evolution (4)

Go Viral for the Resurrection!

God has brought a MAJOR event forward right before Easter.  Evolution is the root of abortion and the impetus of the sodomite agenda.   Too many Christians do not realize this.  Atheists do! Now God has called one of his servants to confront Christian compromisers by issuing a challenge that has rocked caught the attention of USAToday, WorldNetDaily,  The Blaze, Washington Times, Huffington Post, and many other media outlets as well as Atheist blogs throughout the Internet.  Now it is time to go viral with the news in the Christian community!

Please pass the word via your social media, emails, phone calls, and other communications such as local news releases, calls to talk shows, letters-to-the-editor, etc.

Here is the original article:

Creationist stakes $10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution

Thank you!

Please pray for Dr. Mastropaolo.

Read more…
Ape-Man Discovery in South Africa
Might Make Perry
Into Foolish Fuddy-Duddy
            You might ask what the link and headline above have to do with the price of tea in China or politics in the United States?   Perhaps more than immediately meets the eye . . . .
            A noted anthropologist's child recently stumbled onto something "earth-shaking" which has now been named Australopithecus sediba or the "Southern Ape" as a nickname.  If ever there was an actual missing link:  this appears to be it. 
These Australopithecus sediba fossils (young male and older female) are dated to just short of 2 million years old and mark the first and only time that such a fossil has been labeled as both a hominid (highly advanced ape) and a hominin (of direct human lineage) by responsible anthropologists. 
The discovery was made in South Africa far, far from where Louis Leakey’s “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis dated to 3.2 million years ago and apparently a hominid ancestor of this recent discovery) was first discovered. Hominids like gorillas; chimpanzees; our closest living relative, the bonobo (sometimes called a "pygmy chimp"), and their extinct ancestors have been dated to roughly 6 million years ago.  No scientist is yet calling these Australopithecus sediba fossils the long-sought "missing link."  They tend to shy away from such “bold” labeling for a good twenty years after key discoveries are made, but it certainly could make Charles Darwin smile . . . what about the price of tea; or the fate of TEA Parties?
            On the contemporary front, while Texas governor Rick Perry (G.O.P. Presidential contender) performed decently in his first presidential debate and at this point looks very much like the eventual G.O.P. standard-bearer in 2012 . . . Ol' Rajjpuut suspects Mr. Perry is going to keep having the echoes of his "personal debate" with a ten-year old New Hampshire child coming back to haunt him. 
            You may remember that the kid instigated by his Mom, asked Perry about the age of the earth and about "Evolution" and was lectured by the governor who said that "It was a theory that had a lot of gaps in it."  Mr. Perry, unfortunately for Constitutional-conservatives/fiscal conservatives is clearly what's known as a social-conservative.  Mr. Perry was more than disingenuous with the child.  Yes, Governor, there are gaps in a lot of scientific knowledge, but anyone who takes the Bible 100% literally (they say it all happened precisely as written including 7-day creation in 7 24-hour days exactly where intelligent people might say that to God a day might be 1.5 billion years long or whatever) and insist upon Creationism being taught in high school biology classes in public schooling is probably not worth our votes.  Well, Mr. Perry, this discovery might well rule out 99% of the serious gaps.  We're not talking about bull-shi_ like so-called "global warming" here, Charles Darwin was a serious and thoughtful scientist and he had worlds of evidence for his beliefs about the Origin of the Species.
            The seemingly-unending problem with the Republican Party is that they persistently ignore the stuff that 70% of Americans can agree upon (smaller, less-intrusive federal government; lowest taxes possible; following the Constitution; necessary defense and border control; and fiscal responsibility that includes NOT bankrupting the future for our children and grand children) and persist in sounding like people who want to shove their religions down our throats (Christmas carols in PUBLIC schools where Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics and believers in Herman the Carrot God attend alongside Christians), and like they totally lack compassion; and that they want to interfere in everybody's bedroom activities.  One fact dooms them to not being able to turn this country around: 
Most sensible voters distrust social-conservatives . . . .
            For example, social-conservatives are typically 100% anti-abortion.  First of all abortion is the law of the land for almost 40 years now.  More importantly IF you say that no abortion is ever allowed even for
                        rape victims
                        incest victims
                        very young girls
                        mothers whose lives are endangered
