Darwin’s Dangerous Disciples

In response to Jonas Alexis’ A Challenge to Lasha Darkmoon
and How Lasha Darkmoon Misreads Darwin

The greatest threat to world peace is godless nihilism: world war is the evil child of world despair.


Don’t confuse Darwinism with pseudo-Darwinism;
don’t conflate Darwinism with Dawkinism.

Darwin remains remarkably fit for a man who’s been dead almost 136 years. The UK’s Channel 4 aired Richard Dawkins’ three part series “The Genius of Darwin” a few years ago, demonstrating clearly that Dawkins (popularly known as “Darwin’s rottweiler”) is a devout disciple of Darwin. Yet it is a mistake to confuse Darwin with Darwin’s rottweiler. And it is wrong to blame Darwin for things he never said, but which Dawkins was to say over a hundred years later. 

This is the mistake that the anti-Darwinians keep making: they keep confusing Darwinism with Dawkinism.

This is a monstrous logical error.

Just as you must avoid making the mistake of attacking Jesus Christ for things said in his name by St Paul and a long line of Christian spin merchants, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin and the Rev Billy Graham, so you must do your best not to confuse Charles Darwin with Richard Dawkins and his like.

Don’t confuse the Master with the Disciple. Don’t get Darwin mixed up with his spin merchants. Don’t attack X for the ideas of Y.

In a recent article called Demonizing Darwin, I drew attention to the fact that there are many types of Darwinism to which Darwin himself would not have subscribed. These arguments are so important that they need repeating:

“There are more types of Darwinism than there are colors in the rainbow. Failure to understand this, that there is a broad spectrum of views on what Darwinism actually means, will lead invariably to strident denunciations of Darwinism. Understanding Darwin is not easy, because there were times when Darwin hardly understood himself. He was modest enough to admit it. Nuance. That is the operative word here.

Getting to grips with Darwin is like getting to grips with an eel.

The sad truth is, no one has been more misunderstood than Darwin. Paradoxically, the Darwinism of Darwin bears no resemblance to the Darwinism of his more dangerous disciples. He would have rejected their interpretations of Darwinism as distasteful. Richard Dawkins would have been an unwelcome guest at Darwin’s dinner table at Downe House in Kent. He would have had to watch his manners. The chances of Dawkins coming to blows with some of the other dinner guests, and of giving grave offense to Darwin’s beloved wife Emma, a devout Unitarian Christian, would have been pretty substantial. So Dawkins would have had to be on his best behavior in Darwin’s house.

The same applies in spades, a fortiori, to some of the more disreputable Darwinists preaching natural selection, or the Survival of the Fittest, without checks or balances. Social Darwinists like the mysterious Ragnar Redbeard, author of Might is Right, would have been given the boot almost at once if he had somehow managed to gatecrash one of Darwin’s dinner parties. So it is a mistake, a monstrous ideological error, to conflate the moderate and delicately nuanced Darwinism of Charles Darwin with the harsh, dog-eat-dog Darwinism of his more extreme and, in some cases, mentally deranged disciples.”

I am not saying that Dawkins is mentally deranged, though many others have said so. I think Dawkins is a genius in his own right. But Dawkins is Dawkins, and Darwin is Darwin, and never the twain shall meet.

—  §  —

Having read through Jonas Alexis’ recent 2-part article (here and here), challenging my pro-Darwinian views, I was impressed by his verbal restraint and dexterity. I felt that his tone throughout was refreshingly polite and civilized, considering he was challenging my views and pointing out how mistaken and confused I was.

I wish to state categorically here, however, that I am in no way “debating” Darwin with Jonas though he appears to be debating Darwin with me! Whereas he is offering an exhaustive point-by-point critique of my article Demonizing Darwin, I am not doing the same for his two articles linked above. Indeed, I hadn’t even read Part 2 of his article (published yesterday on Veterans Today) before writing roughly 99 per cent of this article of my own several days ago. My sole concern is to present my own pro-Darwinian views, without any attempt to refute Jonas’s thesis or launch a counter-attack on him for saying how erroneous and confused I am.

I admit to being confused — who isn’t? — and as to having erroneous opinions on Darwin, it would be extremely presumptuous of me to maintain that my opinions on this subject are the correct ones and that anyone who dares to contradict me is wrong. I am only too happy to admit that I “see through a glass darkly”, though seeing through a glass darkly is not something to be happy about. 🙂

I was particularly struck by this comment in Part 1 of Jonas’s article:

“Now tell me, Lasha: If Darwinists say that objective morality does not exist—and I can guarantee you that the vast majority of Neo-Darwinists do say that—and then appeal to “moral clarity” or even morality to build their system, don’t you think that they are living in contradiction?”

That’s a good point. I happen to agree here with Jonas. So there’s no argument between us.

But Jonas misses my point.

I am defending Darwin, not “the vast majority of neo-Darwinists” who profess to speak in Darwin’s name. As I pointed out in my article in defense of Darwin, there are as many types of Darwinism as there are colors in the rainbow. No two Darwinists think alike. Some are at opposite ends of the Darwinian spectrum, and Darwin is somewhere slapbang in the middle. The mistake Jonas keeps making is his assumption that there is only one type of Darwinism. As a consequence, he falls into the trap of believing that all Darwinists think alike — or, at any rate, that they ought to think alike since they are all grouped under the one banner of “Darwinism”.  Jonas therefore, it seems to me, has the unfortunate tendency of  holding Darwin responsible for every single statement made by the dangerous disciples and spin merchants of Darwin. I am surprised that a man so intelligent and scholarly as Jonas should fall prey to such a hideous logical fallacy. I expected better of him.

Jonas quotes Richard Dawkins as saying:

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

This statement annoys Jonas. Nay more, it outrages him! Since he doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution himself, he resents the implication that he is ignorant, stupid and insane. But his blood positively boils at the thought that he is being called “wicked”. Speaking for myself, I would be flattered if the renowned Richard Dawkins were to take notice of my existence and call me “wicked”. I would be tickled pink. And I would at once forgive him for calling me ignorant, stupid and insane.

But Dawkins is not going to do that in my case, since I happen to believe in the theory of evolution. It makes sense to me. In no way does it threaten my deeply intrenched religious beliefs. God may be a delusion. But only to Dawkins and his disciples. Not to me. I can accept Darwin without kicking God into the bushes.

I think Dawkins is to be forgiven for his little rhetorical flourish and commended for his facility of language. Anyone who can produce such scintillating quotable quotes cannot be all that bad.

—   §   —

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that Darwinism and Dawkinism are two entirely different animals. For my part, I accept Darwin. I do not accept Dawkins. What is the main difference between Darwinism and Dawkinism? Answer: the God Question.

Darwin is an agnostic with theistic inclinations. He accepts the possibility of God. He is like someone who says, “Look, I’m not going to say I believe in God right now. Don’t rush me! Maybe I’ll say I believe in God tomorrow. All I’ll say right now is that I believe God is a distinct possibility. And I wouldn’t be surprised if God should turn out to be the ultimate explanation for the universe.”

