Ah , yes! We have been Darwinized, Pasteurized and Virologized (?) and still can't explain the magic and miracle that creates a butterfly from a caterpillar!
Like most dominant theories - gravity, germs etc - Darwinism makes a bit of sense but not enough. Also, beside making sense, proof would be nice.
People believe through a need to believe. When the Elon Musk character displayed his roadster drifting by a fully lit Earth and in total vacuum (though the roadster itself was in partial shade for some mysterious reason), many educated people who taught about air pressure and solar radiation applauded. Those same people would fail a student claiming the possibility of ordinary manufactured materials surviving annihilation in such circumstances. Their need to believe in and to admire the Elon Musk character trumped all. (I can't believe I just said "trumped". Where's my ear-shootin' Tyler character?)
The current debate on the shape of Earth is between people who believe in air pressure without containment and people who believe that Tasmania is shaped like a banana resting on its bend. These people are nearly all smarter than I, a total science/math dunce. But both sides are driven by a need to believe and thus cannot welcome, fondle and absorb a blatant contradictory factor. They can't do the one essential thing.
My great advantage is that I am willing to embrace DUNNO. I'd like to know, that's only human. But if I don't know...too bloody bad. So long as I'm willing to inquire, listen, observe and contemplate, my DUNNO is the superior system. And if DUNNO works for an innumerate yob like me...what might it not do for some bright spark?
A refreshing tour de force. (This from a former geology/paleontology student. Stephen Jay Gould offered his band-aid theories at my graduation.) That said, in light of what you spell out,
1) why the repeated references to "3,800 million years ago"? and
2) why accept viruses, the existence of which is also based on unproven tautologies?
As much as I dislike Darwin and his obsession over competition fueling evolution while ignoring cooperation, the creation/ intelligent design hypothesis fails.
Occam's razor.... So then, who created this intelligence that created intelligence? It's also circular just like the fossil circle jerk.
We don't know because we are still using flawed models to explain life. We saw how genetics was bullshit especially during the COVID hype.
FYI, quantum mechanics is another fantasy that fails to satisfy Occam's razor. The double slit experiment ASSumes that the detector doesn't influence the photons/electrons etc.
Every detector takes energy to detect what it's detecting. Thus, there is a direct physical observer... The detector.
Here's a good playlist on why quantum mechanics contradicts itself and is built on traditional wave theory.
You make good sense Rob. "evolution" of the species is probably not a good word because it can't be proven as taught. It's a "process of diversification" that we don't fully understand, that doesn't mean life on earth was all made in a moment either. Milton's arguments are flawed as well on many levels. Different life forms fit nearly perfectly with their environments that is for sure so there is some interaction of environment with function, I'll leave it at that. Also just to step ahead of this guy Ademar who comes after just about every comment, perhaps he hasn't noticed he's being ignored.
What amazes me and perplexes Darwinism which is obsessed with genetics is epigenetics.
Let's take the example of a female.
She was an egg inside her mother who was an egg inside her grandmother.
It turns out that we inherit our mitochondrial (energy metabolism) behavior from the female lineage. If your grandma lived through a famine, that stress is passed onto the egg that became the mother which influenced her mitochondrial activity and passes onto the child.
I recall reading an interesting book way back on how that connects to why Judaism is concerned with the mother's lineage as one is determined whether they're Jewish or not on the mother's line.
This would make sense if they noticed that key traits of the child came from the mother.
They also say baldness comes from the mother's side!
Since DNA doesn't exist, it was a story made up by Franklin (grandchild of a Rothchild), Crick, and Watson who seem to have been in an Intel ops cell making a fake dog-and-pony "race to get the structure of DNA", they needed a patch to explain indirect inheritance that DNA was failing at and Voilà you got epigenetics and methylation of histones. IMHO.
I think jews trace their maternal line simply because you can’t fake who the mother is. They saw a fetus come out of a woman but the father could simply be anyone.
I have 2 children and both times the hospital would not let me the father complete the birth certificate information. After all they know who the mother is but they leave it up to the mother to determine who the father is. After the first time I thought about it and realized why they do it that way.
We have the ability to adapt to a multitude of different environments. Adaptations are strengths if they are functional and promote health and wellbeing.. When we develop new adaptations in skills or character, it's possible functional predispositions are passed on biologically in some way we don't understand, but I tend to believe environment is paramount. It seems that the interaction between environment and function are there from the get go in the uterus, when a single cell begins to divide. As I recall from a paper from 20 years ago or more, the first two cells are identical initially but differentiate functions and body parts as they continue to divide based on their orientation with each other. The cell on the right becomes the right side of the body, the same on the left side and so forth. Although certain predispositions may be inherited, the growth and development of embryonic cells is necessarily controlled by the orientation of the cells to each other as well as the quality of the uterine environment/terrain. Anyway, this is the way I remember it. Maybe I'll try to find the paper I referred to when I get a chance.
ALL glory to Christ indeed! (Scripture makes clear: He shares it with no one, including His mom, the actual Mary described there. E.g., see Matt 12:46-50 & Luke 11:27-28.)
As for proofs of God's existence, He made them abundantly intrinsic to ours, but we in our sin actively suppress them, meaning: no sort of proof will ever satisfy those who remain in their 'natural' (post-fall) treasonous Adamic rebellion against Him.
Romans 1:18-23 offers an especially succinct summary of this dynamic, but it is hardly the only portion of Scripture to do so.
