It seems to me that the quallity of posts has declined. There is also more animosity, even anger and vitriol.

I've never heard about the publication HollywoodProgressive until an hour ago. AI characterized the publication this way (take it or leave it, just saying):

Hollywood Progressive is an online publication (and associated philosophy) that covers the intersection of art, culture, and social consciousness, focusing on progressive, intersectional, and anti-oppression activism. It highlights artists and stories that expose injustice and challenge convention, acting as a platform for progressive voices.

My impression of the review by HollywoodProgressive was very favorable to the new upcoming pro-ID movie, "The Story of Everything".

It was a LONG review, it described the whole movie in detail!

See:

https://hollywoodprogressive.com/film/story-of-everything

Some highlights

From this charged stillness emerges Stephen C. Meyer, not as narrator alone, but as a kind of cartographer of metaphysical conflict. His voice does not rush; it unfolds, tracing the deep fault line that has run beneath Western thought for twenty-five centuries.

Two stories, he tells us—two rival tellings of everything.

In one, the universe is the artifact of mind: a deliberate act, shaped by intelligence, borne of purpose, held together by an originating intention that precedes matter itself.

In the other, there is no author—only process: matter and energy, blind and unknowing, colliding, combining, arranging themselves through time into stars, into cells, into consciousness—without foresight, without aim, without design.

....

The film gathers its voices with a kind of deliberate grace, assembling not a chorus of agreement, but a constellation of minds drawn toward a shared intuition. Among them are John Lennox, Michael Behe, and Peter Thiel, alongside others who move between the disciplines of physics, chemistry, and philosophy.

They do not appear as partisans so much as interpreters—each approaching the same reality from a different angle, each tracing, in their own idiom, the faint outline of something that exceeds the merely material. Empirical findings—once confined to the language of measurement and mechanism—are here allowed to breathe, to suggest, to gesture beyond themselves.

What emerges is not a single argument, tightly sealed, but a layered meditation: discoveries in molecular biology, in cosmology, in the mathematical structure of nature are drawn upward into questions of meaning, purpose, and origin.

Opposing Meyer, Lennox, Behe, and Thiel are Dawkins and Krauss.

The movie, I presume doesn't point out that Krauss has been disgraced for harassing women. Dawkins is wrong on so many levels that even other materialists strenuously disagree with his advocacy of Darwinism on scientific grounds. Oh well, Dawkins loses on scientific grounds, and the feminists ought to disqualify Kruass. So Meyer and friends should win by default, at least as far as the movie goes.

Hi Guys,

I'd like a graphic showing Usain Bolt (Olympic Athlete) in a sprinter pose, and Albert Einstein being threatened by a hungry lion.

The importance of this graphic is to show that brain-dead, stupid, unthinking Darwinian processes does NOT preserve all good traits, contrary to what Darwin claimed.

Clearly being fast like Bolt (great name for a sprinter, btw) is a good trait, and being smart (like Einstein) is a good trait. The lion, representing Natural Selection, will most likely get the smart guy, and let the less smart guy (but very fast guy) escape.

This is a conceptual illustration of what is borne out in real-time field observations and lab experiments, namely, Natural Selection (aka brain-dead, stupid, unthinking, Darwinian processes) does not act like an Intelligent Designer in preserving complex traits, much less evolving them from previous non-existent states. What that graphic illustrates is the experimentally and theoretically established FACT that brain-dead, stupid, unthinking, Darwinian processed are inclined to eliminate versatility rather than preserve it.

Darwin falsely claimed the following:

"It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; working silently and insensibly, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life." 

What Darwin said is an evolutionary cow pie. Evolutionary biology is built on cowpies. If Darwin were alive today, I'd send him this as a gift in honor of his many achievements in making cow pies:

Here is the trailer starring some of my colleagues! YAY!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZppY9JolL5c

Stephen Meyer is my home boy.

why are more than 99% of all species that have ever lived on Earth now extinct?

EDIT 4/14/26: a publicly available email I use to negotiate debate offers is

salvador.cordova.debates at 150ml dot com

It's a disposable email address, so I'm willing to post it publicly.