I’ve lived with Darwin a long time now and absorbed the man’s  essence, and I know in my bones that this is how Darwin thought and felt. He had a veneration for life. He had seen its beauty and majesty. He had looked into the heart of things and heard “the still, sad music of humanity”.

Darwin’s religious views were full of “fluctuations” — his own words —  changing by the day and mellowing with the years. In 1859, after the publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin was still pretty atheistical in some of his pronouncements. For example, this:

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ [parasitical wasps] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.”

But then he adds elsewhere, far less atheistically and more agnostically, with that characteristic modesty of his that is one of his most endearing features: “I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.”

That’s Darwin for you. So beautifully measured. So honest and down to earth. For my part, it’s hard for me not to respect  and admire such a man.

To hate Darwin is to misunderstand him; not to love him is to have missed the way.

He is thinking on our behalf. He is reaching out, like neolithic man looking up at the starry heavens, for the Unknown God — the Hidden God who is so stunningly beautiful that he needs to hide behind a veil.

CHARLES DARWIN (1809-1882)
“I am not the least afraid to die.” —
Last words

Last sentence of The Origin of Species :  “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Note. The significant words “by the Creator” did not appear in the the first edition of The Origin of Species, but this omission was corrected by Darwin himself in the second edition of 1860 where the words appeared for the first time. This important emendation was then added to all subsequent editions during Darwin’s lifetime, the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth editions. It is hard to see how Darwin could have been an “atheist”, as is often falsely claimed, if he insisted on using the word “Creator” so many times. (Scroll down to end of this Wikiquotes List)

Jonas is factually wrong to say, in Part 2 of his article, that I had “misread Darwin’s views“, when he himself is guilty of the glaring mistake of maintaining the very opposite of the truth here:

Yes, Darwin did say at the end of the Origin of Species that life was “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”[39] But subsequent editions tell us something very different. This is what Darwin later said: “There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”[40]

(Emphasis added)

Jonas, I regret to say, has got it back to front.

Darwin didn’t change his mind, as Jonas erroneously suggests, by dropping the phrase “BY THE CREATOR” in subsequent editions of The Origin of Species and settling for atheism.

On the contrary, the quote Jonas gives above, where the words “by the creator” are omitted, is the correct version only for the first edition of The Origin of Species, published in November 1859.  To all subsequent editions of the book during his lifetime — from the second edition of 1860 to the sixth edition of 1871 — Darwin had added the significant words “BY THE CREATOR”.

Contrary therefore to the false impression Jonas gives, Darwin had moved into theism, not lapsed into atheism! 

—  §  —

Richard Dawkins, however, is the inhabitant of different mental universe and you must not blame Darwin for Dawkins’ profoundly pessimistic, nihilistic pronouncements. The negative quotes about Dawkins that Jonas provides in his recent anti-Darwin article — “much of the philosophy he [Dawkins] purveys is at best jejune”, “badly flawed”, “an amateur”, “at best sophomoric … unfair to sophomores” — sadly miss the mark. The people who say these bad things about Dawkins are who exactly? Nonentities. Second raters. Relatively untalented ranters probably a bit jealous of Dawkins’ outstanding achievements and accomplishments: his scientific expertise, his genuinely religious awe for the mysteries and marvels of our universe, and his rare gift for rhetoric.

You may not wish to believe a word of this, but it’s so eloquently expressed that you cannot but admire its brilliance:

“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.”

This is just the kind of comment bound to anger devout Christians and all who believe in some kind of God. But why not let the sad bird sing? Why shoot the pretty songster because its script annoys you? Remember Shelley: “Our sweetest songs are those / that tell of saddest thought.”

Here is Dawkins again. Though I do not like what he says, I can’t help admiring the way he says it. Such lapidary prose, such brilliant use of language, dazzles me with delight and makes me feel I am in the presence of a virtuoso:

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

What we have here is a Godless universe. The Well of Despair. The ultimate expression of nihilism.


So where do we go from here? Don’t ask me!

I’m just an ant on the window ledge.

Lasha Darkmoon

Dr Lasha Darkmoon (b.1978) is an Anglo-American ex-academic with higher degrees in Classics whose political articles and poems have been translated into several languages. Most of her political essays can be found at The Occidental Observer and The TruthSeeker. Her own website, Darkmoon.me, is now within the top 1 percent of websites in the world according to the Alexa ranking system.

85 thoughts to “Darwin’s Dangerous Disciples”

  1. We should keep in mind that with the expression “cruelty in the universe or nature” only the animal world is meant and that only on our planet. We don’t know how animal life on other planets is constructed. The animal world on our planet may seem a-moral, the human world is not or at least need not to be a-moral, no matter how much cynical social Darwinists may say so. A lion can only survive by eating other animals, a human being need not to eat other human beings to survive, he can even survive by eating only plants. Nor is it in any way necessary for human beings in order to survive to exploit, enslave, oppress or torture and murder his fellow men. These acts are all deliberate immoral choices, not at all dictated by necessity. Thus in principle only the animal world on our planet is morally problematic to the concerned observer. Since animals have no human mind (let alone a human soul or spirit), they cannot be morally blamed for their behavior, which is entirely determined by genetics and not by moral choice. Remains the problem of animal suffering. I think the lower on the scale of evolution, the lower is consciousness evolved and thus the capacity of feeling pain. Does a fly feel much pain on being killed ? I don’t think so. Higher animals will feel more pain, but mostly their death is swift and thus merciful. We should not project our human consciousness on animals.

    The problem of the contradiction between a merciful God and a cruel nature has been solved already long ago by the Gnostics who propounded the theory of a “fallen natural world” created by an evil Demiurg and a spiritual world ruled by a beneficent spiritual God. (ironically, the Gnostics identified the evil Demiurg with the Jewish Yahweh and the good spiritual God with the Father of Jesus).
    I think we seriously should consider the possibility that the material world is simply not the creation of a spiritual God, which would explain its a-moral character.

    1. @ Franklin Ryckaert

      “Does a fly feel much pain on being killed ? I don’t think so.”

      Hah, I laughed when I read that! I’m not saying you’re wrong, but do you know that many people actually believe that plants experience pain? If plants can scream with pain, why not flies?

      Maybe you can’t hear their screams, but other plants can. 🙂

      Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, believed that plants can experience pan. Clive Backster and others think plants have consciousness and that they like being petted and talked to. When treated with kindness, they flourish.

      I read of a crazy experiment a few years ago. All these people got round a particular plant every morning for a week and said nice things to it and showered it with loving thoughts; by the end of the week it was in flower and several new leaves had appeared. The same group of people treated an identical plant in the same room to the opposite treatment, cursing it and giving it bad vibes; by the end of the week, the plant had withered and died.

