All the King’s Horses…

By Charlie Johnston

When I was in my mid-teens I developed a tactic I have used to great political effect throughout my life. Ironically, I suppose, I called it, “playing the prophet,” (though it has nothing to do with any sort of mysticism. Maybe a little inside joke with myself. I do tend to sprinkle my conversation and internal thoughts with all sorts of wry little puns and references that amuse me, but are obscure to anyone else.)

Briefly described, if I have analyzed an issue so thoroughly that I have a greater than 90 percent certainty that it will happen and have carefully considered what effects it will bring, I say it boldly, publicly and firmly, but without malice – particularly if it is diametrically contrary to conventional wisdom on the subject. If the matter is controversial, it is guaranteed to bring a boatload of public opprobrium down on you for a while, sometimes a long while. Everybody loves to propound on how stupid, crazy, and delusional you are. If you can’t bear that kind of public ridicule for a good year, sometimes three or more, you should not try it. But then when it happens largely as you forecast, many people come flooding to your banner. Some loud opponents will annoyingly claim to have been with you all along once the worm turns. When they do, smile and thank them for their fidelity. You are not trying to prove a point, but to win activists and advocates. But be very slow to trust them with leadership, as they are usually unreliable opportunists. Others will actually apologize and make common cause with you. Thank them heartily and welcome them – and consider them for key leadership spots. Even your most bitter, committed opponents will be subdued – and most will be a lot more cautious about publicly ridiculing you after doing so forcefully comes back to bite them. Of course a few, like Wile E. Coyote, never learn and keep beclowning themselves. No problem; it is an object lesson for others who have more attitude than wisdom.

A few pointers if you ever want to try this tactic:

It has to be something that is dramatically contrary to conventional wisdom. If you go and boldly proclaim that water is actually wet, you will impress no one in either the short or the long term and will only convince people that you are an inane idiot who has a firm grasp of the obvious.


You have to do it matter-of-factly and with equanimity. If you do so, it makes it easier for even people who have delighted in tormenting you to later rally to your cause. That doesn’t mean you can’t defend yourself, but exercise restraint and a willingness to accept whatever consequences may come. You want to convey, without saying so, that you will welcome all who would join you, rather than tell them, “I told you so.”


You must be brutally demanding in your research and vetting. Most people are tripped up because they are reflexively accepting of whatever they already want to believe and reflexively skeptical of whatever they don’t. This is just a formula for being perceived as a loudmouth crank. Facts, evidence, and rigorous logic are king here. If you aren’t willing to brutally attack and challenge your own premises, never try this. Once you are so thoroughly intimate with a case that you can state the conventional view more persuasively than your opponents can, you may be ready to proceed, provided you don’t fall so in love with your own unconventional critique that you allow yourself to be blinded to facts and evidence that contradict it.


When you are wrong, as you occasionally will be (90 percent certainty is not 100 percent certainty) own it fully, with no bitterness or excuses. Here’s a secret: most people will forgive you for occasionally being wrong; some men will NEVER forgive you for being right. People are generally just. They notice when you get big things that no one else saw coming right 90 percent of the time – particularly in a crazy time when the so-called elite get things that everyone saw coming wrong 90 percent of the time.


When I was in radio in Chicago, I was having lunch one day with the Majority Leader of the Illinois House when he told me that they carried tapes of some of my more provocative commentaries to the Capitol and a lot of legislators liked to listen. Puzzled, I asked him why. He replied, “You are an excellent analyst and prognosticator, Charlie, but when it is about normal things you are still within the normal spectrum. But when you say something so wild and absurd that no one else ever thought of it, you can take it to the bank – and a lot of us like to get that early warning.” Once I launched a powerful gambit for a candidate in a 63 percent Dem district that I knew would turn very quickly, but would get us a firestorm in the short term. Firestorm ignited. About a week into it the candidate told me he would not get through this if he did not have such confidence in me. The worm turned and my candidate became a champion. I was a little clumsy that time, though. The worm turned so decisively that the smartest reporter in the state suspected I had sandbagged them all. Only time a reporter ever sniffed out one of my gambits.


I say all this to tell you there is a major subject you can safely play the prophet with your friends. Though the education community, the media, and much of the governmental scientific community has not caught on yet (or are in frantic denial over) there has been an absolute revolution in the last decade over evolution. Top scientists in almost all fields now realize (many quite reluctantly) that not only is macroevolution a failed theory, it cannot possibly be true in the way it is being peddled. This is particularly delicious because all those smug ignoramuses who like to play smart on the cheap (without doing any serious actual study) like to sniff at people who question it as rubes. I’m telling you, neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is in the same position that geocentricism was when Galileo was condemned for contradicting it: everyone in public authority believes it with religious fervor and they are all wrong – and will be publicly known to be so within a generation.