then you mark yourself as a fanatic who believes that our God-given brains are not to be used to make life better; a madman who doesn't believe in human free agency/free will.  For at least 30 years this matter has been widely-polled among American voters and without fail the results are the same:  59% believe that 100% anti-abortionism is just plain WRONG!   And that rape and incest victims and very young girls who are pregnant and mothers whose lives are endangered should have a choice. 
These same polls have also consistently shown that 70% of Americans believe there are "too many abortions in America." So 70% of Americans are quite concerned about abortions and 59% of Americans believe it must come down to the woman’s choice and should be allowed in drastic circumstances like rape, etc. One more thing, since the consequences fall virtually 100% on women, we men ought to stay out of it, it is a woman's choice between her and her God.  When you have 59% of the voting public against your primary social-conservative stance, you will not get elected and you do not deserve to be elected . . . and if social-conservativism interferes, then the necessary good needing doing by fiscal- and Constitutional-conservatives cannot get done and the American future gets flushed down the toilet as the progressive mischief-makers (mostly from the Democratic Party but they’re found in both parties) keep getting elected and keep destroying our nation.
            Mr. Perry did have one problem in the debate and that problem (Social Security) and the South African Ape-Man discovery might doom us all to four more years of Barack Obama’s incompetence unless Mr. Perry grows up. Mr. Perry correctly calls Social Security as it now stands a “Ponzi Scheme.” This is 100% accurate. Just as Ponzi swindlers take a lot of money from their victims and pay out relatively little, Social Security is fundamentally bankrupt right now. Mr. Perry needs to take his message to the people and explain it very well and explain why and how Social Security must be modified if it is to ever be a success for our children. He will not get a lot of help on this. Some of his fellow Republicans will intensely attack him for this honest, forthright stance.
            What his Republican rivals will do to Mr. Perry’s position will be walk in the zoo compared to what the liberal media and the Democrats will assault him with. Mr. Perry needs to confine all future comments on Social Security to this more-easily defendable position.
A.     Social Security as it now stands is a Ponzi scheme and unless modified deeply, Social Security funding will not be there for our children and grandchildren.
B.    Social Security for those aged 50 and above should be left 95% untouched. Means-basing for the very rich recipients on Social Security is vital.
C.    Social Security’s present Ponzi nature becomes evident when we talk about those aged 49 and below. The program must be adjusted and modified greatly to insure that it is fiscally-sound for all such workers.
D.   Social Security was created back when the average American’s life span was 55 years of age and when the average American worker’s lifespan was 52 years of age (far more men than women fell under Social Security and women averaged about 59 years old at death). Today’s realities are that the average death age is closer to 85 than to 55; and that a lot more women are part of the work force. Any changes to Social Security must reflect these realities.
As far as Mr. Perry’s stance on evolution . . . Rajjpuut is reminded of the insurance fraud allowed to stand by a foolish judge. The “victim,” in a wheelchair was told by the insurance agent investigating the matter that he’d hound him till his death and would never be allowed to leave that wheelchair. The “victim” told him, “Fine but I intend to visit Mexico City and the site where the Virgin of Guadalupe encountered Mary. Don’t be surprised if a miracle takes place, my good man!” Mr. Perry needs to read up on human anthropology and on the theories about evolution and on this discovery in particular. It would be smart on the face of it; and super-smart if Mr. Perry were to “see the light.” Seeing the light means Mr. Perry probably ought to say,
“The scientists say the earth is 4.5 billion years old; I know nothing that disproves that. The very recent discovery of Australopithecus sediba fossils in South Africa looks like it might be what they used to call a “missing link.” If that’s so, It looks like Mr. Darwin was right and it looks like a day to God is a damn long time to us and the week of creation found in Genesis is a damn, damn, damn long time compared to a human’s lifespan.”
            Mr. Perry further needs to educate Americans to the TEA Party’s “Contract for America.” This fiscal- and Constitutional Conservative (with absolutely ZERO social-conservativism in it) document may be the single greatest American political document since the Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution. The more Mr. Perry persists in attacking the dismal record of Barrack Obama and on pounding home the ten planks in this incredibly visionary Contract from America platform . . . the better off America will be.
If, ignoring all this sound advice, Mr. Perry persists in unscientific thinking he’ll be pushed out of thinking peoples’ minds as a foolish hick and we’ll get more and more of Barack Obama and it’ll be his fault. Grow up, Rick Perry, grow up!
Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,
Read more…




                “Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices” (excerpt from the TEA Party Contract from America which is shown in full in the footnotes).