      Check out this article:


      1. Just seen LD’s new article on Truthseeker


        I think the essential point LD is trying to make is that you can believe in Darwin and God at the same time. The theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with a belief in God.

        Darwin was NOT an atheist, that’s the big point. He was an agnostic with “theistic leanings”, as LD explains.

        Darwin uses the word “CREATOR” in the very last sentence
        of The Origin of Species.

      2. Wow! Jesus did that all by hisself!

        Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. – Matthew 21:18,19

        I tried this myself one day while passing by a MacDonalds. I saw it offered nothing in the way of nourishment, so I said “may you never produce a Big Mac again.” But it didn’t work.

        Studies have shown when trees suffer an insect infestation, unaffected surrounding trees begin producing toxins that repel the insects. One might suppose trees have some sort of cosmic Facebook. Too bad the human version doesn’t work as efficiently.

      3. @ Sardonicus

        Back in the 1970’s, some experiments were done with plants that indicated that they communicate with one another and even have memory of past experiences with humans. They even found out that yogurt critters in separate beakers communicated with each other when one was exterminated, the other beaker responded.

        The same group of scientist discovered that dogs react to human words about them over many hundreds of miles.

        There are lots of communications between living organisms that we as humans do not perceive. Humans have the advantage of being able to control our communications.

        Your example of humans impacting plants has a basic explanation. Humans have the power of the Word as a gift to all by the God of Jesus, the Creator. Words have power. Good words produce positive results. Bad words produce negative results. The old saying about keeping your mouth shut if you don’t anything good to say is very relevant. It is no accident that the Apostle John referred to Jesus as the Word that created all things in the first few verses of chapter one in the book of John.

      4. Hi Arch,
        I love McDonalds. Good food, nice staff, not expensive.

        I wish the buns were a bit more crusty, but I still love a big Mac, and an ice cream on a hot day.

        I have survived for 80 years and am in good shape with a blood pressure of 130/ 75, all thanks to a lifetime of eating what the experts call junk food.

      5. “…Maybe you can’t hear their screams, but other plants can…”
        Reminds of the old Roald Dahl story, THE SOUND MACHINE. He was a smart writer .

    2. There is no way that a molecule as complex as the DNA double helix could have occured by accident, ditto the incredible process of the first 12 weeks of gestation. All beyond chance. I now assume that some intelligence is behind it all. You could call it God. It is a great mystery we are nowhere near understanding.

      I don’t doubt that evolution by survival of the fittest is part of the solution, but I also think (With absolutely no proof) that Lamarck was right.

      “The inheritance of acquired characteristics”

      1. The 100th monkey effect would seem to support some kind of transmission of acquired characteristics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect This goes back to the nature / nurture argument. It has long been known that kittens that are taught how to catch mice by their mothers are far more efficient at the task than average cats. Is it also true that after many generations the kittens no longer need to be taught? Doesn’t seem to be the case. People still seek out kittens that were born to barn cats if they want good mousers.

      2. @ John Kirby

        Beautifully put. Couldn’t agree with you more. Lasha will love this comment!

        Just a couple of questions though, not necessarily addressed to you personally but to anyone with good knowledge who wishes to answer them. Hasn’t Lamarck been effectively proved wrong about inherited characteristics? What did Darwin think of Lamarck? And is there is any chance that Lamarck will be vindicated and proved right one day?

        (Confession: my knowledge of both Darwin and Lamarck is superficial. I wish I knew more.)

      3. @Sister Monica,

        I think the jury is still very much out on Lamarck. 100th monkey effect does suggest some kind of transmission of acquired characteristics, but since it occurs in current populations it’s not likely to be genetic. OTOH, there is recent evidence that genes can be turned on / off or changed with certain foods (GMO), certain activities, or even thoughts, but in the internet age it’s not difficult to find support or refutation for just about anything.

        The kitten / cat example – if Lamarck was right – should eventually have produced a better breed of mousers among the general population of cats. Such is not the case. A recent explosion of mice in my hometown produced a call for kittens raised by barn cats because the average domestic kitten-cat is still more likely to “play” with mice than kill them efficiently. For cats, the survival advantages of efficient mouse / rat killing are obvious, but cats, large and small, MUST learn to hunt, otherwise they are not particularly good at it, despite having all the required equipment. This seems to argue against evolutionary theories in general, since a natural skill in hunting should be passed on.

        This is why I’ve stayed out of the Darwin discussion(s). Dog, horse, cat, etc. breeding makes it clear that some “selected” genetic traits are inherited, but others that seem far more conducive to species survival are not. Short answer, I don’t know. I think there are some matters that are simply beyond human comprehension, and certainly beyond our abilities to analyze and explain them.

        1. @ Carnaptious

          What you have said is enormously fascinating. I’d like to ask you another question.

          Let’s say a man spends his life in drunken debauchery, though he comes from a good family without these traits. Sex and booze occupy him non-stop. Is he likely to pass on these characteristics to the next generation? Are his sons and daughters likely to inherit his weakness for sex and alcohol?

          Meanwhile his brother, let’s say, is living a life of virtuous sobriety. Are his children likely to turn out totally different from the children of the drunken debauched brother?

          They say there’s great truth in proverbs. I’m thinking of, “The sins of the father are visited on the children.”

          If you say genes can be changed, that is, “turned on (or off) by certain activities, or even thoughts”, wouldn’t this mean that drunkenness and debauchery can be passed on from father to son genetically?

          Would Lamarck have had anything to say about the scenario I’ve outlined above?

      4. One thing I am sure of is that the vengeful, paranoid, worship-me, genocidal god of the old testement was invented by rabbis in order to control the cult.

        We have been brainwashed into believing this BS for 2000 years.

      5. @Sister Monica

        I’m acquainted with a family that suffered just such a situation. The father was a raging alcoholic and womanizer, while the mother was a rock solid Christian who kept the family together. There were five sons, and they all turned out differently, from a homosexual alcoholic to a teetotaling womanizer. In the life of a typical human, there are simply too many variables and confounding influences to assess which stimulus might cause which response. Broader studies that attempt to control certain variables inevitably run the risk of missing key factors. Some fairly reputable authorities claim there is / may be a gene for alcoholism, but it doesn’t always produce alcoholics. Some studies have found the large number of human genes once labeled “junk” may not be / are not junk after all. IMO, we (the human species) are somewhat like infants playing with a rocket engine, admiring the shiny bits, and the fascinating noises it produces when we tap or hammer on one piece or another, but with no comprehension of that with which we are tinkering, and without the wisdom to avoid screwing around with things we do not understand. It may well be the end of us.

        I can’t help wondering how genetically enhanced or designed superior and inferior humans might interact with the transhuman bits and pieces that some futurists claim will soon be part of our future. Frightening stuff, indeed. And where would such Frankenstein creations fit in the family tree of homo sapiens, or in evolutionary theory? Again, I do not know.

