Unbelievable History: Charles Darwin

By Peter Bristles, Patriotorian

British naturalist Charles Darwin was the twin brother of Abraham Lincoln. This led some people to ask a lot of uncomfortable questions regarding the legitimacy of Lincoln’s Presidency. These people have been removed from the gene pool by Darwinists. Darwin was famous for proposing the modern theory of evolution which states that nothingness created two rocks that smacked together to create your monkey grandma, who magically gave birth to your human mom.

After attending divinity school in order to mock God, Darwin was enlisted to join the second voyage of the HMS Beagle to study nature. He wrote about how he was seasick constantly in his journals, but this is betrayed by his confession to his wife that he really just enjoyed vomiting constantly and would induce it for fun. This is believed to be the root of his nickname, “Ol’ Chucky Vomitpants.”

Once the ship reached the Galapagos archipelago, Darwin observed that certain species of finch had differently shaped beaks. He also observed that they tasted vastly different. There were also Galapagos Island iguanas that tasted remarkably better than their mainland counterparts. There were also varied species of giant tortoises that went quite good in soup. This led to his landmark theory of “Survival of the Tastiest.”

Aboard the HMS Beagle, he came to a disagreement with the Captain Robert FitzRoy while the Captain was showing off his slaves. Modern scientohistorians like to play up how Darwin was opposed to slavery and how he would argue that slavery was evil. Really though, Darwin wasn’t opposed to the notion of slavery. He just didn’t like FitzRoy’s slaves, which he felt were not as shiny and top-of-the-line as his own collection.

When Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, he was laughed at by the Royal Society of England–not because he was thought to be wrong, but because (without his knowledge) his penis was sticking out of his pants, hard and stiff. This was really funny until a consensus was reached that it was annoying to be constantly whacked in the head with Darwin’s oblivious hard-on. Many people ran in fear when Darwin began to speak about the more essential aspects of his theory, as he would become so excited that his penis would throb until it spermed out majestically.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck provided an alternative theory of evolution. He could do this because his ancestors would practice debating Darwin’s ancestors. Each successive generation carried on its Darwin-debating skills. Modern creationists are not believers in Lamarck’s theory either, but it is true that they are all descended from the best Darwin-debaters.

Some prominent secular historians (the ones who don’t tell HIS-story), believe that Darwin not only came up with the theory of evolution, but that he was able to demonstrate evolution live on-stage. These live performances of evolution were mere trickery though. Darwin would start by cramming five chimpanzees into a hat, putting the hat in a coffin, poking all kinds of swords through the coffin, and out would come a rational, God-fearing human. What nonsense! That just proves that Darwin was a good magician, not a good scientist.

A lot of historians want you to believe in Darwin’s alleged contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace, who supposedly formulated the theory of evolution independently. Little is known about “Wallace” except that his handwriting and style of writing appears to be identical to Darwin’s. It makes sense that Darwin would fabricate Wallace’s existence in order to perpetuate the lie that evolution was independently discovered by two people instead of one. That way it would give the lie more credibility.

Evolutionary theory was a point of contention between Darwin and his wife, Emma, who believed in God like any good and moral person. He would talk about his observations about the natural world and she would talk about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the Creator of the Universe. This kind of disagreement could have led an ungodly woman to a divorce, but she was a good woman and was subservient to her husband, no matter how satanic he was.

Many people know that Darwin was a proto-Nazi (just turn to the first chapter in On the Origins of Species entitled “The Final Solution”), but what they didn’t know was that Darwin would spend his time plotting about how to stop and silence creationist Ben Stein years before Stein was even a twinkle in his father’s eye. Not to mention that Darwin–getting his advice from Lord Satan–knew that he needed to change the way that universities taught so that they could, in 150 years time, silence Intelligent Design theorists.

Many claim that Darwin did not advocate eugenics or Social Darwinism–that it was actually Herbert Spencer and some others who advocated eugenics. But how do you explain the book that non-secular historians recently unearthed, entitled How To Kill Off The Weak And Mentally Inhibited by Charles Darwin? Sure, if you carbon-dated the book it would appear only to be three years old–not old enough to have been written by Darwin. But that just proves that carbon dating is unreliable!

A lot of people are knowledgeably aware of Darwin’s famous death bed recantation of evolution. What they are unaware of though, is all his other recantations. He recanted most appropriately the atomic theory of matter, Mendelian genetics (even though he had absolutely no knowledge of such a genetics…weird), special theory of relativity (everyone knew that one was false), and supply side economics. He is most famous for recanting the mother and father theory. The mother and father theory states that everyone had a mother and a father. What rubbish!

In modern academia, the theory of evolution has been refined and well-understood. It is taught to millions and is the foundation of our understanding of biology. Just about every field of science reinforces the claims of evolutionists, as well as a mountain of fossil evidence. But were you aware that the famous Piltdown Man fossil was in fact a hoax? I now declare the entire theory void!

Unbelievable Fact! Naturalist T.H. Huxley was a groupie of Darwin’s, and sexed him up constantly. He had such Darwin-lust that he earned the nickname, “Darwin’s Constantly-in-Heat Pitbull.” If you read any of his books you can still see the stains where he spermed out onto the page.

Stop misleading our schoolchildren! Make sure your kid’s school is using Unbelievable History as it’s science textbook.

Advertisements

Cogito ergo I am right #10: Naturalism, Science, and Religion

By Amateur Philosopher Penny Ham

Hello, you philosophically-minded fuckers out there! I want to talk to you about naturalism today.

Naturalism has something going for it when compared to non-naturalism: predictive power and rightness! Naturalism implicitly assumes there are only natural causes in the world and so sets up the entire possibility of science because science can only give us testable predictions when steered by this implicit assumption. Naturalism is itself unfalsiable but naturalism makes up for this by setting up an entire enterprise that holds that each naturalistic statement, individually, is falsifiable. Man, that just makes naturalism uber-badass!

Thinking in terms of non-naturalistic terms, the proposition “God did it” or “God made it” has no predictive power. It can’t be incorporated into science. Naturalism is the necessary condition of science and not the other way around. You have to think of it this way – if you have a science, that is, an enterprise that bases all of its findings on the empirical realm and makes predictions, then you have naturalism, a belief that everything can be understood in terms of natural efficient causation. It’s that simple!

“God did it” explanations must remain outside of science simply because the essence of science is predictive power and this only implies naturalism and not both naturalism and non-naturalism. Sorry intelligent designerists, your theory is non-naturalistic and so it sucks!

If you guys want “God did it” explanations, just stick with theology. As a matter of fact, theology is where “God did it” explanations should be anyway. Unfortunately in the history of evolution and creation debates, people got all confused and presupposed that science had won the battle over theology and so that meant they could and should modify their faith with science. Religious dolts out there, don’t modify your faith with science! You’ll only undermine your own faith by requiring it to have a burden of scientific testability!

What “God did it” people don’t realize is that by making their faith rest on science, they are severely setting themselves up for total destruction of their own faith or some kind of silly denial or overt form of mental gymnastics (throwing out assumptions that scientists are all liars or that fossils were created by Satan, for instance).

What non-naturalists and religionists should do is think, “maybe science didn’t win against theology since science is just a different interpretation of the world than theology.” Maybe, as Nietzsche said, science is just one interpretation of many. Science is a damn good interpretation but just one out of the many. So maybe theology still has something to it. Theology has its own perspective and science has its own. Nietzsche, the guy who said that God is dead might be the last best hope for religious people. What an interesting concept. Actually, it’s not really that interesting. Boring!

The great thing about science is that it is definitely open to the possibility of implying, if given sufficient reason, a worldview of non-naturalism. It’s just that it never has arrived at a situation where non-naturalism has served the simplicity and the predictive power of science. So currently, science only implies a naturalistic worldview. Although this isn’t necessarily a necessary implication, now is it?

Currently as standing. (The arrows stands for implication.)

Science —> explanation —-> predictive power —-> naturalism

Non-naturalism —> lack of predictive power —> lack of explanation —> pseudo science.

Non-naturalism + naturalism —> lacking in the predictive area —-> barely an explanation —> pretty pseudo scientific.

Did you like this article? Please consider subscribing and telling your friends about it.