Expose the Fundamental
Flaw of Darwinistic Theory,
or ‘Evo-Devo’, Along With a
Few Other Intrinsic Errors;
and Also Illustrate How
It Is in
“In the beginning God created heaven, and earth [Our Creator made everything out of nothing, see 2 Machabees 7:28]… And he [God] said, ‘Let us make man to [according to] our image and likeness’ [We, the Uncreated Unity in Trinity, Three Eternally Divine Persons in One, craft & pattern humanity to look like Us]… And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul [we humans exist because Our Maker formed both our mortal bodies and our immortal souls].” (Genesis 1:1, 26a-b & 2:7 DRC)
“The fool hath [has] said in his heart: ‘There is no God [‘No One exists Who makes everything else that exists’].’” (Psalm 13:1b DRC, note Psalm 52:1b as well)
“But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman [human beings are foolish when they refuse to know & understand Our Creator based on what we can know & understand of His creation]… For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby. But yet as to these they are less to be blamed. For they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. For being conversant among his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which are seen. But then again they are not to be pardoned. For if they were able to know so much as to make a judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof? [How in the world can an adequately intelligent human being not realize God exists and find out why He made us, when the world all around us is so obviously designed to be wondrous & reveal Him to us?]” (Wisdom 13:1 & 5-9 DRC)
“In the beginning was the Word [Jesus Christ, the God-Man, Eternally Begotten & Uncreated]… All things were made by him [the Word]: and without him was made nothing that was made.” (John 1:1a & 3 DRC)
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice [anything opposed to the teachings & commandments of Roman Catholicism Whole & Entire] of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice [those people who pretend to be a religious authority higher than God Himself, daring to call truth a lie and good evil]: because that which is known of [about] God is manifest in them [the Law of Natural Reason in the hearts of adequately intelligent human beings makes it clear that God exists]. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of Him [God’s invisible nature & attributes], from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made [no intelligent human, seeing the world surrounding us, can pretend it is ‘impossible’ to know that an Uncreated Creator exists and is perfectly capable of making everything else which exists]; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are INEXCUSABLE.” (Romans 1:18-20 DRC. Emphases & annotations added, in these and other scriptural quotes, unless otherwise noted.)
COMPOSED & EDITED JUNE 2019.
Intended by the Author of This Book
for the Greater Glory of the Adorable Triune Catholic God,
Worship of the Sacred Heart of King Jesus Christ of
for the Praise of the Immaculate Heart of Queen Mary, the Blessed Ever-
Virgin Mother of God,
unto the Protection & Propagation of the Holy Roman Catholic Church &
Her Most Precious Heavenly Dogmas,
under the Euphonious Patronage of St. Cecilia, the Eloquent Patronage
Ven. Mariana de Jesus Torres, Virgins &
Domine, non est exaltatum cor meum, neque elati sunt oculi mei. Neque ambulavi in
magnis, neque in mirabilibus super me. Si non humiliter sentiebam, sed exaltavi animam
meam; sicut ablactatus est super matre sua, ita retributio in anima mea.Speret
in Domino, ex hoc nunc et usque in saeculum. (Psalmus CXXX,Vulgata)
St. Francis Xavier, Patron of Catholic Missioners, Ss. Catherine of Alexandria & Francis of Sales, Patrons of Catholic Philosophers & Apologists, respectively, and St. Peter of Verona, the Glorious Martyr, may you be pleased to guide this arrow to its target, either unto eternal life or eternal death! Now thanks be to God, who always maketh us to triumph in Christ Jesus, and manifesteth the odour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are the good odour of Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that perish. To the one indeed the odour of death unto death: but to the others the odour of life unto life. (2 Corinthians 2:14-16b DRC)
St. Francis of Assisi, Humble Seraph of the Incarnate God, and St. Dominic the Preacher, Dogged Cherub of the Triune Deity, pray for your children that they may not fail the test but suffer the malice of the wicked gladly and so gain the Crown of Life!
Specifically, Chapters 35 to 39. The excerpt makes plain the fundamental flaw at the heart of any truly ‘evolutionary’ theory, whether it be contemporary Darwinism, ‘evo-devo’ (a cute little nickname for ‘evolutionary developmental’ biology), ancient versions of such, or even a future ‘development’ or ‘evolution’ of Darwinistic thought to come (all puns intended, I’m afraid… it’s almost ridiculously fun to poke holes in Modernist dogma and their origin myth). Then comes a segment from For Those Who Practice Some Other Form of Religion, or Who Lay Claim to No Religion at All , as found in the First Things First section. Meanwhile, an Afterward ties it together and reveals a couple more dire fallacies or incorrect reasoning indulged by adherents to the Religion of Modernism.
And I do mean religion. This is not exaggeration. It is the zeitgeist of our epoch.
I am doing this because macro-evolutionary belief --- the idea that one actual kind of creature can ‘evolve’ over millions or billions of years into another type of ‘organism’ altogether, such that the two different kinds can no longer mate & reproduce, not even genetically --- is the final fatal piece of Modernistic thinking put into place in the past 2 centuries, enabling Lucifer, our enemy, to bring upon us the Great Apostasy that we now endure. Once this notion reigned supreme in academia, government, media, courts, artists and any other arena involving the public forum, then… whilst more evil over time came out of it… the die was cast. Barring a miracle, the outcome we endure was inevitable.
Mind you, we purposely contrast macro-evolution from micro-evolution.
This is because, properly understood, no wise & informed person denies the possibility that biological life forms may breed or reproduce over generations and, shifting within a collective gene pool or experiencing ‘horizontal gene transfer’ or etc., appear to ‘change’ to some extent, even dramatically when it comes to the phenotype (the ‘body’, as opposed to the genotype, or ‘genes’ of the organism). What a smart & honest person protests is the fantasy that this is the same thing as, and can result in, one ‘species’ changing into a fully distinct ‘species’, such that, as said above, no possibility of reproduction of the two ‘species’ any longer exists. Darwinists constantly pretend ‘micro’ equals ‘macro’, pretending, additionally, this constitutes ‘irrefutable proof’ for macro-evolution.
I have not posted something exclusively about evolutionary theory till now for three reasons. 1) Many other subjects demanded my time until now, which had to be put in place prior to grappling with this topic. 2) Only recently did it become logical, in the aforementioned book, Inter Regnum, to grapple with evolutionary theory to a certain degree, which then lent itself to spinning off more easily as another writing. And, 3), plenty of intellectuals have grappled at length with evolutionary theory in the last 4 decades --- none of them Catholic, and some even agnostic or atheist --- finding Darwinism very lacking both rationally & factually. A few are the following:
The Australian medical doctor, scientist & biologist, Michael
Denton, and his troublesome analysis (for Darwinists…), Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis, which he published in 1986. Or one of the most dramatically
impactful of such books, from Harvard-trained & professor of law at
In any case, Mr. Behe essentially ignited the recent ‘intelligent design’ movement. Mercilessly mocked by a Darwinist academia & media as ‘creationists-in-disguise’, ‘uneducated dupes’ or ‘religious-fanatics-trying-to-get-religious-indoctrination-into-our-fine-schools’, the intelligent design (ID) people are, in reality, mostly highly educated, a large majority, perhaps, holding Ph.D. degrees in science or mathematics, or something similarly impressive; not even self-proclaimed ‘believers in God’, at least the surprising minority of them (they’re just honest enough not to pretend, after a century and a half, Darwinistic evolutionary theory can explain anything ‘successfully’, let alone with a totally certain ‘correctness’); and all of them, whether traditionally religious or not, adamantly insist how they simply want students --- in high schools or colleges --- permitted to see the hard evidence --- all of the hard evidence, both pro & con! --- whether tending to ‘support’ macro-evolution or tending to ‘oppose’ it, so as to, in actuality, practice education rather than propaganda at a place of claimed ‘learning’. Successful? Hardly at all. IDers have themselves learned a painful lesson, similar to lessons gleaned by so-called ‘creationists’ a generation earlier (many of whom were highly educated as well, like the ID people, but who were, admittedly, more openly traditionally religious, and whose moniker… ‘creationism’… became an albatross through the decades of the 1950s, ’60s, ’70s & ’80s as dutiful media, with a truly impressive lockstep approach, made the word mean ‘stupid religious fanatic’).
Nevertheless, since the turn of the 21st century, and in spite of many a promising, although ultimately ruined scientific career (ruined in the sense of ‘you’re-never-going-to-get-funded-for-research, published-in-major-academic-journals, or teach-as-tenured-at-major-universities-or-colleges-as-long-as-we’re-on-the-watch-buddy’), many an ID person has managed to conduct low level research and, very occasionally, publish the findings in prestigious scientific journals. Not often, yet very rarely. They have also continually encountered federal & state courts (but more often federal ones) firmly ruling, time & time again, for seriously-lacking-in-real-arguments Darwinists, who, constantly (and mysteriously), get judges to buy into their strategy to a priori define ‘science’ as an utterly ‘naturalistic’ enterprise that cannot ever be allowed… ever!... freedom to consider, however remotely & even-handedly, the possibility of a higher intelligence taking a hand in the creation & formation of biologic life. This is funny, laughable & hypocritical, by the way. Evolutionary scientists will gladly entertain propositions of ‘panspermia’ (many of them) or the like, wherein highly advanced extraterrestrials ‘jump started’ physical life on earth by dispersing genetic matter throughout the galaxy --- but they won’t consider the possibility intelligence is, absolutely, required to explain the existence of physical life on earth? It’s why, incidentally, IDers call their proposal ‘intelligent design’. As in, an irreducible complexity logically requires us to hypothesize that some sort of ‘intelligence’ intervened, materially, in the formation of earthly life. The ID proponents will, frequently, range the gamut of what an ‘intelligence’ means. For some, it’s ETs. ‘Christian’ IDer? Then probably a singular, all-powerful Creator. A Hindu IDer? Obviously, one of the many yet more major Hindu deities and --- maybe --- ETs. Fervently Muslim IDer? Then it’s Allah. Agnostic or atheist IDer? Then, well, it potentially could be ETs… or ‘God’, if this ‘God’ exists… or, well, we haven’t, particularly, any idea what it is. We just can’t buy into pretended-to-be-‘proved’ Darwinistic evolutionary theory. Hence why IDers have merely dared to say, in universities or others schools, present all of the hard evidence. Then (*gasp!*) horrifyingly permit students to make up their own minds, based on evidence.