Rasmussen Polls Show Virtually Unchanged

Political Viewpoints over Last 40 Months



            Social-conservatives in the next few months will have to decide if they want to solve the problems that matter in this country and govern the United States of America and make her great again or if they'd prefer to feel themselves "right" within their own tiny-twisted minds and leave the power, control and tax money all in the hands of President Obama and his neo-Marxists.  They can be "right" or they can find peace knowing they've saved the country . . . they absolutely canNOT do both!  That is the point of this blog . . . .

                America was moved to a point of absolute crisis this week. Today the Obama administration made an “endrun" around Congress (and changed the Constitution’s rules on Naturalization without amending the Constition) by making legal aliens of illegals and proposing the use of regulatory means within the Department of Homeland Security “on a case-by-case basis” to allow amnesty for illegal aliens deemed NOT to be a threat (no criminal record). Meanwhile President Obama is on vacation considering a “bold new jobs initiative” including a brand new round of federal stimulus.  More insidiously, for the last eight months the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been moving (also by fiat regulatory powers) to covertly enforce the Cap and Trade bill that failed to pass Congress in 2009 and 2010 and has begun by closing down coal mines and restricting oil drilling.  In a nutshell, these examples well illustrate what’s wrong with the nation today and why fiscal- and Constitutional conservativism as demanded by the TEA (“Taxed Enough Already” or “Taken Enough Abuse”) Party is the only route to saving our country.

                Few clear-thinkers among us would deny that America stands at a crucial point in her history: most all obvious signs point to decline and potential ruin, but opportunity to realign with our greater earlier history also beckons us toward the future. If ever there was a time for a true statesman or stateswoman to emerge, now is such a time. What do we mean by a “statesman?” How might we recognize him? We will explore the “pros and cons” of this question in the paragraphs that follow . . . .

            Political work in many ways is like being a combination mechanic and back-slapper. Yes, the final “work” gets done by others who must be encouraged to do vast legwork -- but first of all there is a need for the ‘mechanic’s eye for reality’ so that real problems get dealt with in realistic fashion. For example the reality is that 95% of our present problems have fiscal and bureaucratic over-reach as part of their central cause. That truth must be honored, but then again it’s also clearly a people-business. So let’s talk today about the reality of the problems and more importantly about the reality of the people-perspective necessary for a new true statesman to emerge and to lead us out of these stagnant and dangerous 2011 waters . . . .

            Although a good 30% of Democrats deny that the country is facing any fiscal problems (that is, no problems at all with respect to National Debt; Debt Ceiling; Bond Downgrade; Excess Government Spending; Ongoing Deficits; UNfunded Liabilities in Major Entitlement Programs) or troubles with the size and scope of government . . . the vast majority of Americans know better. Poll after poll shows that roughly 72% of the total populace agrees that these two areas are the source of the nation’s problems.   Voters showed their recognition of these truths in the 2010 elections when they voted overwhelmingly for candidates favoring fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism. So what tools does the statesman have at his disposal in facing these problems? And what approaches should be avoided?

            The good people at Rasmussen Reports (which has been the most accurate among pollsters for the last dozen years) periodically runs a poll concerning the make-up of the voting populace. That poll consistently confirms what has been reputedly true over the last forty years . . . the nation is “center-right” politically. And yet, you correctly observe, tax-and-spend progressive politicians have dominated the country since Calvin Coolidge left office. The eight years of Ronald Reagan mark the only true conservativism within the Oval Office during that 82.5 year span. Why?

