Download a Permanent Printable PDF Version of This Article.
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.
Smart-Assed Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devises 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" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation.)SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
Culture=Religion+Politics; Who Are We? Vic Biorseth
The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA; Vic Biorseth
Return to the BLOG page
Return to the HOME PAGE
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Sat Oct 01 20:28:35 2011
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? http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/evolution.htm
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
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
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:
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
If you want to build a website like this one, this is how you do it.
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.
Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.
Catholic American Thinker
Free E-zine Subscription
You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you the
Catholic American Thinker
and absolutely nothing else.
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.
Attacking Catholic Darwinism, from the purely Catholic perspective. This site has always challenged Darwinism from the purely scientific perspective. Now, we see another Catholic champion of Truth attacking Catholic Darwinism from Revealed Truth.
Mitochondrial Eve & Y-Chromosomal Adam v Darwinism and the "Natural" Homo. If all human DNA traces back to Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam, then the religion of Darwinism and the "Naturalness" of the homosexual condition are both refuted.
Did the breakdown and loss of the Scientific-Method begin with Darwinism? In the Evolutionary Trail of Modern Scientism, Marxism points back to Freudianism, and farther back to Darwinism. Was that where Modern Man initially took Science off the rails?
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.
Genetic Entropy: Pointing to Human Devolution, not Evolution. Genetic Entropy shows that mutants have less genetic material for variation, never more, falsifying evolution via "favorable" mutation.
"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII
"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi
Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.—Winston Churchill
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.—Ayn Rand
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the