Chris Matthews and Torquemada:
The Modern Day Inquisitor at CNN,
Hunting Down the Heretics Who
Don't Believe in Evolution
James M. Foard
Evolutionism(1), or rather belief in the theory of evolution, is the very linchpin of all liberal ideology; it is the foundation stone upon which the whole house of cards is built upon, whether it be gay marriage, banning the Bible and prayer in schools and city council meetings, mandatory sex education for children barely older than infants, atheists forcing towns to remove manger scenes and copies of the Ten Commandments, removing crosses from veterans cemeteries, abortion - you name it, remove the linchpin of evolution and the wheel comes off the cart and the whole liberal wagon careens down into a ditch.
The battle is not, mind you, between science and religion, as the liberals see it, (if you mean evolution as science and religion as a bunch of primitive fables to explain our existence), because evolution is not synonymous with science or the scientific method at all, and religion, at least the Judeo-Christian religion, has done more for the advancement of science and learning than nearly any other belief system. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, William and Mary, Dartmouth all started out as religious schools to train men for the ministry. Notre Dame, Georgetown, San Francisco State, Santa Clara University and others too numerous to mention were started and sponsored by the Catholic Church, Baylor University was begun by Baptists and there are dozens of top ranked Baptist colleges around the nation. Religion antithetical to science? Pshaw! Pshaw and balderdash!
And yet this slander has been slung about like a mad chef slinging hash at fleeing diners for decades, with the liberals being the chef and the fleeing diners the confused, hapless bumbling conservatives who are totally unprepared to defend their position.
You see, just as evolutionism is the basis for the liberals' false ideology, so the only basis for a conservative viewpoint based on morals and truth has to come from something too, and that source is the Bible. And conservatives have got to be prepared to defend that truth, and show that Biblical truth is not antithetical to reason, logic and true science. The battle, you see, is not between science and religion, as the liberals like to frame it, but it is between Darwin and Moses; it is between the great Lawgiver and a spoiled English aristocrat in the nineteenth century who took credit for a rather old idea that had been around since the ancient Greeks, and used that idea to launch the greatest assault against Revelation since the serpent spoke those fatal words, "Yea, hath God said?"
So how do you fight this battle? Through information, through informing yourself and informing others. Through getting the truth out and cutting through the cobwebs of disinformation that the liberals repeat like eastern mantras every time the subject is brought up;
through refuting the BIGGEST LIE that has been spread about like tarpaper for over a century: Evolution is a fact and has been proven by science.
This is false and has been shown to be false not only in my own free online book, but by numerous online sources, so that any conservative worth his salt should be ready and able to answer and defend his position and to route these phony, posturing pseudo-intellectual zealots of modern Darwinist dogma and expose them for the shallow "know nothings" that they really are.
This is why it was so disconcerting to see MSNBC's own hired thug and bullyboy Chris Matthews rough up Ron Christie on this very crucial issue of our origins. Now, I definitely don't agree with Matthews on his position, but he positively trounced Christie because Christie didn't have anything to say except repeat a lame apologetic "I believe that God is our Creator and we all (sic) from the good Lord" which he repeated several times in an anemic response to Matthews badgering. It was sad to watch, Matthews had him against the ropes and was pummeling him while he was mouthing platitudes, appearing just like what liberals always try to paint us as: Ignorant, Bible thumping hicks who don't believe in "science", i.e. evolution.
What in the world are men like Christie thinking when they go on these television shows before the entire nation and are totally unprepared, at a loss for words, fumbling for an answer while Matthews relishes the moment, watching them squirm under his barrage of insults and lies. Did Christie think that Matthews was going to exchange pleasantries, ask him about the weather or fishing? Did he think Matthews was going to offer him some cookies and ask him about his mother?
The Bible says be ready at all times to give an answer to defend your faith. It also says by wise counsel a man conducts a successful campaign. When men like Matthews dangle these questions out there like lures to hook men on, Christians need to be ready to give a word in due season.
How would we go about this? For one thing. let us examine the context of Matthews' question, for this is the pit in the jungle path covered by brush that unwary conservatives nearly always fall into. This is Torquemada's question, "Do you adhere to the belief in evolution, and have you renounced the false creed of creationism?"
Matthews laid the trap well, this is how it went:
Matthews: How are you standing on evolution these days?
Christie: I'm feeling pretty good in evolution.
Matthews: Do you believe in it?
Christie: God it (sic) our creator and I think that we all fall from the good Lord.
Matthews: So you don't believe in evolution?
Christie: I believe that God is our Creator and we all (sic) from the good Lord.
Matthews: What is with the troglodyte? The Luddites? What is the party that used to believe in things?
Christie: Troglodytes? It's true. One of the things you're missing here is faith. You're missing faith in this country.
Matthews: Excuse me, I don't want to just plum the depths the position the party is taking that is so far right these days. Let's go back to life on this planet here.
Christie looked for all the world like poor, timid doomed Renfield, deep in the recesses of Dracula's castle, just having cut his finger while drawing up the documents for Carfax Abbey, unaware that the fiend across the room is planning on having him for dinner (literally) later that night.
So, how would I have answered that question?
First of all, notice how Matthews phrased his question on evolution: "Do you believe in it?"
He asked Christie if he believed in evolution. Belief implies faith. He didn't ask him if he knew evolution was true or false, he didn't ask for facts nor did he provide any. The question itself, by the way it was phrased was not even a scientific question. You see, when you have a scientific equation, such as a/b - (x+y)=z, and you put values in the left side of the equation to calculate the value of "z", you don't arrive at the answer through faith. The definition of a scientific theorem is 1: A proposition deductible from basic postulates; 2: An idea accepted as a demonstrable truth.
Matthews showed no proof for evolution, nor did he ask for any. His question was all about faith in the theory of evolution, it was a philosophical question, not a scientific one. I don't believe 2x5=10, I know 2x5=10. It can be easily proven. It can be plugged into larger mathematical equations and chemical formulas and it will work, it produces repeatable results. Evolution does not produce repeatable results, it is an unproven theory, and a pretty bad one at that.
So Matthews, the inquisitor, was judge, jury, and executioner (character assassination, Christie was a Troglodyte for doubting the sacred word of Darwin) over this unfortunate "heretic".
So the next time someone asks you if you believe in evolution, understand and point out that they are talking about faith, not science; and most of all be prepared, bone up on the subject; bring some notes along if your going to be at a public forum; program your iPad or bring along a notepad or index cards with quotes, preferably from evolutionists where they get tangled up and hang themselves with their own words; testimony from a hostile witness, albeit given grudgingly, is considered the best evidence in a court of law; they gain nothing when pressed to "spill the beans".
A few quotes like this will do:
Where did Darwin derive his evidence for this grand theory from? Not from any presently existing species: "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains which are preserved, as we shall attempt to show in a future chapter, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record." (Darwin, Origin, Chapter Six: Absence or Rarity of Transitional Varieties.)
Darwin clearly stated that the best evidence for his theory came from fossil remains, and yet, Darwin wrote right after this, "It should not be forgotten, that at the present day, with perfect specimens for examination, two forms can seldom be connected by intermediate varieties, and thus proved to be the same species, until many specimens are collected from many places; and with fossil species this can rarely be done . . . What geologic research has not revealed, is the former existence of infinitely numerous gradations, as fine as existing varieties, connecting together nearly all existing and extinct species . . . this has been repeatedly advanced as a most serious objection against my views." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter Ten: On the Absence of intermediate varieties at the present day; On the nature of extinct intermediate varieties;Great Books of the Western World, Volume 49, Darwin, Published by William Benton under the auspices of the University of Chicago and Encyclopedia Britannica, Mortimer Adler associate Editor, Chicago, London, Toronto, 1952
Darwin further stated, "The abrupt manner in which whole groups suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists-for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgewick (three of the greatest palaeontologists of the last century)-as a fatal objection to my theory. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to my theory." (ibid) pp. 162, Benton Pub., 1952 Edition of the Origin.
What has happened since then to bolster up the best hope for evolution?
Australian scientist and medical doctor Michael Denton wrote:
"Since Darwin's time the search for missing links in the fossil record has continued on an ever-increasing scale. So vast has been the expansion of paleontological activity over the past one hundred years that probably 99.9% of all paleontological work has been carried out since 1860."
Denton further wrote:
"Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record."
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 160-162.
Thus the sudden abrupt appearances of entire classes of organisms appearing in all levels of the fossil record since Darwin's time has remained the most serious objection to his theory, something Darwin said should be fatal to his ideas. Denton went on to say:
"An enormous effort has been made over the past century to find missing links in these rocks which might bridge the deep divisions in the animal kingdom. Yet no links have ever been found and the relationships of the major groups are as enigmatic today as one hundred years ago . . . As we have seen, newly discovered hitherto unknown groups, whether living or fossilized, invariably prove to be distinct and isolated and can in no way be construed as connecting links in the sense required by evolution theory."
Just how important are fossils to evolutionary theory since Darwin's time? Are they still vital to the survival of his theory today?
Nicholas Hotton lll, curator of fossil amphibians and reptiles at the Smithsonian Museum, has stated: "In consequence, most living species do not in themselves show recognizable evolutionary change. . . All the evidence we have of the history of organic evolution is provided by the fossil record." Nicholas Hotton lll, The Evidence of Evolution, American Heritage Publishing Co., Smithsonian Institution, pp. 42, 45.
Carl O. Dunbar, Professor Emeritus of Paleontology and Stratigraphy from Yale University, said: "Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."Carl O. Dunbar, Historic Geology, John Wiley and Sons, 1960, pp. 47.
So have any of these fossils that are so necessary to Darwin's theory turned up? Here are some more quotes from present day evolutionists, taken in context, in other words these references express the honest opinions of these men:
"One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong." Eldredge & Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p45-46
"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence." N.D. Newell, Why Scientists believe in Evolution, 1984, p 10, American Geological Institute pamphlet
"Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. _ In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the transitional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny" P.L. Forey, Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stories, 1982, p 120-121
Indeed, what was the major dilemma in Darwin's day continues to be the major closet secret among evolutionists today: The sudden, abrupt appearance of every major phylum in the Cambrian period and the abrupt appearance of all other forms of life as well, lending evidence that life did not evolve, but was created: And speaking of hostile witnesses, even this guy was forced to admit, when it comes to fossils, the fish bone ain't connected to the salamander bone, and the bird bone ain't connected to the lizard bone:
"the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution [assuming, of course, that evolution did happen], the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists" Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p 229
"One of the most difficult problems in evolutionary paleontology has been the almost abrupt appearance of the major animal groups" A. G. Fisher, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1998, fossil section
Steven Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard, wrote in Natural History, Vol LXXXVI (6), June-July, 1977, "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." Steven Jay Gould, The Return of Hopeful Monsters, Natural History, Volume LXXXVI (6), June-July, 1977, pp.24.
Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, Dr. Colin Patterson, wrote a personal letter to Luther Sunderland, the late aerospace engineer and author of the excellent book, Darwin's Enigma, dated April 10, 1979, in which he said, ". . . I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them." Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 89, Master Books, Santee California, 1988, From a quote of a letter written by Dr. Patterson to Luther Sunderland dated April 10, 1979
Thus we see, by Darwin's own defintion, the stake being driven through the very heart of evolution.
What about all of those "ape-men" we keep hearing about? Frauds. Go see Ape to Man: The Ultimate Myth, The "Ape-men" Fallacy, Apes, Men, Frauds, and Mistakes. See also The Darwin Papers Chapter 9 Part 1 and Part 2. and this excellent cornucopia of articles on human evolution. What about humans and chimps being "98%" identical? Just another evolutionist fraud. And little unborn babies with fish "gill slits"? One of the greatest frauds to ever masquerade as science, even staying in textbooks a century after it was thoroughly disproven!. Something fishy going on.
One thing about Matthews; like most playground bullies, he's probably a coward and a mama's boy under all that bluster, he'll never have a qualified creationist scientist on and give him equal time; he'll try and shout him down; show him the facts, he'll try ridicule, but he won't really be able to mount a truly intelligent response.
As far as that old canard that "all scientists" believe in evolution, here's a list of quite a few who don't.
And here's a list of over 700 eminent scientists who signed "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". Four of these scientists give their evaluations of evolution. Here is a list of biographies of famous scientists who were men of Christian faith in history and The Early Christian Roots of Modern Science, (thanks to David F. Coppedge c. 2000 David F. Coppedge, Master Plan Productions)
"Earth calling Chris Matthews: We have found no evidence that evolution ever took place on this or on any other planet." Creationists are Troglodytes? If Chris Matthews were ever in a Spelling Bee with Fred Flintstone and I were a gambling man, I'd put my money on the man from Bedrock.
So remember, when evolutionists accuse you of having blind faith, realize that they are believing in blind faith, while true science is on your side.
1Note: I use the term evolutionism because like communism and fascism, it is a creed, an ideology, a world view, based on the concept of evolution.
© 2012 James M. Foard
Contact me @ 541-324-4600; or @ firstname.lastname@example.org if you wish to reprint this article.