Making Sense of Sensus Catholicus (jan24ssc.htm)

January 24, 2006
vol 17, no. 11

Intelligent Design

          It is time to fess up that you don't need to be a rocket scientist to deny that a Supreme Being is the architect of all creation, only an atheist. That is exactly what the State in concert with the scientific community are trying to do: make atheists of us all!
Father James F. Wathen

    "Furthermore, there exists no evidence of any kind that the material universe did not come about as Genesis describes. Nor has anyone produced any reason to suggest what is described there could not have happened around six or seven thousand years ago, instead of the millions and billions of years evolutionists love to hypothesize, and expect sane people to take them seriously. There is no evidence that the good God did not create the animal kingdom as Genesis says; most certainly there is no reason to deny that the human family began with Adam and Eve, with at least normally intelligent parents instead of protozoa."

    In our society, there are several groups of professional people, who, could they be gathered into the same place, could vie with each other for the title of the most prodigious charlatans. Probably the only way to distinguish them would be the size of the print, FRAUD, emblazoned across their foreheads. Most certain to be counted among these groups would be scientists, "environmentalists," journalists, politicians, Protestant ministers, and modernist Catholic theologians. Sure to contend with all others for the title of SUPERFRAUDS are those whom educated folk hold in such awe are scientists, often referred to collectively as "the scientific community." That which these scientists claim to know so much about, or are credited with knowing so much about, is the physical universe, past, present, and future, or some part of it. This is a large community; they make good money, and their influence is enormous. They are seemingly unassailable, as they cannot be reached by any form of doubt or skepticism.

    Scientists have their departments in colleges and universities; or they write books, or produce their own journals. Many are employed by the government, as at NASA, though places such as that are would seem to employ more practical scientists, than speculative, whom we are interested in here. The government has its scientists engaged in a special assignment for fools, to prove that there are aliens out there.

    With rare exception, the more eminent they are, the bigger hoaxsters they are, because their view of things is not only wrong, it is evil and destructive.

    Evidently all the scientists referred to here are atheists. If they ever believed in God, their studies resulted in their losing their childhood faith. They lost their faith, not because the matter of their studies pointed to the conclusion of atheism, but because the matter was so presented by non-believing teachers as to traduce them into godlessness. That study which has been used now for over a century to disenchant all public school students of their faith in God, especially those who advanced into college and majored in scientific studies of one kind or another, was and still is Evolution. The history of this affair is as easily known as it is difficult to believe, unless we concede the natural perversity men's minds and their love of the darkness (Cf. John 3:19) -- and the World Conspiracy, which adopted Evolution from the start as the perfect device for the subversion of the Western World. Evolution fitted nicely with the philosophy of Freidrich Hegel (1770-1831), whose speculations were adopted by Karl Marx (1818-1883).

    We repeat the quotation of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, spoken at Buckingham Palace, May 1, 1983:

    "The world has never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objects openly, and just as openly put them to practice."

    Solzhenitsyn sought to convince his hearers that there is an organized force in the world which is bent on destroying all belief in God. The ideal subject of the coming World State is an internationalist nonbeliever. He may be called a "Citizen of the World," but in fact he has no loyalty to any political entity; he is therefore rootless; his relationship to his family, his race, his nation has been expunged, so that there is nothing for him to be loyal to or to recognize as being worthy of his attachment besides the State itself. Add atheism to this and the World Citizen (or the "World Youth," the "Global Child," the "Geokid,"--there is a variety of terms) has no God but the State, from whom he must expect everything, upon which he must put his total dependence, both temporal and spiritual (what little spirituality as can be expected of an evolved animal).

    These observations have been brought to mind by the controversy which has arisen in several school districts and court actions throughout the country. The issue is the question of "Intelligent Design" (ID). If you go to, and type in these two words, you will get many pages of sites. You will be told that there are 268,000,000 of these references(!). And if you begin to read some of the material available there, you will get some idea of how zealous "the scientific community" is to protect, not Evolution, but the real reason that Evolution has been hammered into public credence since the days of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), atheism.

