Tag Archives: evolution

An interesting read

David Davis

Somebody popped up yesterday on the incoming links from here, and while rooting around at his end I found this, which contains the beginnings of sense and order about the Darwinism-Evolution/Intelligent-Design fracas.


Very interesting, since we can’t form a government and UKIP might have done in 2010

but now it’s been busticated.

David Davis

Someones, and it’s clear that they have supporters in Westmonster, don’t want there to be an English UK Government outside the EU or GramscoFabiaNazism, and we feel that we know who they are but we can all argue. Such an administration would be a single and terrible threat.  The demolition of the BNP can be conducted by the BBC and its accolytes as is known to be how it’s done, for a false aunt-Sally has had to be made to take the blows. The BNP is a socialist pary so they can’t complain. They are being shot by their own side in public, as on Question Time, and we cannot really interfere.

The destruction of the BNP is the happening in a faraway country of which we know nothing. The Enemy-Class buggers created the BNP on purpose and quite deliberately through their “multicultural policies”, they then set it up as a Straw-Man, and proceeded to ritually attack it on the telly. The next target is UKIP which is what they were really exercised about.

There was a small chance that UKIP could do two things: (1) Get us out of the EU without a shooting-war, and (2) unwind some of the more terrifying GramscoFabiaNazi type legislation that we have now about things like cheese-rolling, pipe-cleaners, toys, food, beef, sheep, farmers, food, grain, water, electricity, money, farmers, farmland, what the bastards can grow and when, slaughterhouses, lorries, roads,  who can park where or when, how wide your hedgerow-margins can be for bats, flies, butterflies, caterpillars, beetles and other useless inedibles and so on, oh and BIRDS….


unless Richard Dawkins can convince me otherwise at the WAR CRIMES TRIAL of the RSPB since he is a good and honest man. He can be their Mackenzie-Friend.

It does not matter….

that there is no “distributor” for this film, in the USA.

David Davis

Why do I say that? Because, with today’s internet-thingy attached to you, as you can do now, anyone with any mind so to do can view any prog, watch any film, see any page, find anything,  if he has a mind to and knows what to type.

The USA is what Tony Blair referred to (a-propos of us here in the UK) as a “YOUNG COUNTRY”. As with teenagers in all time and everywhere, opinions in this straneg place called a “young country” are often strongly-held. The disagreement about them if any engenders strong feelings, and the logical basis for the more emotional ones, in particlar, is potentially – although not always – unsound. The tragically-mistaken hypothesis of “creationism” is one such. In young nations and young civilisations, people who know what they believe will believe it with ferocity. Especially in places where there is a lot of space around you physically – coming across strangers who will disagree intellectually (and with evidence to support them which they have about their persons) will be rarer than, say, in London.

That said, I do not believe that the creationist error tendency, in the USA, is or would be as strong in opposing the screening of a movie, a mere movie, as is feared. I do not think that cinemas would be burned down, for example. Nor do I think that the great movie-making installations of Hollywood over there, or Pinewood over here, nor the actual location-sets as used, would be assaulted by enraged bands of creationist Christians, or even Moslems – they too have a creationist religious legend, insofar as they might be termed a religion. Furthermore, history has shown, in particular recently, that it is physically safe to insult and offend Christians. This also is an innately bad thing, but it is a fact.

To me as a scientist (who believes in a God who represents and probably did conceive the indescribable level of Order and Logic observable in all the Universe) the creationist diversion is a tragic travesty of science, and indeed even a perversion thereof. It tragically deflects Man’s mind and inquisitiveness away from things that badly need understanding and rationalisting. If God “was Order”, and “in the beginning there was Order” (Λογος) as it says in the least-bad translation of 1. John (i) that we possess, then there is no requirement whatsoever for Him to have voluntarily sat down to “create” anything at all. He just “was” (and is, and will be always) and what was in His Mind would simply come into being in the same way.

For a scientist, to associate poor devout and fairly-far-seeing Darwin with Eugenicists, Nazis, sterilisers, Stalinists, people like Houston Stuart Chamberlain, creators of Frankensteinian monsters and the like, is a travesty of real science. Darwin was a kind, gentle and humane man, who did not even want to hurt worms if he could help it, and who never used the phrase “survival of the fittest”. If that is the implication of what eugenic socialists said he said, it is unjust.

Libertarians no more want to harm people who are perhaps less able to compete in a civilisation than others, than darwin wanted to harm living creatures. Indeed, Sean Gabb and I often say that it will be necessary to continue a publicly-funded NHS for example, for some time which might be long, even if a libertarian government were to come to power in the UK.

At last! the Catholic buggers in Rome (where they ought to be doing some thinking and homework) twig that they’re actually fighting pagans! By which I mean not Wiccans (who are generally harmless and useful and charming) but Gramsco-Marxians (who really really need and want to and like to kill people over disputes regarding fine interpretation of ideas)

David Davis

As a scientist, (strictly speaking I think I’d today be called a molecular biophysicist) I have never had any difficulty in reconciling the first Book of Genesis and I. John i with what greenazis and other prostitutors of words call “the science”.

But it’s heartening to see that the Vatican’s team, however ineptly (and I don’t expect miracles) is now coming out on side.

They’d better get their act together, and fast. Pagans take no notice even of people as sharp as Richard Dawkins, in their manio-hystericalist-efforts to drag Man back to paleolithic barbarism.

The problem with pagans of course, is that they’ve got into the Governments of places which matter.

The Pagans’ god is of course totalitarian. What else can he be? He laid it all down at the start, at Year Zero, and all have to follow him no matter what, on pain of death or on pain of losing your research grant. Men, dinosaurs, fossils, stars? You name it, he did it then and he did it first. He also demands sacrifices: these are often the things we love most, such as liberty, or pretty young girls (just to rub it in….no pun intended but it’s a good one.)

The Christians’ God laid down nothing as vulgate and inviolate: in the beginning was the Word: the Word was God, and the Word was With – by which the translators must mean “created by” – ablative –  God. For the Word, I substitute “order” or “Logos”. He merely created Himself. Everything else was His Thought, which must evolve later. So evolution must follow, since God exists in All Time and All Space like the rest of us. All we do is discover His Mind, slowly, at first, like now.

But in our trying to do this, Evil and Wickedness try to beset us, such as via the phantasms of “Jacqui” “Smith”, Hitler, Stalin, Gramsci, Marx, Pol Pot, “Al” Gore (who looks increasingly like Hermann Goering – go google) Ed Balls, Jo Brand, Jonathan Ross, Hugo Chavez, Saddam Hussein, Shootinputin187, that woman on the telly whose name I can’t recall, and others.

God and Charles Darwin: Hate mail and the sort of people who send it….

…are related: possibly in an evolutionary way.

David Davis

Sir David Attenborough, being old and therefore in possession of the facts, probably knows about the coming Endarkenment. Apparently he is in receipt of hate-mail, for allegedly “defending” Charles Darwin and the rather poorly mis-named “theory of evolution” in a BBC prog to be transmitted on Sunday.

It is at least 99.99% certain that the planet is astonishingly old, and that diversity and shape of all creatures has altered over tremendous spans of time, so that those that live now are adapted to the external conditions. Because mathematically nothing at all is truly impossible (that is to say, an event’s probability is actually the rational number zero) given enough time and dice-throws, there may be at some time in some place in the Universe a creature called “God”, which proceeds to create – in six days – (a rush-job?) a populated world full of humming-birds and neopastorally-ecstatic human individuals, and without parasites or mosquitos. But Attenborough and I, and maybe also Richard Dawkins, would state this to be highly improbable.

Now to hate-mail. There may be for example an equal degree of hate existing in the minds and hearts of both “Darwinists” and “Creationists”: but I doubt it. For one thing, this is a field of endeavour where “The Science” (terrible phrase) is truly settled. I say this in order to see whether I get hate-mail either from paleobiologists or from creationists. Whereas “Darwinists” are in general rational individuals used to civilised argument and the informed defence of a position with fact, I suspect “Creationists” rely on what they’d term “Faith”. Faith is fine in that of course God’s Mind encompasses the Universe, has done so since the beginning of Time, and He Imagines all that was, is or will be in it: all that is, is thus a product of His thought. That much is obvious to a scientist. But the evidence that God cobbled the earth together in six days, around 6,000 years ago, is scanty at best.

The sorts of people who send hate-mail are those generally with no evidence for their position, but whose world-view is utopian and ideal-driven. For example I think here of socialists, the sort that are not as successful as Polly Toynbee and without her journalistic outlets for their ire: also of “animal rights” “campaigners”. There are of course other kinds, mostly on the left. Whether there is also a connection with the fact that they have very little to do, and lots of time to scratch their own arses, may be relevant. Tere seem to be very few such people on the Classical liberal wing of politics.

If there is a connection developing between the left’s hate-mail-generators and “Creationists”, I think we ought o find out. Both strands of pre-capitalist-idealism will lead civilisation, on purpose, to disaster.

UPDATE1:- I have unashamedly lifted part of The Landed Underclass’s almost simultaneous post to ours, and it’s below. I did wonder in fact whether to discourse in this post about The Nature Of Evil and where God fits in regarding Evil’s continued existence, but forbore this time:-

It seems that nowadays one demonstrates one’s godliness and piety not by acts of charity, humility, contemplation, prayer, etc. but by screaming for the head of anyone who expresses any view that one can, by whatever theological manipulations, deem ‘offensive’.

If I were Mr  Attenborough, I’d go to see my producer and insist that the theme music for my programme were changed to:

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat.
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings.
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small.
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiny urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small.
Putrid foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

[Python, source typos corrected]

« Older Entries