> The existence of God is provable even w intellect alone.
I have not come across any proof of the existence of any god, whether the one of the 3 monotheist gods, or the deities of Hinduism, or of the ancient Greek gods for that matter.
The existence of god is purely based on belief, nothing else.
No baby, it is your work as your are making the claims. So, by trying to turn it upside down, you are in effect admitting you cannot prove anything, that it is all based on your personal opinion.
I appreciate the passion in your words and the faith that guides them. While I don’t follow a specific religion, I recognize science hasn’t unraveled all of life’s mysteries—and may never fully do so. It’s like we’re slowly turning the pages of a vast book of knowledge, learning through trial and error, expanding our understanding step by step as we try to grasp where we came from and how we might one day reach the next star system—without losing ourselves to conflict along the way.
I understand that faith offers comfort and meaning for many, and I respect that deeply. My concern is when religious dogma—or any rigid belief—blocks inquiry or divides us through fear or judgment. History shows resistance to progress, from astronomy to medicine, often stemmed from such places. Still, I see the beauty in spiritual insights, like the simple call to “love thy neighbor” and treat others as we’d wish to be treated. That feels universal, no fire or brimstone needed. Invoking spirits or divine figures might not resonate with me, but I’m open to the idea that we’re all wrestling with life’s big questions in our own way.
Perhaps we can agree on building a world with more compassion and less fear, so we can explore our origins and reach for the stars together?
PS When you look at the history of the Catholic Church, it very much encouraged inquiry and research. Indeed the disciplines of natural science were originally a Catholic thing.
It's crucial to define terms and make distinctions.
-- Inquiry is for explaining Divinely-revealed truths in a deeper way, or...to deepen knowledge about things that are not Divinely revealed, but knowable by mere human reason.
-- A heretic is someone who leads people to hell (along with himself) by denying Divinely-revealed truths necessary to unite us with God here on Earth and after death forever in Heaven.
-- Eternal damnation is a fate far worse than death.
-- Thus the one who leads people to damnation needs to be stopped and punished severely. There's nothing like knowing that you'll be dying tomorrow to clear your mind and encourage you to make your peace with God.
-- To the best of my knowledge, no one was ever burned at the stake for denying Geocentrism.
-- Reference Frame: simply, where you put the zero point in your intersection of the x, y, and z axes.
-- Mathematically, you can account for Earth and planetary motions whether you place the zero point within the Sun (heliocentric) or within the Earth (geocentric). Either choice gives you the same visible results, so you need more data.
-- Divine Revelation indicates that Earth is at the center, motionless.
-- The Michelson-Morley and related experiments indicate an Earth neither rotating around its axis nor revolving around the sun, but still.
-- Look up Robert Sungenis' videos on Geocentrism online, plus he has some simple books on the subject at journeytothecenteroftheuniverse.org
Your invitation to explore divinity methodically resonates with me. I've been on that journey, though it's led me to different conclusions.
As a kid, watching my father drink himself into oblivion and our family torn apart after he died, I seriously doubted the existence of a God. That personal pain led me to philosophy, including deep study of the problem of evil: how can an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God coexist with the suffering we witness daily; war, Holocaust, the quiet agony of addiction destroying families?
I know theologians offer responses; free will defenses, soul-making theodicies, the idea that love requires the possibility of rejection. Philosophers like Plantinga and Hick have developed sophisticated versions of these arguments. But here's where I land: if God can't prevent evil (not all-powerful), doesn't know how to prevent it (not all-knowing), or won't prevent it (not all-loving), then He doesn't match the definition of the God worth worshipping. Epicurus framed this dilemma millennia ago, and I haven't found a resolution that satisfies both logic and lived experience. The universe seems indifferent to our suffering in ways an omnibenevolent being wouldn't be.
Your "data set" of human longings, for love, purpose, connection and being taken seriously. I agree these are real and profound. Where we differ is the explanation. You suggest only Divinity is big enough to account for these desires. But consider this: animals feel love, bond deeply, and thrive when they receive affection and languish or die when they don't. Dogs grieve their owners. Elephants mourn their dead for days, sometimes returning to touch the bones of fallen family members. Harlow's experiments with infant monkeys showed that without maternal affection, they failed to develop normally, even with abundant food and shelter. The same neurochemistry: oxytocin, dopamine, the limbic system, drives bonding across mammalian species.
Do dogs believe in God? Does a wolf pup's longing for its pack point to divinity? Do elephants' capacity for grief require a transcendent explanation? If not, why assume human longings do? The simpler explanation: these are evolutionarily conserved traits that helped social species survive. We share them because we share ancestry and brain architecture, not because we alone bear a divine spark. Evolutionary psychology offers a compelling account that doesn't require multiplying entities beyond necessity. The longing for meaning might be an emergent property of consciousness. Sophisticated, yes, but continuous with other mammalian experience rather than categorically different.
On the Catholic Church and science: you're right that it fostered inquiry. Universities like Salamanca, Jesuit astronomers mapping stars, monk-botanists like Gregor Mendel discovering genetics. That's genuine historical credit. But the same institution banned Copernicus's work in 1616 and tried Galileo in 1633, prioritizing Aristotelian orthodoxy over evidence.
