Refuting Darwin.

Vic Biorseth, Saturday, October 01, 2011

(Refuting Darwin is another right-column gathering of material, this time refuting what Darwin hypothesized about the origin of species and natural evolution. Look to the article links in the right column on this page for the nitty-gritty details.)

Refuting Darwin is indeed almost too easy. The theories of Charles Darwin involved The Origin Of Species and The Ascent Of Man. But Charles Darwin never even observed the beginning point of any species, including man; and, in point of fact, neither did anyone else. Nor does the gigantic fossil record provide any empirical evidence showing any species evolving or in any way becoming another species.

It may be for these reasons that Darwin continued to work on his theory for some twenty years before he published it for peer review. However, when a scientist named Alfred Russel Wallace sent Darwin an outline of a near identical theory, Darwin was then moved to publish in order to be first with the theory. Open competition lit the fire.

But the bottom line here is that there was no evidence supporting the theory then, and there is no evidence supporting the theory today. Everything Charles Darwin ever observed and recorded related to what is known as micro evolution, meaning, changes strictly within known species. Changes in color, fur, finch-beaks, more wooly or less wooly coats on sheep, breeds of dog, breeds of cattle, etc., etc., etc. But what Darwin theorized about was what is known as macro evolution, meaning, species evolving into completely other species. The new species would be a clearly identifiable species when it could reproduce itself, but could no longer reproduce with the parent species.

And that – macro evolution – has never been observed, by Darwin, by Wallace, or by anyone, in all of recorded history. Nor does the fossil record show any such occurrence. Look to the right-column links on this webpage, and begin with the first one; it will show you that no real science has ever even been applied to this theory. That should be a rather stunning statement today, to everyone with an elementary education. Nevertheless, it is true. The scientific method has never been applied here.

Modern forensic scientists have shown that Neanderthals, supposedly extinct, are represented in the human population today, indicating that the Neanderthal was/is merely a breed (race) of man, and not another species at all. All of Darwin’s famous finches remained finches; all of his sheep remained sheep; nothing he ever observed ever became another species. The simple fact that many species in the Galapagos Islands appeared to be unique to the Galapagos Islands proved nothing whatsoever regarding the theory of evolution of species. Every single thing Darwin observed was related to micro evolution, and not macro evolution. He only theorized about macro evolution.

Nevertheless, Darwin’s theory took off like wildfire, was argued and debated in intellectual circles, and became another elitist fad; in the end, and in rather short order, Darwinian theory won the battle of pure opinion and rhetoric among “scientists” and was elevated to the rather lofty level of a recognized Scientific Theory, instead of what it actually was, which was an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Again, look to the first link in the right hand column of this page to see how the scientific method was not applied, and indeed was avoided in this entire process.

Today, the religion or faith-based or superstitious belief system of Darwinism holds sway in all classrooms and in all areas of biology in virtually every corner of the earth. The reason Darwinism stands so strong, whether it was the original intention or not, is that Darwinism, if true, provides a purely materialistic answer for life, and thus provides a “scientific” support for atheism. And that, I submit, is the real reason for the truly belligerent support of so many of TTRSTF4 . If Darwinism falls, the strongest (and perhaps only) support for atheism falls, and with it other atheist-based theories, such as Freudianism, Marxism, etc.

So, we have before us the proponents of Darwin’s original GESGOEAEOT2 or fundamentalist denomination of Darwinism, bitterly arguing with the newer, more evangelical PEWAG3 denomination of Darwinism, with no clear winner yet. But, both denominations agree that Darwinism itself is true, somehow. If Darwinism itself is not true, then nothing in biology makes sense any more. See?

And who’s fault will that be?

To prevent any unraveling of the Darwiniam dogmas, we now see the high priest (or pope) of TTRSTF4 , Richard Dawkins, leaving the defense of Darwinian dogma to others while he attacks theism itself, in order to advance atheism. And that, dear reader is really what this argument is about.