You see why hardcore Darwinists are
horrified? And routinely use strong arm legal tactics, in courts of law, to
shut down the possibility of our nation’s students seeing the hard
evidence for both sides of this heated argument. That is to
say, life-from-chance or life-from-design. Even a single, substantiated
& logical doubt about the ‘truthfulness’ of evolutionary theory
would cause their edifice to come crashing down --- and their power in this
nation, and all over the world --- to dissipate. No longer would
But a few more useful & recent books, intelligently written? From the IDers?
A relatively young & whipsmart Dr.
William A. Dembski, with a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago (one of the top colleges in all the
world…) and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Illinois at
Chicago, is, arguably, the leading light of an ID movement. He, in turn, has
coordinated an effort amongst many smart & educated ID persons to challenge
the dominant paradigm. For instance, in 2004 he published a book, called The Design Revolution. Very eggheady, if
able to get through it, it’s worth the perusal. He not only argues from
solid logic & hard evidence for the legitimacy of ‘intelligent
design’ theory, but, literally, proposes a new paradigm for
conducting ‘science’. One that displaces, and improves upon, the
old naturalistic paradigm… understanding
now why the old guard of Darwinistic science is scared? Also in 2004,
Dembski organized a multi-disciplinary survey upon evolutionary theory, with
scholars from all over the
Please realize that the book, Inter Regnum, from which I draw the central part of this small booklet, The Achilles’ Heel of Evolutionary Theory, is about the Roman Catholic Papacy. Specifically, about how God has, throughout 2000 years+ of Catholic history, allowed for surprisingly long gaps between real popes, and surprisingly shocking & widespread confusion about who is a real pope. It’s also about how we’ve gotten to where we are now --- the Great Apostasy, and God’s Singular Roman Catholicism seemingly ‘failing’ and being laid in a Modernist Tomb, ‘dead’, just like Her Lord. Namely, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the real Jesus… the Catholic Jesus!... period. In explaining these things, we encounter the necessity of Infallible Truth, and why an Infallible Truth is absolutely essential to existence & knowledge, not to mention a magnificent pope’s reason for defining the Charism of Papal Infallibility in 1870.
This is the milieu, or setting, within which you’ll read the Inter Regnum excerpt.
Are you ready to dive in? For while wonderfully clever facts & logic exist, all most destructive to the ruling paradigm of evolutionary theory, there is a central & intrinsic flaw to Darwinistic thought, or any form of macro-evolution, whether on the biologic or cosmologic scale. It’s time to shout from rooftops. And get ourselves some new hearts.
+++ 1. How Do You Know? +++
You see, everything revolves around the Infallible Truth. If it isn’t absolutely certain that at least something is infallibly true, then how in the world can we be certain anything is true, to whatever degree of certitude… apart from one’s own individual consciousness & existence? It’s the old solipsist quandary (‘solipsist’ or ‘solipsism’ comes from Latin for ‘self alone’ --- meaning, it isn’t possible to know for sure that anything else exists apart from your own individual self & consciousness). In recent times, it’s popularly accessible in The Matrix film trilogy, though this kind of intellectual skepticism of certainty about ‘what is real’ has been a fashionable Modernist theme in so-called ‘science fiction’ or ‘cyberpunk fiction’ for many decades. (By the way, if anybody reading this is actually Catholic, then DON’T you dare blithely watch this cinematic trilogy without EXTREME CAUTION. It is, like most contemporary works of art or entertainment, seething with religious falsehoods, immorality & immodesty, whatever remarkable merits it may or may not possess otherwise.) What if a nefarious power or being or unseen reality is creating a ‘virtual reality’ that suckers us in completely, with poor little human folks or other sentient creatures totally ‘helpless’ to know that it’s a farce, or a mirage, or a diabolically clever scheme to use us for some purpose that is really not a nice thing for this power, being, reality or what-have-you to do, or etc., etc…? What then? How are you to know the truth? We’re pawns in a game.
Of course, solipsism isn’t a practical option. If you can’t know, why worry?
Why not just take everything at face value and play along as if it’s real?
Yet the dirty deed is done, intellectually speaking. The doubt is real. Perhaps we’re incapable of knowing the truth about ‘reality’ outside of us --- but if so, doesn’t that call into question everything we think we know? And it’s all very fine to say, “Well, in the end, at a minimum, I know that I exist.” Okay… so you exist. Excellent. Super. But… um… what is existence? And what is consciousness? Do we really understand these things? Or are we only using words, like labels, to talk like we fully ‘comprehend’?
It may seem all ivory tower ‘academic’ to you, dear soul. Yet this is our reality.
You may not think about it much --- you probably don’t --- but it’s still ‘real’.
And if you talk to, or read the writings of, or watch the video or podcast of, an impressively bright intellectual who’s really & actually thought about these things exceedingly carefully & rigorously… and is humble enough and honest enough to say so… then that bright person (who is rare, in my experience) will as much as admit, in so many words, “You know, we don’t truly comprehend consciousness. We can’t even define it adequately, let alone explain it. And existence? Don’t get me started.”
It’s like a duck. It quacks, it waddles. You ‘know’ it when ‘see’ it.
But can you explain the duck fully, down to the last atom or subatomic particle?
Can you explain all of its functions & behaviors to the nth degree, every little thing?
Down to the cellular or genetic level? Or on the macro scale, in flocks, etc…?
Or do you know what it’s like to be a duck, have you ever been a duck…?
Do you know the thing in and of itself, as philosophers used to say?
Uh, would that be a no? Then maybe quacking & waddling is --- oh, I don’t know --- a little insufficient. Maybe we ‘know’ a duck when we ‘see’ it, but --- in the bigger scheme of things --- we’re really not all that knowledgeable & fantastic about ducks. Oh, sure, our so-called ‘science’ can tell us lots of impressive-sounding things about ducks.
Yet is this the same as fully & truly comprehending ‘duckness’?
Or is it just taking a thing to pieces and saying, “Aha!”
As if ‘knowing’ how a few pieces work is the same as full & true understanding.
And that’s just ducks. What can we pretend to ‘know’ from the miserable little ‘pieces’ we like to think we have ‘comprehended’ about ‘consciousness’ and ‘existence’? How on earth does this inspire confidence in the truly thoughtful & honest human being? How is it the ‘knowing’ of how a few pieces of consciousness or existence ‘work’ --- if that’s actually certain, even --- supposed to assure us we really understand…?
Ah, but what’s the point of this whimsical yet grave detour?
+++ 2. The Ultimate Degree of Certainty +++
I’m glad you asked. Or, er, that is, that I asked for you.
Hopefully, you’re coming along for the ride. Because there really is a grave point.
The whimsy we indulge as we walk along the mental road is because, when you love knowing & having wisdom, it really is ‘fun’, as it were, to know the truth and have wise understanding. If this idea strikes you as ‘childish’ or ‘silly’, then perhaps you haven’t looked closely at Sacred Scripture, my beloved one. Have you not read where it says:
“Doth [does] not wisdom cry aloud… saying… ‘The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything from the beginning. I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made… When he prepared the heavens, I was present… when he balanced the foundations of the earth; I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, PLAYING BEFORE HIM AT ALL TIMES; PLAYING IN THE WORLD: and my delights were to be with the children of men [i.e., humanity, who are made in the Image of Our Uncreated Creator, the Lord God, and particularly with THOSE WHO FEAR HIM AND LOVE HER... that is to say, Wisdom].’” (Proverbs 8:1a, 3b, 22-23, 27a-b, 29c-31 DRC)
You see, precious reader, epistemology (that big old fancy ‘scary’ word, with its multisyllabic, Greek-derived form), simply means the study of knowledge, of its origin, nature, methods & limitations. In other words, how do we know what we know? How can we be sure, that what we think is true, really is the truth? And to what degree of certainty is it that we can be sure? Is it infallibly certain? (To wit, we couldn’t possibly be wrong.) Of an absolute moral certainty? (Accordingly, we don’t claim ‘infallible’ certainty, but, honestly, we have absolutely no good reason, after very, very, very careful thought & investigation, to think that we’re wrong… and, if we are wrong, that extremely wary thought & investigation, is what wisely & prudently protects from moral guilt in the matter, should our wrong judgment have unforeseen consequences.) Mere prudent certainty? (Seems, after careful thought & investigation, to be the best conclusion. Howsoever, some facts are unknown or doubtful, or our logic is not beyond all contesting.) Bare certainty? (Really haven’t time to think this through wholly, investigating everything. But it’s not that important and worth the effort.)
Do you see?
We can use varying terminology. It’s never the precise terms that matter. It’s the meaning. Do certain other terms used mean what I mean? Or somewhere in-between? That’s the truly imperative thing when it comes to something like this. The point?
Epistemologically speaking, the dogged & tenacious thinker realizes that, given the threat of ‘solipsism’ (see Chapter 1 just above, poor reader, if you don’t remember what this is), what is, ultimately, the degree of certainty of knowing in this world? For small finite creatures such as ourselves, that is. Who, while smart, are indeed limited.
And the answer?
Surprisingly --- for the person who hasn’t thought it out ruthlessly --- it is:
WITHOUT INFALLIBLE TRUTH, THERE IS NO CERTAINTY.
+++ 3. Solipsistically Speaking, +++
the Only Frame of Reference There Really Is
If everything except for your own individual consciousness is questionable, then absolutely nothing else in the world around you --- that you think you see or sense --- is knowable with any kind of real certainty, to whatever degree, or lack thereof, we may want to think a certain thing is ‘certain’. This is because we are not omniscient (all-knowing) and we are not omnipotent (all-powerful). Ergo, there is never any way, in situations of this sort, to rule out completely the very real possibility that we are utterly self-deluded and that so-called ‘reality’ is not what we think we see or want to think.
End of sentence.
Most people don’t think about these things.
Those who do, either eventually laugh it off or call it ‘hypothetical’.
Those who never think about it are simply unthinking. I.e., thoughtless. Literally.
Those who do think about it and then laugh it off are foolish, being unwise.
And those who call it ‘hypothetical’ are ‘technically’ correct.
Yet evading the question, all the same.
Well, since you can’t rule it out with infallible or absolute certainty… not being omniscient or omnipotent… then why aren’t you using the intelligence of that individual consciousness of yours --- which has gotten you this far just fine, in the meantime, as you pursue the truth about truth, knowledge, reality & epistemology --- and complete the uncompleted, drawing the correct conclusions about our existence?