    The Theory of Evolution is the contention that the whole physical universe, including the heavens, the earth, and all that is on it, including mankind, evolved to its present form haphazardly from an original indeterminate mass of gaseous material, or something like that. Furthermore, there is no indication in the physical world that this great phenomenon had or required the Mind or the Will of a Creator God. The Theory of Evolution is promoted through every possible avenue of influence, and especially in schools, for the primary purpose of producing atheists; the second reason is to undermine the Holy Bible, particularly the Book of Genesis, the third, to teach men that they are nothing but animals, goyim. Its motive power is supplied by two great engines: Chance and Time. Its ruling principle is: Given enough time, anything can happen. Currently six billion years seems like a nice round figure, so that is how long the scientists say it took for everything to happen.

    In the United States, dominant in the discussions on the subject is the overblown "principle" that in government schools no item of knowledge is allowed to be heard which suggests the existence of God, as this notion breaks the inviolable law of the "Separation of Church and State." There is no such law or prohibition, but the mouthpieces of the New World Order say there is and have their way. (It would be too much to hope that the National Conference of Catholics Bishops raise any objection to this falsity.)

    The basic prohibition of this expression, "the Separation etc." is that public money must not be used to promote religion, as this would be a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. It would also be an injustice to those citizens who have no religion. But much more is implied and intended. The concept of the Separation of Church and State is that the only way that the law can be kept is that the State positively and rabidly oppose all religious influence. This means that it must oppose not all religions, but the religion which recognizes the true God, Christianity. For the same reason, the State and all its agencies must guard against teaching or imposing moral conduct which God requires. Therefore, under the aegis of the First Amendment, it must prevent the Ten Commandments from being presented as a motive or guide for any activity. Students may be given myriad reasons for being cooperative, studious, ambitious, etc., but never right and wrong.

    Atheistic scientists teach that belief in God is contrary to pure science, which is to say that to be a true scientist, you must be open to atheism; otherwise your thinking is woefully stunted.

    In this environment, pure scientific inquiry forbids the acceptance of philosophical principles, even the most self-evident and undeniable truths, which truths are necessary for normal thought processes and life. Following the lead of certain non-Christian philosophers, modern science denies the Principle of Causality, which says that every effect must have a sufficient cause. A variation of the same idea is that every thing that exists must cause itself or be caused by another. The normally intelligent sixth grader can understand these concepts and recognize their obvious truth. But both modern philosophy and the scientific community have taken their stand against them. Instead of speaking of cause and effect, they insist that, besides, there are Chance and Coincidence. Nay, more. They say that there is only Chance, that all the things that exist have come about by Chance. From the moment the first physical thing that happened--whether it was the Big Bang or something else--to this present moment, all that has happening is the result of totally blind forces tending to select the better and slough off the worse.

    How the components of the Big Bang came into being is not a subject of discussion or curiosity; whence the motive force which has driven the production and selection of things is similarly off limits. Most certainly God did not create the basic components, and most certainly He did not direct the development of things; such an idea is not allowed by those who have been granted the license to inquire and to teach.

    But one does not need a license to say: There is absolutely no reason to take Evolution seriously, after the indefatigable labor of countless thousands since Darwin's day, with all their brilliance and instruments and diggings and theorizing and pontificating. Absolutely nothing has been discovered that has contributed the tiniest objectivity to the Theory, which was born dead.

    Even though Evolution is used as the basis for all speculative science, it has no validity or substance. The dominant note about all evolutionary writing is the Ubiquitous Subjunctive: All its postulates and hypotheses must be expressed in the subjunctive mode, what "might have" happened, what "could have" happened, "many scientists conclude," "some think." In absolutely none of its postulates can its proponents say: "This happened, and this is the proof of it."

    Yet, for all this vacuous tentativeness, Evolution is treated as a doctrine that must be believed and promoted; and the denial of it is rash obtuseness and nonconformity.

    Furthermore, there exists no evidence of any kind that the material universe did not come about as Genesis describes. Nor has anyone produced any reason to suggest what is described there could not have happened around six or seven thousand years ago, instead of the millions and billions of years evolutionists love to hypothesize, and expect sane people to take them seriously. There is no evidence that the good God did not create the animal kingdom as Genesis says; most certainly there is no reason to deny that the human family began with Adam and Eve, with at least normally intelligent parents instead of protozoa.