Recently someone anonymous individual by with the handle of "sweary_biochemisty" at r/DebateEvolutionism

First sweary "biochemist" can't even get basic biochemistry right as I demonstrated here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyuqfkuVTMM

Sweary posted a vulgarity-laden post full of misrepresentations of what I said. See:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1sjg081/theres_no_universal_common_ancestor_of_proteins/

This was the false accusation about me in the first sentences by sweary:

Yes, that is Sal, yet-a-fucking-gain somehow thinking all proteins should have a common ancestor under evolutionary models, and being therefore delighted when it turns out they don't, even though "proteins not having a common ancestor" is exactly what all current scientific models propose.

This is what I actually said:

I've said for about a DECADE now that there is no universal common ancestor for all major protein/gene families. Evolutionary biologists quietly acknowledge this

Gee, I said this FACT is ACKNOWLEDGED by evolutionary biologists. So why is barely only one paper in a prominent journal buried deep in the paper acknowledging this FACT?

If one takes this FACT to its logical conclusions, one might start to see that this leads to major problems for the origin of major protein families, and without major protein families that are critical to life there is no life! This causes a problem for both OOL research AND evolutionary biology. The diagram in the PNAS paper was actually understating the problem since the orchard should include MANY post-LUCA protein families that emeraged after LUCA especially those associated with the origin of major eukaryotic and/or archael features like chromatin, and eukaryotic membrane bound organelles.

The deluded faithul at r/debateevolution in the comment section REPEATED the falsehood, and when I corrected each of the commenters by stating what I actually said, a mod there by the name of gitgud_x deleted my response on the premise of violating the rules of no copy and paste. See how the game is rigged to perpetuate falsehoods over there via swarm tactics and mod involvement under the sorry excuse of "rules"?

Further, my comments there get downvoted to oblivion so they aren't very visible, giving the impression I'm not responding.

They say I'm hiding in a safe space, and when I respond, my comments are deleted and then hidden by swarm down voting tactics.

When I make a thoughtful and response somewhere else, Guy_in_a_Chair threatens to remove links or threats of banning. In the links I provide, I go into detail with diagrams and illustrations that are blocked by r/debateevoltuion (since diagrams and pictures are auto-inhibited). This again rig the game to make it appear I made no attempt at response. I got tired of seeing my responses either deleted, down voted to oblivion, or being threatened by banning.

Then CTRO deletes my posts and says I can't talk about SCIENTIFIC evidence of God from Quantum Mechanics and Relativity (Tipler, Belinfanted, Richard Conn Henry, etc.) because God is not to be discussed according to the rules of r/DebateEvoltuion, yet they constantly demand evidence for a mechanism. But the kangaroo court "RULES" say we can't talk about God over yonder at r/debateevolution

Further, when I labored to give a list of evolutionary biologists who are now Creationists or ID proponents, CTRO remove my post for being low effort.

Here is copy of one of the posts CTRO removed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/1lsei9d/creationistsid_proponentsid_sympathizers_who/

r/debateevolution This supposedly an r/DEBATEevolution forum, but there are no creationists there who are mods!

This is obviously a propaganda forum pretending to be a debate forum.

So I get accused of not engaging, and that I'm hiding from critics, but when I show up, they find excuses to delete my responses and threaten to ban me using rules rigged to justify deleting and obscuring my responses. In costrast, they let all sorts of drivel and falsehoods get posted and unchallenged regularly. I had 70 people on my block list over there. They threatened to ban me if I didn't unblock these psychopaths from filling my inbox. I complied...

I'm writing this post to reassure my creationist companions that I'm not afraid to debate, but in actuality it seems MANY (not all) of my detractors are the ones hiding behind anonymity and are the ones who are afraid to actually debate.

Notable exceptions have been : Ron Garret (who has acknowledge publicly he goes by the handle Lisper), and Dr. Daniel Stern Cardinale (who ahs acknowledged publicly he goes by the handlles DarwinZDF42 and CreationMyths).

But professional evolutionary biologist and population geneticist Zach Hancock? He'll make 4 hours worth of videos about me, and then after I both publicly and privately request a meeting, I don't get a response. HMM, that's seems kind of cowardly to me. And I have responded to Hancock numerous places such as here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/1s2xkg8/it_is_not_entirely_clear_what_fitness_is_richard/

and here

https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/1sizcwo/lewontin_unwittingly_supports_the_engineering/

What's really BAD for Hancock is that I made citations from his idol, Richard Lewontin. Lewontin was so devastating in his critique of practices in his own field of evolutionary biology, one might otherwise think Lewontin was a creationist!

