Formerly the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center
Charles Darwin is infamous as one of Western Culture’s so-called Unholy Trinity, consisting of Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, and last but not least, Karl Marx. These three are the authors of fatally flawed theories that became major, in fact, arguably the most major of all erroneous theories to ever infect rational thought in the history of Western Civilization. All are widely held to be “scientific” and yet all have no scientific basis whatsoever. All are easily falsified when subjected to objective critical thinking; none have any scientific evidence to back them up, all have heavy scientific evidence weighing against them. And yet they all enjoy popular support in the “scientific” community. Showing that science today is more a matter of consensus than of proofs, experiment, empiricism, objectivity and honest critical evaluation. And, proving that, today, popularity rules the once scientific laboratory.
This definition of Darwinism is based upon the six key observations by Darwin and the inferences he drew from them.
From these "observations" Darwin inferred his "natural selection" theory in which only the "best" characteristics for feeding and for reproducing would be indefinitely inherited and passed on. The heritable characteristics of the individuals who got the most or the best food, reproduced with the best or the most mates, would pass on their "dominant" heritable characteristics, causing the species to change for the better over time.
Darwin postulated that the "survival of the fittest", "natural selection" changes in a population eventually become great enough over time to actually lead to entirely new species, which is defined as a new species which is fully capable of reproducing itself, but which may no longer interbreed and reproduce with the parent species from which it sprang. The theory is rife with tautologies, or ways of saying the same thing twice, or arguing in a circle. Survival of the fittest is a tautology, in that the only evidence for it is the existence of something assumed, by its mere existence, to be the fittest. Natural selection is a tautology for which the only evidence is the assumption that whatever survives must have been naturally selected.
Darwin also imagined the possibility that all life forms are descended from one original species from ancient times. This, in a nutshell, is a definition of Darwinism.
Darwin published myriad observations to demonstrate his theory and claimed that the fossil record eventually would back up his theory. Every single one of his observations involved micro evolutionary changes, strictly within a species. None of his (or anyone else's) observations ever involved macro evolutionary changes or transitions between any species.
And the archaeological fossil record still remains completely barren of records of any link species between any two recognized species at all. The theory insists upon continuous and quite common mutations bringing about very large numbers of very high population transitional life forms, with a much greater number of failure transitional forms than successful new species. No transitionals between any two successful species, fossil or living, have ever been observed. The "theory" therefore, being exclusively subjective with no empirical evidence or objective basis, is in truth nothing more than a hypothesis with a whole lot of non-empirical and purely subjective peer support.
Although the "nutshell" definition of Darwinism is complete at this point, Darwinism has had enough widespread support to lead into other hypotheses and theories that need a little light shed on them.
Thomas Henry Huxley, a contemporary of Darwin’s, is famously known as "Darwin's Bulldog" because of his ferocious defense of Darwinism. He was the first to coin the term "agnosticism" to define his religious belief. He actually differed from Darwin on the notion of "gradualism" but fiercely defended the overall theory nonetheless. He seemed more committed to advocating "materialism" and the purely materialist approach to science as being the most "professional" science than he was in defending Darwin's theory of "natural selection."
Huxley's famous retort to challenges to Darwin's theory in public debate was, "What's your alternative theory?" To which the response was, generally, stunned silence; it was already becoming unfashionable in scientific (scientistic?) circles to entertain any idea of Divine intervention. Not out loud, not in contemporary circles, and certainly not in public.
As far as a truly scientific defense for the definition of Darwinism, there wasn't any. Huxley's "what's your alternative?" was, and remains, all there was, and all there is. That's it.
Building upon the foundation of Darwinism, Huxley is credited with initiating the original concept of "biogenesis," the theory that all cell types arise from other cells, and the theory of "abiogenesis," which describes the generation of life itself from non-living matter.
The definition of Darwinism lives on and is completely accepted today, and the defenders and practitioners carry forward the current work of "abiogenesis." It concerns itself today with experiments with various "primordial ooze" chemicals in sterile environments involving lightning (shades of Frankenstein) producing other chemicals, some of them "organic" compounds and various proteins. None of them alive. Nevertheless, in the common language of TTRSTF4 , "it is thought" that, over a span of far more billions and billions of years than the universe "is thought" to be in existence, this beginning point one celled "life" evolved into dragonflies, narwhales, elephants and human beings.
One branch concentrates on, depending on your source, transpermia or panspermia, the notion that existing life, in the form of tiny spores, came to Earth from somewhere else in the universe, and is flying around out there and landing randomly on planets like Earth. Which, again, says nothing about the origin of life itself. Again, as in all parts, branches and sub-theories of Darwinism, the only evidence for any of this exists in ephemeral human imagination.
So, just as in evolution, the abiogenesis "theory", being exclusively subjective with no empirical evidence or objective basis, is in truth nothing more than a hypothesis with a whole lot of non-empirical, non-scientific and purely subjective peer support.