Walking 200 kilometers of the Camino recently, I reached Santiago de Compostela Cathedral—the pilgrimage's spiritual culmination. The sanctuary itself was free, thank God, but viewing "man's creations" none of which were divine, required at least three different paid tours, each costing a minimum of 15 euros. The gift shop peddles its wares with no apparent transparency about where those revenues actually go beyond "cathedral maintenance." I walked 200 kilometers seeking spiritual insight, and at the journey's end, the Church wanted €45+ just to see its architectural ego. St. James, for whom the cathedral is named, was a fisherman who owned nothing. The irony wasn't lost on the blistered pilgrims around me. If spirituality were truly the goal, wouldn't a field with an overturned barrel suffice? Those gilded monuments and ticketed tours speak to institutional power and profit as much as faith.
I recognize that institutional corruption doesn't disprove God—that would be a genetic fallacy. Humans misuse everything, including religion. But it does make me skeptical of arguments that rely on religious authority rather than evidence accessible to reason.
On Christianity's origins: Constantine's Council of Nicaea in 325 CE addressed real theological disputes, yes—Arianism versus Trinitarianism wasn't invented for political convenience. But Constantine's motivation was explicitly to unify a fragmenting empire. The canon we inherited was shaped by political needs alongside theological reasoning. That doesn't make every teaching false, but it suggests we should evaluate claims on their merits rather than accepting them as divinely revealed truth.
This ties to the discussion about abiogenesis. Milton cited astronomical odds—1 in 10^65 for functional proteins forming by chance—as evidence for a divine spark. But Earth's primordial soup was zapped by lightning for millions of years, with trillions upon trillions of molecular combinations occurring simultaneously. Given enough time and chemical diversity, improbable things become inevitable. We're finding amino acids on meteorites and complex organic molecules in interstellar clouds. Francis Collins sees divine design in this; I see chemistry doing what chemistry does, no deity required.
Here's my alternative framework: we keep what makes us better—love your neighbor, care for the vulnerable, pursue truth—and discard what doesn't, whether it's crusades, oppression of women, or tribal violence. A new "Council," if you will, building ethics on reason, empathy, and evidence rather than revelation. Gandhi demonstrated this: profound moral impact without theological claims. Dannion Brinkley's NDE concept—experiencing your life through others' eyes—guides me more than scripture: live so your final review shows more good than harm.
I acknowledge NDEs are speculative, but so is faith in an unseen deity. I'm choosing to ground my meaning in what I can observe and test: human flourishing, reason, hard work, and belief in our collective capacity. United we stand, divided we fall.
I'll visit your Substack for your perspective. If you have a book recommendation for a data-driven skeptic—something that engages these questions rigorously rather than assuming conclusions—I'm genuinely interested. Your Teacher's Motto is a keeper.
Thank you for the blessing. While we may differ on the source of guidance, I respect your conviction and look forward to continuing this conversation on Substack.
A lot of good things you mentioned! Thank you for taking the time!
Frustratingly, I don't know how to print your paragraphs out for deeper pondering...you deserve that degree of being taken seriously! I'm still new to Substack, so bumble around in it w only my cell phone! 😵💫😳
However, I encourage you to deeply ponder the core:
We humans, to put it oddly (I like odd! 🫠🤪), have our greatest dignity in not being robots. Our glory is in our freedom to do good. Any attempt on the part of our Creator to hamper our ability to choose against the good would "robotisize" us: That's a deeper evil than any of us can commit.
Our Lady's intercession providing, it would be good to meet in person. My pic and name that you see are actual, not a handle.
I'm so sorry about your Dad's drinking: no kid, or his Mother, should have to deal with that!. Sigh.
Great article. I would question one argument Milton makes- 'The discovery that life appeared instantly when liquid water first became available approximately 3,800 million years ago eliminates any possibility of gradual chemical evolution.' This argument only stacks up if we assume the accuracy of the dating methods, something he rightly questions. elsewhere
Right. The alternative to evolution is creation by God, and we have his revelation to us, the bible, which makes it quite clear that by simply adding up the consecutive ages of the patriarchs, the earth and mankind was created only about 6000 years ago - not millions of years ago.
What do you believe is another alternative to evolution?
I am aware of Goldschmitt and Gould's 'hopeful monster' (punctuated equilibrium) theory, but didn't think it was worth mentioning. There are also theories that life on earth was brought from outer space, but that just avoids the question of how life started in the first place.
By the way, my Christian faith didn't come without an exhaustive study of real evidence and much learning. I wrote about it:
That's fair. But I like the basic idea that creative intelligence is woven into the fabric of the universe somehow. It seems more plausible, to me at least, than either blind happenstance or an outside creator. I do, however, think it likely that the key to unlocking how the universe really works may lay beyond our comprehension.
"... the entire edifice of evolutionary theory rests not on empirical evidence but on a series of circular arguments, unexamined assumptions, and what W.R. Thompson called "fragile towers of hypothesis on hypothesis." "
Not to mention ludicrous claims about what supposedly happened millions of years ago!
Oh and a BIG BANG, that created ORDER OUT OF CHAOS!
Dead giveaway!
Only the intellectually deficient and inert would buy such nonsense!
The "Science is God" myth exploded in one big bang!
Raising a myriad of red flags, over lots of groups of people.
There were a hell of a lot of critiques of his book at that time tho. Its worth noting . I came away thinking he was pretty selective . The theory has moved on a lot since then also and he misrepresented Darwins own views. Still not sure how much of this was Darwins own ideas anyway tho.
The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation (kolbecenter.org) has been dealing with the falsity of evolution/Darwinism for many years from many angles. Lots there to enjoy and ponder.