Even Darwin had some concern with the challenge that the Cambrian Explosion presented to his theory when he composed it, but hoped that lower strata of the fossil record would eventually clear up the mess. Understand that Darwin was, indeed, a giant whose brilliance added dramatically to our understanding of the world. His theory of adaptation has not been a theory for a long time: it is a fact, proven by experimental evidence. Adaptation means that, within a species, over time, traits that are advantageous become common. Thus, in chilly northern climes, animals with thick coats have a competitive advantage which will lead, over time, to most animals in those climes having thick coats. All of this happens within the same species using DNA that is already there. Some evolutionary biologists started using the term, “microevolution” to describe what is fundamentally a from of adaptation. Why? Probably to rhetorically prop up the failed theory of macroevolution.


Darwin’s theory of macroevolution posited that over geological eons, random mutations became inheritable and that this was the origin of completely different types of species from species to which they were unrelated. This would, necessarily, entail a very slow, very stately continuous process. The Cambrian fossil record challenged that theory because, during that period, complex animals first made their appearance in abundance and seemingly out of nowhere. There was no fossil record of any transitional species. They all just appeared. What advances in geologic strata in subsequent decades showed was that in following eras, many species died off entirely while new species would arise out of nowhere. One could posit that minor mutations could be genetically transferrable, but major mutations just made the affected animal sterile or killed it early. You have probably heard tales, in your lifetime, of the “missing link.” The dirty little secret is that there are none. Even if one could find a mutated animal that one could, with some violence, posit as such a link, for it to be father of a whole new type of species, there would have to be a multitude of them – and that has never happened. Darwin’s macroevolutionary theory is dependent on a stately continuity, but the fossil record shows constant and abrupt discontinuity.


Again, this is something that troubled Darwin even in his time – and he candidly acknowledged the problem, even if he was confident that further geologic research would clear it up. It has not – only made it murkier.


But now, microbiology and, ironically, the genetic coding in DNA have done more than made Darwin’s macroevolutionary theory unlikely: they have utterly refuted it.


I won’t bore you with much more detail. The great genius who has led the charge on this is Stephen C. Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University. Panicked opponents call him a pseudo-scientist (amusing to hear dull-witted media mavens calling a Cambridge Ph.D. a “pseudo-scientist.” It really stinks to be condescended to by your inferiors), but over the last decade a trickle of interdisciplinary scientists started dealing with his data and evidence instead of just sneering at him – and that trickle is on the threshold of becoming a flood of prominent biologists, geneticists, paleontologists and more. To get a taste of his work (which is accessible to laymen as well as detailed for scientists), just pick up one of his books, “Darwin’s Doubt.”


The dwindling number of opponents in serious quarters continue to sneer at, rather than engage with, him. Why? Well, far lesser scientists than Darwin jumped on the macroevolutionary theory with gusto – largely because they think it militates against the existence of God. The truly shocking thing about the evidence Meyer has marshalled is that it points to the most likely and plausible method of creation of new species as being intelligent design. The genetic coding in DNA sequences is roughly analogous to the computer languages used in developing new software programs. Whenever a new species arrives, its genetic coding is filled with new information that preciously did not exist in nature at all.


The Bible’s story of creation works as a metaphor for what the actual evidence shows. Macroevolutionary theory does not work as either science or metaphor – and that is what has the dummies who think themselves the “smart set” so riled against him. But with the growing flood of prominent scientists acknowledging reality, the dikes of smug ignorance won’t hold for another generation.


Why is this important to me? I think it no coincidence that at this perilous time in history, actual science, evidence and reason have conspired to point to the existence of God, rather than to the godless universe so cherished by the smart set. God always gives hints to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.  


It may well be that secularist atheists eventually raise another plausible theory to explain the evidence, but what is certain is that Darwinian macroevolutionary theory is already a dead man walking. And you can play the prophet on this one, for in a generation all the smart set, like officials in Galileo’s time, will know that they were wrong and the dissident was right.



My next talk will be on Thursday, July 21, at the Harvest Room, 1465 Tharp Rd., Yuba City, CA 95993. It is just about 40 miles north of Sacramento – and one of my favorite spots in California. Doors will open at 5 pm and the talk will begin at 5:30. We had a great talk in Redwood City, just south of San Francisco, last week (all the atmosphere without all the crime). Alas, I forgot to get any pictures – as I frequently do when doing a talk. I will try to remember this Thursday. But y’all come!

