RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands.  Cults everywhere:  Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from.  It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?

Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death 

Archive - July 2016

Great French Mathematician Sch├╝tzenberger, knew Darwinism was a false idol

He used math, logic and technological sophistication to batter the myths of Evolution.

Bookmark and Share


One of the most influential French mathematicians in the past 100 years was Marcel-Paul Schützenberger [1920-1996], and he was a Darwin Doubter. In fact he was publicly quite antagonistic to the cult of evergreens-became-the-screaming-mad climate 'expert'. He also specialized in complex nano-technology and mathematical computer simulations, merged together into something termed 'Combinatorics'. He knew that neither math nor technology could possibly support the outrageous tales made by the cult of Darwin.

For example, Schützenberger, stated that his use of mathematics “in the overall assessment of evolutionary thought has been encouraged by the biologists themselves, if only because they presented such an irresistible target”. [Interview with Schützenberger, M.P., Marcel-Paul Schützenberger: the miracles of Darwinism, Origins & Design 17(2):10–15, 1996; p. 10. See also Eden, M., Heresy in the Halls of Biology—Mathematicians Question Darwinism, Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 59]

Schützenberger's work supported the now obvious and confirmed conclusion that random mutations consistently produce degeneration, not progress. In fact not one single positive mutation can be named by the Darwinists. In an online catalogue of mutations, no entry exists for positive mutations, cited by Darwinists as changes in the genomic code to take a flat worm, to a fat man. In the 1966 Wistar Symposium held at the University of Pennsylvania the Darwin Doubters:

“ … brought together a collection of renowned … scientists … . At that meeting Marco became one of the first distinguished scientists in the world to point out that a theory of evolution that depends on uniformly randomly occurring mutations cannot be the truth because the number of mutations needed to create the speciation that we observe, and the time that would be needed for those mutations to have happened by chance, exceed by thousands of orders of magnitude the time that has been available.” [Wilf, H., In Memoriam: Marcel-Paul Schützenberger (1920–1996), Electronic J. Combinatorics 3(1):1, 1996]

During this conference Schützenberger alongside MIT professor Murray Eden, gave a cogent presentation of evidence explaining that mathematical probabilities against neo-Darwinism are not only enormous, but rather impossible. He concluded that, as a result of the discovery of genetic coding, scientists have realized that genes are:

“ … like a word composed in the DNA alphabet; such words form the genomic text. It is that word that tells the cell to make this or that protein. Either a given protein is structural, or a protein itself works in combination with other signals given by the genome to fabricate yet another protein.” [interview quoted above]


In spite of academic inertia and submission to Darwinism, Schützenberger asked the obvious questions such as:

“ … with so few elementary instructions, … fabricate objects that are so marvelously complicated and efficient? This property with which they are endowed—just what is its nature? Nothing within our actual knowledge of physics and chemistry allows us intellectually to grasp.' [Schützenberger, M., Algorithms and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution; in: Moorehead, P.S. and Kaplan, M.M. (Eds.), Mathematical Challenge to the Neodarwinian Theory of Evolution, Wistar Institute Symposium, Philadelphia, PA, p. 73, 1967]

“ … explain how to match blueprints viewed as typographic objects and the things they are supposed to control. The only example we have of such a situation (apart from the evolution of life itself) is the attempt to build self-adapting programs by workers in the field of artificial intelligence. Their experience is quite conclusive … without some built-in matching, nothing interesting can occur. Thus … there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.' [ibid]


Genomic or gene products must transmit signals that affect how individual cells differentiate and act. Such signals also must interact with each other during embryological development. Why would a human embryo, going from 1 cell to 100 Trillion, 'pass through' reptilian and fish 'stages. Human DNA code is completely unlike that of fish or reptiles. Embryonic code cannot be changed during the cell division and genomic gestation process.


Within human development as Schützenberger pointed out, the cell’s many types of signaling molecules, such as hormones and cytokines, influence each other to form networks of coordinated systems that interact in ways similar to how circuit boards are designed to achieve complex integrated circuits.

