jump to navigation

Predictions January 6, 2008

Posted by John A. Davison in general.

I thought it might be fun to have a thread where I and others can make predictions. After all, isn’t that what scientists often do? They examine the data, produce an hypothesis and as part of the verification procedure they make predictions. If the predictions prove to be accurate, the hypothesis receives support, and with enough support it will be elevated to the status of a true theory. That is precisely how all scientific hypotheses are verified. Actually I feel the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis has already reached the status of theory, but that is just me!

I hope that others will offer their predictions and I do not mean to limit our predictions to only evolutionary matters. One can make predictions on  any subject one chooses.

Let me start the ball rolling with a couple of my own.

1. Before the end of this decade those who deny an anthropogenic global warming will be scarce as hen’s teeth.

2. Al Gore will be the Democratic nominee for the 2008 election and he will probably win! Now I am really out on a limb with this one but I am trying to evoke a little more interest in this blog!

Now let’s hear from others what their predictions are. You don’t even have to use your right names but it would be nice if you did. How else can you be rewarded for being right?

 “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”



1. John A. Davison - February 2, 2010

Since I have apparently lost my webmaster, I need some help copying the two above most recent essays to the ESSAYS button on my home page. If some one is able to inform me as to how to accomplish this, it would be appreciated.

“I get no respect.”
Rodney Dangerfield

2. John A. Davison - February 12, 2010

Why are Darwinians atheists?

by John A. Davison

As everyone knows, scientists ask questions and when they obtain answers they inform the rest of the world what they have discovered concerning the questions they have posed. I have asked the question -Why are Darwinians atheists? I already know the answer to that question but to maintain a modicum of suspense I will delay that answer for a while.

Being a scientist, I begin by asking – who are the primary spokespersons representing the Darwinian hypothesis today? Until a few years ago they were Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould, colleagues at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, one of the world’s most prestigious intellectual institutions. Alas they are both now dead and the torch of Darwinian atheism has been passed to another pair of atheists, Clinton Richard Dawkins, now retired from Oxford University and his New World counterpart Paul Zachary Myers, associated with UMM, a community college, the University of Minnesota at Morris Minnesota. Admittedly there are lesser lights supporting the Darwinian thesis like Ken Miller and Wesley Elsberry of The Panda’s Thumb and After The Bar Closes blogs, but it is fair to say that Myers and Dawkins are the most prominent voices preserving the Darwinian thesis. It is interesting to note that both Ken Miller and Wesley Elsberry deny being atheists, the former being a Catholic and the latter claiming to be a Methodist. Dawkins found it necessary to berate Miller not for being a Darwinian but for being religious! As far as I know, neither Myers nor Dawkins have attacked Elsberry for the same reason. It is difficult for me to imagine what role the personal Christian God might play in the Darwinian scheme.

It is precisely this difficulty that serves to explain why Darwinians must be atheists. I am confident that both Dawkins and Myers recognize the weakness in the Darwinian proposal but are congenitally incompetent to deal with that transparent conflict. The question they should be asking but refuse to ask is the following – If the Darwinian model is inadequate, what must one conclude as to the mechanism which can explain evolution? There is only one conceivable alternative possibility which is some form of guided phylogeny. This they will not concede because they would have to abandon everything they believe to accept such a scenario.

A curious feature of the Dawkins / Myers relationship is its remarkable mutualism. They share the same fans, celebrate each others birthdays and sell the same paraphernalia in the form of Tshirts, bumper stickers and coffee mugs, all emblazoned with the same big red A for atheism. If you go to “Pharyngula,” Myers’ weblog, and click on the big red A you will find Dawkins exhorting closet atheists to “come out” and declare themselves. Furthermore, they have each completely abandoned any semblance of science to dedicate all their energies to the cause of Universal Atheism, a hopeless venture at best.

The simplest explanation for why Darwinians are atheists is pride, one of the seven deadly sins. Of course neither Dawkins nor Myers believe in sin, one of the luxuries of being an atheist. These people, and I don’t know how else to describe them, are incapable of admitting they could possibly be wrong and accordingly cannot be considered to be scientists.

“Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed.”
Thomas Henry Huxley

Paul Zachary Myers and Clinton Richard Dawkins display the death throes of Charles Robert Darwin’s Victorian masterpiece, a fantasy which contains not a word in support of its grandiose title – not a word.

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison

3. John A. Davison - March 18, 2010

What is an ideologue?

by John A. Davison

The American Heritage Dictionary defines “ideologue” as follows –

“An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.”

Ideology is defined as follows –

“The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class or culture.”

Certainly, by this criterion, Darwinism qualifies as an ideology and accordingly those who promote that position are ideologues. Other ideologies are Theism, Deism, Humanism, Liberalism, Conservatism, etc. etc. Where one finds “isms” one finds ideologues.

Most scientists do not care to characterize themselves as ideologues, but there are some glaring exceptions. For example, Paul Zachary Myers introduces “Pharyngula,” his website, with –

“Random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal,” thereby linking liberalism with atheism and labelling himself a double ideologue.

One of the most transparent confessions by an ideologue was presented by Ernst Mayr in his book “The Growth of Biological Thought” where he described himself on page 134 as “a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian like myself.”

It is interesting to note that Thomas Henry Huxley was acutely aware of the role of ideology in science and went out of his way to make his own position clear.

“”Of all the senseless babble I have ever had occasion to read, the demonstrations of these philosophers who undertake to tell us all about the nature of God would be the worst, if they were not surpassed by the still greater absurdities of the philosophers who try to prove that there is no God.”

Huxley, who never embraced Darwinism, coined the word “agnostic” to describe his own position. An agnostic does not know and it seems to me that an agnostic, therefore, cannot be an ideologue. If you don’t know, you surely can’t believe.

Huxley’ sentiments are remarkably similar to those by Albert Einstein –

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”

Einstein also claimed –

“I am not an atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.”

Note Einstein’s words “I do not know.” Einstein has joined with Huxley by defining himself as an agnostic.

Thomas Henry Huxley and Albert Einstein are each to be admired by refusing to be labeled as ideologues.

