Below is a guest post from my friend Eric, who has an interest in origins science.

1. Many immediately reject creation or ID from the many embarrassingly bad “why are there still monkeys” arguments used by laymen. They assume there’s nothing beyond that.

2. It’s what they were taught in school and they never questioned it. “I didn’t give it much thought; It wasn’t my area of concern”, as Michael Behe reflected of his postdoc research days as an evolutionist. “college students have not been shown the weakness of Darwinian evolution” as Joseph Kuhn wrote in 2012.

3. A lot of biologists aren’t exposed to problems outside their own field. For example paleontologist and ID critic Don Prothero wrote that “Nearly all metazoans [meaning animals] show stasis, with almost no good examples of gradual evolution… the prevalence of stasis is a puzzle that has no simple answer” but lamented, “by and large the neontological [non-paleontologist] community still ‘doesn’t get it’… The journal Evolution continues to publish almost no contributions by paleontologists”.

4. Others just don’t talk about the problems. Renowned chemist James Tour (inventor of nanocars) describes his own experience: “Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone… I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go ‘Uh-uh. Nope.’ These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, ‘Do you understand this?’ And if they’re afraid to say ‘Yes,’ they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.”

5. Some see anything other than materialistic naturalism is seen as a violation of scientific professionalism. At one conference, “Chinese scientists encouraged the investigation of a variety of new hypotheses to explain the Cambrian explosion: hydrothermal eruptions, sudden seafloor changes, even intelligent design. This last was too much for one American paleontologist who stood up and shouted, ‘This is not a scientific conference!'” Likewise the famed Lynn Margulis (proposed symbiogenesis theory) said, “The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or ‘God did it.'”

6. Many biologists don’t have much training in engineering. Many of the patterns claimed to only arise by common descent are the same I see in the code I write or among other objects designed by humans.

7. Some recognize insufficiencies in evolutionary theory, but hope new theories will arise to resolve them. Evolutionists Depew & Weber published in 2012: “Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope… however, we are confident that a new and more general theory of evolution is evolving.”

8. A bias toward sensationalism in the media–which is true everywhere and not just with evolutionary biology.

9. It’s taboo to publish anything from the ID movement. As one example, Springer (a large scientific publisher) was going to publish 20-so-papers from ID proponents. They had already passed Springer’s internal peer review and Springer agreed to publish them. But a public campaign threatened to boycott Springer if they published, even though none any of the critics had even read the papers. Springer complied, but the papers were still published in World Scientific after also passing peer review there.

10. A small number of rather popular evolution “evangelists” shame anyone who dissents from the Party line. For example see Jerry Coyne’s response to Lynn Margulis claiming evolution doesn’t work (cited above). Coyne says she’s “dogmatic, willfully ignorant, and intellectually dishonest,” “wrong in the worst way a scientist can be wrong,” and “embarrasses both herself and the field.”

11. Rigged debates. Sean B. Carroll (well known biologist) wrote a critique of Michael Behe’s work in the journal Science: He cited “the tuning of color vision in animals” as a response to Michael Behe as an example of observed evolution creating through a long process of gradual steps. To support this, Carroll cites his own book where he describes (based on phylogeny) lineages would have had to evolve color vision multiple times, lose it, and then evolve it again. This would have happened among the presumed ancestors of reptiles, fish, and mammals so none of it is even observed to begin with. Behe correctly noted that Carroll’s papers show “different species have different protein binding sites” but “they demonstrate nothing about how the sites arose.” Behe submitted a brief response, only to have Science to trim the last 100 words. Science gave Carroll a far longer response chastising Behe for not addressing this very point he addressed in the 100 words that were trimmed.

If I had to pick which Western countries are the most hostile to Christians, Australia would be near the top of the list. Now there’s a new story about a Christian doctor named Jereth Kok. He posted some pretty standard stuff on social media under his own name. Tame stuff like Katy Faust, Babylon Bee, etc. Stuff we’ve all done. But that was too much for the fascists of Australia.

An article I found from The Daily Declaration, a Christian news site based in Australia explains the facts:

A landmark free speech case has found that Dr Jereth Kok’s Christian and conservative views disqualify him from medical practice, even though his social media posts weren’t directed at patients and most were shared with limited visibility.

Dr Jereth Kok, a Melbourne-based GP suspended for posting memes, satire and Christian commentary on social media, has been found guilty of professional misconduct, in a landmark case with far-reaching implications for free speech in Australia.