But, if you remember, the theism vs. atheism debate is not what the Origin Of Species theory or the Ascent of Man theory are supposed to be about. Theism vs. Atheism is not what Darwin himself was about; but – I submit that Theism vs. Atheism is indeed what modern Darwinism is really all about. And that the seemingly smug, aloof, super-elite among all of TTRSTF4 and TTRSPTF5 are all absolutely terrified of any actual public application of the scientific method to Darwin’s hypotheses.

Look to the right column links, and there you will find his eminence, the High and Immaculate Richard Dawkins, and his adoring retinue of groupie-scientists. I have likened them to the little bobble-headed dolls you used to see on the dash-boards and in the back windows of cars, with their little heads bobbing, bobbling and nodding, in complete unison, in response to the movements of the car.

They are the near opposite of their own view of themselves and of each other. They are unsophisticated, unthinking silly twits. They don’t think; they don’t do real science; they just nod and bobble in unison, on queue. Consensus, rather than science, rules them.

Beam me up Scotty; there’s no real science down here.


Reference Material

Return to What's New page

Return to HOME PAGE

Hover-Link Footnotes:  For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links.  (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" over a link.)

SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
GESGOEAEOT2 Gradually, Ever So Gradually, Over Eons And Eons Of Time
PEWAG3 Punctuated Equilibrium's Wild Assed Guess
TTRSTF4 Them There Real Scientifical Type Fellers
TTRSPTF5 Them There Real Smart Perfesser Type Fellers
TTRSJTF6 Them There Real Smart Journalistical Type Fellers
SNRTACBT7 Surely No Right Thinking Adult Could Believe Today
STNSEACPB8 Surely Today No Serious, Educated Adult Could Possibly Believe
WDN9 We Don't Know
BMDFP10 Baboons, Mongrel Dogs, Filthy Pigs
HBAACOTE11 Human Beings Are A Cancer On The Earth
ACLU12 Anti-Christian Litigation Union
FLORMPORIF13 Flagrant Liar, Or, Mindless Parrot, Or, Innocent Fool
MEJTML14 Marxist Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
IEJTML15 Islamic Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
MPAV16 Marxist Principles And Values
WBESSWG17 Wise, Benign, Elite, Super-Scientific World Governance
TRMITM18 The Reason Man's In This Mess

Respond to This Article Below The Last Entry


Date: Sat Oct 01 20:28:35 2011
From: CathyAnn
Location: Raelgih, NC

How is it that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences accepts Darwin's theory? Is it true that atheists are among the members of the PAS? Are Popes past and present open to "evolution" and, if so, why?

Date: Sun Oct 02 06:19:32 2011
From: Vic Biorseth


”How is it that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences accepts Darwin's theory?”
First, I am not sure that the PAS “accepts Darwin’s theory” in whole without reservation. If it has not been disproved, it is unlikely that it will be rejected out of hand.
”Is it true that atheists are among the members of the PAS?”

Whether it is true or not, I don’t know, but all members of the PAS are not Catholic clerics, and all members are not even Catholics. The PAS is made up of bone fide academicians and scientists from all over the world. It is quite conceivable (perhaps probable) that some of them might be atheists.

”Are Popes past and present open to "evolution" and, if so, why? ”

Of course Popes past and present have been open to evolution; why would they not be? It is atheism, not Catholicism that has constantly displayed a rigid, fixed, belligerent opposition to any alternative to their favored scientific position.

My personal position is that evolutionary theory has never been proved, and my opposition is made more fierce and confrontational by the fact that the theory is and has been overwhelmingly treated as if it were indeed proved, which would make it a scientific law. I still maintain that it does not deserve even the rank of scientific theory since there is no empirical evidence supporting it.

I declare it to be false only to draw opponents into rhetorical battle, or to force the issue and have the theory proved or disproved, one way or another. At this point in time, any declaration that Darwin’s theory is true cannot possibly be based on material science or application of the scientific method.