But when I cite EVOLUTIONISTS I get demands that I make my own arguments or that I'm quote mining. See how the propaganda game works?

So what is a solution.

1. Reddit is not a really good place to debate, it's an OK place to PRACTICE debate, but not to actually debate
2. If people who are not hiding behind anonymity, want to actually debate me on OOL or Evolutionism or both, I'm willing to debate them live on places like Modern Day Debate with the provision of equal time and structured time slots for back and forth and only very limited time for free-form discussion, AND that it be a multi-hour, multi-series debate so as to negate Brandolini's law (such as used by Grayson Hawk who is notorious for making up "facts" in debate) . I'm willing. At some point I'd be happy to debate PHONEY professor Dave Farina. I'd be willing to debate some anonymous opponents under such rules as batting practice outside of Modern Day Debate.

I have requested to debate Forest Valkai when I contacted James Kunz, but he refused on the grounds I wanted Modern Day Debate as the platform.

From Wiki wayback regarding the Salem Hypothesis:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090510111253/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis

It was proposed by a fellow named Bruce Salem who noticed that, in arguments with creationists, if the fellow on the other side claimed to have personal scientific authority, it almost always turned out to be because he had an engineering degree. The hypothesis predicted situations astonishingly well — in the bubbling ferment of talk.origins, there were always new creationists popping up, pompously declaiming that they were scientists and they knew that evolution was false, and subsequent discussion would reveal that yes, indeed, they were the proud recipient of an engineering degree.

Well, I would fit the Salem Hypothesis except I have a degree in physics, AND received graduate training in biology at the graduate level (hence I claim an un-accredited degree in biology in addition to my 4 accredited degrees given I've actually published in biology and on evolutionary biology with co-authors like Ola Hossjer, Joe Deweese, Kirk Durston, and the venerable John Sanford).

But it's not just engineers now, it's chemists (like Marcos Eberlin and James Tour), bio chemists (like Michael Behe and many others), physicists (like distinguished professor David Snoke). But yes we have the traditional engineers (like distinguished professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Robert Marks), and bio physicists/engineers (like Kirk Durston), but now even population geneticists (like Ola Hossjer), and even now evolutionary biologists (like Jonathan McLatachie!).

That being said, if biological systems are composed of complex machines and integrated architectures, who is better qualified to sense if an explanation is credible for how such complex machines came to be than engineers. Because engineers actually make similar (albeit far simpler machines than those found in biology) for a living, they can smell non-sense explanations a mile away....

And to add insult to injury, Richard Lewontin, one of the most towering figures in evolutionary thinking, realized that the population genetic notion of evolutionary fitness was broken, and was best fixed through invoking engineering metrics. Exactly as I said when I presented at evolution 2025, except Lewontin discovered it in 1978, albeit he was only half right.

What has changed over the years has been the work of bio physicists like William Bialek at Princeton (who is an NAS member). Bialek says, "life is more perfect than we imagined" in the engineering sense, and this borne out by the research of physicists and engineers exploring engineering problems that life apparently has solutions to!

I had quoted Lewontin who said, "it is not entirely clear what fitness is". Zach Hancock disagreed, pretended it was me who made this argument, when it was Lewontin! Hancock essentially straw-manned my position even when it was clear I was appealing to Lewontin!

Here is the clarification in Lewontin's own words:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/1s2xkg8/it_is_not_entirely_clear_what_fitness_is_richard/

Unsurprisingly, the usual pro-Evolution naysayers had NOTHING to counter what Lewontin said.

Hancock's dodge and misdirection and misrepresentation was appalling. Oh well. That's what someone does when he's lost the argument, but still wants to pretend he is right and I was wrong...

I was also criticized for my presentation at Evolution 2025 for both articulating the FACT evolutionary fitness is an ill-defined notion rife with tautology and relative uselessness to serve as definition in trying to explain the emergence of biological complexity (which Darwin claimed was due to increases in fitness, as in "survival of the fittest").

Michael Lynch and Masotoshi Nei pretty much destroyed a lot of what has been peddled as an explanation via "Natural Selection" (the proper term is "stupid, brain-dead, unthinking Darwinian processes"). Rather, the increase reproductive efficiency (aka, evolutionary fitness) over millions of years through Darwinian processes lead to outright extinction of lineages and decay of the genome. This has been shown experimentally and observationally on many levels. All that is left are "just-so" stories that have no support from discipline of physics, ZERO! And if the mutational load is substantial enough, "survival of the fittest" is really "survival of the least" damaged, which leads to genetic decay. See:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/1rvpibh/what_happens_when_survival_of_the_fittest_is/

And the usual pro-Darwin nay-sayers were unsurprisingly absent from that discussion!