In a 186-page ruling handed down last Tuesday, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) found that Dr Kok’s deeply held religious views, expressed on social media between 2008 and 2022, were sufficient grounds to indefinitely suspend him from the medical profession.

Dr Kok — who had no prior history of patient complaints or professional misconduct before his suspension — now faces a separate sanctions hearing in early 2026 that could result in the full cancellation of his medical license.

In Medical Board of Australia v Dr Jereth Kok, VCAT assessed 85 social media posts made by Dr Kok on topics ranging from abortion to same-sex marriage, Islam, sex change surgery for children, COVID-19 mandates and “conversion therapy” bans.

The Tribunal concluded that two-thirds of the posts “denigrated, demeaned and slurred” members of protected identity groups and other medical practitioners, and also contributed to vaccine hesitancy.

Focus in on this:

Around 80 per cent of Dr Kok’s implicated posts were made on Facebook, with only 13 of those visible to the general public — indicating that complainants and regulators either actively sought them out or were tipped off by people in his wider network.

This is why it is important for Christians to not only have an alias, but be careful about who you let see your posts. As the article indicates, many of the social media posts used to condemn Dr. Kok were posted with the limited audience settings enabled. It didn’t save him from surveillance and persecution by the Australian fascist government.

Another article from The Daily Declaration added more details:

What began as anonymous complaints triggered a years-long, taxpayer-funded witch hunt to comb through over a decade of his online religious and political commentary, ultimately branding him “unfit to practise” for holding and sharing Christian beliefs.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal may have only just handed down its ruling against Dr Jereth Kok, but behind the scenes, the witch hunt began years ago. And now, following eight items of correspondence to and from AHPRA to other parties (that have been secured by Nation First), we can see the full scale of the ideological operation to break a Christian GP for the crime of expressing his beliefs online.

And this should be SHOCKING to you:

On 5 August 2019, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) sent a formal demand to Facebook’s Sydney office. The letter, marked Private and Confidential, required Facebook to produce:

• Every post and comment ever made by Dr Kok
• Comments made under his posts by other users
• Deleted and archived content
• Evidence of any community standards violations
• Details of any warnings or bans
• The dates, times, and content of every interaction

This wasn’t a narrow review. It was a blanket data trawl from 2014 to 2019, a five-year dragnet to scrutinise his private thoughts, satire, and Christian commentary.

And this was all done without a single complaint from a patient. Not one.

And more:

AHPRA hired Ferrier Hodgson, a private forensic firm, and commissioned them to scour not only Facebook, but also websites and blogs, where Dr Kok had posted comments over the years. The result:

• 239 web pages crawled
• 122 pages identified with Kok’s name
• Sophisticated “scrolling” software deployed to uncover hidden and de-ranked comments
• Facebook’s own privacy settings bypassed using test accounts
• A full quote for this particular item of work: one email dated 5 June 2019 cites an estimate $4,800 to $6,000 in taxpayer funds.

[…]This was not standard medical oversight but, rather, a government-ordered deep-dive into a man’s personal and political life.

They didn’t just want to know what Dr Kok had said. They wanted to know everywhere he’d said it, everyone he’d said it to, and everything anyone said in response.

I really recommend that you read both of these articles IN FULL, as they were excellent, and help us to understand how the secular left is operating in countries where they have political power.

My thoughts

If you want to be a Christian, it is wise to have to have an alias, and keep that alias a secret from all but close friends and family. One of the advantages of doing this is that you don’t get FIRED and find yourself unable to work in your field for SIX YEARS, when you have a wife and 4 kids to provide for. Don’t listen to advice from people who mock aliases. They aren’t going to pay your bills.

Second, pro-abortion and pro-LGBT “Christian conservatives” like Tomi Lahren are always complaining about “why aren’t men more masculine?” Well, many feminized Christians and feminized conservatives don’t define masculinity as “leading on moral and spiritual issues”. They understand masculinity when “a man pays a woman’s bills and fixes her appliances”. They look at what this doctor did, and they say “that’s wrong, he used his speech to make non-Christians feel bad!” They think that Christianity means “being nice so that I feel good, and non-Christians like me” These people do not see masculinity as correcting lies and protecting the weak from evil. Men are learning from cases like Daniel Penny’s case to be more careful about how they confront lies and protect the weak. It’s straight out of C.S. Lewis’ “Men Without Chests” essay.

Finally, Christians should not be ashamed to vote for lower taxes and smaller government. As we can see in this case, the bigger the government is, the more power they have to ruin your life. So vote for politicians who want to cut taxes and shrink government so that they are only doing the jobs that are outlined in the Constitution.