Darwinian Evolution Is It True?

Darwinian Evolution Is It True?

Darwinian Evolution is based more on narrative than evidence[i]. The story is told, and the facts are made to fit the story. No one has ever been able to tell the story better than Charles Darwin. He truly had a great imagination and a skillful pen. He even admitted that his theory didn’t have any scientific evidence. Yet, the scientific community gobbled it up like little children listening to a fairytale.

The reason for his great acceptance among scientists was that science needs an explanation based on a materialistic world view. A worldview that leaves the deity out of its creation story. Darwin’s theory of evolution provided a new creation myth. The theory came more out of necessity then it did research and observation. Of course, any thinking person understands that no one can observe the kind of Evolution that Darwin wrote about for such observation would require one to observe something coming from nothing and changing into something else. Until these observations are made evolution will remain a theory and not a fact.

I have a book in my office written by a Harvard professor[ii] which attempts to answer the question, is the theory of evolution a social construct. In the first few chapters, I thought that he was actually going to charge the theory with being a social construct. However, in the last few chapters he saved his academic credentials by proclaiming it a fact. His evidence was a study done on fruit flies where it was observed that the fruit flies changed from having two wings to four wings and had different shaped eyes. He didn’t seem to notice the problem with his conclusion. The problem is that at the end of the experiment the fruit flies were still fruit flies. Fruit flies with too many wings and too many eyes. Yes, the scientist witnesses a change, but the problem is that the Darwinian evolution requires much more than a change in a species.  It requires not only a change in species but also family and other taxonomic categories as well. It requires that something changes into something else.

The truth seems to be that we don’t know much about the history of the earth or of life. Henry Gee[iii] in his book “Deep Time”. Points out just how ignorant we are of the past and shows that anyone should think twice about making grandiose statements about ancient history, which science is continuously doing and constantly changing.

Why do people believe in evolution? Simply because they have been taught to and they have nothing else to believe in. All societies have a creation myth which seems to indicate that human beings need an explanation for their origin. The evidence of this can be seen in the fact that there are fewer people that claim to be agnostics, than those that claim to be atheists.  Though agnostic is a superior view than atheism it lacks the scientific myth of evolution to support it. The scientific materialist or atheist community needed a myth to match their unbelief. Darwin was the mythmaker that provided them with a myth that they could dress up as science.

I personally find Darwin’s theory of evolution and the worldview that it created interesting and challenging but not compelling any more than I do the fundamentalist view of creation. However, the evolutionist which believes that evolution is the theory of everything is a greater error then the fundamentalist. My advice to them is to get over their ignorance and watch their dogma

[i] The story has been told so often that many people accept it as fact. When in actuality there is little evidence to support it.

[ii] “Mystery of Mysteries” with a subtitle Is Evolution A Social Construction? By Michael Ruse.

[iii] Deep Time by Henry Gee. At the writing of the book, Henry Gee was a Senior Editor at Nature with a Ph.D. from ‘Cambridge in Zoology.

Revelation and Myth

Revelation and Myth[1]

The word revelation simply means an unveiling or the lifting of the veil.  We often use the word in a religious sense as an unveiling of the Uncreated One or the essence we call God, but the word God is a metaphor that points beyond itself to what is beyond and transcends human intelligence.  The word God itself is a revelation because it brings that mystical essence a step closer to our consciousness.  The word God to some degree enables us to communicate with each other about this mystical essence and our experiences of it[2].  We men have been analyzing and refining our knowledge of this Totally Other since the dawn of human consciousness.  Some have even pretended to be that consciousness when men had a corporal view of God.  It was the nation of Israel that first codified that God could not be imaged by the human mind, a revelation which could be traced back to Moses and his encounter with God on the sacred mountain.  The Uncreated One is not a creature that man has the right to name just as Adam named the animals brought before him.  Be careful about speaking of God.

It’s not hard to figure out how revelation worked.  In the past, men experienced the Totally Other in various ways[3].  When they talk to others about their experience there seems to be a thread that connected these experiences, a thread which basically said that there was something beyond the mere physical. Something so lofty that the human mind could not comprehend it.  It was this something that primitive man gave the title God.

This helps us to understand the ancient myths.  Myths mediated the presence of God to mankind through story and poetry.  It was through these forms of mediation that the ground and foundation of All Beings began to reveal himself to mankind.  This is why we see a thread, though sometimes thin, of the same themes in myth and story throughout the world[4].

You could say that the myths were the temples God used as a meeting places with men.  They were the bridge that spanned the chasm between the spiritual and the physical.  Myths are metaphors that come alive in story form.  In the New Testimony, Jesus became the living temple and bridge where man can meet God.  Unfortunately, some men are metaphorically disadvantaged because of their concrete thinking, which came about by a scientism that denies anything other than our sense experiences.

