What if dickheads were found?

A-WIF-Pic. 1

The explanatory power of Darwinism!

The adherents of materialist philosophies, based on:

• the observation that the behaviour of animate things is strongly influenced by hormones,
• their believe that biology dictates gender expression, and speciation is the product of Darwinian draconian time-chance error-mechanisms, natural and sexual selection, and adaptive responses to external pressures and condition to which the entities are subject to

…have successfully, under the umbrella of science, brainwashed the populace through use of mantras that are recited a loud on planetary level, in the educational system.

The Mantra is simple:

“The universe is the sole product of chance, and man an accidental by-product of an extinct ape that somehow got bored of hanging around in trees and went for a long walk”.

To them, ‘absurdity’ and not ‘common-sense’, is our shortcut to liberation and self-accomplishment.

The unawaken therefore willingly accept that secular high priest confine their children, as gooses, in boxes while pushing neo-Darwinian claptrap as nutrients through their trout, and dream that one day their children become the ‘foie-gras’ of our deluded society.

Darwinist propagandists, be they neo-Darwinian or not, have become masters in transforming first order observational facts into Hollywood blockbuster scripts that are broadcast under the label ‘scientific truth’.

Let me give you two simple examples of observables and their Darwinian explanations:

1. When a female mantis is triggered by sex-dope and finds a male that is also sex-doped enough to engage in the act of reproduction, they combine and start copulating. During delivery of the life-containing substance, it is often seen that the female mantis starts eating the head of the male.
   Darwinists profess that the female mantis, after the act of copulation, eats the brain of the male mantis to assure herself of the required nutrients to develop her offspring.
2. Solitary healthy male lions, in general invade, kill or cast out the male lion(s) of a lion clan, and afterwards engage with infanticide (i.e., the extermination of all cubs within the clan).
   Darwinists charlatans claim that lions do this to assure themselves of their own harem for the sole purpose to satisfy their sex-drive, with offspring as a consequential result.

National geographics and animal planet, just to name a few, make tons of documentaries of that genre, scoring big in rating!!

Nevertheless, to us, watching propagandist Darwinian documentaries is similar as imagining looking to a horror movie of James whale with Charles Chaplin playing Frankenstein.
It certainly would produce a good scary laugh.

The sad thing about Darwinism and all other materialist evolution theories, is that the unawaken don’t recognize the jokes, and take the play for granted.

Do we really want that our children, thus future society, become nothing more than a collection of à la Dawkins intellectually fulfilled copulating atheist survival machines specialized in filling holes?

When will the populace finally start to realize the absurdity of Darwinian evolution?

Not of evolution through adaptation in response to environmental pressures and conditions, but the one proposed by Darwin and Neo-Darwinists alike.

What’s wrong with Darwinism?

Godinci came to understand, on Verolative base, that all things, be they animate or not, are not from themselves, thus instrumental. This makes them teleological.
Another consequence hereof is that Nature and Her governing laws are secondary in nature as they’re all contingent.

The fact that all things are instrumental elucidates why almost all natural phenomena are somewhat explicable in mechanistic terms.
It gives us falsely the hope that reductionism is the way to go, because the ‘instrumental’ allows only for the fructification of the goal but is never the goal in itself.

Furthermore, the fossil record shows that the evolution of the species in Nature are ‘linear progressive’ – i.e., entities go stepwise from deterministic to mental; thus, behaviour produced by animate entities possessing a brain will largely depends on the entity’s mental containing capacity.

A-WIF-Pic. 2

We’ll now look back to our two examples with the above in view and try to develop a more truth-related picture.

In doing so, it becomes apparent that the behaviour produced for the satisfaction of instinct-related things in carnivorous beings with little mental containing capacity, such as mantises, will be very straightforward.
Here, the simple rules of ‘if hungry and eatable than eat’ and ‘if danger than run, hide or eliminate danger’ strongly apply.

A-WDF-Pic. 3

Honestly, do you really expect that mantises, given their nature, will settle down for a chat after copulation, especially when the predatory female hasn’t lunched yet, and is much bigger than the copulating male that is an arm-strike away?

Get alive!

Now, concerning the observed behaviour of infanticide in lion packs.

We do admit that overtaking a clan and engaging with infanticide assures the invading lion kings of their offspring, and certainly satisfy their sex-drive.

The problem is that parental instinct in female lions is high, it will therefore become very difficult for the overtaken lion king to draw the requested attention and enforce authority upon the lionesses.

In these circumstances, controlling the lion pack and/or engage with the satisfaction of instinct-related things becomes unattainable as the lion kings will not get the needed recognition.
The overtaking lion kings must therefore assure that the captured females recognize their authority.

Lions have such understanding, and act correspondingly.

Although, Darwinist and Neo-Darwinists alike, use lots of science to force-feed their gooses, their theories are nothing more than workable absurdities that produce seemingly very appealing explanations to a multitude of first order observational facts.

A-WIF-Pic. 4

If tomorrow, somewhere in the deep forest of Congo, an unknown human-like species was discovered where males have their penis on their forehead – let’s call them ‘the dickheads’ – then evolutionary charlatans, be they academic or not, could easily explain, with institutionalized scientific claptrap and without upsetting our secular humanist community, why the dickheads, in terms of benefice for sexual reproduction and energy preservation (assuming that their testicles don’t hang in front of their eyes), evolved as such.