TCCSA - Twin Cities Creation Science Association Supplimental Home Page

TCCSA may not necessarily endorse all material presented at meetings announced on this page,
but feels that they would be of interest to creationists.

Can anybody notice the problem in the following statement? Eugenie Scott wrote: "To scientists, using God to explain natural phenomena of any kind violates the practice of methodological naturalism, in which scientific explanations are limited only to natural causes." (Hint: Does science encompass all of reality?)

The Kansas 2005 Hearings contain this statement by Mr. John Calvert: "A philosophy professor at Concordia University of Wisconsin was asked about scientists who have theistic beliefs and also accept evolution. This is what he said: 'The mere fact that you have somebody who holds two beliefs, A and B, does not show that they are logically consistent.' He went on to say, 'It might be that some of these people are confused.' And you will remember the significant number of people walking around here wearing a tag that said 'confused' after that statement."

There was a large billboard questioning evolution near Washington Avenue & Interstate 35W in downtown Mineapolis.
It earned a Star Tribune editorial stating that "evolution is a fact." It is a high honor to irritate those guardians of political correctness.

For more information, click www.whoisyourcreator.com.

Ironically, this billboard stands just before the bridge that collapsed on August 1, 2007. Were the victims just cosmic accidents or creations of a loving God, Whom they had either accepted or rejected prior to their sudden demise?

See Pictures Of The 2008 Dino Dig
Click HERE

But For Information On Future Digs, Click HERE.

Proponents of evolution, claiming to be products of the Enlightenment, have actually reverted to the pre-modern mode of instruction. At the time Francis Bacon defined modern experimental science, the Universities were dominated by Aristotelian Scholastics. This hold was so strong that independent Natural Philosophy Societies had to be started to provide a forum for the new thinking.

In the Universities, students were given, as authoritative, the teachings of the Greeks, mainly Aristotle, and deviation was not tolerated. Science was done by starting with a "known" principle, performing deductive reasoning from that principle (essentially "thought experiments") and finally selecting examples from nature to illustrate - not prove - the point.

Ironically, evolutionists, instead of continuing the Baconian legacy of observation, hypothesis, experimentation and modification, have reinstituted the Scholastic format. Students are authoritatively taught "the fact of evolution." They may be given "thought experiments" such as "describe the selective advantage of flight." They may then select examples from nature that illustrate that point.

Their actual philosophy is less like Aristotle (who believed in cause and effect) than some of the others, like Epicurus (who believed that atoms have the innate power of "swerve" -- the ancient "uncertainty principle") and Pythagoras (who seemed to nearly worship nature and think that it was essentially mathematical).

No amount of contrary evidence is considered enough to re-consider the basic proposition of evolution because it is accepted on authority. The data are not examined systematically but only as they support the hypothesis.

Should Intelligent Design be taught in the schools?

See Intelligent Design and the Public Schools Talk by Ross Olson
A paper given at a town meeting for select high school students at the University of Minnesota on January 4, 2006.

See Intelligent Design And The Jewish Schools by Ross Olson
A paper given at a meeting of the Jewish Community Relations Council on March 9, 2006.

See Intelligent Design And The Public Schools Article A version of the talk suitable for use as an article by Ross Olson

Haldane's Dilemma
A Genius Was Disturbed
Should Lesser Evolutionists Worry, Too?
Click HERE to find out.

Dan Nuckols

Looks At The Creation -- Evolution Controversy Along With The Whole Monkey's Cuz Crew At Wannabe High School

For More Of Dan's Work, Click HERE

"Was Darwin Wrong?"
Asked National Geographic

And, of course, they answered in the negative...

But in fact, Darwin WAS wrong

And National Geographic Is Even More Wrong!

Because The Evidence Is Now So Compelling
That Dawin Himself Might Have Changed His Mind

For More Information, click HERE

And Also Go To The Website Of Apologetics Press

What does {at} have to do with {at} ?
Because internet spamers search for and collect e-mail addresses from web sites,
we are changing the addresses that appear on this site.
anybody{at}something.net becomes anybody{at}something.net
This should fool the robots for a while, but if you are a human, just replace the {at} with a {at}.

For a printable poster with a challenge to

"Weigh the Evidence,"
click HERE.

Recently evolutionists have retreated from defending abiogenesis and claim that it has never been considered part of evolution. (It is interesting that this has happened after creationists effectively showed the physical impossibility of life arising by natural processes.) Yet this has not always been the case.

George Gaylord Simpson wrote: "Evolution is a fully natural process, inherent in the physical properties of the universe, by which life arose in the first place and by which all living things, past or present, have since developed, divergently and progressively" ("The World Into Which Darwin Led Us," Science, 1960, p. 969).

And, of course, for those who want to defend a materialistic world view, it is absolutely essential that there be a non-supernatural origin of life, and indeed of matter, energy and time, whether they want to include it under "evolution" or give it a separate name.

If they say "we have no theory of the natural origin of life," then it means that the only other choice -- a supernatural origin -- must be the working hypothesis.

In the 1980's, Creation Research Society repeated and confirmed the earlier research of Clifford Burdick, finding intact pollen in the PreCambrian strata of the Grand Canyon, which according to standard chronology should have had no flowering plants. They also found 200 million years missing with the layers above and below the missing strata interbedded (blending) and no erosion. This means their deposition was continuous without any significant gap of time.

Click HERE for the first half of the Catalog. (2.5 MB) Click HERE for the second half of the Catalog. (2.5 MB)
Click HERE for the first page of the order form. Click HERE for the second page of the order form.

There are all sorts of different reasons for believing in God, and here I will mention only one. It is this. Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It is like upsetting a milk-jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges itself will give you a map of London. But if I cannot trust my own thinking, of course I cannot trust the arguments leading to atheism and therefore the reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought or anything else: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.