What about Jesus and revelation?  Well, Jesus is the image or revelation of God.  He said, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”  The apostle Paul refers to him as “the image of the invisible God.”  Paul goes on to say that God packed into Jesus everything that humans could possibly know about God[5]. So in that sense Jesus is THE revelation of God.  Jesus became a living metaphor that pointed to God. That’s why John could say the word (revelation) became flesh and dwelled among us (John 1:14).  He goes to say, “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” (John 1:17-18)  The Word, The myths, The Forms and The Archetypes all took on a bodily form in Jesus.  For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority (Col 2:9-10).

[1][1] Definition of Myth:1 a: a usually Definition of Myth:1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon creation myths b: PARABLE, ALLEGORY Moral responsibility is the motif of Plato’s myths.

[2] In his book “The Idea of The Holy: An Inquiry into The Non-Rational Factor in The Idea of The Divine and Its’ Relation to The Rational”, Rudolf Otto gives an excellent overview of these mystical experiences and encounters with the Totally Other.

[3] Hebrews 1:1-3 “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe”.

[4] “The Varieties of Religious Experience” by William James. Also note the works of Joseph Campbell.

[5] “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col 1:18-20).


The Myth of Multiculturalism, How to Destroy a Culture with Identity Manipulation

The Myth of Multiculturalism

How to Destroy a Culture with Identity Manipulation

Every culture on the face of the earth has its identifying traits and it is those identifying traits that make it a culture.  If you change those identity traits you change the existing culture and if you change enough of those distinctive traits, you actually destroy the culture by turning it into something other than the culture you started with.

There are a number of threats to true multiculturalism today.  One of them is radical individualism, which is tied to the philosophy of liberalism, and the second one is globalization, which is coming from or has its roots in, global capitalism.  Both, in turn, have led to increased centralized planning, in order for large multinational companies to gobble up the world’s capital.  This centralized planning has led to an increasingly larger government.  This bigger government believes that it can manipulate numerous societies to create a one-world empire and culture.  The problem with all of this is that its’ promoters fail to see that the individual gets their identity and sense of selfhood from their culture. Their cultures are based not on their similarities with other cultures, but on their differences.  If you remove the differences, you take away the very soul of the individuals who make up those cultures.   When a people lose their identity or sense a threat to their identity they will suffer an existential emptiness brought about by the loss of that distinct uniqueness and identity.  Over time, this loss of identity will in turn lead to social unrest.

True multiculturalism is the world the way it is with all its different cultures, its borders and its nations.  The expression ‘multiculturalism’ as used today is a ‘melting pot’, which is the very opposite of multiculturalism.  The corrupt use of this word represents the globalist’s last effort to destroy true multiculturalism and to replace it with uniformity (political correctness).  The world with all of its diversity is simply the way it has to be in order for it to be truly multicultural.  In fact, it seems that it has evolved that way, which means that it is natural, and you cannot fool mother nature for very long without experiencing her wrath.  However, modern man, especially those of the west and on the left, seem to believe that they can change human nature.  Some even go so far as to say that man has no nature thereby expressing the blank slate theory of human nature.  Nevertheless even they have created a new culture, or cult, which could be called the ‘culture of nobody or nothing’. A cult that is already causing havoc in the west.

The way to have real multiculturalism is simply to leave things alone, to leave them the way they were created by nature and the Creator, which seems to be extremely hard for the Western intellectual myth-makers who think of themselves as the saviors of the world.  These intellectuals, since the time of the enlightenment, have been spewing out their nonsense with lesser men gobbling up their vomit.

One of the best arguments against the myth of multiculturalism is the very country that people use for an example of multiculturalism, that is the USA.  America is referred to as a melting pot. Even the metaphor itself is a contradiction to multiculturalism. The metaphor points to many cultures becoming something other than any one of them, as they melt together:  The many become one.  However, the premise that they become one if they melt together itself, is questionable.  If you have a subculture that refuses to meld in, it will become the source of many social problems that can weaken a culture.  And if a culture that resists assimilation gets large enough, it will actually become the culture. The parasite consumes its host.

It has been said that Rome united the world through its multiculturalism.  However, it also divided the world.  It is a known fact that when Rome invaded other nations,  they would remove its ruling class and many of the lesser classes and bring in foreign immigrants.  They knew that this would weaken the culture and help prevent rebellion.  I’m sure you’ve heard the statement that “diversity is our strength,” well; Rome had diversity and diversity did not save it from decay and complete collapse.  We could gather from this that our national leaders today are either ignorant of this, or they are attempting to control the masses and weaken them by dividing them and pitting them against each other.  Either way these leaders are pathetic.





Diversity Destroys Social Cohesion in the West

In my study of ancient history I found that ancient empires after conquering a nation would import foreign immigrants for the purpose of weaken that nations culture in order prevent it from rebelling against the Empire. After reading this it struck me that this is exactly what Western governments are doing to themselves and their people. Did these ancient rulers know something that are governmental leaders don’t? Watch the video and decide for yourself.