If communication goes out for any length of time, meet outside your local Church at 9 a.m. on Saturday mornings. Tell friends at Church now in case you can’t then. CORAC teams will be out looking for people to gather in and work with.

Find me on Gab at Charliej373 or at the CORAC group.

Find me on Twitter at @Charlie62394802

Donate to CORAC!

Join the Conversation!

The Corps of Renewal and Charity (CORAC)

18208 Preston Rd., Ste. D9-552

Dallas, Texas 75252

62 thoughts on “All the King’s Horses…

  1. Charie, Re, ” I do tend to sprinkle my conversation and internal thoughts with all sorts of wry little puns and references that amuse me, but are obscure to anyone else. ” My wife for the past 45 years of our 46 together has regularly denigrated my similar pattern of behavior.

    Re Darwinism–bunkum. There came a point a while back, circa the 1990s, when paleontologists became so concerned about finding new, or greatly different species’ variations without evolutionary evidence of progression, that a variation of Darwinism was proposed, Punctuated Equilibrium, which merely described the unexplained findings by calling it a theory (see for example ( ) ). Regarding intelligent design, with the opposite being randomly archived design appearance, just look at the complex structure of the “simple” cell, and read a bit about its exquisitely complex chemical segments
    ( ). There can be no rational debate about random design being possibly true.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. I never thought we would see Roe overturned, and I never thought we would see the “scientific opinion” support of Darwinian macroevolution overturned because such a vast number of scientists refuse to admit fault.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Doesn’t the flawed science of macroevolution and it’s immediate embrace by so many “scientists” remind you of the flawed science of climate change, conclusions of limited treatments for Covid? Thank the Lord for those doctors and multi decreed scientists who put their reputations and careers on the chopping block for truth. A family member once said to me “science (reason) not religion (faith)”as if huge are errors and huge $$$$$ isn’t involved.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. What are we to make of Australopithecus, or Cro-Magnon Man, or Neanderthals, etc. Are they a series of evolutionary man needed to get to Homo Sapiens? I always wondered about them.
    It is fascinating, so there are no transitional figures but quick appearances and disappearances. But aren’t mutations a kind of transitional figure?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. No, Kate. Minor mutations can sometimes be passed on genetically, but major mutations cause sterility or death…there is no genetic bequeathal of those traits. Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals are a part of the species of man. No apes, monkeys, or ospreys in their DNA. All the DNA needed for homo sapiens was already present – and through adaptation (or the deceptively named micro-evolution) those genetic codes that best fitted man for survival and expansion came to predominate. Again, intra-species development but no inter-species development.

      Liked by 11 people

  4. The Kolbe Center and Restoring Truth Ministries has great resources on the failure of Darwin and the truth of God’s Creative force. At first, I was skeptical. Then I asked myself, what does it matter? It MATTERs. You did not accidently come from an ape. You came from God who deliberately acting in time and space, created Man…created you.

    Liked by 10 people

  5. As a molecular evolutionary biologist, my friend Dr Robin Lawson reordered many species within the animal Kingdom through his DNA research. As one of the first geneticist in his field he was brought in on all kinds of studies and co-authored many papers- eventually becoming the go-to-guy for reviewing such research. Interestingly on our many trips to distant lands he and I discussed this very subject Charlie brings up and how DNA was changing the landscape of Evolutionary thought.
    One of his colleagues wrote a daunting paper on how the world was not as old as we thought based on several of his observations based on DNA. The study is to extensive to write about here but he showed how the DNA of many plant and animal species was nearly identical on diffent continents and if the world was as old as science believes it is the molecular drift of these species on the different continents would no longer be the same. As Charlie pointed out, the
    stresses placed on species over millions of years would have create new species on these very different continents but according to this study, this did not occure. We even see this stress effect in relatively young populations. In Darwin’s study on the Finch of the Galapagos Islands he claimed the birds bills mutated over time to accommodate for the different types of food they ate. But a later study showed that in a matter of only a few years when the seed or insect populations ebbed or grew abundant the birds bill changed to accommodate this.
    Apparently the actual act of eating more seeds or bugs caused the bills to grow differently and was not a random event! We see this same thing in salamander larva who develope jaw structures depending on what they eat- large fang filled jaws if they start out eating tadpoles or small sucker mouths if they eat Daphnia. This is a developmental adaptation causing a morphing in a living organism and not occurring as a consequence of a random mutation of the species offspring accidently creating a better suited form which then replaces the original form.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. Reordering species based on the dna? That’s a fascinating concept. Has he written anything about this that non-scientists like myself could handle? For the record, I really enjoyed Darwin’s Doubt and recommend it too.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. He has also written, Signature in the Cell, and, Return of the God Hypothesis. It is not, however, reordering based on the DNA exactly. All living organisms have DNA – it is their fundamental coding mechanism. The issue is that when new species arise suddenly, the coding in much of their DNA is entirely new. In short, it is like a Divine Programmer wrote some entirely new code.

