I Do Not “Believe In Evolution”, and Here’s Why…


{Note: until further notice, comments will need my approval before being published. So for those who follow and comment here, I apologize. I hope this will not discourage you from commenting! And If anyone is looking for a multisyllabic scientific explanation here, then they shouldn’t waste their time reading this.}

I have used quotation marks around the phrase BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, because, more often than not, this is the phrase that the overly aggressive panderers of this theory use when blasting unbelievers like me: “He doesn’t BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION! He’s an inbred imbecile! Evolution is fact!” A similar phrase is also used to describe those of us who do not buy into the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) hoax: “He doesn’t BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING”. In both cases, the use of the word BELIEVE seems more than strange to me, since these two subjects/issues are supposedly scientific in nature [fact-based], and not religious [faith-based].

Those who frequent my blog know that I have made my thoughts/opinions on the subject of evolution very clear. So here is the reason why I am writing this post. Just recently, a friend suggested that I write down why I do not accept the theory of evolution as being valid. So after some consideration, I decided to do my best to explain why I’m not a member of the ‘enlightened’ herd, when it comes to Darwin’s theory, which has somehow been raised to the level of undeniable natural-law.

So let me begin this task by quoting a portion of an article I posted just recently:

Ours is the great transition age. For the masses, the glowing assumption is that the revolutionary period we are undergoing is the work of a long, evolutionary process of “natural progress.” Wandering about their bubbles, the hipster proles neither challenge nor examine these presuppositions, rather decorating their cafeteria-plate lives with a long string of media-generated buzzwords and empty slogans overheard in establishment schooling. “We are evolving,” and “We live in an era of change,” and numerous other advertising blurbs that underlie modernity’s plastic ideology actually form the basis for most of humanity’s worldview. Yet are any of these assumptions actually true? Are we living in an era of “progress” and “human ascent”? [Source]

This quote, and the rest of the article, pretty much sums it up nicely. This is exactly how I view the hard-core Darwinian faithful and their primary religious doctrine (evolution). Like this author, I see a world that has advanced by leaps and bounds, technologically speaking, and a humanity that is either stagnant or stuck firmly in reverse: just consider the “dumbed-down”, culturally/artistically dead, unreasoning and ultra-violent nature of many from my generation on today. And I can point to Darwin’s theory (a neurotic response to life) as one of the major causes of this retrograde-inverted descent.

But, of course, this still doesn’t explain how I got to be this unrepentant-heathen heretical-blasphemer, when it comes to “believing in” and worshiping Chucky Ds’ FUBAR theory.

And the only way for me to start explaining my unrepentant-heathen heretical-blasphemy is to go back in time a bit, and I will make this as short as possible.

I was raised up in a home with parents who believed in god, or at least in religion, but really didn’t practice what they believed (“Do as we say, and not as we do!”). In other words, my parents had forced religion on me, but without their active involvement, until, that is, I was thirteen years old, and they converted to Catholicism. Up to this point in time, I had been shipped off, almost every other Sunday morning, with any neighbor willing to haul me along to ‘church’.

So by the time I was in my late teens, and friends were being morphed into mass murderers or blown to bits in Vietnam, I had begun to grow weary of the same old Bishop of Rome bullshit every Sunday morning.

And then, a few years later, when I was in college, I began to seriously doubt the religious doctrine/dogma that had been rammed down my naive throat since childhood. So I began to take a few courses outside of my chosen field, in the hope that I would find some answers to the universe/mankind’s origin, answers that would lead me to knowledge and truth. I even took an archaeology course that required permission from the archaeology department; it was a sophomore level introductory course that dealt with excavations in the middle east, and in particular, “the holy land”. I had to work my ass off just to get a decent final grade, and this was while I was taking a full load of other courses.

So over the next few decades, I clung as tightly as I could to the Darwinian dogma I had been willingly indoctrinated with in high school and college. But then, just as had happened with Christianity, I began to doubt the validity of Darwin’s theory. And the more I doubted, the more I read and sought the truth again. But all I could find was the same old shit that had been pandered to me in those high school and college classes. And at this same time, I also began to notice that the scientists who dared to question the validity of macro evolution (common-ancestor/natural-selection) were being shunned in almost the same manner as a heretic/blasphemer would have been shunned in a Catholic or Protestant church.