        1. Many thanks, Carnaptious. I have learned a lot from our little discussion.So the jury is still out on Lamarck, I guess, and he could yet be proved right. If I am not asking too much, can you say something about how giraffes acquired their long necks? I believe Darwin and Lamarck had different explanations for this. Please let me know if I am correct in my speculations:

          Lamarck said giraffes got their long necks by stretching upward for the leaves. Over many generations their necks got longer and longer until soon they had no problems reaching the leaves.

          Darwin thought differently. According to him, giraffes didn’t get their long necks by dint of continual stretching over generations. Natural selection meant that the giraffes with the shorter necks died out in the course of time because they were “unfit” to survive in a world where the leaves were out of their reach. The longer-necked giraffes, however, survived because they were born with the advantage of longer necks.

          Q: Is this the difference between Darwin and Lamarck, or have I got it wrong? I confess I’m a bit confused about their different approach to the giraffe neck situation. Can you clarify?

      6. @Sister M,

        Giraffes are surely one of the stranger creatures on this earth, and I’m willing to accept the explanations of Lamarck or Darwin on how they came about because I really have no clue. But here’s something to think about: If the evolutionary niche that needed to be filled was a ground dwelling leaf eater, why didn’t the giraffe develop even longer spindly legs, and a tongue that was 8-10 feet long? Such a critter would seem to fit within the explanatory bounds of theories offered by Lamarck or Darwin. Then again, if the evolutionary niche was simply for a leaf eating mammal of considerable size, why didn’t the giant sloths survive into the present day? It could be argued that slow moving giant sloths were easy prey for both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon hunters, but if that’s true then why didn’t evolution provide a fast moving sloth? That seems just as possible to me as the long necked, long legged, leaf eating giraffe, though a hairy, horn toed sloth proceeding at high speed across the Savannah would cut a considerably less stately figure of creation than the giraffe.

        Another oddity: Dinosaurs survived for tens of millions of years, and there seem to have been dinosaurs filling almost every “niche” now filled by mammals, marsupials or birds. The accepted wisdom is that an asteroid strike and a long period of cold and dark finished them off. However, there is some evidence that at least some dinosaurs were warm blooded, and they were not all huge beasts requiring massive amounts of food. So why didn’t at least a few species of dinosaur survive along with mammals to the present age? Of course, It can be argued that birds and lizards of various sizes are the surviving dinosaurs, but if some dinosaur species were such evolutionary super-stars that they survived more or less unchanged for tens of millions of years, as shown in the fossil record, and if they survived through times of drought and deprivation, and the kind of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and flooding that result from the natural geographic processes caused by continental drift, then how or why did a single asteroid strike wipe them all off the face of the earth? I do not know. It’s a puzzle that I don’t expect to solve.

    3. Rykaert:

      “…Does a fly feel much pain on being killed ?… ”

      Depends on how you kill him. Try it. Try injuring one and holding a match to his legs.

      I am convinced that every form of sentient life is equally capable of pain, fear, and all the rest of it.

      Darwin shows this: for example, many animals are very proud: they do not like being laughed at. They feel embarrassment.

      As I say, Darwinism seems to me to demonstrate the one-ness of all life. That doesn’t mean, of course, that you have to tolerate flies, mosquitoes, tarantulas, scorpions, venomous snakes, etc., just because we are all “one” (a very John Lennonistic notion to which I would not subscribe).

      After all, if killing is the name of the game for them, it is the name of the game for us, too. I’m not going to allow some filthy bluebottle to give me typhoid just because I think it’s sad he feels “pain”.

      To hell with his “pain”. I don’t want my food getting infected.

  2. First, the concept of God must be defined, and to do this sentience is required.

    Most will agree that ‘God’ must be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent in order to be . . . ‘God’.

    Many will accept the terms almighty or all-powerful, and also ever-present.

    But how, then, can ‘God’ be all-knowing?

    It can be this way:

    GOD is the active process of Universal Power.
    LOGOS is sentience in harmony with God.

    1. Here’s Dawkins again , however not word for word due to my second rate mind.
      Dawkins decreed that a person who believed in G D should not be permitted to attain certain positions in life, this to me is no better than someone decreeing the opposite, and I don’t believe anyone decreeing that a disbeliever in G D should be prevented from achieving anything would be considered as in receipt of ” brilliance “.

      1. @ BOB,
        I have no idea why my comment was tagged onto yours, as there where no other comments even showing as I typed , not even Franklin’s, please see also the times , yours 1:43, mine 1:45, ( believe me I am not that quick).
        My comment was a response to Lasha’s headline post.

    2. I would add BOB IN DC that the “Universal Power” of which you speak is, in truth, LOVE. GOD IS LOVE.

      1. A: You’ve probably seen those pics of rosy cheeked children, faces aglow, some of whom have their arms raised in salute. It could be said that they ‘love’ what they see. But why?

        POWER !!

        Not the crass power of the petty, but power to do good . . . as seen through their eyes and understood by them.

        It could be said that the object of their affection was actually in harmony with Universal Power at that point; however, that for living beings, these particular moments are ephemeral.

    3. BOB in DC

      In other words, the claim that God is omnipotent contradicts the claim that God is benevolent.

  3. You are spot on in this article re Darwin and Dawkins. Dawkins gets his media coverage because he is continuing the work described in “The Protocols of Zion”… Quote from Protocol 2:

    … Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzscheism. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the goyim.

    Everything we are offered in the MSM and often on the web is misdirection. I’ve just watched “Zeitgeist Moving Forward”. I’ll post this copied-and-pasted comment (it’s an easy option) to show that almost EVERYTHING we see is of this ilk:

    (re ZeitgeistMoving froward) Great presentation here of severe and necessary truths describing our current reality. Then comes the misdirection, making this is the usual propaganda manufactured by those who wish to control us (Clue the high production values of this free-to-watch film).
    Apparently we need a better boss that we can really trust. Yeah, right. The crucial issue of the effects of our submission to authority itself is not addressed. Nor the issue of the remoteness of that authority.
    Arguments supporting the fact (and fact it is) that ours MUST be a created universe (regarding the human being, each DNA molcule contains 1.5 GB of code. Only an idiot supposes that that could come into existence via random processes) is skirted.
    There is no God.
    WE will take control and become Gods. Theologically this is Talmudic Judaism/Pharisaism. Quel surprise. Or Luciferianism if you prefer. Or Communism (the political movement whereby the leadership totally monopolises power and wealth by seducing society via the idea of “equality”). This film offers a solution to our problems by the people who created them.
    Never! Never! NEVER!

    PS “Where do we go from here?” Maybe better understand the nature of all God’s creation. I like this (the visions of Emmanuel Swedenborg):
    The Basic Nature of Everything (somewhere to start):

    1. True, but as an argument it falls flat. You don’t defend theism on the grounds of social utility, you defend it on the grounds of truth. Paganism had enormous social utility but the Roman people, both intellectuals and masses, had lost their belief in it. Belief, once lost, is not restored by saying that it might be “useful” or “beneficial”. These things are beside the point.