        Liked by 6 people

        1. I apologize Charlie, I should have been a little clearer. I’m curious if the OPs friend might have written anything about reordering based on the dna? I can’t imagine that things would be too shaken up but this is really an intriguing idea to me. It should be exciting to honest scientists too. If macro evolution is wrong then we’ve gained clearer perspective on the world.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. No problem. I honestly don’t know enough on the technical end to know about that, but I have never read anything serious about it. It’s kind of both an intriguing – and a scary – idea. If DNA sequences were easily reordered I would think it more likely to be the source of fearful mutations rather than different species. But again, that is something I am ignorant of.

            Liked by 2 people

        2. On the cellular level, I found the concept of “irreducible complexity” to be utterly fascinating. Quite literally there are tiny machines running around our cells performing all sorts of vital tasks. Any one part of these machines that didn’t develop at the same time results in just a useless pile of junk. Incredible stuff.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. One of the microbiological keys that disproved it – and Darwin even suggested that such a thing could disprove him. While Darwin was passionate about his work, he was honest about it and acknowledged potential problems.

            Liked by 4 people

    2. ER,
      The “reordering” I am referring to was on the specific (species) level but other work not readily known but common in the herpetofauna industry is how some snakes of different genus
      (Lamropeltis, Pantherophis and Pituophis) can be bred to one another and produce viable young with equal morphological (physical characteristics) compliments of both animals.
      Studying the phylogeny of many snake genus, Dr Lawson observed that the genetic drift occured first from east to west and then south to north creating parallel claides along the US with some insular forms occuring in isolated pockets such as Florida which was once separated from the continent by water.
      His studies suggest that these different snakes evolved from just a few and this hypothesis shows a rather *recent* divergence given that the three genera can produce viable young (and not the deadly mix Charlie understands happens in non-related genes) even from genera located on the east and west coast’s of the US.


      1. Thank you Phillip! I confess that I had to google some of that but that’s what I was looking for. God bless!


  6. And on a side note, Jesus explains to Luisa how evil began in man:
    …” Now, as I was before blessed Jesus, I could see many people, and the evil of the present generation. My adorable Jesus looked at them with compassion, and turning to me, told me: “My daughter, do you want to know where the evil of man began? The beginning of it is that as soon as he knows himself – that is, as soon as he begins to acquire reason – man says to himself: ‘I am something.’ And believing themselves to be something, they move away from Me, they do not trust Me, who am the All, and they draw all their confidence and strength from themselves. From this it happens that they even lose every good beginning, and by losing the good beginning, what will the end be? Imagine, yourself, my daughter. Moreover, by moving away from Me, who contain every good, what good can man hope for, since he is a sea of evil? Without Me everything is corruption, misery, and without a shadow of true good. This is the present society.”
    Volume 4 July 16, 1901

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Thank you for quoting this scripture. I find that it makes my own theorizing about the nature of Man plausible. In studying the Near Death Experience/Out of Body Reports, I found three reports in which the individual was having an OBE with no control of their body, but their body continued to act with primitive intelligence as if it owned a form of consciousness separate from its soul. Thus, there appeared to be direct evidence for our mortal body owning two distinct and different sources of motivation, one driven by the mortal need to avoid physical injury and death, to seek pleasure and procreate, and the other possessed of our soul with its moral conscience gifted us by God. Here is a copy of the abstract for the paper:

      Evidence of the Body Possessing a Form of Consciousness Beyond Its Soul
      Jack H. Hiller


      Freud defined three primary psychoanalytic functionalities for motivating behavior that have fallen into disuse: 1. The ID motivating instinctive behaviors, such as satisfying hunger drives and reaction to immediate threat; 2. The Super Ego pursuing moral ideals, such as self-sacrifice and honesty; and 3. The Ego for resolving conflicts between the ID and reality, and accommodating Super Ego demands. Freudian Theory is now generally regarded as detached from the current science paradigm which seeks to anchor behavioral theory in brain neurology. Whereas the ID and Ego may be mapped to identified areas of the brain, no Super Ego brain locality has been identified. This analysis proposes a solution for the missing Super Ego. The Out of Body Experiences reported from the trauma of a Near Death Experience (NDE) or meditation describe a discarnate consciousness or soul that is inherently moral as it functions in a Universal Field of Consciousness. This paper reifies the Freudian Super Ego to be equivalent to the soul and thus supports revitalization of Freudian Theory as valuable for clinical practice and personality research. ( )

      Liked by 1 person

  7. I watched a few seminars on the Hovind theory a few decades ago that got me thinking outside the accepted norm. Love how God reveals bits and pieces when we are ready.