{Note: I reject macro evolution, the “common-ancestor”/”natural-selection” doctrine. But I have no issue with the idea of micro evolution; plants, animals and humans adapting to their new environs as they radiated throughout the earth. Adaptability is evident in all living creatures, as is intelligent design.}

And this left me with the same question I am still asking today (one of many questions), If macro evolution (common-ancestry/natural-selection) has been scientifically validated (substantiated), then why are the scientists, who are daring enough to question macro evolution, immediately attacked and silenced, as if they had blasphemed against some man-made god?

{Here are two more questions that I have never gotten a reasonable, honest answer for:

1) How does the following statement fit with Darwin’s theory: there is more and more evidence showing that man, twelve thousand years ago or more, was as advanced, or maybe even more so, than we are today?

2) There continues to be full skeletal remains of creatures excavated, by the score, that supposedly predate humanity by millions of years. So why can’t the Darwinian faithful dig up at least 1,000 (if not 10,000) full skeletal remains for each supposed stage of human evolution?

Our museums should be overflowing with tens of thousands of these full-skeletal remains, and yet all there seems to be is one tiny female, or a few bones here and there, or some paid-off commercial artist’s rendition of the supposed stages of human evolution. There are many scientists, today, who doubt that this female, and these other bones, are of human origin. This is Weak! Very Weak! Show me the money, Mr and Ms Darwinian, and save your multisyllabic hypothetical goo for those not yet familiar with it!}

Over the years, I have come to understand that a liar cannot afford to allow his lies to be questioned, since in-depth questioning would lead to his lies, and himself, being exposed. So science should never be ‘settled’ (the liar hiding his lie). Instead, science should always be open to legitimate challenge, since knowledge, whatever the subject, is always progressive. So if a theory is marked as ‘settled’, then instead of being scientific, this theory, in reality, has simply become religious in nature; it has become a theory that cannot be questioned, it has become doctrinal/dogmatic, sacred (Scientism). And what place does the sacred hold in science?

There is something that is not right with Darwin’s theory, something smells rotten, like a decaying, desensitizing/dehumanizing lie.

On this particular point, why are so many of us so quick to believe that we have all the answers to questions this ancient and huge in scope, when we just began to investigate, in depth, our beginnings a few centuries ago? The Darwinian religion is the new kid on the block, in comparison to the other creation scenarios/myths. And yet this new kid on the block believes he has it all figured out. And this brings me to the following statement, which I have quoted many times before:

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

For them [Goyim] let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the GOYIM will puff themselves up with their knowledges and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.


Image: http://www.blogspot.com

I have no doubt that the majority of what we have been conditioned/programmed to believe is scientific fact, today, is, in reality, nothing more than bad-science, which has been perpetrated on us by the elite powers who own and operate the largest percentage of modern scientific research, as they have for the last three centuries.

I know most of you believe that the wealthy and powerful elite cannot be trusted. So you must also know that they own and operate the military-industrial complex, which in turn controls this government, NATO, and much of the rest of the world. I also know that most of you believe these elite creatures desire to divide, conquer and rid themselves of the majority of the rest of us, whom they consider to be not fit to live. So what better way to gain control than by making us believe we are less than human: desensitizing dehumanization?

Just consider the number of never-before-known atrocities that have taken place in the last century and a half, and then try to convince me that there hasn’t been a major shift in the way human beings view life itself and, therefore, each other.

Whether it be plant, animal or human, when we devalue life, then we become less human, we become desensitized and dehumanized. If life is not of great value, if it is not precious in our minds and hearts, then we become capable of inflicting unimaginable cruelty and violence on each other and the rest of the creation. We should all understand what I am speaking of here, if, that is, we are awake and care for someone other than ourselves.

And for those of you who believe morality and compassion also ‘evolved’, then why haven’t rape, murder, war and genocide been lessened or eradicated by now? And you know damn well that these symptoms of a much more virulent disease have only increased over the last three centuries, and especially in the last one-hundred and fifty years, since Darwin came up with his desensitizing, dehumanizing theory.