  4. Darwin and his ‘theory’ have indeed been much mis-represented! One such example that puts such an entirely different light upon ‘the theory’ of evolution is that Darwin himself did not discount what was the current ‘theory’ of his time, that of Lamarck, simply positioning his ‘theory’ as an additional way by which evolution can take place. It is the Powers That Shouldn’t Be and thier control system that have discounted Lamarckism and focussed entirely upon Darwinism.

    Put simply Lamarcks idea was that the selective pressure can effect a change within a lifetime, and Darwin agreed, adding that this change can also happen between lifetimes when the genes of the parents to be combine and create the embryo. Bear in mind that DNA only codes for proteins, it does nothing else! This means that the 2 theories are inclusive, not exclusive as we have been led to believe. It is easy to see why the so-called elites have fed us Darwinism alone. It is survival of the fittest, all about competition, superiority etc etc. Yet more importantly it tells us we are victims of our genetic lineage! In this regard Lamarckism says that far from being victims of our genes we are actually in control of them, can change them within our own lifetimes and manifest this change before we die: negating any need for fighting etc, our focus would become within.

    So because science has worked on Darwins idea we know roughly how it works, and consequently have no idea how Lamarcks idea could work. That is until recently when the field of epigenetics popped up. Look to the work of Bruce Lipton. In the mid-1960s he was cloning stem cells and from genetically identical batches would put various samples in different growth media. In medium that had nutrients sufficient for bone production, bone cells were produced, the nerve cell medium produced nerve cells, muscle medium muscle cells etc. Meaning the environment that changes the genes, and that genetically each cell contains the coding for the whole! Remember, all DNA does is code for proteins. So the cell, sensing its environment, sends messengers to the DNA to code for particular proteins.

    All can become clear … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYYXq1Ox4sk

    Much respect btw!

  5. File this discussion under,

    Jews set ’em up and Jews knock ’em down.

    Were it not for Jews, this debate would not exist. Darwin, Dawkins, Dominic Crossan, Ehrman, et al serve as goyim shills for the Jew’s attack on Christianity. Darwin might have faded into obscurity were it not for Jewcommunists seizing on his theory to advance their godless state that actually had a god in the form of the communist state. (Note “Jewcommunst” is one word, like the newly redacted word “antisemite”)

    Today Jews once again seek to replace their religious god with their god of state. This is the function these useful idiot goyim “reformers” serve for the Jew’s American agenda.

    Think about it, elite Jew priests created their god YHVH as a cultural control mechanism. Another Jew called Jesus comes along to question and attack the priest’s highly effective sacrificial control mechanism, ultimately culminating with his sacrifice. When this attack successfully throws the Temple into dissolution, another Jew comes along to replace the old Temple god YHVH with the new sacrificial god Jesus.

    As goyim take over the new Christian religion, elite Jews lose their control over the masses. However, the seeds for their new takeover have already been sown with the Temple’s demand for monetary sacrifice. Centuries later, Jews once again firmly establish their “power of god,” this time in the form of Rothschild mammon.

    No longer needing a wrathful, vengeful, magical, mystical Biblical god to strike fear and terror into people, Jews now form the terror state, a control mechanism antithetical to their old religious control mechanism based on guilt, fear and terror. However, their old religious gods still exerted tremendous power over the people.

    The Jews answer to this problem is to abolish their old gods under the terrorizing penalty of law, with the exception of Judaism of course, and replace them with their new state god. Realizing law will not be sufficient to decouple people from their old gods, Jews now set out to discredit the old religious gods with “scientific,” contrarian evidence.

    Just imagine what the world might look like absent the Jew. Due to the unbelievable amount of influence Jews have exerted over this world for thousands of years, I dare say no one here could imagine what such a world might look like. However, I can assure everyone it would be nothing ~ NOTHING ~ like the Judaized world of war, horror, terror and bloodshed we presently inhabit.

    1. Arch,
      With or without Jew, the World would never be a paradise. Growing up, little Donaldo lived in a violent World. Got into a lot of fights. Won most but lost some. Had my nose broken once. Humans are competitive by nature. Maybe us boys just wanted to prove who was strongest. Jews, whatever this term actually means, may have lots of blood on their hands but so did little Donaldo growing up. 🙂

      1. We’re talking “genocide” here. It has nothing to do with “competition” as the white man thinks of it. War is an accurate description of the situation the white race now endures at the increasingly obvious hand of the Jew.

        How many of your fights were a fight to the death? With Jews it’s a fight to the death. Jews made the rules and those are the rules we must play by, it’z either jews or us – in the end, one shall not survive.

    2. Japan and pre-WW2 Germany and Britain are examples of what white societies might be capable of without the Jew. Civilized, clean, prosperous, productive.

      Still, many whites have an insane love of the negro, independent of the Jew. They love the athleticism, the music, etc. of the negro, so they are more than willing to put up with the crime, the decay. Whites also have a tendency to go to war with Muslims, and invite them into their countries, instead of merely separating and trading with them.

      So, ultimately, Japan and China will be the long term centers of civilization, Europe and America will fall to the Jews, Negros, and Muslims in time.

      1. Re Japan. You obviously don’t watch their tv shows, especially one ones held on, I think, New Year’s eve. Special programming, he he he. I’ve seen this. A bunch of men are sitting in a studio, told not to laugh at the action they are about to be entertained with – which consists of other men being tormented if not outright tortured by bizarre devices including inflicting of pain to the area below the waist and above the knees.

        I don’t have the vocabulary to describe this properly. Anyway, if this small audience of men can not control their giggles and titters at watching the painful humiliation of their fellows, a platoon of face-covered “punishers” march in and whack their arses real hard. It’s all done kind of ritualistically. Over & over, with different scenarios and mind-boggling “devices” for inducing pain. The whacked men accept their punishment, which is real, not pretend. As the evening wears on, it all gets more and more bizarre. What can you expect from just another hedonistic, materialistic, industrial, dying culture. Japs just wanna have fun…

        Yes, I too am looking forward to such civilized entertainment after The Big Cleansing.

  6. Darkmoon, I’m happy to be reading your writing again. Also, I agree with you that our problem is nihilism. Not even Nietzsche was a nihilist. He thought nihilism ultimately led to debauchery. So it could lead to the window’s ledge and the downward spiral, but more often it leads to immoral materialism and degrading behavior–no more valiant struggle to the heights, no more talk of the beauty of the visible mirroring the invisible, character- what’s that? I think nihilists try to create art, music… they try to talk about symbolism and other interesting things; but really it’s kind of standard TV stuff because TV culture is nihilistic. It’s so banal, boring, uninspired. Another reason that Nietzsche disliked nihilism (or so I read) is that it will eventually lead back to religion. Look at the sexual debauchery of Hollywood and you start to crave the ascetic. Like too much packaged junk food makes healthy food sound attractive. Morality becomes a novelty. So…. then the TV people realize they have to create some religious figures because this is the growing trend, but they can’t do it… I’ll say no more, only they are clueless.