I've touched on aspects of the issue myself, esp the nature of correct thinking and thus correct science in my Substack: ademarrakowsky.substack.com
Your sign off "Our Mother of Perpetual Help, aid us!" leads me to think you're Catholic? You seem to have an open mind and therefore I recommend you watch "Total Onslaught", in particular you might want to start with the following:
Am analogous to a peasant of the Middle Ages Catholic: Ukrainian version, but living the Catholic life in all aspects from childhood: Old World Eastern European style.
I don't fear challenges, and can defend what I believe w Extensive data.
The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is currently occupied by largely (not all) apostate usurpers, and since Vatican 2 at least, theology has degenerated dramatically bc so many theologians and then clergy embraced the horror of Evolution and thought that doctrine can "evolve."
This has thrown many into such confusion that only a few know the Truth.
You're correct, most Catholics don't know the truth, and how can they when it has been hidden from them and distorted. So you're obviously a well-informed and devout Catholic, what you think about the Catholic Church changing 2 commandments?
The Church can't change the commandments, but apostate usurpers wearing mitres can try to pull it off by deception. An uninformed listener will then erroneously think that the Truth has changed.
"The Roman Catholic Church has openly declared that its authority is demonstrated through its power to change the day of worship from Saturday, the biblical Sabbath, to Sunday. This change is widely recognized as an ecclesiastical act, and many Catholic sources acknowledge Sunday observance as a mark of the Church’s authority."
-- Doctrine and morals have been unchanged since Our Lord walked the Earth.
-- Those who are His true followers obey His commandments.
Paradigm:
-- Our Lord is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, which only incompletely presented God's plan until the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity became incarnate and lived His earthly life through His Ascension forty days after resurrecting.
-- The Catholic Church is His physical presence through the history remaining after His Ascension.
What I'm saying is that many men who wear vestments, including priests, and many laymen, despite them claiming to be Catholic are not Catholic because they reject and attempt to contradict true doctrine and morals, whether it be attempting to make sodomy good, or publicly worshipping demons thru Pachamana or a block of Greenland ice.
Because Our Lord rose from the dead on Sunday, the sabbath was transferred to that most holy day way back in the time of His Apostles. The Saturday sabbath was only for the ancient Israelites, and was fulfilled by Our Lord on Sunday. The Ten Commandments do not specify which day of the week is to be the Lord's Day.
Ah , yes! We have been Darwinized, Pasteurized and Virologized (?) and still can't explain the magic and miracle that creates a butterfly from a caterpillar!
See "Healing Quest: Deepak Chopra on the Miracle of Butterflies" (YouTube)
Like most dominant theories - gravity, germs etc - Darwinism makes a bit of sense but not enough. Also, beside making sense, proof would be nice.
People believe through a need to believe. When the Elon Musk character displayed his roadster drifting by a fully lit Earth and in total vacuum (though the roadster itself was in partial shade for some mysterious reason), many educated people who taught about air pressure and solar radiation applauded. Those same people would fail a student claiming the possibility of ordinary manufactured materials surviving annihilation in such circumstances. Their need to believe in and to admire the Elon Musk character trumped all. (I can't believe I just said "trumped". Where's my ear-shootin' Tyler character?)
The current debate on the shape of Earth is between people who believe in air pressure without containment and people who believe that Tasmania is shaped like a banana resting on its bend. These people are nearly all smarter than I, a total science/math dunce. But both sides are driven by a need to believe and thus cannot welcome, fondle and absorb a blatant contradictory factor. They can't do the one essential thing.
My great advantage is that I am willing to embrace DUNNO. I'd like to know, that's only human. But if I don't know...too bloody bad. So long as I'm willing to inquire, listen, observe and contemplate, my DUNNO is the superior system. And if DUNNO works for an innumerate yob like me...what might it not do for some bright spark?
Brilliant and accurate assessment!
>Like most dominant theories - gravity, germs etc - Darwinism makes a bit of sense but not enough.
True, though imperfect, theory of evolution makes more sense than the 'creation' theory.
A refreshing tour de force. (This from a former geology/paleontology student. Stephen Jay Gould offered his band-aid theories at my graduation.) That said, in light of what you spell out,
1) why the repeated references to "3,800 million years ago"? and
2) why accept viruses, the existence of which is also based on unproven tautologies?
As much as I dislike Darwin and his obsession over competition fueling evolution while ignoring cooperation, the creation/ intelligent design hypothesis fails.
Occam's razor.... So then, who created this intelligence that created intelligence? It's also circular just like the fossil circle jerk.
We don't know because we are still using flawed models to explain life. We saw how genetics was bullshit especially during the COVID hype.
FYI, quantum mechanics is another fantasy that fails to satisfy Occam's razor. The double slit experiment ASSumes that the detector doesn't influence the photons/electrons etc.
Every detector takes energy to detect what it's detecting. Thus, there is a direct physical observer... The detector.
Here's a good playlist on why quantum mechanics contradicts itself and is built on traditional wave theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaUzq4YuErs&list=PLkdAkAC4ItcFyNFBywN0wiZ45pCnMr-Ay
You make good sense Rob. "evolution" of the species is probably not a good word because it can't be proven as taught. It's a "process of diversification" that we don't fully understand, that doesn't mean life on earth was all made in a moment either. Milton's arguments are flawed as well on many levels. Different life forms fit nearly perfectly with their environments that is for sure so there is some interaction of environment with function, I'll leave it at that. Also just to step ahead of this guy Ademar who comes after just about every comment, perhaps he hasn't noticed he's being ignored.