    Liked by 5 people

  8. JESUS = GOOD NEWS! … 😉

    THEY want to do Battle!



    Liked by 2 people

  9. Well written, Charlie. I agree. On Youtube, there’s some fascinating interviews with Dr. Sy Garte who grew up in a “militantly atheist” home. During his advanced studies to become a bio-chemist, he became convinced that the generally accepted evolutionary theories were incorrect.

    I’ve also long been a supporter of the Biblical account of creation. It makes perfect sense scientifically just as it is. For those who are interested in learning more about the continually growing scientific support for the Creation account, here’s a link to a monthly magazine. It’s all free to be read online, or for a small donation, a physical copy will be mailed to your home;

    I highly recommend it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, scientific and historical anomalies long bothered me about Biblical accounts. The Genesis account of creation cannot be precisely literally correct because it is not even one account. It is two contradictory accounts woven together (In one chapter it says God made man and then created animals; in the next it says God made all the animals and then made man.) I was never willing to pretend there were no literal historical or scientific errors in the Bible. So how then, could it be inerrant? Obviously I could not deny Christ: He would have probably given me the old Gibbs slap on the back of the head. Then I read St. Augustine’s Confessions – and it all snapped into sense for me. Writing in the mid-400s, Augustine chided those who abused Scripture as “mere” history or mere science. It is, he said, the word of God written to draw you to salvation.

      A firework exploded in my head. Jesus IS God. Knowing a lot about the personality of the Son, we may also know more about the personality of the Father. Jesus spoke sometimes literally and sometimes in parables – but everything He spoke was designed to draw us to Him and salvation. I looked again at the first two chapters of Genesis. The fundamental message was that God created all things and all things created by God were good. He created man in His own image; in the Divine Image He created them; male and female He created them. I began going through the Scriptures and putting all contradictions that had troubled me to this test. I was overjoyed, for now I had found the filter that connected them all (and I checked and double-checked.)

      I have never been willing to buy a scientific assertion just because the cool kids say so. I should have been born in Missouri because you have to show me. But neither will I play “Let’s pretend” to buy all literal assertions people make about the Bible in order to seem pious. I insist that truth will stand the test of examination and I apply that examination to all things in question.

      If you mean various geologic ages could likely be the “days” spoken of in Genesis, I completely agree. It works metaphorically IF you dismiss the contradictions inherent in two interwoven stories. I have no time for those who suggest the earth is only some 5,000 or 6,000 years old – trying to make up in breathless enthusiasm what they lack (or make up) in facts, evidence and logic. I do believe the universe is significantly younger than what scientists think – but I believe this because my angel, when he showed me creation and took me on a tour of the universe, told me with gleeful pride that our scientists got it almost right with the Big Bang Theory – but that it happened a lot faster than they think…hundreds of millions of years rather than billions. He is always magnificently delighted when we little fellows get something close to right.

      Liked by 8 people

      1. Charlie, excellent paper! TY.

        I will add two thoughts. I like reading about math and learned years ago when academic mathematicians gather (specially large number theory types) they often have a panel on the math of evolution. They all laugh and wink because the roughly 14 billion years of earth are ot nearly enough time to “evolve” a simple flat worm if indeed the process of evolution didnt kill its most creative prodigy (as you point out).

        Also a great book by Dr Schroeder posits an explanation of the first part of Genesis (creation story) with what is known scientifically in astro and quantum physics and micro biology. It is a fasinating theory that with each passing decade seems more and more correct. To my thinking it seems correct- given my sophomoric grasp of the science and theology. 🤔

        A link to his book is here ( I grabbed the first listed in the search-I am not recommending the Christian book company – lol)

        God’s love and grace to all my family here…r

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Is there really a contradiction between Chap 1 & 2 of Genesis? Genesis 2 is simply a zoom-in of Genesis 1 – day 6, granted Genesis 2:19 poorly translated & read could lead to the assumption of a contradiction.