There is no place for ideology in science. There never has been and those who openly profess an ideology of any sort have diminished themselves as scientists. The word “creed” is closely related to the word “ideology.” Creed derives from the Latin “credo,” I believe.

“Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed.”
Thomas Henry Huxley.

4. John A. Davison - March 19, 2010

The Cowardice of Anonymity

by John A. Davison

Imagine, if you can, a scientific literature consisting almost entirely of anonymous authors. That is exactly what has happened to the internet literature dealing with the subject of organic evolution. I have asked myself the question – What does this mean? Whatever happened to the old standard – A man is as good as his word?

I am now prepared to answer that question. There is only one reason a person would hide his identity when commenting on a question as fundamental as the understanding of our origins. It is FEAR, fear that he might be wrong, that everything he says now and has said in the past may prove to be without substance, a myth, an illusion, perhaps even a delusion, that word Richard Dawkins uses in reference to God, an entity about which no one knows anything at all, not even Clinton Richard Dawkins!

Fortunately, the leading spokespersons still defending Charles Robert Darwin’s Victorian fantasy are so convinced of its validity that they proudly display their names for all to see. They are Clinton Richard Dawkins, associated with “RichardDawkins.net,” Paul Zachary Myers, host of “Pharyngula” and cofounder of “Panda’s Thumb,” and Wesley Royce Elsberry of Panda’s Thumb and his own “inner sanctum,” “After The Bar Closes.”

There is no question that these three persons remain powerful influences in preserving the Darwinian fantasy and all three are given a great deal of space in Wikipedia, which leads me to question the objectivity of that source.

All of their internet venues are teeming with anonymous users freely venting their spleens with perfect abandon, confident that they remain unknown and accordingly not responsible for their hideous, often obscene language. There is another interesting common feature of these pro Darwinian weblogs. They rarely mention “Natural Selection,” the sine qua non of Darwin’s thesis. Instead, they dedicate enormous energies to the denigration of those who feel as I do that there was a purpose in the evolutionary sequence and that chance played a negligible role in that process. The Dawkins/Myers/Elsbery triumvirate has decided by unspoken edict that neo-Darwinism is settled science and that anyone who challenges it is subject to contempt. That is nothing new in the post Darwin literature. The Darwimps, as I have affectionately come to call them, have traditionally pretended that they had no credible critics. I hope I dispensed with that misconception with my essay “What’s Wrong With Darwinism?” What is new is the unleashed vitriol with which the Darwinian faithful now treat their adversaries. They treat the Intelligent Design crowd with naked loathing. Their anonymous clientele follow their leaders, heaping contempt upon their adversaries whom they identify by name while they hide their own identity in the process. It is very revealing of their innate insecurity, their fear!

Paul Zachary Myers is a master at inciting his followers to do his bidding with a zeal rivalling that of Adolf Hitler. He is a rabble rouser par excellence, cranking out as many as ten threads per day of undiluted venom towards any institution or person that supports the Judeo-Christian ethic in any way. Then he sits back and enjoys the fruits of his labor as his anonymous cronies elaborate and amplify his naked hatred. Wesley Royce Elsberry also promotes denigration at “After The Bar Closes,” leaving most of the venom to his followers, some of whom he shares with Myers’ “Pharyngula.” The users at “RichardDawkins.net,” while somewhat more civilized, are no less dedicated to the preservation of the Darwinian fantasy and they too banish critics when they become troublesome. Dawkins does not speak on the forum dedicated to his bizarre interpretation of the great mystery of organic evolution, silently relying in his flock to do that on his behalf, a task they seem to thoroughly enjoy. Nevertheless, Dawkins, like Myers, displays the same public hostility towards the Christian Church, especially Roman Catholicism, claiming even that its teachings are harmful to our youth. It is pathetic to see such flagrant bigotry expressed by someone otherwise so obviously talented. As I have asked so many times before – “It is hard to believe isn’t it?”

Myers has created a special receptacle for those he loathes the most, “The Dungeon,” also called his “Hate File,” which he proudly displays at the top of the “Pharyngula” web page. There you will find me as one of the charter inmates, a distinction I value most highly. Visit that site and note the language with which his “prisoners” are described. In my opinion, his words reveal a seriously disturbed personality.

These three practitioners and promoters of hate illustrate the depths to which ideology can submerge the human spirit. The most remarkable feature of their shared philosophy is their oblivion to what can only be described as a deliberate self inflicted masochism, an intellectual suicide as inevitable as night follows day. I can think of no more appropriate words with which to terminate this essay than those of Martin Luther King, Jr. –

“”Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.”


5. Mary Daly - April 14, 2010

I take issue with just one line: “The posture of the advocates of neo-Darwinism constitutes a cowardly, anti-intellectual scandal unprecedented in the history of experimental and descriptive science.”
Aristarchus was the first thinker to see that the sun had to be in the center. Hipparchus, an excellent observer but not a deep thinker, canceled his conclusions for 2000 years.
Copernicus was similarly almost canceled by Tycho Brahe, an excellent observer but not a clear thinker.
Galileo was opposed by all the contemporary Aristotelians and their envy nearly cost him his life. They tried to use the Church to smash him, but it took 20 years because they had to wait until Cardinal Bellarmine died, and even then their success was mixed and temporary.
Mendel – how could he have been forgotten for 40 years? Let’s see. My greatest adversary appears just 6 years after my magnum opus and I forget him at once. I don’t think so.

My father said tektites were from the moon. The consensus is that they are not. Really? What is a consensus? None of the major questions my father raised 50 years ago about the hopeless impossibility of terrestrial origin of tektites has yet been answered. How do you have a consensus when the issues have not been addressed?
They would like to forget you for 40 years, or maybe 400 or 4,000. “Let’s pretend he doesn’t exist, and after all, he won’t someday.” Maybe by random selection of atheists we can evolve into a new species that thinks the way we do.
Oh! er, uh… That would mean having children…
No dice.
Read The Last Ugly Person by Roger B Thomas

Oh, one more. Einstein got uncomfortable with his physics because it had been developed in relation to a randomly moving electron, which was not really a “thing” at all, but only a cloud of probability. He began to wonder if there was an ether after all – gravity being the ether. But the A crowd was so in love with their random and meaningless tumble of a universe they would not listen.
To Einstein!
Then came Petr Beckman. Very interesting. Ether plus Two. Read it. All that’s unprecedented in your case is the hold they have on the schools, and that’s only because there were never so many schools.