            The problem is that while fiscal- and Constitutional conservativism are ultra-popular stances . . . social-moderation combined with social-liberalism dominates the American scene. Live and let live socially (that phraseology is sure to upset the anti-abortion folk, no?) is the predominant political stance in America. Reagan with his affability, his great sense of humor and his capacity for succinctly nailing the opposition to the wall with their own outrageous behavior and beliefs (“Tear down this Wall, Mr. Gorbachev!” “Government is NOT the solution to our problems, government IS the problem.” “Concentrated power has always been liberty’s greatest enemy.”) was precisely what American needed in 1980 and has needed for the last 82.5 years and indeed throughout the total 234 years of the nation’s existence.  And Reagan stayed out of people’s churches and bedrooms.  He was a no-nonsense fiscal- and Constitutional-conservative with an appealing and practical ability to work with people of almost any political stripe. What was Reagan’s secret weapon allowing him to appeal to voters while so many conservatives thoroughly “turn-off” the vast majority of voters? Tolerance!

            Reagan began as a New Deal Democrat, a huge fan of the person and policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  He served as the President of the very liberal Screen Actors’ Guild for several years . . . he only slowly came to conservativism. He realized that (within limits) there was a need for both “loading the cart” by (after national defense was taken care of) encouraging free markets and business and “unloading the cart” by taking care of infra-structure and people. What’s the correct proportion of the balance between loading and unloading? Perhaps a 90-10 split with government spending 10% of the nation’s resources (GDP)?  Reagan’s own numbers showed an 81.5% to 18.5% balance.  In any case rather than being an ideologue, Reagan was open to discussion on the issues and postulated an 80-20 rule when it comes to calling another politician “friend.” “If a man votes with me 80% of the time, I consider him my friend, my ally.” So he was big on getting consensus rather than running roughshod over other people’s positions.

            Let us look at what Rasmussen polling tells us of what we can expect when we find a new Reagan. Only two political descriptions are rated as more positive than negative by the voters: “conservative” and “moderate.” 42% of voters regard it as positive if a candidate is labeled as “politically conservative.” For a comparison:  only 24% of the electorate regards “progressive” (the current euphemism for “liberal”) as positive. Both “liberal” and “progressive” are regarded as far more negative than positive terms. So again the conservative viewpoint is affirmed but the country doesn’t elect conservatives with any consistency . . . 60% of the nation calls itself either “moderate” or “liberal” on social issues . . . and that 60% finds an awful lot to hate in social-conservativism . . . an awful lot to vote against and be turned off by.

            So we return to our clear and obvious thesis: while fiscal-progressives (a.k.a. liberals) and Constitutional-progressives (a.k.a. neo-Marxists) are killing the country with their socialistic policies . . . our own social-conservativism is sharpening the knife and putting it into their hands.  How? By polarizing the voting populace into social-conservatives vs. everyone else and watering down all respect for fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism. The reason the TEA Party was so effective in getting results in 2010, when they stayed out of politics and nominating and instead played kingmakers and idea salesmen, was that fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism was served and issues like absolute anti-abortionism, prayer in public school, evolution in the biology classrooms of public schools, etc. are not discussed. 

When the TEA Party went too far and got into running for office, however, candidates perceived as “extreme” and “weirdo” (such as Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell and Ken Buck in Nevada, Delaware and Colorado respectively) emerged and totally turned off the voters and cost the Republicans a share of the Senate which would have made a huge difference in the last four key votes in Congress (debt-limit; Bush Tax Break Extension and budget for 2011 finally; finally passing a 2012 budget; and Cut-Cap and Balance legislation). All of these issues resulted in unsatisfactory legislation when a far more satisfactory result would have been possible if the G.O.P. controlled Congress. How important is this? 

Consider this, once Paul Ryan’s budget proposal was submitted and passed in the House, the Obama budget proposal was introduced into the Senate where Obama’s Democrats had controlling numbers. What was the result? Mr. Obama’s proposal was defeated in the Democrat-controlled Senate by a 0-97 vote. Even Obama’s Democrats understood the writing on the wall. Conservative thinking is ruling the day, but the public still strongly resents holier-than-thou social-conservativism and insistence by conservatives on their perceived-right to enter people’s religious or sexual sanctuaries will not be tolerated by the electorate. For a final proof of this: remember that 59% of the populace is 100% opposed to the ultra-social-conservative stance of ZERO abortions in cases of incest, rape, extremely young mothers, or a threat to the life or health of the mother while 76% of Americans believe there are far too many abortions in America.