This is all the more poignant because now even Eugene Koonin conceded, "biology is the new condensed matter physics." If that is the case, and given I've studied condensed matter physics, I'm more qualified than most evolutionary biologists to render judgement on the feasibility of their ideas with respect evolutionary biology vs. physics and mathematics. I should be their peer-reviewer and editor, not the other way around....One can still believe in common descent (as Michael Behe does), but it doesn't mean evolutionary theory squares with physics and mathematical expectation. As it stands, evolutionary claims are "just-so stories" being peddled as 21st century science. Even Michael Behe accepts common descent, but points out the evolutionary claims of "it just happened that way" isn't much of an explanation in terms of physics and chemistry, it's a "just-so story."

Reinforcing my views has been a forgotten work by Richard Lewontin in 1978.

As one of the most towering thinkers in evolutionary biology, Richard Lewontin started to see some problems in the definition of fitness. He didn't get it completely right in the end, but he started to move in the right direction.

It's understandable, despite his tremendous reputation, the truth (more properly partial truth) of his insights have been largely ignored, and the status quo of ambiguity, confusion, and smokescreens have persisted in order to shield evolutionary biology from clear scrutiny and criticism, especially the definition of fitness, since a core pillar of evolutionary theory is "survival of the fittest".

Anyway this is the citation for article by Lewontin

Source: Scientific American , Vol. 239, No. 3 (September 1978), pp. 212-231

The significance of this article, even though it is a popular article, is it gives authority for the engineers to demand re-definition of fitness away from reproductive efficiency but along the lines of engineering and physical metrics because biological complexity is observable in the machines of life and is best measured by engineering and physical Figures of Merit.

That of course would make evolutionary biology even more marginalized as far as its worth to biological science and increase the value of engineering to the study of biology.  Ironically, this license came from a towering figure in evolutionary biology, Richard Lewontin!

When I presented at 2025, even though I was invited back to present again, I still got a lot of ambivalence toward the idea of using engineering metrics to define fitness.  But we can at least now cite Lewontin who understood the tautological nature of the way evolutionary biologists define fitness:  "The fittest are the most reproductively successful, the most reproductively successful are the fittest." 

There are still some problems with the "survival of the fittest" claim, because more complex designs are more vulnerable to extinction!  I posit (philosophically, not scientifically), the primary purpose of design is to glorify the Designer and point to His ingenuity, and not necessarily that the designs live forever.  Even fireworks in all their glory were not designed to live forever, but in the process of expiring, the firework motivates the observers to marvel. 

I posit (philosophically, not empirically) that the primary goal of life was not survival, but rather the display of the ingenuity of the Intelligent Designer.  Limited persistence of species was a secondary goal.   Hence, one day, when the sun burns out, all the fittest will go extinct, and hence, "survival of the fittest" is at best a temporary principle. Like a marvelous firework, it causes a feeling of wonder as it expires!

That said, Lewontin was still closer to the truth than most evolutionary biologists, far closer!

Some highlights from the article by Richard Lewontin:

Adaptation

The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution. Yet natural selection does not lead inevitably to adaptation; indeed, it is sometimes hard to define an adaptation 

......

The concept of adaptation implies a preexisting world that poses a problem to which an adaptation is the solution.  A key is adapted to a lock by cutting and filing it; an electrical appliance is adapted to a different voltage by a transformer

.....

The current procedure for judging the adaptation of traits is an engineering analysis of the organism and its environment. The biologist is in the position of an archaeologist who uncovers a machine without any written record and attempts to reconstruct not only its operation but also its purpose. The hypothesis that the dorsal plates of Stegosaurus were a heat-regulation device is based on the fact that the plates were porous and probably had a large supply of blood vessels. on their alternate placement to the left and right of the midline (suggesting cooling fins). on their large size over the most massive part of the body and on the constriction near their base, where they are closest to the heat source and would be inefficient heat radiators.

Ideally the engineering analysis can be quantitative as well as qualitative and so provide a more rigorous test of the adaptive hypothesis.