Research on gene regularity networks has determined that to build a new animal design from a pre-existing one by mutation and selection requires altering the pre-existing developmental gene regulatory network. This requires hundreds of coordinated mutations, and Davidson’s work has shown that this much alteration inevitably causes catastrophic consequences. In other words mutations kill, they don't add value. Davidson, following on from Schützenberger, writes that since mutations in early development:

“ … are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” [Erwin, D. and Davidson, E., The evolution of hierarchical gene regulatory networks, Nature Reviews: Genetics 10:141–148, 2009]

Schützenberger used math, logic, common sense and software to destroy Evolution. The only conclusion one can reasonably have about Darwin's cult, is that its cult adherents are completely ignorant of the same.


Human embryology disproves the Cut of Evolution

No, you don't recapitulate your fish-to-reptile ancestors in the womb.....

Bookmark and Share



In the Evolution fairy tale, DNA software code magically changes. Species and kinds within species, somehow due to fairy dust and the Gods of time, chance and those magical mutations, extend, change, or customize their software code, during the embryonic process to transform the unborn into another kind, or at least, a missing link in the drift toward another kind. This has never been observed in the real world and it defies common sense.


Consider a human female who is pregnant. The child has 46 chromosomes, 23 each from both parents. During the embryonic process, this software template, which miraculously takes a zygote to 100 trillion cells of complexity, is never changed or injected with new code. Never. It matters not if the 'environment' is cold, warm, wet, hot, freezing, mild or unpleasant. It matters not if the parent deeply wishes wings, fins, 4 eyes, or 6 ears for the newborn.


The code is the code, and it does not change within the embryonic process. Further, species in kind, only mate with their own kind. There is no evidence at all, that dogs will mate with cats, birds with squirrels, or bears with fish. Grolars or grizzly polar bear combinations are simply bears mating within their kind. This is true of coyote-wolf mixtures, or wild dogs mating with domesticated dogs. Far from proving evolution, these in-kind 'species' actually disprove it.


And no, Haeckel's fraud of 'Recapitulation', proven as fraud in 1874, which purports to map out the embryological development of the human fetus replicating its fish to reptile ancestry, is again not proof of evolution, but certainly proof against it. 'Science' lying? Perish the thought...


"To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 120.


". . ontogeny recaptitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates [repeats] the evolutionary history of its species. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life's unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point."—*William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), p. 285.


"[The German scientist, Wilhelm His] accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of [Haeckel's book]."—*Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (1977), p. 430.


Basic human embryology disproves Evolution:

Top of the picture, is Haeckel's fraud. At the bottom is what a real embryo looks science here for the Evolution cult, just lots of rhetoric....



Evolution, Embryos and Cult of Science fraud

Science again committing fraud and deceit, plus ca change...

Bookmark and Share


The cult of science.


In every science textbook since the late 1800s has been the iconic and fraudulent, embryo drawings – crude, false, purposefully misleading – by Darwinian zealot Ernst Haeckel, yet another scientist who committed fraud [a shocking surprise]. In 1997 embryologists reluctantly published real photographs comparing various animal embryological developments with that of the human, and of course, they look nothing alike. However, the 'cult of science' and those mandarins of education, supreme, omniscient, benign, and worthy, continue to push the Haeckel fraud. Just another example of corrupt science, forcing a theology – evolution – onto the gullible and young.


The cult of 'science' and Darwin are still pushing the embryo fraud today, a direct violation of both real science, and the purpose of education. Education is meant to teach and challenge, not indoctrinate.


In his 2000 book Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells reviewed ten then-current biology textbooks for their treatment of what Dr. Wells calls the "icons" of evolution, well-known lines of evidence commonly used to support evolution...Now, in 2011, we present an updated 2011 textbook review that applies Wells's evaluation criteria to 22 recent biology textbooks, all published since 2005... 

This 2011 textbook evaluation also adds two new icons that have grown in popularity over the past decade. A series of fossils purportedly showing the evolution of whales from land mammals is now presented uncritically in many biology textbooks as an alleged "poster child" for macroevolution. Another new icon is "junk" DNA, with some textbooks claiming that noncoding DNA is functionless junk.

Read “(Not) Making the Grade: An Evaluation of 22 Recent Biology Textbooks and their Use of Selected Icons of Evolution”, in its entirety, here.


Junk science is not science, but fiction and propaganda.