  7. Let me speak again on the Jews. I will mention negros here only to reference back to the Jews, which is important.
    Now that I have clarified that, let me mention this. Don’t hide from it, strongly consider it. I’m not asking you to watch it over and over at some porn site.

    The Jews bang negros. The Jews…bang negros!

    Repeat that as often as necessary to get it into your head. It’s sometimes even difficult for me to believe, but yet, there it is. If that is not enough to indict the Jews, I simply don’t know what is.

    Or maybe, do you people bang negros as well? I don’t know, clarify for me. Maybe I’m missing something, maybe it’s fun and the negros make excellent partners and you like producing lots of little mixed babies. Please, tell me what I’m missing, call me some repressed hater and nazi, tell me I should just let go and have sex with negros, that’s just such a wonderful thing to do in this world.

  8. Robin-a-Bobbin who bent his bow
    Shot at a pigeon and killed a crow
    Shot at another and killed his brother
    Did Robin-a-Bobbin who bent his bow.

    This is what happens when you confuse “Darwin” with the “Darwinists”. To debate something you’ve got to define what your talking about. For example, I admire Darwin but despise Dawkins, because he is an idiot liberal.

    I see no logical conflict between Darwin’s actual opinions and Christianity at all, but the Christians are just going to have to adapt a little bit, as they have done repeatedly throughout history.

    Incidentally, I see no evidence that the National Socialists were Darwinists. They seem to have accepted mendelianism while explicitly rejecting Darwin as “destructive of religion”, a view I find erroneous.

    1. You and Lasha think alike on this. She will be pleased to read what you say on this subject. However, she does believe that Hitler was keen on Darwin’s ideas, especially his doctrine of the Survival of the Fittest, which would tally with Hitler’s own ideas about the supremacy of the Aryan race. Please do correct me if I’m wrong on this…? Maybe I am.

      1. Sister Monica:
        I have never seen or heard a positive reference to Darwin in any National Socialist speech or written literature,. and I listened to about 60 hours of their speeches. Perhaps (and this is probably the real reason) it’s because he was English.

        I’m not a Christian, but if God created the world, he created it the way it is, right? Including the animals the way they are, right? Including their ability to evolve.

        Is it Darwin’s fault that animals eat each other and sometimes become extinct? If God wanted the lion to “lie down with the lamb”, why didn’t he make things that way?

        So if you don’t like it, please direct your complaints to the proper quarters.

        For centuries, the Christians have been telling us that “not a sparrow falls from the sky”, etc., then they claim God couldn’t have helped me breed tumbler pigeons or pug dogs for 40 years, every step of the way. Why not? After all, God can do anything, right? What do the Christians really believe? What do they really want?

        Then my house burns down and my 5 children die horribly, but thanks, God, thanks for the pug dogs. Thanks for the tumbler pigeons. All your work. You could have saved by children, but you were to busy helping things evolve. Thanks.

        If the Christians feel threatened by some puny little twerp like Darwin (meaning no disrespect), it is because they have lost faith in themselves. They have ceased to believe, and Darwin is simply an excuse.

        It’s like the ancient Romans and paganism. Paganism collapsed because people had ceased to believe.

        Is it scandalous to say that my cousins and myself have a common ancestor? No? Does that mean my brother evolved into my cousin? No. I don’t think so.

        Darwin says nothing about the origins of the universe, the origins of life, nothing. He doesn’t claim that fished crawled up out of the ocean or that dinosaurs evolved into birds, nothing about micro-cellular biology or distant galaxies or any of the rest of it. I translated a whole book attacking Darwin. He wanted to be clergyman at one time. He was a qualified scientist, an expert on beetles.

        Incidentally, I have never seen an attack on Darwinism that gives me the impression that the writer had actually read Darwin.

        I have said that there is only way to refute Darwinism (which is very limited in its claims), but nobody has asked me what that is yet. See if you can guess what it is.

      2. “Survival of the fittest” is not a Darwinist term. Darwin’s term is “natural selection”, which is probably less important than sexual selection.

        Then people say, “How do bright red feathers help birds survive?”, etc.

        To me, Darwinism contains at least one profound and universal religious truth: the oneness of all life.

        We see animals doing all the stupid things that people do, and people doing all the stupid things that animals do. It explains our stupidity — which is not a “survival” trait at all.

        1. @ Carlos Porter

          Thanks for your input on this important subject, about which you clearly know far more than the average person, but this comment of your requires a minor revision or gloss:

          “Survival of the fittest” is not a Darwinist term. Darwin’s term is “natural selection”.

          The phrase “Survival of the Fittest” was a ringing phrase invented by Herbert Spencer after reading the first edition of Darwin’s The Origin of Species. Darwin was impressed by it because it explained what “natural selection” actually meant, i.e., that nature chose for survival those individuals or species that possessed the most favorable characteristics. Darwin therefore incorporated the phrase “Survival of the Fittest” into the fifth edition of The Origin of the Species.

          In other words: though Herbert Spencer had coined the phrase, the phrase now became part of the Darwinian canon and was regarded by Darwin himself as an improved substitute for the vague and less vivid term “natural selection”.

      3. “…Hitler’s own ideas about the supremacy of the Aryan race…”

        Hitler did believe in the superiority (not quite sure what you mean by “supremacy”) of the Aryan or white race, but not much more so than the British or Americans, from whom the German National Socialists copied many of their ideas.
        It is important to note, however, that there is no such thing as a Nationalist “Master Race theory”; that is a mistranslation, based on a very few uses of a very rare word, “Herrenvolk” (or “Herrenrasse”, much rarer still) — a word almost always used ironically or sarcastically, usually by the enemies of National Socialism. I did a whole series of articles on this.
        https://www.cwporter.com/rauschningnote.htm (with links at the end).
        I should also like to say that when we believed in ourselves, in the “superiority” of our own race and people, we were quite right, factually speaking, and we were successful. Now that we do not anymore, we are in the toilet.
        Next stop: the sewer.
        Cause of death: assisted sewercide.

  9. “…others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear”

    You mean TRYING to run for their lives in mass slaughterhouses devised by that suppposed pinnacle of creation, Man – a mistake if the creator ever made one. Better to have some, any, kind of life in freedom even if you are going to be chased & killed by another free animal, than the ignoble life of a ranch or farm animal led to an excecution by its inferiors.

    1. Creator.. MISTAKE??!!??

      That means Creator is ‘OMNI-NOT MUCH’ if that is the case.

      1. What “creator” are we talking about? The one that makes little dolls out of mud and breathes life into them? No wonder he’s not omni-much, or much-omni, whatever. For a creator “he” doesn’t have much imagination. One might think a real cosmic creator would design trees that produce thousands of miniature disposable photosynthesis factories.