6. John A. Davison - April 14, 2010



But there is a difference. Clinton Richard Dawkins is a highly educated person and so presumably are Wesley Royce Elsberry and Paul Zachary Myers. These people (I don’t know how else to describe them) are trapped by an innate ideology which makes it quite impossible for them to interpret the world in which they find themselves. That defect occurs in varying extents in all of us. The take home lesson in William Wright’s “Born That Way” is exactly the same conclusion that Einstein reached –

“Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion.”
my emphasis.

If others think they have the truth, I say good for them but Einstein commented on that too –

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
Ideas and Opinions, page 28.

Note how Einstein has pluralized god. I agree. How is that for blasphemy? Is that blasphemous enough? Try this on. There is no more reason to believe in monotheism than there is to believe in a monophyletic (Darwinian) evolution. And why should God be male? They don’t call her Mother Nature for nothing.

Thanks for the comment.

7. John A. Davison - April 14, 2010

Being ignored is much more revealing than being ridiculed which is why I like being ignored. The Darwimps and the Fundies each maintain a discrete silence about me as they do about all my sources. Elsberry won’t even let my papers be mentioned by the users on his “inner sanctum,” “After The Bar Closes.” He is obviously terrified of me and my predecessors.

“Silence is the perfect expression of scorn.”
George Bernard Shaw

I like being ridiculed too because I am supremely confident of my science and the science of the distinguished sources on which mine is securely based. That does not mean that we are right but I cannot imagine a more ridiculous proposal than the one that escaped Charles Robert Darwin’s imagination to be published in a book which contains absolutely nothing in support of its title, not a word. Darwinism is the longest continuous example of mass hysteria in the annals of descriptive and experimental science.

I love it so!

It doesn’t get any better than this.

8. John A. Davison - April 15, 2010

Come on Wesley Royce Elsberry, Paul Zachary Myers, Clinton Richard Dawkins and all your mostly anonymous goose-stepping disciples. Show yourselves here with your responses to my utter contempt for all of you. Are you afraid to defend your infantile notions? Of course you are because you all know they are indefensible, that everything you silently defend is intellectual garbage, meaningless drivel, trillions of words that mean nothing, absolutely nothing!

At the beginning of this thread I predicted that our enemies would never acknowledge our existence, that they would continue, as the Darwimps always have, to pretend that they never had any credible critics. That is one prediction that sure came true. Every day that passes without a response further seals the fate of Darwin’s silly proposition that chance played a role in organic evolution. Leo Berg knew that was nonsense 88 years ago. Commenting on the twin mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny –

“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Nomogenesis, page 134

So, you cowardly mystics, continue to imagine that natural selection plays a role in phylogeny. The truth is that all natural selection ever did was temporarily delay the inevitable – extinction. That is all that it does today. It never had anything whatsoever to do with the progressive ascending evolution displayed by the fossil record, the final referee for what gets published in the Book of Truth.

“If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
Oscar Wilde

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”

It doesn’t get any better than this .

I love it so!

P.S. Just to make sure they received this message, I forwarded it to –


If there are others who agree with me, email these “groupthinktanks” and tell them to stop pretending that they have never had any credible critics. Tell them that their continued silence is unacceptable, protectionist and anti-intellectual, a posture which labels them as profoundly insecure. Tell them that scientists recognize alternative hypotheses and deal with them openly.

“A doctrine which is unable to maintain itself in clear light, but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind with uncalculable harm to human progress.”
Albert Einstein


Now that I have presented this series of essays, I am prepared to make a prediction based on the way that the critics of the Darwinian model have always been received by an evolutionary community still dominated by the Darwinian paradigm, a mindset that has always been opposed to the notion that there might be a purpose in the universe. As I hope I was able to demonstrate, St. George Mivart destroyed Darwin’s dream when he asked how natural selection could possibly be involved with a structure which had not yet appeared. While Darwin acknowledged Mivart’s criticism, he refused to respond to it and soon Mivart was forgotten. The same can be said for every one of the subsequent critics of the atheist Darwinian model, in roughly chronological order, William Bateson, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Reginald C Punnett, Leo Berg, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Otto Schindewolf, Pierre Grasse and more recently Soren Lovtrup, Robert F. DeHaan and now myself. We all spoke against the Darwinian model and we have all been ignored.

I am convinced that pattern will continue and my science will join with that of my predecessors, some of the finest scientists of the post Darwin era. We are not allowed to exist because, if we were allowed to exist, the entire fabric of Darwin’s fantasy would collapse. That the Darwinian paradigm still dominates evolutionary science is a scandal which I feel has no precedent in the history of science. It has penetrated every aspect of the public arena with devastating effects on the manner in which we interpret the world in which we find ourselves. We have become a culture of nihilism, a culture which has lost all self respect and respect for our fellow creatures. We are destroying ourselves and I do not believe that there is anything that we can do to stop it.

I do not enjoy having to offer this dismal prospectus but I present it on the outside chance that perhaps the time has come when we can finally recognize that the godless, purposeless world of Stephen Jay Gould, Ernst Walter Mayr, Clinton Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers can no longer serve the goal of science which has always been to find the laws which we know explain the inanimate world. Such laws must also exist in the living world. The atheist mindset must be abandoned as it has never contributed a scintilla to the advancement of evolutionary science. Until it is, we remain at a stalemate, paralyzed by opposing ideologies for which no cures are presently available. I am now convinced that we are the result of a planned sequence which reached its climax long ago and now is in irreversible decline. Our duty now is to delay extinction for as long as possible, a position I share with James Lovelock, one of our most original thinkers.