        The Universe is likely much older than life on earth, what was God & his angels doing for the huge amount of time before life on Earth? Probably making the universe. I do remember chatting with a Jewish scholar, and he did mention Genesis 1 did leave room for a lifeless Earth existing long before the biosphere of life was created on it, and that some information is lost in translation to English & assumptions.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. “–far lesser scientists than Darwin jumped on the macroevolutionary theory with gusto – largely because they think it militates against the existence of God. The truly shocking thing about the evidence Meyer has marshalled is that it points to the most likely and plausible method of creation of new species as being intelligent design. Why is this important to me? I think it no coincidence that at this perilous time in history, actual science, evidence and reason have conspired to point to the existence of God, rather than to the godless universe so cherished by the smart set. God always gives hints to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.  ”
        “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1Co-2:14).
        “There can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth… The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” (CCC, n. 159).
        “Doubt serves as a stimulus to the understanding for the investigation of truth. Therefore controversies of the teachers fulfill a proper and holy end. They (controversy) are also permitted in order, to make it known, that real science dwells in my Church more than in the combined study of all the holy and perfect teachers, and that she can make them wise above the wisdom of the worldly wise; that there is above them One, who is the Prompter of the wise (Wis. 7, 15), namely, Myself; who alone knows all and comprehends all; who weighs and measures, without ever being measured or comprehended (Wis. 9, 13); that men, although they may search my judgments and testimonies ever so much, cannot attain them, unless I give the intelligence and light (Job 32, 8), who am the beginning and the Author of all wisdom and science. I desire that men, in acknowledging all this, give Me praise, exaltation, confession, supremity and glory forever.”
        (God to Mary of Agreda; City of God).


      4. Wow! I have always thought scientific discovery was the entertainment the Father gifted us to keep us busy. And maybe even to His delight when we get it correct.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Well, I never knew enough about it to engage. I just knew my own beliefs and thoughts and let the more knowledgable engage.

    The more medical knowledge I attain, the more profoundly awestruck of God and his creation I am. We are too amazing to be random.

    However, I do think some men in Florida are a little closer to Australopithicus than Homo Sapien 😉

    Liked by 3 people

  11. A beautiful worship song, sung in Hebrew, Arabic and English simultaneously. Video lasts 6 minutes. It brought to my mind the countless thousands who will sit at His feet and sing His praises in unison;

    Liked by 3 people

  12. JESUS = GOOD NEWS! … 😉

    RIP Vitims!


    Liked by 2 people

  13. I’ve had some fun with these concepts over the past several decades, just trying to figure things out. I came to the conclusion that there had to be intelligent intervention, but I struggled with the apparent correctness of the adaptation part of Darwin’s theory, not realizing until Charlie’s explanation that the two parts are actually separable. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Charlie!

    Ever since learning about epigenetics a couple decades ago, I’ve laughingly poked a few people over Lamarckism. Obviously, some of that theory is garbage. However, the addition of epigenetic adjustments to life events actually enables some of Lamarckism to arise from the dead, at least for consideration. As one nasty example, if you inject a Covid vaxxx into someone, it has been known all along that the mRNA or vDNA injected does indeed get incorporated into somatic cell and could under certain conditions also get incorporated into germ cells. Now what if a baby is born with spike DNA in its DNA from one or both parents? Most likely, it will not survive to term or much after that. However, I can see the possibility that the epigenetic regulatory framework in its cells might make alterations to turn on or off *other* parts of the child’s DNA until it finds a formula where the child can survive for possibly quite some time. So the sins of the parents get visited onto the children unto several generations. With epigenetics and the possibly Lamarckian transmission of such information through generations, we have a mechanism for it that might be worth consideration.

    Another example of this are animal feeding experiments where the equivalent of modern human diets or GMO foods are fed to generations of (say) rats. With GMO food, some researchers found that the rat lineages all died out by the third generation. Other studies with human foods showed that the rats weakened over the first few generations, each generation weaker and less fertile than the previous. You might think if the third generation is fed a truly proper diet, that they would thrive, but in fact it takes several more generations of good diet for the rat lineages to return to the strength and fertility levels of the first generation. Thus, there does appear to be a mechanism to transmit life experiences from one generation to the next generation that does not require changes to the DNA, rather to the epigenetic *program* that runs the DNA. Thus, the succeeding generation gets altered by the poor diet, stress and pollution or by good food and clean air taken in by the parent generation.

    As for the world beginning 6,000 years ago, I actually think that works if you consider it as a metaphor indicating a truly significant change occurred 6,000 years ago that shifted all of us onto a new path. The folks who have studied the Evils and their death cult all seem to call it a 6,000 year old death cult. This fits the layout of events in the Bible and provides some of the background reasons why Jesus eventually appeared after a few thousand years of preparation. The Lord of the World may have arrived or to have become cyclically active again around 6,000 years ago. So perhaps it actually *is* reasonable to say our world is 6,000 years old, from that perspective.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Fascinating stuff, Steve! It is a fascinating line of study, though it requires me to take it slowly. Though I must say, shortly after the concept of DNA became reasonably clear to me, my instinct told me that this will ultimately give profound evidence for resurrection – for it means what we really are is an irrepeatable pattern. Take the pattern already established for it, form it from imperishable materials instead of perishable ones and put it beyond the satan’s mischievous reach and what you will have is our glorified body.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. I was thinking about how to describe the overall process, and a piano popped into my head.

        The piano has 88 keys, which are what you *can* play. That’s like our DNA, which has a set of instruction pieces that *can* be activated or suppressed.

        The fingers that play the piano are like the epigenetic molecules that select the specific “keys” in your DNA to activate or suppress.

        The body and mind of the player who determines which notes to play when and which together or apart could be equivalent to the physical world and the spiritual template and choices one makes for the body that affect or choose which pieces of DNA get activated when and whether together or apart, which results in what the person becomes.

        The person is the music that results from this process, not just the DNA or just the epigenetic “playing” or just the choices and external influences themselves.

        For some people who eat junk food, the music becomes discordant over time. People who change their diet to a better one that fits their needs more appropriately will find their music becoming less discordant and more melodious as they return to health. People who fall into negativity would have music less melodious than those who even in distress have positive and loving attitudes.

        Throughout these changes to what is taken in and what choices one makes, the epigenetic changes continually select what pieces of the DNA to play, according to those choices.

        As humans with this system, we have the ability to alter our DNA deliberately, as in taking in a gene therapy, or to have the pieces of DNA that are available to play expanded by viruses that insert themselves into our DNA. Of course, there are lots of other things going on at the level of the piano, as parts of the DNA get mutated or move around along the strands of DNA, and so on. We don’t have just 88 keys! The system overall is metaphorically simple, but the variations on the themes that can be played are nearly infinite.

        Liked by 4 people

        1. Excellent analogy, Steve. To play it out further into the problems encountered with macroevolutionary theory…the piano in the pre-Cambrian Period had one key. In the Cambrian period it exploded to 24 keys with nothing to explain where those keys came from. Then, with successive periods, entirely new keys kept popping up while old ones vanished. This music has had a composer all along.

          Liked by 4 people

    2. The 6000 years is a math exercise in adding ages using the genealogy in the Gospels. Are people saying the genealogy in the Gospels are fake?

      I remember reading some scientific articles that say the Earth (or at least parts of it) are older than our Sun, which makes sense, because our Sun cannot create the elements that our Earth is made of.


      1. Al2.
        Theories are based on “observable” evidence. All we can do is repeat experiments and extrapolate what happens and then apply this to known objects of a similar nature.
        Aging the sun accuratly is impossible as there is no sun on earth to “test” it against so we use a similar known process (nuclear fusion) and it’s nature to measure that which is physically immeasurable and then hypothesize it’s age by these observable rules. So to be accurate first we have to know for sure that the sun uses nuclear fusion- but we don’t!
        “Astonishingly, scientists don’t know exactly what the sun is made of. As a result, they don’t know what the other stars are made of, either.”
        If the sun was formed later than the earth which one theory suggests was a roaming planet captured by the new suns gravity field, the earth would then be older than the sun.


        1. Fascinating stuff Frank, yes the Earth could in part(s) of originated elsewhere, and there’s no reason to limit it to just one piece before reaching it’s current form.

          There’s also a recent article studying space and that it may not be so much of a empty vaccum as once believed, but actually full of sub-atomic particles which are the building blocks of matter.

          The Sun produces UV & light similar to electric arc-welding, and produces many different kinds of energy that “Climate Change experts” love to ignore in order to push their carbon tax agenda. There’s lots about the Sun we don’t understand, like the Sun’s long term cycles.


      2. Al2, pretty much everything in our solar system is older than the earth and the sun, since the sun and the earth accreted out of the mass of dust that preceded all of the structures now in the solar system. I would say virtually none of the Earth comes from the Sun. All the heavy elements come from supernovas and other powerful and large suns that blew apart, sending “stuff” like iron and gold and uranium out from them into the far reaches of space well before the dust began to collect here in our neighborhood. But astrophysicists and other scientists expert in this field would know more of the details.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. Yep, that’s the theory Steve.