Which raises the question, how did the world come to accept it as true?




Friday, September 07, 2012

Updated this page to the new BB 2.0 - SBI! 3.0 release, and/or to make better use of the new reusable code feature.
LOVE this new release!



Date: Mon Oct 01 21:14:23 2012
From: Maria

Our children have textbooks that deny what you say. The fossil record shows a steady progression of evolution of species that agrees with Darwin. You say there is no such fossil evidence. Why should we believe you?

Date: Tue Oct 02 06:27:28 2012
From: Vic Biorseth


The fossil record shows no such thing; your children’s textbooks teach falsehood. There is no such “clear record” of evolution laid down in the fossilized strata. Species simply appear, live through their period of species life, and then disappear, unless they are not yet extinct. But there is no logical sequence. In every case, the first appearance is sudden, with no lead-up to it.

You will often hear “scientists” or “educators” talk about some particular long lived species, such as the cockroach, or the great white shark, and of how it gained “evolutionary perfection” some hundreds of millions of years ago, became perfectly evolved for its purpose in its environmental niche, and has never changed in all that time. Well, no kidding. I submit that that is precisely the case with every single known species, regardless of how long it existed. The only changes ever observed are micro-evolutionary, meaning within species – meaning breeds and races within the same species. Macro-evolution – meaning natural evolution between species – has never been observed by man, either in living creatures or in the fossil record.

Everything – from T-Rex to trilobite – just suddenly appeared with no lead up to it, and nothing for it to have evolved from.

Consider the two main postulated hypotheses. First, if species evolve according to the original Darwinian “fundamentalist” theory in which species evolve GESGOEAEOT2 – then we must believe that a member of a breed or race of the creature suddenly produced a single “fortuitous monster” so different from the parent species that it could no longer reproduce with any members of the parent species. But then – what would it mate with? In order for the new “species” to reproduce itself and survive, there would have to be a second perfect “fortuitous monster” of the opposite sex somehow mutated at the same time. This would be an event so statistically unlikely as to be considered miraculous. And the fossil record, again, shows no such thing.

Second, if species evolve in mass-mutation events, as described in PEWAG3 theory, then every member of the species would have mass-mutated into perfectly complimentary sexual pairs all at once. Again, the fossil record denies that this ever happened. Also, we have before us the fact that human DNA, in every case, without failure, points us back to one and only one parent set for the whole human race. It would be quite a, (ahem,) miraculous event for a mass-mutation of a whole species to include some trick by which all species DNA was coordinated throughout the whole brand new species to show such a relationship pointing to one originating parent pair.

There is a general rule involving mutation that shows that mutations have less genetic material and never more. That means that the more something mutates, the less future variation through mutation is possible. That points to becoming simpler, not more complex; it points to devolution, not evolution.

You can’t get away from it. Evolution of species has not been and cannot be proved, and I believe it to be false.



Date: Tue Oct 02 18:03:58 2012
From: Maria

But that’s just what you say. What sources do you have for all of that?

Date: Tue Oct 02 20:09:56 2012
From: Vic Biorseth


If you look at the bottom of the article you will see a link to Reference Material. If you click on it, you will find in that page these entries:

  • Darwin On Trial, Phillip Johnson, which systematically proves that Evolution Theory is based solely upon Faith in Naturalism. Refuting all empirical, scientific evidence for Darwin’s theory is quite easy - none exists.
  • Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe, which shows via mathematical laws of probability that the entire universe has not been in existences long enough for even the simplest of evolutionary events to possibly occur.
Look also to the first list of links in the right hand column of this page – they are all related to the subject matter. Pay particular attention to the Origin of Species treatment, for it shows how the scientific method was never even applied to Darwin’s hypothesis.



Date:  Fri Jan 18 22:47:45 2013
From:  Anony Mouse

Do you have any compelling scientific evidence for the existence of a God? I'd love to hear!