In the meantime I will continue my crusade against those who categorically deny a planned universe for as long as I am able. That is my fate just as it is the fate for each of us to be what we are. We are all puppets, victims of forces far beyond our comprehension exactly as Einstein claimed –

“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust – we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.”
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 196.

9. chrustchev - May 20, 2010

JAD said:
“Darwin’s silly proposition that chance played a role in organic evolution. Leo Berg knew that was nonsense 88 years ago. Commenting on the twin mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny –

“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Nomogenesis, page 134”

I just want to mention that Jeffrey K. McKee published “The Riddled Chain”, ‘Chance, Coincidence, and Chaos in Human Evolution’ in 2000.

ID may be ‘the future’, but I am afraid that will have to wait until evolution is finished with the present, by what time ID will already be buried alongside the rest of creationism.

10. John A. Davison - May 20, 2010

chrustchev, whoever that is and I doubt we will ever know.

I take it you don’t believe in a determined universe. Well I do and so did Albert Einstein. I believe that a designed universe is a tacit assumption upon which all science must rest. It was a strategic error for the IDists to introduce the idea of Intelligent Design as a subject for debate. I said so and my reward was to be banished from their ranks. I have no truck with “Chaos theory” as it is not a theory. Theories, sensu strictu, are verified hypotheses and neither Darwnism nor Lamarckism nor “Chaos theory” qualify as they have not been verified. They are constructs of an overactive human imagination.

All tangible evidence pleads for a living world every bit as predestined and determined as the inanimate world of Chemistry and Physics. To assume a role for chance when there is no compelling reason to make such an assumption is unacceptable.

“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it to be true.”
Bertrand Russell

So much for Darwinism, Lamarckism and “Chaos theory.” All three have been thoroughly tested and all have failed the acid test of experimental verification.

Leo Berg, in my opinion the most inciteful student of evolution of all time, recognized the close relationship between ontogeny, the development of the individual and phylogeny, the appearance of the evolutionary series.

“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Nomogenesis, page 134

If not chance, what must be the only conceivable alternative?

A determined universe is a planned universe.

Incidentally, I believe that creative evolution terminated long ago, a position I will be happy to abandon as soon as it is proved to be without merit.

Thanks for the comment.

11. John A. Davison - June 23, 2010

I am going to make another prediction even though my record has not been anything to brag about. Here is what I predict.

As soon as the Gulf oil leak can be stopped which should be at the latest in August when the relief holes can be finished, then –

The first significant Gulf coast hurricane will erase much of the evidence that there ever was an oil spill. The only reason that didn’t happen in Alaska with the Valdez spill is because hurricanes don’t occur at those latitudes. We greatly underestimate the capacity of the earth organism to heal itself. The oil will be so dispersed and the beaches so renewed by the violence of hurricane winds and waves that I believe it is an enormous waste of time and energy to even think about trying to clean up the mess at the present time. Oil eating bacteria will finish the job. The earth has survived far greater insults many times in the past and emerged unscathed.

Besides, oil, methane and othar hydrocarbons are constituents of the earth’s deep layers and it is perfectly natural for them occasionally to reach the surface. We should remember that oil was discovered on the surface of the earth at Titusvile Pennsylvania only a century and a half ago. It most certainly is not a fossil fuel and this event in the Gulf is not nearly the disaster it is being made out to be. We are in far greater danger from drastic climate change and global warming than from the recent accident in the Gulf.

The hysteria we now witness reminds me of the old saw –

“When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.”

12. John A. Davison - September 5, 2010


Pee Zee Myers’ Pharyngula has become a “dog and pony show,” literally, a sure sign that Darwinian mysticism is in its last throes.

I love it so!


Below is an essay in progress with the title –

Phlogiston and Darwinism Compared

by John A. Davison

Wikipedia introduces Phlogiston Theory as follows.

“The Phlogiston theory, first stated in in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher, is an obsolete scientific theory that postulated the existence of a fire-like element called “phlogiston” which was contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. The theory was an attempt to explain processes such as combustion and the rusting of metals, which are now understood as oxidation.”

Before continuing, I will use the word “theory” in its more rigorous sense to mean an “hypothesis” which has been verified. By 1784 Antoine Lavoisier had proved beyond doubt that Phlogiston did not exist. Not only was nothing lost during burning (oxidation), the materials being oxidized or burned gained weight by virtue of the addition oxygen to their structure Thus the Phlogiston hypothesis never reached the status of theory because it was never verified. Thus we can conservatively estimate the duration of the Phlogiston hypothesis as between 1667 and 1784 or 107 years.

In 1859 Charles Robert Darwin published his book with the complete title –


That is the title of my facsimile printing of the first edition published in 1964 with an Introduction by Ernst Mayr, who identified himself as a “dyed in-the-wool Darwinian like myself” in his book The Growth of Biological Thought, page 132.

The substance of Darwin’s title is still the ruling paradigm today, 152 years later, making Darwinism of far longer duration than the Phlogiston of Chemistry. There are reasons this has been possible. One of the basic tenets of Darwin’s proposal is that evolution is a slow process, not to be observed in one’s lifetime. While offering an explanation, it flies in the face of the fossil record which not in a single instance can support such an assumption. What we see are the sudden appearance of discrete species which persist for a variable period of time only eventually to disappear either suddenly or over a limited period of time. I know of not a single instance in which one known fossil species became gradually transformed into another. Otto Schindewolf, the greatest paleontologist of the twentieth century, claimed that we might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed. The famous horse series is a beautiful demonstration validating his position. The individual species are so different from one another that the taxonomists must place them each in a separate Genus. Such a record is the very antithesis of gradualism and supports a saltational sequence favored independently by both Schindewolf and Richard B. Goldschmidt.

A sexually mediated process can produce all sorts of intermediate phenotypes as is so evident with dogs and many other domesticated organisms which have been subject to artificial selection. Yet not in a single instance has such selection transformed one species into another. Artificial selection, when carried on too long, invariably leads to a lack of genetic fitness and ultimate extinction. There is every reason to believe that is the case with natural selection as well. Natural selection has never been anything more than a delaying tactic ensuring extinction without which a creative ascending evolution could never have occurred.