Either that you can know absolutely nothing certain about existence aside from the tiny, albeit critical, matter of ‘I exist and I perceive’, or else you can have certainty about all that is critically important for you to know --- and that something is real apart from yourself --- due to there being a Creator Who made you for a Purpose.
I mean, you didn’t make everything that exists, if indeed it does exist, did you?
Nor did I. Nor did any reader of this work. Nor did any mere creature.
So if you aren’t willing to embrace solipsism full on, then get real.
Various forms of ‘evolutionary theory’ or ‘evo devo’ are NOT sufficient to explain the origin of All That Exists, being based on all kinds of assumptions, out of thin air, in order to make them look like they can ‘fly’. They are not ultimately ‘testable’, and, while very clever scientists like to say that ‘we can never know for sure, another theory may come along that supersedes what we think we know for the present’ --- thereby sounding, supposedly, ‘humble’ about their limitations of knowledge --- they are filled with utmost hubris, and have no real desire to learn the truth about truth, let alone the truth about the world around them or the truth about themselves. They may claim that ‘falsifiable’ tests (although that’s stretching it way far since you can never actually ‘test’ the universe or multiverse, ‘falsifying’ one particular theory of ultimate origins over another, and, anyhow, no amount of ‘observations’ of things around you is an ultimate ‘proof’ of anything at all since ‘observations’ mean NOTHING without us interpreting them) become the ‘gold standard’ of Science… with a capital ‘S’ that requires you to bow before their altar, worshipping their godlike minds and ‘ability to know’, which they pronounce with the ‘authority’ of popes, pretending that you dare not doubt them, itty bitty peon of intellect that you are, without any ‘high degree’ of learning behind you (which, even if a doubter has this high degree of learning, they sneer at, regardless, because that was never the point to begin with)… yet endless ‘falsification’ never fathoms final truth or certainty. It could still be, all of it, TOTALLY WRONG.
Only infallible truth gives us a frame of reference in a world of ignorance.
+++ 4. Random ‘Chance’, Mysteriously Popping- +++
Out-of-Nowhere ‘Laws or Rules of Nature’, Conflating
‘Micro’ With ‘Macro’, and Blind Evolutionary Faith
Do you start to see why Pope Pius IX fought hard to get Papal Infallibility at least minimally defined with an explicitness that would not let those who are foolish, wicked, rebellious or bad slither out, like the snakes they are, from the Infallible Catholic Truth?
And he did it, just barely, before the
Or, should we say, since Vatican II is a pseudo-council --- being false since filled with various heresies --- the one & only Vatican Council that there has been hence far in time. Indeed, a Council never formally closed. They were in a rush, remember?
To get out of there before the revolutionaries trapped or killed them.
Technically speaking, the Vatican Council could be re-opened.
Oh, yet mayhap the skeptical reader is still unconvinced. Perchance (albeit the chance would seem pretty remote…) he or she says, “You really haven’t dealt with the fact of evolution correctly or fairly! No properly informed person today disbelieves in the reality of evolutionary change over billions of years. We merely argue over the theoretical details.” Then they go on to cite the Galapagos finches, etc., etc.
That atheists may read my book seems unlikely; but, just in case, we’ll deal with it.
Too, they might take pains to distinguish ‘cosmological’ from ‘biological’ evolution. “The two are not the same,” such a person might insist. Although such a claim is either naïve or disingenuous, we’ll grapple with it to be thorough. Nonetheless, it bears noting, I’ve not designed this book, Inter Regnum, to be a comprehensive, let alone exhaustive, study of, or statement upon, ‘evolution’ or ‘evo devo’. That would have to come in another book in the future --- if ever I have the time or motivation. Meanwhile, intellectuals have written books about Darwinism and found it lacking.
Even intellectuals who don’t necessarily believe in a Maker.
Yet since this strikes at truth’s heart, we state carefully:
First, to pretend a distinction between the ‘fact’ of macro-evolution and ‘theoretical’ details is a common ploy of Darwinists. Another common & useful strategy of theirs is to focus on micro-evolutionary evidence that’s indisputable --- like the aforesaid Galapagos finches, whose beaks vary back-and-forth in length over decades, or the Peppered moths of England, who, some 200 years ago prior to heavy industrial pollution, were mostly ‘peppered’ in appearance and thus camouflaged better on less-darkened tree trunks, whereas, with heavy pollution, darker-bodied moths came to dominate with darker-trunked trees, the process reversing later with less pollution --- and pretend it’s ‘evidence’ for transformation of one kind of organism into another altogether.
Both are the logical fallacy of putting the cart before the horse. No one has ‘proved’ the macro-evolution of one kind of organism into an altogether & distinct organism, with a genome so different that the two distinct kinds are no longer able to reproduce, ever, period. This goes for microbial life as well. To use the observation of micro-evolution (Galapagos finches, Peppered moths, and so forth) as if this ‘proves’ organisms change minutely over millions of years into utterly distinct organisms, with genomes that can no longer support genetic reproduction between the two, is to extrapolate illogically without actual evidence. (For instance, a fossil record showing minute & gradual changes every step of the way from one kind into another, which is totally in contradiction to what the fossil record reveals after centuries of study. Or a detailed, plausible & wholly tested description of minute changes that could add up, gradually, into organisms that really survive & propagate, instead of airy fairy ‘just so’ stories that we constantly get from Darwinists without the truly believable & nitty gritty details. And why do they choose to believe in the ‘just so’ stories that they make up? Because they are already ‘believers’, with ‘blind faith’, whereas the rest of us, who believe hard evidence & solid logic are necessary, understandably balk at these Modernist religious myths regarding our ultimate origin and how things came to exist.) The intelligent skeptic of macro-evolutionary transformation of species notes the blatantly obvious, pointing out, logically, how micro-evolutionary changes are merely ‘gene pool shift’, a natural variation of population groups within their genetic limitations. This is particularly manifest with the Galapagos finches or Peppered moths --- who we have never yet witnessed ‘evolving’ into organisms with genomes & phenotypes so distinct they no longer have any remnant ability to reproduce. They simply vary within genetic limits, which, when scientists in the laboratory or breeders of animals try to push a species beyond its limits, either sacrifices the organism’s ability to survive in its natural environment, or else ruins its ability to survive utterly, even in a laboratory.
The astonishingly fast breeding, short-lived fruit fly, Drosophila, often studied in a natural environment, or experimented with in laboratories, because of this and other advantageous research factors, shows these limitations perfectly. Perhaps this or other kinds of organisms spread so widely that their genetic variation may or may not allow overlapping reproduction. Yet is this ‘proof’ of an entirely new species? Patently not. And when pushed through breeding or hybridization or mutation beyond the limits, Drosophila, against the boundaries of its ‘gene pool’, ceases to survive properly. Additionally, this kind of organism & others show, again & again, how genetic ‘mutations’, where induced or observed, are almost always --- if not always --- deleterious to the organism. Which is NOT the same as ‘chromosome shuffling’ or ‘horizontal gene transfer’. The shifting of DNA or RNA fragments, or the sections of chromosomes, may be an increasingly firm fact, especially in microbes such as viruses or bacteria, but a mutation in the essential & strict sense is an ‘accidental’ or ‘random’ event that mutates the DNA or RNA at some point along a chain or ring (‘ring’ if we’re talking about DNA ‘plasmids’). This kind of genetic mutation has been essential for Darwinists, a key point in their argument for ‘life from chance’. For while chromosome shuffling or horizontal gene transfer plays an undeniable role in ‘changes’ to organisms, often seen easily in the phenotype (physical & visible attributes of an organism due to its genes, which latter is an organism’s ‘genotype’), you plainly cannot get from ‘here to there’, evolutionarily speaking, without something driving a CHANGE IN INFORMATION, genetically speaking, so as to permit a kind of organism to gradually morph into another kind of organism altogether… and whether or not the transformation is ‘more complex’. It is ‘random mutation’ (in this essential sense) plus ‘natural selection’ that has been the dominant thesis of Darwinists for roughly the past century. They may admit debating the ‘theoretical details’ of evo-devo. Though, again, it’s a logical fallacy to put horses behind carts. Horses pull carts, NOT the other way around. To wit, if such Darwinists CANNOT even now… after almost 160 years of trying to… both formulate ‘theoretical details’ in rigorous enough detail to be totally plausible and test all these ‘theoretical details’ with rigorous experiments that are defined adequately enough to be falsifiable (instead of endlessly explained away or perpetually interpreted, without solid basis, and ‘spun’ always in favor of macro-evolution despite the lack of rigor that is falsifiable, if adequately tested) or, at least, supported mightily & repeatedly with observations that any adequately intelligent person can observe and affirm (e.g., an extensive & unbroken fossil record which literally does appear to demonstrate gradual changes, to one type of organism, step by excruciating step, into another type completely, and NOT the wide-ranging fossil record we actually have, that never reveals anything of the sort, gradual step by excruciating step, showing instead a remarkable propensity for stasis of kinds of organisms, within general boundaries), then where do they get off, logically speaking, PRETENDING it’s a ‘fact’? Rigorously prove the details first!
And, secondly, whether we are addressing ‘biological’ evolution or ‘cosmological’ evolution, the general principles & mechanisms are the same. Accordingly, randomness allied with RULES. In biological evolution, this means ‘random mutation’ of genes and ‘natural selection’ of the resulting organisms. The mutated genes are the randomness or chance; while nature selecting is the RULES or LAWS nature uses to determine the ‘winning’ organisms. In cosmological evolution, this means ‘random motion’ of mass, energy or so forth, and the ‘natural shaping’ of the resulting structures that we see in the universe (or guess at in a hypothetical ‘multiverse’ or ‘quantum bubble froth’, etc.). The Big Bang, or Cyclical Bangs & Collapses, or Infinite Zero-Point Energy Fluctuations in the Quantum Froth Erupting into New ‘Universes’ (or whatever specific origin theory scientists may subscribe to, albeit the ‘Big Bang Theory’ has dominated for the past several decades) are the randomness or chance, a randomness that, with quantum mechanics, along with so-called ‘chaotic’ or ‘nonlinear’ systems, seems to perpetuate indefinitely over ‘billions of years’ in the opinion of Modernist scientists, not to mention increasing thermodynamic entropy, despite this ending in the ‘heat death’ of the universe if Big Bang believers are right and there is no ultimate ‘Big Crush’ in the distant future, where everything collapses back to a ‘singularity’. Meanwhile, physics, chemistry & other disciplines of science are rules or laws that govern nature, determining how the universe, multiverse, quantum bubble froth, or what-you-will, evolves over eons of practically neverending time (from our little human point of view, that is), thereby placing limitations on the options available (apart from those who love to interpret quantum mechanics from the ‘many worlds’ stance, providing them with an infinite number of ‘realities’ that nature has played out with every little option encountered, although it’s hard for others to swallow since these alternate ‘realities’ would be, it seems, impossible to prove or disprove…), hence giving us the cosmos that exists.