We saw Rick Perry this week giving us a great example of why strict adherence to fiscal-conservativism and Constitutional-conservativism is the only reasonable approach.   Serving as an extremely bad example, Perry preceded his recent entering the presidential fray with a big-spectacle event a “prayer-fest.” This played well in Iowa; it will NOT win him votes in the vast majority of states. Perry then goes to New Hampshire and cannot answer a simple schoolchild’s question about the age of the earth (4.5 billion years roughly) and, after tut-tutting to the kid that “there are gaps in the Theory of Evolution” (yes, there are, but nothing like the obvious contradictions and shortfalls of the sacred books of ALL our religions) tells the schoolboy that in Texas they teach both Creationism and Evolution in school. 

Mr. Perry, in short, is a fool proposing foolish things. Literal 7-Day Creationism is a religious tenet that should be confined to private schools funded by private and/or religious resources and NOT taught in public schools funded by the taxes of Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics, atheists,  Shintos and Rastafarians as well as Christians. Mr. Perry, is proving himself unable to keep his eye on the twin balls of fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism . . . indeed by advocating literal 7-Day Creationism be taught in public schools he is violating the tenets of the 1st Amendment. I don’t know about you, but Rajjpuut’s “God is way too large to fit into Mr. Perry’s tiny church.”** And that is exactly why, expect for Ronald Reagan, Conservativism has been such a failure over the last eight decades. 

If conservatives learn nothing from the TEA Party’s successes and failures . . . they need to learn this: there are no areas of an individual’s life more private or more sensitive than religion and the bedroom and any effort to tell that person how to believe or what to do in either the church or the bedroom will only foster the grossest of enmities.

Rajjpuut believes that the TEA Party, when it sticks to its ten listed principles in the Contract from America@@, is the strongest force for political good in the nation. When it abandons them a la Angle, Buck and O’Donnell only bad things are possible. There is no document greater and none more ignored at this time in America’s history than the Contract from America. This is the truth as Almighty God has allowed me to see it, ignore this truth at risk of ruin to our great nation.


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,



** These are the very words Rajjpuut’s father spoke as he “ex-communicated” himself from church a long time ago after a priest avowed that Gandhi “would burn in hell along with all those other heathens because he didn’t welcome Christ into his soul” and then refused to “recant” under my father’s withering interrogation. When it comes to religion, the best advice of all is “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Rajjpuut suspects that Christ would welcome Gandhi into his soul in any case.  As to their relevance today, we (you and I) didn't rule on the abortion issue in Roe vs. Wade in 1973, but we should also not be so stupid as to deny that it's the present law of the land and has been for almost 40 years now and is unlikely to change . . . mostly because of the stance of absolutists among the anti-abortion people.  Refusing abortions in case of rape, incest, for very, very young mothers and in cases where the mother's life or health are at risk deeply angers 60% of the American public.

@@ http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/

In short:

1.        Protect the Constitution

2.       Reject Cap & Trade

3.       Demand a Balanced Budget

4.       Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

5.        Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government

6.       End Runaway Government Spending

7.        Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care

8.       Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy

9.       Stop the Pork

10.     Stop the Tax Hikes

In full:

The Contract from America

We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

Individual Liberty

Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.

Limited Government

The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders. When our government ventures beyond these functions and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.

Economic Freedom

The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty. Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people.

Note: The percentages shown mark what percentage of the public respondents who thought this particular item belonged in the final “contract’ from among the 28 originally named principles created by the TEA Party . . . Hence the title Contract from America.

1. Protect the Constitution

Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

2. Reject Cap & Trade

Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)

3. Demand a Balanced Budget

Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington

Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)

6. End Runaway Government Spending

Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care

Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy

Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)

9. Stop the Pork

Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

10. Stop the Tax Hikes

Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)




Read more…

Darwin was (Plenty) Wrong, while Lamarck’s now Resurrected,
"Faith Healing" and What that Means to You

It is a well-known LIE common among the simple-minded that so-called "soft sciences" like sociology, psychology, human-goal attainment, etc. are subject to far greater change than that taking place in the hard sciences. The soft-sciences have long been considered ever-shifting ground compared to “hard science” explanations of how the world works. Of course, that's totally bogus, a lot more change takes place in the hard sciences a lot faster.