    In view of these facts, in the absence of any other respectable hypothesis, there is no reason why science should not study the world as it is, rather than devote its energies to how it evolved. After the endless stream of verbiage and oceans of sweat, no one can point to the least real benefit from "the Evolutionary Model," which means that science would be more sane and fruitful, if scientists presented the material world in all its grandeur and wonderfulness, and stated simply that God made it so.

    Evidently the idea of the world manifesting an "intelligent design" is something new to some. It has been in the Scholastic philosophy manuals for many centuries: "One of the proofs of the existence of God is to be seen in the ‘intelligent design’ of things, which could only have come about through the Mind of the Supreme Designer and Creator of all things."

    We can define the term "Intelligent Design" to mean that before the material world came into existence, its Maker determined what purpose He wished to achieve through it and structured it fulfill these purposes. "The scientific community" has come unglued at the suggestion that students should hear that the material universe could not possibly have come about without having been designed and created by a Supreme Being. This Supreme Being, Whom we call God, had to preexist the world, had to have infinite power, and must continue to sustain the world in existence. We are forced to these conclusions by the study of the world as one thing or in its various parts. Even the simplest logic forces upon us the recognition that the world could not have produced itself from nothing; it could not have guided whatever development it has been subject to, and it has not within it the intelligence to direct and control and order its multiple, mysterious forces.

    To say that the earth or the universe is not the result of God's intelligent design is absurd and contrary to all reason. Anyone who denies that all things are the result of Intelligent Design, but came about by shear happenstance is a fool, regardless of how many letters follow his name, and does not deserve the courtesy of conversation, Everything that exists is designed, whether we understand the design or discern its ultimate purpose. Science is the study of this design. It is the work of scientists to discover and disclose how the particular objects of their curiosity have been made. St. Paul tells us the theological purpose which God had for creation in his Letter to the Romans:

    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:(Romans 1: 18)

    [Men who "detain the truth," who deny the truth which God has revealed to them, rouse His ire. Scientists generally have been granted good minds; instead of drawing obvious conclusions, they vitiate the truth in order not to be subject to God, which is the height of pride.]

    "Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them" (Romans 1: 19)

    [They deny obvious and inescapable truths.]

    "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable" (Romans 1: 20)

    [Their sin is deliberate, because the truth confronts them. Therefore, they will have no defense against His condemnation.]

    "Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened" (Romans 1: 21)

    [The theological reason for creation, among others, is that men be moved to marvel at its beauty, complexity, and inexhaustible wonders, and praise God for His great work. Modern scientists, instead of praising God, deny Him and look for evidence within things to prove that He did not make them. Whereas scientists should be among God’s most humble and worshipful servants, worship themselves.]

    "For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1: 22).

    The scientific establishment has thrown up its hands in alarm that students might hear something about God in government classrooms, and be invited to give Evolution a little critical thought. To quell the fire, they contrive to get the matter into court. Since it is unthinkable that the argument be allowed to reach its reasonable conclusion, they must take the matter into court, where the State will rule, without regard for the truth of the matter. What is more incongruous than for some federal judge, who likely may be no more equipped to arbitrate the matter than the bailiff, be given the determination of whether students throughout his district are allowed to hear the suggestion that the material world gives evidence that an infinite, Intelligent Being is the First Cause of all things? The judge having ruled, the law is in place.


    I get word one way and another that people are praying for me, for which I am very grateful. They urge me to strive for patience and to be confident in the divine mercy. I thank everyone who has helped me with money, which is very helpful. I know that I am not the only person who needs prayers, and I assure my many benefactors of my prayerful remembrance.

In Christ,

Father James Wathen

For those who want to help Father or write him, you can do so at:

      Father James F. Wathen
      P.O. Box 15152
      Evansville, IN 47716

    For past articles of Making Sense of Sensus Catholicus, see 2006ssc.htm Archives

    January 24, 2004
    vol 17, no. 11
    Making Sense of Sensus Catholicus