If it weren’t for the fact that I strongly sense macro evolution to be not only a lie, but one of the primary causes of the decline of humanity, I would be more than willing to live and let live. Or even if the Darwinian faithful spewed their doctrine/dogma in this much more honest manner, “We believe this is how man was made…” or “We think this is how man was made”, then I would still disagree, but at least I could respect their individual, universal right to believe/think as they wish. It is the religious doctrine/dogma being pandered day and night, and its disastrous effects on humanity and the planet, that keeps me constantly standing against this manipulative lie. The incessant mind-control never ceases: “Evolve this and Evolving that”, everywhere I turn, 24/7/365!

Devout Darwinians sound like a broken record, they sound like the Christian fundamentalists whom they despise and mock. The Christian fundamentalist cannot complete a sentence without pandering the name of Jesus or condemning the unbeliever to hell. And in much the same manner, devout Darwinians cannot complete a sentence without pandering their religious doctrine/dogma (evolution) and condemning anyone who doesn’t “BELIEVE”.

There are many of us who are fed up with all of this religious indoctrination/brainwashing, whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Zionism or Darwinism. These religions’ faithful-herds’ constant blathering on about their gods might work on some, but not on all of us, and certainly not on me, not anymore.

So there you have it, in a very abbreviated manner, this is why I do not “BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION”.


Here is what I do sense (not “believe”) as being true at the moment, when it comes to the creation: I see design in everything that surrounds me, and I sense that there is an immense intelligence behind this design.

I have never been able to wrap my mind around the idea of ‘order’ (design) being the product, or outcome, of ‘chaos’ (chance/mutation). This notion, as far as I am concerned, is just one more despotic fabrication of the elite powers, who thrive on causing ‘chaos’, so they can then create their own warped version of ‘order’ (‘reality’/”The Matrix”) and force it on the rest of us.

Here is just one example of the elite’s use of ‘chaos’ to create the ‘order’ they desire:

“When I [Oliver Stone] studied the untold history, one thing that really hit me hard was the history of our involvement in the Middle East,” Stone said.

“It was a nefarious involvement.”

Stone traces Washington’s hand in the region back to the 1930s, but he says it reached a peak when President George HW Bush sent hundreds of thousands of US troops to liberate Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion of 1990.

The Soviet Union had recently collapsed and the region was wide open to a lone superpower, he said.

“We never got out of there. Once we were in, we’re in forever,” Stone said.

“We’ve destabilised the entire region, created chaos. And then we blame ISIS for the chaos we created,” he added, referring to the Islamic State (IS) group that now rules swathes of Iraq and Syria.

Oliver Stone’s American History: ‘We’re Not under Threat. We Are the Threat’ | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

When I was in my early teens, I was into building scale model sailing vessels. And after spending hours upon hours putting together one of these model kits, including the tedious work of doing the rigging, I would, sometimes, take the model outside and blow it up with firecrackers (which, by the way, always meant getting my ass kicked by my parents). Anyway, when I blew up these model ships, not one of them ever magically began transforming into a model car, plane or train. After one of these small ‘big-bangs’ had taken place, the only thing left was a pile of burned and twisted plastic.

Just two more thoughts/statements:

1) What I have written, here, is not something that I just came up with yesterday, nor is it something I take lightly. I have struggled with this my entire adult life, and so I have tried to investigate and learn from as many possible sides/sources/angles as I could find. But in the end, I was always left with what I sense to be true right now.

2) I have come to the conclusion that there truly is no concrete answer to this age old question, and therefore, I am no longer searching for it. So I will not be doing more reading and investigating, no matter how convincing, either way, anyone might consider their source(s) to be. But I will be willing to answer questions, if I can, and listen to dissenting comments, if, that is, they are not condescending/rude or asinine.


One thought on “I Do Not “Believe In Evolution”, and Here’s Why…

  1. What? Brown cows don’t make chocolate milk? What is next? Santa Claus is not real? No, we are having a Holocaust. Sure glad you are back S, but Migo is gone now 😦 don’t blame him not after what I seen in the last year…..


Comments are closed.