So we see that the underlying assumption of Darwin’s proposal is without merit and has failed the acid test of experimental verification, the same acid test that destroyed the Phlogiston hypothesis in Chemistry.

When an hypothesis fails at such a fundamental level, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is wrong and should immediately be discarded. Yet this has not taken place. I think I know why. The reason has nothing to do with biological science at all which continues to flourish in the laboratories of the world to reveal a growing complexity unimaginable in Darwin’s day and mind boggling even today. The refusal to abandon Darwinism results entirely from an even more stubborn refusal on the part of his supporters to acknowledge the only conceivable alternative conclusion which is that the living world must have been planned. Such a recognition is impossible for the atheist mindset which Darwin’s world has always represented.

Why anyone would waste his energies trying to prove that God does not exist, which lies at the root of the Darwinian strategy, is beyond me as it was beyond the comprehension of Darwin’s Bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley, who, never a Darwinian himself, had this to say –

“Of all the senseless babble I have ever had occasion to read, the demonstrations of these philosophers who undertake to tell us all about the nature of God would be the worst, if they were not surpassed by the still greater absurdities of the philosophers who try to prove that there is no God.”
Henrietta Huxley, Aphorisms and Reflections From the Works of Thomas Henry Huxley, page 3.

Albert Einstein presented a similar analysis –

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source… They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 204.

What do we learn from Clinton Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers, the two most vocal supporters of of the atheist inpired Darwinian model? We learn that they are helpless, “prescribed” automatons, proving Richard P. Feynman’s reminder that the easiest person to fool is yourself.

The simple reality is that we are not free to be objective in our interpretations of the world in which we find ourselves. We are largely trapped by our congenital predispositions which renders us impotent to variable extents. Some of us are hopelessly useless members of society like Paul Zachary Myers and Clinton Richard Dawkins. Their innate atheism has destroyed any vestige of the one feature which is mandatory for every scientist – objectivity.

Perhaps the most difficult lesson for every person to learn is that he is not objective. I finally came to grips with that humbling reality and learned in the process that I had been far from objective in the manner in which I had been dealing with my world. With that revelation came a new way to look at the world, a world that must have been planned and in which we are playing a role for which we must have each been predestined by forces over which we have little or no control. I once again turn to Albert Einstein, in my opinion the most enlightened student of the human condition who ever lived –

“Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion. (my emphasis added in italics)
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 200.


An essay in progress –

The Causes Of Extinction
by John A. Davison

The scientist is always interested in the reasons events take place and when he feels he has found a reason he is inclined to publish his conclusions. Nowhere is this more evident than with respect to the causes of extinction. Unfortunately, past events like the extinction of the dinosaurs, are not subject to controlled testing. It is precisely this weakness that allows imagination to run rampant. Since proofs are not available, anything goes. Once again we encounter the limits of the application of the scientific method to a fundamental aspect of the evolution mystery. I insist that evolution remains an unsolved mystery despite the Darwinian’s claim that it has resulted from Natural Selection, that cornerstone of Darwin’s 1859 proposal.

I am going to take a fresh look at the causes of extinction based on what can actually be established with certainty. This will be followed by another interpretation which has largely been ignored.

When conditions change, animals and plants are often able to move to a more favorable environment and avoid the factors which would otherwise lead to their extinction. Certain environments make such movements impossible and they can be very instructive in explaining extinction. Mountains provide one such environment and species limited to the alpine habitat can only move up and down if the enviroment changes. Tim Flannery has studied montane plants and animals and the ranges they occupy as environmental temperature has changed. Montane biota is typically highly specialized and many species found there can be found nowhere else. In his book “The Weather Makers,” Flannery cites several examples of extinction resulting from warming which has caused such creatures to move upward. When there is no more “up,” extinction takes place. These studies are important because they leave little question as to the causes of extinction. There is no question that thousands of species have become extinct in the past 200 years as man has so drastically altered the environments in which such species are confined.

It is interesting to note that comparatively little extinction has taken place in marine organisms when compared to their terrestrial counterparts. The ocean is relatively much more stable and many marine creatures can move to more favorable sites. Notable exceptions are the sessile coral reef creatures which have suffered massive extinctions as the salinity or temperature of their habitats have more rapidly changed than their capacity to find more suitable habitats through the dispersal of their free living larval stages can allow. Coral reefs are in many ways superorganisms stuck where they have been for centuries with no place to go like the montane creatures studied by Flannery. The bleaching of coral reefs is a powerful signal that man has also seriously damaged the marine environment.

Thus we see perfectly acceptable explanations for much of the extinction that we know has taken place. But can we always be confident that extinction has resulted from environmental change?

In the distant past evolution and extinction were occurring simultaneously with new life forms appearing at the same time that their predecessors were becoming extinct. Without concurrent extinction there never could have been evolution. Can we be certain that those extinctions were due only to an inability of the organisms to respond to a changing enviroment? Indeed is there compelling evidence that the environment was necessarily even changing very much? I don’t believe such evidence exists.

The history as revealed by the fossil record reveals certain repetitive phenomena that have characterized every taxon as they appeared, flourished and then became extinct. The paleontologist Otto Schindewolf has offered a unique explanation for this repetitive sequence. He has proposed three distinct phases in the evolutionary process. The first phase which he named typogenesis marks the appearance of a unique new life form (type) markedly distinct from its predecessor. The second phase, typostasis marks the elaboration of the type as it flourishes and increases in number and variants. The third phase, Typolysis, marks the progressive decay of the original type preceeding and culminating in its extinction. He presents convincing evidence for this sequence operating in a variety of taxonomic series.