What amazes me and perplexes Darwinism which is obsessed with genetics is epigenetics.
Let's take the example of a female.
She was an egg inside her mother who was an egg inside her grandmother.
It turns out that we inherit our mitochondrial (energy metabolism) behavior from the female lineage. If your grandma lived through a famine, that stress is passed onto the egg that became the mother which influenced her mitochondrial activity and passes onto the child.
I recall reading an interesting book way back on how that connects to why Judaism is concerned with the mother's lineage as one is determined whether they're Jewish or not on the mother's line.
This would make sense if they noticed that key traits of the child came from the mother.
They also say baldness comes from the mother's side!
Since DNA doesn't exist, it was a story made up by Franklin (grandchild of a Rothchild), Crick, and Watson who seem to have been in an Intel ops cell making a fake dog-and-pony "race to get the structure of DNA", they needed a patch to explain indirect inheritance that DNA was failing at and Voilà you got epigenetics and methylation of histones. IMHO.
I think jews trace their maternal line simply because you can’t fake who the mother is. They saw a fetus come out of a woman but the father could simply be anyone.
My girlfriend says that too.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence.
You would think that with the mother's line being important, a child would inherit the mother's family name over the father's. 😂
I have 2 children and both times the hospital would not let me the father complete the birth certificate information. After all they know who the mother is but they leave it up to the mother to determine who the father is. After the first time I thought about it and realized why they do it that way.
I count my lucky stars I wasn’t born jewish too.
We have the ability to adapt to a multitude of different environments. Adaptations are strengths if they are functional and promote health and wellbeing.. When we develop new adaptations in skills or character, it's possible functional predispositions are passed on biologically in some way we don't understand, but I tend to believe environment is paramount. It seems that the interaction between environment and function are there from the get go in the uterus, when a single cell begins to divide. As I recall from a paper from 20 years ago or more, the first two cells are identical initially but differentiate functions and body parts as they continue to divide based on their orientation with each other. The cell on the right becomes the right side of the body, the same on the left side and so forth. Although certain predispositions may be inherited, the growth and development of embryonic cells is necessarily controlled by the orientation of the cells to each other as well as the quality of the uterine environment/terrain. Anyway, this is the way I remember it. Maybe I'll try to find the paper I referred to when I get a chance.
Adaptation is not the same as appearing out of nowhere, which is the premise of the article.
Glory to Jesus Christ, Rob!
The existence of God is provable even w intellect alone. You don't have to be Catholic, Jewish, or anything else to know it.
The proofs are readily available online. As an educator of many years I say:
"Do your homework!" 😊
(Teachers motto: "No assignment too big, no grade too small!" 🤣)
Our Mother of Perpetual Help, aid us!
ALL glory to Christ indeed! (Scripture makes clear: He shares it with no one, including His mom, the actual Mary described there. E.g., see Matt 12:46-50 & Luke 11:27-28.)
As for proofs of God's existence, He made them abundantly intrinsic to ours, but we in our sin actively suppress them, meaning: no sort of proof will ever satisfy those who remain in their 'natural' (post-fall) treasonous Adamic rebellion against Him.
Romans 1:18-23 offers an especially succinct summary of this dynamic, but it is hardly the only portion of Scripture to do so.
Like talking to Fauci or Bill Gates.
> The existence of God is provable even w intellect alone.
I have not come across any proof of the existence of any god, whether the one of the 3 monotheist gods, or the deities of Hinduism, or of the ancient Greek gods for that matter.
The existence of god is purely based on belief, nothing else.
Glory to Jesus Christ, Ngungu!
Do your homework.
-- The proofs are readily available online: Aristotle, Aquinas.
-- The very order around us speaks of an orderer. Same goes with the goodness, truth, and beauty.
Again: do your homework.
Our Mother of Perpetual Help, aid us!
Sorry pal, but the onus is on you to back up your claims. If there is so much proof it will be a cinch to provide a few items of solid proof.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Do. Your. Homework.
No baby, it is your work as your are making the claims. So, by trying to turn it upside down, you are in effect admitting you cannot prove anything, that it is all based on your personal opinion.
2017-03-13 Consciousness and the Observer Effect | Dean Radin Ph.D | IONS
https://youtu.be/hB_2Qd5xNvE
Wow. The depth and breadth of your topics has my head spinning. Each one as interesting as the last and next. My brain is expanding with each.
I'm guessing Mr Darwin was probably a freemason. Most persons whose names are endlessly recycled usually are:).
Precisely. Card carrying, Satan worshipping, part of the club. 🐍😈🤘🏻🃏
Glory to Jesus Christ, Gecko!
Darwin has already stood before Christ to be judged for his actions in earthly life. I pray for God's perfect justice and perfect mercy upon him.
People of ignorance or ill will have run with his ideas to justify their own prejudices and sins.
Our Mother of Perpetual Help, aid us!
I appreciate the passion in your words and the faith that guides them. While I don’t follow a specific religion, I recognize science hasn’t unraveled all of life’s mysteries—and may never fully do so. It’s like we’re slowly turning the pages of a vast book of knowledge, learning through trial and error, expanding our understanding step by step as we try to grasp where we came from and how we might one day reach the next star system—without losing ourselves to conflict along the way.