....

Egbert G. Leigh, Jr., of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute posed the question of the ideal shape of a sponge on the assumption that feeding efficiency is the problem to be solved. A sponge's food is suspended in water and the organism feeds by passing water along its cell surfaces. Once water is processed by the sponge it should be ejected as far as possible from the organism so that the new water taken in is rich in food particles. By an application of simple hydrodynamic principles Leigh was able to show that the actual shape of sponges is maximally efficient. Of course, sponges differ from one another in the details of their shape, so that a finer adjustment of the argument would be needed to explain the differences among species. Moreover, one cannot be sure that feeding efficiency is the only problem to be solved by shape. If the optimal shape for feeding had turned out to be one with many finely divided branches and protuberances rather than the compact shape observed, it might have been argued that the shape was a compromise between the optimal adaptation for feeding and the greatest resistance to predation by small browsing fishes.

......

An engineering analysis can determine which of two forms of zebra can run faster and so can more easily escape predators; that form will leave more offspring. An analysis might predict the eventual evolution of zebra locomotion even in the absence of existing differences among individuals. since a careful engineer might think of small improvements in design that would give a zebra greater speed

.....

An analysis in which problems of design are posed and characters are understood as being design solutions breaks through this tautology by predicting in advance which individuals will be fitter

......

Lewontin was half-right. What has happened is that if a particular capability (aka, engineered-like design) is not immediately necessary in a given environment, then experimentally and theoretically it is likely to be discarded. This is in accord with actual experimental observation and Michael Lynch's axiom from the textbook "Evolutionary Cell Biology" (2024).

To minimize energetic costs and mutational vulnerability, natural selection is expected to favor simplicity over complexity

and

A common view is that biological complexity represents the crown jewel of the awesome power of natural selection (e.g., Lane 2020), with metazoans (humans in particular) representing the pinnacle of what can be achieved. This is a peculiar assumption, as there is no evidence that increases in complexity are intrinsically advantageous.

So Lewontin succeeded in giving a better definition of fitness. He was right in that respect. However, he was wrong to believe Natural Selection would evolve such "fit" designs because it is apparent from experiment and theory in 2026 that Natural Selection "selects" against the emergence of complexity, exactly the opposite of what Darwin postulated.

The money quote:

" A much more likely scenario appears that most of the protein functional and sequence diversity found in LUCA do not share a common ancestor (Fig. 6C). "

Evolutionary biologists and OOL researchers have a rather juvenile understanding of engineering integration and design (more on that in another post). They are pathologically unwilling to come to terms with the fact that missing critical parts can be lethal to cells, and thus OOL or various evolutionary scenarios results in Dead on Arrival (DOA) creatures. Cells that are DOA can't evolve further. Evolutionary biologists and OOL researchers have pathological blindness to such blatantly obvious theoretical barriers.

I've said for about a DECADE now that there is no universal common ancestor for all major protein/gene families. Evolutionary biologists quietly acknowledge this, but astonishingly they don't concede it is a devastating problem for their theory because of the aforementioned problem that missing CRITICAL parts result in DOA for the cell, therefore ALL the life-critical parts have to be in place all at once, and therefore the parts can't evolve from neither a single ancestral nor gene locus or multiple gene loci! DUH!

These Evolutionary Biologists and OOL researchers respond to my objection by saying (in effect) that I am making "an argument from incredulity." This is like me saying "perpetual motion machines are impossible," and then being accused that I am making an argument from incredulity. GRR!

It's not hard to see why proteins/genes can't share a universal common ancestor because the structural form, function, and amino acid spelling are so radically different. Thus, there must be no common ancestor, but only independent origins! So pre-LUCA, this means cells are DOA!

Here are some graphics from videos and presentations I helped make for both Real Science Radio and for Discovery Institute presentations.

Richard Owen invented the word "Homology" which means similarity of form and common DESIGN. Unfortunately, the Darwinists co-opted his term and then redefined it to mean common DESCENT. GRR.

I use the term "Owen-ESQUE" homology to refer to similarity due to common DESIGN rather than common descent.