The problem? As we remarked near the beginning of Chapter 29 [in Inter Regnum]:
It’s NEVER ‘randomness’ or ‘chance’ all by itself… is it? It is always --- we repeat, ALWAYS! --- for a good little evolutionist, ‘randomness’ or ‘chance’ put together with ‘RULES’ or ‘LAWS’. In biological evolution, the rules constitute ‘natural selection’. The LAWS OF NATURE determine which organism lives to propagate and which organism bites the big one, never to leave offspring or ‘replications’ of itself. In cosmological evolution, these rules constitute ‘cosmic selection’. These LAWS OF NATURE show us which structure of universe or multiverse or quantum bubble froth (or put in your favorite material theory of origin here) wins the cosmic lottery, being the actual ‘reality’ that we think we find ourselves within (or near to, if you imagine more than one universe with many different ‘rules’ existing). Ah, but we’ve a small logical problem, don’t we? As already noted, WHERE did the ‘laws of nature’ or ‘rules of operation’ come from? Modernist scientists, grounded firmly in the assumption of ‘there is no Creator’ or, leastwise, ‘there is no Creator that intervenes within or guides His Creation’, assume, from out of wee thin air, that these ‘laws of nature’ just happened to pop into existence magically, out of nowhere, somehow, inexplicably (and they never bother to ponder, let alone explain, this magical origin of such laws… or almost never… but, then, the tiny few who do are indulging pure ‘metaphysics’, aren’t they?... and that sort of thing is rather frowned upon by philosophically materialist Modernist scientists). Yet we’ll ‘force’ scientists to ponder it. Well, that is, if they bother to read this book or listen.
What makes you think ‘LAWS OF NATURE’ or ‘RULES OF OPERATION’ just magically happened to pop into existence for no real reason at all (nor is a quantum ‘fluctuation’ that occurs randomly according to statistical probability, supposedly, and, every so often ‘inflates’ into an entire ‘universe’, exempt from being ‘laws of nature’ that pop into existence for no real reason at all!) are, then, somehow & inexplicably, ‘bound’ to stick around consistently, or apply consistently, everywhere & everywhen? (Nor is it relevant, successfully ‘refuting’ this point, if a Darwinist claims the multiverse or the universe is ‘self-eternal’. It still begs the question: “Why these particular laws of nature and not something else? Why do they persist without capricious change?”) And, mind you, we don’t say ‘everywhere & everywhen’ to the exclusion of the possibility (in several scientists’ minds today) of a ‘mulitiverse’ or ‘quantum bubble froth’ realities having different kinds of basic ‘rules of operation’, we simply point out the obvious --- what makes you think such suddenly appearing ‘laws of nature’ inexplicably ‘must’ stick around somewhere long enough to produce the cosmological or biological evolution that such scientists want to believe is true? What innate logic justifies us assuming that? It’s NOT logical or rational… it is illogical & irrational. It is a BLIND FAITH in a non-conscious cosmos to magically pop into existence ‘laws of nature’ for no real reason at all, whilst, in addition to this, for no real reason at all, keep them around to make your precious ‘theory of evolution’ look… without reason… somehow ‘plausible’.
Do you get it? It takes BLIND FAITH to believe in macro-evolution, period.
+++ 5. By Humbly Admitting You Can Know +++
Nothing About Existence Around You on Your Own…
Curiously, You Are on the Path, If Willing to
Follow It, to God’s Infallible Truth
Of course, the particularly obstinate reader may mention the ‘punctuated equilibrium’ version of biological ‘evolution theory’ in order to get around blatantly missing fossils that’d show, manifestly, tiny & minute & gradual changes that could be, plausibly, then interpreted as powerful circumstantial evidence for one type of organism slowly, ever so slowly, changing into another type totally. ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ is still putting a cart before the horse! First assume macro-evolution is ‘true’, then explain away the lack of fossil evidence by saying organisms mysteriously stay ‘static’ for millions of years until, suddenly, they up and ‘race along’ (relatively speaking when you’re dealing with epochs lasting for untold millions of years…), changing into another type of organism wholly, without adequate fossil evidence to truly support ‘evolutionary theory’ in the first place… Don’t know about you, my dear soul, but I call that CHEATING.
Really, it’s all cheating --- a fraud! --- intellectually speaking, when it comes to the ultimate truth. And it’s pretty hard to get more ‘ultimate’ than when it involves the truth about the origin of everything in existence and how we ourselves came to be individually conscious beings in this vast thing called ‘existence’. Again, Darwinists cheat when they pretend macro-evolution is a ‘fact’ and that every smart, informed person ‘must’ agree about this supposed ‘fact’; that the only thing ‘debatable’ about macro-evolution are ‘theoretical’ details concerning the precise process or history of evolution. Not so.
And, again, Darwinists cheat when they make ‘random chance’ and ‘laws of nature’ twin pillars of their ‘theory’ --- for where did such ‘laws of nature’ come from in the first place? The same place the matter or energy of our cosmos came from… out of nowhere, with no reason at all for it to appear! Sure, you can assume something happens for no reason at all. But is this logical & true? Only if you assume that ‘evolution’ occurs before having adequate proof to begin with. Then it’s a truly stunning example of circular reasoning. How do we know macro-evolution is true? Because the cosmos & life must exist somehow. How is it that the cosmos & life came into existence? Because macro-evolution was able to do so. How do we know macro-evolution is true? Because the cosmos & life must exist somehow… And so forth and so on. I think you get the drift. Darwinists tend to hate the thought of a Creator, and they definitely hate a Maker Who dares to tinker & fiddle with the cosmos & life. Macro-evolution lets Darwinists feel as if they’re both ‘honest’ & ‘intellectually fulfilled’.
Again, Darwinists don’t just assume that matter & energy popped into existence out of nowhere for no reason at all. And they don’t just assume that ‘random chance’ is enough, all by itself, given ‘enough time’, to grow the cosmos and evolve life & consciousness into existence. They also assume these ‘laws of nature’ popped into existence for no apparent reason, and they assume, too, that these ‘laws of nature’ mysteriously stick around, enough everywhere & enough everywhen, that both ‘cosmic selection’ and ‘natural selection’ transpire, in union with ‘random chance’, to evolve everything in existence. And even though such ‘LAWS OF NATURE’ popped into existence FOR NO APPARENT REASON AT ALL --- these ‘laws of nature’ being their non-conscious ‘creator god’, as it were --- and is a BLIND LEAP OF FAITH.
Yet the link with infallible truth and apostasy, exorcism & apocalypse?
Well… do you recall that uncanny philosophy, SOLIPSISM?
The unthinking person never considers it. The foolish person wantonly mocks it. The fearful person cautiously avoids it. Whereas the wise person boldly embraces it. Why? It seems so ‘pointless’, so ‘peculiar’, so ‘impractical’. And yet it’s not. For the ignorant soul seeking to comprehend consciousness, existence and the purpose of being a human being, it is the key to beginning to unlock the door. What door is this? To the House of Truth.
Either I alone exist, or else there is a Creator. Yet even if I alone, how?
How did I come to exist? I didn’t make myself. Who did?
Without Omniscience (All-Knowingness) there is no way to know anything for sure. Curiously, part of ‘knowing everything’ is KNOWING that you ‘know everything’. I certainly know that I don’t know such a thing! Namely, everything. So how is anything knowable? I could be wrong! Who knows? Ah, there. There is the rub. Who, indeed?
If there is no Creator, then there is no rational possibility for order in existence --- any order at all, no matter how tiny, infinitesimal & modest. Patterns & order do not come into existence all by themselves for no reason at all. To think so is to be a fool. Either unthinking (ignorant) or poor thinking (illogical). Truly, to purposefully think it so, whilst of sound intelligence and having plenty of time and opportunities to think it through, adequately, is to be anti-thinking (immoral). You are a brazen LIAR!
We human beings have our intelligent minds & free wills for a reason.
It’s part of the plan. It’s central to why we exist. A human mind is not there as a consequence of ‘random chance’ and ‘laws of nature’ so as to leave more progeny. Or, should we say, for a ‘blind’ thing called ‘evolution’ to produce ‘something’ after lots of ‘time’… and for no purpose at all, since ‘purpose’ is a quality of mind & will. But the thing called ‘evo devo’ is neither conscious nor determined. Or, should we say, if ‘determined’, determined ‘irrationally’, by a purportedly ‘blind’ causality.
Yet cause & effect are rational things. Where then is reason in evo devo?
There is no reason. We are reasoners trying to find reason in a reasonless world, reasoning ourselves into a pretended ‘reason’, and all for the reason of… avoiding real reason in our existence. Without a Creator we are our own ‘creators’. Whilst to imagine ourselves ‘creators’, we must forsake reason and defy all creation… the evidence it plainly offers us, if only we freely choose to look with honest & intelligent minds.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice [read: intelligent humans are willfully ignorant of the Truth About God for the sake of them pretending it’s okay to sin]: because that which is known of God is manifest in them [read: human beings of sound mind have what Catholic theologians call the ‘Law of Natural Reason’ on their hearts, making it impossible for intelligent humans not to know that God exists]. For God hath [has] manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him [read: the things about God that we can’t see with our physical senses], from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the THINGS THAT ARE MADE; his eternal power also, and divinity: SO THAT THEY ARE INEXCUSABLE.” (Romans 1:18-20 DRC)
This is Natural Law. There’s also Supernatural Law: infallible Catholicism.
Infallible truth gives us both a spiritual compass and an epistemological frame of reference in a world of ignorance. The Law of Natural Reason upon our hearts is like a lodestone, a magnetic rationality that draws us ineluctably toward this Infallible Truth. The Roman Catholic Religion is a diamond-hard and diamond-beautiful mountain commanding, in its all-encompassing immensity, the weather around it. We, the intelligent spirits that God made in His Image, are breaths of wind nearby.