Schindewolf’s proposal stands in complete contrast with the Darwinian model as it presupposes a determined evolution in which chance has played no role. As such it has been largely ignored by the Darwinian establishment with a notable and revealing exception. Schindewolf’s book originially published in German “Grundfragen der Palaontologie” in 1950 was not translated into English until 1993 as “Basic Questions in Paleontology.” Stephen Jay Gould wrote the Foreword in which he dismissed Schindewolf’s entire thesis by describing it as –

“spectacularly flawed.” page xi

I will never pardon Gould for this hideous response to the science of the greatest paleontologist of the twentieth century and probably of all time. Gould’s characteriztion is typical of the manner in whch the Darwinians have always treated any departure from the “one true faith,” the atheist inspired interpretation which the Darwinian position demands. Rather than consider an alternative, they have invariably chosen to pretend such alternatives cannot exist and are out of the question.

to be continued

13. John A. Davison - August 21, 2011

Just for fun I am going to predict that the Republican nominees for President and Vice President respectively will be Rick Perry and Sarah Palin. I am hardly ever right!

14. John A. Davison - August 25, 2011

A new essay, now complete.

Natural Selection: The Achilles Heel of Darwinism.

by John A. Davison

The words “Darwinism” and “Natural Selection” have come to be virtually synonymous. I will show in this essay that Natural Selection (NS) not only had nothing to do with evolutionary change, but served to prevent change for as long as possible, its role today as always in the past. How such a fundamental misunderstanding ever managed to take place requires an explanation which is the purpose of this essay.

After Darwin returned from the nearly five years he had been naturalist on board the H.M.S. Beagle, he settled in 1842 in what was to become his home for the rest of his life. Down House (note the absence of the terminal e) is located in the village of Downe in the London Borough of Bromley near the southern border of greater London. Darwin never left England again and it was there at Down House that he developed his notion of Natural Selection as the engine for organic change. His home is now a museum and tourist attraction where devoted disciples visit to pay homage to the man who more than anyone else removed God from the evolutionary equation. So taken is Laurence A. “larry” Moran with Darwinism that he named his blog “Sand Walk” after the path that Darwin frequented as he refined his evolutionary thesis.

A Creator (or Creators) were no longer necessary as evolution could now be explained as an auto-catalytic process fueled only by the accumulation of small changes selected for or against by Nature, the sole judge of what will or will not survive to produce the changes that we know have taken place over the millennia in which species have come and gone in the history of life on this planet.

For 17 years Darwin pondered what he had observed on the voyage of the research vessel H.M.S. Beagle and it was there in and around Down House that the notion of NS finally fully crystallized; yet he still hesitated to publish his explanation. An interesting question arises. Why did he wait so long? Of course we can only speculate but it is generally agreed that what prompted publication was the fact that Alfred Russel Wallace had reached a similar if not exact explanation for organic change – Natural Selection.

Scientists live in mortal fear of being “scooped” and when such a prospect looms, they tend to react promptly. Wallace had sent his ideas in the form of a letter to the Linnaean society and so it was arranged that his letter and Darwin’s would be read simultaneously as part of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society. The letters which had already been received were each read in a meeting of the Society which took place on July 1, 1858.

Darwin reacted quickly, assembling his materials in the form of what he described as an “Abstract” and his book was published on November 24th, 1859 under the imposing title –

“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

That title leaves little to the imagination as Darwin has clearly stated that NS is the cause of organic evolution.

Having summarized its history, we are now prepared to demonstrate that there is not a word of truth in Darwin’s book and that the sole role of NS has been misunderstood from 1859 to the present day.

Before we begin, it is important to review the role Alfred Russel Wallace played in this unfolding drama. While Darwin spent the rest of his life in England, Wallace was becoming the greatest and most widely traveled naturalist of the 19th century. Wallace soon modified his earlier position at first gradually and finally completely as exhibited by the title of his last book –

“The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose.”
London, Chapman and Hall, Limited, 1911.

Wallace died in 1913 in his 90th year. It is no wonder that the Darwinians ignore the metamorphosis of the co-author of natural selection, the sine qua non of the Darwinian paradigm.

A scientific hypothesis is only as good as it can be verified by experiment or direct observation. The theoretical physicist Richard P. Feynman reminded us that –

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

Sensu strictu, Natural Selection has never reached the status of theory as theories are verified hypotheses, a level NS has never attained. The gradual changes required by the Darwinian thesis has never been observed nor has it ever been verified by controlled experiment.

The key word is gradual. Gradual changes require long periods of time to be observable and this has been the argument the Darwinians use to support the NS concept. Related to this is their insistence that evolution is still going on. Everything the Darwinian sees is through the lens of a continuing evolutionary process of adjustment to a changing environment. There is no question that such changes can occur. For example, insects can become resistant to insecticides, microbes to antibiotics and many organisms can become tolerant to changes of temperatures and toxic conditions, etc, etc. But do these adaptations represent evolutionary changes? As far as can be determined, they do not because when the challenging factor is removed, the organisms return to their prior state. The key element that distinguishes evolution from adaptation is the irreversibility of organic evolution. Any change which can be reversed is not an evolutionary change. No mammal has ever evolved into a reptile, no reptile into an amphibian and no amphibian into a fish yet we know with certainty that sequence in reverse is the path through which evolution has actually taken place.

The paleontologist Otto Schindewolf was adamant about the notion of an experimental or reproducible evolution.

“Many authors have spoken of experimental evolution; There is no such thing. Evolution, a unique, historical course of events that took place in the past, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated in that way.”
Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 311. (Schindewolf’s italics).

As an experimental scientist, I was at first shocked at Schindewolf’s position but have since come to believe that it best represents the historical facts. The reaction by the Darwinians has been, aside from rarely mentioning Schindewolf at all, to dismiss his evolutionary conclusions as “spectacularly flawed.” Those are the words Stephen Jay Gould used when he wrote the Foreword to Schindewolf’s 1993 English translation – “Basic Questions in Paleontology,” (page xi) – originally published in German in 1950 as “Grundfragen der Palaontologie.” Forty three years after its publication and 22 years after Schindewolf’s death, Stephen Jay Gould decided to dismiss Schindewolf’s evolutionary science by describing it as “spectacularly flawed.” I have never forgiven Gould for this shabby treatment of the greatest paleontologist since Cuvier. We can be certain that Gould would never have dared use those words when Schindewolf was still alive.