Date:  Sat Jan 19 18:44:53 2013
From:  Vic Biorseth


Ho hum, heavy sigh and here we go again.  All of the most super enlightened among sophists are always applying scientific empiricism to ephemeral things; I suppose that's all they know how to do, or think they know how to do.  See the Faith Vs. Atheism page.  

Can you supply any compelling scientific evidence for the non-existence of God?  I'd love to hear! 



Date:  Sun Jan 20 18:52:32 2013
From:  Anony Mouse

So,by your logic,  if I were to say that there was a colony of ocelots orbiting the planet Uranus, you would have to believe it, because you would have no way of proving me wrong?

But perhaps I had not made myself clear earlier. I am not an atheist, I just believe that faith should not have a role in science. The theory of evolution is backed by a large amount of evidence from the fossil record, the genetic make up of different species, and the history of artificial selection. Besides, you would not have to change your religious beliefs to say that a chimpanzee, which shares 98% of your genes, could have been related to you in the past. You could even say that evolution is God's way of making every creature unique and beautiful, if you wanted to.  :)

Date:  Mon Jan 21 21 05:38:33 2013
From:  Vic Biorseth


No, your new orbiting ocelot colony theory would be more likely to be accepted by you rather than by me, since you are the one who has been taught what to think rather than how to think.  You have been indoctrinated and propagandized rather than educated, and you have never learned critical thinking

So, you "just believe that faith should not have a role in science."  The ancient error that split natural science from philosophy is not new; it is ancient, and was a causative factor in the birth of the error of Modernism

Your statement:

"The theory of evolution is backed by a large amount of evidence from the fossil record, the genetic make up of different species, and the history of artificial selection."

Is untrue.  These three areas of evidence support nothing more than micro-evolution, meaning, evolution very strictly within species.  They supply no evidence whatsoever for macro-evolution, meaning, evolution between species.  Darwin's hypothesis did not call itself Origin of Breeds or Origin of Races; it called itself Origin of Species

Where's the speciation? 

A new species is defined as one that can successfully reproduce itself, but can no longer interbreed with the parent species from which it "evolved."  In all of recorded history, no such event has ever been so much as observed by man, nor has any such event ever been recorded in the massive fossil record. (See the Origin of Species page.)

My religious beliefs, whether I would have to change them or not, and whatever I "could" believe if I wanted to have nothing to do with this. 
What we're talking about here is strictly natural science.  You said "I am not an atheist, I just believe that faith should not have a role in science."  So let's just keep it that way and stick to science. 

Where's the speciation?



Date:  Thu Jan 24 03:01:57 2013
From:  Rolph

You did not fully address all of Anony's challenges; to wit: You did not address the question of the genetic relationship between chimpanzees and humans.  Do chimps and man really share 98% of the same genes, and if so, why? 

Date:  Thu Jan 24 06:31:14 2013
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  Rolph:

What does it matter? The question under contention is whether speciation has ever occurred in the short span of the life of the universe, supposedly between 10 and 15 billion years.  Chimps and men cannot interbreed; they cannot share blood via transfusion; the DNA, the genes and the blood are of differing species.  Anony has to look into the microscope to see the similarities; he doesn't use his eyes to see the obvious and vast differences.  I submit that there is equal reason to faithfully believe that chimps evolved from man as that man evolved from chimps.  But there is absolutely no empirical scientific evidence supporting either faith-based theory. 

On the other hand, Michael Behe has shown mathematically that earth itself has not existed for the length of time required for the simplest of living structures (a hand; an eye; a wing; a lung; a pair of any of these; a liver; complimentary sex organs, etc.) to have "evolved" and come into being, let alone a whole man, or a whole chimpanzee, complete with complimentary sex organs and the ability to reproduce. 

We cannot (or we should not be able to) simply guess scientific theories into being in the complete absence of empirical evidences.  Anony makes the error of looking at some seemingly matching genetic information and extrapolating from that a conclusion that is insupportable; while Inspector Clouseau might agree with Anony, I do not.