There is no escaping it. We can fight it, but such a war is irrational.
Why defy what is clearly, infallibly and undeniably so true?
There is no reason in that… unless you hate the truth.
Since the Original Sin of Ss. Adam & Eve, most human beings, most of the time, have irrationally hated the Infallible Truth of God. Many times parts of humanity have tried to fight Our Creator’s Roman Catholic Mountain and His Holy Spirit of Truth. Humanity as a whole --- except for a mere eight human beings --- once rebelled completely, right before the Great Deluge. Today, humanity once again rebels completely.
Pope Pius IX realized this during the latter third of his life. It’s why he fought hard to define Papal Infallibility near the end of his life, achieving this goal against tremendous odds & opposition, even from in his own Church, of which he was the visible head. Because he saw the demonic storm attacking this Church, and he foresaw the stupendously hellish hurricane to come, in the very near future.
This future is now upon us, my beloved soul. Humanity is in Apostasy, we are collectively possessed --- requiring Exorcism --- and the Apocalypse has arrived, a reckoning for our rebellion. And all because… we hate this infallible truth.
+++ 6. Any Form at All Is Therefore Proof +++
of a Form From One Who Forms
The truth is, if you practice some other form of religion than Roman Catholicism: then you want to think that your religion is totally true; or else all religions share some truth and it doesn’t really matter where they differ; or that every religion is a fantasy and it’s only a ‘psychological comfort’ which religion you pretend to ‘believe’ in.
The truth is, too, if you lay claim to no religion at all: then you want to think that no religion is totally true; or else all religions share some truth and it doesn’t really matter where they differ; or that every religion is a fantasy and it’s only a ‘psychological comfort’ which religion a person pretends to ‘believe’ in.
That’s the truth. And it’s just simple logic. Anybody can see it.
It’s also why I combine the two things together, grouping those who practice some form of religion other than Catholicism with those who lay claim to no religion at all. Because it merely amounts to the same thing in the final analysis --- the assertion that Catholicism can’t be totally true.
Which is really just a religious belief. After all, my dear soul, are you omniscient (all-knowing)? Or are you infallible (never-wrong)?
Then you don’t know for sure that Catholicism can’t be totally true. Your assertion is merely an opinion. An opinion that is of a religious nature, and hence is a religious conviction.
In other words, to say that there is no God, or that you can’t be sure if there’s a God, or that God --- even if He exists --- doesn’t care what religion a person is, is a belief about something that is religious. It doesn’t matter if you have formal religious practices to go along with it. Lots of people call themselves ‘christian’ and don’t practice anything that is ‘christian’ apart from calling themselves by this name. The point is that they have beliefs that are religious. For instance, “Jesus is God.” That’s a belief and it’s religious.
Likewise atheists. They have beliefs, too, that are religious. For instance, “Jesus isn’t God.” Or, “God doesn’t exist.” Those are beliefs… and they’re religious.
Nor can they be absolutely ‘proven’ to be true --- a fact that clever atheists admit. I mean, think about it. If you aren’t all-knowing or never-wrong, then how could you ever completely ‘prove’ the assertion that God doesn’t exist, or that Jesus isn’t God? As logicians like to say, you can never completely ‘prove’ a statement that is negative.
Because there’s always the possibility for the person who isn’t omniscient or infallible, however remote you might want to think it, that an example exists which disproves your negative assertion. And it only takes one such example to do the job.
Consider. A person asserts that stones never fall from the sky. Why does he do this? Because he has never himself seen a stone fall from the sky and most people don’t go around claiming to have seen a stone fall from the sky. Hence, it seems to him (the self-styled ‘scientist’) pretty safe to assert that they do not. And since he or she can’t imagine how there could be stones flying around endlessly in the heavens until finally, for reasons that are, in the end, inexplicable as to why they inexplicably decide to drop onto the earth, then it is essentially ‘ironclad’ to assert that they ‘most certainly’ do not.
Case closed. Or is it?
The smart reader knows where I’m headed with this. Up until two or three hundred years ago, scientists would not believe that stones fell from the sky. They did not because they themselves had never seen one fall from the heavens. And they couldn’t imagine how it could be that a stone would ever fall from the sky. Ergo, concluded they, such stones… ‘inarguably’… cannot possibly, or ‘conceivably’, fall from the skies far above us.
Yet what about all those cases, regardless of how rare, where people apparently did, indeed, see for themselves these ‘celestial’ stones fall from the heavens above?
Ah, said the scientist back then, but we all know how rumors and superstitions are so very prevalent. There’s no reason to think, just because some yahoo claims it, that a stone has fallen from the sky. Besides which, even if there is any truth to the claim --- which there probably isn’t --- I’m sure there’s some wholly ‘reasonable’ explanation for it which doesn’t involve stones falling from the heavens. End of story.
Except it wasn’t. And we all know nowadays how this story really ends. They’re called ‘meteorites’ and everyone knows today that rocks truly do sometimes fall from outer space. They follow paths through the heavens called ‘orbits’ and, however long it may take, sooner or later some of those orbits intersect with the mass of the earth and plunge through our atmosphere as ‘meteors’. And if they strike the ground then they’re called ‘meteorites’. That’s the real story and now everybody believes it. Why?
Because eventually scientists saw at least some of the phenomenon for themselves. Enough of them, and prestigious enough in their reputations, that other scientists were forced to accept their testimony, that there really was something behind this whole ‘stone-falling-from-the-sky’ thing. Not only that, but some clever scientist or scientists came up with the explanation for it that we accept today. Namely, that rocks or other material bodies are traveling around continuously in the heavens along paths that are called ‘orbits’, and when these paths intersect with the earth then they become ‘meteors’.
Case really closed.
Which brings us to the next point. Because those so-called ‘yahoos’ that saw stones falling from the sky were right… weren’t they? It wasn’t mere rumor and it wasn’t simple superstition that caused them to claim that stones fell from the sky. They actually saw it. They were reasonable. It was the scientists who were irrational! Contrary to the scientists, the so-called ‘yahoos’ put two & two together and came up with four… “Hey! These stones suddenly crashed straight down through our roof. They must have fallen from the sky. How strange, alarming and deeply disconcerting!”
So why didn’t the scientists believe what they said?
The late Carl Sagan put it most succinctly (and I paraphrase roughly):
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
The catch is --- what is ‘EXTRAORDINARY’? Ponder carefully.
Someone has to define the word. So who gets to determine its exact meaning in this context? Just what is truly ‘extraordinary’ and what is merely ‘ordinary’? Upon what does the definition of that ‘extra’ in ‘extraordinary’ hinge?
Is it simply a lack of familiarity? In that case, a giraffe was once ‘extraordinary’ to an ignorant farmer during the mid-19th century on the American frontier. His disbelief in the existence of such a creature was hence ‘logical’. After all, for all the testimony in books, or from persons who had seen giraffes in person and could tell him about it, he could dismiss every bit of it as ‘ordinary evidence’ which can hardly begin to satisfy an ‘extraordinary claim’ like that of the existence of an outlandish-looking animal called the ‘giraffe’. He must see it with his own eyes in order to believe it. And, yet, we today call him a rube and a complete nincompoop when it comes to the fauna of this world.
Or is it only a lack of an acceptable explanation? In that case, a spherical earth was once ‘extraordinary’ to many Europeans during the early 2nd millennium A.D. Their disbelief in such sphericity was hence ‘logical’. After all, how in the world could folks on the opposite side of this sphere not fall off of the earth, or how could they explain the apparent flatness of the world --- relatively speaking, of course --- in their area? The suspicions of ancient thinkers, regarding the umbra of a lunar eclipse or the difference in angle of sunlight at the same time in distant places on earth, they could dismiss as ‘ordinary evidence’ incapable of satisfying an ‘extraordinary claim’. Let them see the whole earth with their own eyes… and then they might begin to believe it. And, yet, we today call them simpletons and consider them uneducated fools when it comes to the fact that the earth is a globe.
We could go on much longer. The point is, ‘extraordinary’ is a word that means whatever the prejudices of a person will demand it to mean. We repeat:
The word ‘extraordinary’ means whatever a person’s prejudices demand it to mean.
To a fairly typical American farmer of the 1840s, the reality of giraffes is an ‘extraordinary claim’ requiring ‘extraordinary evidence’. For many Europeans of the 1100s, the sphericity of the earth is an ‘extraordinary claim’ that needs ‘extraordinary evidence’ in order to believe it. To mid-18th century scholars, the existence of meteorites was an ‘extraordinary claim’ needing ‘extraordinary evidence’ before they could accept it. For physicists of the early 1900s, it was ball lightning which was an ‘extraordinary claim’ and demanded ‘extraordinary evidence’ for them to believe it was true.
The word ‘extraordinary’, then, says far more about the person speaking the word than it does about the thing spoken of in using the word about it. We reiterate:
The word ‘extraordinary’ says far more about the PERSON using the word than it does about the THING that is being described by this word!!!
Or, to put it another way, facts are facts, including reliable & honest testimony from the witnesses of these hard facts. And if the facts at hand, if only through such testimony of reliable & honest witnesses show clearly that a so-called ‘extraordinary’ claim is (*gulp*) true, then no amount of hard facts beyond what we have already found to be sure is going to make the claim any ‘more’ or any ‘less’ true. Ergo, our reluctance to believe is NOT because of the absence of a sufficient proof, RATHER, it is because of the very real presence of a deficient bias --- OUR UNWARRANTED & WILLFUL BIAS.
As in, “I can’t believe it’s true because I don’t want to believe it’s true.”
That is to say, it has nothing to do with whether or not it could be true. To the contrary, it is has everything to do with whether or not you like it to be true. That’s the problem!
And hence why hard evidence all by itself is not going to change this kind of person’s mind. It’s going to take tons of hard evidence. Furthermore, if the person’s prejudices are big enough & strong enough, then not even a ton of rock hard evidence is going to make a dent in his or her mind. They’ll stubbornly stick to their prejudice no matter what the evidence --- including reliable & eyewitness testimony --- indicates. Or, in the case of religion, he or she will believe what he or she believes regardless of its truth. The person’s mind is set… little things like facts aren’t going to change it.
So how does this tie in with you, my dear reader?
