1984 and beyond–digging through the muck of the evolution deception

1984 and beyond–digging through the muck of the evolution deception

I touch on the subject of evolution now and then, but what got me thinking about it today was an article from BBC News. Apparently, researchers from around the world are joining together in a united effort to count the bacteria teaming in the depths of the ocean.

Now, I’m not opposed to pure science (i.e., research that offers no apparent immediate gain to us), but the bloated, uncaring federal government (in which I include the foundations and other nonprofit organizations) has no business–or constitutional right, for that matter–to use our tax dollars to conduct a bacteria census.

Yet marine biologist Dr. Mitchell Sogin talks about this project as if it were something we should be excited about. Listen to this: “The number of different kinds of bacteria in the oceans could eclipse 10 million.” Well whooptie-doo. I doubt they can cure cancer, diabetes, arthritis, or any other deadly epidemic, so what’s the point of spending millions counting bugs 13,000 feet below the ocean surface? I don’t know, either. What I do know is that since the government has taken over science, any preexisting priorities have been tossed out the window. Not that the right priorities would make any difference in the end, anyway. Remember Nixon’s “War on cancer”? Is there less cancer today than when “Tricky Richard” (I’ve been told to clean up my act) was in office, messing up the economy?

But that’s not really what I’m getting at here. The farther you get into the muck of this BBC report, the more obvious it becomes that it should be classified in my “Closet Darwinism” file. Listen to how Dr. Sogin talks about these mindless bacteria: “We know there will be major ecological changes on our planet. The microbial world has to survive the changes and one way is to have a lot of novelty in your genome so that you can cope with different environmental conditions.”

It never ceases to amaze me that such highly educated people have woven a web of fantasy about nature’s struggles to cope and survive. It seems they have anthropomorphized every bedbug, boa, and bear so that they are “struggling” “adapting,” and “designing novel strategies” in the battle for survival–just like human beings.

I hate to burst their one-celled bubble, but it’s not all that glamorous. Some survive, and some don’t–it’s that simple. It has nothing to do with Darwin’s hallucinations and wild speculations about evolution. Did you know that there’s no proof of evolution? Yet the Darwinian revolution has managed to permeate all of modern science because scientists are too arrogant to accept the concept of there being a superior intelligence out there.

You might be wondering how I, Dr. Smarty Pants, can make such outlandish assertions about the so-called proven science of evolution when it’s so widely accepted and is taught in 90 percent of our colleges and schools. But trust me–when you know the facts, what I’ve said doesn’t seem quite so outlandish after all.

If you’re interested in digging deeper into the muck of the evolution deception, try reading Tornado in a Junkyard by James Perloff. You need no other source to understand the immense fraud and self-delusion of the thousands of “learned” scientists who really should know better. But if you want to read more, there are dozens of excellent references in the book. Believe me, I am not alone. There are plenty of scientists who speak out against evolution–they just don’t get the publicity because it goes too much against the grain of the predominantly atheistic press.

Well, they can get plenty of publicity from me. Here are a few quotes for you to mull over:

  • Professor Steven J. Gould, Harvard University: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” Dr. Gould is a little too kind. The number of transitional forms is ZERO.
  • Dr. Colin Patterson, British Museum of Natural History: “I will lay it on the line–there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
  • Dr. Steven Stanley, Johns Hopkins University: “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution...and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”
  • Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, American Museum of Natural History: “It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil speciescan be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another.”
  • Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse’, former president of the French Academy of Sciences [on genetic mutations causing evolution to occur]: “The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding. A single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: Events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur.” To add to this statement, I ask you: How can a mutation, which is a destructive event 99.9 percent of the time, have a positive effect on the evolution of a species? The idea is simply preposterous.

Evolutionists reject “intelligent design,” i.e., a universe designed by–dare I say it?–God. But in coming up with an alternative, all they’ve really done is paint themselves into a corner. They have conjured miracles of their own that are so far out of the realm of “reason” that even God himself couldn’t make their system effective without reworking the scientific facts concerning mutations.

Now, believe it or not, I’m not here to argue about religion or to convince you one way or the other about the existence of God. (Who am I–or any rabbi, preacher, or imam, for that matter–to instruct you on that?) But it’s a shame when a scientist allows his point of view on such matters to invade his perceptions of scientific reality. And it’s an even bigger shame that thousands of students in high schools and universities across the nation are being brainwashed into believing the same thing.

Have we arrived yet to 1984? (I’m referring, of course, to Orwell’s novel.) Well, let’s see: Myth is truth, and truth is myth. Yes, I’d say we’ve arrived.

And speaking of myths, the advertising world is full of them–like the following example from the mouthwash mogul Listerine.