The Silly-Assed Consensus of the Loopy Fringe

Vic Biorseth, http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

How is it that, in all socio-political contentious issues and in all material science contentious issues and even in all religious contentious issues, the seemingly "popular", i.e., the most public and publicized views, always seem to support the silly-assed consensus of the loopiest fringe minorities in America? From sheer quantity of published and broadcast words, an objective observer might assume, on topic after topic, a clear majority national consensus, which in truth exists only among the smallest of minorities.

Yet, the consensus of the minority fringe always seems to be driving the national bus.

First, you got your basic fundamental rock-solid consensus among the Democrats and Leftist Republicans, Global-Villagers all, that the Constitution of the United States of America was intentionally drafted, argued, written, debated and ratified by the Founding Fathers for the intention of covering, not the United States of America, but the whole World.

Therefore, a Saudi or Egyptian terrorist caught killing people in Afghanistan or in Iraq has a legal right to file a writ of habeas corpus in a court of his choosing in the United States of America, see? It’s his Constitutional right, they’ll have you know. The fact that he never in his life even set foot in America, and indeed was active in trying to defeat American forces elsewhere in the world, is irrelevant; he’s fully covered by our Constitution, and by our Bill Of Rights, just like everyone else on Earth.

And, you might ask, just what the Hell do they base this ridiculous premise on? Two things:

1. Consensus. Just ask Hillary, Billary, Dean, Reed, Pelosi, Olbermann, Couric, ACLU, Moyers, Lauer, Cafferty, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Times, Time, and on, and on, and on. You don't need anything solid; all you need is a bunch of big-shot bobbing heads.
2. The fact that the Democratic Party owns the Supreme Court, and the Court is no longer a co-equal branch with the Executive branch and the Legislative branch, but has become a tyrannical power unto itself, with the ability to make our Constitution “say” whatever the Hell they want it to say.

The founders intended our Constitution with its Bill of Rights to be a fixed legal document that says very specific legal things.

Look up our Constitutional right to abort a baby for me. I'll bet you can't do it. Yet it exists, right? Everybody knows that, right? And we have a Constitutional right to privacy, right? And we have a Constitutional principle of Separation of Church and State, right?

These things are not and never were in the Constitution.

Call them whatever you want, but you cannot correctly call them Constitutional rights if they are not even in the Constitution. In point of fact, in the act of inventing and creating, out of thin air, the Constitutional right to abort babies, the Supreme Court, on its own, and without any opposition from the Legislative branch or the Executive branch, undid and set aside legislated, representative law in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and made new law, of the un-representative variety. (I guess our Congressmen were just taking a nap or something.)

Every time something like that happens we become a little less represented by our own government, a little more controlled by our own government, the average citizen becomes a little less sovereign in his own country, and we all come a little closer to being ordered, by some petty bureaucrat, to just shut up and get on the cattle car.

This facet of our Democratic Party-driven Global Village Leftist-utopian mentality started out with the premise that the Geneva Convention covered non-signers.

Right.

Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Queda, The Moslem Brotherhood, etc., none of whom signed that or any international agreement, are nevertheless covered by it. They never saw it; they weren’t party to it; they aren’t bound by it; they have no intention of honoring it; yet, they are to be protected by it. In point of fact, these un-uniformed, un-nationalized pure terrorists are less akin to soldiers than they are to Nazi Gestapo, or Russian NKVD, or spies, or agent-saboteurs. They who disguise themselves to sneak about among the innocent, they who love to terrorize girls on TV and make them cry, they who joyfully behead people before the cameras, they who torture, kill and mutilate honorable soldiers taken as prisoners of war, need to be recognized under conventions signed by nations who swore not to do those sorts of things. When captured, they need to be treated the same as if they were actual civilized people, like the real signers.

And that basic premise, I have no real problem with. We are not like them, after all. But I do have a problem with extending the rights under our Constitution and Bill of Rights to these people. And I have an even worse problem with high ranking American idiots, of either Party, who promote such lunacy.

Our Constitution was not written for any Global Village, or any Communist Utopia, or any Borderless Community, or for the Whole World. It was written for the citizens of the United States of America. For this one sovereign nation, and no other.

That’s just crystal clear. There’s nothing difficult about it. What’s the problem?

But, that's just the first subject that lit my fire today.

Second, you got your basic fundamental rock-solid consensus among all of TTRSTF who play-act at being real scientists, the SLIMC and just about all of academia, which says that atheism is the only true and acceptable religious belief system, and that all those members of the overwhelming majority of Theists are poor, ignorant, unenlightened mental cripples, desperately in need of being taken care of by the vastly superior atheistic elite.

And, from where does this bit of wisdom from on high come to us? Why, from the ranking clerics of church of Darwinian Evolution, no less.

One of the greatest thinkers of our era, Frederich August von Hayek, wrote, in The Counter-Revolution Of Science; Studies On The Abuse Of Reason, about the advance of a purely subjective, un-empirical, elitist, collectivist, "popular-composite" approach, introduced into science by a collectivist mentality. He was talking in the main about the Social sciences, and the clear historical trail of how they became infected with non-scientific, collective thinking. The connection between Socialist political thinking and modern social-science thinking was (and is) striking.

I submit that this empirically flawed "popular-composite" approach and its collectivist thinking have not just crept, but leapt, into the Natural Sciences. And that the leap took place even before Hayek's attention was drawn to the Social Sciences.

You can easily prove the un-scientific commandeering of the Natural Sciences by demanding, of any of TTRSTF, any absolutely empirical evidence supporting atheism's central dogma, Darwinian Macro-Evolution. Then you will learn that there is none, and there never was any.

Here, in the responses to a quite simple question asked of our so-called "scientific community" you will see the collective intellectual equivalent of a massive arrangement of bobble-head dolls, with all heads bobbling, bobbing and nodding in unison with each other, while strictly avoiding empiricism and any actual scientific basis in their responses. In the complete absence of any empirical evidence, they have all elevated it and they all support it as an actual proven Scientific Theory. And it is, therefore, to be simply accepted and built upon, as an axiom; a given. Because they collectively said so, see?

The question regards the existence of any empirical evidence whatsoever supporting Darwin's universally recognized scientific theory of macro-evolution, meaning, evolution between species.

The first response to the question, invariably, will involve scientific consensus. The statement will be made, quite correctly, that

all credible scientists today agree that theory of the evolution of species is the correct scientific theory addressing how creatures came to be.

Nevertheless, the first response will be stressed, and quite strenuously, with even ad-hominem attacks entering the discussion. All of TTRSTF will declare, in bobble-headed unison, that SNRTACBT that evolutionary theory is in any way in question. And the entire SLIMC will declare, in bobble-headed unison, that STNSEACPB that Darwin's theory is in any doubt. Do not look at the object of the original question; look instead at the new questions raised about the original questioners.

The second response to the question, invariably, will involve micro-evolution, meaning minor evolutionary variation in color or other attributes that occur strictly within species. The statement will be made, quite correctly, that Darwin observed

environmental variation in finch beaks, and in woollier and less woolly breeds of sheep

others had caused and observed wild variation in fruit flies and other short-lived species, and observations had been made about environmental color changes in speckled moths.

Nevertheless, the second response will be stressed, and quite strenuously, with lots and lots of similar observations thrown into the mix, as an overwhelming quantity of evidence of the wrong thing, to take your eyes and attention off of the right thing. Note that the original question remains before us, unanswered.

The title of Darwinism's central work of Holy Scripture is titled The Origin Of Species, and not The Origin of Variations in Finch Beaks, or Woollier Breeds of Sheep, or Funny Looking Fruit Flies, or Variations in Speckled Moth Color, etc., etc., etc.

All of Darwin's finches remained finches. None of them became Crows, or Magpies, or Bats. Where's the speciation?

All of Darwin’s sheep remained sheep. None of them became Antelopes, or Cattle, or Pigs. Where's the speciation?

All the experimental fruit flies remained fruit flies. None of them became Horse Flies, or Tsetse Flies, or Crickets. Where's the speciation?

The famously observed speckled moths all remained speckled moths. None of them became Butterflies, or Katydids, or Ants. Where's the speciation?

A new evolved species is defined as one that can successfully reproduce itself, but can no longer successfully interbreed with the parent species from which it evolved. No such new evolved species has ever been observed by anyone. There exists no evidence of any such event ever occurring anywhere in the massive, massive existing fossil record.

Yet, all the bobble-heads among all of TTRSTF will madly bobble in agreement that, GESGEAEOT, everything evolved from something. Or, another denomination will declare, under PEWAG's central doctrine, there was, periodically and repeatedly, one of them there geological moments, see, from which you got your basic fundamental massive mutations of fortuitous monsters which came in perfectly complimentary sexual pairs, and, voila, a new species popped out. Poof. And, miraculously, all that brand new DNA in all those individuals showed multiple direct familial relationships among them, just as if they didn't appear all at once, and all that DNA pointed back to one and only one original species parent set. And all of this happened by statistical accident, see? (Bobble, bobble, bobble.)

Now, since Darwin's original theory that species evolved GESGEAEOT, new discoveries in astro-physics pointing to the Big Bang establish the age of the entire universe as no greater than 15 billion years old. Which is not enough time, by many, many orders of magnitude, for even the simplest of living structures or organs or functions, let alone beings to gradually evolve, by statistical accident. Even with all of Carl Sagan's famous Billions And Billions, you're talking the tiniest drop in the huge bucket of evolutionary time absolutely required by the laws of statistical probability. But we'll leave that alone for the moment, as all the scientistic heads continue to bobble furiously at each other and at all observers. Consensus trumps serious science among today's disciples of Scientism.

The third response to the question, invariably, will involve demonizing unacceptable alternative theories. As a response to the question, another question will be asked, implying, quite correctly, the universal bobble-headed opposition to all other possibilities. The challenge will be issued,

What's your alternative theory?

No devout disciple of Evolutionism and the higher church of Scientism would ever admit to any non-material or super-natural possibility involved with how living creatures came to be as they are, under pain of excommunication. Any big-shot contemporary material scientists today will, in public, on hearing the words "What's your alternative theory?" shout "There is none! Let there be no theory before us but Darwin's!" and their heads will immediately and furiously bobble, bob and nod with all the others so violently that they threaten to fall over, or vibrate off their Darwinian table. Of course, that wasn't the question.

I don't particularly give a damn about any alternative theory.

What I want to see is evidence for Darwin's universally embraced "scientific" theory regarding the evolution of species. Let's go back to it.

The question regards the existence of any empirical evidence whatsoever supporting Darwin's universally recognized scientific theory of macro-evolution, meaning, evolution between species.

There is none. None has ever been produced. None can be produced. The theory has no scientific basis. The theory is false.

The so-called scientists who rigidly adhere to the dogmas of Evolution are nothing but a bunch of bobble-headed consensus-seeking simple minded idiots, completely incapable of doing good critical thinking for themselves. Their bobble-headedness has infected all of science; examples are all around. Ask a contemporary scientist about the HIV to AIDS relationship, and odds are that you'll encounter the exact same unified bobbling and nodding, despite the exact same scenario, in that the HIV = AIDS = DEATH MYTH is another "scientific" theory with absolutely no evidence to back it up, but near total scientific community bobble-headed support.

What can I say?

What got me thinking about all of this was reading a new book review I encountered somewhere on-line. The book is by none other than Richard Dawkins, the high priest, perhaps even the pope, of the church of scientism. This is a guy who can't provide any material evidence for any of his dogmas or doctrines and so spends all of his time and energy attacking all the visible alternatives. It's a tactic that gets other people's eyes off the ball long enough for him to put on a fairly good and totally deceptive show. A toast of academia, enjoying near worship among his disciples, he goes about his apparent goal of dismantling Theistic belief wherever he can.

His previous titles were The Blind Watchmaker; Climbing Mount Improbable; Unweaving the Rainbow; The Selfish Gene. Now, he's written The God Delusion. Right. (This is, supposedly, a scientist, remember.) Because he cannot possibly scientifically defend his own strictly faith-based foundational dogmas and doctrines, he openly attacks Theistic belief. Of course, that wasn't the question.

Ho hum, heavy sigh, and here we go again. There is nothing new under the sun. Dawkins and his fellow bobble-heads are too dim to even pursue truth in their own scientific domain, yet they feel quite comfortable diving head first into theology, hoping to lay about themselves with sword and battle-axe, so all that will eventually remain, after they defeat everyone else’s theory, is their theory. That's how Richard Dawkins and all of TTRSTF does science today. To him and his devotees, the term thinking Catholic is an oxymoron. The evolutionist bulb is far to dim for them to be able to discern any intellect or cognitive abilities comparable to their own among the overwhelming majority population of the entire planet. Which is to say, among Theists.

Dawkins is such a dumb-ass he doesn't even know he's doing exactly what he accuses his assumed opposition of doing. He has no material proof of the non-existence of God, or gods, or of anything immaterial, like a human mind, yet he absolutely insists on the purely "scientific" non-existence of God. The majority, here and everywhere, is just supposed to roll over and say, hey, OK, if you say so, we'll all just stop believing in God, because you're obviously so absolutely brilliant. And you've got all those similarly brilliant scientifical types with all their little heads bobbling in exact unison with yours, right behind you.

If you want to learn about the evolution of species, go to Dawkins' Ding Dong School of Darwinian Dingbatism. But don't look to this turkey, or any of his bobble-headed devotees, to be able to teach you anything whatsoever about God. That way is the beginning of the path of devolution of your own guiding ethos away from the decency of the moral norms of Western Civilization, and toward the ethos of BMDFP, Democrats, the SLIMC, Freudianists, Marxists, Darwinists, Richard Dawkins, and all of TTRSTF with their undeviating consensus and their unified bobbling heads.

All of Dawkins' output is nothing but an expansion on Huxley's old What's your alternative theory? because that's all he has, and because that's all there is. Dawkins' religion has nothing to back it up. At least our religion has Revelation behind it. Even granting variable interpretation of the historical evidence of our claimed Revelation, what, exactly, does Evolution have behind it?

Nothing. No Revelation. No material evidence. Nothing.

So, if Dawkins and all the other bobble-heads are not even doing real science, then what's driving them to so persistently attack Theism?

You and I know that there are such things as angels - the good kind, and the bad kind. TTRSTF aren't collectively smart enough to even consider that possibility. Indeed, by their own pre-established doctrine, they do not believe in angels or demons or anything immaterial. Which, I'm sure, pleases the demons to no end. All they have to do is bump the table a little, and all the silly heads bobble and bob and nod in unison and in cadence, without thinking, and visually encouraging others to join in their mindless bobbling and nodding.

Whether in a book, or on TV, or on the radio, or in a classroom, whenever you encounter someone declaring the absolutism of Darwinian evolutionary theory, you will be witnessing the testimony of a FLORMPORIF.

The more laid-back and less contentious among them will be content to just quietly and mindlessly bobble, bob and nod; but, as with all religions, some will be "moved by the spirit" more than others. A few will, while still bobbling, loudly proclaim that It's a scientific fact! Fewer will, while still bobbling, raise their voices an octave and shout It's downright scientifical! And fewer still will, while still bobbling, shriek It's scientificalophorus!

But that won't make it so, and you are called to a higher dignity than this. Your human nature calls you to reason. Remember, all of these loud, bobble-headed people, collectively, still represent a tiny minority, here and everywhere. The only valid poll you can depend on involves the ballot box. A newspaper-poll, or call-in-radio-poll, or a magazine-poll, or a website poll, or a TV-channel-poll, all mean nothing. A spot-poll, just like a loud public voice, does not equate to a real majority. There is no popular reason, there is no spiritual reason, and there is no material reason, for you to grant these bobble-headed fools any credence at all.

Be nice to them; give them a cookie and a glass of milk, but don't stake your eternal life on their advice. They're only here for this life, or so they faithfully believe.

Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life.

Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Mon Feb 09 20:55:02 2009
From: Vickie
Email:
Subject: Troy, MI
Comment:

Great article!

The writing style is hilarious and still very well pointed. I would like to see you do one like this on abortion.

Thank you, and keep it up,

Victoria

Date: Tue Feb 10 08:14:33 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Subject: To Victoria
Comment:

Victoria:

Thank you very much.

When my hand is back to normal, and I finish the Byzantine 4th Crusade page, a new Arguments section is planned, and one of the new argument pages will be one refuting the notion of Choice, the term pro-abortion people prefer to use rather than the term pro-abortion, which is really what they are.

Honesty demands clarity; dishonesty demands obfuscation. I’m not sure exactly how I’ll do that page yet, except that it will include some actual pictures of abortion “choices” so that people can see very graphically exactly what it is that the pro-choice position loves, sponsors, defends and champions.

Right at this moment, I don’t see how I can address that topic with any humor. Sarcasm, insulting language, yeah; but humor – well, we’ll see.

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.