I understand that faith offers comfort and meaning for many, and I respect that deeply. My concern is when religious dogma—or any rigid belief—blocks inquiry or divides us through fear or judgment. History shows resistance to progress, from astronomy to medicine, often stemmed from such places. Still, I see the beauty in spiritual insights, like the simple call to “love thy neighbor” and treat others as we’d wish to be treated. That feels universal, no fire or brimstone needed. Invoking spirits or divine figures might not resonate with me, but I’m open to the idea that we’re all wrestling with life’s big questions in our own way.
Perhaps we can agree on building a world with more compassion and less fear, so we can explore our origins and reach for the stars together?
PS When you look at the history of the Catholic Church, it very much encouraged inquiry and research. Indeed the disciplines of natural science were originally a Catholic thing.
Your methodical research will reveal that.
+
> When you look at the history of the Catholic Church, it very much encouraged inquiry and research.
Really? So, why did heretics who questioned the existence of god or that the Sun revolves around the Earth get burned at the stake?
Glory to Jesus Christ, Ngungu!
It's crucial to define terms and make distinctions.
-- Inquiry is for explaining Divinely-revealed truths in a deeper way, or...to deepen knowledge about things that are not Divinely revealed, but knowable by mere human reason.
-- A heretic is someone who leads people to hell (along with himself) by denying Divinely-revealed truths necessary to unite us with God here on Earth and after death forever in Heaven.
-- Eternal damnation is a fate far worse than death.
-- Thus the one who leads people to damnation needs to be stopped and punished severely. There's nothing like knowing that you'll be dying tomorrow to clear your mind and encourage you to make your peace with God.
-- To the best of my knowledge, no one was ever burned at the stake for denying Geocentrism.
-- Reference Frame: simply, where you put the zero point in your intersection of the x, y, and z axes.
-- Mathematically, you can account for Earth and planetary motions whether you place the zero point within the Sun (heliocentric) or within the Earth (geocentric). Either choice gives you the same visible results, so you need more data.
-- Divine Revelation indicates that Earth is at the center, motionless.
-- The Michelson-Morley and related experiments indicate an Earth neither rotating around its axis nor revolving around the sun, but still.
-- Look up Robert Sungenis' videos on Geocentrism online, plus he has some simple books on the subject at journeytothecenteroftheuniverse.org
Our Mother of Perpetual Help, aid us!
Whether they were burned at the stake or not is irrelevant considering that the Church, that god-fearing intolerant institution, had them killed.
As for the rest of your claims about god and hell, please provide solid proof of their existence, and don't come with the bible nonsense.
Glory to Jesus Christ, Lucas!
Data Set...
-- our desires and longings are larger than the world and universe, and time itself.
-- we long to be loved, appreciated, bonded with, taken seriously, have purpose.
-- there's far more, but that's the core.
-- the existence of God is provable by intellect alone.
Paradigm...what explanation best explains the data set?
-- atheism is limited to time, and purposeless.
-- agnosticism is a cop-out bc doesn't address things.
-- only Divinity is big enough to account for everything.
As an educator of many years, I ask you to do your homework about Divinity: relaxed, methodical, unrushed...so that you're sure of your conclusions.
(And Teacher's Motto: "No Assignment Too Big, No Grade Too Small!" 🤣🤣🤣)
You can discuss things with me on my Substack: ademarrakowsky.substack.com, where I cover some of what you might be asking about in the future.
Our Mother of Perpetual Help, aid us!
Thanks for your thought-provoking post, Ademar.
Your invitation to explore divinity methodically resonates with me. I've been on that journey, though it's led me to different conclusions.
As a kid, watching my father drink himself into oblivion and our family torn apart after he died, I seriously doubted the existence of a God. That personal pain led me to philosophy, including deep study of the problem of evil: how can an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God coexist with the suffering we witness daily; war, Holocaust, the quiet agony of addiction destroying families?
I know theologians offer responses; free will defenses, soul-making theodicies, the idea that love requires the possibility of rejection. Philosophers like Plantinga and Hick have developed sophisticated versions of these arguments. But here's where I land: if God can't prevent evil (not all-powerful), doesn't know how to prevent it (not all-knowing), or won't prevent it (not all-loving), then He doesn't match the definition of the God worth worshipping. Epicurus framed this dilemma millennia ago, and I haven't found a resolution that satisfies both logic and lived experience. The universe seems indifferent to our suffering in ways an omnibenevolent being wouldn't be.
Your "data set" of human longings, for love, purpose, connection and being taken seriously. I agree these are real and profound. Where we differ is the explanation. You suggest only Divinity is big enough to account for these desires. But consider this: animals feel love, bond deeply, and thrive when they receive affection and languish or die when they don't. Dogs grieve their owners. Elephants mourn their dead for days, sometimes returning to touch the bones of fallen family members. Harlow's experiments with infant monkeys showed that without maternal affection, they failed to develop normally, even with abundant food and shelter. The same neurochemistry: oxytocin, dopamine, the limbic system, drives bonding across mammalian species.
Do dogs believe in God? Does a wolf pup's longing for its pack point to divinity? Do elephants' capacity for grief require a transcendent explanation? If not, why assume human longings do? The simpler explanation: these are evolutionarily conserved traits that helped social species survive. We share them because we share ancestry and brain architecture, not because we alone bear a divine spark. Evolutionary psychology offers a compelling account that doesn't require multiplying entities beyond necessity. The longing for meaning might be an emergent property of consciousness. Sophisticated, yes, but continuous with other mammalian experience rather than categorically different.