Date:  Sun Jun 16 22:51:19 2013
From:  Beatrice
Email:   X
Location:  X

You do well dismantling the arguments supporting Darwin's theory using lack of hard evidences.  However you also evade supplying any hard evidences opposing Darwin's theory.  How are you any different than the "Darwinists"? 

Date:  Mon Jun 17 06:48:36 2013
From:  Vic Biorseth


It is the proposed scientific theory for which the scientific method demands hard, falsifiable, duplicable, independently verified and peer reviewed evidences.  Not the opposite.  Not opposition to the theory.  All Darwin's original theory and variations that have come into being over time have ever provided is pure theory and conjecture, and, of course, consensus of opinion. 

I submit that the opposing position can produce even better arguments opposing the theory than any supporting arguments; however, they remain arguments, not evidences.  Still, they are better arguments. 

For instance,

  1. All living things must eat or subsist upon other living things, or matter that was once living.  All food providing sustenance for all living things is and must be "organic," meaning, of living organisms. 
  2. What did the first living organism eat?  Where did it's organic food come from? 
  3. All evolution is supposed to be produced through mutation; however, all mutations have within them less genetic material than the species from which they mutated.  Less genetic material means less possibility for future mutation, not more.  
  4. Loss of genetic material and less future genetic possibilities necessarily means devolution rather than evolution.  Resultant strains would be more simple, not more complex. 
  5. In the face of this, we are to believe that giraffes and narwhals are the end products of an evolutionary process that began with some single-celled life form.  Quite a stretch. 

So, like Darwinism, I have provided no hard evidences for my position, but, I think, better arguments for it than they have for theirs. 



Date:   Mon Sep 22 2014
From:  Vic Biorseth

Changes pursuant to changing the website URL and name from 
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.

Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages.  . 



Date:  Sun Oct 11 13:48:21 2015
From:  Shan Gill
Location:  Olympia, WA  USofA

Vic Biorseth - your arguments are right on from my perspective, which may not mean much to anyone, and that is fine.

Was raised (Catholic) to believe that evolution was a fairly solid theory, but as I got older and thought more about it I came to see evolution as not supported by foundational science (physics, chemistry, etc.)

Am now convinced that where evolutionists see random accidents and freakish mutations, I see an intelligent engineer.  Where evolutionists believe in random magic, I believe in intelligent design.

Truth will never contradict truth.  True science will never contradict true religion.  And because both are part of the human experience, they are interacting.

Will keep this website in my toolbox.

Date:  Mon Oct 12 2015
From:  Vic Biorseth


You are not the first to arrive at your conclusion through reason.  St. Thomas Aquinas arrived at intelligent design theory (see Aquinas' fifth argument in Faith v Atheism) almost a thousand years ago, and so did the pre-Christianity Greek philosophers before him.  The opposing theory, of course, is the Nonsense theory, strongly held by the Modern disciples of the religion of Scientism

Origin of Species showed that the scientific method has never even been applied to any aspect of the Scientisitic denomination of Darwinism.  Yet the Darwinists will only offer screams of "It's Scientific!  It's Scientific!" in defense of the scientifically indefensible. 

See the Reason v Materialism discussion for where the religion of Scientism went off the rails and began to worship at the altar of nonsense. 

Welcome to the awakening. 



Please note the language and tone of this monitored Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders.  While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, submissions must meet our standards of logical rigor and civil discourse.  We will not participate in merely trading insults, nor will we tolerate participants merely trading insults.  Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged.  If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. Nonsensical, immoral or merely insulting submissions will not be published here.  If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, back it up, keep it clean and keep it civil.  We humbly apologize to all religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things, but the New Liberals are what they are, and the internet is what it is. 

If you fear intolerant Leftist repercussions, do not use your real name and do not include email or any identifying information.  Anti-American Leftists will never tolerate your freedom of speech or any opposition. 


