Pol Pot's ghost celebrates Darwinism.

My friend Madame Tea-Leaves claims that a spirit materialized at her last seance, with many resounding spirit-raps, and chilling moans. It identified itself as Pol Pot, here to honor the influence of Darwin in providing materialistic philosophies with a creation-story: a Darwinist fantasy that is claimed as "science," and which says that a mindless, mechanical, materialistic process of competitive struggle and slaughter gave rise to all living things.

So Karl Marx sent a copy of his book Das Kapital to Darwin, inscribed from a "sincere admirer." With materialistic Marxism rendered sufficiently plausible by Darwin's so-called "science," Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were able to establish their dictatorships and to slaughter people by the tens and hundreds of millions.


Old Darwin claimed that blind strife
Had somehow created all life.
I'll honor his creed,
For with it, no need
For intelligence: carnage is rife,

So I'll rip up the system, and kill
Its defenders. Destroy them. I will.
Old Darwin's the way
To our Marxism. Say,
How much blood his dogma will spill,

For if humans are merely machines
Created by death, why, that means
We can "break a few eggs"
When our purpose thus begs
For slaughter. It's all in our genes.

(Marx's "sincere admirer" homage to Darwin is described in the 1991 biography DARWIN, by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, p.601. Darwin peered at the Das Kapital tome and somehow thought Marx's so-called "scientific" book to be "a great work," although he couldn't read German well. Desmond and Moore are both so old-fashioned as to still be believers in Darwinism, but their biography takes a realistic approach and doesn't uncritically swoon over old Charlie. Although Stalin favored the somewhat unorthodox "Creative Darwinism" of Russian biologist T.D. Lysenko, after Stalin lost favor orthodox Western-style Darwinism was taught in all public schools in the Soviet Union, beginning in about 1967. The 1970 edition of the official Great Soviet Encyclopedia, translated into English in 1975, hailed Darwin and what it naturally called "Darwinism" [the conventional theory of evolution has been customarily referred to as "Darwinism" for many decades.] The encyclopedia considered orthodox, Western-style Darwinism to be the one true materialistic and "scientific" account of the origin of species, and to be a vital part of communist ideology.)

Darwinists eye women's tits.

Darwinists are eager to get a grip on the large and curvy breasts of women, which blossom lusciously in defiance of their expectations, since female apes are flat-chested.

So those scientists who are still backward enough to be fans of Darwinism have proposed that big breasts evolved when humans began to walk erect. They then supposedly began to prefer to engage in sex face-to-face, rather than doggie-style, as apes do.

Thus males who had long been turned on by the sight of a butt, often became horny instead at the sight of curvaceous tits: a frontal pair of which, at least in the feverish imaginations of some Darwinist biologists, resembles a butt. So runs this Darwinist tale of running after tail.

See my link "Can Darwinists explain why women have big tits??" In which a Darwinist-believing biologist fantasizes about this "great theory" that "ass-men" evolved into "tit-men."

Darwin-fans speculate that women with larger breats had their choice of the best male partners. Thus natural selection took hold of their tits and made them bigger and bigger: the Theory of the Expanding Titties!

Thus do believing Darwinists strive to grapple with women's breasts.

But unfortunately for this piece of typically wild Darwinist fantasy, the asses of female apes do not resemble a pair of boobs. There are many parts of the world in which face-to-face sexual intercourse hasn't been very popular. There are also regions in which men have preferred smaller breats. And worse, if the Darwinist "Big Boobs Theory" were correct, men would have an inborn preference for large breasts in their sexual partners. So gay men would chase those men who have some hints of soft and curvy tits (some men do have them.)

But there's no sign of that. Glance at any gay male magazine and it becomes clear that hard, flat, muscular chests are greatly preferred in that set. Not a hint of soft, curvaceous breasts anywhere.

So the Darwinist Big Boobs Theory falls flatter than pendulous tits in a broken bra when faced with the facts.

Like Darwinist theory in general, it belongs to the realm of woolly, speculative daydreams: not to the sphere of genuinely scientific realities which have been demonstrated by experiments.

Then why do men often (not always) like women to have rather large breasts? Think for yourselves for a minute, all ye who cry for True Faith in Darwinism, and it won't be hard to see why.

Larger breasts are one of the prominent secondary sexual characteristics which distinguish men from women. So straight men, who lust after women, associate bigger breasts with a desired partner: and thus with satisfying sexual action. Thus it's no mystery at all why straight men are often sexually excited by the sight of large boobs.

And why, then, do women have large breasts in the first place?

The only genuinely scientific answer is, "Science doesn't know the answer. So your guess is as good as mine, dude. Or gal. Don't be a BIG DARWINIST BOOB."

Inaccurate Darwinist claims about ID

Darwinists misrepresent intelligent design theory, by falsely claiming that it necessarily requires a supernatural intelligence, or is necessarily creationism, or is incompatible with descent of new species from older ones over many millions of years. In fact, intelligent design theory in biology simply provides evidence that some intelligence or intelligences participated in the origin of all species by designing at least some of their features. The nature of the intelligence(s) involved can't be determined by intelligent design theory. Scientists who work on intelligent design theory often have their own personal opinions about what the intelligence may be, but such opinions are of a personal nature and are not required by the theory itself. And quite a few intelligent design scientists are not creationists, but believe that design of some or many features of life took place during a long process of evolutionary descent. There is no way to determine, scientifically, whether the intelligence arose naturally or is supernatural: so both views are possible. The fact that intelligent design theory is compatible with evolutionary descent, but also compatible with creationism, troubles some dogmatists who are rigidly attached to old doctrines, and evidently causes them to attempt to misrepresent ID theory as necessarily creationism.