel’s Accountant. It allows greater refinement in predicting the fate of mutations in populations and the results agree with Sanford’s earlier work. There are no realistic evolutionary models in the scientific literature that contradict these results. This overwhelming negative evidence clearly contradicts Darwinian expectations, but clearly and dramatically fits the Biblical record of Creation and The Fall.

‘The Darwinian claim – that life could have started with low fidelity self replicating molecules – is exposed as culpable foolishness. The ‘RNA world’ scenario collapses into error catastrophe so quickly it is scandalous that such nonsense can be taught as a realistic model of origin in our school and universities.”

This article was extracted from a paper in Journal of Creation Vol 28 (1) 2014:  Human genome decay and the origin of life by Alex Williams.

The book Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome can be obtained from



Universities breeding atheists

Since its initial release Ray Comfort’s video “Evolution vs God” has garnered thousands of hateful, demeaning and even violent comments from evolutionists. After watching this video you will understand why people who attend universities come out believing that science has proved God does not exist certainly not the God of the Bible.

Ray Comfort was criticized relentlessly for his use of “kind” and not “species”. However the observations of the living world are highly consistent with the Biblical described concept of original created kinds, and inconsistent with the idea of evolution. From Genesis 1, the ability to produce offspring, i.e. to breed with one another, defines the original created kinds. We can cross-breed a zebra and a horse (to produce a ‘zorse’), a lion and a tiger (a liger or tigon), or a false killer whale and a dolphin (a wholphin) so these are the same kind.


Tell it like it is.

Biblical timelinesJesus_genealogies_newer_small


The Bible is God’s WORD and  it clearly reveals the correct Timeline for this universe which differs so radically from the Secular Timeline of billions of years.

We know Jesus implicitly believed the Old Testament as true history as revealed in the chronogenealogies and He specifically says in Mark 10:6 that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of Creation (Day 6). “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female”.

Recent reports on the human genome provide powerful support for the biblical history of Creation and Fall. We are unable to reproduce ourselves without making multiple copying errors every generation. As a result our genomes are decaying towards extinction from copy errors alone. There are many other causes for mutations.

In his landmark book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Geneticist Dr John Sanford clearly demonstrates that human genomes are decaying at an unstoppable rate. More recently Dr Sanford and colleagues have confirmed his predictions with a powerful computer simulation programme Mendel’s Accountant. The Model predicts our species will become extinct in about 300 generations (6,000 years, with a generation time of 20 years).

The only kind of genome copying system that can sustain life over thousands of years is one that has two primary characteristics. First it must be precisely engineered so that it began without making  copying mistakes. Second it must be protected and maintained in such away that it is at least partly insulated from the general genome decay that is rapidly going on around it. These characteristics fit very well into the Biblical account of Creation and Fall just a few thousand years ago, but are impossible from a Darwinian starting point. It is amazing that the Mendel Accountant Model simply projected backwards comes up with perfect copy fidelity at around 4,000 years BC.

The Darwinian claim  –  that life could have started with low fidelity self-replicating molecules – is exposed as culpable foolishness. The ‘RNA world’ scenario collapses into ‘error catastrophe’ so quickly it is scandalous that such nonsense is taught as a realistic model of origin in our schools and universities.

This information was extracted from an article by Alex Williams, Human Genome Decay and the Origin of Life. Journal of Creation 28 (1) 2014.


Ben Stein Expelledignaz_semmelweis
Pictured is Dr Ignaz Semmelweis. He struggled against the scientific consensus of his day. The cost of ignoring his research findings was the loss of countless lives and much suffering.

Sadly consensus science has a poor record. In fact the task of science has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science on the contrary requires only one investigator who happens to be right.

Dr Ignaz Semmelweiss, a Hungarian surgeon, was one of those investigators who was right. He discovered that ‘childbed fever’ which typically caused a ten to thirty percent mortality level, could largely be abolished if doctors simply washed their hands in a chlorine solution before examining pregnant mothers.
The compelling evidence however failed to impress his superiors and he was eventually dismissed from the clinic even though the mortality rate for his patients was essentially zero. Semmelweis’s procedure went contrary to the whole theory of medical consensus existing in his day. He spent the last years of his life unsuccessfully trying to convince European doctors of his systems effectiveness. He ended his life in a mental hospital and his ideas forgotten until Dr Joseph Lister took up the battle this time successfully.
The story of Dr Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen is much the same. In 1795 he suggested that the fevers which were the number one killer of women following childbirth were an infectious process and he was able to prevent/cure them. The consensus said NO…. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right/same conclusion. These are but two of many examples of scientists resistance to accepting the truth when it conflicts with accepted dogma.

Evolution is also an entrenched dogma despite the overwhelming evidence for amazing design of life and the universe. Since the discovery of the complexity of  DNA (ENCODE PROJECT) and sub-microscopic cell machinery of irreducible complexity there is a growing number of eminent scientists embracing intelligent design.  Why the establishment is so wedded to materialism and evolutionary naturalism is perhaps best explained by Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and probably one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment , a commitment to materialism. It’s not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori  adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations no matter how counter- intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist from Kansas State University said it more succinctly: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”

Evolution sheds no light on the beginning of the Universe and life. It postulates matter, energy and time brought this beautiful orderly Cosmos into being, with its intricate life forms, its complex natural laws, its intangible moral qualities and the creative and reasoning powers of man. Even Aristotle and Plato knew this speaks of infinite intelligence and yet evolution insists blind chance can account for it all. At a foundational level we are involved in a battle of world views.

Christians know God, so the idea that matter and energy and blind chance can produce the Cosmos we inhabit is absurd.

Recommended reading: By Design, Dr Jonathan Sarfati, The Design Inference, Dr William Dembski, The Edge of Evolution, Dr Michael Behe and of course

Another eminent PhD scientist prepared to buck the establishment

Dr Kenyon received his PhD in biophysics from Stanford University in 1965 and completed his post doctoral work at UC Berkeley, Oxford and NASA.

In 1969 as an evolutionist he co-authored the book entitled Biochemical Predestination which was adopted in the USA as a graduate textbook and was regarded as the seminal work on the formation of living cells from the chemicals of the earth.
By the 1980’s Kenyon came to the conclusion that after many years of total failure by laboratories around the world to recreate the scenario described in his textbook, he knew that intelligent design was needed for life’s beginning.
Want to see what happened as a result google Dr Kenyon and Scope’s Trial in Reverse.