The
Achilles’ Heel
of
Evolutionary
Theory
XXXXXXX
Wherein
We
Expose
the Fundamental
Flaw of
Darwinistic Theory,
or
‘Evo-Devo’, Along With a
Few
Other Intrinsic Errors;
and Also Illustrate How
It Is in
Compatible
With
Catholicism
XXXXXXX
“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 & SEPTEMBER 2019.
XXXXXXX
Intended by the
Author of This Book
for the
Greater Glory of the Adorable Triune Catholic God,
for the
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,
and
under the
Euphonious Patronage of St. Cecilia, the Eloquent Patronage
of St.
Catherine of
Ven. Mariana de
Jesus Torres, Virgins &
Martyrs.
XXXXXXX
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!
XXXXXXX
PREFACE:
This booklet centers on an excerpt from
Part 4
of a longer book,
Inter Regnum
.
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 other
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.
Period.
+++ 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.
Which is?
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?
Which are?
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
revolutionaries ended
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.
In this
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.
Anybody.
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.
Period.
Which is really
just a religious belief. After all, my dear soul, are you omniscient (all-knowing)?
Or are you infallible (never-wrong)?
No?
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.
Why?
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.
We repeat:
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.
AFTERWORD:
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, inexplicably & mysteriously 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 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, every & all ‘religious’ beliefs,
especially the traditional and not modernist kind?
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
‘it-could-be-so’, ‘perhaps’,
‘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.
ADDENDUM:
Like late last month, August, with the
Ufology
booklet, and early this month,
September, with the
Geocentricity
booklet, I’m adding a little something to this Evolutionary booklet after nearly 3 months of having originally
posted it. Why? With the first two writings, it was to explain a parable
further, to explicate Divine Allegory. With this writing, it is to penetrate to
the ontological crux, to pierce darkness and decimate it with Divine Light.
Signifying? When you think rationally, by the Law of Natural
Reason upon one’s heart, as a human being of adequate intelligence, and by the Graces
of the Spirit of Truth, Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost, then it is possible
to get to the core of what you’re examining. Want to understand something
imperative to the most rudimentary
of levels, beyond which it’s not
possible to go, i.e., get more simple
& profound? Humanly speaking, while we can’t know everything apart from Our Uncreated Creator,
He does indeed make it more than possible to know what we can & must, and what is good.
Period.
So what may we know most simply &
profoundly regarding our existence?
What
is it we can & must, or what is good, to know, about our
existence?
For any evolutionary
‘explanation’ for human existence --- or the existence of any
biological life or physical objects or fundamental forces or what-have-you
---it amounts to the following: MATTER PRECEDES MIND. We repeat: matter PRECEDES
mind.
And what does this mean?
It means that one assumes…
out of thin air… as if it were an indisputable ‘postulate’…
that everything starts with matter, somehow, either popping into
existence unexpectedly & inexplicably, or else existing forever ---
somehow --- without beginning or ending.
Somehow. Get it?
Mind & order exist somehow. Curious human beings want to
explain how. Every human being, whether
curious or not, needs to know how,
having an aching need to know how in spite of (mayhap) not even knowing they have this need, not knowing themselves well enough to discover & realize they
have this need, needing to know how they
exist.
So how did mere matter --- either popping into existence somehow,
unexpectedly & inexplicably, or else existing forever somehow, without
beginning or ending --- give
a magical arising and mysterious formation of conscious mind out of unconscious
matter? Eh? How did this happen? And
what is ‘consciousness’, and how does something that is unconscious somehow, mysteriously & inexplicably, make
something that is conscious?
Today’s so-called
‘scientists’ (yester-century’s
‘natural philosophers’ before science & scientists became a
thing) are overwhelmingly Darwinistic
evolutionists. Ergo, they must surmise that MATTER PRECEDES
MIND. That is, that first comes matter, and
then… somehow… comes mind later on, out of this matter.
They think this ‘proven’ because, studying physical brains for the
past century or two, the ability to think, reason, feel, perceive and so forth,
appears to coincide with the proper functioning of this physical brain,
either through birth & original condition, or else through unfortunate
injury & consequent brain damage. Then, committing the logical fallacy
of ‘correlation is
causation’, they presume --- out of thin air --- that the correlation of such is an
‘impossible-to-refute’ argument for their solely material basis
for everything.
What this logical fallacy &
philosophical prejudice then amounts to in their everyday
‘scientific’ thinking --- and whether or not they reason it out far
enough to see why they think
as they do --- is some form of the following purely materialistic theory of
origin:
That a movement of matter magically can
cause mind & consciousness to arise.
Yes, that’s right. It really is
that simplistic, if you’ve the mind to fathom it.
(Honestly,
no pun intended. Certain terms in certain subjects just pop
up!)
For what is a brain? Correct. A physical thing, very exceedingly complex in human beings,
operating with an untold & insanely huge number of neurons that link
together via synapses, transmitting electrical impulses both in the human brain
and throughout a body along sympathetic, parasympathetic & enteric highways
of neurons & nerves. Or, at least, this being as much about the
brain, and its support of its particular body, that we think that we know,
plumb & understand. We think. Hmmm.