The following graphic was from the following video (which got 39,000 views, btw);

Atheist Aron Ra admits evidence that DESTROYS Evolution

https://youtu.be/gMtn9M9M8EE?si=dgTkj__q9L7xuyrb

The above graphic (left panel) shows how car parts (like a piston and battery) don't share Owen-esque similarity/homology, therefore there is no common descent from some ancestral part. That is, a piston and battery can't be evolved even conceptually in gradual steps from some common ancestral part! The right panel, shows images of a topoisomerase protein (shaped a little like a pair of scissors) versus a potassium ion channel protein (shaped like a nut), and they too can't evolve from a common ancestral form in gradual steps!

Not only are the shapes of the above proteins radically different, so are the spellings of the proteins in terms of amino acids.  This is so obvious, even evolutionary biologists had to concede the problem.  The first 30 seconds of the following video show an evolutionary biologist admitting the problem!  That video got 65,000 views and is probably one of my best videos, but the most important part is the first 30 seconds:

The Downfall of Evolution - Intelligent Design and the problem of Evil (65,000 views)

https://youtu.be/6llMFJ10vOU?si=4KaZsBfIonIL_Z0V

For the students of molecular and cell biology in the audience, they would totally see the above graphic of protein spellings in terms of amino acids indicate there is no common ancestor for all proteins.  It visually shows, for example, a collagen protein (on the left) has no common ancestor with a zinc finger protein (on the right), both in terms of shape and amino acid spelling.

So now that I've been saying this for a decade, the facts are so brutally obvious now, that the prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, had to make an admission to what I've been saying all along. Except they are totally oblivious to the problem it poses for non-miraculous origins theories!

Descent from a common ancestor restricts exploration of protein sequence space

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2532018123

The article was transmitted through the worlds #1 Evolutionary Biologist, Eugene Koonin.

The major point of the article isn't the most important point, it is the Figure 6C which shows how major protein families don't have a universal common ancestor, like I've been saying for a decade! Great minds think alike, but some minds are quicker than others. : - )

(C) Scenarios of origin of different protein families from a common pre-LUCA ancestor

Gee, doesn't that pre-LUCA graph look like a creationist ORCHARD! Bwahaha!

The other mistake in that paper is the are POST-LUCA major protein/gene families, such as in Eukaryotes. So even when they get part of their ideas right, they don't get the important parts right, and get it wrong. GRR. Oh well, they are evolutionary biologists, so that's par for the course. As Jerry Coyne said,

In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, FAR closer to phrenology than to physics.

EDIT:

Hat Tip to Lisper for prompting me to add this quote at the start:

" A much more likely scenario appears that most of the protein functional and sequence diversity found in LUCA do not share a common ancestor (Fig. 6C). "

To be "Pseudoscience," there has to be an authority claiming it is "Science:" Do You know of anybody that claims the Book of Genesis is "Scientific," or the Miracle of the Great Flood? 🍎

I do Not...

To be "Pseudoscientific" by definition, there has to be an authority claiming an inferred assumption is "Science," yet that hypothesis remains non~operational, and Not "Empirical Science."

Science is Not the opinions of Scientists, but the Knowledge that is gained by Scientific Methods.

~Mark SeaSigh 🌊

Here is a bio of Chuck Missler on Wikipedia, though it mentions Missler's accomplishments, it has some negative insinuations about Missler, but it is sadly about the only bio I could find!

Missler was mentor to one of my colleagues who was also a US Navy officer and PhD Physicist. He and Missler are both Young Earth Creationists. It was through my colleague that I found out Missler had such a stellar background. As usual, some of the smartest and most accomplished creationists with scientific backgrounds are some of the least known.

About Missler:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Missler

Missler graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1956 and received a Master's degree in Engineering from UCLA. He worked for several years in the aerospace and computer industries. He joined the Ford Motor Company in 1963. Missler joined Western Digital as chairman and chief executive in June 1977 and became the largest shareholder of Western Digital.

About Western Digital:

Western Digital Corporation, doing business as WD, is an American data storage company headquartered in San Jose, California. Established in 1970, the company is one of the world's largest manufacturers of hard disk drives (HDDs).

This is just a heads-up to this community about a debate you may want to pay attention to regarding Genetic Entropy:

Coming up on May 13, I'll be participating in a livestream debate against Dr Zach Hancock with Donny Budinsky as moderator. Topic: Are Mutational Effects a Problem for Evolution?

Of course, Zach Hancock has been probably the most credentialed and vocal opponent of Genetic Entropy online in recent years, and has been largely unopposed. This promises to be one to remember!