Till relatively recently, biology and especially genetics, had been considered a semi-soft science. There were the experiments of Gregor Mendel pubished in 1866; and before that there was Darwin’s book “The Origin of the Species published in 1859, the year before Lincoln’s election and little else had changed. Darwin’s ideas were considered more troubling because they dealt with life capable of movement (animals and apes and men); but Mendel’s was actually relatively hard science that could be replicated by observers. Darwin’s “Natural Selection” (largely sexual selection) misnamed by the press as “Survival of the Fittest” was, after all, only a theory.

In fact, however, biologic theory has also galloped apace. There came in the late 19th and early 20th century discovery of chromosomes and genes and much later DNA. Today biology is considered a much harder science and genetics (with the publishing of the human genome) is by most of the great unwashed all wrapped up into a neat little package called “bio-tech” which definitely sounds like a hard, hard science to the point of virtually being an industrial art so that the term “designer genes” has become much more than a play on words. Rajjpuut, to that says, slow down, Pilgrim, slow down.

It turns out today, however, that in many respects biology, as a hard science, is going back to the drawing board. For one thing, Charles Darwin in his later writings said that he regretted having given nature (meaning “genetics” -- the word genetics didn’t exist in his time) too much credit and to have sorely underestimated the effects of nurture and the environment in shaping life. Wow, the misnomer term “survival of the fittest” in popular thinking certainly sounds like a “struggle,” a battle just to live and then above that a struggle to ensure survival by living long enough and fighting hard enough to overcome others in unrelenting battle and viola! to mate . . . and yet the great Darwin is saying, "I didn’t give the environment enough credit." Think on that, if you want to disappear down Alice in Wonderland's rabbit hole . . . the fittest by genetics isn't necessarily the fittest overall and nurturing "group dynamics" and nature itself play a greater role . . . Rajjpuut has often insisted the greater truth might be "Survival of the Luckiest," surely Darwin didn't mean that?

As it turns out from the more recent ideas placed into mathematical form by a scientist named John Nash (Nobel Prize Winner and the subject of the movie “A Beautiful Mind”) now-a-days extrapolated into biology and even evolutionary theory, cooperation (including nurturing) seems to be every bit as important to survival and reproduction of the individual and the group as fierce competition does. Survival of the most blessed? Most beloved?

And then there is the amazing fact that the scientists (virtually all of them men until the last fifty years) did what women are often accusing men of doing: they thought (figuratively) with their gonads and not with their brains. Or, more precisely, they put the center of control (and dare Rajjpuut say, “intelligence”) in a living cell (the smallest indivisible unit of life itself) in the cell nucleus. As it turns out, that idea from our high school biology classes is totally wrong: the center of cell intelligence is their external membranes where they interact with the world and the cell’s nucleic areas are actually predictably enough “the gonads” of the cell.

More importantly, for the thinking populace, knowing about all these recent changes in the field of biology, we can now examine a little idea published in 1867 which was nothing more or less than highly emphasized “survival of the fittest” extrapolated onto the societies of man himself in a poorly conceived book published in 1867 “Das Kapital” subtitled “a critique of political economics” by Karl Marx with large chunks of editing by Friedrich Engels. Marx said specifically, he intended to make a science of understanding human economy as related to politics and to reveal to the world an understanding of the evolution of political-economic life forms. He began at what he called the “cell” level and worked his way continually broader from there until he was talking about the “struggle for existence” between capital and labor (the business owner and the worker). Marx postulated a survival of the fittest occuring between economic-political systems across the broad sweep of history all around the world, never ceasing. He raked capitalism over the coals and talked about the benefits of socialism which would definitely outlast and defeat capitalism and eventually the final triumphant result of all these political-economic systems battling away over time: tah, dah! creation of the communist utopia where “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” had replaced the barbaric animal exploitation and battling which Marx claimed was the fundamental fact propping up all capitalism.

Marx, of course, never paused to see all the co-operation necessary for capitalist entities to grow and prosper, the subject of this brief and poignant essay . . . .