On the Catholic Church and science: you're right that it fostered inquiry. Universities like Salamanca, Jesuit astronomers mapping stars, monk-botanists like Gregor Mendel discovering genetics. That's genuine historical credit. But the same institution banned Copernicus's work in 1616 and tried Galileo in 1633, prioritizing Aristotelian orthodoxy over evidence.
Walking 200 kilometers of the Camino recently, I reached Santiago de Compostela Cathedral—the pilgrimage's spiritual culmination. The sanctuary itself was free, thank God, but viewing "man's creations" none of which were divine, required at least three different paid tours, each costing a minimum of 15 euros. The gift shop peddles its wares with no apparent transparency about where those revenues actually go beyond "cathedral maintenance." I walked 200 kilometers seeking spiritual insight, and at the journey's end, the Church wanted €45+ just to see its architectural ego. St. James, for whom the cathedral is named, was a fisherman who owned nothing. The irony wasn't lost on the blistered pilgrims around me. If spirituality were truly the goal, wouldn't a field with an overturned barrel suffice? Those gilded monuments and ticketed tours speak to institutional power and profit as much as faith.
I recognize that institutional corruption doesn't disprove God—that would be a genetic fallacy. Humans misuse everything, including religion. But it does make me skeptical of arguments that rely on religious authority rather than evidence accessible to reason.
On Christianity's origins: Constantine's Council of Nicaea in 325 CE addressed real theological disputes, yes—Arianism versus Trinitarianism wasn't invented for political convenience. But Constantine's motivation was explicitly to unify a fragmenting empire. The canon we inherited was shaped by political needs alongside theological reasoning. That doesn't make every teaching false, but it suggests we should evaluate claims on their merits rather than accepting them as divinely revealed truth.
This ties to the discussion about abiogenesis. Milton cited astronomical odds—1 in 10^65 for functional proteins forming by chance—as evidence for a divine spark. But Earth's primordial soup was zapped by lightning for millions of years, with trillions upon trillions of molecular combinations occurring simultaneously. Given enough time and chemical diversity, improbable things become inevitable. We're finding amino acids on meteorites and complex organic molecules in interstellar clouds. Francis Collins sees divine design in this; I see chemistry doing what chemistry does, no deity required.
Here's my alternative framework: we keep what makes us better—love your neighbor, care for the vulnerable, pursue truth—and discard what doesn't, whether it's crusades, oppression of women, or tribal violence. A new "Council," if you will, building ethics on reason, empathy, and evidence rather than revelation. Gandhi demonstrated this: profound moral impact without theological claims. Dannion Brinkley's NDE concept—experiencing your life through others' eyes—guides me more than scripture: live so your final review shows more good than harm.
I acknowledge NDEs are speculative, but so is faith in an unseen deity. I'm choosing to ground my meaning in what I can observe and test: human flourishing, reason, hard work, and belief in our collective capacity. United we stand, divided we fall.
I'll visit your Substack for your perspective. If you have a book recommendation for a data-driven skeptic—something that engages these questions rigorously rather than assuming conclusions—I'm genuinely interested. Your Teacher's Motto is a keeper.
Thank you for the blessing. While we may differ on the source of guidance, I respect your conviction and look forward to continuing this conversation on Substack.
Glory to Jesus Christ, Lucas!
A lot of good things you mentioned! Thank you for taking the time!
Frustratingly, I don't know how to print your paragraphs out for deeper pondering...you deserve that degree of being taken seriously! I'm still new to Substack, so bumble around in it w only my cell phone! 😵💫😳
However, I encourage you to deeply ponder the core:
We humans, to put it oddly (I like odd! 🫠🤪), have our greatest dignity in not being robots. Our glory is in our freedom to do good. Any attempt on the part of our Creator to hamper our ability to choose against the good would "robotisize" us: That's a deeper evil than any of us can commit.
Our Lady's intercession providing, it would be good to meet in person. My pic and name that you see are actual, not a handle.
I'm so sorry about your Dad's drinking: no kid, or his Mother, should have to deal with that!. Sigh.
Our Mother of Perpetual Help, aid us!!
Great article - and thanks for introducing Richard Milton and his book!
Great article. I would question one argument Milton makes- 'The discovery that life appeared instantly when liquid water first became available approximately 3,800 million years ago eliminates any possibility of gradual chemical evolution.' This argument only stacks up if we assume the accuracy of the dating methods, something he rightly questions. elsewhere
Right. The alternative to evolution is creation by God, and we have his revelation to us, the bible, which makes it quite clear that by simply adding up the consecutive ages of the patriarchs, the earth and mankind was created only about 6000 years ago - not millions of years ago.
God is far from the only alternative to evolution, and religious belief, whether in a Christian God or in Darwinism is what is stopping us learning.
What do you believe is another alternative to evolution?
I am aware of Goldschmitt and Gould's 'hopeful monster' (punctuated equilibrium) theory, but didn't think it was worth mentioning. There are also theories that life on earth was brought from outer space, but that just avoids the question of how life started in the first place.
By the way, my Christian faith didn't come without an exhaustive study of real evidence and much learning. I wrote about it:
https://alchristie.substack.com/p/how-i-became-convinced-the-bible? (is true)
There is no evidence that "outer space" exists. Except in scifi comics and NASA's website.
Its there. You just have to take a flight to 39,000 feet in a modern airliner. The stuff above the airplane? Outer Space.
But you'd have to actually leave your house to experience that first hand. I do highly recommend it.
