O you of little faith!

Paul Jacko

The Humpty-Dumpies in the academic looking-glass-land determine what the word “Darwinism” means at any given time. Admittedly, Darwin for scientists is almost like Marx for the Marxists – they also mix and match, ignore, deny or perhaps just “cherry-pick” his writings to suit their temporary theories. I leave the deep dishonesty underlying the large part of modern science for another time. It is a depressing subject.

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, ‘between a quarter and a half of all bird species, along with around a third of amphibians and a quarter of corals, are highly vulnerable to’ … I’m sure you would not guess it, ‘climate change’. Naturally “unprecedented conservation efforts will be needed if we do not cut emissions”.

  There does not seem to be any significant correlation between anthropogenic emissions, presumably of carbon dioxide, and the climate change. For the last fifteen years at least, the carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing, mostly thanks to the Communist China, but the world’s temperatures remained the same. The climate change computer models have been proven fallacious; and as counterfeit as their doomsday modellers. In any case an assumption that we, according to the atheists, merely one of the many species on the Earth, have a duty or power to stop or reverse the nature’s natural selection process is insolent beyond belief.

Darwin suggested three inter-related propositions; firstly that “the species are not immutable i.e. “new species appeared during the long course of the earth’s history by a natural process ‘descent with modification’”. Secondly; that this process accounts for all or nearly all the life’s diversity, because all life descended from a very small number of common ancestors, possibly a single, microscopic ancestor. And thirdly; that this process is guided by natural selection or “survival of the fittest”.

  You may perhaps agree with Karl Popper that Darwinism is not really a scientific theory because natural selection is an all-purpose explanation which can account for anything and which therefore explains nothing. I survive – therefore I am fit?

Still, it is an article of the Darwinian faith that when the living conditions change the species too slow to migrate, adapt or beneficially mutate, became extinct. Surely nobody would claim that all species which happen to be living in 2013 are somehow, against all logic, going to survive the next 100 or 10 000 years. That could not happen even if the environment was static, which, against all wishes of eco-preservationists, it is not.

But back to birds, and while I would venture a guess that our readers have seen more real birds than the executive committee of the International Union for Conservation of Nature in all their wet, antropogenetically ocean-rising dreams, I utilise Wikipedia succinct information just in case: “Birds (class Aves or clade Avialae) are feathered, winged, bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), egg-laying, vertebrate animals. With around 10,000 living species, they are the most speciose class of tetrapod vertebrates. All present species belong to the subclass Neornithes, and inhabit ecosystems across the globe, from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Extant birds range in size from the 5 cm (2 in) Bee Hummingbird to the 2.75 m (9 ft) Ostrich. The fossil record indicates that birds emerged within theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic period, around 150 million years ago. Birds are the only members of the clade originating with the earliest dinosaurs to have survived the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago.

 Modern birds are characterised by feathers, a beak with no teeth, the laying of hard-shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, a four-chambered heart, and a lightweight but strong skeleton. All living species of birds have wings; the most recent species without wings was the moa, which is generally considered to have become extinct in the 16th century. Wings are evolved forelimbs, and most bird species can fly. Flightless birds include ratites, penguins, and a number of diverse endemic island species. Birds also have unique digestive and respiratory systems that are highly adapted for flight. Some birds, especially corvids and parrots, are among the most intelligent animal species; a number of bird species have been observed manufacturing and using tools, and many social species exhibit cultural transmission of knowledge across generations.

  For comparison, the International Union for Conservation of Nature has been around for about sixty years, surviving on the taxpayers’ money; and while I would not claim the scientists associated therewith can not use tools like a knife and fork or iPod, I am not sure they could manufacture anything useful. Perhaps, given time… as Darwin wrote.

  If I were to guess which species or “species” would be here in 10,000, 1,000 or 100 years, my bet would be on birds, not on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s scientists.

Climate threat to half of bird species” warns the headline of the New Scientist of 22-06-2013 and, since birds of feather stick together, and fear-mongers even more so, NSci come up with the instant solution, “The best thing we can do is cut greenhouse gas emissions”. Obviously, they have no faith in Darwin’s theories, nor in the nature itself. Darwinism, for them, is for malicious fun (with the naïve and uneducated) and profit. Mankind be damned.

