Tag Archive: Science

How do you lead people to conclude that there’s only one truth, without showing them any real evidence to support it? Answer: you keep them from all dissenting alternatives…


I was listening to a BBC radio discussion on the subject of parasitism recently (1), the panel being a gathering of very learned and highly credentialed evolutionary scientists. One of the comments which stood out to me was from Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College, London. In the course of the discussion host Melvyn Bragg asked the Prof:

So you’re definitely saying that sometimes parasites can have a positive and good effect?

The answer:

Well the trouble is that words like “positive” and “good” don’t really belong in biology-it turns into “theology” then.

In Nick Fisher-ese, the answer was, Hey, lay off of that filthy religious language, and stay well away from that “God” thing: we’re talking “science” now, and the two things  are and must remain separate…

We can sum this up in one word: bias. Or we could call it “intentional ignorance”. Or we could call it the language of propaganda.

I went to school: I was taught the state-sponsored view of our origins. I’ve seen all those glossy, realistic TV specials promoting and pushing the pill of evolution ex-nihilo down our throats with the sugar of awesome special effects and incredible extinct animals . But I’ve also been fortunate and blessed enough to see the other side, and in my view, God is the master-scientist. No God-no science. In fact, no God, no universe. Great scientists of the past such as Isaac Newton had no mind to censor or hide their beliefs, and no motive to do so.

Don’t forget that according to honest evolutionary philosophy you are just another animal, no more important in the universe than a tape-worm, a tadpole, a tomato, a tree or a tic.

In science-if we really want to see science and evolution as being synonymous-there’s no such thing as “good” or “bad” in any absolute sense. Remember, according to the learned Prof quoted above, words like “positive” and “good” don’t really belong in science. At least he’s being consistent with his beliefs. So all this whining about who colluded with who and who gassed who and who shot who is superfluous and unnecessary, since there is no such thing as “good” or “bad” but only what we decide is good or bad at any given time in history. Hitler and Stalin were no more “wrong” than we are. Death is not a “bad” thing, since it weeds out the weak.


Picture Copyright © by Nick Fisher

We’re led to believe that scientists have disproved the existence of God-which is actually impossible-and instead they’ve scientifically shown that everything came into existence by itself and evolved all on its own. The truth is that scientists, including those who may quietly be questioning the politically correct view of origins and evolution (and there are some) are all but forbidden to even suggest the possibility that there could be the remotest chance that there may just be something to that “God” thing, for fear of loss of employment, of tenure, of recognition, or of funding.

Stephen Meyer, a leader in the Intelligent Design movement, with a PhD in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge, writes about a principle of evolutionary science in his book, “Darwin’s Doubt” (2). “Methodological naturalism”, aka “methodological materialism” is a presumed rule of science, he says. It asserts that to qualify as scientific, a theory must explain phenomena and events in nature…by reference to strictly material causes only:

“According to this principle, scientists may not invoke the activity of a mind or, as one philosopher of science puts it, any “creative intelligence”.

Evolutionary science intentionally dismisses the remotest suggestion of Creation and possibility of intelligent design. No researcher or professor who wants to keep his job or his funding can factor any hint of divinity or design into his work or his pronouncements. The most polite designation by evolutionists for these two views of science and anything like them, held by many fine scientists and scientifically trained individuals in the Creation and Intelligent Design movements, is that they are “unscientific”.

Evolutionists, who hold the political and legal upper hand in all areas of education and the media, intentionally bar the slightest hint of any evidence, opinion, interpretation or line of inquiry which points towards a designer or a creator. In other words, you-and your children, with the help of your tax money, are purposely kept from considering any alternative interpretation of science to the politically correct one which may lead you to conclude that there is a Designer, unless it’s a controlled exposure designed (!) to ridicule and belittle.

Meyer relates a now famous (or infamous) quote by Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin, laying out his own version of the “ban God” rule:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism…for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

Over nineteen hundred years ago the apostle Peter described this blinkered attitude by saying that people are “willingly ignorant” (KJV): they “deliberately overlook” (ESV) the facts of creation…and the judgment to come (2 Peter 3:5-7).

Thanks for reading. This post is an edited version of one I wrote last year.


1: BBC Radio 4 “In Our Time”: “Parasitism”-broadcast January 26th 2017.

2: DARWIN’S DOUBT: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. See also the follow-up, “Debating Darwin’s Doubt” in which Meyer answers his critics.