Leaving your house that is.
A comment from a vapid AI bot.
Have you heard of Rupert Sheldrake's idea of Morphic resonance?
It's a bit too ephemeral for me. My degree was in physics with a math minor. I need objective evidence from observation and testing.
That's fair. But I like the basic idea that creative intelligence is woven into the fabric of the universe somehow. It seems more plausible, to me at least, than either blind happenstance or an outside creator. I do, however, think it likely that the key to unlocking how the universe really works may lay beyond our comprehension.
A must read along these lines is The Body Electric by orthopaedic surgeon Robert Becker. Literally decades of fascinating work totally ignored today.
Glory to Jesus Christ, Utopian!
Thank you for the recommendation!
God bless you!
Fantastic article.
“…when careers are destroyed for publishing contradictory evidence, we're no longer doing science; we're enforcing a state religion.” - What a gem.
"... the entire edifice of evolutionary theory rests not on empirical evidence but on a series of circular arguments, unexamined assumptions, and what W.R. Thompson called "fragile towers of hypothesis on hypothesis." "
Not to mention ludicrous claims about what supposedly happened millions of years ago!
Oh and a BIG BANG, that created ORDER OUT OF CHAOS!
Dead giveaway!
Only the intellectually deficient and inert would buy such nonsense!
The "Science is God" myth exploded in one big bang!
Raising a myriad of red flags, over lots of groups of people.
Ah yes, the old Order Out Of Chaos.
NWO, here we come. 🐍😈🌐
It's coming at us at warp speed!:).
Indeed. 🐉🔥
Darwin never coined the term 'survival of the fittest' It was Dr Herbert Spencer!
indeed. though Darwin never refuted it either.
There were a hell of a lot of critiques of his book at that time tho. Its worth noting . I came away thinking he was pretty selective . The theory has moved on a lot since then also and he misrepresented Darwins own views. Still not sure how much of this was Darwins own ideas anyway tho.
Dr Walter Veith, professor of Evolution explains how Darwinism is a fraud and how he (Veith) ended up with "a Phd in lies".
See https://youtu.be/G7HQzhi8UPM?si=82sdtkhABYT_zV3n
Glory to Jesus Christ!
The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation (kolbecenter.org) has been dealing with the falsity of evolution/Darwinism for many years from many angles. Lots there to enjoy and ponder.
I've touched on aspects of the issue myself, esp the nature of correct thinking and thus correct science in my Substack: ademarrakowsky.substack.com
Our Mother of Perpetual Help, aid us!
Your sign off "Our Mother of Perpetual Help, aid us!" leads me to think you're Catholic? You seem to have an open mind and therefore I recommend you watch "Total Onslaught", in particular you might want to start with the following:
https://youtu.be/tlGKL9vmcWs?si=N0jvaL3xdtO2p2CP
Glory to Jesus Christ, Scripture!
Am analogous to a peasant of the Middle Ages Catholic: Ukrainian version, but living the Catholic life in all aspects from childhood: Old World Eastern European style.
I don't fear challenges, and can defend what I believe w Extensive data.
The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is currently occupied by largely (not all) apostate usurpers, and since Vatican 2 at least, theology has degenerated dramatically bc so many theologians and then clergy embraced the horror of Evolution and thought that doctrine can "evolve."
This has thrown many into such confusion that only a few know the Truth.
Much more I can say...
Our Mother of Perpetual Help, aid us!
You're correct, most Catholics don't know the truth, and how can they when it has been hidden from them and distorted. So you're obviously a well-informed and devout Catholic, what you think about the Catholic Church changing 2 commandments?
Glory to Jesus Christ, Scripture!
The Church can't change the commandments, but apostate usurpers wearing mitres can try to pull it off by deception. An uninformed listener will then erroneously think that the Truth has changed.
Our Mother of Perpetual Help, aid us!
"The Roman Catholic Church has openly declared that its authority is demonstrated through its power to change the day of worship from Saturday, the biblical Sabbath, to Sunday. This change is widely recognized as an ecclesiastical act, and many Catholic sources acknowledge Sunday observance as a mark of the Church’s authority."
https://bibleask.org/what-does-is-the-papacys-mark-of-authority/
"Sunday is our MARK of authority...the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact."
https://www.jlfoundation.net/papacy.html
So you're basically saying the entire Catholic Church hierarchy have corrupted the word of God?!!
Glory to Jesus Christ, Scripture!
Data Set:
-- Doctrine and morals have been unchanged since Our Lord walked the Earth.
-- Those who are His true followers obey His commandments.
Paradigm:
-- Our Lord is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, which only incompletely presented God's plan until the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity became incarnate and lived His earthly life through His Ascension forty days after resurrecting.
-- The Catholic Church is His physical presence through the history remaining after His Ascension.
What I'm saying is that many men who wear vestments, including priests, and many laymen, despite them claiming to be Catholic are not Catholic because they reject and attempt to contradict true doctrine and morals, whether it be attempting to make sodomy good, or publicly worshipping demons thru Pachamana or a block of Greenland ice.
Because Our Lord rose from the dead on Sunday, the sabbath was transferred to that most holy day way back in the time of His Apostles. The Saturday sabbath was only for the ancient Israelites, and was fulfilled by Our Lord on Sunday. The Ten Commandments do not specify which day of the week is to be the Lord's Day.
Our Mother of Perpetual Help, aid us!
Thank you for this! Herein lies much territory in which to delve!