      2. For decades I have also thought a ‘Real Cosmic Creator’ would design a butt for humans that needs no wiping…. and teeth impervious to decay.

        Improvements – upgrades needed…. jus’ sayin’… 🙂

  10. “The greatest threat to world peace is godless nihilism: world war is the evil child of world despair”.

    NOT EXACTLY – practically, world war is the demon chid of the opulent rothschild banksters, their hofff juden credit mongering underlings down through the world central banking system, dark vatican jesuits, monarchs, unscrupulous politicians and their minions in munitions; all facilitated through the utterly disingenuous fully commercialized mercenary media by a global network of intelligence operatives and actually perpetrated by obsequious armies of martinets in uniform… however, if the trend toward the militarization of police can be reversed and constitutional government saved and implemented in the courts, the cure for WARMONGERING will manifest upward from the reserves of decency still intellectually inherent in the common working people…

    1. Well said. If we lose all hope – godless nihilism – we might as well kill ourselves now and get it over with. Most of humankind is never going to be able to partake of the extreme hedonistic lifestyles that the super-rich can provide for themselves, and will instead serve as part of the “entertainment”. Not a particularly pleasant prospect, IMHO.

  11. maybe the complex dna molecule and all the rest of it couldn’t have occurred ‘by accident’, as some say, with the implication that it must have been done by ‘god’… maybe so, but that doesn’t explain how god did it, or even where god came from… god can’t be explained, and really, the last thing god people want is an explanation… blind faith god fanatics actually do consider darwin’s natural selection theories a threat – to their ‘loaves and fishes’ world mentality, with everything happening on purpose straight from the hand of god, whereas darwin seems to be suggesting something a bit more tedious. and though his theories would not necessarily deny god’s hand, if natural selection and evolution were true, there is nevertheless an obvious need among the religious freak out about him. and religious people such as these have been blocking and thwarting scientific advances at every turn since people learned how to read and write..
    i like the bumper sticker of the jesus fish with the little legs growing out of it…

  12. Darwinism remains a belief like creationism but the latter is punished in academia.

  13. I am neither ignorant, nor stupid and certainly not insane.

    Is not in question is if evolution exist or not. It does. As mutations do occur and sometimes those mutations are beneficial (although most of the time, they are not). Thereof evolution does exist.

    However, what is in question is if Evolution explains everything removes the possibility of creation. Genetically Engineering is at infancy on our times. And yet we can say for certainly that intelligent design is indeed possible. Only an ignorant a stupid, an insane would believe that intelligent design is not possible. Specially since its already being done and Ants has being doing it trough millennia.

    What is more incredible. That a long time ago the humans where created from various types of animals (which would explain why we are pig skinned monkeys). Or that by accident, everything came to be?

    Thus Hawkins either purposely or by psychological bias misguides the reader into believing that Evolution explains all. Sorry, but that is not the case. Evolution does not explain how many types of ants come from a single queen. Nor does it explains altruism and self sacrifice. An animal that dies protecting the herd does not get to pass its genes, thereof, if evolution where the sole factor, all animals would be selfish and none will sacrifice to protect the herd,

    If you believe in the accident, then try to throw your computer from a 2nd story window. If evolution there is all that is, then the crash might finish your work. Bear in mind that this is several times more possible than that all life come from a magical explosion. Evolution exist, but so does creation.

  14. I am a simple man, so my opinion may carry little weight, but it’s Darwin for me. The world(s) we perceive are so astounding, our perception so limited, our knowledge so feeble…
    it is the height of folly to presume we ‘know’.
    At least Darwin was actually seeking an answer, Arrogant Dawkins apparently has found his answer.
    I am a Christian, but I see no reason why evolutionary theory is not compatible w/ belief in God. 7 days indeed.
    7 days, 7 billion years, an instant. With God there is no ‘time’.
    ‘God’ cannot be explained, but then again, neither can ‘life’.

    1. S.W. March 7, 2018 at 11:26 am
      Agreed. Of course, the flip side to saying “God cannot be explained” is that “explaining things” by reference to “God” “explains” nothing.

  15. Carn –

    RE: dinosaurs….

    “why did a single asteroid strike wipe them all off the face of the earth?”

    Another guess was given by Dr Donald Patten, a geographer and more, who suggests that a large planet came near this planet and its gravitational pull caused the molten magma and flimsy crust tides of several miles in height, which caused the rearrangement of this planet’s surface. It also cased the spinning of this planet.

    Some observable ‘sort of’ proof is the mountain ranges run north and south around the globe….. as they were pulled in wave-like fashion from east or west….. as the planet, maybe Mars or Jupiter, passed so close.

    Genesis: “The fountains of the deep were broken up.”

    This cataclysm would have destroyed the food sources for “YUGE” critters. but not for prehistoric small reptiles and amphibians and fishes…etc.

    This is the most fascinating video of a speech I have ever seen:

    Cataclysm From Space, 2800 BC
    (Intro narrated by Ed Griffin)

    This is a video adaptation of a documentary filmstrip presenting evidence that, less than 5000 years ago, a stray planet from deep space, along with its tiny moon of ice, nearly collided with Earth.

    The present is not the key to the past.

    1. More about the video:

      This is a video adaptation of a documentary filmstrip presenting evidence that, less than 5000 years ago, a stray planet from deep space, along with its tiny moon of ice, nearly collided with Earth.

      An analysis is made of the gravitational forces that would have flexed the Earth’s crust, creating volcanic ruptures, mountain ranges, and oceanic tides of such heights as to cover almost all of the Earth’s land surface. Human survivors, indeed, would have been few, and countless species of magnificent prehistoric animals would have perished, not due to failure to adapt, as is commonly claimed, but simply because they failed to find high ground.

      It would be difficult to enter into an informed discussion on such topics as Earth History, Geology, the Biblical Flood, Evolution, or Creation itself without knowledge of the facts and theories presented in this program.

      Classic scientific theories.
      The ice age re-examined.
      Cause of the Biblical Flood.
      Ice from space.
      Evidence of cataclysm.
      Effect on climate and life.