Political Science and the cut of Scientism

No science but metaphysics and story telling.

Bookmark and Share



Scientism and the cult of 'peer review' and money seeking [you approve mine and I will approve yours!]


Drummond Rennie a peer review expert knows that peer review is a joke, writing in Nature, he pleads to “make peer review scientific”. Peer review is corrupt and all about getting published and accessing money.


Peer review is touted as a demonstration of the self-critical nature of science. But it is a human system. Everybody involved brings prejudices, misunderstandings and gaps in knowledge, so no one should be surprised that peer review is often biased and inefficient. It is occasionally corrupt, sometimes a charade, an open temptation to plagiarists. Even with the best of intentions, how and whether peer review identifies high-quality science is unknown. It is, in short, unscientific.

A long time ago, scientists moved from alchemy to chemistry, from astrology to astronomy. But our reverence for peer review still often borders on mysticism. For the past three decades, I have advocated for research to improve peer review and thus the quality of the scientific literature. Here are some reflections on that winding, rocky path, and some thoughts about the road ahead.


Rennie is right about alchemyAlchemy discovered many elements, led directly to chemistry and improved experimentation around the manipulation of chemical substances. It was a necessary precursor to modern chemistry. As he states however, one cannot say the same about the modern cult of science and the nonsense around peer review.


Corrupt models yet again [see globaloneywarming]:


...neuroscientists have relied on functional MRI imaging (fMRI) to draw inferences about the brain. Patients have been asked questions and told to engage in mental activities while scientists watched areas light up on their brain scans. Too bad researchers didn’t know the software was buggy when they wrote up their results. A new study published on PNAS finds that possibly 70% of the research published in the last quarter century is flawed. “These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies and may have a large impact on the interpretation of neuroimaging results,” they say. Science Daily reports, “Common statistical methods used to analyse brain activity through images taken with MRI scanners cannot be trusted.


So again software models and code are corrupt. Be thankful your DNA is not as bad as what the 'scientists' use.


Here again we can see the ignorance of the of Evolution. Evolution screams that 'bugs' or mutations are positive. They take the pond scum to the screaming-mad, globalist-poster-waving, climate professor. In reality they destroy. In software these 'bugs' will make the system inoperable over time, which is why firms spend so much time and money doing 'security patches'. You might have noticed this when windows shuts down your system for maintenance. Be thankful your body does not shut down when DNA repairs itself. Self repair does not occur by random chance. It has never been observed to occur randomly, nor can 'scientists' induce such processes, even in a lab.


Science, scientism, evolution, and the cult of death.


Conservatives are appalled at the rise of the “culture of death” in western countries (see articles by Wesley J. Smith at Evolution News & Views), but secular liberals—the same ones who love Darwinare all for it. True, Medical Xpress worried about the ethics of killing psychiatric patients, who might be vulnerable, but not about the policy itself. Here’s the shocking conclusion of a recent study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal: “Perhaps those who advocate for extending access to people with psychiatric disorders may be willing to tolerate a number of potentially avoidable premature deaths as acceptable because access to assisted dying is felt to be so important in principle. However, that argument must be made explicit and debated publicly.” Just tell the public, in other words, that you have to break some eggs to make an omelette.


The Nazis said the same.


The cult of science which purports to be rational is anything but. Today big science, funded by big government supports the following cult doctrines:


-Killing babies [murder of babies is called 'abortion', a meaningless term].


-Exterminating the old, the weak, the sick [called euthanasia, which sounds so benign, the Nazis and Communists did the same].


-Support sexual confusion and psychologically distressed sexual deviancies as homosexuality and transgendered theology.


-Plant food a trace chemical which falls out of climatic processes causing the same [follow the trillions of printed dollars which are at stake].


-A big bang which started the universe from nothing [it is impossible that nothing creates something and order does not erupt from chaos].


-DNA software code arising by chance in a soupy pond.


-Pond scum magically becoming a Moslem raping a white girl in Sweden.


-Soft Dino tissue lasting 78 million years due to 'iron' preservation.


-The perfect placement and size of the moon, due to a big rock chaotically hitting the earth and the resulting debris coalescing into the perfect spherical shape and size just the right distance from the earth.