Whether or not you lay claim to a particular religion, you’ve got a certain amount of prejudice. Human beings love to think nowadays that it’s only ‘religious’ people who are prejudiced. This is nonsense. And anyone who dares to look with an unbiased mind can see it. Religion is not the litmus test of whether or not someone is biased. Or, should we say, even the supposedly ‘irreligious’ person is biased --- and precisely because he holds a belief that is religious and which is not grounded in hard fact!
To wit, the atheist who dogmatically says, “God does not exist,” is just as religiously ‘biased’ as the person who dogmatically asserts, “God does indeed exist.” Religion either way, and bias either way. It just depends on which side of the coin you stand. The coin, however, is there in either case. A coin, like money, that bribes & twists human minds.
What’s more, while the clever atheist can cite lots of impressive sounding ‘evidence’ that seems --- spun in a certain way --- to ‘disprove’ the existence of God, a highly intelligent theist (someone who says there’s a Maker) can cite lots of impressive sounding evidence that --- spun in another way --- appears to prove quite the opposite, that God exists.
So which is it? The bottom line is this:
Without God then a human being is left ultimately with chance. Everything in the end, without a Creator, comes down to a mere randomness. You may try to assert particular ‘rules of physics’ but the question still remains --- why those rules and not others? And if those rules just suddenly popped into existence for no discernible reason, then what’s to stop them from suddenly popping back out of existence, or for other rules entirely to suddenly pop into existence in opposition to, or replacement of, the rules that existed up till then? And why should those rules apply equally everywhere? Where’s the sense in that? If they suddenly and inexplicably popped into existence at random, then who’s to say they must apply equally at all points in our relatively local existence? It would make just as much sense if the ‘rules of physics’ popped into existence and only applied for a few centimeters or a few seconds. There is NO rhyme or reason WITHOUT a Creator. NOTHING has to make sense. It’s all RANDOM ultimately, PERIOD.
Without a Creator there is NO rhyme or reason to our existence. NOTHING has to be rational. It’s all ultimately based on RANDOMNESS --- period, and we are NOTHING but the offspring of CHANCE. Even purported ‘rules of physics’ are purely random in origin, it being mere chance that they POPPED into existence as they are, and there is NO reason to think that what popped into existence UNPREDICTABLY out of a thin emptiness by a non-causal chance will stick around INDEFINITELY or remain the SAME forever. Sheer logic demands that what happens UNEXPECTEDLY BY CHANCE can just as easily STOP happening unexpectedly WITHOUT causation, or happen DIFFERENTLY without causation. It is thus completely irrational to act like things are even partly rational when chance is the origin of everything, including the so-called ‘rules’ that are supposed to ‘govern’ everything!
Granted, the theist can’t ultimately explain here on earth why God exists. For the moment it is a mystery that is beyond our fullest grasp. Nevertheless, it is a rational mystery and thus possible to explain in a totally reasonable way --- just not fully until we know a lot more than we do now. Whereas the mystery of randomness as a source of existence is utterly irrational --- it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain, based ultimately on chance (and always will be since true randomness has NO causation and ISN’T utterly subject to logic!), WHY anything should pop SUDDENLY & UNEXPECTEDLY into existence or be the PARTICULAR way it is, subject to SUDDEN & NON-CAUSALLY DERIVED rules TO WHICH IT IS APPARENTLY SUBJECT.
End of sentence.
Therefore, for an atheist to assume, or act like, the universe is rational --- or that it ought to be rational --- is completely irrational. It is a leap of faith that is even bigger --- far bigger! --- than the one they accuse theists of making by positing that there is a Creator.
Meanwhile, the theist is thoroughly RATIONAL in presuming the EXISTENCE of a Creator. He can’t keep God in a box or produce Him on demand. He can’t explain everything about Him, or explain every reason why the Maker creates as He does.
But the intelligent & reasonable theist does know this with total rational certainty:
Nothing else makes rational sense. If ANY order exists in our world… and it DOES… then ONLY an All-Knowing & All-Powerful Creator can RATIONALLY be the source of this ORDER. Forget any purported existence of supposed ‘disorder’ in this world. Clever atheists love to tout this so-called ‘disorder’ as an argument against a Deity. However, we’re not concerned with any of that. Because no matter how much ‘disorder’ they may WANT to think they find, the SAME mystery will ALWAYS --- always! --- remain UNEXPLAINED… how is there order --- ANY ORDER AT ALL --- in the world, universe, cosmos or what-have-you we find ourselves existing within…?
The standard evolutionist explains order as the result of ‘random mutation’ via ‘natural selection’. The term ‘natural selection’ is a code for ‘rules of operation’. This is every Darwinist’s fallback, regardless of whether he’s talking about biological evolution or cosmological evolution. Always, out of randomness, chaos & disorder… there is a periodicity, predictability & order because --- voila! --- there is ACTUALLY an inexplicable ORDER in the world at large TO BEGIN WITH. Period. How so?
Because we begin not with randomness solely, but with randomness allied with order. In other words, with the ‘rules of operation’. Call them the ‘rules of physics’ or the ‘rules of genetics’ or whatever, it amounts to the same thing --- existence in an atheist’s world really isn’t completely random.
In fact, these mysterious & inexplicable ‘rules of operation’ are actually his ‘god’, the very thing that makes everything he or she thinks they see what it is in real physicality.
A very convenient god, too. A god that doesn’t require anything of him and leaves him or her utterly free to do whatever they want to do… or, rather, whatever they can get away with, unopposed by those around them. (Which, when you think about it, then means these kinds of people are their own ‘God’, deeming ‘true’ or ‘right’ to be whatever they wish or can get away with.) Because, after all, this ‘god’ of theirs is a very petty thing. A set of unconscious rules. Utterly banal, a mere construct of material precepts. Not very inspiring or noble. Although a particularly loquacious atheist can almost make it seem like a ‘religious experience’ to fathom the Darwinistic basis of a pantheistic & evolutionary philosophy. Why this tendency in modern humans… is it chance?
We dare to say, “No. Causality & rationality in nature demand a real reason.”
The upshot for solely & merely ‘evolution’ vs. ultimately & transcendently creation?
The evolutionary atheist takes a huge leap of blind faith and presumes a rational basis for a world that he must, if he is to be completely logical, explain as fully irrational in order to escape the necessity of invoking the existence of the Creator. Whilst, in a stark contrast, an intelligent theist takes only a little leap of logical faith and infers a rational basis for a world that, if he is to be wholly reasonable, he need not explain as anything except rational due to him first causally positing that the Maker made everything.
And the two are NOT reconcilable. For example, can a real Roman Catholic believe in evolutionary theory and the Dogma of Original Sin at the same time? Of course not. To accept Darwinism at face value is to deny the very existence of Ss. Adam & Eve. And yet our ultimate forefather & foremother, as well as the Original Sin, are infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic Faith. Moreover, for Darwinism, nature is ‘red in tooth & claw’. Whereas Catholicism’s Sacred Scripture assures us how God began creation in perfect peace and, with a New Heaven & Earth, completes it in perfect peace, defying a theory demanding death & bloodshed from the get-go. What’s more, Darwinism gives us no authentic hope of ‘living forever’ or ‘eternal bliss’, despite many claims lately to the contrary, as arrogance, imagination & ability increase apace --- along with insanity.
This won’t persuade an atheist. He’s committed to his theory a priori, regardless of what real & solid logic dictates. Hence, all he needs to do --- in his very limited thinking --- is find what he wants to believe is inexplicable ‘disorder’ in this world. Then, based on that, he builds his little empire into a cosmically ‘transcendent philosophy’ --- of how an order arises out of disorder, and all because mere randomness is allied with some sort ‘rules of operation’… but rules that pop into existence just as unexpectedly & unpredictably as the matter or energy that goes with them. So how can these odd rules explain anything in the end? Are we just supposed to ‘take it on faith’ that they’ve stuck around for long enough, remaining as we think them to be, to do what they’re supposed to be able to accomplish, given enough enormity of time and an inexplicably ‘endless’ opportunity to ‘evolve’?
Fatally, this makes any ‘form’ of evolutionary theory --- pun intended --- flawed.
You cannot be intelligent (and honest!) while pretending evolution is ‘true’.
It’s a ‘magnificent’ house of cards built upon the thinnest of air.
So thin, you mentally suffocate yourself.
Now, dear reader, we have no intention to sound insulting. Just frank.
The time of foolishness is fast drawing to a close. Sooner, rather than later.
To wit, our unique epoch, and its follies, is coming to an end. All edifices collapse.
Shockingly… for the modern… the ‘right side’ of history is Roman Catholicity. This is because Roman Catholicism is a divinely originated gem. Everything else upon our earth, or within or above, not ‘naturally’ arisen, is an artifice of humanity. If grounded in God’s Catholicity, then well & good. It will accomplish its purpose, even if eventually tainted with human foolishness in the end and dissipated for its going awry. The fact remains. Roman Catholicism, Whole, Entire & Undefiled, is God’s Priceless Infallible Truth.
Don’t believe me? Just live long enough. Or die first, perceiving the truth belatedly.
As a real Roman Catholic --- Whole, Entire & Undefiled --- I can state this with utter confidence. Because my religion, which is God’s Religion, is built upon aforementioned Infallible Truth. You, too, my dearest soul, can become (or stay…) Roman Catholic and have utterly trustworthy solid ground beneath your cognitive feet. Our Creator wants every human to be truly Catholic. This everyone includes YOU, every one of US.
But if determined to remain foolish, we’ll note a few other things for your benefit. Whether or not you wish to benefit --- that’s your choice. I urge you, choose wisely.
For example, if everything ‘evolved’ into existence by chance & ‘natural selection’… then why on earth is human ‘intelligence’ to be the ‘gold standard’ by which we study these things, and suppose this ‘intelligence’ to be adequate to ‘figure it out’ --- somehow --- discovering the truth? If randomly mutated & naturally selected… i.e., leaving more ‘offspring’ because of our evolutionary ‘advantage’… then what in the world does this ‘natural selection’ have to do with real intelligence & grasp of the truth? You savvy? What we suppose to be the ‘truth’ about ourselves can just as logically be concluded, ultimately, to be an evolutionary ‘advantage’… leaving more surviving offspring… rather than the actual perception of what is really ‘true’ about ourselves, or our odd ‘survival’ against all of the odds. Getting it? Purported ‘intelligence’ in this case is merely ‘evolutionary advantage’… and not a guaranteed truth of the situation. Put differently, ‘evolution’ doesn’t ‘evolve’ one’s ‘intelligence’ to see real ‘truth’ --- it ‘evolves’ our ‘thinking’ to do something that has nothing to do with ‘reality’ or a supposed ‘truth’. That is to say, whether or not we can truly understand anything concerning our reality, there’s no rational basis for concluding --- out-of-thin-air assumption, really --- that evolution has given us the ultimately successful ability, eventually, to ‘figure it all out’. All our purported minds & intelligence do, really, is bestow upon us an evolutionary ‘advantage’ to breed offspring ‘successfully’, or is ‘accidentally’ incidental to the neverending & always-branching tea cup ride of an evolutionary adventure. All of which is regardless of what the reality & truth may actually fully be. Now do you get it? The conundrum visible? Comprehending?
This is deeply self-contradictory. Bereft of ‘proof’ of our reality, it’s dubious.
Really, really, really dubious. So dubious it’s very much unbelievable.
Again, a modern evolutionist just assumes --- out of thin air --- that his or her mind & intelligence are there to see the truth. Or, at least, that this ‘mind’ is capable of seeing the truth about our surrounding reality, even if one’s supposed ‘mind’ along with a purported ‘intelligence’ then lends itself, reliably enough, to actually seeing & understanding one’s surrounding reality. How convenient that random chance & natural selection would do this for us! In reality, such chance & selection simply eliminate the ‘losers’ and elevate the surviving ‘winners’. You could ‘evolve’ to believe in odd fantasies and be none the wiser… indeed, is this not a Darwinist’s classic explanation for any ‘religious’ belief?
The point is, it’s an assumption out of thin air that evolution will produce a mind, compounded with intelligence and accurate comprehension, to see reality more & more fully for what it is. It’s just as reasonable to presume, based on evolutionary theory, that we’ve evolved to see what we want to see, and want to think we understand, in order to better ‘survive’, or as a purely random by-product of the evolutionary process. And, if this is the case, then we’ve no way to be sure. Mind & intelligence are illusory.
Sort of like another version of ‘solipsism’ come back to bite you big time.
And another intrinsic dagger in the heart of evolutionary theory.
Our pardon if we’ve crushed a reader’s dream.
But I want truth, not imaginary dreams. How about you? Still along for the ride? Excellent! Then let us proceed. This is knight errantry, intellectually speaking. Kind of fun, eh? To joust at big bugaboo dragons of the mind and pierce them to the heart. Then, like clouds melting in the sun, or a fog lifting as day waxes, real understanding dawns.
Light tends to do that --- i.e., assuming you’ve eyes and have them wide open.
But let us examine one more thing that is critical to evolutionary theory.
One of the open secrets of Darwinism is
that, prior to radioactive dating,
evolutionists devised what was then considered a gargantuan timeline of
opportunities for chance and mutation to do something amazing… like
‘create’ biological life and ‘form’ endless types of
physical organisms, some still living, whilst most now extinct. You see, when
Charles Darwin electrified modern academia with his book, On the Origin of Species, in 1859, there was no such thing as
‘radioactivity’. Or, should we say, no one yet suspected the
existence of a thing we call ‘radioactivity’. How, then, did they
find ‘enough time’ for random mutation & natural selection to
pull perpetual rabbits out of the evolutionary hat…? Oh, very easy. They simply assumed there had to have
been at least a few hundred millions of years of time available to do
so. This they in turn based on an assumption that major
catastrophes never happen to the earth, which, of course, would wreak
havoc with the slow, plodding pace of evolutionary change over millions
of years. This assumption geologists call
‘uniformitarianism’ or ‘gradualism’. It had
already established itself in academia by the early 1800s, paving the way for
scholars to readily accept the idea of
On the surface, the reasoning could appear ‘believable’. Who’s personally seen a worldwide Great Deluge lately? Comfortably far away enough back in time, a daring little thinker can reject anything ‘traditional’ with perfect aplomb & haughty mien. This done, the daring… yet reasonably clever… thinker can then observe, “Hmmm. Things go on across centuries & millennia. Given enough time, remarkably huge things can happen that, short of this enormous amount of time, wouldn’t be thought possible. Nevertheless, why not? Perhaps it takes millions of years. Yet if the earth keeps rising by millimeters long enough in one particular area, then mountains can be made where there were none before. And the sedimentary rock in these precise mountains could have been laid down for millions of years before that occurred, as an ocean, existing then, slowly precipitated soils & grains of sand upon the sea floor. All is explicable as uniform, gradual change over countless eons. Ergo, it must be true!” And yet not really. It’s just a preference.
And one that, may we add, the daring little thinker never witnessed for himself?
This is the foundation of Darwinistic evolutionary theory originally back then.
There was no ‘stunning
proof’ and Mr. Darwin’s first book was filled with all kinds of
conditional or suppositional statements, couched in terms of
‘one-may-suppose’ and the like. Without feigning exactitude of
wording or counts of his phrases, it is nonetheless true that he proposed a theory of thought --- one lacking
in hard proof galore. It was a house of cards that enchanted a generation of
scientists already way predisposed to believe in such a thing without hard proof. They were
‘sure’ the evidence would materialize, given enough time &
research. This is why many leading scientists then, in the late 1800s, opposed
And so it was. Radioactivity was not discovered until the 1890s. By the first decade of the 20th century, an evolutionist tried to put it to use. What really galvanized Darwinists, though, were radioactive isotopes (types of atomic elements with varying numbers of the subatomic particle called a ‘neutron’, not changing its elemental nature, but effecting its weight and tendency toward radioactive decay, if any) that, thought they, supported any millions or billions of years contentions, giving plenty of time --- supposed they --- for biological life to arise via random mutation & natural selection. Notice, however, how evolutionary scientists of the late 1800s first presumed a time span of untold hundreds and hundreds of millions of years, void of hard evidence to back them up? This alone alerts a truly cautious & logical thinker about the honesty & tenability of Darwinist dating claims. So how about radioactivity? Did this kind of ‘dating method’ luckily provide the ‘hard proof’ for their decades-long assumption prior to knowledge of radioactivity? Did they really pull rabbits out of hats, or was it just clever tricks?
Here’s where it gets interesting. Few people know --- not even the scientists we unthinkingly would presume to know --- that radioactive dating rests upon three foundational assumptions. Many scientists, involved in this area of expertise, are minimally aware of two of these three assumptions, yet cover over potential problems with further assumptions. The third? I’ve never yet found a scientist who even registers the implication on his or her mental radar. They’re that clueless. And, were that not big enough for you, there is a fourth corollary assumption involved, another open secret of venerable modern evolutionary theory when it comes to paleontology… the study of ancient bones and their claimed ages. Have the appetite, dear reader? Let’s dive in.
When isotopes of elemental atoms are radioactive, it means their nucleus is unstable. Viz., the subatomic protons & neutrons that make up the center of an atom don’t tend to stick together indefinitely. They occasionally fly apart. Sometimes a lot, depending on an isotope involved. To get a handle on how fast this can happen, physicists came up with a notion known as ‘half life’. It’s pretty simple, really. How long does it take for half of a sample of a particular radioactive isotope to decay, that is, for its nuclei to fall apart? If figured out correctly, then you can keep reiterating this calculation till nothing of the original isotope is left. Meanwhile, knowing how fast the decay occurs lets scientists determine, they think, how long this has been going on. Therefore, how it is that they assert so confidently that this specimen right here, which we’re announcing for the knowledge (oftentimes amazement or jealousy…) of our academic peers, or public generally, is this old and neither more nor less. Or, to be really exact, they usually provide a fairly narrow range of dates, in this way portraying ‘humility’ by being ‘forthcoming’ about the limitations of their knowledge or accuracy. Truthfully, overwhelming claims about such things are hubris; you daren’t doubt them.
Well, that is, if you care about their opinion of you. Or their sycophants.
So what are the three foundational assumptions of radioactive dating?
· One, the ‘parent isotope’ can be correctly known. Every radioactive isotope begins as one particular combination of protons (what makes the element it is, known as the ‘atomic number’ or number of protons) and neutrons (how heavy these atomic elements are as individual atoms, or collectively as a whole, and determine its stability or lack thereof). This is the starting point of radioactive series decay, the isotope decaying into another type of atom & isotope, this in turn, oftentimes, leading to further decay, on down the line until you get final stability with an atom & isotope that does not decay more. The first is a ‘parent isotope’. Question --- how do scientists know how much parent isotope was in a specimen to start with? Answer --- they really can’t know very precisely, it’s a lot of guess work. Over centuries or millennia rocks & minerals can leach. This has a result of, potentially, the ‘parent isotope’ either being leached out of the specimen or else leached into, if only partly or marginally. Whichever… do you know what this does? Leaching out the ‘parent isotope’ is like pushing the radioactive clock hands ahead: you end up with a calculation & consequent ‘date’ that is far too ‘ancient’, depending on the ratio of parent-to-daughter isotopes. While leaching into the specimen is equivalent to pushing a clock hand behind. How do smart scientists account for this? Without getting way too complicated (and we don’t want to mock scientists needlessly, or unfairly), they estimate. Yes, in weighing various factors which they think may have, or may have not, done something to the specimen over countless centuries & millennia, they make whatever they think to be their ‘best guess’. How much you wanna bet this guesswork is ‘colored’ by their evolutionary presumptions? Natch. Hence, audaciously point out I, we rely on their ‘authority’, NOT hard evidence.
· Two, the ‘daughter isotope’ can be correctly known. This is the reverse of ‘parent isotopes’. The ‘daughter isotope’ is the last atomic element & isotope in the decay series. It is the one that is eventually stable, not decaying any further. Problem? It is the same as with ‘parent isotope’. Again, question --- how do scientists know how much daughter isotope was in the specimen to start with, that is, before greedy little academic hands get hold of it? (And this includes both how much daughter isotope to begin with… before radioactive decay starts in an ancient specimen… and how much leaches into or out of it.) And again, answer --- they really can’t know very precisely, it’s a lot of guess work. Period. Over centuries & millennia rocks & minerals can leach. If the ‘daughter isotope’ has leached out of the specimen, this pushes the radioactive clock hands backward, leading to much younger ages that are not correct. Likewise, if the ‘daughter isotope’ has leached into the specimen, this pushes the clock hand forward, leading to much older calculations that are not correct. Once more, without getting ridiculously complicated for the poor untrained reader, smart scientists estimate in order to account for this possibility. Yet were they around for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years --- millions like they want to believe when it comes to far-reaching eons acceptable to Darwinists --- watching this specimen carefully so as to know exactly what it has undergone over these gargantuan amounts of time? Of course they haven’t. They weigh various factors which they think may have, or may have not, done something to the specimen over countless eons. And thus they make whatever they think to be their ‘best guess’. Once more… how much you wanna bet this guesswork is ‘colored’ by their evolutionary presumptions? Naturally! (No pun intended… much.) Hence, audaciously point out I, we infinitely trusting public rely on their ‘authority’, NOT hard evidence.