  16. Pat – youre talking about niburu bro, planet x. It’s been all over the alternative media since AL gore invented the internet. Supposedly written about in every ancient scripture from the cuneiform texts of sumer to the popular vuh to the vedas… and we all can tell by looking, from orbit, that asteroids of globally catastrophic proportion have struck the planet in the past, . Check the crater ring going through the Yucatan. … a big asteroid would wreck things pretty good enough. . Somewhat less eventful than massive crust upheavals and flipping the poles but I don’t think it would take those kind of 5000 foot high tidal waves to wipe us all out. If a big enough asteroid hits in the ocean it will generate tidal waves to put the typical otiental earthquake tsunami to shame, and throw enough water vapor into the Stratosphere to put 400 feet of snow all over. It’s happened in the past and it will happen again in the future. .. not sure whether the elites will be safe in their underground complexes or not but us peons will be wiped out for sure. ..
    Rxantos – nobody calls anybody stupid on this blog. .. however, intelligent design is not possible without an intelligent designer. OK. But the question remains – who designed the designer?
    It is not a question that can ever be answered satisfactorily … though if the earth is a cool star rock with water and sunlight – it’s not incredible that life could have been pressed into place here at a microscopic level in the medium out of the same pressures that formed the star, then evolved, essentially driven by the same pressures, into more complex life forms… notice how the universe still expands… something is driving it. Call it gravity now. Maybe that’s the force that makes the planet spin… personally, as a humble man, I have no problem giving sacred status to the universe itself, which, if it was not created and has actually always existed, in one for m or another, then, indifferent or not, it gets the same qualities we want to give to our personal savior god, except maybe without the personal savior part… that’s the part people have trouble with. They want somebody to get them out of death somehow and I don’t blame em… yet existing afterwards in some unindifferentiated void in a disembodied state doesn’t really sound too good either. So then we have reincarnation, which might more likely condone darwin, and seems more plausible with the pantheism approach to the problem, as opposed to the big finger-snapper idea, with whom it’s only a one shot deal, that requires a belief in heaven, and for catholics, hell too. It’s the belief in heaven that’s the hard part, much harder than a little thing like charles darwin’s natural selection evolution…


    1. Bark –

      YOU are talking about niburu bro, planet x. I was NOT.!! 🙂

      I am aware of all you mentioned. Thanks.

  17. Darwin explicitly accepted Lamarckianism (if there is such a word) up to a certain point.
    I don’t know how far he went with it, but his theory of “development by use or disuse” seems quite Lamarckian to me.

  18. I have said that there is only way to refute Darwinism (which is very limited in its claims), but nobody has asked me what that is yet.
    No takers.

      1. HP March 11, 2018

        OK. You cannot discredit Darwin by attacking his theories, because they are frankly presented as mere theories. He says “these facts are explained by this theory”. He never takes the attitude that “I’m right, you’re wrong”, he never claims to have “proven” anything. They are just theories. People are free to accept them or not. None of his theories is particularly original, as he repeatedly goes far out of his way to show, constantly attributing ideas and discoveries to other people. His writings were and are convincing because of the enormous amount of factual data cited, which are mere anecdotes — but thousands of them, all with references. I think anyone will concede this.

        So — as far as I know, this has never been done, and I don’t think it can be done, because Darwin was too careful — but the way to attack Darwin is to attack his references. For example, in “The Descent of Man” he claims someplace that the larynx of the nightingale is very similar to the larynx of the crow, but that the nightingale sings beautifully, and that all the crow can do is produce ugly cawing sounds.

        So, you look up all his original references, and prove that the source doesn’t say this, or that the source cannot be found, etc., etc., for thousands upon thousands of his sources. “This is wrong, that’s wrong, this is a mistake”, etc. As far as I know, no one has ever attempted to do this and, as I say, I don’t think it can be done. It would be very tedious approach, indeed, with millions more footnotes.

        An Australian historian, Keith Windschuttle, did this once with Australian history: he hunted down every single reference, every single footnote, in all the books written by Australian left-wing (actually Communist) writers, and proved that everything they said was a complete fiction, all lies, misquotes, etc..

        Hard going. His chief accomplishment is entitled THE FALSIFICATION OF ABORIGINE HISTORY, in 3 huge volumes. Only 2 have ever been published. This probably the best way to disprove anything: look up the sources.

      2. Carlos, thanks. You had me by the second sentence. The rest also clearly said.
        I did chuckle at the part about the ugly cawing crow, though, because I once or twice heard a crow (and a magpie) speak pretty good English!

  19. LD:
    I did not know that.
    I agree that “survival of the fittest” is a better term, but should not be interpreted too narrowly. For example, I think it’s in “The Descent of Man”, he claims that self-sacrificial bravery has what others might call “survival value” because the sisters and brothers (for example), of a slain hero will carry his genes (Darwin does not use the word “genes”). In this case it is the survival of the group that counts. Any group, to be successful, requires a certain percentage of such members. Otherwise the group will be destroyed, followed by the individual members.

  20. Incidentally, I recommend Keith Windschuttle very highly. His style is impeccable, and he teaches you how to think. How to present an argument without falling into traps. A genius. He had to form his own publishing house to get his books published. What we need is a whole generation of Windschuttles, all looking everything up.

  21. Incidentally, I do not agree with Darwin 100%: I think he was mistaken on two very important points. He seems to have more or less accepted the “Out of Africa theory” — which I think is obvious nonsense — and he explicitly comes to the conclusion — after some initial hesitation — that all so-called “human beings” (Australian aborigines, Hottentots, pygmies, etc.) are members of the same “species”.

    I say, if that is what you believe, then there is something wrong with your definition of the word “human being” or your definition of the word “species”.

  22. Bob in DC
    March 12, 2018 at 2:02 am
    …”CWP: Is “How can ‘God’ so defined take sides?” your deeper question?…”
    No, and I don’t even understand what you mean.

  23. There’s a lot of dubious stuff on Twitter, and some very talented photo-shop artists, video makers, but this headline is true. Richard Dawkins Wants to Eat Human ‘Meat’

    “Dawkins has suggested in a tweet that we could “overcome our taboo” by eating human flesh so manufactured. (grown in meat vats)”

    Now that is a Dangerous Disciple!

    If we “overcome the taboo” of eating human flesh, wouldn’t human meat not grown in a vat be on the menu (with premium prices for young and tender)?

  24. How does this fit into evolutionary theories? An astronaut who recently returned from a 340 day stay on the International Space Station (ISS) was the identical twin brother of a man who stayed here on earth. He – the twin who now holds a record for the longest period spent in the ISS – is no longer an identical twin. Comparison of the DNA from both twins reveals a 7% change in the DNA of the space faring twin. Exactly what that may mean has yet to be determined.

    According to NASA, Kelly’s 340 days in orbit may have ultimately activated what scientists describe as “space genes.”

    “This is thought to be from the stresses of space travel, which can cause changes in a cell’s biological pathways and ejection of DNA and RNA,” the agency said. “Such actions can trigger the assembly of new molecules, like a fat or protein, cellular degradation; and can turn genes on and off, which change cellular function.” Source

    “Space genes”, available now at better department stores! 😂😵

    1. Auto-mutation in self defense, like regular self defense, is legal everywhere in the multiverse!

    2. I wonder how long a chimpanzee couple would have to stay in orbit before any of their offspring would be born as humans…
      … or gorillas..??!! 🙂

      1. Pat, maybe a Klingon first, like Mark. An old pal worked security with him years ago in Texas. Before he was rich and famous.
        He was a really good natured young man, not quite the security type except for standing by the door. Once I scared him so bad he came right up off the ground! 400 lbs. (lol) C’mon Man!
        Though not a gorilla he could easily pass as a Klingon. Especially after dark..

Comments are closed.