And the enablers of Marx throughout modern history, the Keynesian economists who advocate inflation as a most useful tool for governments (actually, it turns out, only for totalitatian governments) also have overlooked tranquility and cooperation in their understanding of the world of real micro- and real macro-economics . . . put even more briefly . . . .



And summed up into a whole consistent theory here:


Returning from Marxism based upon the ill-conceived "survival of the fittest" notions, it now appears that strange Frenchman our high school teachers used as a strawman in postulating the FACT of EVOLUTION based upon Darwin’s work, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was possibly much more right than Darwin was and he was right almost sixty years before Darwin’s book. His speech of May 11, 1800, at the Paris Natural History Museum set forth Lamarck’s theory of evolution which was every bit as systematic as Darwin’s was but earlier and included soft-evolution as part of the process. When we were kids, the biology profs made fun of Lamarck saying that according to him if you cut off the tails of two mice and bred them . . . of course their offspring would NOT be tailless so Lamarck was an utter fool . . . and continuing on with a lot of such nonsense that, naturally, a close reading of Lamarck shows he never said or meant. Lamarck, like Darwin, made mistakes but he was first, and today's up to the minute science may actually be proving, he was actually better.


Lamarck, coming much earlier than Darwin and living in mostly religiously-orthodox France rather than more worldly Britain as Darwin did, was the object of much hate and derision. Despite all this he stuck by his guns and remained true to evolution. Lamarck stressed two main themes in his biological theories. First, it was the environment which gives rise to changes in animals. He cited examples of blindness in moles, the presence of teeth in mammals and the absence of teeth in birds as evidence of this principle. Secondly, life is structured in an orderly manner and that many different parts of all bodies make it possible for the organic movements of animals. Thirdly, the whole process is the result most usually of great, great amounts of time. Although he was not the first thinker to advocate organic evolution, he was the first to develop a truly coherent evolutionary theory. He outlined these theories regarding evolution first in his Floreal lecture of 1800, and then in three later published works:

  • Recherches sur l'organisation des corps vivants, 1802.
  • Philosophie Zoologique, 1809.
  • Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres, (in seven volumes, 1815-1822)

It now appears that Lamarck was largely correct, that the environment (as Darwin said in the last years of his life -- and which obviously includes nurturing) is a much more prominent cause of evolution than recent thinking led us to believe; and that Darwin was wrong about the role of savage competition as the single largest driving force in shaping evolution, to wit cooperation within a group and even cooperation within the environs themselves play a much greater role than Darwin might ever have conceived. And for those of you who read our first link above (the little "I, Pencil" essay) it definitely appears that Marx totally missed the boat, basing his ideas upon Darwin’s faulty model of evolution and the faulty term “survival of the fittest,” he created a winner-take all model in which only the ends mattered, the end totally justified the dialectical-materialism to come. That is the world that Barack Obama was raised in, courtesy of his mother Stanley Ann Dunham and his grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, and his birth-father Barak without a 'c' Hussein Obama, Sr. and that world view (where the glorious state can seriously consider 100% taxes**) is finally and inalterably proven wrong here and now.

For more on the biological background in a format accessible to the layman: try (Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D.’s book “The Biology of Belief” which received “The Best Science Book of 2006” award, one of several stimulating works tying cooperative evolution, quantum-physics and psychology together. In a certain sense, we have returned to square one: “it is done unto us, in accordance with our faith.” Of course, now it’s possible to say that faith has a scientific explanation . . . and that evolution is no longer a theory, but a provable fact and they're both part of God’s Design. And, yes, there is clear scientific evidence of the power of faith healing, placebos, and medical miracles of the sort that certainly until now were not considered "hard science." It's all akin to the History Channel showing from translators that the term "Red Sea" was a mis-translation and that it just meant a big river of the time and then going to the river in question and finding tons of ancient military artifacts such as chariots and shields and swords and finding out about an earthquake that took place at the time. Where does faith leave off and science begin? Why not enjoy both? What an amazing world we live in!

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

** as shown here at the link below, in the words of Barak Obama, Sr. but not mentioned in his son's first autobiography "Dreams from My Father" what the real dreams of his father were . . . .

Read more…