Sarcastic Acronym 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" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click any footnote link to see the gory details.)SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA; Vic Biorseth
Return to the BLOG page
Return to the HOME PAGE
Subscribe to our Free E-Zine News Letter
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Fri Feb 12 10:22:32 2010
Location: Bar Harbor, ME
In other words, the Emperor has no clothes.
Date: Fri Feb 12 17:46:03 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
See the Argument Refuting Darwin page. Darwin's theory regarding the evolution of species is just another giant scientistic fraud with no empirical evidence whatsoever supporting it. All it has is global consensus.
And that’s all there is.
Date: Mon Oct 24 00:43:47 2011
Location: brisbane qld australia
you religious no it alls, you take all his words and spin it so it sounds bad, he did have scientific evidence, he spent many years on the gollapicus islands researching. He was a great scientist and you have to finally realise that evolution is a fact and that we do EVOLVE. we are evolving all the time. He is not a nutcase, but a highly intelligent person. Don't put down his life work, he is a amazing scientist and as soon as I read your page I knew all this is just rable. Stuff you, except the facts, and get over ur self
Date: Mon Oct 24 05:46:24 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Yeah, I’m sure he was downright scientificalophorus, just like your teacher said. And your your grammar school teacher learned you good talkin’. And she teeched you to spel rel gud two, dint she?
Date: Wed Jul 04 11:43:03 2012
From: Theologian/scientist/ evolutionist
Location: Presque Isle, Maine
I am so sorry that Christians like you feel the need to teach others out of their own ignorance. Your unholy trinity were revolutionaries in their time. They revolutionize modern thinking in the areas of psychology, politics and science and they do deserve a place of honor. Their thinking was flawed and imperfect as seen by the new evidence and current thinking, but they planted important seeds which needed time to flourish in what we know now. Unlike you, Mr. Darwin had a brilliant mind and keen observation. He tried to explain the world and nature as he saw it and to the level of understanding of his time. That doesn't make him an atheist or evil. The same goes for Nietzsche, all people know about his is his quote about God being dead, but no one bothers to read what he really meant in his work. We live in a sad world if you are one of the representatives of Christ here on earth.
Date: Wed Jul 04 12:42:36 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Theologian / Scientist / Evolutionist:
They were revolutionary all right, but nothing they said or did or wrote regarding their areas of theoretical expertise had anything behind them other than vapor. The seeds they planted could produce nothing but error. Darwinian “theory” is not theory at all, it is pure hypothesis, based on nothing other than thinking. And, perhaps, salesmanship.
Show me the evidence. Show me an example of a natural speciation event. Show me even one subconscious mind, or perhaps a repressed memory. Let me see it. Show me one Marxist (Communist, Fascist, Nazi, Socialist) system that ever prospered and improved the condition of man.
Talk is cheap. Where’s your evidence supporting what you say?
Any evidence. Any evidence at all.
Saturday, October 06, 2012
As part of the ongoing effort to upgrade this whole website, upgraded this webpage to the new BB 2.0 - SBI! 3.0 release and to make use of the new reusable code features.
An earlier phase of this major conversion corrupted or adversely affected some fonts, alignments, quotes and tables in the previously published webpages. Not to worry; this phase is converting them all, one by one. Eventually, every webpage on this site will have the same look and feel as this one.
LOVE this new release!
Friday, April 19, 2013
Added link into Sociological Definition Pages right-column link set.
Date: Thu Aug 01 11:47:08 2013
This site is remarkable. Darwinism, and the age of Darwinism is dead, because we have discovered everything is made from Information, like DNA you can literally read it as a digital code, in other words “programmed” pre determined information.
Darwinism can not and does not explain information.
The discoveries in Microbiology and DNA are the Death of Darwinism.
DNA is a 3 out of four error correcting code; Darwin’s theory can not explain life because it can not explain information, this irreducible complexity refutes chance.
The program which has been discovered, what we call DNA, is designed!
And if designed, then we have a designer, if we have a designer, then he had a purpose, and we have accountability to Him.
Thanks Vic for all your work, people should learn we are called to act, and refute all lies.
For some fantastic Reading check out below, books from Frank Jennings Tipler.
The Physics of Immortality, The Physics of Christianity
Frank J. Tipler
Frank Jennings Tipler is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University
Born: February 1, 1947 (age 66), Andalusia, AL
Books: The Physics of Immortality, The Physics of Christianity
Education: University of Maryland, College Park (1969–1976), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1965–1969)
Date: Thu Aug 01 19:13:58 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
Re Darwin, I don't think he was a liar; I just think he was a poor scientist, in that he wasn't really a purely objective seeker of truth. Competition for his pet theory forced him to rush to publish, but I think (although I cannot know) that he actually believed his hypothesis to be true, and he actually believed that it would be proved one day.