Have you ever hugged a tree? I’m not going to suggest you should, but perhaps it’s time for some of us to give trees and plants-and their origins-a lot more thought than we have up until now…


A few months ago I shared with you a discussion I heard by a panel of very learned evolutionists on the subject of photosynthesis*. In its scientific moments it was extremely educational-because life is stunningly complex and beautiful, and because truly empirical science is fascinating and enlightening. However, it also included a degree of speculation and wishful thinking, revealing more of the incredible lack of evidence evolutionists actually have for their theories which, they tell us, are conclusively proven. I decided to give it a second visit, and quickly found more gems of speculation which I would like to sample for you here.

I said last time that:

Evolutionists love to claim the moral high ground in the debate over origins by stating that their beloved theory is supported with only empirical and rigorously tested science, whereas, they insist, “ignorant”, “deluded”  and even “dangerous” creationists rely solely on faith, hope and mysticism.

I then went on to outline the explanation they have for the evolution of photosynthesis. Apparently chloroplasts, where that all-important process takes place, “were once bacteria”, and were “captured by more complex cells, something in the order of one billion to one and a half billion years ago”. Well that’s pretty darned specific, eh? What’s in a half billion years anyway? Time just flies by doesn’t it?

The problem with this “expert” explanation for the origin of photosynthesis-and so lfe itself-is that there’s no actual evidence of any such transition from bacteria to chloroplast. There’s just bacteria…and chloroplasts. However, evolutionists are determined to believe in it anyway. As one of the experts on the panel says:

“…there are no fossils of this kind of thing-to date-in rocks, but it must have happened…

The casual listener, and especially the listener convinced of the theories of evolution, would enjoy the discussion convinced that he’s hearing expert scientific assurance in his view of the origin of life. I found it interesting that the genres of this particular discussion are listed on the BBC web-site as “Factual” and “History”. Since there’s no evidence to support the theory of the origin of the process, shouldn’t there be more genres listed: “Speculation”; “Philosophy”; “Faith”; “Hope”; “Religion”; “Propaganda”; “Poppycock”?

Chloroplasts take electrons from water and, in layman’s lingo, “put them onto” Carbon Dioxide, with the help of sunlight energy, the panel tells us. They also discard oxygen as a by-product. Hey-what a weird coincidence! Plants discard oxygen which we need, and we discard carbon dioxide, which plants need…to make food…which we eat…and to discard more oxygen…which we need… and grow bigger, and reproduce… and make more oxygen…and food… Far out man!

August 2013 010

Asked by the fawning host how a series of membranes and enormous complexes of proteins extract electrons from water and “pass them down a kind of a chain”, and eventually push them onto carbon dioxide to make sugars, the expert answers that at the biochemical level the process is “enormously difficult” to understand.

“Why?” says the host.

“Well it’s not easy to get electrons out of water in the first place”. Even waves crashing upon rocks in the largest storms will not release electrons from water.

“But light can do that. Now light doesn’t normally do that: certain wavelengths-UV light-can split water, but by enlarge it requires..a…a biochemical skill which we can mimic, but with great difficulty…and plants just simply do it…”

Host: “They must have evolved to do it over a long period of time… why did they want to do it?”

Answer: “That’s always a difficult question in evolution…”

Why indeed.

I’m not here saying that what is unknown is evidence for God, as some would accuse me of saying. However, the incredible “coincidences” of nature; the inexplicably complex processes-all interlinked and interdependent; the unfathomable intricacy; the unsurpassable beauty of nature, and the sheer lack of hard evidence for the only theoretically viable alternative to Creation by an intelligent and omnipotent God, are all compelling arguments, in my book, for the notion that “In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0435jyv

My original post: https://nickyfisher.com/2016/07/22/the-must-haves-of-evolution/

Whether you think we were designed and created, or that we evolved from non-life and then lower forms of life, you believe in miracles. Either way, it’s not something that happens every day: have you seen either one occur?


A miracle is defined as it is because it’s so unnatural in terms of normal every day events and what we believe to be possible.

If we evolved, nothing-or virtually nothing-turned into billions of stars and galaxies. A huge lump of rock, at just the right distance from a just-the-right-sized star began to rain on itself.  Some “organic” chemicals got together and came alive, formed an inconceivably complex DNA molecule which then found a mate and some food.