Please note that all fields followed by an asterisk must be filled in.

Please enter the word that you see below.


Copyrighted Material

Darwinism is both a foundaitonal dogma and a Denomination of Scientism
Your Host, Vic Biorseth

Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input. 

Catholic American Thinker Free E-zine Subscription

Enter Your E-mail Address
Enter Your First Name (optional)

Don't worry — your e-mail address is totally secure.
I promise to use it only to send you Catholic American Thinker.

Catholic American Thinker Back Issues

Keep This Website Going

Got something to say that needs to be heard?
Then Write It.
And Publish it to the whole world, right here on this Website.

Or, you can
Start Your Own Website
and Publish it right there.

Or, both of the above.

Related WebPages

The Purpose of this group of links is to provide a repository for articles pertaining to the open fraud of Darwinian Evolution.

The Darwinism Pages
Natural Evolution of Species theory remains untested and even unobserved today, with no physical evidence supporting it, and must therefore be recognized as little more than an ideology, a silly superstition or a false religion.

Refuting Darwin and Dawinian “science” as bunk and silliness. Refuting Darwin is almost too easy due to his rush-to-publish and his complete lack of empirical evidences.

Refuting the Origin Of Species pseudo-scientific theory of Darwinism. If Darwinism’s Origin Of Species is a true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.

The definition of Darwinism in a nutshell. In the definition of Darwinism we find the foundational principles upon which the quest for the atheist holy grail: the purely material origin of life itself.

Darwinism: Darwin, Evolution, and the Devolution of the Scientific Method. Scientistic Materialism's cornerstone: Darwinism and the competing sub-theories of Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium.

Radiocarbon dating as an aging method is accurate up to a point. Radiocarbon dating is reliable up to 6,000 years, shaky at best up to 40,000 years, and completely useless beyond 70,000 years.

Silly premises built on crumbling foundations: Global Villageism & Evolutionism. The Dem Global-Villagers insist the US Constitution was written to cover all citizens of Earth; Disciples of Scientism and Evolutionism all genuflect before their high priest, Richard Dawkins.

Faith versus Atheism: Is atheism really just a silly superstition? The Faith versus Atheism argument is at the root of every other important argument.

On Evil and Nonsense: Look closely at Nonsense, and find Evil at its root. Evil and Nonsense: deny evil and you deny right vs. wrong; which is to deny common sense, which is to invoke nonsense.

Charles Darwin, the Monkey Man.  Click here for a refutation of his so-called “scientific theory,” which has never even been subjected to the scientific method.

Refuting the false theology, doctrines and dogmas of Darwinism

Traditional Latin Tridentine Mass, offered at Assumption Grotto Church in  Detroit, Michigan.  Our deepest prayer, our highest form of worship, and the way God should be treated.  Click here for Latin Mass availability nearest to you, and to add your Latin Mass Church to the list.
The Vietnam War Proved the American News Media's Treacherous Anti-American Marxism.
Note the Military Assault Rifle common to the American Founding Era.
Publish Your Article Here.

Click the image above to
publish your essay or article here,
to be included among those below.

Submitted Articles and
Reprinted Articles

(Note: copyrights on these articles wherever present will supersede the WebSite copyright at the bottom footer of every WebPage)

Here comes the Synod Exhortation, and more EENS denial.  Is this original simple mistake leading us into doctrinal and ecclesial revolution?

Agreeing with Mother Angelica, Rest In Peace, on no known exceptions to EENS.  Are all VCII and Post-VCII "exceptions" to No Salvation Outside The Church just imaginary?

Was Archbishop Lefebvre Correct After All?  Archbishop Lefebvre was correct in rejecting Vatican Council II, interpreted with irrationality.  May God bless him for that.

Cardinal Kasper's False Arguments.  Pope Benedict, Cardinal Kasper's false arguments for Synod Report: Vatican Council II agrees with the dogma extra ecclesiam nullas salus as it was interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.

Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" as main line Catholic theology.  Coming back full circle?

The Heresy of Chrislam.  Those claiming that the “Allah” of Islam’s Qu’ran and Yahweh or God of both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are one and the same are missing one glaring point: GOD NEVER CONTRADICTS HIMSELF.

Faith, from the Easter series on the Three Theological Virtues. The virtue of Faith; One of the Seven Heavenly Virtues.

Hope, from the Easter series on the Three Theological Virtues. The virtue of Hope; One of the Seven Heavenly Virtues.

Love, from the Easter series on the Three Theological Virtues. The virtue of Love; One of the Seven Heavenly Virtues.

Prudence, from the Lenten series on the Four Cardinal Virtues. The virtue of Prudence; One of the Seven Heavenly Virtues.

Justice, from the Lenten series on the Four Cardinal Virtues. The virtue of Justice; One of the Seven Heavenly Virtues.

Temperance and Fortitude, from the Lenten series on the Four Cardinal Virtues. The virtues of Temperance and Fortitude; Two of the Seven Heavenly Virtues.

On the word Consubstantial, the Trinity and Infinity. On the Consubstantial (Single Substance) of God, and the mathematically impossible number of Infinity.

A Proposed Israeli National Doctrine that America should Learn From.  Reprinted Article identifies common ideological enemies of Israel, the USA, and all Nations: Marxism, and New World Order concepts.

The challenge describes Capitalism as illusory and Marxism as solid. The mixture of religion just adds to the confusion of all good realists.

The Obama Ethos: Who is Barack Obama? What is his grounding, his ethos? The Obama Ethos explores Obama's grounds of being; his religious, moral and political guiding principles.

Obama the Moslem: Introducing Comrade Obama (peace be upon him.) Obama the Moslem: anti-Catholic; anti-Christian; anti-Jew; anti-American.

Freedom, yes – but from whom, and to do what? Is freedom from God enslavement to the world? Is freedom from the world enslavement to God? Which is better?

The Room: Born of that still inner voice. A story about a small church pastor who erects a small room to serve as a mediation room for his parishioners.  

Are Catholics Saved, by having been Born Again? The theology of salvation: Catholic vs. Protestant.

Love thy neighbor as thyself: the Law in One Sentence. Can one simple sentence contain the whole of the moral Law of God?

The Catholic call is universal; it goes out to everyone. Although the Catholic call goes out to all, man’s free will means that all will not respond.

God’s Perfect Unconditional Love meets man’s Free Will. Perfect Unconditional Love can be rejected. Liberty and free choice may be a blessing or a curse.

Of Weeds and Wheat growing together, and the eventual separation. - Weeds and wheat in the field differs from in human kind, where either one can become the other.

Why Should I Believe in God? - an article by Eugene Rudder.

On Losing You - a poem by Rosemarie A. Stone.

Our Beautiful Love - a poem by Rosemarie A. Stone.

Catholic Communism: Similarities between Church Hierarchy and Pure Bureaucracy. Mises said that Communism equals Bureaucracy; the Church is a bureaucracy, therefore we have Catholic Communism. True?

The Source of Anxiety: Improper Priorities. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

“I, Pencil … ”; Capitalism in a Nutshell. Leonard E. Read

Endless Concessions to the Palestinians Pamela Levene

The Peace Treaty Sajid Ali Khan

Leftist Politics in Catholic Mass Mark Brumbaugh

The USCCB Flip-Flop Mark Brumbaugh

Open Letter to Daniel Cardinal DiNardo Mark Brumbaugh

Truth Versus Evil

The End Of The Age

Authority Meets Truth

The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world

The Little Red Hen

Of Sheep And Men

The Gift Bearers Michael from Florida

Dear Vic And Others ... John Felland

The Church Is Rotten To The Core Michelle Lobdell

Hatred of Palin Janet Morana

Proper Catechesis Susan Greve

Who is Barack Obama? Pastor Robert Legg Greve

Limited War Doctrine Colonel Thomas Snodgrass

Rabbi Meir Kahane's Letter Rabbi Meir Kahane, OBM

Solzhenitsyn Speaks Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn addresses the AFL/CIO.