That cannot be said for modern day scientists who are Darwinists. Men like Richard Dawkins cannot possibly be ignorant of the absolute lack of evidence supporting the theory, but they tout it and teach it and preach it as a boni fide scientific theory anyway, and that makes them liars.
Re Frank Jennings Tipler, I don't know what to make of him, yet. From what little I learned just now, after reading your submission, he, too, like Darwin, has one or more hypotheses that may be impossible to prove, dealing as they do with Singularities and Big Bangs, which no one can ever hope to examine in any way. He looks, admittedly at first glance, to be a pure theoretician. He may be on to something, but then -
God is ephemeral, not material. God cannot be studied or examined.
Since this is where material science bangs up against theological science, Professor Tipler may be about to make the leap from scientist to theologian, or somehow try to wrestle science and theology back together into old-time philosophy.
Date: Tue Sep 23 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. .
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.
Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and
broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in
thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life:
and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in
the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Jesus Christ; Matt 7:13-15
Sociological Definition Pages
Definitions of all the "isms" with a lot of consensus of thinking behind them, which makes them popular opinions or ideas seeking political favor.
Definition of Marxism: Total control of means of production, including workers. The definition of Marxism describes the social, economic and governmental philosophy of Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto.
Definition of Freudianism: The psychoanalytical thought and practice of Freud, Jung and Kinsey. This definition of Freudianism addresses Sigmund Freud's turn of psychological focus from cognition and intellect to the unconscious & subconscious mind.
The definition of Darwinism in a nutshell. In the definition of Darwinism we find the foundational priciples upon which the quest for the atheist holy grail: the purely material origin of life itself.
Definition of Islam: Ideology of Military Conquest Masquerading as a Religion. The Definition of Islam describes the “Convert, Submit or Die” War Strategy of Mohammed.
The term Marxist defined: Marxism today has overtaken many earlier terms. Re the term Marxist defined in contemporary usage. The term Liberal doesn’t mean what it used to mean either.
Definition of Conservatism: "That government is best that governs the least." A definition of conservatism must recognize that, politically speaking, the terms Liberal and Conservative have traded places.
Definition of Libertarian : A Pro-Constitutional Practical Atheist. The definition of Libertarian describes a religiously-cleansed conservatism defending core American political values while denying moral absolutes.
Definition of Capitalism: Economic Organization based on Private Property. Any true definition of Capitalism must state that it is purely an Economic system, not a Government system, and it works most efficiently and profitably under Representative Government.
Our argument supporting the Rule of Subsidiarity, practicality and common sense. The moral and organizational Rule of Subsidiarity is crucial to the rights of man and essential for freedom.
Definition of Communism: Marx's theoretical classless utopian society. The Marxian definition of Communism involves the theoretical, perfect, classless society with common ownership of all economic "means of production."
Definition of Fascism: System of Marxism resisting the Worker's Revolution. A true definition of Fascism must recognize its deep roots in Marxism.
Definition of Anarchy: Opposition to State Authority in favor of - well - Gangs. They said it couldn’t be done; but even the most cursory Definition of Anarchy shows it to be even more stupid than Communism.
Definition of Socialism: Intermediary phase between Marxism and Communism. Definition of Socialism: 1) The older ideology with "collective" ownership of power and means of production; 2) Marx's "Dictatorship Of The Proletariat" evolving toward Communist Utopia.
Definition of Democracy: Ideology stressing direct or electoral majority rule. The definition of Democracy as a form of government involves policy and law determined by the actual, real majority of the people governed.
Definition of Republic: A state in which sovereignty rests with the people. This definition of Republic stresses autonomy and rule-of-law, and places the root of sovereignty in the people or their electorate.
Liberal Democracy defines elected representative government under rule-of-law. Liberal Democracy is differentiated from Social Democracy by not restricting the right to private property, which is to say, the means of production.
A pure Democracy that left the natural economy alone would be ideal. Pure Democracy in the Jeffersonian model, with unfettered free market Capitalism, would out-perform any other system.
Description of pure Socialism - the ideal that all Socialism is driving toward. A true, pure Socialism would be something considerably less than the Utopians dream of, since perfection is not of this world, or of this life, and will never be encountered in either.
Social Democracy defines an attempt to force-fit Marxist ideas into a Democracy. Social Democracy, neither fish nor foul, seeks, by devious means, by the gradual rather than revolutionary path, the ultimate victory of Communism, or, Communist Utopia.
Legally Destroying America, through Defining Treason Down. American Political Parties are swiftly dismantling Constitutional government, having first defined treason down to the point of non-existence.
Our definition of anti American goes considerably deeper than the dictionary. Anyone, anywhere, may oppose nationalism or national pride. Definition of anti American: one who ignores or opposes the American Constitution.
Our definition of pro American goes considerably deeper than the dictionary. Anyone, anywhere, may be a patriot. Definition of pro American: one who loves and adheres to the American Constitution.
"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