  Mathew 8:26 – And they came to Him and woke Him, saying, “Save us, Lord; we are perishing!” He said to them, “Why are you afraid, o you men of little faith?” Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it became perfectly calm. The men were amazed, and said, “What kind of a man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?”

Even an atheist has to admit that, obedience or disobedience of the winds and the seas notwithstanding, Jesus and his fellow travellers survived that sudden climate change.


About Paul Jacko

Jacko was born in Czechoslovakia not long before the communist putsch in February 1948. He studied industrial chemistry there and left in 1969 for Australia, where he became a lawyer and established his own practice. He has now retired and beside hunting, fishing, camping, prospecting and playing golf he amuses himself by writing.
This entry was posted in Climate Change, Journalism, Socialism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to O you of little faith!

  1. Sue Powell says:

    While nobody would doubt Darwin’s contribution to our understanding of the progress of life on this planet, there always seems to be more than one answer to any question.

  2. where to now says:

    Good post, I always like them. Darwin is often misquoted and misunderstood, just like Marx.

  3. Dulvietta says:

    Most environmental “scientists” are dull and have sheep mentality.

  4. Globasi says:

    Many incompetent scientists use Darwin as a sword or a shield. Pity.

  5. Weep Age says:

    I enjoy what you guys are doing.

  6. C Menbagli says:

    I quite like this weblog. Many thanks.

  7. Doudouner says:

    I couldn’t refrain from commenting. Exceptionally well written!

  8. Christian Lender says:

    Darwin was only a half right.

  9. Treminar says:

    The nature will have the last laugh.

  10. Habitual Fred says:

    May the greenies disappear! The damage they do…

  11. Hinter Lander says:

    Darwin wept.

  12. Se Ra says:

    But Darwin got it wrong too.

  13. Cedrick Hall says:

    I totally really like your weblog and find lots of your post very interesting. And yes, the Earth will look after herself.

  14. Point Moor says:

    They misuse Darwin and don’t understand him. Not being fit, they’ll not survive. Good ridance.

  15. swiz chiise says:

    Pretty silly way those “scientists” think. They cherry-pick and hope nobody will notice.

  16. Pray Badly says:

    All the evolution theory’s sidetracks ought to be revised by non-ideological / non-theological science.

  17. Eddie says:

    Those so called scientists do not believe in anything, least of all their own ‘science’.

  18. Dan Christian says:

    It is mostly a pretend science for pretend human beings – shamanism, rather. AGW superstition is a good example.

  19. Stefan Riccags says:

    They don’t know nothing. The science needs an inquisition.

  20. パーコピ says:


  21. Handy Thought says:

    The science is so compromised and politicised that I’m starting to doubt gravity.

  22. Patrice Lumumb says:

    Just about all scientists are dishonest. Please do keep up the fantastic work.

  23. Manguba says:

    The science needs Reformation.

  24. Coachee says:

    You can’t expect the scientists to think.

  25. Hans Muller says:

    sad people, those scientists. Reluctant to beileve in God, they believe in every nonsense with ‘scientific’ label.

  26. Air Daughter says:

    The scientists believe in the Holy Grail of Grants.

  27. Sally de Baine says:

    Hi,that nice post. they are despiiikable.

  28. Escargotte says:

    I, and another 97% of the population believe that 97% of scientists believe they are infalible.

  29. Doc Buzkas says:

    The socialists corrupted the science, probably for a very long time – a century?

  30. Klomiter says:

    As long as academia tolerates the likes of Mann and Flannery there is no hope.

  31. Shaka Spear says:

    Religion, science, religion… the life goes on.

  32. max homer says:

    Sous diverses !

  33. Whole Men says:

    Scientists are very superstitious.

  34. Sub Surack says:

    Asking questions are actually good things.

  35. Ray Goodall says:

    Scientists lost the plot (and got grants instead).

  36. Lui Decola says:

    The evolution theory is highly suspect, at least some parts of it. Scientists should re-think it.

  37. Nicke Nik says:

    Not all scientists are stupid.

  38. Mon Franck says:

    They don’t believe in the evolution as proclaimed and taught in schools, but are afraid to say what they think.

  39. Kamputer says:

    You hit the nail right on the head! But real scientists are rare.

  40. Doug Fedore says:

    Science lost the plot. Now it is money, prestige and damn the consequences.

  41. Monc Chapeall says:

    Nobody expects scientists to be honest any more.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>