It is characteristic of the Darwinians to ignore their critics while alive and then to dismiss them once they can no longer respond by claiming that we know much more now than we did then. Those many critics of the Darwinian model constitute a veritable honor roll of the most distinguished biologists of the post Darwin era – William Bateson, Reginald C. Punnett, Leo S. Berg, Robert Broom, Pierre Grasse, Richard B. Goldschmidt and many others, not one a religious or atheist zealot. Nothing has changed since St. George Mivart in his 1873 book – “On the Genesis of Species” – described NS as “incompetent” because it cannot explain the appearance of new structures – “THE INCOMPETENCY OF ‘NATURAL SELECTION’ TO ACCOUNT FOR THE INCIPIENT STAGES OF USEFUL STRUCTURES.” – The title of Mivart’s Chapter 2, page 35. Chapter 1 was the Introduction.

While many had questioned NS, it was not until 1922 that it was finally described for what it actually has always been and still always does.

In his remarkable book “Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law,” Leo Berg properly identified the role of NS as follows –

“The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard.”
page 406.

While others, notably William Bateson, Reginald C. Punnett and Henry Fairfield Osborn, had challenged NS before him, Berg unambiguously and vigorously stated what, in his opinion, NS actually does, a position which I believe best represents the testimony both of the fossil record and what we see operating with the present biota. With his carefully crafted sentence, Leo Berg struck a death blow to Darwinism by turning the role of Natural Selection upside down, rendering it useless as an explanatory thesis and at the same time explaining its primary role which has always been the same – to delay evolutionary progress for as long as possible, a strategy which, with very few exceptions, has terminated with extinction.

But has Berg’s revolutionary thesis been recognized by the Darwinians? The answer is an unqualified NO! Stephen Jay Gould in his ponderous “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” made no mention of Leo Berg in the text and didn’t list Nomogenesis in his Bibliography. Ernst Mayr whose office was down the hall from Gould’s (at Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology) also made no mention of Berg in the text of his “The Growth of Biological Thought,” but added insult to injury by listing “Nomogenesis” in his Bibliography. Thus Mayr openly dismissed Berg’s science as of no consequence. Accordingly, the two most prominent spokespersons for the Darwinian paradigm revealed themselves to be scientific bigots, unfit to wear the mantle of scientist by allowing their congenital atheism to destroy the one feature that has always characterized the true scientist, the willingness to abandon a failed hypothesis when that becomes necessary. Rather than confront their many critics, the Darwinians continue a tradition that began a century and a half ago. when they failed to respond to St. George Mivart’s accurate description of NS as “incompetent.”

Leo Berg was the greatest Russian biologist of his generation and, in my opinion, the most insightful evolutionist of all time. His book “Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law” remains a treasure trove of evolutionary science unexcelled as a source of real evolutionary science free of the trappings of ideology, prejudice and bigotry. Everything we have learned in the eighty-nine years since its publication fully vindicates the words with which Berg described the closely related mysteries of ontogeny (development) and phylogeny (evolution).

“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Nomogenesis, page 134

“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it to be true.”
Bertrand Russell

By accepting Berg’s position, the Linnaean taxonomic system receives powerful support. Linnaean taxonomy depends heavily on the apparent immutability of species, a feature which allows even the amateur to correctly identify any organism he is likely to encounter. Taxonomic keys proceed on the basis of alternate choices which lead in relatively few steps to the unambiguous identification of the organism sought. The vast majority of organisms in their natural state exhibit very little variation, and those that do are easily identified as to species as, for example, white tigers. Furthermore, the genetic basis for such rare mutants obviously has little if any adaptive advantage in any event. The lowly chickadee, so common in the Northeast provides an ideal example. Every chickadee not only looks rather exactly like every other chicadee, but they all sound alike as well – chickadee-dee-dee, chickadee-dee-dee. Apparently only the chickadees recognize the opposite sex! These observations are in perfect accord with Berg’s insistence that natural selection and the struggle for existence “maintain the standard.”

Indeed, from what we know with certainty, there is little reason to assume that even speciation is still in progress. I have repeatedly challenged the Darwinians to present an example of a new verified species and the species known to be its immediate ancestor. Such examples have not been forthcoming, leading me to postulate, with Robert Broom and Julian Huxley, that creative organic evolution is no longer in progress. What we see are the products of a past evolution, not examples of evolution in progress as the Darwinian model demands. One of the most remarkable contradictions in the evolution literature is the way that the Darwinian faithful have ignored a conclusion drawn by one of their own, Julian Huxley, the man who coined the term “modern synthesis” which became the title of his book “Evolution: The Modern Synthesis,” otherwise a thoroughly Darwinian interpretation of evolutionary phenomena.

Oblivious to the science of their critics, both those within and without the Darwinian camp, the faithful continue their allegiance to the fundamentals as laid out by their founder – Charles Robert Darwin. I can only conclude that we have witnessed and continue to witness the conquest of a blind, atheist inspired ideology over reason on a scale hitherto unknown in experimental and descriptive science.

Based on what we have presented here, we are now prepared to offer our interpretation of the findings from the experimental laboratory and the fossil record as follows –

1. Chance and natural selection have played no role in the ascending sequence which the fossil record so clearly represents.

2. The sole role of natural selection has been limited to small reversible transformations none of which lead to new species. However, the accumulation of deleterious genes may play a role in extinction.

3. No evolutionary changes have ever been gradual which is how it is possible to identify every organism, living or fossil, with certainty using simple binary keys.

4. There is every reason to believe that creative organic evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past and is no longer taking place. Thus, it follows that the current biota is a terminus, a climax of what must have been a planned sequence in which chance has played at best a trivial role.

5. Both phylogenesis (evolution) and extinction have been planned. Without a planned extinction, evolution could never have taken place.

That is our position and so it will remain until it is demonstrated to be without merit, an eventuality I do not anticipate.

“Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed.”
Thomas Henry Huxley and the Frontispiece to Berg’s “Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law.”