-and one million other myths.....


Scientism is a cult that was used by the National Socialists [Nazis, were Atheist, Evolutionist, Socialist]; and their brethren the Communists [ibid]; to 'sell' their theologies. One of the reasons the Germans were such enthusiastic supporters of the Nazis was the general belief that science, reason and progress supported the Nazi claims of Evolutionary progress [survival of the fittest, genetic perfection]; and that the Germans were somehow the champions of science [read Evolution]. As Hitler said, Catholics must be killed for opposing science [he meant of course Darwinism, of which he was a devoted cult member].


It does appear that humans are truly ignorant of history.




Evolution cannot explain the formation of amino acids, DNA or RNA

And no, molecules don't magically 'self create and replicate' like Darwinian rhetoric assumes.

Bookmark and Share



Evolution is not scientific. It is science fiction, hailed as the epitome of rationalism. Basic biology, biochemistry and a crude understanding of nano-technology, would make it quite clear to an independent observer, that evolution is impossible.


In an opus Evidence for Creation, which attracts ad-hominems [creationist, Bible believer etc], but never attracts contrarian proof [observations, experiments, reality]; Henry Morris III identifies a long list of biological facts, that destroy evolution.


Evolution cannot, and never has really bothered to explain the following:


-Atmosphere is 21 % molecular oxygen, yet evolutionists maintain that the early earth had no oxygen [they need to do this to jump start protein formations]; however, without oxygen there is no ozone layer and thus no life on this plant [UV radiation from the Sun would annihilate all traces of life].


-Oxygen is necessary for life but 'free oxygen' would oxidize and destroy organic molecules required for the origins of life.  When coupled with the above fact, this presents quite a problem for Evolution origin of life true believers. 


-Even if the mythical and quite inane 'soupy pond' existed, and it was actually a soupy ocean, full of organic compounds, chemical thermodynamics and kinetics eliminates the possibility of lifeless, suspended particles forming anything.


-For example, in a soupy ocean teaming with organic compounds, you would have chaos, not structure, with literally hundreds of different kinds of amino acids randomly forming [which has never been observed and would not happen anyways]. There are 20 main amino acids in the creation of proteins. Biologically useless material would have swamped the useful.


-Amino acids in proteins are exclusively left-handed. This is the chirality problem for evolutionists and they have no answer [but lots of stories]. In a primitve soupy ocean, mathematics tells us that about half of all amino acids would not have been left-handed. If just one right handed amino acid is in a protein, all biological activity is destroyed.


-In the Darwin's cult 'soupy pond or ocean' of teeming organic compounds, there is no mathematical, scientific way to justify how only left-handed amino acids would have formed the first proteins. In fact a great variety of different compounds would have emerged and evolutionists cannot explain this dilemma.


-Molecular formation requires the input of a certain type of energy and a steady input of building blocks to form it. To make a protein, you need amino acids. If amino acids are dissolved in water, they do not spontaneously join to make a protein. That requires energy. If you dissolve a protein in water, the chemical bonds break, which releases energy – the opposite of what is needed.


-For an evolutionist in a lab to form proteins 'from nothing', he has to manufacture a made-up world. He must dissolve the amino acids in a solvent, then add a chemical which contains high energy bonds. This energy is transferred to the amino acids and forms the chemical bonds between the amino acids which releases hydrogen and oxygen to form water. This process is completely contrived and is impossible to occur in nature.


-A basic knowledge of biochemistry reveals that 'self replicating' DNA [software] or RNA [translation of software blueprints] is impossible. No molecule 'self replicates'. DNA and RNA are reliant on precise sugar molecule formations which have the same problems identified with amino acids. In other words, the nucleotides which make up DNA and RNA, would all suffer from the same issues presented with amino acids 'self replication' [in the case of DNA and RNA the sugar molecules must be right handed only].


-DNA, RNA, transfer RNA, and ribosomes are all destroyed by UV, reactive oxygen, alkylating agents, and water. Thus 'self replicating' DNA or RNA in Darwin's fantasy world of the soupy pond or ocean is impossible.


The cult of Evolution has no explanation for the above. It is therefore not a science, but a program of fantasy and rhetoric.