· Three --- and this is the fun one --- the rate of radioactive decay for a specific isotope can be known and is invariant over a colossal amount of time. Don’t get the ramifications? Allow me to spell it out for you. If the ‘half life’ of an isotope is to be known, then it has to be measured. Scientists of the last hundred years or so have nifty little instruments for doing this. Some ways are thought of as more accurate than others. Some ways have superseded older ways and are thought of as more accurate, or at least easier, less time consuming and less expensive. First problem with this assumption, then --- what makes them think the radioactive rate has to be invariant… that is, unchanging? Think carefully. Do any of these folks live for more than 70 years, perchance a 100 years or more? No? Well… then however in the world do they ‘know’? Sorry to be the party pooper. (Okay, I admit, I’m not really that sorry. Matter of fact --- totally not sorry at all. Uh, (*giant gulp*), does this make me a ‘bad’ person? Or horrible Catholic? No. Admittedly, I’m a bad Catholic due to all my sins. It just makes me an imp.) Attention! Man up, people. Face facts. There is no logical reason assuming, without eyewitness omniscience, that radioactive decay rates never change. Scientists experimented with various environmental factors so as to investigate radioactive decay. Notwithstanding, this does NOT mean they’ve covered all the bases. There are factors --- both natural & supernatural --- that they can and have missed in their rather narrow thinking (narrow, because they blinker themselves with their own modern prejudices & evolutionary assumptions). It is entirely possible, to the truly open-minded & rigorously logical thinker, that half life radioactive decay rates could vary… mayhap dramatically by our presently limited ways of thinking. Nothing ‘magically’ demands that this could not happen. Only bias & ignorance would assume otherwise, out of thin air. Meaning? This all by itself could put dating estimates seriously out of whack. Whilst on top of all this, ever examined, for instance, the claimed half life of Uranium 238? Um… no? Why ever in the world not? Just kidding. I know persons like me are weird. Most of us have no curiosity about these things. Uranium 238 is a radioactive isotope with --- we kid you not --- a claimed radioactive half life of 4.5 billion years. You read that correctly. Billions! You could sit around for quite a while in the laboratory waiting for half of that sample to decay. Do scientists the life span, let alone the patience, to study that one over adequate time? Let’s be a party pooper again: no they don’t. There’s a whole lot of guesstimation going on here. Don’t get me wrong. Some scientists are smart. Incredibly smart. And they’ve got some impressive instruments. Howsoever, we’re talking about a specimen of trillions upon trillions upon trillions of atom isotopes of Uranium 238. We’re also talking about detecting, in examining the specimen, mere hundreds, or thousands, of atoms decaying in months or years studying the specimen adequately. There’s room for lots of uncertainty. Even were radioactive decay rates in the remote ballpark for the present day, any ‘plausible’ estimates are still way, way, way off overall. Incidentally, this, essentially, is where evolutionists get their latest ‘4.5 billion years’ old terrestrially-estimated age. Lots of time for life-by-chance on earth, eh?
So they would like to think. Actually, there was a huge stink in the 1960s between evolutionists and mathematicians specializing in probability. Even with billions of years, said the mathematicians, there’s still far too much complexity for mere chance to account for life on earth. Back down!!! demanded the evolutionists. Your calculations have to be wrong!!! And so they did. The mathematicians, that is. Because when it comes to myth regarding origins in modern times, myth always wins. Not because it’s true. Nor for morally justifiable reasons. Well, rightly reasoned moral justification, I mean.
But as a fervently committed evolutionist, devoutly upholding your religion?
The Religion of Modernism, the one hating the Religion of Catholicism?
Absolutely. The ends justifies the means. Meaning, Catholicism ends.
Were it possible. Which it’s not. (Pssst --- don’t tell them that…)
Oh, and the fourth corollary assumption involved in evolutionary theory? When Darwinists dig up bones, they will try to ‘date them’ and find what they consider a ‘believable age’ for them. This can be geological, they presuming they know the age of a ‘geological strata’ in which the bones were situated. Sometimes they use the radioactive decay method, if available. The open secret --- if you study the field of paleontology --- derives from the fact that they will often date the samples repeatedly, or even use many different methods of radioactive dating. Do such efforts agree? Not really. That’s the secret. Whenever evolutionists think the results ridiculous, they simply throw them out. Where they think them in the ballpark, however widely dispersed, they ‘massage’ the data and come up with a date that they suppose is ‘believable’. Yet hard fact? Not actually. Yet again it is a house of cards founded on Modernist academic dogma.
In any case, my beloved reader and precious soul, you’ve something to think about. Assuming you haven’t thought of it already. I don’t think most have. I’ve met tens of thousands of people in my life, and I’ve read hundreds of thousands of things in digital, print & otherwise. It’s very rare to find persons who contemplate these things apart from intellectuals, and even amongst today’s highly educated thinkers it’s still unusual. All the same, not worth thinking? Not on your life. This is origins we’re talking about, and roots are everything. Without roots the plant cannot stand up or grow, and without roots one drifts through life void of purpose, foundation, parameters and any sense of location.
We have not meant to oversimplify, which I’m sure scientists would complain of.
Yet my audience is not just learned scientists, and even the learned fail to think.
About necessary things, that is to say. This is as rudimentary as it gets. There is nothing more profound than how everything began and how we as human beings came to be. It’s simple --- either we are our own Gods or else there is a God Who both created & formed us and gave us pattern, parameters, foundation, purpose & destination. Wherefore? It is rudimentary. For this Own Good God’s Pleasure. It is our responsibility to learn this.
I was not raised Catholic, nor did I ever expect to become truly Roman Catholic.
I am the anti-Luther and the anti-Modernist. Raised to be both, a rebel rebel.
Namely, raised doubly to rebel… yet, oddly, rebelling against rebellion.
Just for the sake of ‘rebelling’? That is rather pointless. Defining one’s whole life by what you rebel against. Think about it. Are you independent? Truly? No, you are actually dependent upon that which you rebel against --- or else why bother rebelling against it? There is no real independence in that. True independence is becoming truly yourself.
Who are you? What is your ‘self’? Catholicism answers each question perfectly.
Perfectly in-and-of-itself, and perfectly in that it is infallibly true, doubtlessly.
As we noted above --- there is no frame of reference in a world of ignorance. Only Infallible Truth can provide that frame of reference without which it is not reasonably possible to know anything for certain, aside from the fact that you exist and know that you exist. But how do you exist? And what is your purpose or place in this cosmos in which you find yourself (apparently) existing? That’s the real question. To which, surprisingly, there is a real answer. Not more confusion, lies or no answers.
Want the answer? Then don’t be content with any evolutionary theory.
It is no real answer at all. It is a fake answer designed to enslave.
Not to make you truly independent. That is part of the lie.
Not that we foolishly accuse every believer in Darwinism of purposefully --- with all conscious awareness of doing so --- lying. Most evolutionists are ‘sincerely deluded’. To wit, they have deluded themselves because they want to be deluded. They hate Almighty God, Our Creator, that much. And they ‘love’ themselves so much that they wish to sit upon God’s Throne, decreeing as they wish about truth & falsehood, or right & wrong. That is the truth. Not flattering, but true. Which do you want? Flattery, or truth? One caring enough to care chooses truth every time. What do you care for? I care for the Infallible Truth. It’s the only thing that matters to me. It’s why I’m Catholic. God upended my life and I am thankful that He did. Otherwise, I’d be aimless.
There are others like me. Like, but unlike. They, too, care. Except that they care for falsehoods. Truly. Like their father, Lucifer, they are little angels of false light. This is how very much they hate Our Maker. And Modernist evolutionary theory is just the ticket. The ticket to accomplishing hatred with a maniacal vengeance.
Find that hard to believe? Then you really haven’t lived.
I’ve met some of them. They are evil incarnate.
To touch the face of evil… and live.
Whether or not you ever touch that
decaying, malevolent & putrid face, try touching the Face of Life. His Name
is Christ Jesus --- the real
Jesus, the One Who began His Roman
Catholic Body, the
Even if your body stays in one place the whole time, from birth to death.
The journey is within, just as the
The cosmos outside of us cannot equal the cosmos inside of us.
That’s what being made in God’s Image means in the end.
Creation begins with Him Alone speaking, to Himself.
It completes with Him, speaking Face-to-face with us. Pray for those graces!
For the one whose meeting with Him goes well --- the good Roman Catholic --- an existence with the One Who is from “eternity to eternity” awaits us for an “eternity”. (Ecclesiasticus 42:21 & Daniel 12:3 DRC) World without end, forever & ever.
Amen. This is Catholic ‘evolution’, truly revolutionary, celestial institution. It is to find life through a kiss with death, only to really wake up. And the nightmare masquerading as a reverie is over forever. Every day in timeless perpetuity is a new day, perpetually.
Like a new bride, or a child, and summer always beginning, first day neverending.
And seated upon Our Mother’s Lap, the Throne of Wisdom, Mary Immaculate.
+ + +
NOTE: If the reader has enjoyed, or benefited from, this book, you may wish to examine Geocentricity: The Structure of the Cosmos as Deduced From a Scholarly & Catholic Paradigm; & How Supposed ‘Evidence’ for an Ultimately Frameless… or ‘Acentric’… Universe Fails Utterly to ‘Prove’ a Centerless Existence, But Ups Geo-Centrality , also in the Books & Articles section. The two deal with similar dilemmas resulting from the dominance & tyranny of Modernist Religion, resulting in an Orwellian thought enslavement bereft of truth.
+ + +
Pilate’s query met:
if you’ve come to this webpage directly from a search
engine or other website, then, when done viewing this webpage
--- and assuming you wish to view more of this website’s pages ---
please type the website’s address (as given above right before this
note) into the address bar at the top of your browser and hit the
‘enter’ button on the keyboard of your computer.
Please go here about use of the writings
on this website.
© 2019 by Paul Doughton.
All rights reserved.