15. John A. Davison - August 28, 2011

The above essay – “Natural Selection: The Achilles Heel of Darwinism” may also be found as the last essay in the New Essays button at the top of the home page. While it was originally presented in installments, those traces have been removed and it is now in its final form. In an attempt to find out who my allies really are, I now ask that this essay be reproduced in its entirety on the websites of those who support our science. It is only by such action that I can be assured that I am not completely alone in my quest to expose the most enduring hoax in the history of scientific communication. Terry Trainor has already reproduced the essay on his blog for which I am very grateful.


If anyone else is willing to do the same, please alert me as to where I can find it. I have reached the point where I now am inclined to say – “If you ain’t fer me, yer agin me.”


I have also reprinted the essay on “brainstorms” forum –

16. John A. Davison - August 30, 2011

To date I have received no response to my above request.

17. John A. Davison - September 1, 2011

Still no responses.

18. John A. Davison - September 5, 2011

Still no response to my above request.

As you can see, I am a slow learner as hope springs eternal. I’ll give it a few moe days before I draw the only apparent conclusion which is –

Our science is unacceptable to the contemporary students of the great mystery of organic evolution. As for Terry Trainor, the only one to reprint my essay –

“The applause of a single human being is of great consequence.”
Samuel Johnson

Edit added September 8, 2011

If we must conclude that we have little support, it will only make our certain victory all the more satisfying.

“Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.”
Thomas Henry Huxley

“All great truths begin as blasphemies.”
George Bernard Shaw

“If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
Oscar Wilde

19. John A. Davison - September 10, 2011

“There are in every age, new errors to be rectified and new prejudices to be opposed.”
Samuel Johnson

Darwinism is hardly new, has yet to be rectified, and continues to be opposed; yet it persists nevertheless. Accordingly, one can substitute the word “old” for the word “new” in Johnson’s message. Darwinism has persisted for 152 years or six generations, yet still reigns supreme.

Wesley Royce Elsberry describes the Darwinista (and himself) perfectly with the signature with which he ends each of his messages at his private inner sanctum – “After The Bar Closes” –

“You can’t teach an old dogma new tricks.”
Dorothy Parker

It doesn’t get any better than this.

This message will be sent to the “Big 4 of Darwinian Mysticism.”

20. John A. Davison - September 12, 2011

Years ago Dale Carnegie wrote a book “How to win friends and influence people,” a book still in wide use today. I should write a book “How to lose friends and solidify the adversaries against you.”

My essay, “Natural Selection: The Achilles Heel of Darwinism” has resulted in the loss of three out of the four that I had previously regarded as my friends and scientific supporters. Only Terry Trainor now remains as the professional friend of this investigator. I won’t name these people as it is not my desire to embarrass them; they have already embarrassed themselves.

When one refuses to reprint the most devastating treatment of the Darwinian myth ever composed, that person has by definition lost any credibility with the author of that essay. The intellectual cowardice which typifies evolutionary science today represents the dominance of atheism over theism, bigotry over reason and imagination over bench science. It is a sad day for science generally and especially for that branch of science that deals with the great mystery of organic evolution. Having a single, tangible, demonstrated supporter lends a whole new meaning to Samuel Johnson’s observation –

“The applause of a single human being is of great consequence.”

Terry Trainor and John A. Davison will prevail. Of that you can all be certain.

P.S. THis message sent to the “Big 4 of Darwinian mysticism” and signed –


21. Terry J Trainor - September 13, 2011

Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem titled “If”:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with wornout tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings – nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run –
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man my son!

There is much truth in that poem, Prof. Davison.

22. John A. Davison - September 13, 2011

Thank you Terry.

I agree with Kipling’s message. However, being a mortal human being, I suffer from impatience and an instinctive loathing of the hatred and intolerance which has come to characterize not only evolutionary science, but every other aspect of our Godless society. What is happening today is what has always occurred when civilizations abandoned their God or Gods. I am sure that you also recognize how impossible it is to reason with the atheist Darwinian mindset. We have both been treated with contempt only because we differed with our adversaries.

I now believe that it is impossible to communicate effectively with the atheist mentality, that they are not even responsible for their condition, that they were “prescribed” to be what they have become. With Albert Einstein, I am convinced that “everything is determined …by forces over which we have no control.”

Ann Coulter once described Liberals as follows –

“Liberals are clueless, amoral, sexual degenerates, communists and pacifists.”

But Coulter missed the basis for these characteristics. If they are as she says, it is for one reason only. It is because they are first and foremost atheists. Atheists don’t believe in anything which is why they have no moral or ethical compass to guide them. They end up believing in the “Great God Chance,” the only deity in their personal universe and, of course, the sine qua non for the Darwinian thesis. Everything is relative to the atheist Liberal. That is why Liberals are also known as relativists. It is interesting that the words “atheist” and “liberal” have come to be virtual synonyms. Atheists are anything but liberal in the original meaning of the word. They are intolerant, domineering narcissists, totally self-absorbed and oblivious to the purposeful world that some of us observe all around us.

William F. Buckley recognized this difficulty with the word liberal. –

“The only true Liberal is the true Conservative.”

It is the intellectual Conservative who is objective, who demands evidence for assertions and who tests his convictions by means of direct observation and experimental verification. Verification is anathema to the atheist (liberal) mentality because he already knows the truth. Furthermore, like each of us, he was “born that way” and there is nothing that can be done either to or for him.

Liberalism (atheism) goes far beyond the limits of science and has come to dominate every aspect of our culture. It is no accident that we now have a professed atheist in the House of Representatives, Pete Stark, not surprisingly a Democrat from California. We now have international camps (Camp Quest) dedicated to the conversion of our youth to atheism reminiscent of the Hitlerjugend of Nazi Germany. I further believe that an ultra-liberal atheist now occupies the Oval Office for the first and hopefully last time in the history of the Republic.

I do not expect others to agree with me, but I can assure all that I am sincere and have arrived at my philosophy after considering all the available evidence.

Thank you Terry very much for your thoughtful message. It gave me an opportunity to respond.

P.S. This message emailed to the “Big 4 of Darwinian mysticism.”
I signed it with-

“Enjoy your waning moments in the sun of biological science.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: