Category Archives: Evolution

God has a wicked sense of humor!

Atheism 101

It’s practically a point of dogma among evolutionary biologists that life evolved from the simple to the complex.

Unfortunately for them, the advent of rapid, accurate, and inexpensive DNA sequencing technology in the early 2000s is busting their dogma to smithereens.

It seems that plant-like sea anemones have more genes than insects and amoebas have 200 times more DNA than humans!


Comments Off on God has a wicked sense of humor!

Filed under Evolution, Science



Progs believe … I mean, really BELIEVE … in evolution.  But evolution produces people who can procreate successfully, which includes not just making babies, but also raising them to procreate successfully themselves.

It makes zero sense, then, that Progs treat abortion like some kind of sacrament, sneer at women who choose to be SAHMs, and elevate trannies and gays to some sort of Special Human status.

Comments Off on Asses

Filed under Democrats, Evolution

Chrissy’s Cliff Notes to Humani Generis

Humani Generis is a Papal Encyclical that was promulgated by Pope Pius XII on August 12, 1950. The full text is posted @

A Papal Encyclical is a letter written by a Pope to either all of the Bishops in a specific country or to all of the Bishops in the world which is intended to guide the Bishops in their relations with their flocks. Encyclicals generally deal with some issue that is causing problems for the faithful. In the case of Humani Generis, the issue was evolution.

Recently, our friend Frankly the Nut gifted me with two books about Young Earth Creationism (YEC), which is:

the religious belief that the Universe, Earth, and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. Its primary adherents are Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis for their beliefs.

I have had virtually no contact with this set of beliefs, having been raised Catholic in a very liberal Ivy League community. I was taught the Catholic position long ago, but undertook today to digest the original source (Humani Generis). If you’re interested, my version of the meaty bits is below.


The theory of evolution deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts.

However, whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect.

So while the Church does not forbid research and discussion of evolution, it requires that opinions favorable and unfavorable to the theory be weighed and judged with seriousness, moderation and measure.

The following issues are not up for debate:

Souls are immediately created by God.

Adam is the father of all true men, through natural generation as our first parent.

As to the interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis:

They state truths which are fundamental to our salvation.

They were written with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error, so must never be considered on a par with other ancient myths or folk tales which have survived through the ages.

They were written in a metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a simple people.

Although they conform neither to the historical method used by the best of the ancient Greek and Latin writers nor to that used by by competent authors of our time, nevertheless they do pertain to history in a true sense whose exact nature must be further studied and determined by exegetes.

1 Comment

Filed under Catholic Church, Creation, Evolution

Seeking the limits of Darwinism

I’m reading Michael Behe’s new book. He’s famous for annoying the hell out of Darwinists with Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1998).

The new one, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism (2007) is fascinating me. I don’t usually read non-fiction at bed time, because I’m too tired. But Behe has such a charming style (especially for a scientist LOL) that I am glued to the pages.

He cooks up these everyday examples, which he describes very vividly, then uses them to illustrate what the science is about. He has the hard science stuff for those who want it, but he marks it off for the people like me who prefer to (okay, need to! LOL) skip it.

His subjects in this book are:

clarifying the definition of Darwinism, particularly by separating “natural selection by random mutation” from “common descent” which are very different issues;

clarifying the definition of Intelligent Design (and IMHO bending over backwards to NOT offend the legions of English speaking reading who imbibed “Darwin is true” with their mother’s milk); and

using really recent scientific breakthroughs in genetics to try to find the limits of where Darwin was right and where he was wrong.


1 Comment

Filed under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism

Until I imbibed the resources listed below, I was absolutely on board with the Catholic position on evolution, which is that there can be no conflict between science and faith, because God created everything.

My faith in and love for God are based on the same kinds of things that my faith in and love for my husband are based on. This is not to say that I ignore my mind in matters of the heart. I most decidedly do not. I did a very serious, intense, intellectual pursuit of all my Big Questions about God before I ever got close enough to be able to meet Him in person. I also dated for years before I met Dearest and had made a long list of things I wanted and did not want in a life mate.

After becoming a Born Again Christian at the age of 17, I read the Bible a lot, visited all kinds of churches, and hung out with many varieties of Christian believers. After a year or so, I felt a need to settle down into a faith community, so I asked God, “Where do you want me to worship, pray, learn and fellowship?” His answer was clear that, for me, it was the Roman Catholic Church.

I’ve had my differences and a few times really, really wanted to leave. Each time, He made it clear that this was His choice for me, so I’ve stuck it out. I have no illusions about my church’s short-comings, particularly in my liberal diocese in my liberal nation. Our official support for the Pro-Life movement has been sickeningly anemic and, until recently, some of the homilies and adult education programs in my parish have been based more on Democrat talking points than Church teaching or Scripture.

My point here is that Catholicism does not teach Creationism.

Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis (36–37) says we need not be hostile to modern cosmology.

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

“[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator” (283).

I believe God gave us the Bible and it’s all true. But what kind of truth are we talking about? Consider, for example, that Catholics take literally what Jesus said about having to eat His Body, but most non-Catholic Christians do not.

With respect to the apparent conflict between the creation stories in Genesis and scientific evidence for things like dinosaurs and the Big Bang, I was taught that there is no conflict. Those chapters are not historical or scientific texts, but a specific type of literature called “mythic.” (And the Psalms and the Song of Songs are “poetry.”)

In this context, the word “myth” has a bigger, deeper meaning than the throw away use it gets in things like “urban myth.” In the latter, the point of the story is to convey some historical and/or scientific truth. Even here, the word “myth” doesn’t necessarily mean “false”, any more than “old wives tales” are always wrong.

Mythic literature is totally different. In this context, the historical and/or scientific elements of the story are not the point at all. It’s only the deeper philosophical, moral and/or theological messages that are meant to be taken as literally true. This kind of literature is what we get in Aesop’s Fables and other morality tales, including the Parables of Jesus.

Examples: Mythbusters could demonstrate scientifically that the quack of a duck does echo. But they could not disprove the moral of The Lion and the Mouse — “Even the weak and small may be of help to those much mightier than themselves” — by demonstrating that lions and mice cannot talk.

There are many creation myths out there, a number of them contemporaneous with our Genesis myth. They posit things like the existence of multiple gods or that the supernatural reality is impersonal or that only the spiritual is good, but the material is evil.

By contrast, our myth tells us that there is one and only one God who is personal, loving and all-good, that He created everything and made it all good, and that evil results from departing from His perfect will.

I’m not a Scripture scholar, so I really can’t go any further with this. If you believe differently, that’s fine with me. I’m not interested in proselytizing or arguing, only explaining what I believe, which so far as I know, is consistent with Catholic teaching.

My big point in belaboring the issue in this blog is to provide a context for why you can take my word that I had no stake whatsoever in the Darwin vs. Intelligent Design debate. I was perfectly comfortable with the Catholic position, “If Darwin is right, it’s because that is how God chose to do things.”

And it’s not just because I’m not a scientist. I have a very devout Catholic nephew who teaches Biology. He also has no problem with Darwin.

However, as much as I am not a scientist, I really enjoy anything about science, provided it is dumbed down enough for me to understand it. So, back when I was having my big epiphany about what a load of donkey doo most of my political assumptions were, I became intrigued by the Intelligent Design  movement. The more I learned, the more I wanted to learn. My personal favorite resources on the SCIENCE of Intelligent Design are:

Unlocking the Mystery of Life DVD

The Privileged Planet DVD

Icons of Evolution, a SHORT book by Jonathan Wells

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Design, a LONG book by Stephen C. Meyer

At this point, I have no question whatsoever that Darwin’s theories are headed the same way that Freud’s went. Real scientists are finding more and more evidence within nature that points to the existence of an intelligent designer. It’s very exciting stuff.

If you enjoyed this, you might also like


Filed under Catholic Church, Christianity, Creation, Evolution, Science

More FRAUD on the Left

There’s a really interesting piece posted at Evolution News and Views, my favorite site for following the debate over intelligent design.

If you’re interested in seeing Lying Leftist Bullies get caught with egg on their faces, read the whole thing. It’s all good, but too long to do justice here. It also has good links embedded for follow up.

National Center for Science Education, Darwin/Climate Enforcers, Humiliated by Forged Document Scandal
By David Klinghoffer – February 21, 2012

I also just want to point out what an interesting abundance of evidence there is in the article to support my thesis that the Left is working for Satan in his grand war against God and God’s people.

From the article:

Scientifically, pedagogically, and morally, trying to stifle open inquiry on climate change and evolution was always a bad idea. The Darwin lobbyists at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) nevertheless adopted the tactic of linking the two scientific controversies and targeting skeptics on both, in the apparent hope that their efforts to quash academic freedom in the evolutionary context would be strengthened by the symbiotic effect. … Well, we already knew that the NCSE, which has never disavowed its link with anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist James Fetzer, has poor judgment in its choice of allies.

Megan McArdle, senior editor and blogger for The Atlantic and a strong believer in human-induced catastrophic global warming, asks, “Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it’s no good to say that people shouldn’t be focusing on it. If his judgment is this bad, how is his judgment on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgment of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?”

Stifle open inquiry … quash academic freedom … see nothing wrong with fraud?

When the devil lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. ~John 8:44 (NIV)


But now, this is what the LORD says— he who created you, Jacob, he who formed you, Israel:
“Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine.” Isaiah 43:1 (NIV)

Climate change?

Over the past forty years or so, the Left and its “We Want To Rule The World” gang of thugs at the U.N. have run highly publicized fear campaigns first about Global Cooling due to man-made pollution and, more recently, about Global Warming due to man-made pollution.

Since the “science” behind Climate Change Panic has been FAKED by the leading scientists AND the United Nations, we are left wondering what the real agenda has always been.

It’s simple: The U.N. wants to rule the world and they see a giant short-cut via control of global energy supplies.

“The Bible does not use the phrase “one-world government” or “one-world currency” in referring to the end times. It does, however, provide ample evidence to enable us to draw the conclusion that both will exist under the rule of the Antichrist in the last days.” Read more at


The National Center for Science Education promotes a Darwin Only curriculum at all levels of science education.

  • They sue school boards and teachers who make any attempt to allow students to even hear that the Intelligent Design movement exists.
  • Their number one argument is that intelligent design is “creationism in disguise” and therefore violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Yet there is abundant and ever-growing evidence that Intelligent Design is not merely real science, but also that it is much better science than Darwinism.

It is not scientific purity, but the fact that Intelligent Design demonstrates scientifically the existence of an intelligent creator that makes it utterly unacceptable to the Leftists who run the NCSE and other pro-Darwin groups.

It’s obvious that their real agenda is to promote atheism. And whose great big spiritual agenda does THAT serve?  Duh.


Filed under Climate, Creation, Environmentalism, Evolution, Science, United Nations