A just-the-right-sized moon just happened to be in orbit at just the right distance to keep the oceans moving and alive without causing tsunamis every day, and a couple of billion years and countless billions of beneficial mutations later (which have never been observed) here we all are, yearning to communicate our deepest feelings and to have them satisfied.

You may think evolution is all “science”. I certainly believe in science-that is, observable testable phenomena. But when did anyone ever show you life forming from non-life, or a universe coming into existence from nothing, or a cow turning into a whale, or a mutation producing a new species?

They didn’t, and we all have faith…

(This post was originally published in April of 2015 and has been edited a little)



Have you ever noticed how often nature programs and nature journals or books, particularly those written for children, begin their reports with the words “Millions of years ago…”?

The majority of people have heard the phrase so many times that they’re convinced it’s a proven fact that life has evolved over hundreds of millions of years.

Did you know that soft tissues have been found in fossils and bones which are supposedly millions of years old? The Institute for Creation Research has listed some of those finds, among which is the discovery of type 1 collagen, soft blood vessels, proteins, blood cells and DNA within fossilized T Rex bones. Does it make sense to you that dinosaur bones should have soft blood vessels inside them after sixty-five million years?

Of course, evolutionists have been working hard to adequately explain away the finds, and the biased mainstream media only has to ignore the finds or stack the “evidence” against them, and we can all then continue merrily on in the belief that there is no God to answer to.





I’m cheating here, summarizing an article published in the June 2012 issue of “Acts and Facts”, which is a free publication of the “Institute for Creation Research”, or “ICR”.

The article, written by Frank Sherwin and Brian Thomas, was prompted by a recent fossil find in China which is said to be “another” specimen of a fossilized dinosaur complete with feathers. The implication of course is that these creatures were mid way between being dinosaurs and birds.

The animal, named “Yutyrannus huali” is said to be a “gigantic feathered dinosaur”, “the largest yet found”. Such were the headlines.

However, when you start to read below the headlines, or to listen to the information following the sensational TV announcements, you find that the “feathers” are subsequently called “feather-like structures” or something rather more technical, scientific-sounding, and impressive, such as “protofeathers”.

The article’s authors point out the major, and huge, differences between what has been found and real, actual bird feathers as we know them. For example, real bird feathers have semi-hollow cores and branching barbs, and the fossil’s filaments do not.

Further, neither dinosaur skin impressions nor original dinosaur skin has follicles similar to those that produce feathers in birds.

The Yutyrannus huali was a Chinese tyrannosaur. Somehow I just can’t picture a tyrannosaur – a “gigantic feathered dinosaur”, perching in a tree or on a cliff edge, leaping into the air, and then gliding gracefully to the ground, even if it had managed to climb the tree in a desperate search for food.

Sherwin and Thomas state that the so-called “feathers” are more logically interpreted as being fossilized fragments of partly decayed skin.

Skin contains collagen protein fibers that decay more quickly than the soluble biomaterials that surround them.  In an environment such as the Flood of Noah’s day, the dinosaurs would have begun rotting while being transported by the waters. The soluble flesh rotted first. The collagen fibers would have soon rotted too, “but the surrounding mud or wet sand quickly turned to dry rock that inhibited growth of collagen-eating microbes”.

The authors give an example of a 2005 comparison of partially decayed skin from a variety of animal carcasses with dinosaur “feathers”. The evolutionary authors of the study said that calling dinosaur fossil structures “feathers” is misleading.

Of course, Archeopteryx is the famous alleged link via theropod dinosaurs between reptiles and birds. Sherwin and Thomas point out some of the major differences between the structure of a bird and that of a theropod, saying that “no evidence supports the story that such fully formed wings (as the archaeopteryx had) with fused clavicles ‘evolved from’ the tiny., clavicle-free theropod forelimbs”. They state confidently that Archeopteryx was all bird, without a single transitional structure.

One thing that dinosaur-feather believers choose to ignore is that fossil bird prints have been found in rock layers supposedly containing some of the “earliest” dinosaurs.

The authors make the point that even if a true feathered dinosaur were to be found one day, it would not solve evolution’s huge problem of converting a reptile skeleton into that of a bird.

Dinosaurs and birds were created as distinct “kinds” at the beginning of all life as recorded in the early chapters of Genesis.

For the full article complete with pictures, and its references, follow this link:


To peruse ICR’s entire inspiring and informative web site, which includes articles on many contemporary subjects in the creation/ evolution debate, try this one:


%d bloggers like this: