Charles Darwin Begins a Killing Spree!
A Mossback Culture article led me to this piece of work that explains that Charles Darwin killed Terri Schiavo. I suspect that he is also responsible for the sudden appearance of homosexuality on the planet and it can be no coincidence that, not long after the late Pope proclaimed that evolution was more than a mere hypothesis (possibly the faintest praise ever to be afforded it), the child sex abuse coverups came to light. And now the Pope has died. Is this related to his lack of condemnation of evil neo-Darwinism? Could he have been saved if he had turned his back on that bearded Beelzebub? Who is to say? But then it is undeniable that the Pope is dead. Think about it!
Lets face facts:
- Darwin had (has) a big beard. Unless you are Santa Claus or a prophet from God, the only reason to have a big beard is to hide something.
- Darwin is claimed to be dead but given his resemblance to the infamous and unkillable Rasputin, how can we be sure? He may be some kind of mutant with a long life and super regenerative powers.
- If Darwin is alive, can he account for his whereabouts when Kennedy was shot? I have never heard of anyone coming forward as his alibi.
- While Nazis, both old and neo, and communists like Karl Marx don't know jack about biology, evolution, science, history, economics, or anything else for that matter, they often reference Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution, just as Creationists often quote Stephen J. Gould and Carl Sagan as if they supported Intelligent Design. This means that Darwin is a communist Nazi! And Gould must have been a creationist. [Strange, I am told that Gould was left-wing and, as such, he was not that clever on economics but to do as much respected work in science as he did while not believing any of it seems... odd; even for a leftist. But hey, I can't fault the logic. Darwin is referred to by Nazis and communists so he is both. Gould is quoted by creationists therefore he is a creationist.]
I must thank the Alpha and Omega Ministries for this help in my intellectual development. Perhaps I can return the favor by pointing out something.
"when culture as a whole embraces the idea that man is merely an animal,"Evolution makes no claims about what human are, only where we came from. Creationists are the ones who keep adding the "merely" part because a lack of divine origins is not acceptable to them any more than it was for the kings and emperors of the pagan world who claimed to be decended from Venus or Zeus.
"...the random result of the chance toss of the cosmic die, a purposeless biological accident without any meaningful superiority to an ape, a dog, or a microbe,"Boy, creationists really have a hateon for other living things! Not to mention a poor understanding of evolution. Randomness is responsible for a mere mechanism of new traits emerging. Evolution is about as far from a random process as you can get. It is called "natural selection" not "natural lottery".
"...no firm basis can be provided for a culture of compassion and life."Is logic not a firm enough basis for creating a culture of compassion and life even in the event of evolution's truth? If your "Culture of Life"(TM) is one that keeps the dead alive, gives more protection to stem cells than to choir boys and your "Culture of compassion"(patent pending) is one which sees homosexuality as an agenda of evil, then perhaps logic and the evolved tendency towards social animals to exhibit compassion and cooperation toward one another are not a firm enough basis. Too bad for you preacher man.
"The natural realm is a savage place, and there is no reason, within an evolutionary framework, to seek such things as compassion, tenderness, or mercy."Then why did "God" create animals like chimps, baboons, dolphins, wolves and humans who routinely demonstrate compassion, tenderness, and mercy not to mention forgiveness and a sense of fair play? If there is no reason for this and it is a detriment to life in the natural world, has God not just set these creatures up for failure? Maybe creationists see these traits as being irrational but that is reflective of the creationists' character not the fault of these traits
But (pause while I look up this guy's name) James R. White should not feel too bad. He may be a psychopath who gets an F in biology but he gets the distinction of the second ever Apesnake Atrocious Argument Award for his short but breathtakingly bad article.
Now I think I will go and make sure the door is locked. There's a Darwin on the loose!