Jefferson Speaks (Declaration of Independence)

The American Constitution (American Founding Fathers)

American Democrat Party Platform Karl Marx and Frederick Engles

Marxist Fundamentals

Prof. Libor Brom

Re The Sin Of Scandal Phil Lange

Re Sydney Airport Security Ahmed

Marxist Infiltration into Catholic Thought Nancy Libert

New "race and racism" thread begun by Stephen from VT. On race and racism: the ever changing definition and generic usage of the word "racism."

The Bush War Doctrine Revisited: a fresh look at our horrible situation. A reproduction of the "Bush War Doctrine Revisited" article and discussion points by David Yerushalmi; there is much food for thought here.

Resignation of Benedict XVI and the Immediate Media Firestorm. The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and Rev. Marcel Guarnizo's interview with the author that caused the international media frenzy.

The Jewish Shabbat. Description of Jewish Shabbat (Sabbath) from my Holy Land item supplier.

Kerry's Lies: The Old, Vietnam-Era Anti-War Chickens are Comming Home to Roost. POW Lawsuit Could Force Kerry To Come Clean - by George "Bud" Day, Chairman, Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation.

Just Laws for a Godly Nation. Many nations today still lack a core of just laws for a Godly nation.

What does the World Wildlife Fund have to do with World Youth Day? An unholy alliance between the Leftist WWF and the Vatican?

False Flag: Serious-minded fiction creating a better understanding of 9/11. Can serious-minded fiction play a role in creating a better understanding of critical contemporary social/political issues like 9/11?

Bringing the Liturgy Back to the Real Vatican II. Cardinal Burke Comments on Sacra Liturgia Conference

Layman letter to all bishops. Letter to Bishops from Mariann / Mary's Child

Fetal-Microchimerism gives new meaning to the bonding of Motherhood.  How the unborn child blesses the mother and physically changes her, for the rest of her life.

Ars celebrandi et adorandi - Pastoral Letter from Bishop Thomas John Paprocki. With Ars celebrandi et adorandi, all Springfield IL Catholic Parishes move Jesus back to the center of life!  YES!

To be, or not no be lukewarm; that is the question. Whether tis nobler to fight the good fight, or just smile and be nice ...

Technology: a Two Edged Sword. Technology can be used for good, or for evil.

More American Imperial Edicts Issuing Forth out of Obamunism. Archbishop Schnurr joins Rick Santorum in identifying American Imperial Edicts from this administration.

Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum; Apostolic letter on 1962 Rite.
The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum confirms the 1962 Latin Rite as the 'Extraordinary' Roman Liturgical Rite.

The Pope's Letter to Bishops on Summorum Pontificum.  Benedict XVI's Letter to Bishops on Summorum Pontificum issued the same day as the Motu Proprio.

The Explanatory Note on Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.  An 'Explanatory Note on Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum' issued by the Vatican.

A concerned Catholic spotlights Catholic funded Alinsky organizations. The Alinskyite Gamaliel Foundation underpins multiple Catholic funded Alinsky organizations.

From Shane Leslie Mattison, whose father was Elden Mattison Woolliams. Annecdotes from Shane Leslie Mattison.

Dr. Ben Carson, Champion of God, Family, Country and Decency in Government.  Ben Carson can return America to being a Constitutional Republic once again.

A submission from someone who would be Pope.  If all the last five or so Popes have been invalid Popes, then, where's the valid one?  Why, Brother Michael, of course!

Atheist Genesis:

In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing.
And then nothing accidentally exploded and created everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally encountered other bits of everything and formed some new kinds of everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into self-replicating bits of everything.
And then some self-replicating bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into dinosaurs.

(See The Darwinism Pages)

If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the