          Genesis 1:1-2 say:
          “1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

          “In the beginning” can be understood as the birth of universe in distant past. “the Earth was formless and empty” simply mentions the earth existed long before began on it, the earth could of existed as a lifeless object for a lot longer than the garden of life that we take for granted today.

          Genesis was written by Moses to teach the Isralites about the origin of life & sin, and that God is supreme over everything in creation. A “day” in Hebrew written in Genesis means a normal day only and nothing else according to Jewish schloars.


          1. Indeed, the area where the Earth and Sun would eventually coalesce would have had only starlight to illuminate it. Then a swirling motion in the dust and gas would coalesce the Sun and the planets over time, until the Sun would have reached a large and concentrated enough mass that it could light up, and at that point, Whoever was watching could say, “Let there be Light” and there would actually have been Light. 🙂


  14. JESUS = GOOD NEWS! … 😉 PM

    ….. & the Slimy Uni-Party Politicians “owned” by Big Global Business!



    Fake News, no doubt. Move along and drink the Kool-Aid!!


    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Here’s a secret: most people will forgive you for occasionally being wrong; some men will NEVER forgive you for being right.”

      I can really relate to that, it seems I’ve been encountering a lot of those (some) lately, and it’s not just men.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Hi Mr Johnston,

    just a suggestion – if you’ve not already – read up on the more recent science in favor of Geocentricism (eg., “The Axis of Evil” discovered by space probes measuring the Cosmic Microwave Background).

    As I was reading your post the question crossed my mind whether the much maligned Dr Robert Sungenis (he made the movie “The Principle” and wrote the book “Galileo was wrong, the Church was right”) might be a similar prophet as you see yourself on Evolution but in his area of expertise?

    I can’t think of a more perfect rebuff of our present Modernist overlords than for Science to “prove” that we are after all “the center of the Universe”…It’s a happy thought for me…makes me smile 🙂 as does the collapse of “macro evolution”!

    Keep the Faith

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Deep ecology’s emphasis on biocentrism denies the anthropological vision of the Bible, in which human beings are at the centre of the world… It is very prominent in legislation and education today… in the ideological theory underlying population control policies and experiments in genetic engineering, which seem to express a dream human beings have of creating themselves afresh. How do people hope to do this? By deciphering the genetic code, altering the natural rules of sexuality, defying the limits of death.”—(Jesus Christ, The Bearer of the Water of Life, n. ).

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Thanks, jmt. I have looked at some literature on that and I have found it all unpersuasive. It cannot be a geocentric solar system or much of our technology would not work. The explanations given are contra-scientific or very technical-sounding explanations that are, ultimately, irrelevant to the issues at hand.

      I suppose you could have a geo-centric universe, but we are many light years from having the technology for determining that. I used to think that evolution might be the way that God formed us but then discovered that none of the particulars played out. The particulars on heliocentrism do.

      In any case, the universe WAS formed for us, who are God’s beloved, as I wrote in this piece long ago.

      Liked by 2 people

  16. JESUS = GOOD NEWS! … 😉

    Good Guy with a Gun willing to sacrifice his own life to protect friends & strangers alike.
    Meanwhile almost 400 Cops were on hand @ school awaiting “Orders” for over an hour ;-(
    ….. Oh! THEY hate this Good Guy and still want YOUR Guns!

    YEP! Something STINKS about this entire Deal!
    History Repeating–Bonner Private Research

    Anyone surprised? …. Meanwhile in the DC Swamp Gulag……
    …. Maybe ….. THEY need DISTRACTION! Election four months hence and nothing on Domestic Front is going well for THEM ….. Be Prepared!


    Liked by 1 person

  17. I’m like totally addicted to Fr Blount!!! Really great message here for navigation 🧭 through this very ugly storm😩

    It’s the unity prayer from Flame 🔥 of ❤️ love!!!

    Do give a listen 🥰🙏

    Liked by 2 people

  18. JESUS = GOOD NEWS! … 😉

    RIP Father John Mark! Many more martyrs coming I expect ;-(

    I remember! It was, so far, my only bad Flu experience. I got it between Christmas & New Year’s my Freshman year of college ….. can one still use the term: Freshman?.



  19. “RIP Father John Mark! Many more martyrs coming I expect ;-(”

    Yep, I agree Crewdog, Pope Francis is planning to come to Canada this August to acknowledge Indigenous abuses. I have a bad feeling in my gut, that Christian hatred & persecutions will increase after that visit.


  20. Must watch Tucker Carlson on deadly side effects of Covid jab😩. Thank you, Charlie for ⚠️ warning us all! You were sitting in our living room before your talk when I first heard about it!


Comments are closed.