Monday, 28 July 2014

Secularists Engineer Comical Frauds in Defence of Their Religious Dogmas and Then Accuse Sceptics of Being Driven by Religious Zeal

If a Christian archaeologist was to return from the middle East brandishing a fossilised apple with a bite out of the side and claiming that he had found the Garden of Eden and proved that the Genesis account was true, he would be dismissed as a crank - and rightly so.

Yet an atheist archaeologist can appear from the jungles of Borneo brandishing one fossilised tooth and the scientific community can proceed to build and entire human sub-species out of the find, complete with progenitors and progeny - and no one raises an eyebrow.

At best this is witness to a rich imagination overlaying an increasing desperation on the part of the scientific community to keep the theory of evolution on the shelf well past its sell-by date.  At worst it is just simple fraud.  Evolutionary is an area of  "science" the path of which has been littered with frauds from the start.

If you really wanted hard evidence for evolution, the smoking gun was, according to the devotees of the secular liberal faith, the peppered moth.  When industrial pollution in the middle of the nineteenth century started to turn the trunks of trees black, the peppered moth of Darwinic folk legend, once pale, started to turn black, the better to avoid predators, or so it was hypothesized by Darwinic arch-druids.  As evidence for evolution goes it wasn’t quite earth worms turning into elephants, but at least it was something.  It had “evolved” (or at least changed a smidgen) exactly as Darwin had predicted.

It wasn’t quite the stuff to set the heart racing; they were still peppered moths.  The secular miracle of natural selection had nevertheless produced a minor variation within the species.    A destitute man can get excited over a few coppers and up to that point the Darwiniacs had been pretty skint for hard evidence.  Here at last they had a grey moth that had morphed in front of their very eyes into a radically new life form - a slightly darker grey moth.  The secular liberals ecstatically announced that “real science” had proved evolution true yet again and went back to their favourite pastime of calling infidels religious nutters.

One of my grandchildren also goes noticeably darker every summer and one of my daughters-in-law regularly goes from fat to skinny and back again.  Not exactly the sort of metamorphosis that could turn a midge into a moose, nevertheless, perhaps I could make a bob or two selling the story of my grandson’s amazing ability to change his colour with the seasons to the New Scientist.

In the fifties an Oxford biologist, E.B. Ford, had spent two happy years transporting dark grey moths from the inner city to the countryside and light grey moths from the countryside to the inner city.  After which Ford triumphantly announced that his research had proved that birds could easily spot the dark grey moth on light trees and light grey moths on dark trees.  Voilà - evolution had been proved yet again!

Over the next fifty years the peppered moth’s legend became sacred to Darwinics - a sort of Fatima for atheists.  It became the snow covered peak of that “mountain of evidence” that science journals keep telling us about.  Every school child in the west, before learning how to put a condom on a cucumber, was staring at pictures of a light peppered moth clearly visible on a black tree trunk next to a dark moth that was somewhat less visible.

It was all so reasonable … and yet all so phony.  Some decades later some researchers (who one must presume had been living on another planet and were thus unaware that questioning evolution was a capital offense on planet earth) raised a few trivial issues.  Ted Sargent, an American lepidopterist (the branch of zoology dealing with butterflies and moths) then risked life-long incarceration by bravely pointing out that peppered moths don’t actually alight on tree trunks!  Further, they are nocturnal and fly around at night when birds, apart from owls, are having their forty winks.

It transpired that Ford had rigged his experiments by physically placing moths on tree trunks, somewhere the little critter would never have alighted had they been left to their own devices.  It that wasn’t bad enough, it also become apparent that the famous photos of peppered moths, which regularly show up in Darwinic propaganda even to this day, had been staged: dead moths had been literally stuck to tree trunks!  The “proof” for evolution had suddenly morphed into a sort of Monty Python dead-parrot sketch.  This experiment had been the equivalent of tying the legs of a mouse together and throwing it to a hungry cat, and then exclaiming, “See - this confirms mice evolved legs to escape predators - evolution is proved yet again!”

In her book, Godless: The Church of LiberalismHERE, Ann Coulter amusingly quipped to the effect that this exposé brought to an abrupt end the secular liberals one and only recorded love-affair with air pollution.

And how did the Darwinacs respond to this exposure? - you know the ones who keep telling us they are devoted to the scientific method.  Well, to be fair, a couple had the integrity to publicly admit that the game was up, but the rest set about the science of demonising Sargent and ruining his career - Sargent was the zoologist who had played a central part in exposing the fraud.

Others devotees just ploughed on regardless, hoping no one had noticed that their “statue of the Weeping Virgin” wasn’t kosher.  The New Scientist as recently as 9th July 2005 confidently stated, “Evolutionary biologists have long known that the process can happen rapidly - Charles Darwin himself pointed out the observable changes wrought by pigeon fanciers and dog breeders.  A century later biologists showed that peppered moths in England’s industrial heartland had evolved darker colours to camouflage themselves against soot-blackened trees.”  It came as a surprise to many that selective breeding by humans had belonged in the “blind chance mutations of nature” column all along.

In 2005 - three years after it had finally acknowledged that the peppered moths were a fraud - the New York Times carried an article by a biologist, Professor H. Allen Orr, treating the peppered moth scam as an open question “Did the peppered moths evolve dark colour as a defence against birds or for other reasons?  And what role, if any, did the empty cans of superglue and black spray paint found at the scene play in the moth’s evolution.”  Okay - I made up the last sentence.

Orr concluded by called the darkening of the moths a “minor squabble” among biologists that had been inflated by sceptics of evolution.  It was as if the Church was to describe the Galileo affair as a storm in a teacup triggered by a “fanatical pro-elliptical orbist”!   

Peppered moths fly are night (when birds are having a kip) and don’t alight on tree trunks - aren’t these what old-school scientists used to call facts?

Is there anything funnier than secular liberals? - they engineer comical frauds in defence of their religious dogmas and then accuse sceptics of being driven by religious zeal, and then constantly talk as if you are an idiot for being just a tad uncertain that your great-grandfather was a frog!



  

Tuesday, 22 July 2014

"Judas, sit down and shut your proto-Marxist piehole. THWAP!" John 12:7-8 - The Gospel of Judas Iscariot

Patrick Lawler (abridged and adapted by Graham Moorhouse)

Welcome to the next instalment of “Tales of CCRS” [CCRS stands for Catholic Catechism Rigidly Suppressed - I jest - it's supposed to stand for Catholic Certificate of Religious Studies - it is a course designed by our bishops to destroy Catholic education, and it has been very effective in so doing - Ed].

One of the main ‘teachers’ on the Westminster CCRS course is a certain Deacon; let’s call him Deacon ‘Nice’.  Now, Deacon ‘Nice’ is your archetype post-Conciliar Modernist, the living, breathing embodiment of absolutely everything you would associate with the egregious “Spirit of Vatican II”; he is your liberal’s liberal, your progressive’s progressive, your left-wing's left-winger, and like all his type, he is a man reeking with sanctimonious concern for “The Poor”, “The Disenfranchised” and “The Marginalised” (Yea, verily, twill be capitalised in thought, word and deed!).  Also typical of his genre, Deacon 'Nice' sermonizes endlessly about tolerance, whilst intolerance oozes out of every pore.

Deacon 'Nice'. Like the rest of his kind, has a profound devotion to the seven Golden Calves of post-Conciliar modernism: tolerance, dialogue, encounter, acceptance, inter-faith outreach, multiculturalism and that Golden Calf of Golden Calves … white liberal guilt.  As for genuine Catholic concerns - the salvation of souls; individual responsibility; faithful observance of the Magisterium; the Four Last Things; absolute truth; objective morality; evangelisation and conversion to the One True Faith – well not so much that you would notice.

Quite early on in the course (the second teaching day, in fact), Deacon ‘Nice’ - dismissively indicating to a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church - announced: “Being a Christian is not about following every single thing in there.”  Now, the instant he said it, I thought, “Oh, really!  And which parts of the Catechism should we feel free to ignore or disregard, pray tell?”  I am ashamed to say, I did not speak up.  In fact, I felt like such a lousy coward for the rest of that day and afterwards that I resolved not to remain silent the next time any of the course teachers made some smart aleck comment disparaging the Catholic faith. 

I did not have to wait long for Deacon ‘Nice’ was always especially accommodating in his modernist, progressive, Spirit-of-Vatican II worshipping, apostasy-friendly outlook.  One such (totally in character) gem was when he announced: “Taking care of the poor is the heart of Christianity.”  Please note, there is no “at” in that sentence; he did not say, “Taking care of the poor is at the heart of Christianity.”  Indeed, I was most insistent at the time that I did not misquote him, neither adding nor subtracting from what he had said.  “Taking care of the poor is the heart of Christianity” is exactly what he said.  I raised my hand and the following exchange ensued:

HIM: “Yes?”
ME:  “Did you just say, “Taking care of the poor is the heart of Christianity?”
HIM: “Yes”
ME:  “Well, it isn’t”
HIM: “What do you mean?”
ME:  “I mean taking care of the poor isn’t the heart of Christianity.”
HIM: “Yes it is!”
ME:  “No, it isn’t. Taking care of those experiencing poverty and hardship is certainly important and can justifiably be described as one’s Christian duty but it isn’t THEheart of Christianity.
HIM: “Of course it is”
ME:  “No, it really isn’t! The heart of Christianity is the reality of Our Blessed Lord’s sacrifice on the cross and the salvific grace made available to those who faithfully receive the blessed sacraments of the One, True, Holy and Apostolic Roman Catholic Church.  It’s about saving the souls of individual sinners like me and trying to make sure we spend eternity with God in Heaven rather than with Satan in Hell!  Our Lord didn’t come to Earth to live as one of us and die an agonising death on the cross just so we could open a soup kitchen!”

There was a bit more liberal spluttering from Deacon ‘Nice’ but, before too long, he did (with exceptionally bad grace) have to admit that, “Well, if you’re going to be rigidly theologically accurate….” then alright, that sacrifice-on-the-cross-and-saving-souls-stuff is, I suppose, sort of, the heart of Christianity.

This is a clear example of what I call “The Gospel of Judas Iscariot”; I didn’t come up with that title myself and it certainly doesn't refer to the dodgy Gnostic text of the same name that had a certain amount of notoriety a few years ago [Why the media at the time insisted on calling it the Gospel of Judas was always something of a mystery, as it wasn't written by Judas and it wasn't a Gospel - Ed].

Judas was a liar, a thief and a traitor and he was so, primarily, because he did not believe in the Truth, Our Blessed Lord.  His ‘concern’ was purely for the things of this world; fame, worldly regard, wealth and comfort and we see his ‘concerns’ writ large in the post-Conciliar Church on all sides. The “social justice” crowd are following in his footsteps and taking many well-meaning but woefully un-catechised souls with them to their final destination and judgement, while, along the way, propagating an emasculated, feminised, communistic and de-sacralised fake theology, elevating “The Poor” to saintly victimhood simply by ‘virtue’ of being poor (whether in relative or absolute terms).

I simply cannot say it in a clearer and more engaging way than the formidable Ann Barnhardt in her excellent essay, “Jesus Christ: Economist”, enjoy!

Tuesday, 15 July 2014

The Fruitful Shall Inherit the Earth

Already (mostly young) French Catholic can put a million
boots on the street to oppose homosexual adoption
Some very exciting and encouraging forecasts have come out of a recent study of ordinations in France. The study looked not only at the number of traditional priests as against Novus Ordo priests being ordained, but at the current total numbers of each group and their average ages.

The really significant fact is that the average age of a Novus Ordo priest in France is 75! Put simply this means that the Novus Ordo church in France is standing on the edge of a very steep precipice. The study concludes that by 2038, a mere twenty-five years from now, the majority of priests in France will be traditionalists.

However, I believe we can be even more hopeful than this report suggest, because the report has only graphed the growth of the traditional orders, groups such as the SSPX, the FSSP, the Institute of the Good Shepherd etc. But there is another story, what about the young men coming out of Novus Order seminaries who are also traditional minded, and what about those Novus Order priests who are returning to tradition - the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate being just one example? Add in the further fact that traditional Catholics, unlike their Novus Ordo brothers and sisters, and secularists in general, are not busy contraception themselves out of existence, and I believe the future could be very bright indeed for the Church in France.

I suspect that I am too old to see the new dawn, but my children could well live to see France as a vibrate Catholic country once again and ready to reclaim its role as the eldest daughter of the Church. And where France goes, who knows, other countries may not be too far behind. It won't happen overnight, but I suspect we could be talking about decades rather than centuries.

Surly we are witnessing another thread being woven into that beautiful prophesy of our Lady at Fatima, "My Immaculate Heart will eventually triumph." Maybe we can begin to dare hope that the day will come when popes who have sold their souls to the Zeitgeist, like Pope Humble 1st, and scandalous prelates like Vincent Nichols, Cardinal Dolan et al will be just historical footnotes, mere painful memories of an older generation.

There could of course be other clouds on the horizon: Islam and militant secularism two obvious examples, but the Novus Ordo sect, in France at least, is now very clearly and firmly lodged on death row.

I prophesied fifty years ago that this day would come, but was denounced for not being "open to the Spirit". I inquired at the time whether they were talking about the Spirit that had been around for the last 2000 years or the one that had just turned up - no response forthcoming at the time, as far as I recall.

Tuesday, 8 July 2014

Marriage victory in Finland! Parliamentary committee votes down "gay marriage." Help from MassResistance.


POSTED: July 3, 2014

A coalition of religious activists in Finland using MassResistance materials has blocked a “gay marriage” move in the Finnish Parliament, overcoming a well-funded and well-organized push by the homofascist lobby.

Finland isn't as easy to conquer as the homofascist movement expected!


On June 25 the Finnish Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee voted 10-6 to reject the "gay marriage" bill. The vote followed lobbying by coalition members and the distribution of MassResistance materials to all members of Parliament.  In addition, the MassResistance video “What 'gay marriage' did to Massachusetts” was broadcast on national TV in May.  MORE

Monday, 30 June 2014

British Bishop Talks Out of Both Sides of His Mouth at Once - No surprises There Then.

Archbishop Peter Smith of Southwark has clarified that a plea by the bishops for the rights of Catholics in polygamous civil unions should not be interpreted as a shift in the Church's position on the subject.

Archbishop Smith's intervention came after a bishops' conference statement was taken as being an endorsement of polygamous civil unions.

The bishops' statement, a submission to a government consultation, said existing polygamous civil unions should not be abolished or merged into polygamous marriages.

The bishops said: "Some polygamous Catholics do not wish to enter into civil polygamous marriages because of their deeply held belief that marriage is between two people only, but still wish to enjoy the legal rights that are contained in their polygamous civil unions. The removal of the option for polygamous people to enter into polygamous civil unions would cause great harm to polygamous Catholics and others."

The statement was signed by Archbishop Smith, the bishops' chairman of the department for Christian Responsibility and Citizenship.

Archbishop Smith said that the statement "should not be misinterpreted as a wider commentary on polygamous civil unions in general".

There you have it: I bet you are all dead clear now on what the Church teaches about polygamous "marriages". The above is of course a spoof, what the bishop was really talking about was two men addicted to the unhealthy, unnatural depravity of using one another's lower bowel as a sex organ being given some sort of legal recognition. It is apparently now part of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship to assist those committed to a life of grave sin on their way to hell. Apparently, the idea that Christian Responsibility involved calling those so committed to repentance went down the tubes with Vat2. How about the rights of necrophiliacs to keep a licensed corpse in their house, or the rights of coprophiliacs to have access to the sewers? Why is it that only some sexual deviants have rights - our lefty bishops are not that inclusive it turns out after all?