For, while we seem to know a lot about
the brain and our nervous system lately… candidly speaking, there could
be way far more to learn about the brain & nerves than we could even
suspect based on what we think we know, or how we interpret what we know.
Seriously.
But let us not get sidetracked with
interesting yet tangential points.
For the key point remains paramount ---
the brain & nerves are material things, these parts
of our bodies functioning by MOVEMENT of material molecules and material
electrical impulses. Most if not all of today’s scientists, most of whom
are Darwinistic evolutionists, thus presume, automatically, that
this then ‘explains’ consciousness. Unquestioningly, think they, since they assume MATTER PRECEDES MIND,
all scientists studying the brain, etc., are merely ‘filling in the
details’ or ‘gathering invaluable insights’ about how
the brain & etc. function. Never think they to
ask:
“Hold
it. Why would, and how does, motion of matter
‘create’ consciousness?”
I mean, matter is in motion throughout
the universe. And yet we don’t appear to encounter ‘conscious
entities’ in connection to the vast majority of this movement of matter.
Are large galaxies, with their numberless stars and complex motions,
‘making’ a conscious galactic mind, being a sentient entity that we
could talk with if only we learned its language or means of communication? Are
smaller yet multifaceted planets, with very many intricate motions on and
within them, ‘causing’ a conscious planetary mind, being a sentient
entity that we could converse with if only we learned the planet’s
language or means of communication? Is it like celebrated James Lovelock’s
‘Gaia Hypothesis’ and ‘deep ecology’, wherein --- in
its most audacious forms --- the earth itself is like a pagan ‘mother
goddess’ that is ‘self aware’, conscious in some sense of the
word? Whatever the preferred example, what
is the very mysterious motion of matter in, for instance, a
human brain, resulting magically &
inexplicably in the formation of consciousness? How does this actually
‘explain’ anything when it comes to the origin of human
minds & consciousness?
And the
answer… IT DOESN’T
EXPLAIN IT. We simply act like it does. When, in reality, it never occurs
to Darwinistic evolutionary scientists that, until you can reliably &
repeatedly form --- and describe in absolutely intricate detail what’s
going on inside these absolutely intricate material brains --- then why
‘must’ we suppose the mysterious movement of matter can
‘cause’ any kind of consciousness to arise?
You only want to think it does because you unthinkingly assume:
MATTER
PRECEDES MIND.
This is why an evolutionary
scientist doesn’t think to think that it’s necessary
for the evolutionary scientist to truly explain, as well as reliably
& repeatedly reproduce in a laboratory setting, how a mysterious
& fantastic motion of matter can consequently precipitate something
like human minds & consciousness. Because they already
simplistically start with the unchallenged assumption that matter precedes
mind.
Therefore,
how could it possibly be thinkable that matter doesn’t do
this?
We really can’t understand or
explain it in adequate detail --- let alone reproduce it from scratch,
repeatedly, in a laboratory setting --- and, yet, here we are. Human
consciousness and human minds exist. Ipso facto, even without having
understood or explained it in any adequate detail that is truly
believable --- let alone reproduce it from scratch, repeatedly,
in a laboratory setting --- it ‘must’ be true since there’s no
other way to ‘explain’ it!
Got it now? This is the kind of unthinking & irrational mentality
we’re dealing with.
For there is another way to
explain it. For the unfettered & free mind, that is:
MIND
PRECEDES MATTER.
We reiterate:
It is MIND & CONSCIOUSNESS
which comes FIRST, matter following.
Oh, but if the determined evolutionist
finds this an idea too shocking & appalling to countenance, arguing that
such a ‘radical’ or ‘ridiculous’ idea cannot be
understood or explained in adequate detail --- let alone reproduced from
scratch, repeatedly, in a laboratory setting --- then we, in response, dare to
point out a single logical fact…
Namely, how ‘matter
precedes mind’ achieves nothing, logically speaking.
It merely provides intellectual
‘cover’ for the stubborn agnostic or atheist.
Whereas ‘mind precedes
matter’ achieves something, logically speaking.
To
wit, it’s a rational starting point for why mind &
consciousness exist.
No smart & honest person pretends
otherwise. Such a person only concludes what is necessary to explain anything
at all. Or, to put it differently, no
amount of hypothesis has ever yet truly
explained, in rigorous & adequate detail --- or reproduced conscious minds in a laboratory, supercomputer,
android or what-you-will, repeatedly
--- human minds & consciousness. Nor
does a smart & honest person have any real reason to suppose that
materialistic theories ever could
truly explain human consciousness.
Nevertheless, in trading one unknown for
another ‘unknown’… viz., ‘mind
precedes matter’… we do go from
irrationality to rationality. Yes, that’s right. It’s smug
stupidity to presume that a human being can know everything in this temporal
life on his or her own. That is
irrational. And such smug stupidity includes assuming out of thin air, unreasonably and counterfactually,
that mind arises from matter.
Meanwhile, in
realizing that MIND PRECEDES
MATTER, the ‘unknown’ of how a conscious mind could exist to
begin with is a RATIONAL UNKNOWN. This is because
positing that mind comes first, then
matter, then allows a human being, with a conscious mind, to RATIONALLY EXPLAIN, with
increasing knowledge, matter’s structure throughout the cosmos and its
correlation, in our brains, with mind & consciousness.
Get the distinction? See the intrinsic
logic? Brave enough to face where it leads?
Or,
perhaps we should say, passionate enough for truth to see where it leads?
Because that’s what it really
comes down to. Loving the truth about truth.
‘MATTER PRECEDES
MIND’ or ‘MIND PRECEDES MATTER’?
The question is profound, rudimentary
and absolutely necessary.
No person of sound mind can honestly
deny it.
The ‘invisible’ is not
consequently ‘unreal’.
Our invisible
minds are quite real.
That all by itself is sobering.
The day that I am uploading this
addendum to the Evolutionary booklet
is solemnly important to a real & wise Roman Catholic. It is the day that
our Church, Our Creator’s Singular Means of Visible Salvation into an
Invisible Realm, has chosen in order to loft the highest veneration & honor
to the Name of His Mother, the Woman Who He chose for His Incarnation,
from Whose Immaculate Womb He took on Human Flesh. And whatever in the world is
Her Name? Mary, Our Lady & Star of the Sea.
(The
affliction of Protestantism and Modernist scholarship likes to pretend
that Her Name could not possibly, in the ancient Hebrew or Aramaic mean these
things --- Lady or Star of the Sea --- but, for all their academic learning,
their criticism is based on bias and speculation, not factual certainty.
St. Jerome, an early Church father & doctor, and masterful linguist in
Latin, Greek & Hebrew, assures us of Her Name’s Significance.
As well, my own study of Hebrew solidly confirms the same… Our Lady & Star of the Sea.)
This is what physical humans, materially
minded, call a ‘miracle’.
For Catholic saints, in heaven or on
earth, it is more ‘routine’.
Yet it truly is the Greatest Miracle
that God has ever done.
Nor will time’s passage, or
time’s end, lessen Its lustre.
Such miracles are rife in Catholicism.
Miracles which philosophically materialist scientists, who are Darwinistic
evolutionists, reject, mock or ignore with a kneejerk bias… because they
‘must’. Because they very badly do not want to believe in a
God Who is Roman Catholic, let alone any kind of Maker at all. Because
this would then require them to ask, humbly & logically, “What is it that God created us
for?” And, “Why in the
world did Our Maker give humans intelligent minds & free wills?”
Then, following Natural Reason and the
Holy Ghost’s graces, they would sincerely search for the answers to these
logical questions, discover Roman Catholicity Whole, Entire & Undefiled,
see & accept this Holy Religion’s vast multiplicity of miracles ---
leading to the collapse of their Darwinistic, Modernistic & Luciferian
edifice.
They would have to bow on their knees,
humble their wills, and believe.
As well as obey this Uncreated
Creator’s Purpose for their existence.
The Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary is also the
Queen of Highest Heaven, being God’s Specially Chosen Throne of Wisdom,
and the Jacobian Ladder to Eternal Life. The prejudice hardening their hearts
is the prejudice of their spiritual father, the Original Rebel, he who fell
from beauty & rationality into the Pit of Ugliness & Lies. Buried
deeply inside themselves, they know this. But they desperately need an
‘excuse’ for unbelief. God permits this during the Great Apostasy
as an ultimate punishment.
Notwithstanding, our modern blindness will come to an ultimate end.
When it does, She
will be standing there, in plain sight.
His Mother,
Mary, the Immaculate One.
Remember? The Throne
of Wisdom. And Wisdom’s Source is the Fear of God. Incredibly
unpopular to say or acknowledge nowadays. Arrogantly modern human beings
don’t want to think they have to fear anyone or anything… apart
from suffering & pain. Which, while we often won’t
admit it, is proof that we’re not our own ‘gods’.
We know this. Or, at least, could know
it. If we really wanted to.
If I have anything worthwhile to do, it
is pointing this out.
If I am despised for doing so, then I
deserve it.
May I bear that burden patiently.
In the meantime, my dearest reader, I
beseech you, don’t ignore the message. By all means, go ahead and despise
me, the messenger! Yet you ignore the message at your own eternal peril.
Darwinistic evolutionary theory is false. It does not awe or frighten
me. Are you frightened? Of
what? Finding out, and admitting, that it’s false? Why is that? What are you afraid of?
What have you to lose, giving it up and admitting that it’s wrong? Apart from your purported ‘godness’. The fantasy that you may believe as you wish. Without everlasting
repercussions. For while you can believe as you wish --- God
bestows free will on any human of adequate intelligence --- there’s a
very definite distinction between ‘may’ and
‘can’. You certainly can… nonetheless,
may you?
‘Matter precedes mind’ or
‘mind precedes matter’. It’s your choice.
Like St. Eve in the
Yet may you? The Beginning of Wisdom is
the Fear of God.
And God’s Mother, MARY, is the Throne of This Wisdom.
There is a reason for that, as there is
for everything.
Have you not heard? We’ve just
told you.
+
+ +
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:
Note:
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.